Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

Good morning and welcome. It's Wednesday, 04/15/2026 at 10AM here in Conference Room 229 at the Hawaii State Capitol. We are convening this joint informational briefing between the committees on commerce and consumer protection and our friends from the agriculture and environment committee, for the Department of Agriculture and biosecurity and the attorney general's office to brief us on legal authority around import inspections as they relate to invasive species.

This is in response to testimony that the department provided these joint committees in a public hearing on Senate Bill 2,760 and the submitted memorandum that have been provided to the committee as a result of Senate request for information, particularly around the department's testimony as to their discretion to allow the entry of infested pests, items infested with pests into the state of Hawaii. So we'll start by having the Department of Agriculture come up and present on their pest inspection process.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning.

Okay. Thank you. Good morning, chairs. Vice chairs member of the committee, Senator Rhodes, Sharon Heard Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be before you and provide this informational briefing information to, respond to the request.

We appreciate your continued partnership and strengthening Hawaii's biosecurity system. I wanted to just give you a brief intro to the. The biosecurity system that we implement within the department, and it is risk based. It's a risk based biosecurity system. The authority that we do have is based on, right now we're developing clarity processes and.

The resources that were given to us by the governor and this body. The focus that we have right now is on better implementation. We want to do more with the enforcement framework that we have. What I mean by framework is within the framework. We're trying to get the skeleton formed and how each part works within the other so that we can better enforce some of the rules that were given to us through 02/31 and February.

Particularly the focus is on rapid response. Should we get something that is N K o not known to occur or incipient. We're working on a wrap a rapid response to get that in. I think one of the senators has been focused on that as well. Okay.

So we're going to be talking a little bit about legislation that we want to suggest for 2027. We're putting together, based on our review of January. And, in response to the Last time we had, I think we did, we could have done better on our training manual response. So we have put together a series of maybe three options for us moving forward in preparation for the biosecurity director that's coming on board in January.

The first one we're working on is the Biosecurity Academy with the community college where we're preparing a curriculum to take anywhere from 10 to 20 students and actually take them through the process of a five month course in how to become a biosecurity inspector.

When they graduate from that course after five months, they will be a biosecurity inspector. So they're vetted before they enter the academy. They're paid, and so they study hard. We hope during their five months, so the biosecurity academy would create a curriculum, put together a training manual that we could then implement as they go out into the field and actually implement the inspection process.

We also have another option where we can redescribe an existing PD and redescribe the PD such as to create, a position description task within there to create a training manual, work with those that have a training manual, I e DLE or DOCARE, and then create one that aligns with that type of instruction that they also have to use, you know, discretion and judgment.

But how does that work into the real world versus what's on the printed page? The third option we have is to work within the CTAHR, system because they have education in their curriculum, of course, and they also have teaching for biosecurity. And so that would be the third option that we have. So right now, we are working on those things, in terms of biosecurity. Lots of moving parts, lots of episodic things going on.

And with that, I'm hoping that if I turn around my three subject matter experts, my plant industry managers of plant quarantine, plant pest control, and pesticides are here. And they are. So I'll call them up to do the, go through the presentation that we have prepared, for this briefing. Thank you. Okay?

I need another chair.

Good morning. Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, Senator Rhodes, Jonathan Hall, Department of Agriculture plant quarantine branch manager.

I am Esther Reichert. I'm the pesticides branch manager under plant industry division.

Han Lau, plant pest control branch manager.

Yeah. So, we'll go through the presentation real quick. I think, I believe you folks have already gotten it, relating to biosecurity, in Hawaii. And ultimately, you know, bond security is a set of measures to reduce risk, to the environment, agriculture and to the people. And, the goal of the presentation is very high level, overview of what needs to be done moving forward.

And I think obviously the chair heard said, providing some changes to some of the things that have been brought up throughout this legislative session about what needs to be fixed moving forward to really achieve biosecurity, I think where the legislature and where the department wants to see it going. You know, biosecurity is important.

And I think, you know, seeing the current impacts, death, a little fire end, and obviously the, the number of new detections of CRB on Molokai and Maui, really emphasize why biosecurity is important and, you know, making sure that biosecurity is going to be enhanced moving forward to prevent those pests that aren't yet established in the state things like brown tree snake or the red port of fire ant, which, you know, should they become established are massive, financial problems, not to mention public health and safety problems.

Next slide has a picture of, you know, which is generated by the CRB response team about, you know, what could occur should, you know, CRB become widespread, and establish in Waikiki. And I think the illustration is, I think very stark.

And, when you look particularly on places like, in, on the West Side Of Oahu, there are places that do look like this already and, you know, making sure that, everything that can be done to prevent this from, from occurring, throughout the state is really the goal of what biosecurity needs to be done and, what needs to be done for biosecurity. And again, this is just a single pest.

This is not, LFA and Cokie, or, you know, whatever the next pest is going to be when it, when, when they do come to the state. There's been a number of, of legislative bills that have been provided, or that have been passed through the legislature and have provided expanded, authority resources, particularly, manpower, and funding, not only to the department, but to all of, all the state departments that do biosecurity in the state.

And, you know, the, the, you know, the department is very grateful for, for those, for those additional resources and, you know, you know, getting us kind of back to where we were, you know, prior to, prior to the RIF.

But, you know, there's a lot more that does need, that needs to be done. And, and I think we'll, which we will be discussing, as, as, as is the goal of this meeting. So there are a lot of state agencies that have biosecurity functions. The slide is a lot of words, but ultimately each agency has its own mandate and its own authority.

And the goal is to provide, I think the state level, outlook, not necessarily those at the, at the county or at the federal level, because they both have their own, very specific roles to play.

And, historically, a lot of the work that has been done has been quite siloed. And I think over the last, maybe two years or so, we're really starting to break a lot of those silos down so that we can, further

a

lot of the work that we're doing. And, you know, like for example, data sharing has been one of those biggest things. And, we just got a, an agreement with the PCSU for RCUH who run the ISCS to start sharing data between us and them. So, we started with CRB response and, the Maui invasive species committee, and, we're moving forward. I think next week we're meeting with, the Hawaiian based species committee, BISK and stuff like that as, as we move forward.

And again, all in line with, I think, building up, centralization of biosecurity activities across the state. A lot of what we're doing is based off of what New Zealand has done. And, the state has spent quite a bit of money, investing and looking or looking at what the, you know, the leader or one of the leaders of biosecurity, Don Zen. We've sent a couple of delegations, to New Zealand and, the pictures, depict, oh, yeah.

