House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone, to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Wednesday, April 1. No fooling.

Oh, hi.

That helps. Laughter really does help, you know. Appreciate it. This place gets so serious and everyone gets grumpy and salty and Thank you. Bye bye.

Yes. Today is Wednesday, 04/01/2026. It's 2PM here in Conference Room 325. My name is David Tarnas. I'm chair of the committee.

Our wonderful Vice Chair, Nina Poepoe, is here and our

Veteran Member, always here on time, representative. Thank you very much. And all the members are watching from their offices and will join us presently. We're here for the purposes of hearing numerous bills. But before I get started, just to say, if you're gonna testify, could you keep your testimony to about two minutes?

I'll ask you to summarize at that point. If you're testifying by Zoom, please keep your microphone off and your camera off until you testify and turn it on for your testimonies. Turn it off afterward.

If you have issues or technical issues, it's okay to use the message function, the chat function to contact our IT staff, and they're super smart, and they can help if at all possible. And and if you get cut off for some reason on your end, try to rejoin, and I'll let you finish. And if time permits when you rejoin, please don't use any copyrighted images or trademark images on your background for your Zoom call because that bumps us off at YouTube, and we don't want that.

When you come up to testify, please use the Rashtraum here and just speak normally. The microphones in the ceiling will pick it up, and so you should be just fine.

But microphones are very sensitive, so they will also pick up side conversations between your neighbor or where you're seated. So if you could keep those conversations to a minimum, that would be great. And as usual, Adeno, conduct yourself with aloha, please. Okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable, please. I think it really doesn't help anybody if we get crumpy with each other.

With that, let's go ahead and get started. Senate bill three three two two, senate draft two, house draft one, relating to law enforcement. This measure by 07/01/2027 requires each law enforcement agency operating in the state to establish and publicly post a written policy regarding the use of facial coverings, visibility of badges, and conspicuous marking of law enforcement vehicles and civil immigration enforcement, including procedures governing a law enforcement officer's authority to make an inquiry into a person's civil immigration status.

The bill prohibits law enforcement officers from initiating or prolonging a stop, detention, or arrest to determine a person's civil immigration status with certain exemptions for reasonable suspicion. It establishes as a policy of the Department of Law Enforcement that civil immigration activity involving state or county participation or facility shall only proceed under certain conditions.

It also establishes criminal offenses for improper facial coverings and lack of bit lack of visible identification and unauthorized civil immigration, interrogation, arrest, or detention. First up, we have the office of the public defender, miss Hailey Chang. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Committee Members. Haley Chang from the Office of the Public Defender. Our office stands in strong support of this measure As we have been testifying all session long on measures similar to this one, we believe transparency in law enforcement is critical for our community members. What is going on nationally is frightening and creates fear and skeptic skepticism amongst our community with our local law enforcement, and I think this measure addresses that.

Transparency, visibility, all of those things that this bill addresses are critical.

We also want to say that we stand in strong support of the prevention of prolonged stops and improper status inquiries for people, beyond what should be established by reasonable suspicion. So I will be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Liza Ryan Gill, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members

of the Committee. Liza Ryan Gill with Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. We represent about 30 immigrant serving organizations across the Pai'aina. And I just wanna share a few very recent examples that help, bring some context as why we wanna see bills like this going forward. Just this morning, I was running at Ala Moana Beach Park, and I saw a white truck.

Fortunately, it had markings on the side. It was US Customs and Border Protection. And I was like, oh, I've never Seen Border Patrol in a truck that looks like that. And so I took a quick picture, and then I referenced it. And I was like, oh, they're actually just doing customs work and everything.

No. That's me who grew up in a border town who saw border patrol every single day. Recently, we had our national guard, Hawaii State National Guard, in Humvees rolling up through Kalihi. And I was we were getting multiple questions from the community asking, who is this? How do we know who they are?

Like, what should we should be doing in this context? And even, since then, we've had the Kona Lo, and we have numerous farmers, Southeast Asian farmers working out in Waialua, green card holders that are afraid to have folks come to their doors, come out and and receive help because they're concerned because are there agents here? It's a really, really tough time. And the more transparency that we can provide as to our local police and our local law enforcement, They're identifiable. You see their face.

Maybe you know their cousin. You can see their ID. You know who that person is. And you also have the background to know that they are just there to do their job. They are separate from the Federal Government.

The Federal Government is allowed to do their work. But when they are here, they will look like something different. And I think that is really, really important. We forget this is a high information context we are in here. A lot of people exist in very low information context, so they are not necessarily even getting an alert to tell them that the dam might be failing, much less being able to know what all these different agencies look like.

And then you add on top of that the fact that Department of Homeland Security has been pulling in lots of different federal agencies to also do civil immigration work. It's really important that we make it very, very clear. Everybody has a job to do.

They should do that job, but we're not doing each other's job, and we should be clear and be able to see who it is who's doing that so that we can maintain our own personal trust regardless of what the federal government is doing. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next, Kat Brady in support, not present. Next, Chris Cophill, AMOA Alliance in support. Not present. Next, Mandy Fernandez, ACLU.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair, Poepoe, Committee Members. My name is Salmah Rizvi. I'm here standing for Randy Fernandez. I'm the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii representing more than 4,000 card carrying members in our state. We stand in strong written support of SB3322.

We also note that one of the clearest warning signs of authoritarianism's rise is anonymous law enforcement. Across the continent and here in Hawaii, federal immigration enforcement has been conducted by agents who are masked and plain clothes, unmarked vehicles, and without visible identification. And some masked agents have been filmed using lethal force both against US protesters and against immigrants. Over the past year, federal immigration authorities with masks on their face have detained more than 3,800 children.

When law enforcement obscures its identity, especially in life or death encounters or interactions with children, fear becomes indistinguishable from terror.

And the FBI has warned that criminals are exploiting ICE's lack of identification to impersonate officers and commit robbery, kidnapping, and sexual assaults. Accordingly, the practice of masking law enforcement traumatizes our residents, erodes trust in law enforcement, and undermines public safety. This bill affirms that here in Hawaii authoritarian like enforcement tactics that hide identity, erode accountability, and endanger the public will not be normalized. Furthermore, The US constitution's fourth amendment and the Hawaii state's constitution article one section seven prohibits unlawful searches including prolonged stops by law enforcement.

Yet we are seeing dangerous constitutional erosions by police, particularly following US Supreme Court justice Kavanaugh's opinion in which he allowed race to be a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis.

We do not want this racism occurring here. We need to pass laws so black and brown bodies are not unnecessarily targeted and targeted and harassed due to their skin color. Accordingly, this bill is not just about immigration. It is more so about protecting community safety, psychological welfare, our local culture, the rule of law, and most importantly, due process. While we stand in support of SB 3322 we believe HB 1886 remains the strongest vehicle for pushing forward these protections.

Still, we urge you to pass we urge you to consider passing either ledger. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Next, Abby Simmons on Zoom. Could you please unmute yourself, Abby?

My apologies. Thank you. Thank you, chair. And aloha to Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee, Abby Simmons, Stonewall Caucus, Democratic Party of Hawaii, in strong support of the bill. Just a few comments, generally stand on our written testimony.

But I think that we all remember what happened to Alex Petty and Renee Goode, and we cannot normalize that in our society of laws, of rules and laws. And having masked agents commit crimes makes it a lot harder to hold them accountable in the court of law. So it's very important that we make sure that law enforcement agents or any agency of the federal government, follows the law, I'd clearly identify themselves with their badge and does not wear a mask.

Further, we're really concerned about the upcoming election and masked agents appearing at polling stations. That should be a concern for all of us regarding regardless of party affiliation.

And so it is very important that we move this bill forward, and I ask for your leadership, to support this bill. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next, Nate Hicks, Hawaii Public Health Institute. Welcome, Sir.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Nate Hicks, Hawaii Public Health with Hawaii Public Health Institute in support. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in this bill. We've seen a lot of the damage that's been done to many communities around the nation. I'm from Minnesota originally, and I have a lot

of friends and family who've been traumatized by the situation up there. And so I just wanna say that taking any step we can to make a more safe experience for all of our residents, not just our immigrants, but for our citizens. I know folks who have avoided certain areas who are born in America are not the target group, but want to make sure that they're not put in a dangerous situation.

And so making it safe for everybody, I think is a win across the board in the hall.

Thank you very much. Thanks. Next, Tim Pike in support. Not present. Next, Christine Andrews on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I will stand on my written testimony. I just like to reiterate that, I am a constitutional observer here on Maui as part of the Eppa Maui Coalition. And I do live in fear. I when I am home, my curtains are drawn.

My doors are locked because unmasked agents have shot and killed people like me engaged in our First Amendment rights and have not been held accountable. They have not even been identified in the state of Minnesota. They are actually suing the federal government for obstruction in the investigation into the murders of Renee Goode and Alex Prudy.

So making sure that our law enforcement protects our communities and our communities feel safe in depending upon law enforcement to protect them as victims of crime is an important value I think that we all can hold here. So thank you again for supporting this bill, and I'm available for any comments.

Thank you very much. Next, Michael Golojuch on Zoom.

Good good afternoon, Mike. Good afternoon. Michael Golojuch Junior. He/him pronouns, president of Pride at Work Hawaii. We stand in strong support of this measure, as so do so many of our fellow citizens as we saw over this past weekend when we all took to the streets in the largest American protest in US history against these actions that we have seen.

ICE is a terrorist organization and stop. We have seen them terrorize, our average people on the side of the roads. They've been kidnapping people. And that is what you that is what it is called when you take people with you don't have a judicial warrant. They storm people's houses, businesses, taking people from courts, and they do it under the guys with with masks over their faces, so we don't know who they are who they are.

As my grandma told me growing up, when someone wears a mask and they're doing something, they're doing something they shouldn't be doing. And so, take grandma Martinez at her word. I always did. I trusted her. I ask you to trust her as well and pass this bill.

We need to keep these armed vigilantes, in check and make sure that we know who they are. They need to be able to identify themselves. We need to know that they are actual law enforcement officers and being able and having their faces uncovered while they're using taxpayer dollars is the minimum we can expect from law enforcement. So we encourage you to pass this bill, protect us all from this fascist administration.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Senate Bill 3322. If not, questions, Members?

Seeing none. Thank you very much. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 2090 House Draft One relating to child custody. This measure allows licensed mental health counselors to be appointed as child custody evaluators.

Members, we received two testimonies in writing in support. I don't have I've not been informed that anyone wants to testify in person. Is anyone here wishing to testify in Senate Bill 2090? Is Austin Pineappears on Zoom? No.

Okay. Nobody here to testify on that? Okay. Let's let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 2108 Senate Draft One, House Draft One related to jurisdiction.

This measure amends the factors the family court is required to consider in deciding whether the court may waive jurisdiction over a minor held for criminal proceedings. It preserves the family court's jurisdiction over a minor transferred for criminal proceedings for subsequent acts that would otherwise be within the family court's jurisdiction.

It requires the family court to retain jurisdiction over a minor if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the minor was trafficked, sexually abused, or raped by the alleged victim in the case before or during the commission of the alleged offense. First up, we have Office of the Public Defender. Miss Chang, welcome.

