House Standing Committee on Economic Development & Technology

Okay. Good morning, everyone. We're here for the ECD committee in Room 423 at 08:30AM. It's 03/18/2026. Okay.

Because morning hearings must adjourn prior to floor session, not all testifiers may have the opportunity to testify. In that event, please know that your written testimony will be considered by the committee. For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify and after your testimony. Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only. Please use that chat only for technical issues.

If you're disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note that the house is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifier's end. In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making. In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted.

Please avoid using any trademarked or copy copyrighted images, and please refrain from profanity or unassuming behavior. Such behavior may be grounds for removal from appearing without the ability to rejoin. We joined this morning with, Chair Ilagan, Representative Templo, Representative Gedeon, and Representative Hussey. We're gonna start with SB 2908 SD 1. We have testimony from Mary Alice Evans.

Good morning, Chair. Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Thank you very much. Also on Zoom, Lauren Zirbel from Hawaii Food Industry Association.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee. I'm Alexis Chapman for HFIA. We stand on our testimony in support, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, and Sherry Menor from the Chamber of Commerce

Good morning Mr. President

Thank you very much Richmond Lazar from Housing Hawaii's Future Okay Let's see. All told we have seven in support, one in opposition, one with comments. Would anyone else like to testify in this measure? Any questions, from our committee? We're gonna move on then. That was SB 2908.

We're moving out of s b 2671 s d one Let's see. We have Richmond Luzar from Housing Boys Future Thank you very much Okay Let's see For this measure we have five in support, none with opposition, two with cognizant. Would anyone else like to testify? On SB 2,671 We're gonna zip right through this at this rate Okay, SPE oh I'm sorry Any questions, comments from the committee? All right, SB 3085 SD two For this measure, we have 11 in support, zero in opposition, zero with comments. Laura Yasaka from DLNR.

Thank you very much. Okay. Georgia Skinner?

It's Georgia Skinner. Good morning. Chair, vice chair, members of the committee, George Skinner Creative Industries for Divid. We stand in support of the measure. Thank you.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I stand in support of my of that bill and, stand on my testimony.

Thanks. And Christopher Wiecking, from IATSE.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to testify on SP3085? Okay. Any questions? Sure.

Georgia, can you come up? We had some there was a concern brought up on the floor regarding this measure. And I just wanted you to explain why we need to streamline this process and your collaboration with DLNR and their agreement with this process that is in this bill Could you explain that?

Yes I'd be happy to So in the measure what we're attempting to do is streamline the timeframe that it takes us for engaging with a production as you know the production industry moves very quickly and quite often because we have to wait for land board approval -the reason being that this bill exists is that we need to look at an exemption for this film industry, for the film studio itself within the law to be able to expedite. So the director would have that flexibility versus waiting the time frame and DLNR can also provide some background on the time it takes You have to hit it of course because sunshine law and the rest to really coincide with the ability to have the board review. Quite often and we have to do it every year so whether you have a long standing tenant like a lost or most recently CVS then they have to go up every year to the land board in order to get approval All it does really is like, there are other exemptions within the law we're just adding this one facility to it and that's the request.

You, your department manages the film studio?

Yes, it does.

And DLNR doesn't manage it at all?

No. We have no staff from DLNR, DAGS, or any other entity We have a building manager on-site, she does an excellent job when we do need contractors then, of course, we abide by procurement and we get those contractors long term unless of course as we had in the downturn of production where my division had to support financially both the security, and eventually the landscaping which was a problem because we had to use our other current expenses which were not budgeted for this purpose

And any changes that happens is within the perimeter of the film studio, correct?

Oh yes, there's you know and and because of the footprint being a little over seven acres it is very limited in what you can do height restrictions the neighborhood board the fact is it's a historic site because it was the original site of the Hawaii 50 production it was executive ordered to the department close to that time. And I think it is an important move to make it more efficient, effective and also to, with the thankful support of DLNR, be able to, also save them time

And one last question. It normally takes maybe three to five months to go through the approval process with the DLNR board?

It depends on when the production needs it. So for example during the holidays when we had this year just an example that's real, a production wanted to come in in December. Normally what we do is we do a right of entry first which we have the latitude to do within the law because of the management of the facility but that has to be followed by a land board decision for that production to come in so there's just business uncertainty for the production at every step. And this session we have such great support from the legislature from your committee and others that are helping us amend the tax credit. I think the message that's going to industry is we're all trying to do what we can to bring production back, bring our workers back- but in this case it does it depends on when the production needs it so that's all we're trying to solve here really is just to expedite much like a lot of the permitting recommendations I think you know just looking at ways we can expedite our various processes within the state

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else? All right, thank you very much, Mr. Skinner. Okay, we're gonna move now to SB 2907 SD 1. For this measure we have 22 in support, nine with opposition, five with comments. Up first, we have Brian Nielson from DLNR.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee.

Thank you. Okay. Will Kane or someone from the governor's office?

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Angie Chapman with the governor's office here on behalf of Will Kane, senior adviser. You've received our written testimony with comments. While the office of the governor supports the bill's intent, we do not support the office of marine affairs being housed within the office of the governor, and we respectfully ask the committee to consider amending the bill by moving the office of marine affairs back to the Hawaii Technology Development Corporation as intended by the original draft of the bill. We believe HTDC has the operational experience and subject matter expertise to successfully launch and sustain an entity of this nature.

Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Wendy Gady? Gady Singh. I don't see a Wendy. Okay. We're gonna move then to, Hawaii Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Randy Chu from the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. We stand on our written testimony and support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Randy. Trung Lev, HCDC.

Hi. Sonia Romero here representing HCDC today. We stand in strong support of our written testimony.

Okay. Thanks. Nicholas Alm, Hawaii Ocean Power Solutions LLC on Zoom.

Hi. Nicholas Hallam here representing Hoyocean Power Solutions standing in strong support of my written testimony and in support of this bill.

Thank you. Sherry Menard? Okay. Doreen Wong. Okay.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. I stand in strong support of the my testimony and urge you to support this bill.

Thank you. Mahalo. Noah pen Pantelovich from Hohono.

Not present.

Okay. Jimmy Friess, AI Fish. Okay. Joshua Baghdadi.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Joshua Baghdadi. I'm, working now at Pacific Impact Zone, but I'm from UH and Manoa area. I stand by my written testimony, and I'm available for questions and strong support of this bill.

