House Standing Committee on Agriculture & Food Systems

Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call the committees on agriculture and food systems and energy and environmental protection to order. This is Wednesday, March 25. This is our 9am agenda, and we're at the State Capitol in Conference Room 325. I just want to go over some housekeeping before we get started.

So because morning hearings must adjourn prior to floor session, not all testifiers may have the opportunity to testify. That again, please know your written testimony will be considered by the committee.

In order to allow as many people to testify as possible, there will be a two minute time limit per testifier. For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify and after your testimony is completed. The Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note the house is not responsible for any bad internet dimensions on the system.

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 trademarked or copyrighted images if you are using a Zoom background. Please refrain from any profanity or or uncivil behavior. Such behavior may be pronounced for for removal of the from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. I'd also just like to note to everybody that we have three agendas.

We're gonna do decision making on the 9AM and the 09:15 agendas end of the 09:30 agenda. So LDM will be done at once. Let's get started with our joint agenda. First up, we have Senate Bill 2110 SD 1 relating to agriculture. This bill establishes a conservation agriculture and soil health incentive program within the Hawaii Climate Change Innovation and Adaptation Commission.

Requires an annual report to the legislature and incorporates funds. First up to testify, we have Lyle Laramie Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission.

Good morning chairs, vice chair, Lyle Laramie Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission. We wanna stand on our testimony, but if you'll indulge me quickly, I'm inviting Emily Perry to just say a couple words about some impacts we saw over the past few weeks.

Aloha Mai Kakou. I've been working with the pilot of Carbon Smart

Land Management Assistance, and, that has informed the bill that you are looking at today. This last week during the storms, I visited a number of our partners. I could see very clearly not only where there was some damage, but also where there's a mitigation. And some areas that Harabedian in protracted drought and had been doing, the strategies for climate adaptive carbon smart planting had actually, retained water, had showed healthier ecosystems, were more resilient from the impacts.

Just outside of the site, you kicked the dirt where there'd been 14 inches of rain in a day, and it was dust underneath.

Another example of one of our partners has been planting swales, and the swales have actually kept the soil, the topsoil, from going into the ocean and retained it, and we'll be able to use that. So there are a lot of examples of these practices that we would like to support and engage in for greater climate resilience. Thank you. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next, we have Parwinder Grewal, Dean Dhruvad, Arcefoy.

Chairs, vice chairs, thank you for the opportunity, Parwinder Grewal, Dean Sita. This initiative is very significant, and we totally support it. We stand on our written comments. But I wanted to add one more thing. We will be reopening our swine analysis map next week, April 1.

So if all the people who would need this help, we are there to serve all the farmers, everybody with the soil analysis map.

Thank you. Thank you. Yes. We have Annie Frederick. Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action.

Aloha, Chairs, vice chair, HAPA will stand on our testimony and support.

Next, we have Hawaii State Youth Commission on Zoom.

Aloha. My name is Malik Kuneili speaking on behalf of the State Youth Commission. We stand in our testimony in strong support.

Thank you. Next, we have Hunter Hevlin, Way Farmers Union on Zoom. Testimony in support by the Department of Agriculture and Policy. We also received testimony and support from Office of Wine Affairs, City and County of Honolulu Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency, Carbon Cashback Hawaii, Kanalani Ohana Farm, Maple Leaf Producers Cooperative, Hawaii Cattlemen's Council, three fifty Hawaii, Hawaii Farm Bureau, Simopietri Enterprises LLC, The Nature Conservancy, Hawaii Youth Food Council, Climate Future Forum, and numerous individuals.

Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure?

Either in person or on Zoom? Seeing none. Anybody's any questions? Seeing none. Let's move on to the next measure.

Next up, we have Senate Bill 2100 SD two relating to pesticides. This measure requires quarterly and reporting of certain uses for restricted use pesticides. Amends the contents of reports to include specific geospatial data and information and increased detail on the amount of restricted use pesticides used. Exempts wood preservative pesticides from reporting departments. Requires the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity to develop an online reporting tool for restricted use pesticides with its focus.

First up to testify, we have the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and Policy Security.

Stands on written testimony with comments.

Thank you. Next, we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committees. McKenna Woodward on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support of this measure. Better reporting improves oversight and gives public agencies, researchers, and nearby residents more useful information about where pesticides are applied and what amounts and how often. This matters most for residents living near large agricultural areas where incomplete reporting can limit transparency and make cumulative cumulative exposure harder to assess.

For native Hawaiian beneficiaries, improved visibility into pesticide use supports public health, protection of and stewardship of places many families rely on for cultural and subsistence practices.

This is a practical oversight bill and not a ban, and OHA respectfully urges the committees to pass this measure.

Thank you. I see you have Chris Caulfield, California Public Health Institute.

Hello, Chair and Committee Members. I'm Chris Caulfield from the Hawaii Public Health Institute. We're in support of this bill as well. Data and transparency are essential to public health, and better pesticide reporting as the Office of Harabedian Affairs has said, allows health agencies and researchers to identify exposure patterns, respond more quickly, to potential poisoning incidents and understand where, restricted use pesticides are being applied, and how they're impacting nearby, communities. Without accurate and timely reporting, we cannot fully understand exposure risk to protect our communities effectively.

Reporting is one of the most important tools that we have for prevention and accountability and it's especially important in Hawaii where, we would note, again, as you've heard before, that restricted use pesticides are applied in significant quantities, up to, 200,000 pounds in a single year, much of it near residential communities. Exposure, occurs where people live, work, play, go to school, and and it's it really has a dramatic impact on certain communities.

Scientific evidence as you, I'm sure, know, links pesticide exposure to serious health impacts, asthma, cancer, endocrine disruption, neurodevelopment harm, keiki are particularly vulnerable. Research has shown that higher prenatal pesticide exposure is associated with measurable cognitive impacts and lower IQ scores. Our kupuna are also at high risk, including higher risks of respiratory illness and neurological disease.

So Hawaii has historically been a national leader in pesticide regulation. We hope that you will continue that trend by moving this measure forward. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next we have Anne Frederick, Boyle Alliance for Progressive Action.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chair. Anne Frederick on behalf of HAPPA in strong support. So just as a reminder, Act 45 was really enacted and informed, out of a community mandate for transparency and residents really, organizing for years out of concern about what they were exposed to, what their children are exposed to next to their schools. After years of mandated reporting that was begun in 2019, there is a need to improve on our reporting requirements.

And while Act 45 provided some important first steps, most importantly, our current reporting requirements do not allow geographically specific enough data for public health assessment.

So what this bill does, very importantly, is it does require reporting within a square mile, which is what California requires, and what is really mandated for credible public health studies to be conducted. As you know, there's an extensive body of research that does show, pesticide exposure can cause significant harm to public health, and often that pesticides do drift off target even when applied according to the label requirements.