And good afternoon again. The Office of the Public Defender stands in strong support of this measure. As the preamble to the bill indicates, and as we've seen in practice, over seventy percent of juveniles in the system have suffered emotional or physical abuse, and another 45 percent have been victims of sexual abuse. Our office has a juvenile division that is devoted to representing juveniles in the criminal system. And, of course, I myself have spent a significant time in my career representing juveniles as well.

So aside from what the studies can can show, I can anecdotally say that this could not be further from the truth. Why this measure is important is it re does require the court to con consider additional information when we are making a decision to waive someone into adult court because that's exactly what this procedure is contemplating. When somebody gets waived into adult courts, there is there is no special treatment. We have juvenile offenders who get committed to O triple c with the adults.

We there's no special breaks.

So they are treated just like adults when they are not. And I think this measure is responsive to the trauma, the abuse that a lot of these children suffer from, and that that is something that the court should consider before we put them in the criminal system with 30 year olds, 40 year olds, 50 year olds, and sentence them accordingly. So thank you for the opportunity to comment. I will be available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next, Teresa Komunos, human rights for kids on Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas and Members of the Committee. Teresa Komunos on behalf of Human Rights for Kids in support of SB 2108.

We're here today because this measure would ensure that a child's lived experience is considered by the court before a case can be waived into adult criminal court by a debt, adding those additional factors for courts to consider at a waiver hearing that would allow the court to look at a child's full experiences more extensively and in a trauma informed way before making such an important jurisdictional decision.

In addition to the provisions outlined in this measure, we would also encourage the committee to adopt an amendment to ensure that only children 14 years of age or older may be waived into adult court. One specific section of HRS five seventy one twenty two, section d, there's no minimum age requirement for a child to be waived into adult court, meaning that 12 and 13 year old children could be subject to waiver and prosecuted as adults.

To put this into context, these are elementary and middle school age children. Several other states have set a minimum age of 14 years old regardless of the crime charge before a child may be prosecuted as an adult even for the most serious offenses. These include states like Utah, New Mexico, North Dakota, Arkansas, Louisiana. There's several others. Additionally, Connecticut, California, Oregon, all have set to 15 as this minimum.

So we urge the committee to add that necessary language to establish that a child must be 14 years of age or older before being waived into adult court. Research by human rights for kids has shown that nationally more than seventy percent of children tried as adults experienced both physical and emotional abuse prior to their offense, and another forty five percent experienced sexual abuse. The average ACE score was 6.31 out of 10, and the average onset age of abuse was six years old.

Further, approximately thirty percent of the people we surveyed who were tried as adults for crimes they committed as children were trafficking.

So this type of trauma impacts a child's brain development, particularly the prefrontal cortex, which means that beyond what we already understand about developing adolescent brains, for kids who've experienced significant trauma in their home community, their brain development has been further impacted in a way that influences behavior and decision making, which is why it's so important that courts consider this information and ensure that children have a robust evidentiary hearing that evaluates all of these factors before they're prosecuted as an adult.

It's for these reasons that we would support this, so thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, questions, members?

Question, Derek. Public defender, am I able to ask the question? You know the, thank you. Yeah. Thank you, chair.

The the previous, testifier just mentioned the age, 14, setting up a minimum. I I guess I'm trying to wrap my brain around that if that's a a better, provision than just no age limit. Would you comment on that?

I would absolutely support having a limit or a man a minimum age for someone could be considered waived into adult court. The reason is when we are talking about below 14, we're talking about 13 year olds, 12 year olds, 11 year olds, and we have juveniles that have been arrested and brought into the system. At least our office can say as young as three years old.

Tried as as an adult?

Not necessarily tried as an adult, but these are the individuals that could potentially be tried as an adult because they are brought into the criminal system. And, again, I think the testifier who's after me, who maybe is more of an expert in this area, could talk about I mean, there's a lot of scientific research that talks about the development of the brain, maturity levels, etcetera.

And really, like we said, when you are brought into an adult court, the response to you and your rehabilitation and how you're treated is drastically different than what is available in juvenile court. And I could go into the details of that, but it's just very different.

So so I'm hearing that it is a benefit to set a minimum each?

Yes. Our position would be yes. Thank you. Thank you.

Other questions, members?

Sure. Yes. Sorry. Good enough. Yeah. Thank you for being here, Haley.

So and I I am in support of this, but I'm thinking along the lines about, you know, a child create commit something pretty horrific, and there is a background to the effect of the trauma and and the life that the child has lived that led to it.

But where is there a line drawn to the point of the the, seriousness of the crime versus, you know, regardless of the trauma and what the child had gone through, there's a certain point where maybe they know right from wrong, but, you know, so when will they be held accountable, I guess, to what they had committed?

And thank you for the question. I think what's important is what this measure outlines is additional factors the court to consider, not the only factor. Currently, there are multiple factors as outlined in the measure, and one of them is the seriousness of the offense. Another is the impact to the victims. Another is if physical or bodily harm, was caused.

So the court currently has the ability and must, as mandated by our statute, consider those making a decision to waive. What this measure does though is add additional requirements for the court to consider, but, again, it's just a factor. It is not it doesn't dictate the outcome with the exception that if it there is clear and convincing evidence that the juvenile was a victim of the alleged victim in the crime, then they're they they shall not be waived.

But short of that, it is just one factor that the court should consider. And it will it's a balancing test as it always is when the court is required to consider multiple factors in the decision making. And share one follow-up?

And so as, you know, children are are impressionable at young ages, so do you find or has there been occurrence? I mean, the child now tried as an adult, gets into a a adult environment in the the prison system itself. What kind of adverse effects is that for a child that's still developing, you know, of sorts? Right.

Of course.

And I think you can, you know, sort of make the logical conclusion of adult facilities are not meant to deal with juveniles. And in fact, our adult system is not meant to deal with juveniles. For example, even if you get, you know, an adult sentence and you're not given prison time if you're put on probation, that will be with the adult probation team, and that is not set up or designed to address juvenile needs. That is our position.

The the resources, the energy, the personnel who works with our juvenile team, we have a whole branch that's devoted to the juveniles.

They have their own specialty courts. They have their own judges. They have their own resources, their own treatment programs. All of that is not carried over into the adult system. So there are far reaching consequences, and what this measure does is just appropriately consider, you know, where this juvenile came from, what drew him in or her into the system, and that as it's spelled correctly, recognizes as well its adult influences, and that can be significant more times than not.

Again, thank you for your expertise in the field. No.

Thank you. Thank you for the opportunities. Thank you, Sir.

Thank you. Okay. Let—if there's no other questions, we'll move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 2325 relating to juvenile offenders. This measure authorizes the court to modify sentences imposed on juvenile offenders if certain conditions are met, and the court finds that after considering certain factors, the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any person or the community, and the modification is in the interest of justice.

The measure establishes procedures, provides for hearings and representation by counsel, and authorizes appellate review. First up, we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support. Not present. Next, we have Office of the Public Defender in support. Grateful you're here, miss.

Good afternoon, again. The Office of the Public Defender supports the intent of this measure. We are always gonna be supportive of look back opportunities as people change and rehabilitate and evolve, especially in the custodial setting. One of the things that we do just wanna highlight for this committee's consideration is our current sentencing scheme. There really is no way to modify a sentence under our current sentencing scheme without going back and resentencing them to a new sentence.

And I don't know if that makes sense. But for example, if you get prison sentence for a Class B felony under our certain sentencing scheme, under our current sentencing scheme, you must get the open ten-year term of incarceration. The paroling authority will decide how much of that you must serve before you can be released on parole, but there's no mechanism in the law to modify that sentence. It just is these indeterminate open terms for classifications of offenses.

So, while we appreciate and want to support look back provisions, under what is currently allowed in terms of sentencing, there's really no way to modify or adjust a sentence.

There is a minor exception if someone was given an extended sentence, where their sentence was extended from five to ten years or ten to twenty years for certain things. You could maybe modify that to undo the extended portion of their sentence. But short of that, there's no meaningful way, under our current sentencing structure, to modify a sentence. So, in practicality, we're not sure how this, if the bill were passed, how it would work, if that makes sense.

And I can answer more questions if the committee has any. Thank you.

Oh, it's, it's, it's a hard one.

Yeah.

Okay. Next, the Judiciary. Jen Along. Welcome to being here.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Jennifer Along. I'm the Staff Attorney for the Criminal Divisions and Judiciary Administration. Similar to the Office of the Public Defender, the Judiciary supports the intent of this legislation, and we have provided record detailed comments in our written testimony regarding the issues that we feel that if this bill were to pass as is, we would not—it would not effectuate the intent of the measure.

Essentially, to truly intent—implement—the intent of this measure, it, it would require a statutory framework necessary to replace indeterminate term sentencing for juveniles, for some alternative in actually section two of this proposed bill.

And then on top of that, it would also require some revisions to the parole provisions of 7066967. Again, similar to what Ms. Chang said, the state of Hawaii currently has a true indeterminate sentencing scheme. We are the only state in the nation that has it. We really—the judges really do not have much discretion in terms of sentencing when it, especially when it comes to A felonies, murder, and attempted murder. It is the open term, and that is all it is.

So, therefore, having this look back provision would basically there'd be nothing for the judge to alternate, alternate the sentence to, or reduce the sentence to. There is a provision. I was asked about this earlier. There is a provision that was passed last year. However, that provision only permits the judge to reduce what is either a mandatory minimum based on the offense that was charged.

So, meth trafficking, for instance, has a mandatory minimum sentence of anywhere from two to eight years. So, we could reduce that for a juvenile or based on the type that—what happens with the offense. So, if the victim of the offense was over 60, for example, there is a mandatory minimum that goes along with that. And under the provision that was passed last year for juveniles, the court is permitted to reduce that mandatory minimum, but the sentence remains the same.

It would still be the open 20 if it's an A felony.

It would just—they wouldn't get the full mandatory minimum. So, again, under this Hawaii statutory scheme, the actual time a person spends in custody will be determined by the Hawaii parole authority.

And, therefore, they may be the better entity to for this to be directed to, especially when you consider, the really importance of finality of judgments, where a judgment has already been and a sentence has already been issued by a court that has considered certain factors that has—the court has considered whether or not to even waive the family court has decided to waive this juvenile in the first place. That has already been decided.

There's been an appeal, and, and there's other processes, and the victims have relied on these sentences.

So, leaving the sentence to a particular thing and having the HPA kind of make these types of determinations at twelve years or in the future may be a better fit in order to establish those penalties efforts. I am available for any questions.

Thank you. And I appreciate your detailed testimony. Next, Teresa Kominos, Human Rights for Kids, on Zoom.

Good afternoon, again. Teresa Kominos on behalf of Human Rights for Kids, in support of SB 2325. Starting in 2005, the Supreme Court, in a series of decisions, established that children are constitutionally different from adults for the purposes of sentencing under the eighth amendment and must be treated as such. One way this has been effectuated by individual states is to afford people a meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation, is the basis for this bill the intent behind it.