I guess on the left, Mike Ingles, he's the minister of primary industry.

So that's the folks who do bus security for, New Zealand, providing an example, or sorry, an overview of how they work, to, to a delegation of Hawaii delegation. The second picture in the middle is a tour of their, post entry quarantine facility. So this is a, bio safety level three facility. So all plants that enter into New Zealand, go through this facility, depending on the type of plant, can be years, before plants are released. And, this is at the cost to the importers.

And, it's about 6 between, depending on the plant, 6,000 to 12,000 New Zealand, per month, to do this. And again, the cost is high because the systems, control air. So there's air management and water management to ensure there are no, pathogens or arthropod pests that are released during the quarantine period. And New Zealand also uses, on the third picture, private groups to do a lot of education, particularly for the transitional facilities, the transition facility program, and to manage, capacity resource, should there be a rapid response.

For example, they had their food flying, the most recent food flying incursion, they were able to get about two, they're over 200 people immediately to do us, a two mile, survey of all properties, within the initial detection and and scale up more traps to, ensure that, there wasn't a breeding population.

So I as much as I appreciate the explanation of the New Zealand model, the request was for we're we're now thirteen minutes into this briefing, and I was hoping we could just advance to the portion of your presentation that walks us through DAB's pest inspection process currently.

Okay. Yeah. So so that would be let me I'll just make sure it's the correct slide. So that would basically be at the border. So that would probably be slide I'm sorry.

Take your

time. Slide 16. Arrival in the state should be at the bottom. Hopefully we can forward to that, but, yeah, so that's really at the border. And, just real quick.

So I think, the image that is provided is it's heavily based off of, the New Zealand model in that, biosecurity is not a wall. It's a net designed to capture, or reduce risk as you go through the systems And, to chair's point, the inspection process is primarily for the border and to some extent, a little bit at the post border, but primarily at the border.

And, that is where at least plant quarantine has the majority of the roles to play in this because we have the statutory authority for a lot of these activities. And when you look at it, there are two, four, there's about seven things here that really encompass all the things that need to be done to manage the inspection and the risk management process. The color coding is designed to, address the, I think how much more needs to be done.

Red, there's no red on this one, unfortunately, but red is I think there's a lot of work to be done. Yellow has, we have some portions of it implemented, whereas green, we have, a pretty functioning, process, but more needs to be done. I think that there's no question that, a lot of the activities that we do can be enhanced to, to increase biosecurity for the state. And realistically, you know, inspection is a, is a risk based process.

The statute requires inspection for a very specific class of commodities, that's in 01/2005, and those commodities are presented for inspection at the port of entry.

We do have some agreements for, high perishable goods to be inspected outside of the port. So like, fresh fruit and vegetables, they are inspected at facilities. Obviously we wanna make sure we're managing perishability and commerce, and it's easier for us to go to them to conduct the inspections, as opposed to trying to do them at the harbor. But, everything else, is basically done at the Harbor or sorry, at the ports of entry.

We do have a trans, a pilot transitional facility program on Oahu that does, do a risk based analysis for, low risk commodities.

So primarily fruit and veg, just because of the volumes. We don't have the staff to be able to, to go to every site at the same time to inspect everything. So, we basically quality assurance specific inspection. So we do it more thorough inspection periodically, the rest, we're releasing, based on risk, the outer islands don't participate in that program because the staffing to, the, the, the volume to staffing ratios, we don't have that same problem. And, so we don't use that program on the outer islands.

It's only on Oahu. During, during the inspection, the inspectors are looking for a number of things. The first thing is, you know, while they're, while they're doing the inspection, they're doing a quick overview of what is regulated or not. Because a lot of times you, depending on the importer, you may have non regulated goods with regulated goods. So obviously they're gonna make sure that the regulated goods, are gonna be inspected.

They're checking them against manifests that are provider invoices, which is a requirement. So again, we're making sure that everything that they say is there is there and that it, and that it's going to be inspected. That's the first thing. Once they've made that determination, they're going to be, making sure that none of those goods have, additional requirements beyond just an inspection for pests. So, is the commodity, restricted plant?

Does it require a permit, or a treatment certificate or anything like that? Or is it something that's prohibited, which obviously at that point they cannot release. So they're gonna do that. Once they've, once they've gone through that process, if there is a, restricted commodity, does it have the permit? Does it have the certificates?

Does it meet the those additional requirements? Once it does that, then you'll do the inspection. The it's generally a survey, depending on the particular goods and the volume. So they'll they'll do a random sampling of all the commodities. They do not find pests.

They will release the shipment, basically the way the waybill, bill of lading, they will apply a stamp or a seal that indicates that the shipment is passed and it, it is free to do what it needs to do. If there's a, if there is a pest detection, depending on the pest and the level of infestation, the, the action will change.

So, for a high priority pest, or something that is not known to occur in the state, for example, you know, you find CRB, LFA, slugs or snails, ants, or, you know, or an organism doesn't exist. Those things does not exist. Those things are either subjected to treatment, refusal, or destruction at the cost of the importer.

The shipments will be placed on hold or, or at least the infested commodities would be in placed on hold. And we're gonna work with the particular, importer to determine the, the disposition that works best for them. It doesn't get, so again, whether it be treatment provided that there is one that would eradicate the pest, destruction, if there is no treatment, or refusal. Generally speaking, just because of the cost of transportation, destruction, or treatment are the two that are used. Most times it is destruction.

It's generally a lot of times it's smaller lots and the cost to do a fumigation or whatever it may be outweighs the cost of the commodity. So it's easier to just take, accept the loss and just pay us a small fee for the destruct to either witness destruction or conduct a destruction ourselves. If it is not a pest that is of high priority or not known to occur in the state, then you show you have everything else.

So if it is heavily infested with a shipment or with a with an with an insect or, you know, disease that is known to occur in the state, the staff need to either treat, destroy, or refuse entry as well. That's that's the that's the policy.

And for low risk, low risk, but for, pests that are widespread, established and are out of low infestation levels, the staff can release them, which I think has been, I think, a lot of the contention as it relates to the statute, because the statute is written in such a way that it requires a treatment. And, and I think a lot of the confusion has been, the practice that the branch has been doing, doesn't quite comport with the way the statute is, is, is written.

And I think, as chair heard said, I think we need to, provide a specific change to manage that, to the extent of making sure that the work that we're doing is obviously beneficial to the state as it relates to not introducing pests. But yet also, again, trying to manage the cost of doing that particular work. So for example, if we were to treat everything

So let me stop you right there because that's policy determination that you're getting into. And so we should stop there because you just acknowledge that the process doesn't necessarily comport with a statute. Can you help me understand when you went through that process, the designation of a pest not known to occur in the state versus a high what I heard was three different type of pests. I heard a pest that's not known to occur in the state. I heard a high priority pest.