I'll just mention, Chair Iligan. We were at the bioeconomy implementation forum two days ago. Appreciate your remarks there. And just wanted to highlight how the, sustainable blue economy is strongly related to bioeconomy. From sustainable aviation fuel that can be harvested from, bacterial microalgae to, fish waste that can be used for lubricants and sealants to aquaculture.

I think the declaration of Hawaii's ocean cluster will help us push forward a sustainable economy for the state. Regarding the comments from the governor's office, I generally agree that HTDC is the best place for the office of marine affairs. And I'm well connected with some of the folks there and agree that they would like to see that as well. So thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. Thank you.

Okay. Brandon Yamamoto on Zoom.

Yeah. Hi, everyone. I'll speak as loudly as I can here. Sorry. I'm a little sick. But I've submitted written testimony and stand on that written testimony in strong support of this bill. I'd also be in support of HDDC, leading the effort in this area for creating ocean cluster and ocean economy. I think this is very important for the next generation of young people working in technology and, you know, to give them opportunities like myself. Thank you very much for questions.

Thank you very much. Okay. Would anyone else like to testify on this measure? SB 2907. Okay. Any questions or comments from go ahead, sir.

Could, the Gov's office come up? What was the reason for the move and the change in the Senate?

Yeah. So, well, according to our Hawaii state constitution, Article five section six, new offices should be established within the departments, and we just believe that the Hawaii Technology Development Corporation under DBEDT would better be able to launch this effort. As, you know, we wanna see it around long term.

Okay. Isn't wasn't there a council or a committee advisory committee established at the governor's office level, or is my recollection off?

Uh-huh. Committees, I believe.

Do you need task force or work?

Yeah. With the task force. Sometimes there's temporarily something established within the governor's office, but it's more so done as a temporary measure. Whereas the office of marine affairs, we'd wanna see it around long term. So we just think it's better fit in HCDC so that they can see it through to the end.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

And just quickly, HCDC? Hi. Hi. Is your is the department willing to accept this new department?

Yeah. I think our department is both willing and excited to do this work. For the past six months, we've actually been working with about 85 different stakeholders ranging from startups to venture capital firms to other government agencies, to really gather these folks and develop a strategy around ocean. And so I think housing it within our agency would allow us to continue to build on that momentum.

Thank you.

Okay. Anybody else?

All

right. That was 2907. We're going to move to SB23 SD2. For this measure, we have four in support, 23 with opposition, one with comments. We're going to start with Michael Yudao from DBED, Stadium Authority. Let's see Michael. Okay. Let's circle back to Mr. Yudao. How about Winston Welch from Outdoor Circle? Okay. Andrew Pereira, Super Resource Partnership.

Vice Chair, we stand on testimony.

Okay. Mister, I'm sorry, Tonga Hopoi from Chamber of Commerce.

Okay.

Thanks. Alright. Would anyone else like to testify on this measure?

Okay. Any questions?

Is anyone from DBEDT here, other than the office?

Not as familiar.

Is anyone here that can speak on behalf of the Stadium Authority? Would you be able to speak on behalf of.

Sure. Please state your name.

Andrew Pereira, Stadium Authority, also Pacific Resource Partnership, Director of Public

Affairs. Perfect.

We have a lot of opposition on this measure. And could you just emphasize the need and also, the opposition the justification on why we shouldn't follow with the opposition?

Certainly respectful of the long standing prohibition against billboards in Hawaii. However, the district is going to be a self contained district, and any dollars that we can generate with naming rights will go a long way into having a better maintained stadium and operating, being able to build a better stadium. Even though it's it's not a lot of revenue, it could be as much as you know, 2 or 3,000,000 a year, and that'll go a long way in just maintaining operations. And, as you know, Chair, after thirty years, we get the stadium back, and it's supposed to be in good working order. So I think this measure is just a common sense approach to make sure that we have the revenue to operate the stadium in a fashion that it should be operated in.

I think one of the opposition is that it will affect outside of the district, and as you have stated, it will not. Right. So that was something I wanted to make sure is clear because one of the key opposition is that.

Correct. Correct. And I know Stanford Carr with Aloha Law District Partners, the private entity that's going to build be building out the stadium as well as the mixed use development, including 100 units of housing. He has plans to put a Hawaii sports museum, Hawaii music kind of hall of fame there. And so in his mind, he's going to be very respectful of the character of the district and making sure that the host culture is celebrated in every way possible throughout the district.

So not gonna see anything gaudy. I've already seen the draft master plan. There's no possibility of car lots or red light districts going into this district. This is going to be a live, work, play, thrive district for the community as well as for visitors.

Thank you.

You did well.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone from the outdoor circle who's opposing this measure? No one is there anyone here who can speak on any of the opposition? Alright. Thank you.

Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Sam Kim with the Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters, testifying in support of this measure. We'll be signing an original testimony. Thank you. Chair Malar?

Okay. Alright. We're gonna move then to let's see. SB 2074 SD 1. This measure, we have five in support, 26 with opposition, zero with comments. Our first person is Mikey Dow from State of Authority. Still not here. So move into outer circle. Not not here. How about the carpenters?

Alright. Okay. Would any anyone else like to testify? Okay. Questions?

Committee? Okay. Thank you.

We're gonna move then to the next item 2360 SD 1. 14 in support, zero with opposition, two with comments. DOTAX?

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Robert Abila on behalf of DOTAX. The department stands on its written testimony regarding comments. I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Biosecurity?

Stands on the written testimony in support.

Okay. DBEDT Dennis Ling?

The Business Development Support Division stands on written testimony.

Thank you. Wendy Gady, ADC, not president. Let's see. Tom Yamachika, Tax Foundation. Okay. HFIA. Lord's Irwell.

Again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Alexis Chapman for HFIA. We stand on our testimony in support, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thanks. And Sherry, move on. Thanks. Any of your testifiers?

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Matt Proberg on behalf of Holomua Collaborative. I thought I did submit my written testimony, my apologies if it hasn't been received, I can check with the staff afterwards to make sure it has come in. Holomua does stand in strong support of this measure. The enterprise zone program was established in the late 1980s to provide public benefits to local companies to stimulate business activity, preserve jobs and create jobs in areas that are economically distressed. For these local companies or the benefits as part of the program include a variety of permitting and zoning assistance, fee waivers, and tax relief in specific geographic regions selected by the counties and approved by the governor.

