House Standing Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce

Good afternoon, everyone. We are convening the Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce. It is Wednesday, March 25th, 2026, 2:01 p.m. in Conference Room 329. He's trying to fix the timer. You'll have two minutes to speak.

We have a little timer here. It will hopefully not be making that noise, but it will be flashing a lot of rainbow lights to celebrate the end of your testimony. So, when that thing goes off, please try to wrap it up. If you don't wrap it up, I will wrap it up for you. All right. Vice Chair.

Thank you. Okay.

Okay. Starting with SB 2961 SD 1, relating to insurance; requires homeowners' insurance policies to permit an insured who sustains a total loss to apply additional living expense benefits towards the lease of a housing unit to serve as the insured's temporary primary residence, requires insurers to pay an advance of at least four months of additional living expenses benefits after a total loss, requires homeowners' insurance policies to provide additional living expense benefits for a minimum of 36 months in the event of a total loss. First up is DCCA's Insurance Division in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Matt Tsujimura, on behalf of the Insurance Division. The Insurance Division stands in support of SB 2961. We do also stand in support of the amendment proposed by HIC, as it would address the concern that we do have with regards to creating--or I should say causing--ALE benefits to become a bottomless source of funding.

So long as they are subject to the policy limits, with regards to dollar amount, we feel that all policyholders should be entitled to the amounts of ALE that they have contracted. But happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Insurers Council with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. Alison Ueoka for Hawaii Insurers Council. We have a technical amendment to our testimony. We ask that the phrase: subject to the dollar limits and the dollar limits provided in the policy, be moved from Subsection D as in Dog to the end of Subsection A. We think it's just a better fit there. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'll be here for questions.

Thank you. State Farm in support.

Good afternoon. Blake Oshiro, on behalf of State Farm. We stand on our written, supporting the intent. We do have some proposed amendments for your consideration, and we do also support the technical change that HIC just testified to. I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. United Policyholders in support. United Policyholders? Not present. Sherry Peterson, individual, in support. Not present. Jackie Keefe, individual, in support on Zoom.

Yes. Mahalo, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. I'll stand on my written testimony in support. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members, any questions?

Is Blake here?

Yes.

So in your testimony-- I mean, given Alison's testimony, she wanted the subject of policy on this language to be in Subsection A. I kinda think that would be better if we put it there, but you've got it in B and D.

Yeah. Well, we had understood that earlier she wanted it in a different section, so that's what we proposed, but we're fine putting it in.

Okay. Does it still need to be in B and D if we put it in A, or--

I don't think it needs to be, right, because if you put it in A, that's the definition. Then you don't need to keep repeating it in--

It's overarching.

Okay.

Okay. Because that's the definition. If you put in a definition, it'll apply to all other subsections.

That makes sense. Thanks.

Thank you.

All right. Insurance Commission? You guys asked for a delayed effective date. What would be a reasonable delay that you would need? End of the year?

I think if we were to go into it and-- I think January 1, probably 2027 would be fine, and then, like, start of the next following year.

Okay. Sounds good.

Does that work with you guys?

Yep.

Yeah. Just so they can refile any forms and policies.

Alison, is that-- does that work for you guys, for the Insurers too? Do you have-- is that gonna give you enough time?

I think so.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. Moving on to SB 3103 SD 2 HD 1 relating to energy assistance. Establishes the Hawaii Home Energy Assistance Program within the Department of Human Services to assist qualifying households in paying their energy bills, requires the public benefits fee administrator of the public utility provisions provide certain information and assistance to recipients of the program. First up is DCCA division of consumer advocacy in support.

Afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Michael Angelo, Executive Director, Division of Consumer Advocacy. We stand in strong support of this bill. Available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Human Services in support on Zoom. Oh, in person.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. Kelli Kilmartin, DHS LIHEAP Coordinator. The department stands behind its submitted testimony providing comments and support. I am available for questions.

Thank you. Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Jenna Siegel with the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, and we stand on our written testimony in support. I'm available for any questions if you have any. Thank you.

Thank you. Public Utility. Public Utilities Commission in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee. Ashley Norman with the Public Utilities Commission. We stand on our written testimony in support. Available for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Catholic Charities in support. Not present. Hawaiian Electric.

Hawaiian Electric stands on its testimony in support. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none, Members, any questions? Okay. Moving on to SB 3326 SD2 HD1 relating to energy.

Requires the Public Utilities Commission to open a docketed proceeding no later than September 1st, 2026 to conduct a comprehensive objective and independent analysis of the state's energy pathways. First up is DCCA, Division of Consumer Advocacy with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, standing on our testimony, providing comments. Available for questions. Thank you.

Public Utilities Commission with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. I'm Daniel Park with the Public Utilities Commission. We'll stand on our written testimony, providing comments, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of the Attorney General with comments on Zoom.

Oh, in person. Thank you.

Oh. I'm here.

Ian Robertson, Deputy Attorney General. Our office submitted comments on this bill, indicating a risk of potential challenge under League of Women Voters vs the state associated with the HD 1. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters in support. Not present. Hawaiian Electric with comments.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is James Abraham, testifying on behalf of Hawaiian Electric, offering comments on Senate Bill 3326. We do appreciate the intent of the current bill. However, the goal of the bill seems duplicative with efforts that are already underway before the PUC.

We've established what's known as the Integrated Grid Planning or IGP process, which is recently-- or, you know, it's been going on for years now and it's just starting its second cycle, and this is kind of a broad, comprehensive look at what the grid needs, what the resources are required to operate the grid looking long-term, which, you know, overlaps with what this bill is trying to create with a comprehensive energy pathway docket, and IGP, it has several aspects to it.

It looks at both technical aspects with national and local energy experts, and it also has stakeholder and community input aspects to it. So we believe that PUC should continue its ongoing progress in the IGP, and we have concerns that this bill would distract from that progress by having another docket that is seeking to accomplish similar roles as one that's already underway. Thank you, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or online who'd like to testify on this measure? Seeing none, any questions?

A quick question. Okay. For the Commission or Consumer Advocate, I guess. Just, like, noting HECO's comments about the duplicativeness with the, like, ongoing IGP process, I mean, I guess, what would be, like, the pros and cons of having the utility-led process versus a commission-led process? Understanding, like, we hear your guys' concerns about just having a lot on your plates already, but if that wasn't the issue, you know, just from an objective standpoint.

My immediate reaction to that is that whoever's sort of directing the process can sort of dictate to some degree the direction of the-- that the process is sort of moving towards and whatnot. So that might be a pro. I mean, it's kinda hard to sort of think of anything else on the spot, but--

So how may the commission-- a commission-led process, if whoever's leading it, can kind of somewhat help frame, I guess, is what you're saying or, you know, maybe not necessarily dictate the direction, but help sort of frame the starting points? Or-- and I don't wanna put words in your mouth, but, like, what could the different kind of full outcomes of that be or potentially different focuses?

So, as an example, if there was a specific policy objective that was important to the commission, then by being-- by directing the effort, I guess, that policy objective, we consider that the forefront of the process meeting, beginning in a way that is said that didn't necessarily align with someone else who was running the--

Like affordability, for example, or something like that?

Yes. That those sort of issues would get sort of-- it's not to say that they wouldn't be emphasized or, like, get any sort of attention in another process. It's just that because that would be more sort of near and dear to the heart of the person running the-- or directing the efforts that it would get the attention that that entity sort of believes is--

All right. Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay. Moving on to SB3025 SD2 HD1 relating to medical debt. Requires the Office of Wellness and Resilience to develop, implement, and administer a medical debt acquisition and forgiveness program to acquire and forgive outstanding medical debt for certain individuals in the state.

