House Floor

Mister Clerk, please call the roll.

Mister Alcos? Yep. Miss Amato? Present. Miss Bellotti?

Present. Mister Chun? Yeah. Miss Cochran?

Here.

Mister Eveslin? Here. Mister Garcia? No. Mister Garrett?

No. Mister Gedian? Here. Here. Miss Grandinetti?

Here. Miss Hartsfield? Yeah. Mister Hashem? Yeah.

Miss Ichiyama? Yeah. Mister Iligan? Yeah. Miss Iwamoto?

Miss Kahaloa? Miss Capella? Miss Keohokapuliloy? Mister Kila?

Not present.

Miss Kitagawa?

Not present.

Mister Kong? Present. Mister Kush? Present. Miss LaChica?

Here. Mister Lee? Here. Miss Loewen? Miss Martin?

Mister Matayoshi, miss Matsumoto, mister Miyake, miss Morikawa, mister Muraoka, mister Olds, miss Peruso, Yes. Mister Pirek? Here. Miss Poiapoi? Yes.

Mister Quinlan?

Here.

Mister Ratcliffe?

Here.

Miss Reyes Oda? Yes. Mister Sayama?

Yes.

Mister Shimizu? Miss Souza?

Present.

Mister Takayama? Here. Miss Takenouchi? Here. Mister Tam?

Present. Mister Tarnas?

Present.

Miss Templo? Here. Mister Todd? Here. Mister Woodson?

Here. Mister Yamashita? Here. Madam speaker? Here.

Madam speaker, 49 members are present. Two are not present.

Mr... Item number two, reading of the journal, representative Morikawa.

Madam speaker, may this matter be deferred?

So ordered. Item number three, messages from the governor. Mr. Clerk, are there any messages from the governor?

Madam speaker, there are none.

Item number four, Senate communications. Mr. Clerk, are there any Senate communications?

Yes, Mdam speaker. If you and the members will turn your attention to the addendum to today's order of the day. We are in receipt of a communication informing the house that the Senate has passed the noted house and Senate bills on final reading. We are in further receipt of a communication informing the house that the Senate has adopted the noted Senate Concurrent Resolution.

We are also in receipt of a communication informing the house that the Senate has reconsidered action in disagreeing with the amendments proposed by the house and has moved to agree to the amendments to the noted Senate Concurrent Resolutions.

Members, are there any introductions? Representative Kusch.

Thank you, speaker. Today in the gallery today, if you will please stand, we have the Hilo High water polo team who are the Big Island Interscholastic Federation, champions and they are up here, competing against statewide teams. They compete once each day, up at Kamehameha Schools. And I will enter their names into the journal, but I just wanted to say how proud I am of them. This is a really hard sport.

And once a Viking

Always a Viking

Alright. Welcome to your House of Representatives.

Names will be entered into the journal. Representative Olds.

Thank you, madam speaker. In the gallery this morning, I have my staff, Jeanette, Kat, and Grace. Very proud of you guys. Thank you so much for what you did for me this session. And hopefully, I'll have you back on the next session.

Welcome to your house representatives.

Representative Lowen.

Thank you, Madam speaker. My staff is also in the gallery today. Please rise. We have June Shin and Jillian Shiba and I think Will Lobendon, my office manager is, if not here somewhere, on his way down. So please welcome them to their house of representatives.

Representative Kahaloa.

Mahalo, madam speaker. Before recognizing my staff in the gallery, I just wanna recognize all staff who've worked hard this session to help support all of the members here. But I am fortunate today to have my staff in the gallery, so I'd like to recognize Nanae SP's, Cassandra Rios, and my office manager who's never down here, Claire Ronkelo. Thank you guys for all your hard work this session. Welcome to your house of representatives. And speaker, maybe I permitted one more short introduction. Please proceed. Thank you. With the students here today from Hilo, I do wanna recognize that some students play sports for Hilo high, but also attend an immersion school.

So I just wanted to recognize if there's any students from Kekula'u, Navahi Kalaniopu'u. Can you please rise and be recognized? Welcome to your house of representatives.

Representative Amato.

Thank you, speaker. I am so pleased to have my entire staff down on the floor with me today and some very special international guests. Please rise when I call your names. I have my chief of getting stuff done, doctor Joe Ritter. I have my senior legislative assistant, Madduk Suchia.

I have my committee clerk who did an outstanding job this session, Macy Rose. There you guys are. Where's Macy? He's not here. Okay.