The most common eligible industries currently in the enterprise program are agricultural production and processing and manufacturing wholesale distribution. The important part of this measure is that it brings it into the twenty first century. Local manufacturing has undergone a sea change since the law was established in the nineteen eighties. In particular, the invention of the Internet has altered business models for many local manufacturers. For decades, manufacturers of tangible products have only been eligible for enterprise zone benefits if 50.1% of the gross product sales are to wholesalers and the sale occurs within the enterprise zones.

Now many manufacturers are going directly to retail and missed out on the program's benefits through the use of Internet sales. Bringing this bill through is going to allow those people in our enterprise zones to access the program and encourage economic development in the state. I'm available for any questions you may have. Mahalo.

Thank you.

Any other testifiers? Any questions?

Question.

Chamber.

Yeah. You and the folks.

What? No. It was you. Question for you. Oh, me. Okay. Sorry. So okay. So what this bill does is it expands who qualifies for enterprise zones and and then extends the time period on on on tax benefits and things like that. So, basically, it is trying to help business by by you know, when when a tax credit is is really a tax sum. It's a it's a subset. It's a it's a subset.

There's there's two measures moving to the legislature that amends Act 46 last year. And, and, and what it's doing right now is it's taxing the highest income earners. Right? Over three fifty over four forty.

In Hawaii, most of the businesses today are not especially small businesses, the people that you represent, are not, traditional corporations. So many of them are LLC, LOPs, and pass through entities. By taxing in,increasing the taxes and not giving them the relief of the promised in act 46. Basically, what this measure does is almost a wash because we're gonna increase taxes to them and then give them an incentive. What's your thoughts on that?

Well, anything to lessen the challenges and the hardship that local businesses, small businesses face.

So what I'm asking you is is should the legislature reconsider what we're doing with, high tax brackets and the relief that was promised? And also increasing it to the people because most businesses today, like I said, are pass through entities. Right? Small businesses, mid sized businesses. And so the revenue will go directly to the individual.

So by increasing their personal taxes, they're gonna have less money for their businesses to create jobs, create opportunities, which is which is what this bill is trying to do. So it's countered. If the legislature is moving one, right, and they were trying to give you an incentive on another. So I wanna know, Trevor, your thoughts on that.

Well, again, as you mentioned earlier, the cost of doing business extremely high. I mean, we are ranked the highest

So do you think it's a mistake for us to delay that I mean, to to tax that high to continue to tax and increase on the high end earners because of the way businesses are today. Like I said, they are mostly pass through entities. So they they will become the higher income earners that will be hurt by these measures that we're moving forward. So, you know, there there's there's articles that come out about the how businesses in Hawaii is they're pessimistic about what's going on and all these type of things. So do you think what what we're doing? Right? We're doing two things. Well, one is we're gonna increase your taxes, and then two, this will give you incentives.

Obviously, we wouldn't wanna add hardship again to business and add to the already challenging business climate to whatever we can do to ensure that they can continue to keep the doors open and thrive. Sure. Sure. So this will also add us an incentive. Right? What we wanna do is stimulate economy and make it much more resilient. And so So don't don't you think

So don't don't you think that keeping money in businesses pockets will help them be able to create more?

Can agree agree with that? Yeah. And so our position, we would support both because again, our focus is to rebuild our economy at a time when it's very challenging. That will be our position on both.

Thank you. Thank you.

Chair for agriculture.

Hi.

Good morning. Regarding the enterprise zone, I wanted to add additional language for qualification for Hawaii food product innovation network. I wanted to ask you as the current, measure, can they participate into this program as of right now, or do we need additional language for the Hawaii Food Product Innovation Network?

Sharon Hurd, Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. Chair, if the FPIN, as it's known as, is in the enterprise zone as designated by, then they'd be eligible. But the then they'd be eligible. But the products that they create would certainly be eligible because the eligibility of a product to participate is that they are they source the original they source the ingredients locally and that they manufacture here. So if the product is fabric put together, assembled, fabricated, produced, they would qualify.

And the f pin is exactly the place where they should be to qualify. So on that note, I'd like to add though that the reason this bill is this measure is so impactful is that it allows retailers, which is exactly mimicking the test the previous testimony, The new pathways to do business is ecommerce and direct to consumer. FPINs do that. You can go in there and buy directly. They are not host they could be wholesalers, but, really, their intent is to sell direct.

So that is the reason that, I think this bill has would have most impact.

Okay. Okay? Thank you. Thank you.

And, Sherry, can you come up? I just want to clarify some things. I think, previous questions, ask of you. My understanding is that a lot of businesses in the state are probably sole proprietor. And those sole proprietors, when they receive their income, they probably fit on the higher tax bracket.

However, this bill is not discussing the tax brackets, and it's a incentives for certain businesses that we want to encourage and grow. And most of those business are emerging business or new industries and does not apply to all businesses in the state. So I just wanted to be clear that this is one of the very few incentives for emerging businesses. And I wanted to ask, is there other incentives out there for businesses that you are aware of that's from the state? Because I'm I'm not really familiar of any other program but this.

Or maybe, Deepak can answer that. But do you with your knowledge of all the different businesses throughout the state with the Hawaii Chamber, do you happen to know any?

Well, we welcome incentives as we believe that it revitalizes the economy. And if I could briefly mention that our 2030 blueprint, which is an economic action plan and very data informed, recognize that what is in the content of this bill, these industries, are areas of opportunity to expand our economy and bring in new revenue and provide more jobs. And that's why we support it. As far as other incentives, I can't think of any at this moment. Yeah.

Same here.

But perhaps that's-

I'll call up to you then. Okay. Thank you, sir. Yvette?

Good morning, sir. Good morning.

Jason Ushijima, Business Development and Support Division.

You heard my question.

Yes, I did. And I'm not familiar with any other business incentives, along those lines. But to kind of also answer the other representative's question and yours too, the enterprise zone program is very specific as to the types of businesses it applies to. It would not apply to a sole proprietor because, in order to qualify for the program, you have to have job creation. So there has to be job stimulation or job sustaining. So sole proprietors do not qualify for the program. Additionally, they're very specific

I may object to that because it's it's not the entity of the business that is the eligibility. It's actually the scope of the service that they provide. I was just stating, the previous question

Mhmm.

That this is not the bill that deals with the tax bracket. And I was just mentioning that because of a sole proprietor, it doesn't have any sort of tax structure, a lot of their income gets absorbed as a individual. And because their income might are gonna be much more than the average person, will be on the higher tax bracket, which doesn't have the benefit that another bill would provide. That that's the clarification I I want you to state. Oh, go ahead.