So, you know, what this bill does is, especially what we're seeing, we did a very deep analysis of the 2019 through 2021 data. We actually converted it all into pounds by TMK and mapped it. GIS mapped it.

And what we did see is that the heaviest use is occurring on these larger parcels. So there's no way for a resident who may be living adjacent to one of these larger parcels to know what the adjacencies are to schools, homes, waterways, other sensitive areas. So this, improves upon the current, requirements and allows for that greater degree of assessment. We also found, significant errors in our kind detailed analysis.

For example, in 2020 alone, 203 applications representing 162,000 of RUPs could not be, GIS mapped or associated with a particular TMK due to poor reporting.

And often what you saw when we were going through, we're going through, like, we did a UEPA request for all of the reporting forms, and there would be, like, a number missing in the TMK. So the funding for an online reporting tool, while there might be an initial investment, I think what it would importantly do is you could have drop downs for TMK.

So it would reduce a lot of error and user reporting, but also hopefully streamline things and reduce staff time on the DAB end as well. And also for those who are reporting just to ease their process, but also cut down on error so we can get more accurate information to credibly assess what potential risks might exist. Thank you.

Yes. We have Ali Burrows, Earthjustice on Zoom. Not present. Lee Hensley, Hawaii Chapter of Academy American Academy of Pediatrics on Zoom.

Hi. Can you see me?

That's good.

Here I am. Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I am representing myself, a pediatrician from the island of Kauai, and the Hawaii Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. And, basically, what we wanted to report was in 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics, delivered a report that was a game changer for pediatricians.

Essentially said that we need to be worried about chronic low level exposure to pesticides, which was different from any of our previous training. And that low level exposure is associated with, as was discussed by previous presenters, brain cancer, leukemia, neurobehavioral disorders, endocrine disorders, and more. And the points they made for pediatricians that is that we should become involved on both a personal level with our patients and on legislative matters.

If it worked for us, buffer zones and right to know what was report what was being sprayed where are these important issues for us. And it turns out that all the science about understanding what happens with spraying depends on geospatial measurements.

You need to know what's being sprayed where, and then what's the help of the people around these areas to know what's going on. California has led the nation basically in this kind of scientific exposure. And it because they have such great geospatial reporting. And what's interesting is out of Nebraska, just last year came a study very similar to the California studies, where they show that cocktails of pesticides result in dramatically increases in cancer in associated communities.

And the underlying message here is without knowing what's being sprayed where, we have no way to know the effects on our populations.

And it's vital as we grow more of our food that we approach this in a scientific matter. Thank you for this ability to to testify, and I hope the bill is passed. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Yes. We have Hunter Haviland, Way Farmers Union on Zoom. Non present.

We also received testimony in support from my council member, Fran Holland, League of Women Voters of Hawaii, and numerous individuals. And we also received testimony to make opposition from Sugar Land Farms, Hawaii Fruit Union Association, Hawaii Farm Bureau, and the Maui Chamber of Commerce. Is there anyone here wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members any questions?

I guess, for the department. Just from reading your testimony, it seems like there's a lot of noncompliance with even the reporting current reporting requirements.

So about 10% of applicators either do not submit their annual reporting, or they submit it late, or they submit it with incorrections. So I would say the vast majority are complying with the reporting, like 90%.

Okay. And your testimony indicates that it's a huge burden on the department to follow-up on the non compliant individual?

So it's a current burden to analyze the reports that come in, transcribing it if they're manually written onto electronic format, following up with applicators, sending them notifications to submit in timely because if they submit on time, then it's less effort down the line. However, for the 10% that, unfortunately, do not are not in compliance, we currently only have two case prep reviewers who have to review all the cases, not just for compliance reporting, but also for our regular routine inspections and complaint inspections.

And so right now, one of them is fully dedicated to following up on the 10% that are in noncompliance. It's just reviewing records, ensuring that making sure that they did or did not submit, or if there are any errors that occurred, drafting up the letters and the notice of violations that come with it. So, yes, currently, there is a burden for the 10% that do not comply, which is why we are requesting additional resources if this is passed.

How what number of cases is 10%? Like, how many? How many?

So we roughly have on average about 1,200, so that would be about 120 cases on the worst day. Like I said, it's an average. Some day some years it's better, some years it's worse.

So and you're saying there's one full time staff person that just follows up on 100 cases?

Correct. A 120 yes. But like I said, her usual duties would typically also include reviewing cases from other inspections. Aren't there ways I mean, you know, the twenty first century, are there ways to make

Aren't there ways I mean, you know, the twenty first century, are there ways to make some of that administrative burden less by automating systems?

So the online so for the case review section, not so much because it is, we have to make sure that we do a thorough review on all the documents. But on the other.

On the data entry?

Yeah. On the entry end, notifying applicators, ensuring that the data is correct. The online reporting tool would be a great resource in that.

Has there been talk of developing that? Or what's the.

There was in, I think 2020, 2021. However, I was unable to find any records relating to that. And when I followed up with the initial developers, I received no response. So we'd be starting from scratch. But there were there was interest when the reporting first came out, but it wasn't followed through.

I could not tell.

Online? Like, the forms can be submitted just digitally, but not everybody does that. Is that the.

That is correct. So we have some mailed in. Remember, these are applicators, right, with various levels of knowledge and expertise. Sure. So we do have manual form sentence.

We have scans forms, but they are manually written. We do have some that are submitted through electronic format as well.

So then the ones that are submitted electronically, I mean, I wouldn't think you you would don't don't necessarily need a expert to come in and figure out I mean, it's not that hard to figure out how to take data from a digital format and then input it into.

Into a master sheet? No. But they would need to understand pesticide language and that, okay. You know, they submitted this product name, does it match the active ingredient, does are rates inconsistent, right, in terms of that, so.

Okay. Just wondering about that. And then, thanks. I guess for I can ask one more question for Hava. Like, what's the additional what's the additive I mean, you spoke to this someone already, but what's really being gained by just additional reporting times?

The quarterly reporting? I think just more community access to data.

But is it really is it fundamentally different between doing it twice a year or four times a year? Or is more of the issue availability of the data from the current reports, you know, which maybe are being processed quickly or there's incomplete reporting?

I think our hope would be that, like, timely reporting could get out to communities. So if there was a concern about drift exposure, you wouldn't have to wait a whole year. What we found when we were, you know, doing the data cleaning work, it took us years, honestly, to do the the first year because it was you know, they were now I think it's better because I think there's a lot of,

like, things that the app has cleaned up on there. And in terms of just, like, it's you can at least get the summaries by county in in pounds versus different increments. But the goal, I think the community mandate when we first started working on these bills, you know, over a decade ago was communities just wanting more timely access.