Well, Macy did a great job this session. And I have my environmental legislative assistant, Maria Christiansen. She is our international assistant, the only international legislative aide in the building, as I understand it. And today, we also welcome her parents, all the way from Norway. Torun I'm sorry if I mispronounce your names.

Torun and Roald Christensen. Welcome to your house representative, and thank you so much for all of your hard work this session.

Representative Woodson.

Thank you, Madam speaker. In the gallery today, we have my office team, Ange, Molly, Christine. Please stand up and be recognized. Welcome. Girls, we did it.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And madam speaker, may I do one more? We also have Jason and Millie from HSTA.

We so appreciate what you've done. Thank you.

Representative Belatti.

Thank you, madam speaker. I also have my staff here if they could please rise. Volunteer Virginia Johansson, committee clerk Ka'iliahi Morala, and my office manager, Morgan Lee. Thank you. And if I'm permitted one more introduction, I know that there are many supporters here, but I need to introduce these two, immediate family members.

My older sister, Darcy L. Kawamura, if she could please rise, and my husband of twenty five years, Michael Bilotti. Thank you for being here.

Representative Kong.

Thank you, madam speaker. On behalf of the Aya contingency, today, I would like to introduce you to some very special guests from my district. When you're when I called your name, could you please stand? Walter and Luana Kawai'aiha. They have for your lifelong dedication in Hawaiian culture, music, and community service, and especially in our own district.

Representative Templo.

And along with them, could I have all the family members and friends stand up also? Welcome to your House of Representatives.

Thank you, madam speaker. Today, I'm happy to introduce special guests from House District 30 and my Ohana here. Please stand when I call your name. First off, we all know her, miss Angela Melody Young, and she's with Tim Reikens.

And also, I have my auntie from Washington, is Pershie Solana and Margarita Domingo, please stand. And our office manager, Ed Thompson, welcome to your house of representatives. Thank you.

Representative Shimizu.

Thank you madam speaker. I'd like to introduce a very very special guest in the gallery. Two guests actually. My lovely wife, Joy. Same last name, Shimizu.

Who is the joy of my life. And a very good friend and constituent Diane Roy. Please stand and be recognized. Welcome to your House of Representatives.

Representative Kong.

Oh, sorry about this. Second time. Could I have their names recorded in the journal?

So ordered.

And also, I'd like to introduce Dave Erdman from the re Hawaii Retail Merchants Association.

Representative Garcia.

Thank you Madam speaker. I too have my staff in the audience today in the gallery. I'd like to invite to please stand. Hunter Harris and Emily Moore, please stand. These are my two session staffers.

Representative Matsumoto.

Thank you for being here. And our chief of staff, John Avelu the fourth, thank you for your service this session. Aloha.

Thank you madam speaker. I would like to introduce our House minority research staff. We have two of our staff here on the floor. Tom Coons and Maya Sweeney, if you can please stand up.

Also in the gallery, we have Racine Satelli, Kaylee Filippo, Britney Schwendeman, Rogelio Lial, Kyle Kyle Mina, and Pete Claproth. Please welcome to your house of representatives you've done such a good job this session. I'd also like to introduce my staff here on the floor we have Sharon Claproth my chief of staff, and up in the gallery we have Amanda Newman, Kiana Akana, and Megan Doherty. Welcome to your house of representatives.

Representative Pierick.

Thank you. In the gallery today, we have, miss, Hollinger. Please rise and be recognized.

Representative Perruso.

Thank you, madam speaker. In the gallery today, we have Yvonne Yoro, my office manager. If you could please rise to be recognized, Connor Burtzel, who's an intern with the, Keiki Caucus, and Zaz Dolin, I think. There you go. Thank you so much for your service this session.

I very much appreciate your work. Welcome to your House of Representatives.

Representative Iwamoto

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd also like to recognize my office manager, Kate Ozawa, for her amazing work. Thank you so much. Welcome to your House of Representatives.

And if you don't mind, Aye, speaker, I have one more introduction. Miss Juliet, Miss Aria Juliet Castillo, who's with Hawaii Alliance on, Hawaiian, Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action. She's a good government advocate. Thank you so much. Please stand and be recognized and welcome to your house of representatives.

Representative Todd.

Aloha, speaker. I have an introduction. We today, I have our research team from the finance staff. We have Mikhail who's not present. We have Faye.

If you could please stand. Lainie, Kirsten, Sofia, Kayla, and their fearless leader, Kevin Wong. You should all be very proud of the work you did. It was so seamless. I never once had to think about what was going on.

You guys just handled it. I'm very very appreciative. Thank you. Welcome to House of Representatives.

Representative Kapela.