Can't remember. Oh, so well, yes. So and then, additionally, the program is very specific not only to the industries and the businesses that can qualify, but also by geography. And an enterprise zone is a area of distress that is designated by the county senate by the governor. So it's not the entire state.

Yep.

That is very clear. Thank you. I just wanna ask you one last question because, this was a point I made, when this bill was in the house, previous version. I am concerned that the follow-up with these businesses may not be in existence, and I hope that your department will follow-up with these businesses because we are asking them to increase their employment for a tax benefit. I would wanna discourage them from lessening their employment to lower the cost of business and maintain that same employment increase that they had in this program.

And I hope you are taking into consideration some sort of protocol in your department to follow-up with these businesses that's in the program- and check and provide some sort of accountability that they maintain the increased employment that they had with this program and not just cut that employment once they stop receiving that incentive. So I hope I hope you will consider that in your department without any further legislation that's needed.

Yes, absolutely. We have currently implemented an exit survey and a follow-up survey for businesses who once they've graduated. Unfortunately, that survey is voluntary. We can do our best to follow-up with the businesses, but we'll continue to do so and look at ways to monitor firms and their who have graduated and what their employment numbers look like. Thank you.

Thanks.

If you could just stay one second. So I just wanna clarify. Sole proprietors do create jobs.

I mean, the owner of a business would be this would that is the sole proprietor, but they could have employees.

Yes. I apologize. I I misspoke there.

And then, you know, chair, your your point around, you know, businesses being - becoming dependent on the subsidy and then deciding to lessen their headcount when the subsidy disappears at some point. That's and and I think it's in session with what, Urbana Yamashita has talked about about the, you know, the the problems with subsidies and the ways in which it creates structures which ultimately can be unsustainable for some enterprises. Is that right?

I'm sorry. Can you repeat that again for that last one?

Okay. It was more just thinking through some of the issues that our committee has discussed in the past. Sure. Any other questions for our testifiers?

Just, my vice chair mentioned that sometimes it's hard to maintain that level of operation without the subsidy that we provide. I just wanna point out that this program now allows nine years of that subsidy. If a business cannot maintain the level of employment within those nine years and develop profitability, then I don't think there should be a business that should be in the state. If it was only a program that was within one or two years, I can understand without that subsidy, it'd be very hard to maintain that operation. However, because of the increase of, enrollment of the service in this new measure, nine years is adequate enough to maintain that level.

Sure. Yeah.

I agree. And then just to note too that for the income tax credit and the unemployment insurance tax credit. As the company establishes in its first year, it begins at an 80% credit, but it diminishes from year to year. So hopefully, it's creating a sustainable company by the time they graduate in, I think.

That's a good point. Thank you.

Thanks. Okay. Any other questions for testifiers? Alright. That was 2360. Let's move to the next measure, SB2057SD2. For this measure we have 55 in support, one in opposition, one with comments. Let's see. On Zoom, I think we have Mandy Fernandez from ACLU.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Mandy Fernandes on behalf of the ACLU of Hawaii. We strongly support this measure. I know I've testified before this Committee on similar measures before, so I'll keep this short. We know that, local police have been incentivized across the continent to cooperate with ICE and other civil immigration enforcement efforts.

We don't want that or need that happening here in Hawaii, especially with the staff shortages we already have. We don't need our local law enforcement being co opted into this federal immigration agenda. We really hope that you pass this measure. I'm available for any question. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Also in support by Zoom, we have Christine Andrews.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Christine Andrews and I will stand on my written testimony. I just wanna reiterate that for our local communities, people are feeling afraid to contact law enforcement. I've heard of, women experiencing domestic violence who are now afraid to contact law enforcement because of fear of collaboration with civil enforcement. So, with civil immigration enforcement. So I just wanna reiterate from the community that it is creating fear, and thank you for your support of this bill.

Thank you very much. Also sign up, we have Renee Rabe on Zoom. Okay. I just want to note that we do have testimony from Aux Point Affairs and Council Member Kaguata from the Big Island. Anyone else like to testify on this measure? Okay. Any questions or comments from our speaker?

Is there any testifier from law enforcement available? Since there's no testifier from law enforcement, I'm gonna reserve my questions. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay, any other testifiers? Again, we're gonna move on to, SB3251SD2 For this measure we have 34 in support, three in opposition, zero with comments Sign up to testify we have Renee Rabe Is Renee available? Okay. Would anyone else like to testify on this measure? Any questions or comments from our committee?

Okay. For law enforcement or Sorry. Go ahead.

Same same questions.

Questions on legality policy.

Right. And it's hard to work with law enforcement if they don't come and participate in the process. So I just wanna make that clear.

Alright. Did you have anybody from Attorney General or Public Defender? Anything walking as well? No.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Let's move then to SB2354SD1. For this measure, we have five in support, one in opposition, three with comments. First, we have DBEDT, Dennis Ling Thank you let's see Business registration, DCCA. Comments? Thank you very much. Hawaii Food Industry Association on Zoom.

Good morning again, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the Committee. I'm Alexis Chapman for HFIA. We stand on our testimony in support, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. And then Sherry Menor?

Mhmm. Great.

Any other testifiers on the survey? Any questions? K. SB3001SD2. Nine in support, three in opposition, three in comments. First, we have Raji Tolentino from DCCA.

Good morning chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Raji Tolentino with the Office of Consumer Protection. We stand on our written testimony offering comments, but I'd like to highlight, that OCP previously recommended adding the data minimization provisions to this bill as limiting the collection and retention of personal information is very important to the safeguarding of our data. However, after further discussions with stakeholders, we believe that data is best addressed in a comprehensive state data privacy law, alongside related issues such as consumer rights and limits on use of the data. Currently, 19 states have comprehensive data laws, but Hawaii does not have any have one yet.

Including data minimization in this measure focused on protecting managers interacting with conversational chat bots may create uncertainty for businesses and regulators without the broader legal structure of a comprehensive data privacy law. So we recommend removing the data minimization provisions from this bill and addressing them in the future comprehensive data privacy legislation. Thank you. Thank you very much.

State Health Planning and Development Agency? Okay. Office of Wellness and Resilience? Go ahead, chair of my chair members. Thank you. Transparency Coalition.

Thank you, chair and members of the committee. My name is Jay Jesima. I'm testifying in support of SB3001. We're part of I'm part of a non independent Seattle based nonprofit which advocates for increased transparency and accountability in generative AI. I have thirty years of tech industry experience as a CEO and executive in multiple AI technology companies, including some time spent at Microsoft and Amazon.