And then I heard well, I didn't hear high priority pest. I heard if it's not a high priority pest. Yes. So there must be a high priority pest. Okay.

Can you take me through those designations?

Yeah. So so NKO is the term so not known to occur. So Do

you have any slides on those terms?

I do not. Okay. Go ahead. Yeah. So so NKO is a status that we place on, any organism that is not established within the state.

So, when staff come across in NKO, it's treated essentially how 1587 is designated. It's there is no release. It it it goes through the processes where they're treat, destroy, refuse. And the reason why and and this this process

And so where where can the public look to or where can your new inspectors look to to determine whether the the pest is not known to occur?

Yes. So a lot of it is really case by case and on job training, unfortunately. And we need

to Is there a list that someone could look to to see all of these are

We do it through, like, bolos and stuff. So be on the lookout. So we provide, you know, so as, as shipments come, you will generally have like waves of pests. And what'll happen is, generally speaking, most of the commodities that we import are through

But you have a database or something?

We do. So the so the database does provide that as well. So when when folks look into it, they can see there's like a pie chart that shows all the interceptions of which commodities have the most interceptions. So that that occurs now. We do have that.

But we also follow it up with a with with with an essentially an email with a notice to staff to be on the lookout for particular pests on a particular commodity from a particular shipper. Right? Because not everybody sees the same thing. Like

any points both and

For yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah.

That that would be a

on the loose perhaps coming in.

Yeah. Yes. For yes. I think that that that's a definitely very good example.

Yes. Okay. What about high priority pests? Where's the list for the high priority pests?

So historically, that's been the pest for controlling eradication in four dash sixty nine a.

Okay. And so what is your what's the difference between how you guys treat pests not known to occur and high priority pests?

They're the same. Oh, they're the same. We don't treat them any differently. They're treated the same way.

Okay. And so where's the list of pests that are pests but not high priority.

Yeah. So and then so that's the those are the things that would be established and widespread. So,

So where's that list?

It's it it it I think it it goes back to the the fact that is, it's all on the job training. And, as staff are trained through the inspection process, eighteen months, the things that they, we see often, we train them through that process. We don't have a good database that says every single thing is or is not, established or not. And one of the biggest challenges we have is that the, the biological survey for the state, gosh, I can't even remember when it does.

It needs to be done.

So it's very possible that there are things that are not known to occur, maybe occur now or maybe the, you know, what we thought was occurring was a mistake. We we need to So can

you walk me through if it's not a high priority pest and it's not known to occur in the state, then then you guys determine whether it's heavily infested or whether it's widespread.

So so, in NKO is always so the NKO and high priority are are for all intents and purposes exactly the same.

You're not letting them in?

Yes. There there's no difference from the staff standpoint.

So what about the rest?

Yeah. So yeah, so those are the established

widespread. Yeah.

So established widespread. And I think that's really where the contention is, right? The policy that we work under got you from like 1995 or whatever, for low low priority staff can release, which is obviously where the conflict is. High infestation, moderate to high infestations you need to treat. So you treat them as the same as the rest.

So it's only for that the the the widespread established pest at a low infestation level where we where where there's conflict. Everything else comports with the way that the statute is written.

I mean, when you say conflict, you mean you guys are ignoring the statute?

I I I mean, that's the policy Let's

have you guys take a break and let's have the attorney general come up and let's talk about the statute.

have you guys take a break and let's have the attorney general come up and let's talk about the statute.

If we could get those slides up, it might be easier for the members because there are memos that we got about the statute from the Department of Ag that established their discretion that was just described earlier. And if you could please walk us through the statute so that we can understand where we got from the statute to this policy of if it's widespread, they make a call on it.

Okay. And so, good morning, Chair and committee members. I think you probably all know, Jennifer Waihee-Polk. She is our subject matter expert here today, and we have been asked to sort of be able to walk you through the statute. What does it mean?

Where is there discretion? Where is there not discretion? And so, I will turn it over to our subject matter expert, and Jennifer can walk you through these things.

Okay. So, I think the one thing that chair wants to discuss was 157, 150A7-A, which states it is a violation of sections 150A-5 and 150A-6 to bring into the state, contrary to those sections, any plant, plant, product, animal, microorganism, or any article infested with pests or contaminated with soil, and the same shall be refused admittance, and may, in the discretion of the inspector, be seized and treated, destroyed, or excluded at the expense of the owner or the owner's agent.

So, as the plain language reading of the statute reads, it does not provide the department discretion in admitting infested articles. Pursuant to 150 A-7, any plant, plant product, animal microorganism, or any article infected with pests or contaminated with soil shall be refused admittance into the state. However, department inspectors then have the discretion on how to handle the infestation, whether that is to seize and treat, destroy, or exclude at the expense of the owner.

Did you want me to go into any other sections?

So, if you can just briefly comment on other sections of the members? You were provided the legal authority memo from the Department of Ag in the packet. They also reference the International Plant Protection Convention, the Commerce Clause, and the Federal Plant Protection Act. Do, do any of those do any of those authorities override this law we're looking at right here?

On the law on its face, no. The dormant commerce clause would likely not apply because the state has a legitimate interest in guarding against pests, which could present an environmental risk. So on its face, it's not. But I, you know.

Okay. What about the Federal Plant Protection Act?

The Plant Protection Act, let me see if I have a summary that's a little better. It regulates foreign and interstate importation and exportation, and the interstate movement of plants, plant products, and plant pests. So, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, which usually people refer to as APHIS, enforces the Plant Protection Act, and it is the agency primarily responsible for regulating importation of foreign plants, plant products, and plant pests. So.

Let me just clarify. When you say foreign, because sometimes we refer to foreign, and we're still talking about other states. But you're talking about things coming in from foreign countries.

Yes.

Not from the United States.

So just, just to get that out. Because I think another thing you guys looked at were treaties with other nations.

Okay.

Well, I just wanna make it, make sure we understand that because if members if you look at page two of the legal authority memo that we were provided from the Department of Agriculture, on page two, section three, federal statutory authority. The last sentence concludes that Hawaii cannot impose restrictions on interstate plant movement that conflict with federal standards or exceed federal regulatory authority.

Just to be clear, there is no federal regulatory authority that prohibits the state from following our own statutes.