Thank you, Madam speaker. In the gallery today, I have my committee clerk slash legislative aide slash art of the capital planner. The last one standing in my office. Haley Paula Santos, thank you so much for your service this legislature. Welcome to your House of Representatives.

Representative Matsumoto. I apologize. I forgot one very important member of our research office. Not forgot, but just wanted to give special attention. Michelle Kochuk, if you can please stand up.

Thank you for your work. Welcome to your house of representatives.

Representative Grandinetti.

Thank you speaker. Also just wanted to recognize my team. Office manager Aaron committee clerk Ian and legislative aide Kate saddest part of seeing 80 is losing our session staff. Love you guys. Thank you for your hard work.

Representative La Chica.

Thank you, Madam speaker. It gives me great joy to also welcome my staff in the gallery today. Seated are, I mean, please rise, Tosa Lobendan, my office manager, Tiara Tonorio, my legislative aide, and my committee clerk, Alani Santana, very talented. She made all of our lace today. And special shout out to Alani's future little Alani, Mini Alani who's a session baby and they'll be joining us soon hopefully next year.

We're only as successful as the staff that helped to carry and support us so welcome to your House of Representatives.

Representative Ilagan.

Thank you, Madam speaker. I also would like to introduce my staff. JB, if you could please rise. Chelsea, Charlie, and Carrie, you did amazing this year. Thank you so much for your service for the great people of Puna and our state.

Thank you. Madam speaker, I would also like to recognize not my staff, but our comms director staff. I know they are always behind the scenes and taking only the good side of me, and also our members. But please, let's recognize the comms team. If you could just rise.

Brianne, could you and also, is there any others in our comms? Please, let's let's welcome them to our house of representatives. And thank you for your work.

Representative Miyake.

Thank you, Madam speaker. I'll get on the bandwagon and I wanna introduce my staff as well. So my amazing staff who helped me vice chair, like, two committees this session. Office manager Kathy, Lejade Kavika, and, committee clerk Michael. Welcome to House of Representatives and thanks for all your help.

If there are no further introductions, recess subject to the call of the chair.

Will the house come to order? We're on item number five, unfinished business. Representative Morikawa.

Madam speaker, I move to suspend the rules of the house in order to consider certain House and Senate bills for final reading by consent calendar.

Any Representative Garcia.

Madam speaker, I second the motion.

Any questions? Members will be taking a voice vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no.

The motion is carried.

Representative Morikawa.

Rep representative Kahaloa.

Madam speaker, I move to adopt conference committee report numbers 1966-26, 239-26, and 240-26, and that the House and Senate bills listed on pages one through five as amended past final reading.

And speaker, I second the motion.

Any discussion on these items beginning with SB number 2069? Representative Cochran.

Thank you, speaker. I rise in opposition

with brief comments, please.

Please proceed.

Thank you so much. SB 2069. Dwelling unit revolving fund, DURF, D U R F, fund pilot program. Units are included included in the program. $103,000 trying to use these funds to offset first time home buyers.

People can take unfair advantage of this. Where does it say that it goes to our people who are the our workforce that we always talk about? The gap group, the firemen, the teachers, the nurses. Where does it say where does it say that? Realtors offset the cost for people between 80 to a 140 AMI.

I'm even in this bracket. Interest free loan transit oriented development zone. Interim reports only states how much money you spent, but tells me nothing about accomplishing your mission to house workforce. And so for me, this is not, you know, spelling out that it's really gonna go to the people we all wanna house, firefighters, teachers, health care, agriculture workers. So with that, it leaves me room for concern and, I'm in opposition.

Thank you for the time.

Moving on to the top of page two, HB number one three three four. HB number one seven five three. Speaker. Representative Templo.

Thank you.

So ordered.

In support and request to insert remarks into the journal.

SB 2169. On the top of page three, HB number 1823, HD two, SD two, CD one CD two. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, speaker. I'm rising actually for SB 2169, if you can go back to that when time permits.

That's fine. Why don't you go ahead.

I rise in opposition.

Please proceed.

Thank you, Madam speaker. Madam speaker, this bill gives the Agribusiness Development Corporation, ADC, the power to acquire property through eminent domain condemnation. And I I believe this is quite extreme authority to give any entity, let alone, ADC. Based on the state auditor's 2021 report, there were some significant issues that were stated including concerns with, operations, land management, lack of meaningful plans, minimal board oversight, and, some record keeping and financial records that were, of some auditor concerns.

So although I understand and appreciate that ADC has since taken steps to improve, I believe we should have some stronger safeguards clearly written into the law before we put these, before we allow this this bill to pass giving them this authority.