Beginning with medical debt that has already been acquired by medical debt and consolidation organizations. First step, Office of Wellness and Resilience in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Naomi Leipold with the Office of Wellness and Resilience. Director Hartsocks sends her regards that she can't be here in person to testify. I'm also here with Jody Burgess, procurement contract specialist. If the committee has any questions, if you allow us to tag team on this bill.

We stand on our testimony in support and we submitted, amendment requests for your committee's consideration. We're here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. AlohaCare in support.

Okay. Not present. Hawaii Public Health Institute in support.

Not present.

Elima De Costa in opposition on Zoom. Oh, for support. Not present. Okay.

Anyone else in person or on Zoom? Okay.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. I'm Matthew Prellberg on behalf of Holomua Collaborative, a local nonprofit founded to advocate for policies to make Hawaii affordable so our residents don't need to be moving to the continent and they can actually afford to stay here. My apologies. I do believe that I submitted my written testimony and had signed up, but I'll check if you need to make sure.

You do have it in the packet. I you have our written testimony, and I will primarily stand on it, but there is 1 part of the testimony I really wanna hit on about what makes this book so important. Unlike most loan and credit card debt, medical debt is debt not 1 that a person typically seeks out and it is the result of an accident or illness and as a result of a system that does not typically provide a patient with costs in advance of services.

Just as a small anecdotal story, my niece was born at Kapiolani Medical Center, and she was born with a medical condition that required her to be. In the NICU for the first 10 months of her life and require full time care up until she was about 2 and a half years old.

Within the first 10 months of her being in the NICU, she had multiple surgeries, heart surgeries, a lung surgery, tracheotomy, was intubated, and a few life stage immune procedures when she did receive code blues. During that time, my brother and sister-in-law had wonderful medical coverage.

This wasn't something they asked for, and the medical coverage luckily was able to cover the cells that were provided. But they never said, oh, yeah.

We are gonna pick this surgery today because of how much it costs. They were picking procedures to keep my niece alive. Because of the medical health insurance they did have, they are not swimming in medical debt today, and there are many other social services that were able to.

Help them out. Able to help them out. But their story is 1 that does not apply to all families in Hawaii. There are many families that do not have the health insurance they need and often do not seek medical care out of fear of medical debt.

And a bill like this can help the families in Hawaii. If you have any questions, I will be available. Mahalo.

Thank you for sharing that story, and we do have your written testimony.

My pleasure.

Anyone else who'd like to testify on this measure?

Seeing none. Members, any questions?

Officer Leipold? So I do like the concept of this Bill. I mean, I agree with some of the previous testifiers about the unavoidability of medical debt, especially in more extreme situations. I do have some hang up on using public money to pay off private debt, though I just want your thoughts on that.

Yes. Thank you for that question. If I may respond to that in a few points and why our office would like to serve as a vehicle for medical debt relief, I wanna amplify the previous testifier on Matt's testimony that medical debt compared to other private debt is unique and that people do not choose it. Oftentimes, it is a choice to stay healthy or alive, and it's a circumstance that occurs compared to other private debt.

And also we we're coming in from an from a point of having done the white quality of life survey.

And I don't need to convince the members here, but 40% of respondents share that they consider leaving the safety guys of high cost, so, you know, economic strain being the primary reason. If our office has the ability and we I'm sorry. Going back. We know that economic constraints is a huge barrier to mental health and well-being for folks in our state.

So if a large number of Hawaii state family white families has that barrier to mental health and well-being, we do see it as an opportunity for the state to in a concrete way remove that barrier.

So we do think it is a unique opportunity for us to address the wellness and resilience of the people in our state.

I am considering putting in a some kind of matching funds to private funds raised for this purpose. If we did that, I mean, would your office be able to raise the funds to match?

Yes. Thank you for that question. If the ultimatum was in front of us, whether the bill would pass as is or only with a public private rated opportunity, we would of course, naturally choose a public private partnership. We do strongly believe that public state dollar investment would allow opportunity for private funders to come in and work with us. And we will yes.

We will work towards fundraising efforts with our partners.

Yep. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions, members? Okay. Moving on to SB 3263 SD 2 HD 1, relating to the University of Hawaii; affirms student athletes' rights to engage in name, image, and likeness activities for compensation, requires the University of Hawaii to adopt policies governing institutional name, image, and likeness agreements and other aspects of NIL activity consistent with federal law, establishes certain transparency and accountability requirements in the administration of institutional NIL activities, and provides protections and educational support for student athletes. First up is University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Athletics in support.

Aloha, Chair and Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Matt Elliott. I'm the Director of Athletics at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and we stand in support of SB 3263. And with me today, I stand with our coaches, alumni, and members of the community who also support this bill, and on behalf of our student athletes.

In terms of the bill itself, the bill is focused on creating a name, image, and likeness program in the state, and we think if you go line by line through that bill, everything in the bill makes sense because we're creating a foundation for how NIL should work in the state. The reality is, is NIL is now part of college athletics.

As of July 1st of 2025, this is something that institutions can participate in. And what we have in this bill is a set of expectations for an athletics department, for a university to be able to serve their student athletes in the right way. So it sets policies and procedures around issues like Title IX, around reporting, around financial literacy and education. All of those things are key components, things that we are working on, are in progress, but this bill will help codify that to make sure that our student athletes are protected going forward.

So for that reason, first and foremost, we believe this is a solid bill, and we would very much appreciate your support to move it forward. Second, the question is, why is NIL part of college athletics overall?

And I would put that in the framework of what we believe the role of college sports is and of the athletics department in our university. We wanna be part of the excellence that is the University of Hawaii. Today, there was a story that came out about the university that said 14 of our academic programs were ranked in the top 2% of institutions, colleges, and universities across the world.

Twenty-five thousand institutions were reviewed and, I guess, graded, and 14 of our programs are in the top 2%. That is the story of UH. UH is about excellence. It is about providing opportunities for students in this state to be a part of this community and then be our future leaders, and athletics is one part of that. For us to also be successful and to also pursue excellence, we have to have NIL as part of what we do. That is the reality of college sports today.

And just as one small example that you saw that last week, as both our men's and women's basketball teams finished extremely strong seasons--those coaches are in the room; I'm very proud to be with them today--and then as they finished in the Big West Championship, our men's team had the chance to go to the NCAA Tournament. And the data that's come out of that is said that the average viewership of the men's basketball tournament over this first weekend was 10.7 million viewers per game, and we were a part of that.

Thank you. Can you--

Thank you. Sorry.

Yeah? Okay.

I'm gonna let you run a little longer, but I am gonna cut people off just because you're kind of the main person of this bill, but--

Okay. I can stop. We have others in the room who wanna speak, so, aloha. Thank you.

Thank you. MK Advocacy Group in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee. Mike Iosua. Just wanted to express my support. You have my written testimony. One thing I'd like to do is just kinda highlight the-- well, we recommend that the committee move forward with the HD 1 version as opposed to the SD 1 version--HD 1, the current version.

Two main concerns that I see with the SD 1 version is number one, it required endowment. So in order to get the same amount of money that was required for the NIL, you'd have to fund, like, 50 to $60 million, which is a big ask and probably more than the Legislature's willing to commit to at this time.

The second requirement was-- the second issue was the requirement that a student athlete has either an agent or a parent or guardian to sign off on any NIL deals. I have represented students-- the student athletes on NIL deals.

I think a lot of times the agents could be the problem as well as sometimes the parents, interfering or causing a student athlete to not focus on really what the NIL is about. And I think there also could be some due process contracting issues if you require the parent or guardian to sign off on an adult's contract. So, anyway, happy to answer any questions. Thanks.