So, let me break that down. So, just with regards to foreign movement into the state from foreign, our understanding is that the USDA does all inspection in the ports of entry in the United States from foreign countries. So.

So the Plant Protection Act doesn't apply to interstate plant movement.

Well, it does it does apply to interstate. So, there's two sections. There's foreign, which our state does not do. So, we wouldn't be using 150-A because foreign inspections are done at the border by the Federal Government, whether that's by, the Customs and Border Protection and APHIS. They have a agreement together.

So interstate. If interstate, it's possible for the Plant Protection Act for APHIS to regulate them, it would be through the CFR, that they have or sometimes they will do orders. If there is a regulation, the state is preempted from actions that are inconsistent with or exceeding the regulations or orders.

But as long as it doesn't exceed so they they would be able to, I guess, my my thought would be that the department would be able to enforce 157 to the extent as long as it doesn't exceed or inconsistent with.

And I don't know if the department will have examples of when this happens and it's a problem, because from my reading of the, the, I haven't read all the CFRs, but just usually APHIS is trying to prevent a spread when they write these rules.

So often it will be something like California, there'll be explosion of fruit flies or something. And then they'll say, okay, they want a quarantine area and now nothing can leave this state without going through this first, getting an inspection, and I think a permit of some sort. And APHIS will inspect it and send it.

So, even if we were to have that sort of package that comes through, I don't know when it would be infested because normally they're treated, but that would be maybe, maybe a situation where we couldn't say, no. You can't come in.

But often that kind of product would have been treated, would have been quarantined, would have been inspected by the federal government, and really shouldn't contain a pest at that point. But that's one example that I can

Can I ask you a question? I'm sorry. So of the pests that we know of, we are not subject matter experts in pests, on what is a pest. But right now, if we were to look at the list, I don't think there are any orders in the PPA that apply to the pests that we're dealing with here. There may be some.

Not the big ones, I think. Like, CR for CRB, coquí frog, little fire ant, and two unsplitterbug, for example. The only one that I think is recognized by the USDA is the coconut rhinoceros beetle. And it's not a regulation. It's just, I think they assisted us.

There's a CRB response team here in Hawaii, and environmental assessment of their intention to assist us in treatment on the island. So, they, they didn't put out regulations about shipments here. I think they just wanted to check whether or not we could send out products and export them. So that wouldn't that doesn't, to my knowledge, place a limitation. But then those, those four and the other three are not on, to my knowledge, on Plant Protection Act.

So because there are no orders that you found from the Federal Government providing other requirements besides refusing entry at the order, like, is established in state law? The state law, the state law governs.

State law governs if it's not under I mean, I didn't check every I don't have a list of pests.

Okay well, we'll ask the department afterwards.

So I didn't check them all. I just checked the main ones that I could try to find. And also I, I checked it off the website, and I understand that that's not always up to date.

And in your work as a deputy attorney general representing the Department of Agriculture, can you recall a situation where the gederal government stepped in and required a different treatment other than the provisions in state law for a pest?

I have not, but to be honest.

How long have you been the deputy representing the department?

I have been here since 2017. But to be honest, I don't always represent the plant quarantine.

Well, but just to your.

To my knowledge, I have not. I, I, but I, I, I, know, of course, the department would be better to answer if they have because it's possible.

Well, we'll ask them to come back. Any other questions for the attorney general's office?

Yeah.

Just a quick question.

Where does. Okay. Maine versus Taylor. Let's talk about that because it, I, I read the, the Dabs thing about we can't do anything. Federal law prohibits us. But yet Maine versus Taylor gives the state the ability to act as long as it's done in the least restrictive way and nondiscriminatory.

Are we talking about.

The Supreme Court case.

No.

Don't have commerce clause?

Active commerce clause. ICC. It gives the state the ability to act to protect natural resources as long as it's done in the least discriminatory way possible. So I bring that up because it seems to me that this iron wall of the feds is in this an iron wall.

Oh.

Right? That we can act as long as it's in the least discriminatory way as possible.

I think Maine versus Taylor is, is dormant commerce clause. So I think, as we said, we think on its face, this law is fine. It survives dormant commerce clause. Now, there may be a factual situation, and I can't speculate that maybe we would have to reconsider. But the, this isn't the dormant commerce clause.

This is Plant Protection Act, which is a federal law that has language that says that the states are preempted except to the extent they don't go. I think they are not in noncompliance with or exceeding the federal government. So that's a specific statute at play. Because the idea is APHIS is trying to make sure that all the states are copacetic and they, they overarch us. And it's, it',s it's written in the stat the law itself that it preempts the states.

So it's not dormant commerce clause. It's actually a law that was passed by Congress about plant protection.

Is that Trump's the.

No. No. No. No. No. It's before it precedes Trump. I think it.

I mean, he means it governs.

I'm so sorry. Yes it. I'm so sorry.

It's okay.

But I, I bring that up because I think the state does have the ability to act, but there isn't as iron wall. But I want this is a deeper discussion about how this federal law plays into states.

My understanding is APHIS still has the same goals as the state, which is ultimately, I think, to preserve, like, to prevent pests from spreading. So there are even ways, like, let's say, that you do have like, you've got a conflict, and you wanna just not admit. I think there are ways that you can try to have a special needs recognized by the secretary of the USDA. So it's not like, hey, we, we, we, preemptively won't work with you.

I, I, I, from what I can understand, and I don't practice the it's all you know, I would still defer to the department on this. But I think APHIS.

I'd rather refer to the attorney general on this because.

Well, I mean, I can just read,

This ia a legal question we're asking.

Well, it's true.

Recognition. So there's something you can do.

Okay.

I can read the law. But I think I'll, I mean, okay. But I can tell you legally, there is a means in, in the CFR that you can request to try to have a special needs.

Like, if you think, oh, we're in conflict. Now you have to, you know, have certain things you have to requirements to reach, but like then you could try to get it recognized by USDA.

Yeah.

That is occurring in, in the inspection regime right now where the federal government has said, oh, the way the Department of Ag is doing it, it's not the right way.

But this is all theoretical. There's nothing to your knowledge.

I would.

We're taking over.

Oh, foreign imports. You could also try to get it recognized. You could have them recognize your phytosanitary measures so that, you know, when they do in kind of inspections, they will look for your pests as well.

Yes.

As a courtesy.

They will do inspections for us for foreign entered goods.

Well, because if, like, if if if our insects are not on the list, I think we get the opportunity also to when they try to make this list, they try to add it on. But if it's not on, we could try to get federal recognition of our pests as well.