So short of these protections already being put in place, I I feel that it would be inappropriate to grant this level of authority. And by passing this bill, we as a a legislature are are giving up our duty and responsibility to protect our constituents. So based on these facts, I believe the proper thing is to defer this bill. Thank you, madam speaker.

Representative Chun.

Thank you Madam speaker, in support.

Please proceed.

Madam speaker, the word condemnation and imminent domain is a scary word or scary words with good reason. Because people think that the government is gonna go in and take their land. And so the original bill that was voted out of the house and Senate before conference committee gave them the power under Chapter one zero one to do that. The ADC.

What we did in the conference committee, and I wanna give a shout out for the negotiations with the chair, the introducer of the bill, and also the chair of the economic development and tourism committee in the Senate, is that we narrowed this bill.

So we didn't we're not even giving ADC the full power of condemnation. And I'd also like to point out that this is not a new power. This power has been on our books prior to statehood. And I'd also like to point out that while the Agribusiness Development Corporation, their sole power is to promote and develop land for agriculture, We also give this power to the Hawaii Housing and Finance Development Corporation, in Section five sixteen dash twenty three and two zero one H dash two two nine.

We also give this power to the Hawaii Public Housing Authority in section three fifty six d dash 15.

We also give it to the school facilities authority in three zero two a dash 17 o three. We even give it to franchise corporations for ferry systems in Chapter two sixty eight, or corporations do do that do railway systems in Chapter two seventy three, and we give it to departments. DOT under Section two sixty four dash 63, and DLNR under Section one ninety five dash four and one eighty four dash three.

So what we're really giving is half the power of eminent domain that we're giving to all of these other departments and government entities. So for those reasons, I urge my member all members to support this measure.

Mahalo.

Representative Garcia.

In opposition.

Thank you, Madam speaker. And I'd like to adopt the words of the representative of of Moanalua as my own.

Please proceed.

So ordered. Representative Keila.

Mala, Madam speaker in support.

Please proceed.

Thank you. May I adopt the words of the ag chairs if they were my own and it's or them into the journal?

So ordered. Thank you.

Representative Souza.

In support. Please proceed. And same request.

So ordered. Thank you. Representative Cochran.

Thank you. I rise, in opposition. And because of the list, the laundry list from, the agricultural chair, that is my main reason for my opposition. Thank you.

So ordered. Representative Gideon.

In opposition and asked to insert words into the journal.

So ordered. K. Moving on to the top of page three.

Excuse me, speaker. In opposition, second time.

Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Madam speaker. I'd like to thank the, agriculture chair for, sharing a a counter argument. I I would still debate that, just because something is already done doesn't necessarily make it okay to continue that practice because there are some concerns. Thank you, madam speaker.

Moving on to the top of page three, HB number 1823, HD two SD two CD two. Representative Amato.

Thank you, Madam speaker. I rise in opposition.

Please proceed.

Great legislators have worked hard for decades to pass strong, smart environmental legislation. Since 1961, HRS two zero five has been the bedrock of land use law in Hawaii. Doing away with basic SMA permitting that protects our shoreline and environment sets a dangerous irreversible precedent. For sixty five years, HRS two zero five a has authorized SMA zones to protect our shoreline, natural resources, and ensure public access to beaches. HB 1823 undermines these core environmental values.

To be clear, this bill is not needed for housing, nor infrastructure, nor for rebuilding Lahaina, because infrastructure like repair and maintenance of roads, highways, and utility lines, even homes, are already exempted under Section two zero five a dash 22. HB 1823 would allow any federal, state, county, and even approved private projects to proceed in coastal zones on Maui without SMA review, any project. Unlike Oahu, on Maui, we have a small appointed planning commission that approves such projects.

Given the commission new unlimited development authority without adequate permitting review is unprecedented, and undermines decades of environmental protection. Let me be clear.

A FONSI is not an SMA. This bill also puts hundreds of millions of dollars in federal coastal zone funding at risk. For the last fifty years, Hawaii has received often 2 to 3,000,000 per year, and some years, much more. In 2023, 8,000,000. In 2024, over $68,000,000.

If we pass this bill, we will likely lose all future federal coastal zone management funding. It is fiscally irresponsible to risk hundreds of millions of dollars in future federal aid. There are other good reasons to vote no. Maui County has frequently been sued for ignoring state land use law. Recently, they lost the second circuit court case under Judge Hammond, then appealed to the intermediate court of appeals, and now have asked to have it elevated to the Hawaii Supreme Court.