Thank you. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii with comments. Not present. Island Energy Services in support.

Good afternoon, Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Grandinetti, and members of the committee. I am Albert Chee. I'm the Executive Vice President of Island Energy Services. Island Energy Services is Hawaii's largest, locally headquartered, locally managed petroleum fuel company here in Hawaii, and we're proud to say that we've been involved with UH Athletics for over 30 plus years, 20 of that with our predecessor company, Chevron, and the last 10 is Island Energy Services.

Through that whole engagement, we've not only been supporters, financial supporters, but big fans, and the the bill speaks to NIL, and I think that's really important that we get that right, understanding that it's actually a national program, so I'm not sure at what point Congress will weigh in because we need to have regulations across state lines. But what I really wanted to express here today is that the bill does not address some of the financial needs that the university has, okay?

Whether it be operational expenses or, you know, NIL itself, okay, our company's been involved a long time. I, myself, have chaired the major fundraising, Ahahui Koa Anuenue, been part of the Nicole Football Club, and we certainly believe as a business here that getting involved with University of Hawaii Athletics--and we'd ask the Legislature to do the same--is a really, really good investment because when you look at the return, the jobs that it provides, over $66,000,000 of economic activity and all kinds some other things, okay, including the pride of the state, we think that it is a really, really good investment.

And I would ask that this bill be amended to add some provision for the University of Hawaii Athletics to get some operating money to increase what they have. They do well with what they get. They're good stewards of the money.

We wouldn't invest if they weren't, but they're at a time in a crossroads in college athletics where if we do not fund this program, okay, it will languish and it will affect the soul of this community. I can't speak for Athletic Director Elliott, but a lot of our coaches aren't here, they're very dedicated, they give it their time, and I'd give them a big raise with some of that money. They deserve it.

Thank you. If I could ask you to wrap up your comments?

So, I strongly encourage this committee to not only move this bill forward, but put a provision in there to allow in future discussions, perhaps there could be added some much-needed funds. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Laboy, Ironworkers Stabilization Fund in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, committee members. My name is Cliff Laboy with the Ironworkers Stabilization Fund. I'm also representing the Hawaii Building Trades' unions today, 17 trade union members out there with 34,000 construction workers out there. We had this on the weekend. I'll probably get half of them out here yelling and cheering.

We all-- we're in strong support of this measure. We do not wanna give the coaches raises right now. We wanna take care of the athletes. We wanna be able to compete at the highest level, and this is one way we'll be able to keep the athletes here. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Sorry, coaches.

Lee Ann Satele, individual, in support.

Hi. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, committee. My name is Lee Ann Pestana Satele. I'm here with my husband, Elvis Satele. We grew up during the 80s, and so the perspective I'm taking on this and I'd like to share with you is when we talk to our financial planner, says if you wanna see the future, look back. So I'm gonna look back for a little bit, 40 plus years. I was fortunate to be there in the 80s when Title IX was first passed. And there, we saw that we were bringing-- able to bring in such big athletes as Terry Malterre there, the '79 team.

I happened to be on the '82 and the '83 team, and here we had one in '87. So we really benefited from Title IX because somebody said yes. Then I was there in the 90s when the-- I was here like this, and they wanted to make the Stan Sheriff a 6,000-seat arena. So we came before and said, listen. We gotta expand our dreams. And the government said yes to 10,301 seats.

And on the first day opening in 1994, it sold out. It continues to sell out. The men just sold out UCLA just a couple Saturdays-- or Saturday adult. So I'm here to-- you can see my submitted testimony. It will give you a family tree of us. We have nine UH athletes in our immediate family.

All all-Americans.

We have 15 grandkids, 16, and I wanna say that we come from humble beginnings. My husband and I are first-generation college graduates, college students. We were-- but that was mostly possible by full scholarships. And so here our kids come in.

Today our kids are serving in this community. I have two sons with HECO, swimming in muddy water, climbing poles for their state that they love, and I have others that serve the community. So we're here to say, this is the new landscape of UH Athletics, whether you like it or not, but it's the new way. And if we wanna be competitive, then I'm just asking you to repeat history again and say yes to what we're doing. Thank you.

Thank you. Looks like we have some other folks who'd like to testify. Anyone? Yeah, off the sheet. Any others?

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and committee members. My name is Laura Beeman, and I am the head coach for the Rainbow Wahine basketball program. Thank you for allowing us to come in here today in support of this bill. You know, I started coaching 30 years ago, and the landscape has changed drastically from a community college coach to a Division 1 head coach where now we pay our athletes.

And I think the one thing that I've been able to do every day that I wake up is look in the mirror and say, I take care of my student athletes. And if we do not put ourselves in a position as an athletic department to pay our kids what they are worth and what's going on across the country, then for me, that oath, I can't maintain that. It's more than just the money. It's getting them their education, financial literacy. It's helping them understand time management. It's helping them play well with others.

It's getting a morale across our athletic department that is second to none in this country because of our location. We have our limitations as well as our advantages. NIL is a part of this. I never thought 30 years ago I would be paying student athletes. I still don't know how I feel about it.

Those are the rules that we are living in today, and I wanna make sure that the University of Hawaii stays relevant. We are an amazing institution. RH travels across the world. When people see us, they want to know who we are and what we are and why we do what we do. Our athletic teams are hugely successful, and it's not just because of our win and loss record.

It's because of the aloha spirit. I cannot tell you how many people I come into contact with that say, coach, thank you for what you do. And I'm like, oh, I love the kids. We win. And they're like, no. It's not that. It's how you represent your university. It's how you represent the community. And I think NIL only puts us in a position to do this at a far greater level. I know the pride that we bring to this community.

I know people love watching us win and lose. I get as much love when I lose as when I win. Walking through Costco is amazing sometimes. And with NIL, we stay incredibly, incredibly relevant, and we are continued to take care of our student athletes the way in which they deserve to be taken care of. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to testify on this measure?

If you'd like--

Good afternoon, Chair--

One second. If you'd-- anyone else would like to-- I just wanna gauge how many other people wanna testify. Could you raise your hand if you wanna testify? Don't feel ashamed. I'm just trying to gauge. One, two. Okay. Cool.

Afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Council. I'm very blessed to have been a player along with some of my teammates here, Coach Chang and Lance and a couple of other guys here, Coach Kapanui here. We were players here, and now we're very blessed to be coaches. The greatest times of our life was when we were players, and it was the time where we learned how to become men.

We learned how to work hard, we learned how to work together, and the time that we had at the University of Hawaii was the greatest education that we had that we had through our entire life. Now we're blessed enough to be coaches, and we're giving back to these players, but here's the honest truth.

Times have changed, and we're trying to teach these men the same exact values that we had and what we've learned throughout the years, but now with the landscape of what it is now, there's NIL. And as much as we believe in loyalty and as much as we believe in hard work--it's just what the landscape is now--do we agree with it? Not always, but it's just what it is.

And in order to help these kids and teach these kids and provide for these kids, we gotta be able to help them, and that's why we're here. That's why we're all standing strong together. We believe in loyalty, hard work, and giving back to this community, but it's just what the landscape is now. And the landscape is NIL. But we wanna be able to help these guys and keep them here and teach them the same values that we had. Thank you.

Well done.

None of these coaches give good speeches.

Hi, everyone. My name is Shelley Kahuanui Fey. I am obviously in support of this bill. I come from an another-- in addition to what has been already said, and, again, I'm so-- feel so proud to be amongst all of these people, and I think that's where we all stand.

I come from a generation of three people, three generations. My father was an outstanding football player, basketball player at the university in the late 40s. He ended up coaching at Kahuku and Roosevelt. My brother played football. My sister went to UH Hilo, became a national champion.