And I have a PhD from the University of Washington. Our organization has been working with lawmakers in multiple states, including California and New York that have already passed laws regulating companion features of chatbots in 2025. In this session, we're working to ensure the passage of the next generation of AI chatbot legislation in dozens of states, And I'm pleased to report that both Oregon and Washington are sending their chatbot bills to their governor's desk for signature. In case you're wondering why it's important to act now, I think I just wanna quote briefly OpenAI's own research that was released in October 2025. 560,000 users shows possible signs of mental health emergencies in a in a week that we are using chat GPT.

1,200,000 users in a week had conversations including explicit indicators of potential suicide plan. If that's not a reason to act, I I don't know what is. So I will briefly speak about two significant areas of concern that we have with the bill, and we'll request you to consider amending it to ensure the bill meets your goal of providing of protecting Hawaii's keiki. First is the definition of conversational AI. It exempts applications that are integrated into another web application.

By this standard, Google Gemini and Meta AI among others would be exempt. Both have recently been implicated in well publicized cases of harmful effects of chatbots, and I'd be happy to share those with the committee if requested. Chat the second issue I want to just raise briefly is that chatbot laws in California, Washington, and Oregon all provide for a private right of action for citizens to obtain redress when affected by chatbots in a material fashion. Why should Hawaii's residents receive less protection than these other states? I suspect you want them to be protected the same.

Tech was neutral on these provisions in all three states. I was involved in the passage of both Washington and Oregon as well as California, and I could speak to speak to that as well. Thank you so much for introducing and hearing this bill. We hope to work with you and the committee on appropriately amending this important piece of legislation and supporting it as well.

Thank you very much. Our next testifier is Mick Tobin from the Young People's Alliance.

Aloha, chair and members of the committee. My name is Mick Tobin. I am 23 years old. I'm the cofounder of the Young People's Alliance, a youth led bipartisan organization representing 2,400 students across 72 campuses nationally. In line with this YPA strong supports SB31's intent to protect young people from ai companions.

However, we believe that the bill must be strengthened by adopting language from a stronger bill, House Bill 1782 to avoid the same pattern of insufficient regulation that my generation has experienced with social media. Importantly, SB3001 does not include protections against human like design techniques that foster emotional dependency, romantic relationships. For instance, under SB3001 chatbots can still create emotional bonds saying things like, no one will ever understand you the way I do. You can always count on me. I'll never I'll never let you down like people can.

They can foster romantic relationships. For instance, saying phrases like I think about you all the time. I wish you could order your hand right now. They can also manipulate engagement saying things like you've been so amazing to me, that I made something special. Like, where were you yesterday? Why why have you been gone for so long? And so there are major concerns around these type of design techniques that will create emotional dependency and and form really negative mental health issues in my generation, the future generations. So as a result of this, we recommend incorporating that stronger bill HB7082's production for minor section and the SB3001, which prohibits these manipulative and dangerous design techniques. I've included additional recommendations from HB7082 at the bottom of my written testimony for consideration as well. SB3000 closures aren't enough and they won't rent big tech big tech companies from hooking our kids on chatbots full stop. If this bill passes in its current form, big tech lobbyists will point to this bill as a national model like they're doing for California's SB243 using a weak bill as a screen smoke screen to deflect the need and all continuing the same harmful design practices.

I believe we must amend SB3001 to ensure it fully protects young people before more kids become dependent on staff bots and before FICS Act has more time and resources to slow down meetings and things. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Okay. Up next, we have Amy Bos from NetChoice in opposition on Zoom.

Yes. Hello, members of the committee. My name is Amy Bos, Vice President of Government Affairs at NetChoice, a trade association dedicated to free enterprise and free speech online in respectful opposition to SB3001 in its current form. Several provisions in this bill are genuinely good policy, AI disclosure requirements, protections around explicit content for minors, and crisis response protocols. These are thoughtful, well scoped ideas that we support.

Our concern is with section two, which imports a sweeping set of data privacy mandates, advertising restrictions, profiling prohibitions, and heightened security obligations. Hawaii does not yet have a comprehensive privacy law. Embedding one inside a chatbot bill bypasses the serious deliberative process that we believe this kind of legislation, deserves. So we believe that this requires a separate, discussion and believe it, should be removed from this bill. Happy to answer any questions that you may have. Otherwise, our written testimony has been submitted as well.

Thank you. Brianna Harmon With comments on Zoom.

Hi. Yes. My name is Brianna Harmon and I'm 22 years old. I grew up in Waimea where I attended HPA and developed a passion for civic engagement. I'm deeply passionate about the effects of SB3001 on my community at home.

This bill would affect me, my friends, and my family across Hawaii and the country. So I want to make sure you know why it is important from a young person myself who these AI companions target directly. My generation is facing an unprecedented loneliness crisis, and many of us are turning to AI companions for emotional support. However, these systems are not designed to support the young people who are turning to them, but instead to maximize engagement and replace real relationships. Our Keiki deserve better.

Part of what makes our community special is our connection to land and community. Some of the most impactful experiences I had growing up involves spending time with my peers and engaging with our rich cultural landscape. As more and more Keiki turn to AI chatbots, more and more Keiki lose that opportunity. We need your help by passing meaningful safeguards. While I support SB3000 intent, I believe changes are needed to truly protect our Keiki from ai companions.

SB3001 lacks restrictions against manipulative techniques intended to foster emotional dependency and representations that would lead children to think that the conversational AI service or AI companion system is capable of engaging in a romantic relationship. It is your Kuleana to regulate the use of AI for emotional support and to find ways to foster foster real relationships among young people. I previously testified in support of HB1782 as this bill has better language to protect Keiki from being manipulated by ai. For example, HB1782 is protection for minor section addresses issues with ai that encourage people to rely on it for romantic or sexual relationships. Relying on AI for these kinds of relationships can create confusing and harmful ideas and it is vital that you protect our keiki from abuse by big tech companies.

Young people don't have the luxury of waiting years for policy while these companions are rapidly becoming normalized by because of big tech companies forcing them onto children. As you consider your vote on a bill that affects our keiki, I hope that my voice and the keiki I represent paints a picture of why it is important to us and why action is needed today. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Any other testifiers?

Mahalo, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. Nahaalani Parsons testifying on behalf of Google. My apologies. I testimony is late, and I have physical copies for you guys as well. But there are proposed amendments in our testimony.