The appeal will be argued before the Supreme Court on June 18. This bill is clearly about undermining the pending Supreme Court case. I hope we all hold judicial independence as a court governing value. Will we really pass a law to both undermine a recent court ruling, and worse, to bypass a pending Hawaii Supreme Court ruling before it is even made? I think the rule of law matters.

We must let the courts do their work, not do an end run at the cost of our environment. This is not only about the county. The White House has virtually eliminated the EPA, the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and more. We cannot, in good conscience, pass state laws, ceding our state authority, and just let the Federal Government do whatever it wishes without question. Not now, not ever.

Here's some perspective on county attitude on permitting. Maui County Department of Management asked for my support. So I asked the Maui Department of Public Works director, Jordan Molina, exactly why the county needs to bypass the SMA protection process. I asked, what is the problem getting a permit? Neither department would even reply.

For a shocking perspective, director Molina recently described the massive flooding as a nuisance at this point. That dismissive attitude was stunning and insulting to everyone who lost their homes across Hawaii and pervades the Maui County permitting process as well. The governor told me we will have to pay 250,000,000 of of the billion dollars in Kona flood damages. That is more than a nuisance. Those are our tax dollars.

Those are our community members who lost their homes. If economics, budget, or tourism is your concern, remember that our environment is our economy. Tourism contributes a direct 22% of our economy and indirectly much more. We must not kill the goose that laid the golden egg and certainly not kill the endangered Nene. Let's be clear, your island is at stake too.

Given the sad state of federal environmental protection, we must all be concerned about the slippery slope of undermining HRS two zero five and future environmental impacts. It is the future of Maui today, but is your island next? We need to stop this now. Article 11, section one of the Hawaii state constitution and the oath of office we all took to support requires us to conserve and protect the state's natural beauty and natural resources. There is no good reason why Maui County should be exempt from following the long established

Madam speaker, I yield my time.

Representative Hussey.

Thank you. There is no good reason why Maui County should be exempt from following the long established SMA process. And I just gave you 10 good reasons why this bill should die here today. Madam speaker, I urge a no vote or request support of a recommit of HB 1823, a potentially disastrous environmental bill, which will ultimately hurt our economy and damage our fragile beautiful environment and way of life. Do not open Pandora's box of unrestricted development without environmental review.

Representative Cochran.

Thank you, speaker. I rise in opposition with brief comments, please.

Please proceed.

Coastal zone management, CZM. This bill redefines development for counties with a population between 150,200, which applies to Maui County. And it appears harmless and may have been intended to expedite the rebuilding of places like Ohaina, but it would create massive, massive loopholes that would dismantle safeguards in all of Maui County. If passed, a long list of coastal activities in special management areas, the SMAs, would no longer require review or allow public input. Development needs to happen in a smart, culturally sensitive, and environmentally sound way.

Historically on Maui, in order to get due diligence and the public's voice heard, people have had to file lawsuits with current laws in place. To challenge the Maui planning commission that has tended to favor Fonzies, finding of no significant impacts, disregarding the impacts to our environment and culture. This bill would fast track a process that would leave both the public and the Maui planning commission out of the process.

Additionally, this bill is contradictory to other bills that have moved through the legislature right now like the marine deposit bill and as stated by the previous speaker, this is a slippery slope and will set precedence for the rest of the state. I question why this is pinpointing just Maui County, and the two speakers are from the island are standing in opposition.

So I'm hoping that everyone here will take heed to our voices that represent Maui County as a whole. And with that, that's my explanation for my opposition. Mahalo.

Representative Shimizu.

In opposition.

Please proceed.

Thank you, Madam speaker. You know, on this bill, I I thought it was started out as a good, proposal to help Lahaina's rebuilding. And I have the greatest respect for the introducer and and my chair. But I have since changed to opposing, in in respect to the two representatives from Kihei and Lahaina and, just acknowledging their Kuleana. Thank you.

Representative Poepoe.

Thank you, Speaker. In opposition? Please proceed. I'm extremely disappointed that the County of Maui chose to pursue this route rather than working with our communities to resolve these concerns collaboratively. And I wanna be clear that it is a choice.

This measure significantly weakened Hawaii's coastal zone management framework by broadly expanding exclusions from the special management area or the SMA. It is framed as streamlining infrastructure, but the real effect will be reducing oversight in some of our most vulnerable and environmentally sensitive areas. The special management area is special for a reason. These areas are identified as posing heightened environmental, coastal, and public safety risks, oftentimes, in areas known to have significant flooding.