But we understand that there has been some conversation about kind of the technical language. So, we would ask that the committee consider an amendment to Section 1 of the proposed measure to clarify the authority of judges to reduce the sentence of incarceration, despite any mandatory sentencing framework that currently exists in the statute. Our proposed changes were included in our written testimony. I'd be happy to answer any further questions about that specific language.

But the intent really is to ensure that you, that judicial discretion to impose or reduce sentence is clear despite Hawaii's indeterminate sentencing structure by highlighting the specific provisions of the statute and giving courts clear authority to deviate from that framework.

Because what we know about adolescent brain development is that the area of the brain responsible for reasoned decision making is not fully developed in children, and this is especially true for children with severe trauma histories whose development has been further impaired. But because the area of the brain responsible for reasoning judgment is still developing in young people, any criminal behavior is likely a reflection of transient immaturity, making children more amenable to rehabilitation than adults. And that's why laws like this are so important.

This measure doesn't guarantee release but allows judges to take a second look at a person's sentence and reevaluate if it's still the most appropriate, given all the specific factors, including looking closely at a person's background and all of the factors pertaining to the development of youth. I'll just say one last thing.

I understand that there's concerns about the integrity of sentencing and the finality of sentencing, but many other states have used similar judicial review mechanisms despite that, as a way to address the constitutionality of extreme sentencing for children. And these include North Dakota, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Nicola Novel-Jurist, Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth. Not present. Jose Burgos, Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth. Yes.

Thank you, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Jose Burgos, Policy Advocate at the Campaign for the Fair of Sentencing of Youth, here in support of SB 2325. CFSY is an organization that works around the country to end to help it end extreme sentencing for children. And I submitted a written testimony. Just paraphrasing real quick.

This, this, this work for me, this bill is actually personal. I was—I am not only a Policy Advocate with CFSY, but I was also a formerly incarcerated child who served twenty-seven years from the age of 16 to 43 on a life without parole sentence. So, I understand what it is to be a child and be sent to prison and be told that, you know, you'll never amount to nothing. This bill is not a get out of jail free card.

Just like myself, there was checks and balances.

I had to go in front of a judge and prove that I was worthy of release. I had to go in front of the parole board and prove that I was worthy of release. And I think this bill will do the same. So, we support SB 2225. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members?

Question, chair.

Yep. Rep. Shimizu.

For, for Mr. Burgos, who just testified.

Yes.

Your situation, was it in the state of Hawaii?

No, sir. I am in the state of Michigan.

Okay. I just wanted to set that straight. Thank you.

Okay.

Other questions, members?

Chair.

Yep. Rep. Cochran.

For Ms. Along. Thank you, Staff Attorney for Second Court Circuit Court.

I thank you for being here and your detailed testimony. Also, I'm trying to, understand the portion, in the bill, and I believe you speak to it, I believe or sorry, it wasn't public defender. The, the minimum certificate of twelve years, but, I mean, I'm figuring, so, if the child was 16, then they committed it at four. I mean, that's, like, a twelve-year span as a juvenile.

Yeah. You know what I'm saying? Like, I don't quite get.

No. No. No.

What age—what is that? Maybe I'm getting missing the point on that.

So, basically, what this provision would do is, what happens is when a juvenile commits a crime, and the prosecutor wants to ask the family court to waive them, generally, they go to family court, and we don't ever see them at the circuit court level. The prosecutor will ask to petition, the family court, to waive jurisdiction. If they waive jurisdiction, then they come up to circuit court in the criminal context where I am, and they are tried as—just like any other adult for any of the crimes they might have committed.

So, any C Felony, B Felony, A Felony, or murder, if, if the family court waives it. So, whatever age they were at the time that they were waived, as long as they were under 18, then they come and they're tried.

And if they are convicted, they are sentenced as an adult. So, they could have been 16 years old, waived, and then they were sentenced to an open twenty-year term. What this bill does, it says twelve years into that term. So, when they're 28, they could petition the court to reduce that twenty-year term and seek either their current, their immediate release or some other reduction, in their term. The problem that that we have is that there's nothing to reduce it to.

So, they wouldn't have been four years old is what I'm saying. It would have been it it's whatever age they are when they commit the crime and it's twelve years after they've been sentenced, when they're already in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Okay. And then, Chair, follow-up. Sorry. I know you have a question, Mr. Shimizu. So, then also in the bill, it says something about defendants may not file a fourth motion and have to wait three years in between.

Yes.

So, I mean, what if fourth, so, that's, like, four times you're going to the parole board or to what back to the judge.

To the court. Yes.

To the courts. And then, I mean, what if you don't even have three years left in yourself? So, I'm just like, these numbers seem so, you know, specific, and I would think that it wouldn't address all situations.

So, mostly for those individuals and to be honest, most of the individuals that we would be talking about, and these are—it's still small numbers, because of the twelve year term and B Felonies are ten years, C Felonies are five years, so they would already be gone by the time this twelve years hit.

We're looking at people who are serving a term for an A Felony robbery, or for a murder case or an attempted murder case, in which case they're serving life with the possibility of parole. So, in that instance, at twelve years, you're generally talking about people who are serving life with the possibility of parole if you're going to give them the four, or, or the three chances that they have to wait three years for.

I see. Okay. Alright. That was just I was trying to, you know, figure out the the numbers and years. Okay.

Thank, thank you, chair.

Thank you. Rep. Shimizu.

Thank you, chair. Thank you for your testimony, awesome testimony. You know, from what I'm gathering in your testimony, there's two ways we can do it. And it seemed like the preferred way was going with the parole authority, making the adjustment to the parole authority. So, if we wanted to pass this bill, is it salvageable with your, your suggestions? Because the first option is kind of overhauling a lot of things.

Yeah? So, the pro authority route seems to be more doable and maybe accomplishing what this intent of the bill is. Would you comment on that?

Yes. Thank you for the question. So, I believe that there's probably three different possible ways in in order to effectuate the intent of the bill. And there could be a combination as well of, say, a indeterminate sentencing scheme strictly for juveniles and then a paroling authority scheme to have the paroling authority consider these things too. With respect to how you do it in this particular bill, at this particular stage in the legislation, it, it, it's a—it would be a significant task, I believe.

But I—we would be willing to, to work on whatever anybody would want us to look at.

Thank you for that.

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks, Rev Shimizu. Thanks very much. Any other questions?

Okay.

Yeah. Chair, if I you don't mind? So thank you. I just so this is was, a reference to prosecutor attorneys, and they're saying how this is actually unnecessary and inconsistent, and potentially unsafe outcomes, and that there's already currently safeguards in place in our current legal framework for fairness. So and they cite three different HRSs to state such.

Are you, in agreement? Have you had a chance to, see what this is about? I know they're not here, so I'm sorry if I'm, you know, putting you in a spot that you can't answer.

But So I I did look at Miss Kayeo's, testimony, briefly this morning. I do understand what they're saying, and it's kind of what I was talking about with respect to finality of judgments, when certain things have already been considered in previous times, like when they were initially waived and that kind of stuff. I will say that with respect to a judge's discretion to sentence a defendant, in an a felony and a murder or an attempted murder case, there really is no discretion for a a juvenile.

So even though the judge is looking at those seven zero six, six zero six factors and do does consider those things, if it is an a felony, except for very few exclusions, they are going to get an open twenty year term. If it is a murder or attempted murder, they're going to get life with parole.

So in that sense, even though they may have considered certain things in the sentencing scheme, there really is no discretion with the judge. That's the only comment

I would make.

Okay. Well, thank you for that, and and thank you, chair.

Sure. Thank you very much. Any other questions? If not, thanks to all the testifiers trying to help us understand a complicated bill. Let's move on to the next measure.

Senate Bill 2408 Senate Draft One, House Draft One, relating to compassionate access to medical cannabis. This measure allows terminally ill patients and

and qualifying patients over 65 years of age with chronic diseases to use medical cannabis within specified health care facilities under certain conditions, and it requires enforcement by the Department of Health. First up, we have the Attorney General.

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

My name is Alana Bryant, deputy attorney general. We would like to know that this bill allows covered health care facilities to elect to permit the use of medical cannabis, notwithstanding that cannabis is still a schedule one controlled substance under federal law. We're recommending the deletion of Section seven b at page 11 lines three through eight of the bill because that section contradicts the permissive nature of the bill. We also note that the president did sign an executive order in December 2025 directing the U. S.

Attorney General to reschedule cannabis to Schedule three which may eventually reduce legal risk to health care facilities however we don't have a time frame for when the rescheduling will actually occur or what the rescheduling would actually look like in practice. Thank you and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, Department of Health.

Saw the director coming in. Yeah. I know we're gonna listen to Andrew.

Go ahead, Andrew.

Vice Chair, and Members. Andrew Goff, the Office of Medical Cannabis Control and Regulation. This bill would authorize certain medical facilities to allow terminally ill patients to use medical cannabis while in the facility. That would be an important step into enable medical cannabis to be used by patients. And that is important to ease their condition.

We would note that it is permissive. It is not mandatory and we do agree with that. We think that strikes the right balance to authorize facilities that want to use this authority and not require everyone to take on the risk of breaking federal law. However, that being said, I would agree with other testimony that, the restrictions to, actually use the authority are fairly restrictive, and we don't know what's gonna happen at the federal level. So it could be rescheduled soon.

There are also initiatives for Medicare to cover certain hemp products. And so not knowing what's going to happen in this near term, it would be broader authority to allow facilities to make their own policies or at least put them into rules so that we can maintain flexibility to move with the federal. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much, Mister Goff. Next, Paige Heckathorn Choy, Healthcare Association of Hawaii.

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our, testimony on this matter. We are currently in opposition to this measure. We are specifically opposed to the provision that the attorney general has highlighted in their testimony.

As testifiers have noted, federal law still classifies cannabis as a schedule one substance. Hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, other inpatient providers are required to comply with Medicare laws, with federal laws, and with DEA laws regarding the use of, cannabis in our facilities. The provision highlighted by the AG and in our testimony is problematic because it does limit a facility's ability to rely, on federal requirements, and it effectively puts our providers in a position where they would have to choose between state and federal requirements.

We do think it's entirely reasonable and appropriate for facilities to base their own policies on their obligations under federal law, and that is why we would ask for that particular provision to be removed. Thank you, and I will be available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, Karen O'Keefe. Looks like we've got testimony for two organizations coming from Miss O'Keefe. Please proceed.

Aloha. I'm Karen O'Keefe, and I'm testifying on behalf of the Marijuana Policy Project. We strongly support allowing terminally ill patients in Kupuna to use medical cannabis preparations in health care facilities, but we request an amendment to, the language. We strongly prefer the bill be mandatory as was originally the case and as in the as is in the case in California, Minnesota, Mississippi, and other states.

But absent that, it should at least allow all medical cannabis patients to be allowed to use medical cannabis, not just those who are terminally ill or 65 or older.

Right now, the bill explicitly prohibits acute care hospitals from allowing non terminal patients to use medical cannabis. As we understand it, there are currently some hospitals that are letting patients use medical cannabis, meaning this would actually make matters worse in some cases. We also urge that there be more flexibility to the facility so they can adopt their own policies regarding medical cannabis as the DOH discussed.