But I guess without, without going too deep any, any further in it, the way this memo was presented to us made it sound as if the USDA comes in over the top of the state like the FBI did in Die Hard and just took over the investigation because there's a special significant circumstance and the feds have supremacy. And to your knowledge, that has never happened, that is not your understanding of the way the law works. Is that fair?

I'll go ahead and answer.

I mean, sure. If we got somebody in that was rude, and maybe they could abuse the federal power, but they still offer ways. And I guess it'd be a factual thing for me because I haven't seen that.

Okay. So it sounds like.

To be clear, we have not we we don't know of that situation occurring.

Okay.

We have no knowledge of that occurring. And even if there was an issue, based on what, I think our research has shown is that it's a collaborative process. There are ways to work together, but for the most part, the state does what it's supposed to be doing, and they don't have to interact that much, really.

If they interact, it's it's positive because they have helped us do treatment.

Except for the part where we apparently established our own policy on how to treat inspected goods in 1995, and it doesn't comport with the law right here. The whole question was whether there's any sort of reason for the legislature to not read that law as a requirement that the department refuse admittance of pest-infested items?

I believe it's a requirement. It says shall.

Okay. Thank you. If there are no other questions for the AGs, then we'll ask DAB to come back up. Members?

I didn't ask that.

Nope.

Okay. Yep. Please.

Actually, Chair, can I get one real quick about AG?

Yeah.

So I'm still unclear. The commerce clause is which takes precedence.

In this with respect to the plants and the quarantine issues, it's not applicable here in this situation.

Or at least for the purposes of the statute.

So if, if, there were a commerce clause issue, and a federal statute, then the commerce clause is gonna govern. It's a, it's a constitutional concept, so it would govern. But in those cases, if we're talking about preemption and commerce clause, either way, the state wouldn't have any, ability to act. If it's preemption, we could act up to, what the law what the federal law is, as long as we're consistent with that. We can't exceed it, and we can't be inconsistent with it.

So a load of Christmas trees coming in that has, unknown past that is not governed by commerce?

It, it is. But, so don't make commerce clause. If there was a situation that we I'm trying to think of a way to put this.

I, I think in a situation like that, it would be that we had some kind of law that would treat whoever is bringing Christmas trees in differently than people growing Christmas trees in Hawaii, for instance.

Unless there was legitimate state interest, which in this case is environmental risk. But for example, if, okay just I'm and I hate to speculate because this is but if there were roaches on the tree that are already established here, and we said no, they might the dormant conference clause someone might argue that's not a pest. And it's been it's established there, and it's widespread across your state. And that is not that is beyond what you can do for that state interest.

And I'm, I'm just but, I mean, that's speculating, and I, I don't wanna do that because that was never raised to us.

And I understand that. Yeah. I'm not wanting to speculate. But then we flip it the other way, and if we're sending out of state, or because, again, California wanna talk fruit fly all that. And this is where I'm kinda questioning, and the whole point comes back is to biosecurity for our state.

Yes.

And I would I will say it that the rest of the nation treats us like we are outside the nation.

That's true.

So, you know, why do we have the inspection at the airports on the part of the country? So okay. That's why I'm confused.

Oh, okay. But, again, I don't think the Commerce Clause just on the base of this statute is gonna apply because we have a legitimate state interest in environment preventing environment.

Well, and and I agree with that. I agree with that.

It would really just be I mean, but I can't speak to any case-by-case thing or what might have you know, what somebody might try to argue. And, and if something were to occur, I would like the department to come to us so that we can help them.

Well, and and using your example, a cockroach, maybe maybe it's well established on Oahu, but not Molokai.

Yeah. And then that would be I think if this everything have to enter through Oahu, though. So then I think we would present it.

This is why we're here today.

Yeah. So, what I think it's once it's interstate, there's no question that we control that.

Except that in a memo from DAB that we got earlier in March, DAB says Hawaii cannot impose restrictions on interstate plant movement. That's why we're here.

Sorry. I'm in intrastate. Like, I think Molokai is there's no direct flights. Are there direct flights to Molokai?

Yeah.

I think oh, there is? Oh.

From any private jets?

Oh. Then I guess I, I guess I wouldn't, you know, in practice.

Alright. Well, we're getting into scenarios. So maybe we'll let you finish and then we'll get that back up here.

Okay. I just wanted to clarify. So on your last question, it was, the their memo says that Hawaii is prohibited from, could you repeat?

Hawaii cannot impose restrictions on interstate plant movement that conflict with federal phytosanitary standards and exceed federal regulatory authority.

I guess that statement is generally true, but it's not applicable in this situation because the PPA, for instance, there, as far as we can tell, the USDA doesn't have any orders or regulation of any of the pests that we're looking at. If there was an order, we would need to follow that order by being consistent or not exceed.

And then I think it would help us to know when that occurs so that we can work with the department. I definitely hope the department will come to us if there are any concerns that are raised, and we can help them either analyze that or what, what extent is there any anything else. We, we're always here to help give advice.

I think I got a question. So has the department come to you for advice based on statue and trying to, understand the statue?

We don't normally talk about the advice that or what has been requested of advice for us?

You just said you would hope that the department comes to you and, you know, we clearly have a difference of opinion of their definition of reading the statute, and understanding the statute, so that we can get to really the the nuts and bolts of how are we addressing invasive species at the hands of a department that doesn't understand?

Let me first say that I think the way I can answer it is the memo that you received was not written by my department, and we did not advise on that.

And that's why and that's why we're questioning it, is that.

How, how about this? Because I, I, I, ref you know, let me reference the the last statement on this memo in on the conclusion section. Section 10. The memo concludes by, by saying this. Inspector discretion regarding treatment, quarantine, destruction, or exclusion is grounded in statute and implemented within federal constitutional limitations.

If we're looking at this statute on the screen right now, is this an accurate statement?

Okay. Thank you. Let's have that.

No.

And explain why you sent us a memo that was titled legal authority, and now we have the attorney general's office telling us it is not accurate.

The I guess I'm trying to figure out. So, as it relates to, so I guess the crux of the situation realistically is again, going back to those the light infestation of a widespread organism throughout the state and the inconsistency and as to what we've historically done for the last, you know, whatever, twenty somewhat years.

And I guess trying to manage that against, I guess, the standard phytosanitary standards that all other agencies use in terms of managing things that are established within their local jurisdictions.

Well, I guess, do you wanna just acknowledge that for the last thirty one years, it appears as though the Department of Agriculture has been following a policy that's in conflict with the law?

I don't see how it says otherwise.