Like, some of these earlier versions of these bills had, like, pre notification, which we took out, you know, out of responses, but things where communities could check-in more regularly. So that would be the ideal goal is that, you know, somebody who a community that might be concerned about exposure wouldn't have to wait a whole year to find out.

The turnaround now for I mean, if they have current reporting requirements, what's the turnaround for the data being publicly available anyway? I mean, I'm just trying to I'm just wondering if the if the priority should be getting better, more efficient turnaround of that data on the department end before adding additional production.

I think the hope with the online reporting tool is that it would make that turnaround more streamlined. And I think with AI now, there's it is we're finding it quicker to do some of the conversions of, you know you know, the data cleaning work, for example, but I'm I'm hoping that the online tool would also expedite that as well.

Okay. Alright. Thanks. Yeah. Thank you.

Yeah. I have department back. Thank you for answering chair's questions. On that similar so right now, people can scan or mail in written forms that they can download or they are given?

That's correct.

And you said there was an effort in 2020 or 2021 to maybe make a website or a mobile

That is yes.

But that went nowhere?

From what I could find. Yes. Which was very little.

And this bill specifically calls out an electronic reporting system. And so, yeah, along that, I'm I'm trying to figure out the extra positions because it feels like this and these are all restricted use pesticides. So you need to be a licensed applicator to use these and do reporting on.

You got it.

So you have to take a test and, like, be certified and understand and be able to read English and understand the pesticides you're applying. Yes. Their names, whether it's their commercial name, you know, like Roundup. I know that's not an RUP, but Roundup versus glyphosate, you know. So you could, with an electronic form, they could probably just check boxes, like, talun or whatever that stuff were.

I haven't thought too much into imagining of what it would actually look like.

Is there a lot of mixing of, like, cocktails of pesticides, or is it pretty much.

But the reporting now is basically if they're cocktails, mixing it together, we would not know that. We would just know, okay, they applied.

Yeah. Correct. So we got it.

That's the why.

So many gallons.

A drop down list of could potentially be a drop down list of the registered restricted use pesticides we have now. So we can just click it. Labels don't often change. However, there could be, like, auto fill.

Automatic build out versions of certain fields.

Okay.

Okay. And and because I'm imagining, like Okay. I know there's a big basket of RUPs out there, but there's probably not a huge variety, you know, not hundreds, but probably tens of RUPs that are being used.

So the majority of the certified applicators actually do not use RUPs. Of course, there are some that do, and they report that. But

But this this bill is just about restricted use pesticides. Correct? Correct. Okay. So that's all they have to report on the

form? Yes. And they also have to keep their own records for RUPs, which is separate from the yearly reporting that they're currently doing.

Okay. Thank you.

I think that's good. Okay. So we need all further questions. The end of our 9:30 agenda. So I'm gonna adjourn.

It's 09:00 and then open our 09:15. Moving to the our 09:15 agenda. So first up, on our 09:15 agenda, we have Senate Bill 874 SD 2 two relating to veterinary medicine.

This measure requires veterinarians to provide a written prescription on the request of a client for any animal patient of a client with whom the veterinarian has established an existing veterinarian client patient relationship to be filled with the pharmacy of appliance to, allows pharmacies licensed in the state to dispense medications prescribed by the federal agencies. Authorizes the Hawaii Board of Veterinary Medicine to establish penalties, which may include fines, suspension, or revocation of your license.

Let's find this measure. We have Stephanie Kendrick, Hawaiian Society on Zoom. Not present. Chrissy Hoogland, DCCA Board of Veterinary Medicine. Hello.

My name is Chrissy Hoglund. I am the executive officer of the Board of Veterinary Medicine. The board stands on this testimony. Nice.

And so we have Winston Welch.

Yes, sir. Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah. I had submitted written testimony on this, and thank you all for considering this.

I did have a maybe a friendly amendment to consider is, there's a section in there of how consumers should be notified, and this is a real critical element. If we don't know about it, then it it won't it won't matter. But it there it gives essentially, veterinarians three choices to do this either via electronic communications or, verbally telling someone or posting it. But that relies then on each interaction, to have a

different vehicle of of, conveying this information. So I would suggest that it be standardized and just like everything else they posted in a conspicuous place at business since, you know, the the veterinarians will have a relationship where clients have come into the office. If they wanna add in a communication there, by all means, they should be talking to their their, their clients about the, various options they have.

So that would be most welcome, but I think there should be, at least a requirement to have a standardized posting in every, in every office, where where folks have a uniform expectation of of being able to see that. Thank you very much for this, consideration of this well supported and, well crafted bill.

Yep. That's, so we also received testimony and support from Animal Rights Hawaii, Animal Interfaith Alliance in Britain, Hawaii Veterinary Medical Association, and numerous individuals. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure? None. Members any questions?

Let's move on to the next measure. Next up, we have Senate Bill 2102 SD two related to industrial hemp. Beginning 07/01/2026 authorizes the use of hemp derived feed ingredients in certain commercial animal feeds. Authorizes the use of hemp and hemp derived feed ingredients in commercial feed for livestock. Requires the Department of Agriculture and policy security to by his department of agriculture and policy security.

Hello Chair, Vice Chair. For the Department of Agriculture and Policy Security.

We have Julia Park, Hawaii Fibers.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Julia, founder of Hawaii Fibers and a licensed temp guru on Oahu, and I am in strong support of SB 2102. Hemp produces feed ingredients, hemp seed, hemp seed oil, hemp seed meal that are well established in animal nutrition and can be grown right here. This bill creates a legal framework for that to happen, and it's modeled on Montana's framework, enacted in 2021, which is working.

There are also pet stores in Hawaii now selling hemp seeds from the Mainland, and this allows Hawaii farmers to supply the local community.

The benefits to Hawaii are straightforward, reduced import dependence, new revenue for new revenue streams for local farmers, and a more resilient food system. And I respectfully urge the committee to pass SB 2102.

Thank you.

Thank you. So we have Ben Draper, Hemp Paper Company.

Okay. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you guys for hearing the bill. My name is Ben Draper with the Hemp Paper Company testifying in strong strong support of, SB 2102. Just a little bit of context, we're talking about industrial hemp. We're not talking about Marijuana or CBD.

Industrial hemp is an agricultural, crop grown for fiber, grain, and feed ingredients. There's essentially zero psychoactive effects. I brought in, an example of hemp protein that you can buy at Costco, so it's totally safe for consumption. Essentially, we just wanna this bill helps, farmers use those same ingredients in animal feed. As you guys might know, Hawaii imports, over 90% of its animal feed.