Since federal law currently prohibits medical cannabis, some facilities might wanna just look the other way and not document it at this time. That said, as was noted, federal law might be rapidly evolving.

It might even have medical cannabis preparations covered by Medicaid soon. So we think that some facilities might want to have different facilities such as potentially eventually allowing their staff to. So we urge, amendments that we submitted. Mahalo for the opportunity and I'm sorry. My my screen seems to be very fuzzy.

It it's okay. I I I still hear you clearly. Next, we have Joey Billionaire on Zoom. Not present. Next, we have Robert Bence on Zoom.

Please proceed, Mister Bence.

Aloha, Chair. Mahalo for hearing me. This is a deeply personal matter for me. I am unfortunately in opposition to this bill even though I would be the strongest proponent. This bill is no longer Ryan's law.

It needs to be shall may is not how legislation is made. These healthcare facilities obviously may authorize it. They need to be shall. In Hawaii, we had the May issue for the guns and no one ever issued guns because then the chief would be responsible. So this is the same thing.

This would make the health care facility responsible. If it shall, the healthcare facility is complying with state law, making Hawaii back like Mississippi, which is ahead of us in this matter. We already have federal approval under the MMCREA, which was passed by help of Senator Schatz in December 2022. So the healthcare facilities as mentioned by Andrew earlier could also already use the hemp preparations. So there is already before schedule three the ability to have the patients work with the state.

Because I had a arteriovenous malformation the size of a golf ball. It's a random birth defect. And we have random birth defects in LA like 20 times the average of national. And it moved my right left hemisphere. I had to relearn how to walk and talk and everything from scratch.

And I was the youngest person at a rehabilitation hospital, but for three different times, I did not use my three twenty nine medicine. And I had a stroke one time, I had a temporary stroke the other time. And I have used it both in hospitals and rehabilitation clinics in Stanford because it was so big. In Maui, they said, oh, we cannot handle this big of a ABM, so they sent me over there.

But the doctors were amazed that it had been that big and not ruptured to a stroke.

They come up to my farm. They are very supportive, but the industry association act like there's G men hiding around every door. There is many, many state rules and federal rules that we could do this right now. And with all the national changes, this is the only really time we can do this. And if it's May, might as well go and get rid of it.

It would be the saddest April fools ever. But I know, hopefully, you can change it and stand up to the executive branch who is obviously only pro dispensary. Mahalo.

Thank you very much, Mister Bentz. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? So Bill 2408.

Yes, sir. Yes. This is Alan Johnson with the Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition.

Alan Johnson.

Yes. Please go ahead.

Yes. Chair and all the Representatives, Alan Johnson with the Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition, we supported this bill. I want to explain what we're supporting and you understand how we work with as we're addiction centers. So somebody comes to us, you know, residential, of course, that would never work. But in but in outpatient where you might use it, not in counseling, but outside of counseling, here's how we use that to be working so you understand.

You come to us and you say, my life is unmanageable. I have I have a alcohol problem, and I'm using medical Marijuana. So our medical team meets with you and says, well, we'll help you with alcohol. Is there an alternative to the medical Marijuana that's that's not addictive? And they go, nope.

That's it. Okay. So we can help you with alcohol, and we say, is your medical marijuana use a cannabis addiction, which five percent of the people do have? And we say, oh, it is a cannabis addiction. So now we wanna help you to get off that to experiment more or at least temper that.

And if we find that the end of life issues that will help you with your alcohol, but it just have to live with your cannabis use disorder, your addiction, then we allow that. And so we wanna be able to say this medical team working with the patient, we don't wanna have and build an incident that's an impeach that process that says, oh, the patient gets to do or somebody says you can't do.

We wanna be able to have a medical decision that allows medical marijuana that we decide what's best for that patient to help their unmanageable life become more manageable. And that's why we're supporting this bill. And we hope this bill does that in some way that allows us to be okay with that.

So I, I appreciate the opportunity to testify. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members?

Question, chairman. Yep. Question for Health Care Association, Hawaii. Thank you for your testimony. My question is if we were to adopt the attorney general's amendments to address the federal issue, would would you be okay with the bill?

We would certainly feel much more comfortable with the bill if if we adopted what the attorney general is recommending.

Thank you. Can I ask a follow-up question? Of course. Attorney general, please. You know, Department of Health also offered additional amendments, and I don't I'm not sure if you are familiar with them.

Would would would their amendments be necessary also, you think?

Thank you, Representative. I did review their testimony, but I would have to discuss it internally with our office before I can give an official answer of whether or not we are okay with those proposed amendments.

Got it. Got it. Okay. That's how it works. Yeah.

Got it. Okay. Thank thank you, Chair. No.

Thank you. Any other questions, Members?

Chair.

Yes. Miss Cochran?

The Department of Health is here, though. Yeah?

Yeah. Of course. Yeah.

Oh, yeah. Hi.

This is Sorry. Andrew Goff.

Yes, Mister Goff. Thank you. And I'm trying to so your testimony was saying to keep it, like, authorization, like, more voluntary versus mandating.

That's right.

Is that correct? And in that sense, it would address the potential conflicts with the federal level laws.

Is that

It would allow a facility to make their own decision whether they wanna take the risk on or not.

Okay. Okay. Yeah. I just wanted some clarity on that point. Thank you so much for your testimony.

And chair the who was that? Was it the O'Keeffe's?

Sharon O'Keefe with Marijuana Policy Project?

Miss O'Keefe, are you available?

Yes.

Is she here still?

Please go ahead.

Oh, I, I hi. Aloha. Oh, you're much clearer now. Good. Okay.

And so, yeah, I had, wondering if you can, elaborate a little bit more on the, you know, open to all patients, not just, terminally ill and to ages, not just 65 and above. Because I sort of had a question about that. So can you elaborate on your reasoning on those points?

So as Robert Benz testified, he personally has already used cannabis in Hawaii hospitals. As we read it, current law already lets all of these health care facilities choose to allow medical cannabis. However, the bill was initially drafted to require the accommodation of people who are terminally ill or 65 and up, remains in the current bill. So if you look at section two of the current bill and the definition of patient, the definition of patient is is terminally ill or is 65 years of age or older.

So under the amendments we submitted as the Hawaii Alliance for Cannabis Reform, we had just surgical changes where we suggest redefining patient as being any medical cannabis patient, and then also striking that language that says a general acute care hospital should not permit a patient with a chronic disease to use medical cannabis unless they're terminally ill.

And again, you know, we understand because of feedback that this will be permissive, not mandatory. So it would just let mid day facilities perhaps choose to allow medical cannabis regardless of age and condition. So people like Robert Benz could could be allowed to use it.

Okay. And thank you for that. So in that, hence, your, point saying this would decrease compassionate access versus expansive. Right?

Yeah. I'm concerned that if it was passed as is, it would be worse than the status quo because it explicitly would prohibit people like Robert Benz from being able to use medical cannabis even if the hospital wanted to allow it.

Right.

Okay. Again, thank you for your time and expertise in the field. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions? If not, we're gonna move on. Thank you to all the testifiers. Next measure, Senate Bill 2418, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, related to controlled substances.

This measure reveals the law prohibiting drug paraphernalia under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. On this measure, first up, we have the Department of Health.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Tim McCormick with the Community of Public Health Nursing Division of the Department of Health. The Department of Health submitted comments focused on the public health aspects of this measure. The items that people use in conjunction with their drug use do carry risk of infection and injury and removing legal barriers to those objects may assist people in reducing harm assist here with their drug use.

We're not aware of any evidence that access to drug paraphernalia leads people to initiate or increase their drug use and lack of access doesn't cause people to, to use drugs less. What happens with drug users who don't have access to drug paraphernalia is they share or they improvise, and both of those things carry risk for infection and, and injury. So, we appreciate you considering this.

We appreciate the legislature continuing to look for opportunities to support people who use drugs, reducing the harm associated with drug use. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much, McCormick. Next, State Health Planning and Development Agency.

Hello. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee.

I'm Terry Desperis on behalf of doctor Jack Lewin, Administrator for SHPTA. We'd like to stand on our written testimony, but really, the bill would help people seek sooner by reducing penalties tied to used drug items and the bill keeps restrictions as it items illegal drugs and supporting more of health-focused response for that people use drugs. And it also can help prevent overdoses and spread some infectious diseases while encouraging treatment and connection to services. So, we'd like to support this bill.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the department. Department submits testimony respectfully opposing 2418, SD 1, HD 1. First, we point out to the committee, currently possession of drug paraphernalia is a violation. It's been decriminalized since 2017 and punishable by a fine. So, this, this bill, which essentially legalizes drug paraphernalia, the department does not support at this time.

As it relates to how this bill will support maybe programs such as the State Syringe Exchange Program, it appears that this bill is unnecessary currently in that during through that program and through Act 106, 2025, there is a—they built in criminal immunity for participants, as well as staff that are participating in the State Syringe Exchange Program. Last, the department would just point out just the way that this bill is written, the broad stroking amendments, it has unintended consequences.

Some are pointed out in our testimony—situations which were criminalized but now would be legalized would be allowing adults to provide drug paraphernalia to minors. It would also allow for advertisement of drug paraphernalia and promotion of drug—essentially promotion of drug paraphernalia to individuals, minors, adults, anybody.

So, there does have some unintended consequences as it's written. I will be here for any questions, but the department does believe that, legalizing in this way just sends a wrong message to the public as well as to users of illicit substances. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Tom. Haley Chang, Office of Public Defender.

And good afternoon again. The Office of Public Defender stands in strong support of this measure. As the Attorney General pointed out, since 2017, paraphernalia has been a violation when it was previously a Class C felony, and that is a recognition of a lot of the things that this committee has heard regarding increasing access to safer use supplies, increasing, excuse me, and reducing overdose and infectious disease risk, as well as the disproportionate impact this has on marginalized communities, including our houseless population.

We also, from the Public Defender's perspective, want to highlight that the current criminalization of paraphernalia only, which is a violation, acts as a gateway or access point for law enforcement, for other charges, and we, we've seen that time and time again.

The reality of how many people are actually charged with these violation offenses is very few and far between. What it does serve as though is a reasonable suspicion or probable cause type of access to then try to investigate and do other things. And, again, all of the health risks that this committee has heard.

We also wanna highlight, as we've outlined in our testimony, that we believe this measure is reflective and works in harmony with another measure that is currently in the legislature, which is the model penal code review bill, which is SB 2721, which is currently seeking to reduce residue possession of drugs, just a misdemeanor offense when it is currently a Class C felony.

All of these things are recognitions that drug addiction is a health issue, a substance abuse, or a substance addiction issue, and it's not necessarily a criminal issue.

And I think we're shifting towards that, and I think this measure supports that. So, I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Honolulu Police Department, Jerome Apacarro, on Zoom.

Yes. Hello, dear chair Tarnas and members. I am Lieutenant Alan Liu of the Honolulu Police Department speaking on behalf of Jerome Apacarro. He is the Major of the Narcotics Vice Division of the HPD, city and county of Honolulu. The HPD respectfully opposes Senate Bill number 2418, SD 1, HD 1, relating to controlled substances. The HPD opposes the bill based on the concern that repealing drug paraphernalia laws could inadvertently encourage increased drug use and contribute to public health and safety issues.