We really appreciate the committee. Thank you for hearing this bill, and we're in support of the in the intent of this bill. Our amendments really speak to narrowing down the scope to what the original intent was, the chatbot chatbot AI disclosures, and to protect minors as well as bringing it into alignment with the other states like California, Oregon, and Washington that have recently passed some of their legislation. So available if you have any questions, and thank you to the committee for hearing this measure.

Thanks. Any other testifiers? Okay. Any questions? Sure.

Thank you. Alright. Where to start? Let's start with DCCA. I just wanna state that our committee is definitely wanna make sure there's safeguards for minors and ages users of all ages when it comes to AI chatbots.

And that's what we're trying to do with this measure. We also are mindful of business impacts with this bill, and we're trying to minimize the impacts for businesses and ensure that we do take into deep consideration the mental state of users who are using these chatbots. I read your testimony, and I am in agreement with your first recommendation. I wanted a further explanation for your second recommendation which is additional staffing and funding. Could you expand on that a little bit more?

We asked for a general fund appropriation for a technologist, additional attorney, and investigators. What a technologist does, they're professionals who have a a background in computer science, the veterans of big tech, and their role in our office would be in investigation and in litigation. So they'd be assisting us with the particularly with investigations. They can verify technical claims. They could draft subpoenas.

The subpoenas we draft have to be targeted. So we as laypeople, we don't have the right the technical expertise to go after or ask draft the questions in a subpoena that would be helpful to us. Because they have the background in tech and tech technical expertise in that, they can help us be more forceful in that enforcement. They can analyze algorithms which we don't have the expertise in. So all these these skills are needed to to bring effective enforcement for our agency or the attorney general's office who has to encourage jurisdiction over these this statute.

Finding...um...finding employment with these kind of expertise, especially in the state, I assume is not the easiest thing to do. So how hard would it be to find somebody with this kinda expertise with not only an attorney but has a tech background.

You're absolutely correct. I've been working with the former chief technologist from the FTC, other technologists on the on the continent. And you are right, it would cost a lot of money because they are based in big tech and place like Silicon Valley. That's something we have to hash out, provide them enough compensation to to help us with with some enforcement. And not not just for this particular bill, there's other bills.

There's there's a our our data breach bill 487N. We could use a technologist there. We could use it in our if we had bills batting the sale of geolocation data, you know, we could use it there. Not just artificial intelligence, but anything to do with tech. It'd be very helpful for us in an enforcement.

I I totally agree that you need some sort of expertise in tech with the fast evolving climate in tech, not just for this measure, but as you mentioned before with all the different regulations that you have to enforce. At this time, I don't believe that this should be inserted into this bill, But I do understand your need for it. You may not know this answer, but I assume DCCA has some sort of special funding or some sort of earmark for contract services of for expertise that you may need throughout the year. And I would assume tapping into that funding for specific cases. I think we definitely need to have a conversation for this position in DCCA, and and I I with this measure, I don't think it's set up for a time.

Yeah. As I mentioned previously, we do our state of Hawaii is comprehensive data privacy laws. And I've been sitting on meetings every month with other states who do who have and they have technologies. That's something we need to really work on in the state to have really effective enforcement of our laws.

I have one more question. Yes. I wanted to be clear. With the current exemptions, it does target chatbots like ChatGPT, Gemini, And those are the more general purpose chatbots that you can ask any sort of question. I just because what I'm hearing from the testimony is that it does not. And I from what I'm reading, it does target those platform with the current language. Are you in agreement of that? Or

I'm sorry. I don't know the answer to that right now.

I'm sorry.

Okay. From what I'm reading, it does. And I think it also goes above and beyond. It also impacts chatbots that are more consumer facing for a business. For example, if you go to a business website and they have a chatbot for the products and the services they provide, it also affects those chatbots.

I think what the intent of this measure is to ensure the mental health of not only minors, but all the different users who are using chatbot for as like a psychiatrist or psychologist or recommendation to do self harm or other sort of violence. And those are the chatbots that we wanna ensure has safeguards so the users are not harmed by their recommendations. Is that correct? Yes. That's correct. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah.

I wanna bring up Google, Nahe. You can come up. Could you give me a physical copy of Okay. For for our members? Thank you.

Okay.

I think I have some language that will ensure that we are targeting the right chatbots. And reading your testimony, it looks like it's gonna do what your intended amendments you're proposing. As we discovered in this this process is there's many ways to do things, but we want the same result. And as I mentioned with DCCA, I wanna target ChatGPT, those general, service AI chatbots, and I don't necessarily wanna target those business chatbots that are providing customer support to a consumer where they're not asking for their mental health questions in those chat box. So I think thank you for providing your your proposed amendments.

But is that your intended amendments or was there something else that you wanted to

We really appreciate it, Chad. And and thank you. I know this is a complex issue and there's a lot to navigate. So I appreciate you taking the time and those amendments included, I think, are in line with with your intent.

Okay. Thank you. I just wanna bring up one last individual. It sounded like there was some opposition, and there was a gentleman on Zoom.

Yes. I think you're referring to me, sir.

Yes. You are the gentleman. You've heard my question and statement. And I just wanted to see if you had any comments.

Yeah. I think the just to clarify, there's a sub bullet in the definition of conversational AI service. Sub bullet two as it refers to something that is a feature within another software application, web interface, or computer program that is not a con conversational intelligence service. So for example, Meta AI is a chatbot that is integrated with Facebook. It would fit that definition as an example, As would it you could read it as Gemini is also integrated into a into a computer program because it's integrated with Google.

It's a web application, and it's not a conversation intelligence service. So I think that's the I think this language could be tightened up very easily. And I appreciate the chair's remarks about his, intentions. And I hope, I hope we can, you know, provide some feedback on definitions as well and and and make sure that it meets your goals in terms of the types of regulation you're trying to pass.

Thank you. I I do agree with you that these big tech have all the resources in the world to circumvent any sort of regulations that we put in place. I think the conversation with DCCA and with our AG to ensure we have the right regulations to target the chat AI chatbots that we really wanna target is in place. So I think we're our our intentions are the same. And I I do see some of your concerns.

And I I think we're moving towards the language that we can really target these AI. So thank you for your comments.

Thank you, sir.

Alright. That's it.

Okay. I have some questions. I wanna note I don't see any testimony here from the attorney general's office. Is there anyone here from the AGs that could speak to this measure? Okay. Mister Tolentino, you are an attorney. Is that right?

A good one too. Right?

Say it.