SMA review exists to ensure hazards are identified and minimized, environmental impacts are mitigated, and that development proceeds in a safer, safer, more thoughtful, resilient way that keeps our communities safe.

It's also one of the few public processes requiring agencies to come before communities in an open forum to receive feedback before moving forward. This public process is particularly critical to receiving input related to determining impacts to constitutionally protected traditional and customary native Hawaiian practices. The county should not be using the legislature to get around talking to their communities and to avoid meaningful public accountability. Recent flooding events across the state have shown us exactly what happens when development, drainage, hazard, planning are not carefully scrutinized.

Communities have experienced failing roads, damaged or destroyed homes, massive runoff into the ocean, and collapsing infrastructure.

These disasters, though, do not justify weakening oversight. They demonstrate why oversight is necessary and why thoughtful planning is necessary and why including community into those decisions is necessary. In the aftermath of disasters, there's an understandable urgency to quickly rebuild. But urgency cannot become the justification for bypassing the safeguards designed to protect the community. These increased frequencies of storms and disasters puts us in a place where we have the opportunity to make choices to do things differently than we did in the past.

And to me, this bill is just bad planning. And I see also the possibility that it could further hold up development even longer than the time to get a permit because lawsuits will likely result. And for these reasons, I strongly oppose this measure. Thank you.

Representative Hashem.

Please proceed.

Speaker, I stand in support.

Speaker, I just want to let you know and the general public know that this bill was given to me by Maui County. Yes. This is a Maui County bill. And, yes, this bill was originated because of a court case. And in my hand, I have the judgment of that court case. I want to quote to everybody here and to gen to the general public what the court what the judge ruled on the very last page, page four, the last section, number 11.

It date the court states, and I'm quoting here, this court agrees with the plaintiff that if the defendants are concerned with the time and resources devoted to assess assessments, then the defendants should seek relief from the legislature. And let me repeat that, speaker.

The defendants should seek relief from the legislature. The defendants, which is Maui County, is only doing what the plaintiff and the court told them to do. I find it so ironic that they are doing exactly what the plaintiffs told them to do. Now the plaintiffs are in opposition to what they told them to do. Thank you, speaker.

Representative Hussey.

Thank you, Madam Speaker in opposition.

Please proceed.

With respect to the to the remarks from the Water and Land Chair, which I do appreciate. My reading of this is that the judge in this case has proffered this as a political question that it provides, you know, the standard opportunities for the legislature to weigh in. And I would say that it is our responsibility to exercise restraint and to not erode our our very important environmental protection laws. Thank you very much.

Representative Hartsfield.

Thank you, Speaker. I rise in opposition and I request to adopt the words of the representative from Molokai and Kalihi Valley. So ordered. Thank you.

Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you Madam speaker. Same request and comment.

Please proceed.

Thank you. This is, Maui County from my understanding, is an exec it was the executive branch of Maui County that, pursued the complaint, pursued, the judgment. However, we as a legislative branch, there's, presumptively, a checks and balances. It's not as if we should just take, the executive branch's, request from a county and just automatically pursue that that end result. We are here to deliberate and weigh the the impacts, for from a legislative perspective. And for many times, the the legislative perspective is reflective of the community process. So that's why I do, stand in strong support of the testimony from the representative from Molokai, and her focus on community voices.

Thank you.

Representative Cochran for the second time.

Yes. Thank you, speaker. I rise still in opposition. Please proceed. Thank you so much.

And I wanna reiterate, some words I believe was spoken already by the representative from South Maui. It addressed that tells about how Maui County has already sued for trying to do less has already been sued for trying to do less with s m with this SMA bypass for sidewalks on Maui, and they lost in court because they did not have the authority to find development under the law as HB 1823 proposes.

Maui County lost in the second circuit court under judge Kirsten Hammond when appealed that decision in an intermediate court of appeals, then asked to have it elevated to the Hawaii Supreme Court. This case is scheduled to be argued before Hawaii Supreme Court on June 18, which has not even occurred, and here we are trying to undermine and interfere. We will pass so we will pass a law to undermine recent court rulings and to bypass a Hawaii Supreme Court ruling before it's even made.

This is not judicial independence. And, you know, we've set a lot of other examples similar to this example I'm stating with the audit, with, the the brown bag thing. And so I'm just, you know, why are we handpicking this one to push forward and to support? I continue to rise in very strong opposition. Thank you. K.

If there are no other comments, let's move on to SB number thirty one twenty five, s d one h d one c d two. Representative Todd.

Madam speaker in support.

Please proceed.