Okay. So can you what where, why do you where where is the list that determines? how are we supposed to proceed on this? These definitions that don't exist in the statute, like whether something is widespread or lightly infested and how you treat them?

Exactly. And I think that goes back to I think some of the the bigger overall challenges that need to be addressed for this particular situation. And again, going back to, I think what is the benefit, I think to having zero tolerance for, again, things that are already affecting the environment. Right? I think to that extent, right? I think where we go, when you have a NKO, right? clearly that effect is unknown.

Right? It and we have a lot of examples. You know, coke, when till they got here, it wasn't a problem. Queens and long horned beetle wasn't a problem in its natural habitat that it got here. Right?

So there's a lot of precedent for that as it relates to something that's already here, already affecting the environment. And should we be allowing more of it or not? And is there an effect? I don't know.

But, and I think this goes back to which some a lot of stuff that the legislature has provided us in the last couple of years in terms of rebuilding a lot of, like, the risk analysis, the data management, and getting a lot of these policies and procedures out for review for not only you folks, but for the public.

Right? And again, we've been kind of just carrying on with what we've always done. And, you know, like when I started eighteen years ago, you know, like you know, potato silicate on peppers, you find we were taught you find it, you hold it up, you make it get identified and you destroy.

I mean, we've been operating on this same procedure, you know, as long as I've been with the department and why it's like that? I can't speak to that.

You know, I was in high school. But ultimately, now that it's been brought to light, we need to fix it because, I think we need to manage, I think zero tolerance against, again, trying to make sure that if we require every to be treated or destroyed or refused entry, the cost, I mean, we import 90% of our food. We are going to be in a world of hurt in the state for again, things that are already here already well established.

And I'm in agreement for limited distribution. Right? Which obviously goes back to data.

You have something on one island, but not on every island. Right? If it's on that island, you're taking action. Right? That's in NKO.

Well, I think that

And I think we need to manage all of that moving forward.

If i can just we'll go look to questions. The challenge with that statement that you're making is that it has only come to light today that for the last thirty years, the public and the legislature have not had the opportunity to make that decision.

The bureaucracy and the Department of Agriculture has been making it exclusively. And if people look to what has happened in Hawaii from an invasive species standpoint for the last thirty years.

I don't think that we can place our faith in the department to continue to make those type of policy calls. Members?

Sorry. Just real quick. But for the problems that we're dealing with, what we're doing is not inconsistent with the statute. If you if we were to find Coke, we're not allowing inter island movement. If we were to find, you know, queens and long horned beetle upon importation, we would not allow entry.

Right? And I think, and again, that's why the there's a I think there has to be a distinction between

What about little fire ant or coconut rhinoceros beetle?

We're not allowing movement unless it's treated, if it's detected. So if we have a shipment that's presented for inspection, we find LFA. It doesn't move unless it's been subject to treatment.

What other treatments?

What do you mean by that?

What other pests do you do you honor the law and restrict and refuse admittance of?

Again, NKOs primarily and then again.

Then where's the list.

And again

You guys curate the list.

Correct.

Right. So you guys have sole exclusive power to determine what comes in or what comes out.

Correct. Yes. Based off of a list that needs to be generated for you folks. But it's based off of fact. I mean, we're not.

It's based off of your own internal administrative exclusive determination.

Sure.

Yeah. Go ahead.

So, let's talk tuberculosis. Bovine tuberculosis. You guys have exclusive rights on the movement of Bovine TB, and this happened on Molokai. You guys have a law in place that no movement of cattle from east to west.

And it happened with you guys allowing a moving permit because the cattle was starved, which became a full blown outbreak, which puts a moratorium on the entire island and no plan to lift that moratorium.

And you know that, Director, because you were in DC with me, with Brian Miyamoto, with Jason Watson, the Lieutenant Governor. And yet I'm still waiting for what your plan is to lift it. And you have none. And I've asked for data because you guys were supposed to be testing wild game. I have no data.

I have no information whatsoever. And you guys told me you was gonna come up with a plan and I don't see that plan today.

I don't have it with me, but there is that MOU that we have with FSIS.

We saw the MOU. And every year during November, you are to come up with what has been tested in your department and come out with a plan on how you guys would lift the moratorium so that those ranchers on Molokai are not struggling to stay afloat.

I will I know we have the numbers, and I will send them to you. As far as what the plan is, I reached out to my counterparts in the national level. Michigan has had a quarantine for many, many, many, many

Right now, I don't care about Michigan. I'm telling you what you guys did was you guys allow for the movement, which you're not supposed to. And if the cattle was starving on that end of the island, it was to dispose of that cattle. You didn't test it. You moved it and exposed everybody else, including a pig farmer that had to destroy their animals.

And now that island is left with a black eye because who the hell wants to buy cattle with TB? And every time they gotta contain that cattle, you guys are testing it. And you guys testing the ones that already been tested and not the entire island.

So what is the plan so that these guys who cannot sell this stuff, is there a compensation plan? Because it's your department that has screwed that island.

Well, this is not the first occurrence of Bovine TB.

I know that. But it wouldn't have been the third one either if you guys had stopped the movement of that cattle, but you guys approved it. You guys approved it.

I wasn't, I'm not I'm familiar with the approval but the current movement is in the wild problem.

That's the problem.

That's the current movement is among the wildlife. It's diff, so right now

It was in the cattle. You didn't test it. You guys gave clearance to move it from east to west. It's in your own rules and you're lauded. You weren't supposed to move it, Sharon.

Understood.

Don't understand because you don't have a plan to lift it.

We're not if we even if we stop moving and didn't approve another movement of cattle.

You would not have spread it. That's what happened. You guys spread it. You didn't follow your own rules, Director. You spread it.

I've spoken with you. I've spoken with Doctor Myetta. You guys have yet to go back to the island and have this discussion with the ranchers. Who now don't wanna test anything because you're not testing a backyard livestock. And you still can't tell me today what wild game did you test?

Access deer.

Outside of access deer on the list you were given by the MOU by the Federal Government and AFIX.

I'll have to go back to you. I believe we've tested pigtails.

This what? Three years. Right? Three years. You and I have been back and forth.

I'd be happy to give you the data that we have.

Why do we wait now before we come before an info briefing that you wanna give me this data? Because this is the just the beginning of that and the CRB, which what I wanna address with you guys and how you guys addressing that with his, Misc, isk, and everybody else, and what that funding is going to address this.

Okay. So Am I allowed to follow-up with the with you on the numbers for Bovine TB.

I would like to follow-up right now. You should have those numbers. I've given you three years.