This bill is one step towards changing that. SB 2102 authorizes hemp derived feed ingredients, hemp seed, hemp seed oil, hemp seed meal, and commercial feed for pets, specialty pets, and horses with livestock based in through departmental rulemaking. I wanna thank chairperson Hurd, and the Department of Ag and Biosecurity for their written testimony. They raised important points, and I think you'll find the proposed HD one amendments were built, specifically to address them.

The department noted that the AAFCO has so far only approved one hemp feed ingredient, which is hemp seed meal for laying hens, and suggested that the legislator may wanna wait for broader federal approvals, which is a reasonable instinct.

But there's a thing is that this was approved in 2024, and that's over a year and a half ago. Hawaii farmers still can't use it because the state hasn't adopted their rules to allow it. So this bill, isn't getting ahead of the science. If anything, it's catching up. It gives the department the framework to act when federal approval comes through instead of starting from scratch every time.

The department also raised concerns about earlier versions tying state law to future AAFCO and FDA decisions, and they were right to. The internal the attorney general flagged that as a potential unlawful delegation of legislative power. The HD one amendment fixes that. When AAFCO publishes a new ingredient definition or FDA approves a new use, the department, initiates its own rulemaking under Chapter 91. Federal science informs the process.

Hawaii retains its own authority. It's clean. It's constitutional. On livestock, the department was concerned about authorizing species where, federal safety reviews aren't finished. The HD 1 addresses that directly.

Pets, specialty pets, and horses are authorized on day one. Livestock, poultry, cattle, swine only come in after the department adopts rules for those species. The department controls the timeline completely. We also added three provisions, a voluntary advisory council within the the department. It's zero cost, no appropriation, and no hires, to provide expert guidance on rulemaking, including, for hemp cultivated for grain and associated co products, a CTAHR research, directive.

So the science on hemp feed ingredients gets done here in Hawaii with local cultivars, and the provision for partnership with local ag producers, including native wine practitioners and, based programs, all germane, all germane to feed, no additional committee referrals. I have the complete HD 1 language in RAMS year format along with the written testimony for the committee, which I gave, at the beginning, and I asked to pass SB 2102 with the proposed amendments. Thank you and happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Thank you. Yes. We have Hawaii Farm Breau. Okay.

Not present. And we have Hawaii Sustainable Farms, Robert Vince.

Hello. This is Robert Vince. I was at I was on the hemp task force for the state, and I'm a member of the hemp feed coalition that got the layer feed approved. I disagree on 2178. That bill is fundamentally flawed in several ways, but I do support this bill. I would, approve this bill more if there was a thirty day timeline for the DAB livestock to approve or adopt federal regulations because it's been two years on the hemp seed, and we still can't sell it over here.

But the livestock, like, cows, the Kansas State research that could be also added on this bill, but we don't have to have anything with 2178.

That's a horrible bill. I'm here for any questions. Long time farmer.

Thank you. I still received support from two individuals. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? In person or on Zoom. Seeing none, oh, Hawaii Farm Bureau, would you like to take a testimony over on.

What do you say? Thank you, Chair. Hawaii Farm Bureau's testimony and support. Those got a little bit better.

Thanks. Alright. I'll see no other testifiers, members. Any questions on this measure?

I have one for Hawaii Farm Bureau. Thank you for your timely entry, sir. Question for you. The two testifiers before talked about that you can buy hemp seed at Costco for humans and possibly animal feed. And then reading Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity's testimony that it sounds like there's a very narrow focus on what's allowed for animal feed.

I mean, can you kinda walk me through? Are we missing out in Hawaii being able to produce kind of a triple net product, you know, of fiber feed and, apparently paper bags. Yeah. And, yeah, can you just can you just walk me through that?

Thank you, Vice Chair. For the record, Brian, I'm on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. We do have, I believe, they have coordinated in here, but I think that's been part of the problem. Because some of the regulations, some of the the, maybe, duplicate regulations, which limiting our hemp producers, hemp farmers, and hemp industry from from true growth and and some true impact here in Hawaii. Even the previous version of the bill had some requirements that you have to meet certain federal requirements.

And, again, credit to the previous committee that removed that to try to streamline and, again, encourage and incentivize hemp production. I think, some of the actions that we're and we understand that we need some oversight. We understand what the plant is capable of doing and what we're trying to avoid.

But that being said, we think that, we need to get better on what the true requirements are, what the true guardrails are so that we can actually allow our farmers to produce hemp and some of our manufacturers produce hemp as food, feed, and now fiber. And and yeah.

Food, feed, and fiber. We think there's a lot of application. Not to mention the, soil remediation and all the other benefits that that hemp production can grow again. It's a a crop that we would like to make available and more widespread to our farmers and ranchers without any true markets for it. That's really hard to to accomplish.

Okay. And and follow-up question, sir. Sorry. Like, does this bill address those issues that you're talking about as it is, or is it like, does it need a lot of those? Because we I think it was a paper company submitted substantial amendments in in their testimony and their their you know?

I didn't read their testimony Vice Chair, but I think it as a working document as it's going through, it's getting a little bit better with the input, and I think that's what we need from those that are, as I said, they removed some of the federal requirements. Even the requirement, I think there's still one on enforcement, but the associate of American fee control, that some of that language was removed in the previous bill or previous version.

So I think it's getting a little bit better where it's a little bit more, practical for producers, but I think, they're still based on some of the testimony, some work that needs to be done. But, again, we wanna make sure that there are those guardrails that the THC doesn't go too high where we're not producing hemp anymore, but also where it's not so burdensome that our farmers can't do it and our manufacturers can't utilize a a crop that we really wanna see, grow here in Hawaii.

Okay. Thank you. Can you hear me? One more question. Yeah.

Can I ask for a paper company?

Yeah.

I'm right up. Hopefully.

And and I know you put in a host of amendments, and I appreciate that moving it forward from and you're doing a test plot or something?

Yeah. So we actually just got a grant from the SAR, Western SAR, USDA program.

Okay.

So basically, we're we're we we already have two acres growing. We're gonna get a third acre, and this is to test if you grow hemp between the month of May, the month of June, and then, like, what the differences would be. So it's just kinda showing showing the remediation effects on the soil. And it also shows, like, the finished goods. So we're gonna take that material.

We're gonna process it into, like, animal bedding, for example, and then we're gonna be able to show, like, what is the unit economics around that. What does it cost from seed to finish? And kinda, like, what do you need in order for that to happen?

Okay. So you can grow hemp legally. I'm sorry. I'm not more versed in this field. You can grow hemp legally.

It's just providing markets within the state of Hawaii. Legal framework is the big issue here.

Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, essentially, we just don't have the infrastructure for the processing. So part of the thing with this grant that we got was we're able to get, like, a small decorticator, for example. With that decorticator, now we can process that into another material that can then be converted into other things. So we really are looking I mean, we originally had a couple other bills that we had that we presented, but they didn't make it through.

But, essentially, we kinda need to be able to to innovate and incentivize farmers to grow it. So this was like a subsidy act and innovation act that that we had that we had proposed, but it requires funding. And so I think with this bill, we wanted to get something passed as kind of, you know, just signaling that the hemp should move forward and then being able to have an application to take the hemp and immediately have, you know, money to to bring farmers.

Essentially, so a sales outlet for a product is what you're trying to create.

And so we wanna do that also with animal bedding, but those things don't really require any approval because you can it's just you. It's federally legal. So

Okay. Thank you. Cool. Thanks, Chair. Thank you. Alright.

Let's move on to the next measure. Next up, we have Senate Bill 2128t SD 2 relating to trespass. This measure provides that any firearm or motor vehicle possessed or used in a used by a person who hunts on private land without the permission of the owner or occupant of the land shall be forfeited to the state pursuant to chapter 712a HRS, authorizes a court to reduce the penalty from forfeiture to define a certain amount for a first offense.

First up, we have to testify to the attorney general, Mark Tom, DG's office.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom from the department. Department provides testimony with comments and suggested amendments for Senate Bill 2128, SD 2. Specifically, two amendments that we put in our testimony. First, restoring in 183D-5, sections 183D-26, to specify the penalty section for that charge.

Second is, in the Forfeiture Statute 712, it already authorizes on agriculture land forfeiture. If the intent of this bill is to authorize on private, nonagricultural land as well, which does occur, we did provide suggested amendments to that section to allow for forfeiture to encompass that area and that scope. Here for any questions.

Next, we have Lealoha Wakunani, Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Aloha mai kakou. Lealoha Wakunani on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. We are in opposition to this bill. I want to clarify that we do not support unlawful hunting on private lands. Our opposition is actually because of the implication for this to affect lawful native Hawaiian gathering rights on private lands. I'll note that the community concern here seems to be about private hunting or hunting on agricultural private lands.

So, I'm gonna emphasize, kind of going off of the Attorney General's comments, that there is already a provision, and that's in HR's Section 183D-5, Subsection D, that outlines the penalties for illegal hunting on private agricultural lands specific to agricultural lands. This includes the forfeiture provision, similar to what's in this bill.

So, our concern is that passing this bill would then extend similar penalties to hunting on all private lands, and that's where these native client gathering rights come into play under Article 12, Section 7, and HRS Subsection 1-1, Native Hawaiians have a right to gather that extended from kingdom era and pre contact. That extends to undeveloped private lands. So, agricultural lands would typically be considered developed, so they wouldn't apply to those types of rights.

Where undeveloped private lands, data points have a right to gather in those places. So, you, essentially, when trespass is at issue, how that would play out is important to understand. So, if there was a native Hawaiian gathering, hunting on some undeveloped private lands, they may receive a trespass charge. But they get the chance to assert their rights and their legal rights to do that at the adjudication stage, which is in court after they, they get there. Right?

So, the forfeiture position is what we are concerned about extending to all private lands where that could then cause undue burden to native Hawaiians who are legally practicing gathering rights and then potentially have their vehicle seized, up until that point where they get to assert their rights in court. And sometimes that could be months at a time and could cause other undue burdens to native Hawaiians in their daily life work and such. So, that is our main concern here.

So, we just wanted you to urge the committee to consider whether this bill is actually solving the problem that it's purported to or whether there is already a solution in place that just needs to be utilized. Mahalo for your time, and I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you. So, we have Hawaii Cattleman's Council.

Thank you, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Nicole Galase, testifying on behalf of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council. We support this bill, because trespassing, poaching, vandalism, these are all crimes that our ranchers are dealing with regularly. Our ranchers are often out in remote areas, and that's not a situation you wanna be in when you run into someone with a gun who doesn't have permission to be there. And in the past, there has not been enough to deter this behavior.

So, forfeiture of vehicles and guns is a meaningful penalty, and we believe it will help deter crimes. We also thank the previous committees for increasing the, the first offense fine from $750 to $2,000 to make that fine more meaningful. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next, we have Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, chair, vice chair, representative. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have our written testimony in support, similar to the Cattlemen's testimony. We view this as a deterrents. Ag crimes are so bad that the legislature created a program specific for ag crimes in Department of Law Enforcement.

In fact, we're looking for that if from a pilot to a a regular program. Again, it is the realm. This is not about hunters. We support hunters. We support law abiding hunters.

It's not about native Hawaiians. Again, this is about those that are intentionally trespassing with firearms to poach a lot of times and to hunt on our mostly ranch lands, but farmlands also. I don't think anybody would feel comfortable at their own private property with people coming on their lands with weapons. So, again, this is not about the hunting community. We support them.

We work—we have partnerships with them. We just wanna address those that are intentionally trespassing and damaging and sometimes threatening our farmers and ranchers, as evidenced by what happened a few years ago with, with...Again, we're just looking for deterrents. That's all. The, the problem's not going away, and we'd expect to see less incidences of potential interactions that we did see and that we have seen.

So, again, we're in support, of this measure as a deterrent for some of the problems that we continue to see on permanent or ranch lands. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next, we have Jay Franzone.

....our written testimony. Thank you, Chair.

Alright. Thank you. So, we received testimony in support from Rupalakua Ranch and a bunch of individuals. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

If you don't mind.

Yeah.

For the Attorney General, please. Thank you for your suggestions and coming in today. You know, listening to OHA and I had, I'm not an attorney, and I had a brief understanding of subsistence and culturally Hawaiian cultural rights to find subsistence hunting or gathering.

And so, I did some reading up on that to kind of understand the narrow definitions and what's considered developed property and all these things. Do you feel like this bill, and especially with your, you know, your amendments, kind of navigates that that issue? And then the other thing that came to mind to me was, does hunting with weapons, with guns, qualify as subsistence hunting? Is that a real broad category?

I mean, again, speaking from ignorance and not knowing the law in this, can you can you kinda walk us through that?

So, in regards to OHA's testimony, we'll have to review that to see how that interplays with the bill itself. But in the terms—in terms of the forfeiture portion and this bill, the department doesn't take a position. This is a policy decision by the legislature if they would like to implement forfeiture in these types of offenses. There is a list of included offenses in 712A in which forfeiture is authorized.

And so, this would purely be a decision by policy makers to decide, yes, for these types of offenses, we would like forfeiture to apply.

In terms of your question on the scope of the firearms as it relates to this, I'll have to follow-up and get back to you on that.