Thank you. You know, heading into this session, we were presented with a very large and complex budget problem. Due to a combination of revised forecasts, declining consumer confidence, and federal changes to SNAP and Medicaid, the financial outlook for our state government was pretty rough. You know solving a billion dollar plus shortfall is not possible without finding some shared sacrifice and cannot be done in a way that completely avoids pain.

Through the bill before us, SB 3125, we have found a way forward that stabilizes our state budget, allows us to maintain and even expand our social safety net, all while actually giving a larger tax cut to our middle class than what was promised a couple years ago when we passed act 46.

Through preserving these tax cuts for our residents, local families will save thousands of dollars every year and Hawaii will be cemented as having one of the lowest income tax burdens of any state for working class families.

To fix the puka in our budget, the revenue preserved and generated by this bill is about evenly split between some restructuring of existing high income tax brackets with a 2% marginal tax rate increase for our top 0.36% of earners, and the sunsetting of a few very popular and important tax credits. While tweaking act 46, I believe this bill honors the intent to dramatically reduce income taxes for local residents and give substantial relief to our middle class.

Should our budgetary outlook improve, I look forward to finding a way forward to restructure or preserve some of these credits if we all make the determination that it's in our state's best interest. In the meantime, I will do my best to work with the administration and Senate to clear up any issues that arise this interim.

Our intent in sunsetting these credits, particularly the credit for solar energy, is to stabilize our budget but do so in a way that does not have direct impact on projects that are already financed and underway. Should we need future legislation to clarify this intent, we will be ready. Thank you for your patience and for your support. Thank you.

Representative Loewen.

Thank you, Madam speaker. With reservations.

Please proceed.

And I just wanna say I really didn't wanna be here again, but at least I'm consistent. First, I wanna say there's a lot of really great things in this bill and I wanna recognize the hard work of our finance chair and finance committee and I know they approach negotiations thoughtfully and with the best of intentions. But I do rise today with serious reservations about one part of this measure, the changes to Hawaii's renewable energy income tax credit.

The House put forward a reasonable proposal when developed in consultation with the industry stakeholders that would have achieved needed savings while still providing businesses and consumers time to adjust. It would have preserved certainty in the market and avoid avoided unnecessary disruption.

And, unfortunately, the Senate refused to consider that approach. Instead, this bill imposes a cap structure that creates tremendous uncertainty for consumers, investors and businesses. Unlike a straightforward reduction in the amount of credit that could be claimed per system or per property, this cap makes it impossible for families and businesses to know how much of the credit they will actually receive. And that uncertainty makes projects unfinanceable. And the people hurt most by that uncertainty are low and middle income households.

Wealthier households may be able to absorb the risk and wait and see how the numbers work out. Working families can't. They need predictability before making a major investment in a system that will lower their electricity bill. Commercial projects face, that have long development timelines also face headwinds because of this bill. This bill provides no safe harbor protections for projects already underway, and some projects that were financially viable just a few weeks ago now may have to shut down.

This policy is also retroactive. This means that families and businesses that made financial decisions earlier this year, in January, in February, in March, under the existing law expecting to receive credits they were promised at the time they made those decisions, may not be able to get those credits. We're changing the rules after the fact and they will not get what was expected. This is a highly unusual way to make policy.

It undermines trust in government and sends a damaging message to investors and businesses operating in Hawaii.

Even the Trump administration, when repealing the federal clean energy incentives, included safe harbor provisions to protect projects already in progress. And the House also proposed similar protections in conference and as a floor amendment for this bill and the Senate refused them.

I'm struggling to understand why we would take the power that we have as a legislature and use it to kill jobs and make the cost of electricity higher for people, when the House had solutions on the table that could have achieved the same savings without causing this kind of damage. I also think this credit is being misperceived as a giveaway. The most recent analysis shows it as a net revenue generator for the state.

It creates jobs, generates GT revenue, attracts outside investment into Hawaii, lowers electricity costs for local families and helps us meet our state energy and climate goals. These things should be part of the calculus when we're making policy. The solar industry will survive this. They will limp back to life because solar is still a good deal and the technology continues to improve and get cheaper.

But businesses do not respond well to sudden shocks and unpredictable policy changes, especially when they are already reeling from the loss of the federal tax incentives.

Changes to the renewable energy technology income tax credit in this bill, risks reinforcing the perception that Hawaii is an unpredictable and difficult place to do business, even in the industries we claim to support. And so for those reasons madam speaker, while I recognize that there was a lot of good work contained in this measure that I'm very supportive of, I am voting with reservations.

Representative Martin.