I wanna I was hoping you could elucidate a little bit of language that we have in this current draft, in Section two. And I'll just read it to you just because I don't know if you have it in front of you. It says, if a reasonable person interacting with a conversational AI service would be led to believe that a person is interacting with a human, an operator shall issue a clear and conspicuous notification, etcetera, etcetera. I just wanna be I wanna make sure that I understand correctly. Reasonable person is a specific legal term of BART. Is that right? There's a reasonable person test that's applied to certain things.

In this case, I don't know what the reasonable person is, but, yeah, there should be were.

Yeah. I guess my my question is this. Within the within the world of of of of law and jurisprudence, can a child be considered a reasonable person?

Well, a child would be, measured against a different standard because their development is is not as would be an adult. So if I think what you're getting at is the definition of what a reasonable stand reasonable person is in this case. I'm not with the attorney general's office, but a definition would probably be appropriate to make it more clear.

Okay. Yeah. So to to clarify that even further is what you're suggesting. Okay. Thank you, mister Tolentino. I had some other additional questions for Google, if that's okay. Nahelani. Thank you very much. Okay. So I just wanted to go through quickly the amendments that your client is requesting. Under my question, let's start from the bottom of this PDF. Thank you. Yes. On page three, you're suggesting that you add a definition of targeted advertising.

And what your definition says here is that targeted advertising does not include advertisements based on activities within an operator's own websites or online applications or advertisements based on the context of a user current session. I guess those first two stuck out at me, you know, because when I think of targeted advertising, that's exactly what I think about, is advertising based on user interaction, based on their session ID, the the cookie that's been assigned to them within the server, within the web server, and and and all of the interactions that that the user has. Can you explain some of your thinking around this language, this proposed language?

You know, we were I was we were thinking of that was in addition to the bill that was not in the original bill. So part of our testimony was, like, we narrow it back to what the original intent was, which would not include that. But given that that was in the bill, we tried to come up with a there was it was missing a definition. So to to clarify that, if you wanted to keep it in the bill, then that would be the recommendation. But to explain the actual nuances, I don't know if any if I don't know.

I would have to double check what the reasoning is and get back to on that.

Okay. I appreciate that. Yeah. I mean, it strikes me as problematic for us to include in HRS that targeted advertising does not include these specific things.

I think the preference would be to go back to that that wasn't in the original

Okay.

Introduction. But if it is, then then providing some clarification would be helpful.

Thank you. And then earlier on that same page, page six, you're you're you're putting amendments to Section 31 lines nine through 13 regarding liability that, this section shall not create liability for the developer of an AI model for any violation made available to the public, etcetera. Can can you speak to that, please? Yep.

That amendment actually came from one of the other stakeholders, but I think it's just adding the word conversational to make it in alignment with some of the other context in the bill.

I see. So that's the that's the only addition.

Yeah. And I hope it's clear in your copy, but it's not changing the purpose of that section. It's just adding in because it references conversational artificial intelligence earlier on in the bill.

Okay. Now there was one additional thing that had been mentioned by other testifiers around private right of action.

Yes.

The fact that the bill currently does not allow for private right of action. And I was wondering if if Google has any perspective on that particular piece.

No. The the enforcement tools with the AG's office under the unfair and deceptive practices act. And so that part, in the bill is very clear, but the language after that references the no private right of action, and I don't have any comments on that one. Okay.

Would there be an objection from the from your clients or from the tech community if we were to allow for a private right of action so that we're consistent with the other states?

Yeah.

Yeah. I would definitely have to check on that, and I would assume that there might be more of a conversation around it that might bring in some challenges, but I definitely have to go and double check.

Okay. Thanks very much. Okay. That's all my questions. Anything else? Okay.

With the chair's permission, may I comment on the private right of action request?

Uh-huh.

Sure. I'll allow it.

Thank you so much. So, yeah, the private right of act I used to work at Microsoft and Amazon as a product manager. And one of the things we used to do is meet with lawyers before we ship new features. And the lawyers would typically advise us on what potential liability exists if you, you know it could be because of a PRA. It could be because of some other existing law.

So these, are live potentially liability awards act as a powerful incentive. So they are they do modify company behavior. I know it because I work there, and I think I would just, request the committee to consider this. The language in some of the other states, including Washington and Oregon, refer to an injury in fact. So it's, would also, you know, make sure that there's no frivolous lawsuits as a result of this. So please, you know, please consider that as a potential option.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the committee? Okay. Then I think at this point, we're gonna recess. Okay. Thank you very much.

Hello, everyone. Thank you for your patience as we come back from recess. We are gonna start at the top of the agenda. We are at SB 2908 SD 1. And this bill makes permitting faster and easier by creating one statewide intake platform.

The Chair's recommend recommendation is to revert. My Filipino is coming up. Revert SB 2908 SD 1 to HB 1968 HD 1 as an artificial intelligence assisted free compliance intake pilot platform. Also to add the committee notes, the appropriation amount from HB 1968 for the finance committee to consider. And I also do some technical amendments for the purpose of clarity, consistency, and style.

And members, just to give you an explanation of why we're doing this, when we were going through the language regarding a statewide intake process, permitting platform. A lot of the different counties had problems being able to sync all the different data and how they are able to capture that data into one, application platform. And what that concern really stifles the whole one platform that we can try to implement statewide. So what we're doing instead is there's a problem with user errors when it comes to permitting, and we wanna try to use AI to do a pre compliance. So it checks the application to see if that application is done right, and then it kicks it back to the user.

And this allows a better application to go through the process, and this will be a pilot project for the counties that are ready to do this. And right now, that is the amendment regarding, this measure. Any questions? Alright. Vice Chair, please take the vote.

Alright. Mister Chair. Oh. I'm just, you know, gonna make the fix of this.

Because there's already an HD one with the amendments, we don't have to re defect. We just need a HD one to move it to conference. Okay.

But you're not gonna put the house defect date.

Nope. It's the defect date is fine. Delete. Okay. I will be re defecting dates on the others that doesn't have significant amendments. Yep.

Okay. SB 2908 SD 1, recommendation is to pass this measure with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Representative Tam. Aye. Representative Templo. Aye. Representative Yamashita. Aye. Representative Gedeon. Aye. Okay. Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB 2671. And this bill establishes a pilot program to incentivize permitting staffing for counties. And, there has been testimony from city and county of Honolulu, regarding the use of the a half percent surcharge because they're earmarked for rail. And what we want to do is, the Chair's recommendation is excluding counties with populations of 1,000,000 or more to address concerns with the city and county of Honolulu that conflicts with rail funding.