First, decriminalizing drug paraphernalia may lead to easier access to items that support substance abuse, potentially normalizing drug use, especially among youth and vulnerable populations.

Public health research generally indicates that greater availability of drug paraphernalia can correlate with higher rates of substance abuse. Second, unregulated paraphernalia could lead to public safety concerns, such as discarded items in public spaces and pose risks of injury or health hazards to the community. The HPD respectfully urges you to oppose Senate Bill number 2418, SD 1, HD 1, relating to controlled substances. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Sincerely, Major Jerome Apacarro, Narcotics Vice Division. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Nikos Leverenz, Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center, for his representatives.

Yes. Thank you, chair Tarnas, vice chair Poepoe, and members of the committee. Heather Lusk, Executive Director of the Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center. Nikos sends his regrets. We stand in strong support of this measure. The Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center and previously CHOW Project, its predecessor, has over thirty years of experience in providing syringe access and health issues to people who use drugs, and according to the Hawaii Department of Health, has kept HIV and other infectious diseases, like Hepatitis C, low because of this.

Currently, my staff are not allowed to—my staff are at legal risk if they hand out paraphernalia that could actually not only reduce disease but bills of rapport to allow folks to access drug treatment.

So, for example, we have over a 100 people who used to actively use substances through our program now accessing drug treatment through our program. Additionally, we have a very—a very unintended consequence, why there is a current exemption in the drug paraphernalia law that allows my staff and people accessing the Syringe Exchange Program for syringes only, and that does allow people to have access to that paraphernalia without criminalization.

What we're actually seeing now is people who don't want to inject and maybe want to smoke, for example, actually injecting, which is a much bigger health concern, not just for infectious diseases but overall, with substance use disorder. We understand that this seems counterintuitive to public health to decriminalize, I'm sorry, to repeal the paraphernalia law.

However, we feel strongly that law enforcement, which we work closely with in many, in many areas, do already have the tools to hold people responsible that offend or that sell or that utilize substances in ways that they aren't intended, and that the drug paraphernalia repeal would allow us to do public health work, not only connecting people so that they can stay safe from HIV, hepatitis, and overdose, but then build a relationship because many folks are afraid to come to us because of the paraphernalia and what the Public Defender said will be utilized for them to then get into the system.

This allows us to then provide treatment, provide other resources, so that hopefully, people can be able to reach their goals and become contributing members of the community. So, we stand in strong support of this measure. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. Oh, and briefly, as far as we know, respectfully, we've never seen any research, which I'd love to see it if there is any correlation between increased access to paraphernalia and increased use.

We have not seen that, and so, we actually feel that by providing this it actually increases the ability to get people into drug treatment. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lusk. Next, Kat Brady, Community Alliance on Prisons, in support. Not present. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Yes, please.

Come on up. Introduce yourself.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. We, I'm—my name is Margaret Mehan, and I'm submitting testimony on behalf of Hawaii Christian Coalition. We strongly oppose SB 2418, SD1, HD 1, relating to controlled substances. Drug paraphernalia promotes drugs, and we want to protect children, teenagers, and our ohannas from drugs and the effects of drugs. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Would you be so kind as to give your name and organization name to our clerk over here so we can keep track?

Thank you very much for, for providing testimony. Is there anyone else wishing to provide testimony on this measure? If not, questions, Members?

Rep Shimizu.

Department of Health, please. You know what? Thank you for being here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As was mentioned by Attorney General and Public Defender, state already reduced 2017 Class C Felony to a violation.

Do we, do we have data that would support further reductions that, that show this, this is needed?

So, we certainly have anecdotal information, particularly from the syringe exchange program where even a fine of $500 can be a really significant barrier. The Attorney General did point out that last year, there were some changes that that were made to provide some additional allowance for access to certain paraphernalia for syringe exchange participants. That is limited to syringe exchange participants. So, others who inject drugs and don't use syringes don't have access to that drug—that protection, as, and people who use drugs other than through injection, don't have access to that as well.

So, that's really where we see this continuing to act as a barrier to individuals accessing paraphernalia in ways to reduce their risk of infection and injury.

You know, I, I can agree with that, that, you know, we're trying to help people by, by investigating different pathways. I guess it would be easier for me to accept this bill if as we try to decriminalize things, we also increase treatment facilities and help that way. So, the problem is when I have a opposing testimony from people like Attorney General, Honolulu Police Department, Hawaii County Prosecuting Attorney, it's very difficult to disregard their important testimony. So, how would you reconcile that?

So, thank you for that. I, I—we really do understand. That is really part of the reason the Department of Health's testimony is either in opposition or support for providing comments. We understand that the public health considerations are not the only things that the legislature needs to consider. And so, we understand that it's not simply a question of public health that we have to base this decision on.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair.

Sure. Any other questions?

Chair. For Attorney General's office.

Alright.

Aloha, Deputy Tom. So, you, in your testimony, you're saying this is sort of a legalization of paraphernalia and that it would allow advertisement for such items. You know? So, what do you—I'm trying to think of what advertisement these are. I can be, advertisements for, because there's the needle exchange.

So, you're talking about pipes and?

Pipes or any, any objects that fall within the definition under, you know 32943.5 which is, you know, right now, it says, drug paraphernalia with the intent to use drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, produce, possess, prepare, test. Any items that could be used as drug paraphernalia could be fall under this situation where it could be advertised pipes—pipes could be advertised. Anything that might be used to...

Oh, okay. I'm just trying to, I mean, I never, I, yeah. I, I just never seen glass pipes or any cocaine with baking soda. Oh, but anyways, okay.

No. I, I totally agree that this needs to be a...but, yes, thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? If not, thank you very much to all the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate bill 3133 Senate Draft Two, House Draft Two, relating to preventive medicine.

This measure specifies that no person is subject to liability for providing clinical preventive services in accordance with the Department of Health recommendations. Requires health insurers, mutual benefit societies, health maintenance organizations, and plans issued by the Hawaii Employer Union Health Benefits Trust to provide coverage for clinical preventive services.

It authorizes the Department of Health to make recommendations relating to clinical preventive services and issue standing orders for medications and immunizations. It clarifies that for child health supervision services coverage, the prevailing medical standards include recommendations by the Department of Health. Prohibits denial of coverage and prior authorization for clinical preventive services based on medical necessity,

Specifies that a registered pharmacist may order a vaccine in accordance with the recommendations from the Department of Health and exempts this measure from an auditor impact assessment report. First up, we have Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, insurance division.

The Department stands.

Would you come on up to the rostrum? I want everyone watching on TV can see you and hear you. If you could introduce yourself and briefly summarize your testimony.

Chair Tarnas and members of the committee, I'm Arlene Ige with the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Insurance Division. The department stands on its written testimony offering comments.

If you could please summarize the highlights of your testimony.

I want the public to understand what we're doing here.

Sure.

Okay. The department notes that it is unclear whether the amendments in sections three, four and ten of this bill would trigger the deferral requirements under the Affordable Care Act if state mandate benefits that are in addition to the essential health benefits as defined in the state's benchmark plans. If if these mandates are considered in addition to those essential health benefits, the state is required to defray the cost of those additional benefits.

However, the current draft of the bill does incorporate safeguards to mitigate the risk of scapegoatrial liability through repeal mechanisms.

Thank you. I appreciate you providing that summary. Next, the Department of Health.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. I'm Sarah Kemble, the, State Epidemiologist and Chief of the Disease Outbreak Control Division, testifying on behalf of the Department of Health. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong support of this measure.

We see this measure as ensuring protection for patients and families who are, seeking immunization services or other preventive services that are evidence based without cost sharing. And, we stand on our written testimony, but are available for any questions or further explanations as needed.

Thank you very much. Let's see. Next, we have State Health Planning and Development Agency.

Hello. Good afternoon. Terry Visperas for Doctor Jack Lewin for SHPDA. We'd like to send our written testimony, but like the doctor ahead of us said, that again, this would be, help make sure that people can continue to get important for preventative care, including vaccines and other preventative services, evidence based clinical services without cost sharing the federal protections should change. Again, you know, we would be referred to the Department of Health and DCCA on any of the operational details, but we're in strong support.

Thank you very much. Next, Jamie Detwiler on Zoom.

Can you hear me?

Yes. We hear you loud and clear. Please proceed.

Thank you. Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and members of the committee. Jamie Detwiler, Hawaiian Islands Republican Women. I'd like to also add, sir, that, I have over 33 years in Health Care Administration and a direct practice licensed social worker. So we stand in opposition to SB 3133.

I understand that the mandate in the bill is to have health insurance coverage for these preventative measures. What we're opposed to is this measure places excessive authority into the hands of unelected bureaucrats such as the advisory committee on immunization practices.

It could lead to centralized control over medical decisions and care guidelines. As a result, it may introduce biased advice, impose unwelcome mandates, and diminish informed consent. This measure also incidentally uses the word "recommendation" 41 times. A recommendation means a suggestion or a proposal for an action, usually from an authoritative source.

Miss, respectfully remind this committee that a recommendation is not enforceable under the law. Many health insurance plans exclude preventive services that help Hawaii residents who choose natural non toxic options to boost their immunity. Covering proven efficacy of vitamins and supplements instead of vaccines would offer a safer alternative or I should say in addition to vaccines for those who would like to choose that.

In summary, I would like to respectfully remind the committee that recommendations and mandates are temporary measures and not legally enforceable as they do not constitute law. Please vote no on SB 3133. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Walden Au. HMSA. Welcome, sir.

Afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, members of the committee, Walden on behalf of HMSA. We stand on our written testimony offering comments, and we appreciate the dialogue that's going on with this measure as well as other measures that are looking to address changing policies at the federal level. We're available for any questions you have.

Wanna highlight your comments, please?

Yeah. We appreciate the conversations. Go ahead.

Okay. That's, that's your comments.

I, we do, we have brought in our own coverage for vaccinations over the last two years and that should the Department of Health feel that there is a need to continue to at least have guidelines or recommendations, we're just a part of the intent of the measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Hawaii Christian Coalition. Welcome back.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Margaret Mejia, and I'm submitting testimony on behalf of Hawaii Christian Coalition. We oppose SB 3133 SD2 HD2 for many reasons. First, this bill goes against patient rights of bodily autonomy and informed consent, And we believe that the Department of Health should be liable for any vaccine injury or death. Second, this goes against the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and more.

The Due Process Clause prohibits states from depriving people of life, liberty, et cetera. Many die or are permanently disabled from vaccines. That definitely goes against their life and liberty. There's no liberty if people are forced against their will, their conscience, and their convictions. Freedom of religion in the First Amendment, this violates the First Amendment.

The aborted fetal parts are used in development of vaccines and every COVID vaccine tissue, every COVID vaccine contains fetal tissue cells. Many Christians, Jews, and Muslims have an issue with putting fetal tissue cells into their bodies. Aborted fetal parts are used in development of vaccines and every COVID vaccine, every one of them contains fetal tissue cells.