I know I've mailed I know I've emailed them, but I I'll-

This is my problem with your department. You guys don't follow-up. Don't bring us back the information we asked for, but you guys ask us for everything else that is not a priority that is ruining people's livelihoods that depend on us to help them. And you are not helping at all. You are not helping.

Sorry. Okay.

So I wanna start with who's in charge of handling the tracks for COB on Molokai and Maui?

That would be MoMISC.

For Maui, it has been the, so for both islands, it has been the invasive species committees. So MISC and MoMISC.

Okay. So On Maui and Molokai.

So on MISC and MoMISC who funds them?

They do get some funding from HISC. I'm not sure all of their funding sources.

Do they get funding from CTAHR?

I I'm not sure.

I don't know. I have to check, I think they get funding from the counties as well.

I believe MISC does. I'm not sure if MoMISC does, but that's just my understanding.

So my understanding is this, when CRB well, moratorium came down. Right? CRB was first found. What was the date on when CRB was first found and detected? And what was the communications between your office and the area that infects or CRB was found?

Is this for Maui?

Maui. Yeah. Let's start with Maui first.

Do you have any?

So the Maui detection- gosh. The first one was 2023. I think there were two.

'23 of what?

Of

2023

Of 2023. Oh, gosh. I don't even know what months they were. But there was a there was one dead beetle found in a bag of mulch. And then there was one found in a tree.

I think those were the only two specimens that were ever detected. The department destroyed the media and the tree was treated. And then there was a huge joint survey effort around the area of the beetle find and no other beetles have been found since.

So as you guys continue to monitor, because basically you would monitor for breeding sites who handles that now that you guys are considered dab, right? How do you guys work together with MISC, KISC? I mean, you get so many of them. And again, as Chair had mentioned, the data collection from you guys or the list of things is what I wanna look at. Because at one point, there was 350 something traps, that went out.

And then Big Island had an outbreak. Traps went that way, and I believe some 200 something that were in Molokai went that way. I well aware that Maui Airport had also checked it, had a incident and your office knew about it.

And you guys didn't even contact the Department of Transportation till two days later. Keep in mind, even managing those traps or at least having a data central base so that we could contain.

Because our problem right now is movement of any type of, would it be gravel, potted plants, you name it, cannot be done on Molokai. And I just saying and I'm looking at Maui first because when it happened there, you guys' communication with MISC, KISC and everybody else is really bad.

So how are you guys working with them? Because I'm well aware that they also have people on the on the ground that work for them. And I'm almost trapped there that they were given.

There's what? Three, four being put in areas that CRBO has found. So what do you guys do, and what is your concern on prevention? Because when I'm watching you guys Board Meetings, it's like, we just go keep moving in this direction. If there's a detection, I would assume because I do this with Weevil traps.

So sweet potato. If I find Weevil, I'm gonna drop traps all over the place so I can have a better gauge on what population looks like. If you only get tree traps, and I'll tell you, one of them is broken. And more MISC never go out until somebody else called them. So what the hell is MISC doing, KISC doing?

And if you're biosecurity, then maybe we should put all these entities under you guys. So we know exactly what the hell and who the hell is doing what to figure out how to solve this problem. Because the problem keep getting bigger and you guys do nothing about it. Oh, we saw the problem. We see it.

What you doing? And you coming back for us for more money, and we cannot even use the tools. Because you guys don't even believe in using some of the tools to treat this with pesticides or fumigants.

So how you guys, like do this? Or do we dissolve that and create a whole separate entity and transfer it over to another department?

That would not be the option that I would support.

I don't blame you because then you'd be out on job. Half your people left your department. I think Jonathan is the probably one of the last. And we more focus on flowers, which I don't have a problem. You know, I support all agriculture, but half this shit is coming in from the far the flower businesses.

And I see no plan, Sharon. No plan whatsoever and combat on how you guys gonna do this. Except I see you guys asking us for money, but not money for the database for us to gather, get this information to see what you really guys are doing to try and address this problem, which is a bad problem.

Okay. So regarding what we're doing with the traps, is that where you wanna start with this?

How are you utilizing these traps? You guys not gonna be directing them to put out more?

That would that would be a question for Han.

Han Lau, Plant Pest Control Branch Manager. So regarding the traps, I'm referring to the current situation right now. So what we have, the plan now is to have MISC help and lead with the traps and the data. So the last meeting I had with them is that I told them we need to have all the data. Whatever the data, they have to share it with us.

And as, what Jonathan mentioned this morning, so we had reached an agreement with PCSU. Basically, the data should be shared with us freely. So MISC is taking lead on that one. And then for the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, so we the the other thing to do is to identify potential breeding grounds, and the department is taking lead on that one. And then also trying to survey plant, trees damage, and so the department is working alongside with MISC on that one.

So these are the current, this is the current plan that we have.

So let me tell you something. If you find a dead beetle in that area, something's breeding. Right? I think that's a common sense answer.

If I find a weevil in that area, believe me, I can find on breeding ground, that either tells me they're not doing their job or we're gonna kick this bucket down the road. We're gonna kick the ball down the road again.

So you're hitting the nail on the head. They're actually

I know what I'm doing. I know what I'm hitting. I'm gonna hit something more than the nail on the head right now. Because if you're working with MISC, KISC why is it that MISC has to be called out when somebody else found the beetle?

Yes. This is what's happening. This is my problem. We know what's going on the ground, but I don't know if you got the urgency for you folks. Well, we know the numbers of 90% of imports is coming in and it'll keep coming in if your department does not take aggressive action.

I understand.

We can talk about more MISC, KISC and HISC all you like. Okay. Because the minute civil beat called me and I made a statement, then they decided to talk. Been talking with Laurie on the ground and I said, Laurie, so what the boys doing out there? Oh, we checking the traps.

Well, I know that there's traps out there. There was, I think, four or five. One of them was broken, and the broken one was where the CRB was in. You're not confined much if that's all you're gonna leave out there. I think what they added, 12 more traps or something.

You get 250 traps. Goddamn it. Line those traps up. Line it up.

Yeah. We sent them last week.

I know what you guys sent them. You guys not talking to me, but I know what you guys sent them. I'm trying to tell you guys, do your job. What's the plan? You guys the experts?

I really know I do your job for you.

Well, the MISCs are the ISCs have the task of detection and survey. That was the division of labor, you might say. And then once they detect

Where's the survey. Where is the data?

Were there we just got

This isn't urgent enough because I'm gonna tell you right now, if I had the data, I would have shot that data right over. It would get on serious problem.

Yeah.

We just got the agreement 95% food being imported here, people.