Okay. So, maybe my ignorance wasn't too ignorant. It sounds like it's a thorny issue.

Yeah. I just wanna make sure. It's just because it's not in our testimony, so I don't wanna hold tight on that without making sure that we're providing a 100% accurate information to you.

Okay. And then the next question, I think we settled it, but just reviewing that section, oops, I forgot where, defining a motor vehicle. That includes, like, quads, side by sides, those kinds of ATV vehicles. Correct?

I believe so. I'd have to check to see specifically if it covers the type of vehicles that you're intending. So, you're looking for quads?

Yeah. I mean, that because because, like, in my district in Hamakua, this is a huge issue, and it's mostly manifested by people, sometimes in pickups, but there's a lot of people on ATVs who can get through stuff or you can cut you know, you like you have a lot more mobility and range on an ATV. And so, that's the issue, you know, where, where I think the author of the bill is looking for some more bite, because you're gonna lose your quad, that hurts.

You know, it'll get around really fast. And, and on the other hand, we don't wanna, like, infringe on pulling cultural rights of subsistence gathering.

Got it. Understanding the type of vehicle you're looking, the only reason I'm, hesitant to say if it covers is because motor vehicle is defined in numerous sections. So, I would just wanna make sure to look at 286, which is the reference it's citing, and it covers the type of vehicle just because it's—motor vehicle is also defined in 291, 291C, 291E, and it sometimes varies.

So, if it's gonna cite to this and it's a specific type of vehicle, I wanna just make sure and I can follow-up with it.

Do you think you could check on your phone and let us know before the end?

I can try.

Thank you. Okay. Appreciate that.

You can use my phone if you need to. That's it. Thank you.

I feel like I've questioned a lot. Thanks for being here. So, I, you know, I, I reviewed your testimony, and I kinda understand the position. I'm just curious, so, how common is it is it for trespass, either citations or arrests for native clients who gather on, on, on private land?

I don't have an exact answer for, for that question about how often that happens. I don't know if that's something that's necessarily tracked, but we do, as office of point affairs, we have—we're kind of like a receptacle where people do come to us with those types of complaints. We generally refer them to, like, Native Hawaiian Legal Corp, but we do receive these types of inquiries fairly often, I would say, that they do happen.

I don't have a statistic on that, but it's something that occurs fairly often or regularly for native Hawaiians to be gathered in certain areas and get some sort of charge for being there. And then, we generally—someone like Native Hawaiian Legal will represent them and just help them go through that process.

Okay. Right.

And then, I do have an additional, if you have—because you asked him a question and one of them was about gun, whether guns apply.

Oh, please.

And that actually is something that just hasn't been decided, and it would be a Supreme Court issue to decide. It's one of those—it's, it hasn't been addressed yet. And the—what it is, is typically the, the, the rights, the type of gathering that was done. There are some things that have extended at this point where the exact tools they've used at that time are not the ones they're using now. So, it would be a question for the Supreme Court that it has not been addressed yet.

It makes me feel better about feeling ignorant. It is thorny. Yeah. Thank you. Alright.

Thank you. Okay. Let's move on to the last measure of this agenda. We have Senate bill 2360 SD one. HD one relating to state enterprise zones.

Hence, the definition of eligible business activity for the purposes of enterprise zone program to include certain retail sales, tangible personal property, processing of certain value added agricultural products, food and product innovation network, and provision of certain professional services by health care professionals. Taxable years beginning 12/31/2026 extends the eligibility period of the state business tax credit for qualified businesses within state enterprise zones. Beginning 01/01/2028 extends the eligibility period for the general excise tax exemption credit for the qualified businesses within state enterprise zones. It hasn't affected affected.

First up, to testify on this measure, we have .... biosecurity.

Thank you. Next, we have Dennis Ling, DBEDT.

The business development and support division with DBEDT stands in support.

Next, we have Mary Yokota, deputy attorney general.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, member of the committee. I'm Mary from the attorney general's office. We submitted written testimony providing comments about a concern regarding the definition of Hmong food and product innovation network under the commerce clause because the definition could be interpreted to favor local conducts and included, and we included our recommendations to address the concern. I did want to bring to your attention, however, that we have an additional recommendation for the same reason that we set forth in our written testimony. I apologize for not including it in our written testimony.

It has come to my attention that the new definition of value added agricultural product on page four lines seven through 12, of the bill may also be interpreted to favor local products by incorporating, quote, the criteria established for the seal of quality program managed by the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity pursuant to section one forty eight dash 63, of the Hawaii revised statutes.

The statute allows for the adoption of rule, and the rules are the ones that appear to require products to be produced in the state. Thus, deleting this phrase would address our concern. If there are any questions, I can try to address them. Thank you.

Next we have Department of Taxation.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Robert Avila on behalf of Tax. The department stands on its written testimony to provide comments and answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Wendy Ganey, Agribusiness Development Corporation. We have Dave Erdman, Retail Merchants of Hawaii. Present. Lauren Zirbel, Hawaii Food Industry Association on Zoom. Present. Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

The Hawaii Farm moves down on its written testimony in support.

Thank you. We have Tax Foundation of Hawaii, Tanya Machika on Zoom.

Aloha. Colleen Teramae for Tanya Machika. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii stands on its written comments. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. That's all I have for you to testify online on this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Sure.

Aloha chair, vice chair, member of the committee. My name is Matt Probert on behalf of ... Collaborative. I did submit written testimony. My apologies if I didn't click the box but I will double check with staff to make sure that the written testimony was received as well. Holenua Collaborative is a local nonprofit founded to advocate for policies that will help make Hawaii affordable so local residents do not have to move to

the continent. In a recent survey that we did, we found that 19% of 3,200 local residents found that Hawaii is not a good place to do business. Part of this is due to many outdated business support programs and laws that are on the books right now. The enterprise zone program founded in the late eighties, has been a wonderful boom for many different communities and many different industries. But one specific flaw in the program right now is that it was invented before the Internet.

And by being invented before the Internet to access the program, you are required to sell over 50% of your products directly to a distributor. Obviously, nowadays, many products that are manufactured are sold directly online and directly to consumer and the change in this bill will help address that. We stand in strong support and are available to answer any other questions you may have. Mahalo.

It's alright. Yeah. We did receive your testimony. Mahalo,. Thank you.

We also received testimony and support from Hawaii Force Association on a the Chamber of Commerce, oil free, plus policy, land use research foundation, and several individuals. Anybody else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none. Questions, members? I have a question for for Deepa.

So in your testimony for the so in your testimony, you're recommending that the the bill applies to after during the program after 07/01/2026?