The Moderna COVID shot, as you can see in my testimony, at length I, describe what fetal tissue cells are involved in those, the HEK 293, and I have, a lot of research on there. I won't go through all that because there's a lot of testifiers here.

And then the Pfizer COVID shot also contains the same fetal cell, HEK 293. And the Johnson and Johnson COVID shot contains fetal cell, line PERC six. And some people aren't even aware, but the Johnson and Johnson COVID shot was revoked by the FDA in 2023. So there's many studies that show that COVID vaccines and other vaccines, most of them now contain mRNA, and they're associated with increased abortion, miscarriage, and birth defect rates.

Therefore, the Department of Health should be liable for any negative effects or death from the vaccines they are administrate administering. Without liability, there can be no accountability. Please vote no on SB 3133 SD2 HD2 and protect the constitutional rights and the well-being, pursuit of happiness of your constituents.

Third, a pharmacist, pharmacy intern, or registered pharmacy technician is not qualified to administer vaccines or dispense any medication without knowing the child's medical history that is only available to his or her pediatrician, who's a qualified doctor and licensed under the state of Hawaii. There's a huge difference between a pharmacist and a doctor.

Prevailing oh, and then I heard someone talk about mandates earlier. And just so people would know, mandates are not a law.

Prevailing medical standards, and I'm quoting that, that's in the bill, should not be determined by the advisory committee from the Department of Health and Human Services and the American Academy of Pediatrics since all of these organizations promote vaccines. We believe people should have a choice. Hawaii Christian Coalition believes in patient rights, including bodily autonomy, informed consent for adults, and parental rights so that parents can decide if they wanna vaccinate their keiki or not. Mahalo.

Thank you, Miss Mejia. Next, Cheryl Toyofuku.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas and Members of the GHA committee. My name is Cheryl Toyofku, and I'm in strong opposition of SB3133 SD2 HD2. You know, because it is a preventive medicine. And as a mother, as a grandmother, as a retired registered nurse, and a health advocate, yes, we do want to prevent our children from becoming ill or going into the hospital, same as our kupunas.

Yet this particular bill, SB3123 is focusing on vaccination as a preventive medicine and recommendations by the DOA, ACIP, the USPSTF, the HMSA, HMA, you know, all these organizations that are promoting vaccines.

And we've seen the collateral damage that has been very severe for our family and friends who have had vaccine injuries or deaths, and, giving more authority to the Department of Health to have standing orders for medications and vaccines, rather than parents who should have their they should be the prevailing medical standards actually for their own family. And, to have no liability, this is a very strong concern of mine because who's gonna be accountable and responsible for the vaccine injuries that do occur from the vaccinations?

So requiring health insurance also when we're not even ensuring other preventive measures as the last testifier did mention that we have so many other natural immunity versus the artificial immunity by these vaccine jabs. We do have natural immunity supplements, many, many health preventive measures that could help really truly help our Keiki and our kupuna. So please vote no on s p three one three three.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Toyofuku. Next, Kim Cordery. Not present. Next, Theresa Armbruster.

Hello. Hi, Chair and committee members. I'm Theresa Armbruster. And I stand on my written testimony in strong opposition to this measure. I wanna highlight, emphasize a few points.

First of all, mandating a health insurance coverage is gonna increase our insurance premiums. So why should we pay for these vaccines whether we want them or not? I don't think that is right because there are, like other testifiers said, there are all the alternatives. That's not being covered. So that is not fair.

And, also, even though the Department of Health can issue standing orders, these orders must respect and uphold the person's constitutional right to choose and informed consent right to refuse medical treatment vaccines. And the director of health and all who follow these vaccine recommendations must be held accountable for any harm or death caused by these shots. When there's no liability, there's no reliability on these recommendations. There must be accountability.

And the American Academy of Pediatrics was listed as one of the sources for prevailing medical standards, but please note that they are facing a RICO lawsuit for fraudulent vaccine safety claims while being funded by vaccine manufacturers, Pfizer, Moderna, Merck, and Sanofi, and incentivizing pediatricians for high vaccination rates.

This lawsuit this lawsuit details decades of malfeasance. It was harming numerous children including three deaths for following these AAP recommendations. And, also, I wanna ask why is there not that impact assessment report that's required to be done before something like this is coming into a bill, especially for mandating insurance coverage? I I respectfully ask you to require that it's something important because I think that there might be a significant impact. So that needs to be addressed before you can just shove that to the side.

And also, I just let's see what else I want there's one other thing I want to say is that in case you haven't done any research on vaccines, here are some of the facts about the vax and their toxic ingredients. So I would ask you, if you don't know, you can go to learntherisk.org and please do your research because we really do want to keep everybody's health and not just big pharma wealth.

And I ask you to vote no on this measure and, do not allow the director of health to become the dictator of health. And just there's so many other alternatives, so please look at all of those and not just dictate one source of of preventive services. So, aloha, ke'akua, and the love of God be with you.

Thank you very much. Next, James Wallace. Not present. Next, Laretta Dubin.

Hi. Respectfully, hi, Chair Tarnas, rest of the Committee, my name is Laretta Dubin. I am a retired RN, and I strongly oppose SB 3133. And we need to stop, stop the DOH from becoming a dictator of health. Okay?

I'm not saying any particular person. I'm saying the DOH in general. It's absolutely unconstitutional to have standing orders. I know what standing orders are working as an RN, and it's dangerous. One thing, any substance that we put into our body, you know, it's not a one size fits all.

So a standing order would be that's for everybody. We have to consider the health of the individual. We're all different. We, we're all different from one another. Our genes, genetics will be expressed when certain when we are exposed to certain different substances and toxins.

That can be, you know, environmental. It can be vaccines, all different kinds. So, that has to be kind to be taken into consideration. There cannot be the other the other point I wanna make is about the pharmacist being able to make that decision, that kind of an order. No bueno.

It's very important that and they would be giving their pharm techs the authority to give those shots. And those pharm techs and the pharmacist are not trained in advanced cardiac life support in case somebody has an adverse effect from one of those shots that's given in, say, Longs or Walgreens. Dangerous again. Okay. Also, there can be no insurance coverage for all these vaccines that's on this DOH list.

Insurance rates will certainly go up for for everyone. Especially, I mean, people who don't even want the shots, their insurance is gonna go up. And some seniors will potentially receive less Social Security benefits. Many will be be refusing these vaccines. We as been mentioned earlier, there's dangerous substances in the shots, aluminum, human aborted fetal tissue, MSG, polysorbate eighty and twenty, and formaldehyde embalming substances.

Again, no bueno. Okay. If there is risk involved by injecting or ingesting anything into one's body, then there has to be liability on the part of whoever is recommending or mandating the same. Please vote no in opposition on SB 3133. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Miss Dubin. Next, Michael Golojuch from on Zoom.

Good afternoon. Michael Golojuch Junior, he/him pronouns, president of Pride at Work of Hawaii. We stand in strong support of this measure. Vaccines saves lives and stop. That's it.

It's amazing that at this day and age that we have people saying that they've done their own research. And thanks to that, we now have seeding measles making a go back. We almost eradicated that, but measles is making a comeback because we've had these scares here in Hawaii. They're like, people can make their own choices, but when you end up making your own

Michael, just focus on the bill, not on other testifiers, please.

Well, the impact for this of the other testifiers is that when we don't have full vaccination for all those who can take it, we put everybody else at risk. Those that are unable to because of their, you know, compromised immune systems, that these things do have a negative impact on all of us.

This bill will help protect us, keep I don't wanna see the measles come back any more than polio, which if we keep on going down the route we are with some of these people, we are going to face that again. We encourage you to to pass this bill. It's the right thing to do.

Our Federal Government's not gonna be here to support us. Anybody who thinks vaccines are okay are are not necessary should go visit American Samoa and those that they lost there due to the measles outbreak. So we encourage you to pass this bill to protect us. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Linda Lee on Zoom? Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 3133?

Here.

One person here in the room before I come to person on Zoom. Please, come on up and introduce yourself.

Hi. My name is Ronyell Oahu, and I oppose this bill. I feel like it was written to protect the profits of the insurance and the pharma industry, and I think that they don't need any more protection. I feel like we should be protecting the people that are are maybe injured or actually the personal people. Actually, I feel like we should protect the people that are being injured by vaccines or whatever.

You know? I think we should protect their rights versus big pharma. I feel like this is just written to protect the wrong people.

Thank you. If you'd be so kind as to give your name and any organization if you're representing an organization to our staff there. Thank you. Next, anyone else wishing to testify or someone on Zoom? Please proceed.

Aloha. Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Greg Masakian, and I'm currently a Kupuna advocate. I serve as president of the Kukuwa Council and vice president of the Hawaii Alliance for Retired Americans. I'm only gonna be speaking on behalf of myself as an individual, and I, I strongly oppose this bill as as it's written.

I understand that there's an intent to try to do good, but I'm also fully aware of the the adverse reactions that many people have had from the COVID vaccinations. I know some people at CDC. I I know I live with someone who used to work for Genentech, so doing global global drug studies. And from what I collectively know and from the experiences that I'm aware of from personal family, friends, and others, I know there's a high risk. And it's different than the measles vaccine.

So that's something that's, you know, been tried and tested for many, many years. So with that said, until there's proven, vaccinations that are really vaccinations, the, you know, these COVID shots that people were getting it wasn't a vaccine to prevent you from getting COVID. In fact, some people got COVID from it. Until that's proven and tested, drug technology, I strongly oppose any kind of bill like this, and I hope that the committee will will not move this forward. Thank you so much.

Thank you, mister Mesakian. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Otherwise, no questions? Questions, members? Yep.

Yep. Rep Shimizu.

Department of Health. Sir. Yeah. Alright. I get to ask the director.

Thank you, director, for being here. As you can hear from the opposing testimony, there are concerns that this bill may give or will give Department of Health a lot of authority. So my question would be what processes or rules or even reviews will there be to provide, the public accountability and transparency on on what the Department of Health does with with this new authority should this bill go through. Well, for the question, I'm Kenny Fink with the Department of Health. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there are two provisions of note. One was that health plans cover vaccines recommended by the advisory committee on immunization practices without cost sharing. The other one was that they cover clinic preventive services recommended by the US Preventive Service Task Force with an a or b grade. This measure would preserve the coverage under those that were still in effect as of 01/01/2025.

So this does not expand what was already covered. Intent of this measure is to preserve access. So there are comments on cost. All those benefits that this would ensure preservation of access to are already covered. They're already incorporated into insurance rates, you know, cost of insurance plans.

K? The concern from a cost perspective is if vaccination rates go down and there's more illness, you are more likely to see visits for illness, hospitalizations for illness, which are far more expensive. Those may drive up health insurance rates, not vaccinations. There's two terms I wanna go over. One is cost effective and the other is cost beneficial, cost savings.

Cost effective means what's the dollar amount to have a quality of life for in an extra year? So we call it quality adjusted life years. And we may say that's a good value. K? Cost benefit means you'll spend money on a service and it will save money.

Excuse me.