Her son is the starting USA setter for the men's volleyball team. My son, Kupono, is now the associate head coach for the men's volleyball team. When he was going to school, there were only four and a half scholarships, and I'm not sure what they have right now, but it was a struggle. He had a choice. He could have gone to some of the bigger schools, but he wanted to stay home.

It was his choice. We went and visited UCLA and USC, Lewis out in Illinois. So he had the opportunities to go elsewhere, but he chose to stay here, and it's become such a huge thing for our community, for our family to look back at how things have gone throughout the generations, and we're just grateful for the opportunities that we've all had.

I was on the basketball team back in the 70s when Title IX was just getting going. So I feel fortunate, but we did not have the opportunities like kids do now, and with, again, the new landscape, we're just feel for the program, the UH athletic program, in order to provide the support that they need to bring in those athletes that will bring the community together, as many of us have said.

The pride that we feel when we walk into any room with other UH athletes, fans, and family members, it is the pride that we feel for our community, it's the pride that we feel for the families that represent-- that are represented, and I'm just grateful for this opportunity to speak, and I, again, urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Michele Nagamine. I'm the head women's soccer coach at the University of Hawaii. I am here today in support of this bill because I coach soccer. I do not coach basketball.

I do not coach volleyball, and I do not coach football. I coach soccer. And I'm here to let you know that after many years of public service in, on the city and county of Honolulu side, I got very familiar with "Not in My Backyard". And I wanted to let everyone know that although soccer is a very, soccer is an Olympic sport. That's the, that's the nice way that you say you don't make money for the university.

You provide opportunities for student athletes. But with all that said, it is even, NIL has become a reality for, for our sport as well. So, I just wanted to let you know that it's not just about the marquee sports that are on TV all the time. If we're lucky, we're on TV four times this season at the max. But I got stopped three times today.

Not in Costco, but Pancake House, downstairs and then on my way out of another meeting this morning. So, the, we are the front porch. Everybody that the, passion that our community feels, it, it flows right into us. So, yes, when you go to Costco and you win, that's a good visit. If sometimes it's not a good visit, but at the end of the day, everybody cares in some way, shape, or form.

So, I was just wanting to, to ask for your support because we have personally lost recruits for $12,000, $35,000, $57,000. And while that is not life changing money, to a young person who is trying to make decisions about their future, it's everything. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to testify on this measure? Okay. Seeing none, members, any questions?

For Coach Beeman. So, I. So the money is gonna be finite no matter how much money there is, whether it's private or public. How will the money be divided? Is it for basketball? Is it a matter of how many minutes on the court? Is it how much airtime you're getting?

You know the, the women on your team very well. Some of them come from affluent backgrounds. Some of them come from very economically struggling backgrounds. Will the coaches be able to say, hey. You don't need this money.

Here's some money. If somebody sits, if somebody gets hurt in the middle of the season and they're no longer playing, does that stop the flow of money? How? And also team unity, cohesion, I can't imagine. So I do, well. I can't imagine the impact that it'll have that some will feel more valued than others because of this economic influence.

I have more than two minutes. Correct? No kidding.

I'm sorry. I. No. Okay.

You know, all of those questions, I don't know if my, my pay scale allows me to answer all of those because I don't know if I have answers. I can speak specifically to women's basketball. That, I do believe the money that is going to be given to our program, from our athletics department, is going to be equitable, equitable as far as either our, the revenue that we are generating or the amount of time we are on television or the amount of time we spend in the public, let's say.

I have absolutely no concerns with a football program receiving more money than a women's basketball program because of the gen, the money that they're going to generate versus what I'm going to generate. So I don't know if that answers parts of that question for you. In this new NIL landscape, all things are not equal as far, they're fair but not equal, if that makes sense.

So there will be programs that are receiving, to coach Nagamine's point, more money than other programs. The way that we have to divvy this money out, I can take into consideration financial background. I can take into hardship. A lot of it comes down to your roster and the market value of a player. So I had a 6'5" player on my team.

She is amazing. She comes from New Zealand. She is one of the top players in New Zealand. The market value this 6'5" post player is going to demand across the country is far greater than that of a point guard that comes from any place across the country. 6'5" women that can run, catch, get to the rim, you know, do game winning plays, she is going to require more money than somebody else on my program.

It also has to do with what my needs are. If I have 6, 6'5" kids, I might not pay all of them the same amount of money. I may have to say I need to go get a point card, and that's where my market value is going to go. So I take a look at my overall pot of money.

I look at my roster and I say, these are the kids that I need to retain or recruit to keep me relevant into the conference that we're about ready to go transition into, which is the Mountain West.

So I don't know if there's an exact answer for every single roster because it's going to be very, very different. What my fear is, is because we are not gonna be at that $20.5 million threshold that a lot of your PowerForce schools are, they can come get my 6'5" kid. And I can pay her at the top of my tree, but they're gonna be able to come in and say, I have a $3 million budget to your x amount of budget, and I'm gonna take her anyways.

And that's where the culture of my locker room comes in, which is your next question. How do we handle the discrepancies of kids making money?

This landscapes, landscape causes kids to be put and thrust into adult situations that their little brains haven't even formed to be able to make these decisions. The conversation I have in my locker room is, number one, who are you playing for? You are playing for the state of Hawaii. You are playing for this university. You are playing for each other, and then you're playing for yourself, and I hope it's in that order.

Then we talk about, you would never walk into my office and say, "Hey, Coach B. How much money do you make?" You guys aren't gonna have those conversations in this locker room, and if you do, you need to be ready for your answer because the answer may be very different than what you want, what you like, or what you're ready to hear. And so I have very open communication in my locker room with my players as to what are we playing for.

Yes, some of you are getting different money than other people, and this adds a layer of complexity that, again, don't think kids are necessarily ready for, but we're thrusting them into. And it's our job as coaches to teach them those life skills of open communication, of collaboration, of playing well with each other, and the fact that sometimes you don't get what you want.

And you still have to dig in, you still have to be committed, and you still have to support and play for what it is you believe in. Some kids jump into the portal because they want additional money, and that additional money isn't there and now they're sitting in kind of a nowhere land.

So what goes on in our locker room is honest conversation, which I think are, is one of the biggest lessons you can learn in your life is to say, "We need to have a hard conversation."

This kid may be making more money than you. It is the nature of the beast. Just like if you go into a job, someone might be making more money. How are you going to deal with that? And so I don't know if I've answered all of your questions.

It's not a fair landscape, but it is the landscape that we are in. And I think that at the University of Hawaii, under the direction of President Hensel and, you know, Athletic Director Elliott, we have very clear visions of athletic excellence, athletic success, athletic well-being. And it, that goes beyond, the money that we're gonna give our kids. And, and one more short story, please.

I have a young lady who, I guarantee you, if she put herself in the quarter, she would be worth a half million dollars.

And that's probably on the low end of what she could get. I can't pay near that money. And sitting in my office two days ago, she said, "I wanna graduate from here because there are people that look like me. There are people who have the same values that I do. I love playing for this program."

"So, Coach, I just wanna graduate from here." And so I didn't have to say to her, "Guess what? I can't give you that market value of your worth, but I can give you this." And she's like, "Wow. You didn't have to, but thank you."

Those are the kids I wanna recruit. Those are the kids I want in our locker room, and I think you can combine the best of all worlds to navigate some of the questions that are very fair to ask.

Thank you for answering so many questions. I'm glad to see you. You did a great job. Trying to keep our questions to be one or two just so they don't get lost in all the shuffle. That's more effective. I just don't you know? Yeah. You know what I mean? UH Athletics?