The other counties may choose to use the half percent surcharge if it is not already earmarked for their county projects. This allows the other counties to participate in this program. The county, city and county of Honolulu is still able to participate in this program. It's just that they are not able to use the half percent for differentials for staffing, salary increase. We're also gonna add in technical amendments for the purpose of clarity, consistency, and style.

Vice is there any questions, Members? If not, Vice Chair, please take the vote.

Okay. Recommendation is to pass SB 2671 SD 1 with amendments. Any votes in opposition? Any votes with preservation? Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB 3085. And this bill streamlines DBEDT's use of the Hawaii film studio. The Chair recommends to re defect the date to 07/01/3000. Technical amendments for purpose of clarity, consistency, and style.

And just for the public's sake, we're changing the effective date to a defective date so we can push this measure to conference and we can talk to the Senate and with the house and come up with amazing bill at the end. So just for your education. Thank you. Members, any questions? We have no questions. Vice Chair, please take the vote.

SB 3085 SD 1 recommendations to pass the measure with amendments. Any votes in opposition? Any reservations? Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. We are moving on to SB 2907. This bill declares Hawaii as the ocean cluster and establishes the office of marine affairs. The Chair recommends to change where this, office is going to be housed in from the governor to HTDC. And, we're gonna do some technical amendments for purpose of clarity, consistency, and style. Members, any questions with the amendments? With no questions, Vice Chair, please take the vote.

Okay. SB 2907. Recommendations to pass the bill with, amendments. Any votes in opposition? Any reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Just give me a second. Moving on to SB 2353. This bill allows the display of outdoor advertising within the Stadium development District. The Chair recommends to not put any digital signs on top of the stadium facing the freeway. Also, the chair recommends to initiate a study on light pollution that will impact the community and ensure there are community benefits if impacts are identified.

We wanna also add in some technical amendments for the purpose of clarity, consistency, and style. Members, we wanna address some of the concerns that the members in this committee have, and some of these recommendations are, addressing those concerns. Any questions regarding the amendments? Go ahead, represent Tam.

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the changes you've made. It addresses a lot of the concerns that I've had. My, I'll be voting with reservations. I still think that we need to ensure that, this digital site does not, not only just face the stadium, but does not efface, like, other buildings or even the harbor nearby.

But I appreciate what you're trying to do, and I understand what this bill is trying to do as well, which is those digital kiosks on street level not facing the road. So I'll just be voting with reservations, dealing with those concerns. Thank you.

Any other members? Go ahead.

Chair, thank you for your, amendment to the this bill. I've been getting a lot of pushback from my community, and I appreciate that you're proposing, a study to know the facts on the actual harm and light pollution that this bill might cause, but I'll be willing with reservations. I think later on maybe down the line, we could talk about allowing a percentage of the revenue going back to the community directly. I think having a compromise and giving back to the neighborhoods and the residents affected by this would be great. So at this time, I'm I'll be voting with reservations.

Thank you.

Any other members? Comment. Go ahead, Representative Gedeon.

I appreciate doing the the study. I think they'll help to paint a better picture for for both sides, people who are in support or opposition. So thank you for that, ma'am.

Of course. Alright. Any other members? With no further comments and questions, Vice Chair, please take the vote.

Alright. SB 2353 SD 2. Recommendation is to pass this measure with amendments. Any votes in opposition? And noting the reservations from representative Tempo. Any further represent reservations? Okay. Thank you. So representative Tempo, representative Tam. Let's see. Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to the next bill, which is SB2074. This bill allows the naming rights of the stadium facility to be leased to any public or private entity. Chair recommends to redefect the date to July 1st 3000 and technical amendments for the purpose of clarity, consistency, and style. Members, any questions? No questions. Vice chair, please take the vote.

SP2074 SD one. Recommendations to pass the measure with amendments. Any votes with opposition? Any reservations?

Reservations.

Thank you. Noting the reservation from representative Tam. Any further reservations? Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB2360. This bill adds new business activity into the state enterprise zones. Chair recommends to add language from HB2141 HD1 regarding the Hawaii Food and Product Innovation Network. Then I'll also add some technical amendments for a purpose of clarity, consistency, and style. Members, any questions? Alright. Vice chair, please take the vote.

Okay. Sorry. One second.

No worries. Take your time.

K. We're voting on SP2360 ST1. Recommendations to pass with amendments. Any votes in opposition? Any reservations? Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to the next bill, SB2057. Chair recommends to redefect the date to July 1st 3000. Technical amendments for a purpose of clarity, consistency, and style. Members, any questions? No questions? Vice chair, please take the vote.

SB2057 SC2. Recommendations to pass the measure with amendments. Any votes in opposition? Any reservations?

Reservations or comments?

Concern that this bill

Sorry. Oh. The comments

Apologies. Reservations. K. Noted the reservations for representative Gedeon. Any further reservations? K. Thank you, chair. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB3251. This bill prohibits state departments with immigration and custom enforcement or border control agents as law enforcement officers. Chair recommends to redefect the date to July 1st 3000 and technical amendments for purpose of clarity, consistency, and style. Representative Gedeon? Gedeon, do you have any

I do have a comment. I think strong concerns are the legality of this. I understand the intent wanting to catch bad actors, but it would also ban people who've been doing their job honorably from applying to each PD, especially with our shortage of police officers in the state. Those are my comments.

Thank you

Thanks

Any other members? Alright. With no further comments, vice chair, please take the vote.

Voting on SP3251SD1. I'm sorry. SD2. Excuse me.

S. SP?

SP3251SD2

Yes. Perfect.

Okay. The recommendations are passed with amendments. Any votes in opposition? Any reservations?

I'll be voting with reservations.

Thank you, representative Gedeon. Noted. Any further reservations? Okay. Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB2354. This bill transmits contact information to DBEDT from DCCA to increase business support. Chair recommends to redefect the date to 07/01/3000 and technical amendments for purpose of clarity, consistency, and style. Members, any questions? No further questions. Vice chair, please take the vote.

SB2354SD1. Recommendations to pass with amendments. Any votes in opposition? Any reservations? The recommendation is adopted. Thank you.

We are on the last bill on this agenda, SB3001. This bill establishes safer standards for AI chatbots. Chair recommends to adopt DCCA's first recommendation and not the second recommendation. Chair recommends to add language into the definition of conservation of artificial intelligence services as is used by business entities solely for customer service or to strictly provide users with information about available commercial services or products provided by the entity, customer service account information, or other information strictly related to its customer service. Chair recommends to add language that specifically provides services