Yes. So our our testimony was we don't is we recommend that there is no retroactivity for the companies who are either already in the program or have applied to the program because one of the the the items that this this measure seeks to change is the the term that companies are allowed to be within the program, which is seven to Max seven currently at seven years. And the bill, which is to take that up to nine years and then, ten years for, manufacturing, you know, agriculture.

Yeah. Alright. Yeah. I'll take care of that.

Thank you. Thanks. Okay. Seeing no other questions. We're gonna recess this agenda and open our 09:30 agenda.

Agenda. And I'm gonna turn over

at 09:30. We're gonna do a DM right after this. Sorry.

Okay. Emma, can you we'll just come up to the

Oh, okay. So I just wanted to let the committee know, just for motor vehicle, at least pursuant to two eighty six two. Motor vehicle means every vehicle which is self propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power, but which is not operated upon rails and it excludes mopeds.

So if the quads that you're talking about or the utility c is a vehicle that is self propelled and or which is propelled by electric power, I don't know what type of specifically how those vehicles are, but if it falls under that definition, it would come under two eighty six two, which is the way that motor vehicle is defined.

Thank you. That help. Yeah. That was super helpful. Thank you.

Came to the came same conclusion, but just wanted to make sure because it's not you know, it's Legalese, and we just wanna make sure the definition covered it.

You also have to refer to way down in that section for vehicles because that is also defined within motor vehicles. So just Thank thank you.

Appreciate that. Thank you, chair.

Alright. So we're recessing our 09:15 agenda and we're opening our 09:30 agenda. I'm gonna turn it over to my vice chair.

Hang on to your hats. Thank you, chair. Members, we're gonna go straight into the 9:30 agenda. We're gonna hear a couple of resolutions. First off, HCR 60, which is requesting the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity to convene a working group to improve consumer awareness of invasive plant species, reduce the spread of invasive species through plant sales, and create a comprehensive laboring framework that provides an indication of plant species invasiveness risk when sold in the state.

So, first up to testify in person is Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity.

Chairs, vice chair, Ryan Yerf, Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. We stand in support with intent with comments.

Thank you. Next up, we have Stephanie Easley of CGAPS, in person.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, representative. My name is Stephanie Easley with the coordinating group on alien pest species, here in strong support of HCR 60.

We think this is a great idea. Consumers often don't know that the plants they're purchasing are invasive. That can cause problems for their own yards, their communities, and the environment, their larger environment. You know, this, the labeling is not a replacement for regulation to actually prevent the sale of invasive plants. There is a bill that's still alive that would start to update the noxious weed list.

But even if that meets it through and is enacted, that will take a while to make rules to get started. So, having a program like this that could be implemented more quickly to let consumers know what address the problem. We also know that everyone thinks it's a great idea and wants to be included on this working group.

We, in our testimony, suggest adding a member of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council, who works with the weed risk assessment and the plant prona program day to day and is very familiar with the plants. CGAPS has a history of working with the plant prona program, trying to prevent the introduction of invasive plants.

And we also note that the Island Invasive Species Committees are the boots on the ground who are out there doing the control programs for invasive plants that are currently for sale. So, they would be a valuable member of the group as well.

Thank you for listening to my testimony. I'm here if you have any questions, Mahalo.

Thank you. Next up, we have Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, vice chair, chair...Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of Hawaii Farm Bureau. We'll stand on our written testimony in support with additional comment that we commend the introducer of this bill and their leadership in this era. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I'll quickly set. Thank you. There was one other comment and two more in support. So, total of five support, 10 in opposition, and one comment. Members, is there any questions?

Oh, sorry. Sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't ask if there's anybody else.

Thank you. I apologize. Our, our leadership, took a, a long time to, to get my testimony approved, so, therefore, it is late, very late. But my name is Patrick Chee, the Department of Land and Natural Resources, and the Hawaii Invasive Species Council.

This is our testimony in support of this resolution and offering the additional comments that the department would suggest that the resolution add on the department as a member of the working group, as well as other members of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council, should they be interested in adding their voice to the conversation.

I would say that, like the Department of Transportation would, would definitely be a good addition to this since, they have a lot of plantings along, their various areas. So, in any case, if you have any questions, we're available for, for questions. Thanks.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in person who would like to testify on this resolution? On Zoom? Okay. Members, questions? Okay.

Okay, seeing none. We're gonna go on to HCR 144 and HR 136. This is—those are requesting the certain state and county agencies in coordination with community-based organizations to develop a comprehensive statewide food security strategy. Okay. We had 12 in support, zero in opposition, one with comments. First up is Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, in person.

Okay, thank you.

And we have Daintree Bartoldus from Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities, in support, in person. Not present. Next, we have Wendy Gady from Agribusiness Development Corporation in person. Not present. Lauren Loor from Hawaii Public Health Institute on Zoom.

Aloha. Just the Hawaii Public Health Institute and the Healthy Eating Active Living Coalition strongly support. And this is an important step towards coordinated statewide food security strategy. Definitely strengthening local food systems, improving access to healthy and culturally appropriate foods, and addressing disparities across communities. So, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Amanda Shaw from Agriculture Stewardship Hawaii, on Zoom.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Amanda Shaw, Agriculture Stewardship of Hawaii. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in this resolution. We strongly support this. Right now, the state does not have any strategy or goals to reduce hunger or food insecurity, and yet one in three households, by the last count that the food bank did through their survey, shows that folks are hungry or food insecure.

So, this is a critically important issue. And we see this resolution as one step for folks to start, you know, building a strategy and coordinating. And we think this might be something that the Act 239 Statewide Food Systems Coordination Group could support with. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.

Thank you. Next up, we have Brian Miyamoto from Hawaii Farm Bureau, in person.

Thank you, vice chair, chair, representative. Brian Miyamoto on behalf of Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have our brief written testimony in support. Our comment is we, we don't see any lead or any identified chair in this resolution. It's asking for a lot of good things, ask for a lot of coordination, got a lot of groups listed, however, nobody's in charge of this particular effort.

So, we would recommend that somebody be identified as a lead so that they can coordinate this effort so that we can accomplish or hopefully accomplish some of the goals that's laid out in this resolution. Other than that, we are in support. Farm strong.

Thank you. Next, we have Kim Wasal-Hardy, just as an individual, on Zoom.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify in strong support of HCR 144. My name is Kim Wassal-Hardy. I am an urban agroecology consultant and a community organizer here on Oahu. I'm here on behalf of everyone in Hawaii who eats.

Hawaii is a, is facing a daily crisis of food insecurity, one is that is often invisible and deeply felt across our islands. The truth is we are all food insecure because we rely on an import dependent system that is increasingly vulnerable to disruption, as recent flooding has shown. In times of crisis, it is our neighbors and grassroots networks who respond first. They are not peripheral. They are the backbone of food security.