So, in our last hearing on this bill for the house version, you mentioned that, I think you mentioned that, UH had already raised about $3 million from boosters and then kind of private funds. Is that still? Are you guys still?

That's our target.

Okay.

Our, our fundraising target for NIL alone is $3 million for this year, and that would cover the commitments we made for all NIL in 25-26.

So the 2006 year or is it academic?

This academic year. Yep.

Where are you at right now then?

So we're at about two of the three. So about two-thirds of the way there.

Okay. And if we allocated you the $5 million for NIL, would that $3 million, assuming you met that goal, be on top of that or would that be used in the subsequent years?

For sub. This is for the subsequent year. Exactly.

Okay. So $5 million this year, if you raise $3 million to use next year, would you then be coming back to us for the other two to make up that gap next year?

We, we've identified the need for next year at $5 million. That's what we believe we need to be able to cover the NIL expenses that these coaches will have to be able to sustain the rosters that we have. So that's why we've asked for the $5.

I'm sorry. So the $5 million will be for the next year?

Next year.

We'll be using that, where, I guess. What's happening to the $3 that you're raising now?

We're paying it right now. So we have student housing receiving NIL currently.

Gotcha.

And our those those costs will total about $3 million at the end of this year. So we're, we're, we're basically privately financing the NIL expenses for this year.

Okay. And then during the next year, when you're using that fund, you're gonna be raising more money to be used in the subsequent year in 2028. Got it?

Those yeah. Depending on what we get. If we get the $5 million and any additional dollars we raise, we, of course, are still trying to fund our operations. We have increased costs for travel, recruiting, etcetera. But there, there could be dollars we add to NIL expenses for that as well. So, if we have that if we have more, that's great. Then we're creating a foundation for the future year. Exactly.

Yep. So this is a one time ask of the legislature for the NIL, or will you do anticipate being back here?

We are, we are making this. We are posing this as an annual request over $5 million for NIL.

Okay. I have a Title IX question for you.

Okay.

Which obviously is, is broader than athletics, but applies to you folks quite a bit. I'm assuming that the $5 million we would, we would give you for NIL would be subject to equal distribution in men and women's sports.

So the way Title IX. Currently, there is, there is no case precedent on this yet. But the way Title IX is being assessed is that the NIL dollars, unlike scholarship where it is direct proportionality, the NIL dollars should be assigned based on the value that the programs generate or that the individual athletes generate for the institution. So kind of the, if they're generating revenue, if they're creating name, image, and likeness value, then that's how you would divide the dollars that are spent.

So we will still be Title IX compliant, but it's a different Title IX analysis. That's the way. It's. That's the way we've been consulting with outside counsel and how we've been advised.

Is, is there a nexus to be about an athlete is given based on their true name image of likeness? I feel like the, the term NIL is thrown around as a justification for paying student athletes. I'm not disagreeing with that. But is I mean, for, for like, software, for example, they're, they're on TV four times a year maybe ish.

Is the amount of our. Is the amount of NIL allocated to them going to have some nexus on the actual amount of money that, that program brings in that year?

It, it's one of the factors, but not, not the sole factor. It's looking at everything collectively. The exposure of the program. Yes. How often are they on TV, ads, sales, tickets, all of the things that go into the program.

So that's why the bulk of the dollars would go to the programs that generate.

Okay. So-

Yeah. So I'm sorry. I guess you said that it's gonna be. So football makes a lot, so they're gonna get a much larger chunk. Is that gonna be an exact proportion, or is that just kind of a one of the one factor and you're gonna kind of ballpark the NIL split?

What they generate is only one factor. That's correct.

What are the other factors?

So, again, sort of or specific to that NIL point, if, if they're student athletes, the programs are generating name, image, and likeness exposure for the university. They. We're using NIL of the student athletes to help generate revenue for the university. It might not just be dollars, but it might be the the exposure side of it as well. That's significant.

Do you, do you anticipate any Title IX issue, though? I mean, I, I know that we're funding this. This funding request is a little bit different than other universities funding. This is a little more direct general funds to student athletes. In that sense, do you anticipate any closer nexus to Title IX rather than the university raising its own money from sort of private sources or, or going into kind of a more collective pod or whatnot?

No, I think. What we understand is that the NIL dollars delivered by the institution directly to the students has to follow the same analysis regardless of the source. But we got to make sure that we follow that distribution that you were just talking about, the percentages that go to each program. And really, at the end of the day, it's the percentages that go to the men's and women's sports and making sure we're meeting that that breakdown and doing that in a fair way.

And this is in. These payments are in addition to the scholarships that they're being given to?

Sort of. Yes. The. For the students who are on full scholarship, NIL can be above that. We also can use NIL dollars. So, you know, maybe in a sport like women's soccer, where we don't have enough scholarships for every student athlete, we can use NIL dollars, and we're already doing that to get more scholarships than we previously were able to give.

So it's an increase of scholarship opportunity as well.

Okay. So the money can be used to just direct tuition payments for that to offset.

We're already doing that. Yes.

In that case, just work the other way around that the scholarships being given right now can't count towards the NIL amount for distribution among the sports?

So there's an expectation. If you, if you play basketball prior to the NIL system, we only were able to give full scholarships essentially and, and except for a few walk-ons, everybody got a full scholarship. If you're on the men's volleyball team, we only had four and a half scholarships for the entire roster. So those scholarships were split up, and maybe you got 25% of a scholarship. Maybe you got $10,000, etcetera, and that's how we had to use the money.

Now in this new environment, we don't have that limit. The four and a half scholarship limit doesn't exist anymore. So when men's volleyball is thinking what to do with their NIL money, they may say we're gonna start giving scholarships to athletes that never got them before. So that does count as part of our new when I'm saying a $3 million budget for this year in NIL, that is covered in that $3 million as additional scholarships.

What, what was that breakdown present before?

That was the NCAA limit. NCAA had a limit of scholarships for every sport previously. That doesn't exist anymore. They they got rid of that this year.

So basketball had unlimited and volleyball had a cap?

Basketball had 13 for 15 athletes. Volleyball had four and a half for 18 athletes. So every sport was based on. They, they kind of created a, this is before my time, but a formula based on Title IX based on all the sports that the NCAA sponsored to figure out a way to distribute scholarships in a way that schools would be able to build a program, it would be Title IX compliant.

So now that those limits are or I'm sorry, limits or requirements. The limits-

The limits are gone. Yeah. That's the, that's the reality.

Just because everyone on the men's basketball team could have a, a full ride scholarship, it shouldn't mean that they did necessarily. Is that fair?

I think historically, most programs in football and basketball and, and truly at UH as well, we went to the max of whatever number of scholarships we could give in each individual sport. It's called being fully funded. That's just, that's how it was described in the NCAA language. Most schools at our level are fully funded, meaning they're supporting scholarships to the limit that the NCAA allowed.

So does that mean that men's basketball could actually be, given less money for scholarships if you, if those limits are are gone, if they're no longer expected to be funded to the, to be fully funded?

That. It's within the discretion of each institution. So you could say we're not gonna offer those scholarships without.

I'm just curious if this. Does men's ball basketball bring in a lot more than men's volleyball or is. I, I always thought.

Yeah. I mean, this is, I'm I'm talking nationally. This is why. If you look nationally, the the television deal for men's basketball is in the billions of dollars, and that's why the scholarships reflected that across the country.

Okay. Well, that makes sense. So it came up in the Senate that. I'm sorry. Did anyone else have more questions?

I, I have some very general questions.