We just got the agreement signed by the university. So now we have the data. I don't know if we have it yet, but we have the agreement.

I'm not thinking you guys get them yet.

Okay. Well

I think only from MISC. I don't believe that we have got

It was a confidentiality situation, and we finally overcome that.

This is not confidential. This is goddamn all in the media right now. This this is, like, full blown, and it doesn't help when you guys have no plan of action to address this.

When we get the date, we will put it on the dashboard. We cannot get the data

Sharon, please not give it to me two years later because, you know, people are gonna take matters into their own hands.

Okay.

And people are gonna be out of business, and we no longer gonna be growing food. And while we're dealing with it, we're getting massive theft with all these farms right now. We just had two more on Molokai.

We had four out of there. So tell me how we address these farmers and ranchers who are dealing with pests that you guys, plant quarantine, should be addressing with party one, party two, party three.

You tell me all you like about MISC, KISC, HISC and everything else. But I'll, like, know what they're doing and what you guys are doing in partnership. Because I know you guys talking to them, but we can sit around the table and talk all day. This is why you guys keep taking tools out of the toolbox for farmers and ranchers and it's hurting every one of them. Sure.

Thank you.

Any other questions, members? Okay. So just to close-up.

You opened the briefing by saying by acknowledging that the system has to change and that you guys are now working on some new approaches.

DAB has not come to the table at any point in the last thirty years and asked us to address the difficulty of implementing the statute by changing it. So what is the plan to come I mean, you what is the position of DAB on on the law now that it's clear that it hasn't been followed?

I'm going to seek the advice of the Attorney General, Deputy Anne Lopez, Attorney General, and see how we can change the law to make it more practicable, workable, enforceable.

What about, what about starting with publishing some lists so that the public understands what has there?

Would be I would think that would be the easy part, Jonathan. Don't the list exists, but it's dynamic too. You know, it the list change. Things take off the list. Things get put on the list.

Well, but you that's why you have a board. Right? You guys meet monthly. You that's why you have interim rulemaking authority.

Well, there's also the Plant and Animal Board that has a list as well. So we have to find out

I understand there's a process, but you you just acknowledge, Jonathan, you just acknowledge there's a there's already a list in 4-69, but that's for

Control and eradication.

Right. That's not for refusal at the ports.

The Pest for control and eradication have stuff that doesn't exist in the state. So it's designed to be full, but it's designed to be full.

So is there some sort of, you guys have to where's the definition for pests? I mean

It's a 158.

Right. So you can recognize that 4-69 list for 158 purposes, and now we have a list. Right?

Correct. And we do it internally already.

But you can do it publicly.

We can put it on the dashboard. Yes.

Yeah. You can do it, but you can adopt it by it from through your board. Right?

I'm not sure if that's for that.

Yeah.

You should be correct.

We can. Yes. We can.

This month. You guys can do it this month. So that when we look at HRS 158-7 and we determine the public sees pests shall be refused entry, there's a list of pests somewhere that's at least a start.

We will. We'll do this in the middle.

What about the HISC list? HISC has a list.

Yes.

Does HISC have a list?

Yeah. Can you guys adopt that?

Okay.

We have a list of invasive species.

Is it some is it aligned with ours?

I mean, you guys are coach, you're our co-chair on the HISC.

Well, we are. We are. But I've been told in the past, rep, chair, that the HISC, the lists are kind of different. They don't they're not

Well, you guys don't have a list, so of course they're different.

Okay.

Yeah. Alright. So we can start with the HISC list and with the quarantine and treatment list. Can we not?

I don't see a few to follow that.

Okay. What about the New Zealand list? You guys mentioned New Zealand and that we're trying to move in that direction. I'm sure they have a list that they refuse at the port.

They're a nation, though. They have a they have a bigger list.

Well, what's the

Well, I think it's I think, again, I think it's trying to address the the highest risk. And again, I think making sure that we're not taking action against things. Again, like, it's taking widespread minimal disruption. Again, without knowing what exactly is

Okay. So at a minimum, we have your commitment that at this month's Board of Ag Meeting, you guys will take steps to adopt the HISC list and your existing quarantine treatment list. So at least there is a public list people can look at and that shippers and exporters and importers can look at and go, if I have these things in my products, I need to make sure that they're that they get dealt with before I import into Hawaii.

We'll do a submittal. We'll do a submittal. I think we the deadline is not passed for Sunshine law, so I think we can do a submittal for that. Now what is gonna be on the list will have to be come from some sort of a meeting with the alignment of the

I mean, the it seems it seems hard for me to believe you would reject lists that were developed through HISC, which you are co-chairs

I'm not saying. We're gonna reach in April

Or 4-69 which you've already gone through the process to adopt. So those seem reasonable starting points after thirty years.

We'll take a look.

Okay. Well then

We'll take a look.

Okay. Chair. Senator Richards.

Director, we've gone round and round about this stuff. You're real good at telling us how no came.

Oh, no. I didn't see it.

No. You keep the Chair kept saying, when we're gonna get this? Well, we have to look at this. Just do it.

Okay.

If we make a mistake, then we fix the mistake. But doing nothing is worse. Just do it.

Okay. We'll do a submittal.

Okay. This month.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Great. Any other questions?

Yes. Senator,

Chair.

If you can, can you send an email of everything that was just asked of the Department of Ag and CC us in there? Because apparently, it seems like we have to write everything down so that we have a fallback. The other thing I wanna put on record is that, did that department, the department of that has made numerous trips to New Zealand. I don't mind the trips to New Zealand, but what are you actually bringing back?

And if their projects or their list of things are huge, then refine the list so that it meets Hawaii standards.

And we don't get this, I'll go kick the ball one more time because the next time I'm gonna kick one ball, it's not gonna be in the field no more. This is crazy, Chair. This is crazy. And I don't see us moving forward if we don't actually stay on this. Thank you.

The proceeding is on YouTube, so we'll go double check all the questions.

Thank you.

Senator

Just the one I think the Biosecurity would dab if our mag experiments failed. I think that if you look at New Zealand, look at other models, it's always in some kind of a law enforcement apparatus because when it comes to invasive species and protection, you can't have a collaborative. You need a command and control system where everything's accountable. All pieces are moving in a unified manner. So that's just my thoughts.

But in the meantime, until that day in that discussion, you are the biosecurity entity. So I just wanna echo everything my colleague said because the problem is making local sustainability a joke if you can't produce food locally because we're being inundated by invasive pests. Some of the stories here. Thank you.

Thank you, members. Thank you. We're adjourned.

Thank you.