We must expand how we define food security to not just about how many pounds of food that we produce and distribute, but about investing in social infrastructure that ensures food reaches people in ways that are accessible, dignified, and resilient. To truly end hunger, we must act as one statewide community. Food insecurity does not stop at county lines and neither should our solutions. A coordinated approach ensures resources and support reach those who need them most. Hawaii is not lacking in food.

We are lacking equity and access. Framing food as a right, not a commodity. We create space for cross sector solutions that go beyond agriculture or charity alone. HCR 144 is an opportunity to align the government with the communities already leading this work and to build a resilient community driven path towards zero. I respectfully urge your support. Mahalo for your time, and I'm here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you for testimony. That's all the people we have listed. Is there anybody in person who'd like to testify on this? On Zoom? Members, questions? Okay.

Do you wanna take a quick recess before we DM? Okay. Recess.

Recess.

Okay. I got through. We're convening our 09:30 agenda for decision making.

Thank you. Thank you, chair. Yes. As he said, as chair said, we're reconvening for our 09:30 decision making, starting off with HCR 60. We're gonna be making some amendments to this, following up with the suggested amendments from testimony, or we'll be adding Hawaii Invasive Species Council and the Landscape Industry Council of Hawaii and Kinda consolidating others, other technical amendments as necessary.

Members, are there any questions? Seeing none, go ahead, chair, for the vote.

Alright. Members are voting on HCR 60. Recommendation of the chairs to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote aye. Representative Kahlo? Aye. Representative Lowen? Aye. Representative Russo is excused. Representative Quinlan is excused. Representative Matsumoto is excused. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up, we're gonna be voting on HCR 144 and HR 136. So I appreciate the author on this. There was lots of great information and good testimony on this. There's some technical changes will be made, getting to kinda consolidate items and taking testimony to provide a point person who is gonna head up this strategy, and that's gonna be the Department of Ag.

I'm thankful he just left, so he doesn't know that. So the Department of Agriculture Biosecurity will be heading up the as a lead designee designee, and then working with a coalition of participants. And then on page two, we will be consolidating some of those strategic goals because they are duplicative.

And then on page three, we will be adding in DBEDT's testimony where it aligns the strategies with the findings of act one fifty one from 2019, act one seventy five of 2021, and act one seventy six of 2021. So those prior acts, around food strategy aligned with this these goals.

And then, we're gonna change the reporting day because this is a lot of information, and I think, six months is not enough to pull it off. So we'll be changing that the report is due twenty days before the legislature in 2028 instead of 2027. Is there any questions from the members? Okay. Seeing none vice or chair for the vote.

Alright. Members, you're voting on HCR 144 and HR 136. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any excused absences of representatives Peruso, Quinlan, and Matsumoto. Are there any Agenda.

And first up on that agenda, we have Senate Bill 2110 SD one relating to agriculture. Recommendation of the chair is you're going to pass out a house draft one. And what we're gonna do is on page five, we're gonna incorporate their requirement to update the program procedures in subsection b six into the three year reporting requirement in subsection e. So I'm kinda combining it so it's not redundant. And we defect the date to 07/01/3000 and technical needs, if any. Any questions, comments, or concerns, members? Seeing none. Vice chair for the vote for Aye.

Thank you, chair. Voting on SB 2110 s t one. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair voting aye. Representative Kahlo? Aye. Traumatic pause. Represent Chair Loewen? Aye. Okay. Noting the excused absence of representative Peruso, Quinlan, and Matsumoto, chair recommendation is adopted.

Right. Thank you, members.

Oh, sorry. I thought we were on a different agenda. I'm like, oh,

There's a lot going on.

it's okay.

2110.

Okay. Two hsp 2110 SD one, same recommendation. Noting reps Quinlan, Matsumoto, and Peruso excused. Are there any notes or reservations? Seeing none, recommendation.

Alright. And next up on this agenda on the 9:00 we have Senate bill 2100 SD2 relating to pesticides. Numbers for this measure, I wanna keep it moving further just for further discussion. And so I wanna pass out of House Draft One. And what we're gonna do is we're gonna remove sections two and three and amend the appropriation to reflect those changes.

I really think setting up in the online reporting program should be the priority. Wanna make sure that's done in a way that everyone can use it and is actually usable. And so we're also gonna redefect the date to 07/01/3000 and technical amendments. If any. So questions, comments, or concerns, Members? Seeing none. Vice chair.

Thank you, Chair. Chair's recommended this voting on SB 2100 SD2. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. [ROLL CALL] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Alright. EEP, same recommendation, noting the same members, recommendation adopted. Unless anyone wants to change their vote. Okay.

Okay. Let's move on to our 09:15 agenda. First up on our 09:15 agenda we have

It'll have to be possible.

We have Senate Bill 874 SD2 relating to vendor medicine. Recommendation of Chairs, we're just gonna pass out a House Draft One and just redefect the date to 07/01/2000. Comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB 874 SD2. Chair's recommendation is pass with amendments. [ROLL CALL] and any subsequent votes unless that changes, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Great. Thank you. So we have Senate Bill 2102 SD2 relating to industrial health. We're gonna keep this moving and pass out of House Draft One, and we're just gonna be defective date to 07/01/3000. Any comments, questions? Seeing none, Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB 2102 SD2. Chair's recommendation is passed with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Is there any reservations or nays? Seeing none, Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Thank you, Members. Next up, we have Senate bill 2128 SD2 related to trespass. So the recommendation of the Chair is we're gonna pass a House Draft One. We're going to take the AG's recommended amendments by moving the new provisions to the penalties portion of the chapter.

We're also gonna change the provision relating to the first offense from allowing the court to assess the fine instead of forfeiture to making the first offense a fine, followed by forfeiture for the next subsequent offense. So that forfeiture is the primary. And then we're gonna re defect the date to 07/01/3000 and any technical needs. Any questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none, Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB 2128 SD2. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments, Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Is there any reservations or nays? Seeing none, Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. And next is Senate Bill 2360 SD1 HD1 relating to state enterprise zones. So we're going, the recommendation's, we're gonna pass a House Draft One, and we're going to incorporate the DBEDT recommendation, which was having everything apply prospectively from 07/01/2026. And I do wanna note the concerns raised by the Attorney General's office in the community report. And should the Committee on Judiciary and the Hawaiian Affairs take up this measure to consider that.

And also, we defect the date to 07/01/3000. Any questions, comments, or concerns, Members? Seeing none. Vice chair.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB 2360 SD1 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair voting aye. Is there any reservations or nay? Seeing none, Chair your recommendation is adopted.

All right. We are adjourned. Thank you.