Okay. Oh, let me let me finish up with that. It came up in the Senate that maybe these students needed representation that some of the. I mean, I'm, I'm, I'm assuming that we in the Senate could agree that someone getting a thousand dollars doesn't need an agent necessarily, but that someone getting $500,000 a lot, might need some kind of representation. Do, do you feel the need for students to have that kind of guidance?

Do you think education and training them is enough, or, or do you think their parents can step into that role? I mean, what what do you foresee for student athletes in that respect?

I, I think the student athletes should have the choice. If they wanna have an agent, I think that's totally fine. If they would like to have their parents or family members advise them, I think that's fine as well. But I also believe that, you know, we have 24, 25-year-olds on our team.

Some of our teams, if they'd like to manage this independently and determine their finances and not give a cut to anybody else, I think they should have that choice as well. The other thing I would say is that the NIL agreement between the institution and the student athlete is a template. We've created this template. It's the same contract for almost every student.

There, there might be small tweaks of when the payments are gonna be made or, you know, kind of how long they're gonna be in school, but this is something that our general counsel's office vetted. We followed pretty clear standards and norm. Not standards, norms that are happening across the country. Some conferences, like in the Big Ten, they're using a template for the entire conference. Everybody's using the same NIL deal.

So, to the extent that this is a, a negotiation or something that there's a lot of back and forth, that's not the reality. It's more of the conversations that coach Beeman was just talking about. v

The players and the coaches getting to a place that, "Okay. This is what makes sense for me and for me to stay on this team." So, I think if we have agents, the agents should be certified, they should be registered, and, and they should be credible. But I don't think we should require somebody to have an agent just to be in the space.

I, I tend to agree with you. I, I have a little concern though that if these students have questions, they're not going to have anyone to or some of these students may not have anyone to turn to. You know, you as UH are sort of one party to the agreement. So I, I don't necessarily want them you know. When you're negotiating a contract with somebody, don't ask them to say, like, "Hey, is that fair?" Doesn't make a lot of sense.

I'm hoping that you folks could at least provide some more independent person within UH to advise the students, whose job is to kind of look after the students.

And I know you have student advisers right now who, you know, if someone has a complaint about a professor or something happens that, you have a designated person sort of represent that student or just kind of stick up for them, and revise and guide them.

Is there someone that UH Athletics can put forth that's not, that doesn't represent UH Athletics, but is paid for by you folks, whose job is to kind of make sure that students can have questions answered, can give them sort of an objective view of, oh, that that sounds, you know, that might sound fair. Hey. You might want to ask for this clause or this provision or or whatnot.

Two things that come to mind. One is that I've seen, in my previous career, I've seen the law school step forward and create like a clinic, if you will, where professors and, and law students were able to provide advice to students. And that was when they were negotiating NIL deals outside of the institution, where before schools were allowed to do that. That is. That is a potential source of expertise that, that we could look at. It's just one idea.

The other just to show sort of have as an analogy is we are working now directly with Shidler to create financial literacy courses and programming for our student athletes. And, again, tapping into expertise on campus to say to the student athletes. "Now, okay. You've got money coming in. You've got income."

"You've got taxes to deal with. How do you wanna invest?" Things like that. That's another great resource that, that we're already starting to work with. So, so I think we can look in that direction if that's, if that's the recommendation.

Yeah. Interesting. I, I, I'm sure the law school wouldn't be super happy with that. I can't speak to them. Would, would that be independent enough, though? I mean, I, I'm assuming you're talking about students advising other students or or is it the professors advising?

Yeah. But they also had to have somebody some oversight. It, it wasn't just pure students. It was either an outside attorney who worked with the clinic. This is just one model, but an outside attorney who worked with the clinic and helped provide that kind of guidance.

I mean, you could certainly explore a model like that. I haven't had these conversations. I don't want to over promise, but.

Yeah. Yeah. No. How many student athletes do you have?

We have 500.

500. Okay.

Only about a 100 or so. A 150 probably would be on NIL deal, so it wouldn't be the whole population.

And of those 150, I'm assuming any fewer would have an amount over $50,000 or $100,000. I mean, what would be a. What would be a benchmark you would set for people who are making significant enough money from NIL that they may be-

You're going to be looking at your taxes, you know, make sure you're negotiating. Yeah. I mean, that's-

Can you give me a ballpark number?

Percentage would be over that six-figure number, I think, probably.

So of the what, what, what, what would be an amount that you would think-

Yeah. I was trying to agree. I, I think if you went to a $100,000 or something like that.

So of the 150 getting NIL, what do you think, like, ten would be over that amount? I mean, you said no idea.

I guess. Yeah. I know. I'm picturing the spreadsheet in my head. Yeah. Sure. 10%-15%, something like that is probably where we are. I mean, I think that would grow, but ultimately, it's-

It's relatively few that. So, I mean, it's something that could be handled internally then to buy a program that you folks could set up. I bet you're already kind of looking.

Again, if we if we did it as something that was in tandem with the financial literacy program and there was also this this opportunity to get that kind of guidance, I think that's possible.

Yeah. Okay. And I have one last area to explore with you. Again, I understand the Senate wanted the contracts to be public, which I think I have a point. It is public money being paid out.

I mean, if if we had a contract to fix gutters in DOE schools, we wouldn't say, oh, no. It's a secret about we can't tell you how much we're spending. And and, you know, this is a public institution. Can can you speak to why that might be a good or bad idea?

I think disclosing the breakdown per team is perfectly reasonable and fair, and we absolutely would do that. In terms of the individual students, everything in my career has taught me that students have FERPA protections and any engagement they have with the institution. We've never disclosed their scholarship amounts, for example, and those Republic dollars where we're giving them either 10,000 a year or 50,000 a year. Those were always in my mind that everything I've known that's been protected by FERPA. I still think that's true.

And in the nine months that I've been observing how this has been working, every single state where this has come up has said those are protected records in terms of the relationship between the university and their students. That's my understanding. At the same time, I do understand that if dollars are being spent in these ways, we wanna be able to be as transparent as possible. But I think the individual student disclosure is a step that would be too far in my mind.

That's a great point about the the scholarships, honestly. So this has come up in other schools before, and they've trusted through FERPA. And sorry. We can't reveal that information.

Both either at the legislature or through the media requesting these disclosures, and every single decision I've seen has said that schools are not required to disclose individual student contracts.

Thank you. Rep. Marten.

I have two questions. One is, this is just about money that goes from the university to the student athletes, but they can also independently generate funds in the private market through, like, in sync being Instagram influencer or actual sponsors. Is that completely independent of this?

The process is independent, but the the sort of goal is for students to be to receive a cumulative benefit of both what the institution gives them and what the the private sector can give them. So if a student can get a deal that, hey. I've got a corporate sponsor that's gonna support me and the institution, and those two things together make me wanna stay here and be in Hawaii, that's what we're trying to facilitate together.

Okay. Okay. And then my and that if and do you think that they can raise significant private funds? Is that all the more reason for financial advice for these young

Yeah. I think there is much more opportunity that we are gonna continue to develop and explore to have the private sector both be philanthropic and donate money to the institution so we can fund NIL deals, but also do direct deals with our student athletes. And as we increase staffing, as we increase, services that help our students understand how NIL is possible, I do think there will be more opportunities there as well.

And my second question, if okay, Joe Of course. Is, just about the more general finances. So at this time, any revenue that comes in through the athletics, whether it's ticket sales or premiums for winning a a bowl or something like that, does that all go back to central so, like, the central budget, and you folks are just paid out your salaries and program expenses. So so I'm I'm thinking in terms of, you know, reducing the the need to use general funds every year for this.

I wonder I wonder if there if there's any potential upside for for revenue generation as well.