Immunizations are one of the few things that are cost effective. Sure. I'll get there. If I may.

Excuse me, Derek. Hey, Derek.

I can ask you you wanna ask the question?

I I did ask the question. I don't think I got an answer.

You you wanna ask it again? K. The the question was directly to the

This this this bill is giving Department of Health authority over health care. And my question was, what is the formal process that you will be doing, rules that you'd be setting up, and Okay. That would provide transparency and accountability to the public? Because I think the public wants to be

So as it as it began, So it's bounded. It's bounded by those services that were recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force with the CRITER B recommendation as of July 1, I think it was 2024. So it's bounded by that. It cannot exceed those services that were not recommended as of that date. Okay?

The immunizations that this would cover have to be approved by the FDA. So this is bounded by those requirements. K? The FDA has to approve the immunization. It has to have already been covered by the US Preventive Services Task Force.

And these services, at a maximum, are already covered today. So that is the limit. This is not expansion. This is intended to preserve access.

Chair, can I get a follow-up? Just to follow-up. Is there any process that you go through that would provide public awareness about your work in this area so that there's transparency? I think that was really what rep Shimizu was asking about.

Yes. So we certainly do public notice, information on our website. Again, this is just to allow individuals to choose. So we are happy to provide information for individuals to know what they have access to should they choose to receive those services.

Okay. Follow-up question, sir. Okay. In in your first response back to my initial question, you you and and you have mentioned that I think ongoing is preserving certain things that are already in place. So if that's the case then, why why do we need this bill if it's already in place?

We need this bill a short question. Why do we need this bill? There have been changes at the federal level, particularly with regards to the advisory committee and immunization practices, that recommendations have changed. Now a recent court decision has stayed those recommendations, but the risk is that those recommendations may end up being in effect. As those recommendations have removed because those recommendations do not routinely recommend certain vaccines, those are changes.

And because of the Affordable Care Act talks about coverage without cost sharing. If the ACIP no longer recommends it, it no longer is available without cost sharing. So these decisions now at the ACIP, the recent ones, are actually removing choice for individuals. Those who would choose to get vaccinated would not have access to it without cost sharing. They've removed that choice.

This is intended to preserve choice to access of those preventive services without cost sharing for those who choose to receive them.

K. Mark Garcia?

Thank you, chair. For for doctor Fink, is it your understanding that the reason why the Federal Government and and this new administration, on that certain panel remove certain vaccinations from the recommended list is because of their lack of science or I mean, because in my understanding, their their reasoning for removing these vaccination was based off of evidential claims. Is that is that your understanding as well?

So the advisory committee immunization practices in the past would systematically review a body of evidence, go through a rigorous process evaluating the quality of that evidence, and follow a evidence to recommendation framework that would result in the recommendation. This current composition of the HIP has not followed that process.

And and what is that process?

They did not systematically review the current available body of evidence. They have no established evidence to recommendation framework. So it is unclear the basis of the recommendations. It has not been transparent. It has not been systematic.

There's been an unclear process.

Okay. And then follow-up, chair. Yes. A testifier mentioned earlier about measles. To my understanding, it's still the position of the federal administration to recommend the measles vaccines and even the MMR vaccines, even though that has had some some some complications.

Would you agree that if this bill does not pass that measles could could perhaps uptick here in Hawaii?

This bill preserves, essentially, access to the vaccine. Whether or not people choose to get vaccinated is a different

is not part of the the conversation here.

I'm I'm not sure I understand the question.

previous testifiers mentioned that if the bill doesn't pass, we'll see an an an increase in breakouts here in Hawaii such as measles. But it's my understanding that the current administration and those boards at the CDC and stuff who makes the these recommendations are still recommending measles for vaccination.

So the

As of today, you are correct. The current ACIP recommends the MMR vaccine. They did change the recommendation from the MMR v combination vaccine at four years old. So that's a that's a a minor point, but it's a point. And they may it does not preclude them changing the recommendation in the future.

But at this point in time, you are correct.

Okay. And then lastly, chair Yes. Would you be opposed to any changes made from the the list of vaccinations recommended? Are you opposed to any changes made to it? Because you wanna preserve what was there from 01/01/2025.

Correct? Yes. Okay. If there's any changes made in the future, would you oppose any of them?

We need to review the evidence to determine, if there is a need to recommend another vaccine. Currently, with the changes of the FDA that will be required to cover a new vaccine, it's become very burdensome. I don't anticipate a new vaccine to be FDA approved in the foreseeable future. There may be new vaccines developed for new conditions, and at that time, it would be important to systematically review the evidence and make a determination at that time.

Thank you. K. Thank you. Any other questions?

Representative Takayama. Doctor Fink, I have a question.

The bill is originally introduced by the administration proposed an advisory committee at the local level. A previous house committee removed that committee advisory committee. Is it your preference to have an advisory committee or or do we not need?

Thanks for the question. One one of the words, you know, we talk about now a lot is trust. Right? And there's been a decrease in trust in public health institutions. I think it's important for me, Trust is not agreement.

Trust is transparency. People say what they mean. They can, you know, predict someone's position because it's consistent. Folks may disagree with my position, but hopefully, I've been consistent, and they may understand my intent. Health care providers are the most trusted entity through surveys.

People trust their doctors the most for information. So one of the ideas for the advisory committee was that if practicing physicians from our community were making recommendations, would that help lend trust to the process? So that was an interest in doing that. K? In previous hearings for this measure, testifiers have raised concern of, should there be a panel of unqualified people making recommendations and, you know, arbitrarily, capriciously selected with this one ideology that that could be problematic, and that could be problematic.

The other question was, there's no elected official. There's no way to accountability. Just like to say that the director of health is Senate confirmed. So there is, an approval process and checks and balances, for particularly having the director of health. With regard to the advisory panel, for people to, like, participate on that, it was important that they have immunity, for the sake of their participation.

And, there was some concern about giving that immunity. And without that immunity, I would be concerned that we may not be able to get people to agree to participate on that committee. So as these measures have advanced, the committee was removed. The immunity for the community members, the committee members was removed, and that's where we are today. Which version do I prefer?

I prefer the version that's more likely to pass.

I I I just might note that

the original bill was fairly specific in terms of the membership of the advisory committee in terms of, the appointees being from Hawaii Medical Association and and different professional medical associations. Isn't isn't that right?

So because vaccines are for individuals to make the choice and they would have to agree to receive the vaccine, that having the providers who'd be the ones interacting with those patients and providing the information for the patients to make that decision, that they would be useful. So, yes, it would include, representatives of the of of those bodies that represent those providers who were caring for our patients and talking with those patients. So whether it was the American Academy local chapters of the American Academy of

Pediatrics, American College of Church Gynecology, family physicians. So the committee was comprised of representatives of those organizations

without going into the bank.

The fellow qualified health centers. We tried to have a a broad spectrum of those involved in the care delivery to offer the service.

Thank you. Thank you, director. Thank you, chair.

Sure. Any other questions? Okay. Good.

Last question. Yeah. Okay.

And we'll go to rep Cochran first and then direct Shimizu.

Thank you, Director Doctor. Fink, for being here. So this is saying that no person is subject to liability for providing clinical preventative services in accordance with Department of Health's recommendation, And they're pointing to you. You're the Department of Health recommendation. So so you're you mentioned, you know, it's a choice to get a vaccination, but if something negative occurs, that person who administered that vaccination is not liable, or who is liable, I guess, at this point.

Yep.

When people receive services or undergo procedures, they should provide information about potential benefits and harms, right, for the individual to make that choice. For the individual to choose to receive that service, just because there was an adverse event doesn't mean there was wrongdoing in the provider providing information or offering the vaccine. Now that immunity was simply to recommend a vaccine. It does not apply to any negligence into the administration of the vaccine.

So there's a comment rate about or raised about pharmacists and, you know, pharmacists are not qualified to offer it.

They may do it incorrectly and make mistakes. All these vaccines, pharmacists under Kauai state law and under our current emergency proclamation, pharmacists can administer all these vaccines today. So this does not expand the scope of pharmacist vaccination. So the immunity does not apply to any negligence. It would simply be if they were following a recommendation of the Department of Health that may differ from a recommendation advisory committee on immunization practices for the sake of offering the vaccine.

Sorry. And a follow-up. And it also is stating that it didn't delete. Tell me it was liable.

But it also states that, the Department of Health, it can issue standing orders for medications and immunizations. So orders, like, what is that what is this telling me?

No. No. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that. There may be some misunderstanding with the term order.

Yeah.

So so physicians, when we say we we we can we we prescribe, right, or we we can order a prescription, order a service, and someone else may provide it. So if I were in practice and I talked to the patient and the patient agreed to get a flu shot, right, I might write the order for a flu shot, and my nurse could come in and give the flu shot. Okay? So it's under my guidance. The standing order comes out of a couple things.

So let's say from it's and we try to narrow it. So for medications, if, for example, there are a whole bunch of people who are exposed to an individual tuberculosis, okay, and they should get post exposure prophylaxis, We might be able to deploy public health nurses to assess them, evaluate them, and give them medication to help prevent them from getting tuberculosis. K? That would be a public health standing order for those public health nurses to be able to dispense or administer that medication.

For vaccines, that came up because current Hawaii law says pharmacists can't administer vaccines if it's both FDA approved and ACIP recommended.

Now we had a very unique circumstance. So for the COVID vaccine, the FDA changed its recommendation. So it lost its FDA approval, but the ACIP still recommended it. So even though the ACIP recommended it, because the FDA no longer approved it, pharmacists couldn't administer it. So this is to cover those scenarios, where, pharmacists could still administer it if it is approved by the FDA for some indication.

Okay. And one last real quickly. Sorry. Real quickly. And so this is this measure is also exempting an auditor impact assessment report. Are you aware and do you agree?

So the reason for that is because these services today are all currently covered. So the impact of covering of something new that's already covered, that is the reason why. It's not an additional coverage. It was required to be covered on the patient protection and affordable care act, and these are all currently covered today.

Okay. Alright. Sure.

Any other questions? If not, we'll question.

Last question.

Last question. Okay.

You know, besides the concern, is DCCA here? DCCA.

You know, besides the concern, is DCCA here? DCCA.

DCCA. Yeah. Thank you, thank you, director. DCCA, You know, the other part of this bill is the insurance mandate. And I don't know, director mentioned it, but in your testimony you mentioned that there there needs to be an an audit that's required by HRS 23-51. Just to confirm any kind of, I guess, I would assume economic analysis or outcomes from, from a bill being passed. Is that something that's required the auditor?

Our current testimony more so focuses on the subject of case a defraeement, and then also that there are safeguards in this measure, that does speak to a repeal, if it does trigger that defraeement. So that's the basis of our testimony.

I'm sorry. I had a hard time hearing you.

Oh, I'm sorry. The basis of our testimony is currently focused on a case of reframing for any state actions, creating benefits in addition to the essential health benefits. However, we do note that this current version of the bill does have a repeal mechanism in several sections, sections 3, 4, and 17.

So you're saying that because of the refill mechanisms, that'll safeguard any increase, which doesn't require any audit?