I know I used to work at the medical school in, like, 2000 like, fifteen years ago, the football team won or was in the Sugar Bowl, and the medical school got, like, $5,000,000 from you know, as they cut of the proceeds. Right? Which was very appreciated at that time. But I wonder if there's any any way to like, when the program generates revenue like that, if it can stay in the system for these kinds of contracts instead of coming back.

I'm assuming they're all b funds there. Right? They're all special funds that go back to you, which is special fund budget.

All of the revenues that we generate come back into the department for us to cover our expenses. So that's what we are. In addition to just fundraising, pure philanthropic fundraising, we are pursuing how do we generate more revenue for the department. So that is ticket sales.

So you do keep the revenue?

Yes. To cover our expenses. Yes. We pay we try to fund the department. We try to cover the expenses in the department with our revenues.

And if you happened if things got better and you had more revenue, then in theory, you could ask for less?

That's right. Okay. Yes. Thank you.

You guys in the black or red right now?

So the last year was a 100 we were in the red by a $160,000, I think, was the total at the end of the year.

Not terrible.

Sergio, as a follow-up to your title nine question. So pre NIL, you mentioned title nine and you mentioned the men's volleyball team got four scholarships. Did that mean that the women's team got four scholarships to play with? Was that a

Volleyball team had 12 scholarships at that time.

Oh, so to It's not by sport. It's That's not by sport. Can but but in terms of title nine compliance, that the men's team and the women's team get equal amounts of scholarships.

So the men got four and a half because that was their limit, and the women got 12 because that was their limit. But overall, when you add up all the men's scholarships and all the women's scholarships, then they are proportionate to be to meet the title nine standards. Proportionate. I'm sorry. I don't It's related to how many students you have in your program.

So you have the same level, whatever your participation is, essentially, or your programs you have to have in your university enrollment match how you use your scholarship. Okay. So fairness based on it from there.

I think the last time you spoke you spoke with us, you mentioned that no other state has dedicated funding specifically for student athletes or no other participant in the regional the regional competition thing. Sorry. I don't know the exact term.

But so if we were to be the first, and then we said title nine compliance would require first state the state portion of the money to have it be equitable and the same amount of investment, would you still take would if we attach that condition, would you still take the money?

Just explain that again. I'm sorry. Sorry.

If we were to allocate state funds to the NIL program specifically for student athletes, and we said that our the way we, the legislature, wanna implement to comply with title nine would require equal amounts of money to men's and women's programs that would you still take it if we attach that condition to our state funds?

Yeah. I mean, I think if you're saying it just has to be equally, not in a way that's compliant with Title IX, but it's just a pure 50/50 split, I guess. Is that what you're saying?

Yeah. I'm just yes.

Impose that condition. I think the University of Hawaii in our athletics department would still be extremely grateful for the dollars that you allocate, and then we would have to continue to raise dollars with private on the private side as well.

My last question you have to do with you mentioning scholarship disclosure.

Sorry, let me jump in on the title nine thing here for a Sec. Title IX is not a 50/50 split. It's a proportionality to women and men. Right? So if there's 60% women participants that are athletes that they should be getting more than half. That amount too. Right?

They're different tests. Yeah. Exactly.

Thank you for the clarification.

I am a little uncomfortable, though, because what rep you about this line of questioning is I think getting at two combined with your earlier answers of this NIL money could be used for scholarships. We're kind of blurring the line there, I think, Because when we let's say it is 50/50 for I mean, just for purposes of argument, I mean, your scholarship money right now is being split 50/50 men and women's sports between men and women's sports.

If NIL comes in, you you're differentiating it with if it was straight payments to students through NIL, then it would be allocated differently because it would be, you know, not based on how many men and women are in the sport. It'd be more based on the revenue that each is bringing in. But if it's being converted to scholarships, isn't that gonna necessarily throw off the balance that title nine is requiring for scholarships?

And we do do we start differentiating between one scholarship by NIL and one scholarship? Probably not. Right? It's all come with same money.

Great question. But I think that we would be and we are making sure that we are still that the scholarships are still balanced

in the way of a scholarship that would be factored into the title nine calculus as well. Scholarships as well. Does that disincentivize from granting scholarships through NIL because it would throw that off, though? I mean, I feel like that's incentivizing just the math works out or direct payment to student athletes from by by cash. Whereas I kinda like the idea of getting scholarships Right.

More than that. I think if if we took a very cynical approach, it would be a disincentive. But what we've said, and these coaches can come up and talk about it, is your dollars are your dollars. And we want you to spend the dollars in the way that best is gonna make your program successful. If it's a scholarship, that's what the team needs.

It should be a scholarship. If it's, straight NIL payment, it should be straight NIL payment. And it's our job to holistically keep the department aligned with title nine.

But they can't. Right? Because if one depart let's say the football high football series. Right? So let's put let's say the football guys decide, you know, we're gonna put it all into scholarships and not that they're going to.

But, you know, unless they're all it's got vastly Yeah. I mean, then so

so we can do whatever they want.

Right. So you have to step in administration.

We can't do that unless we're also gonna add 20 scholarships on the women's side. Right? We've that we would have to make sure that that doesn't happen. That has not happened that hasn't been an issue.

But yeah. And those are extremely sound just to illustrate. But okay. So you will step in Absolutely. Yeah.

We have to.

I mean, that's the one we can't.

So a weird situation you guys are putting yourselves in. Anyway, sorry, Brooke.

Thank you.

And then thank you for pointing out the clarification about proportionality. But regarding these scholarships, so there are students who have scholarships, but they also have jobs on campus. And I'm not saying these are student athletes. They may not be an athlete. But the state or people wouldn't have knowledge of their scholarship because, yes, it's confidential.

But the payment they receive as student employees on campus, that would be public information. And I would I would argue that the the money that these individuals are making, it's a performance based also because if they what happens if they get injured and they can't perform? Do they still get the money? But, anyway, it's performance based money. It's a it's like a contract you execute.

You do something to earn the the money. I would think that there could be a a distinction between the confidentiality of who gets scholarships. It was totally different than the who gets state taxpayer money directly to them for a service provided. Just.

I don't know. Let me ask a a different related question. If a student has a job at working in the library, could that information of their salary be subject to like a FOIA ish request? I think that's kind of where she's getting at. Is if it's a contractual if it's a contractual relationship for a service rendered, which is kind of what NIL is ish, then how is it different than a student working at bookstore just as a job?

And with that, if they're if a student bookstore worker has their contract subject to disclosure laws, then why wouldn't then the NIL student be subject to that same thing without protect or or if FOIA protects both, then I'm not FOIA. If FERPA protects both, then then it protects both.

I don't know. And that may be more of a category issue as opposed to an individual. Like, all workers in the store make x an hour. I don't know if that's the way it's reported. But you reported individual students, you know, records that part.

I don't know. I don't have expertise to answer. Yes.

Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Let's move on. Thank you.

Thank you. Keep moving on to SB 3133 SD 2 HD 1 relating to preventative medicine. Establishes the Hawaii Preventative Services Advisory Committee to serve in an advisory capacity to the Department of Health on matters relating to clinical preventive services. Authorizes the Department of Health to issue clinical preventive service recommendations, provides immunity for health professionals who provide clinical preventive services based on recommendations of the Department of Health. First up is SHPDA in support.

Aloha. Good afternoon. I'm Terry Visperas on behalf of Dr. Jack Lewin, administrator for SHPDA. We'd like to stand on strong support with our written testimony.

TCCA and chair.

Go ahead. Go ahead.

Alright. Yeah. Good afternoon. Justin Shoop with the insurance provision. We stand on our written testimony for writing comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Health in support.

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Nathan Tan, Disease Outbreak Control Division, the Department of Health. I'm testifying on behalf of the department, and we have submitted testimony in support of this measure, which protects children and families in Hawaii by ensuring continued access to immunizations and other certain clinical proven up services. If you're available for any questions, thank you very much.

Thank you. Aloha Care and support on Zoom.

HMSA offering comments.

Afternoon, Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair, any members of the committee will be on the application. It's here. We largely stand on our written testimony offering comments. We appreciate the intent of the measure as well as the other bills in the legislature given some of the challenges that are arising from federal regulations and changes.

We just have three points that we'd like to highlight largely in terms of out of network coverage. For those of you hearing yesterday, that's an issue for us. Also, the definition of reasonable medical management, and I believe there is a section relating to network advocacy that might be duplicative as it should be really covered.

K. For questions, thank you.

Thank you. Cheryl Toyokoku, individual in opposition.

Aloha Chair and members, committee. My name is Cheryl Toyofuku, my mom, my grandmother.

I'm a retired registered nurse and a health advocate, and I'm a strong opposition of SB 3133 SB2 HD1. Again, it's because most of us in Hawaii, of course, we are very, very we want preventive health care services because we wanna prevent our kupuna, our keiki from going into the hospitals from having serious illnesses. So, yes preventive health services are very important.

But it seems that this bill, SB 3133 is focusing on specifically immunizations or vaccines, which, of course the committee that they're also advising to have is this special advisory committee, and this committee is composing about 10 committee members from organizations that of course, are promoting vaccinations.

And my opposition is because vaccines are not safe and effective. There's so much research that has been showing that. The vaccine adverse events reporting system has been showing 1,000,000 during the COVID time of adverse events.

Many of our family and friends did suffer a lot during that time when we were required couldn't go to work or school. And so we can see the increase in the chronic childhood diseases now with the increasing of the childhood schedule.

It's been two minutes. Could you please plead your testimony?

Okay. Sure. And just as experimental and sometimes toxic vaccines are being now with this advisory committee like the federal advisory committee. And just because it's a local committee having given more authority to the Department of Health to give recommendations, it seems to be it doesn't seem to be necessary to have the Department of Health recommending more vaccines and having insurance coverage for it when they're not covering other methods of helping to keep us healthy. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Anyone else in person around Zoom would like to testify on this measure?

Seeing none. Members, any questions?

I'm seeing none. We'll recess, recess.

Alright. Reconvening for decision making. First up, we've got SB 2961, SD 1, relating to insurance.

Chair's recommendation is to note in the committee report that we'd like to delay the effective date to January 1st, 2027, to part of the DCCA's testimony to give both the DCCA and insurance companies a little bit of time to prepare. I do want to adopt the proposed amendments from NAMIC, setting a minimum of twenty-four months with two six-month extensions. We'll move though the subject of policy limits to the end of Subsection A, and then we don't need to include them in the other subsections.

That should be sufficient to make sure that the policy limits are kind of an absolute cap on benefits. On page six, lines 19 through 21, and page seven, lines 13 through 15, we're also gonna be amending language to clarify that the total loss was caused by apparel for which the state of emergency was declared.

Members, any comments? Vice chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Strong unanimous support. Thank you, members. Next up, we have SB 3103, SD 2, HD 1, relating to energy assistance. Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is. I think this is a very good program.

It's really gonna be a budgetary call of whether we can afford to do it. Members, any comments? Vice chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Moving on to SD3326 SD2 HD1 relating to Energy. Chair's recommendation is to defect the date.

Members, any sorry. Any comments?

Chair, how are you reconciling AG's concerns regarding the three hearings of the content? legal-

I actually disagree with the AG. I did not think that it was a title concern. They thought of it's a possible title concern, but it's related to energy. This would still relate to energy.

I don't think that's a problem.

I'm just gonna go through observations just because that was unclear. Me too. Thank you.

Anyone else with comments?

Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 3103 SD2 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations?

Rep. Iwamoto

Any no's?

Nope.

3103 or 3326?

It should be 3326.

Oh, I'm so sorry. Okay. I have two sheets. There we go. Okay.

Voting on SB3326 SD2 HD1. Chairs recommendation is to pass with amendments. Reservations from Rep Ivamoto, and no's from Representative Kong and Representative Pierick.

3226 is a yes.

But if you're 26, do you want a yes?

Okay.

Rep. Kong, no. Sorry about that.

Okay. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. Moving on to SB 3025, SD 2, HD 1, relating to medical debt. Alright. Chair's recommendation is to adopt the Office of Wellness and Resiliency's proposed amendments. I want to include in the committee report, the amount of $500,000.

We'll also be adding to the bill a provision requiring matching funds for private funds, public funds, on a one-to-one basis and redefining the date. Members, any comments? Vice chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you, members. Moving on to SD 3263, SD 2, HD 1, relating to the University of Hawaii. Chair's recommendation is to add a provision requiring the University of Hawaii to have an independent adviser for NIL students. This adviser can come with—from within the school or from within the community.

It does not necessarily need to be a full time position, but I want someone in place that's independent. Not independent from UH in their job, but independent from UH in their, uh, priority to be able to prioritize students, to be there as a, as a resource for students and to prioritize their side of the NIL deal to be able to give them advice or help as needed.

And I've also talked to UH and they are going to be trying to send up a more financial literacy training for students as well, but that, that part won't be required in the bill. Members, any comments?

Chair, I just wanted to share that—thank you for not amending it to add any taxpayer funding to this particular bill. So, I'm voting with reservations specifically because of my concerns that name, image, likeness is only being reserved for student athletes, not student musicians, student artists, student scientists. Yeah, for those reasons, with reservations.

And, and just for clarity, in case anyone decides to come and look at this—watch this committee hearing again, because this person could be someone in the community that is the independent person. I understand there are attorneys in the community. They're, we're, we're talking with the business schools too. There could be other people within the community that may wanna offer their service as a resource to be this independent source of information for these students. So, that's what I mean.

It doesn't have to be necessarily someone employed by UH, but we'll leave it up to UH's discretion on, on choosing that that kind of person to have that kind of commitment. Members, any other comments? Okay. Vice chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Moving on to SB 3133 SD2 HD1, related to Preventative Medicine. Chair's recommendation is to change the language of this bill to the house position, which is in HB 1898 HD2. Members, any comments?

Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 3133 SD2 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations?

Reservations.

Any no's?

Sorry. Reservations.

Reservation from Representative Iwamoto and Representative Kong. Any no's? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, member. Members, last item on the agenda, SB 2761 SD2 HD1 relating to social media. We're gonna be adding a provision to extend age verification of the app store level similar to that currently in place in Utah. I talked to the AGs and they said they can handle it without any kind of triggering language, so believe it to them.

I also would like to amend to add language requiring social media companies to make an effort through their algorithms to identify underage users.

And if those you underage users are identified to require age verification for those identified users. Members, any comments?

Chair, I'd like to disclose a potential personal financial substantial, financial conflicts of interest. I do own shares in Meta.

Okay.

It's hard to gauge unless you are your last name is actually Zuckerberg. I don't think it's gonna be an issue. I'm assuming you own not a controlling share. Right?

Okay. So chair's ruling is that there's no conflict.

No.

Members, any other comments?

Oh, I'm gonna be voting with reservations. I really appreciate what this bill is is doing. My only concerns are some of the first amendment, how there's some first amendment concerns around free speech, etcetera. And so that's my only reservation, but I support the bill.

Okay. Representative, any comments?

Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2761 SD2 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Representative Iwamoto. Any no's?

Chair your recommendation is done.

Okay. Thank you, members. We adjourned.