It may safeguard any triggering of a defrailed because of the Affordable Care Act.

It may, but it's not necessarily gonna be there. That's an assumption?

It looks like it would be in Section 17, 3, and 4. The it is an area that our staff attorney as well as the Department of Health's attorney general did coordinate on.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much for all those questions.

There being no further questions, we'll go on to the next measure. Thanks to the testifiers for discussing this important matter. Let's move on to senate bill 2761, senate draft 2, house draft 2 relating to social media. This measure requires a digital application store provider to verify the age of users, require parental consent for users under 16 years of age to download or purchase or make a purchase on a social media platform and distribute that information to social media platforms.

It requires social media platforms to obtain the age information from digital application store providers, determine whether parental consent has been provided for young persons, and take reasonable steps to identify young person users through their algorithms.

First up, we have the attorney general. That's the attorney general.

Good afternoon chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Ashley Tanaka from the department of the attorney general. We did submit written comments, on this bill, pointing out that this house draft to version of the bill presents as greater first amendment concerns than the previous versions did. In the previous versions, we did testify on the first amendment risk that those versions posed.

But this version, now that it's moved beyond just trying to verify the age of social media users to prevent those under 16 from using social media absent of parent parental consent. This house draft two is now going to require all, not just social media users, but all application store users, including adults, not just minors, to verify their age, regardless of what kind of app they want to download, not just social media platforms, but any sort of app.

Lastly, we did note a recent case from Texas where a similar law was preliminary and joined via federal district court in Texas as violating the first amendment. Thank you. I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Raji Tolentino, DCCA Office of Consumer Protection.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Raji Tolentino with Office of Consumer Protection. We support the intent of this measure and was done our written testimony, offering comments, but I'd like to highlight our concern with the age verification provision of this bill. This provision raises questions about how consumer data will be handled. And in those in other states, age verification laws usually limit data collection to what is necessary.

We do restrict this use and they require deletion after verification. This measure does not clearly include those limits. Without them, it could lead to unnecessary collection of personal information and increase the risk of misuse and data breaches. Adding clear guardrails on data collection use and retention would better protect consumers while still allowing the law to work at the time. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the call.

Thank you very much. Amy Boss, NetChoice on Zoom. Please proceed.

Yes. Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Amy Boss, vice president of government affairs at NetChoice. Respectfully, we are opposed to SB 2761. We share the legislature's concern for children's well-being online, but we believe this bill falls far short.

First, this bill is unconstitutional as courts are are already telling us as much. SB 2761 follows the same policy path as Texas app- Texas, app store bill, which a federal judge blocked in December 2025. The court said the bill is likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment, finding that existing mental control tools are already allowing families to manage their children's app use without restricting lawful speech. A similar bill is now facing a similar challenge in Utah. That challenge was filed in February.

Second, the privacy risks are severe. Age verification data presents a honeypot of sensitive personal information on millions of users, including minors and adults. One data breach could expose the identities and ages of Hawaii's children to bad actors. Protecting kids should not mean building a surveillance infrastructure targeting them. Again, we urge the Committee to explore different evidence based alternatives and oppose this unconstitutional and unworkable mandate.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thanks, miss Boss. Next, Michael Golojuch.

Good afternoon again. Michael Golojuch junior. He, him pronouns. I am president of Pride at Work Hawaii. We stand in strong opposition to this measure before you.

You have our testimony, and we'd like to focus on things that this legislature should be doing. This bill is not, as it some people like to say, not ready for prime time, but we understand what the intent is behind it. Instead of, like the previous testifier said, putting together all this data just right for the picking for a great hacker. Hold the social media companies accountable for those that allow them to spread harmful misinformation. That would be a great thing.

Strengthen data privacy protections for all users. Another great idea. Invest in digital literacy education to help young people critically evaluate online content. And not just young people, people like those that testified today. It'd be a great idea.

So they know what's true and what's not, and they and so that would be a wonderful thing as well. And finally, ensure any youth safety measures do not isolate or endanger vulnerable populations. Under this current measure, you are asking children to basically out themselves, as well, if they wanna be able to use online platforms. When they may not be out, then it may not be safe for them to come out to their parents.

I do have to remind you that forty percent of our homeless youth identify as LGBTQIA, and that comes from being thrown out of the good, Christian families.

So we this so this bill is not ready for prime time. There are many reasons that we can that you should and do look at things for the future, and I encourage you to do so for the next legislative session to help our keiki, to protect them, and not just our keiki, our adults. There are it's great. It's it's quite clear that there needs to be put guardrails on social media.

We've seen what happens when there are no, guardrails from January 6 to the measles outbreak to so many other different things.

That social media- but also social media is a great an area of great can do some great good as we saw this past weekend with the marches, bringing people together and finding communities. So this bill's not ready. We cannot support it.

We encourage you to hold it in committee, and let's come back next session with something bigger, better, and bolder, and hold meta TikTok and all the other social media platforms accountable because freedom of speech is free, but you still can't yell fire in a, clouded room and that you are allowed to yell fire on a social media platform today, and there is no repercussions. So thank you, and have a good day.

Thank you very much. Robert Singleton on Zoom.

Good afternoon, chair Tarnas, members of the committee. My name is Robert Singleton. I serve as the senior director of policy and public affairs at Chamber of Progress, a tech industry association that supports inclusive innovation. I'm here today in respectful opposition to SB2761 unless as amended because it will mandate intrusive age verification of parental consent requirements at the app store level, which will undermine privacy, centralized sensitive personal data, and risk cutting young people off from essential online services. So SB2761 requires app stores perform account level age verification, effectively forcing the verification and of the identity and age of all users, including adults for every single application.

Like, the vast majority of apps having no adult content or social media component, Imposing age verification at this level was akin to checking someone's ID before allowing them entry into a shopping mall simply because there's one restaurant that serves alcohol, which also then needs to check your ID. This simply does not make sense, especially when the clear intent of this legislation is to regulate social media platforms, not app stores.

And especially so because the target are the largest online app stores already provide a wide array of free and comprehensive parental controls that can be set up at the moment of account creation. So I'll defer to my written testimony for more information, but we'd just like to highlight that mandatory parental consent requirements risk harming teens and vulnerable or high conflict households. So requiring minors under the age of 16 to obtain verifiable parental consent before they can download, purchase, make purchases on social media platforms.

Because access is conditional on parental approval at the app store level, minors who are unable or unwilling to involve a parent are effectively barred from participating in large portions of the online ecosystem. While parental involvement can be beneficial in many contexts, blanket consent requirements do not account for the wide array of family dynamics and can be misused in high conflict or unsupportive or even abusive households.

For example, teens seeking access to mental health resources, LGBTQ+ support communities or educational tools could be blocked by a parent who is unsupportive or controlling. Research consistently shows that online engagement can reduce isolation and improve mental health outcomes for vulnerable youth and policies that indiscriminately restrict access risk cutting off these critical lifelines. So for these reasons, we remain opposed to, SB2761.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Andrew O'Connor, the Entertainment Software Association.

Alright. Thank you very much. For the record, my name is Andrew O'Connor. I'm testifying on behalf of the Entertainment Software Association. ESA members are the leading publishers and developers of video games in The United States.

I'm here to testify in opposition to Senate Bill 2761. I've submitted written testimony, and we'll just take a brief second to go over a few points that echo a lot of the concerns that have come before me. As drafted, the bill is incredibly broad with definitions of app store and social media platform and would force extensive collection processing, storage, and sharing of highly sensitive personal information.

Even with safeguards that are put around this information, just transmitting this data and forcing a collection of this data when otherwise it may not be collected is highly problematic and substantial privacy and security risks. I think a previous iteration of this bill had put the onus of that collection on social media companies.

I would ask that the committee move back to that. And then, of course, I'd be remiss if I did not point out, like other than pointed out, the constitutional concerns around this bill and just the fact that no other state that has passed this has successfully implemented up to this date. So thank you for your time. Happy to answer any questions to my testimony or my written testimony.

Thank you very much. Morgan Stevens, the CAP Association.

Good afternoon. Chair, vice chair, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today regarding SB2761. My name is Morgan Stevens, and I represent ACT/ the app association, a global trade association for small and medium sized tech companies and independent app developers. We share your commitment to protecting children online and empowering parents with meaningful tools to manage their children's digital experiences.

However, the bill, as currently drafted, raises serious concerns, particularly for small app developers that build general audience products or services.

First, the build compliance obligations will likely require building new or expanded technical infrastructure to comply and may also trigger, additional legal obligations under frameworks such as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, even if the app is not designed for or marketed to children. For small developers, establishing and maintaining these systems is costly, complex, and often unrealistic. We're also concerned that the bill may increase privacy and security risks.

While well intended, the bill's approach to age assurance would require additional data collection and transmission, which could introduce new privacy and security risks by design. Finally, the bill raises legal and constitutional concerns.

Late last year, a federal court blocked enforcement of a similar law in Texas. I find that likely violated the first amendment. We share your goal of protecting children online and accents ready to work with you on solutions that are effective, privacy protective, and workable for innovators. Thank Thank you for your time and consideration, and I welcome any questions.

Thank you very much. Aiden Downey, Computer and Communications Industry Association.

Good afternoon, chair, members of the committee. My name is Aiden Downey representing the Computer and Communications Industry Association. We share the goal of online safety, we oppose Senate bill 2761. Because it's currently drafted, it faces steep constitutional hurdles and privacy concerns. I don't wanna belabor any points.

I'm I'm more than happy to echo what my colleagues are saying and and and sort of stand on the written comment that we submitted, last night. But I did wanna quickly highlight the constitutional struggles, this legislative model has faced most recently in Texas, which has enjoined a similar mandate. The fiscal impact of defending a bill using taxpayer dollars, that's likely to be enjoined is another aspect to consider before advancing this piece of legislation. Respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Abby Simmons, Stonewall Caucus.

Hello, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Abby Simmons, Stonewall Caucus, in opposition to SB2761, unless it's amended. We do recognize the hard work of legislators and the intent of this bill. We do share the same goal of protecting youth, but the way that this bill is currently written risks cutting off LGBTQ plus young people from life saving online support, especially those in non-affirming homes.

One good example of life-affirming life saving online support is Trevor's space, which is a safe and affirming space that has approximately 700,000 users worldwide that often represents the only safe space available to youth living in fear of violence and harm, including from their own family members.

Specifically, the definition of social media platforms should be refined to include tangible thresholds, such as revenue thresholds. For example, limiting applicability to entities exceeding $100,000,000 in annual revenue, including revenue derived from advertising or the sale of personal data. Meaningful user based thresholds to ensure that only large scale platforms are covered. For example, a high statewide user threshold such as 300,000 users in Hawaii or a comparable national threshold.

And then finally, to ensure that platforms whose primary purpose is peer support, crisis intervention, or community safety are not unintentionally restricted.

So in summary, we respectfully urge amendments to exempt smaller platforms and nonprofit support spaces and to include meaningful revenue and user thresholds so this bill correctly targets large commercial platforms, not safe, moderated communities. If those amendments cannot be made, we do respectfully ask that the bill be deferred. Nuhalo for your time.