Thank you, Madam speaker. I rise in support. Yes, firstly. Like to adopt the words of the previous speaker in the record as my own, and I would like to thank the finance chair and all those that worked with him to, bring us back from the brink of a very scary, proposed budget from the Senate, which would have gutted, some of our departments, including the Department of Human Services, of which I'm the subject matter chair for this body. And so I do appreciate that.

They are whole. They are able to continue to provide their services despite deep federal cuts, but I do echo the concerns on our solar energy. And I would just like to say that if we are no longer committed to providing that carrot or incentive to stimulate this industry, which is important as, you know, provides good jobs, lowers electricity bills, and also moves us towards our our carbon neutral goals, which we are not on track to achieve.

If we are not committed to that, then we have to think about other policy tools such as mandates, which this body has never had the will to do. So if we're gonna take away one tool, then we have to seriously consider other tools.

Thank you, madam speaker.

Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you, madam speaker. I rise in support with the reservations.

Please proceed.

Thank you. And I ask that the words from the representatives from Waimanalo and from Kailua Kona be entered into the journalists if they were my own.

So ordered.

And I just like to, you know, echo at least one of the points that, the representative from Kailua Kona mentioned, which was alternative, re revenue streams such as I'm obviously, many people are disappointed with the fact that the conveyance tax, bill did not make it through, but that could have been, something that would have raised, revenue, and then we could have preserved our, the tax credits that would have, helped protect our environment. Thank you.

Representative Peruso.

In strong support for this measure with reservations about the provisions regarding the solar tax credit. With reservations? Yes. And I'd like to adopt the words of the chair of environmental of energy and environmental protection as my own.

So ordered.

Thank you.

Representative Amato.

Thank you. With reservations, I would like to please adopt the words of our e chair.

With reservations.

So ordered. Representative Muraoka.

So ordered. Representative Garcia.

With reservations, brief comment. Please proceed. Thank you madam speaker. I wasn't a vote no on the bill, and I did previously because it was the House version as it was gutted in the in the finance committee. I have to say from the get go of this bill when the governor sent down his version of his plan in House bill 2236, we've come a long way from there.

What was sent down was an embarrassment and an insult and and as I said before, a slap in the face. And I still view the the House version that way, and I'm glad that what we have before us today for final reading preserves the 2024 income tax cuts. However, I do have to note some reservations and that is we are now establishing a new tax bracket. Hawaii has, Hawaii is one of the highest states in the whole country with the highest amount of tax brackets.

So we're adding a new tax bracket to that.

And we're also increasing taxes for the top point 36%, I think it was. So I can tell you, they're probably not in my district. But I have to say, I am very happy overall that we've preserved the promises made two years ago. And not only preserved them but gone even lower and middle income families. So for those reasons, in support with reservations.

In support.

Representative Matsumoto.

Please proceed.

I just wanna start with saying I made a promise to myself in the very beginning when I first got elected that I will never vote reservations on a final vote. That'll be either yes or no at that point because it's gonna go into law. And I had to take a long look at this bill. There's a lot of moving pieces. There was a lot of discussion.

There was a lot of changes over this session. But overall, I am deciding deciding to vote in support because I think we've come a long way from the original bill. We preserved the majority of the tax cuts and even improved most of them.

Now I do have some concerns, but I recognize that we are in difficult times right now here in our state, and we had to do a lot, but I wanna point out, I think this is the opportunity for government to really tighten our belts, and I think we could have done a little bit more.

Now again, a lot of work was put in, but if we look at other states in the country, like New Hampshire or Maine, who are about the same size in population to us, our budget is 25% higher typically every year than those states.

It is not in times of surplus that the government will take a hard look at ourselves and say, what are we spending money on? It is in the difficult times where we have to take that critical look. I know I've been encouraged through discussions that we're gonna continue to take that critical look at our state budget. And I'm hopeful in the interim that we're gonna address some of the concerns that we heard on the floor today.

But again, I stand in support, and I ask for additional written comments.

So ordered.

Thank you.

A brief comment.

Representative Souza.

With reservations.

So ordered.

So ordered. Representative Shimizu.

In support with reservations.

Please proceed.

Thank you madam speaker. As we all know, we we are or we were and are in a difficult position, and finance chair and their committees had tough decisions, and and they did a great job. I I echo the words of represent my minority leader and the chair of the energy and environmental protection, and I'd like to adopt him as my own. Thank you.

So ordered. Representative Kila.

Mahalo, Madam speaker. In support.

Please proceed.

May I please adopt the words of the financiers if they are my own and provide further remarks?

So ordered.

Madam speaker, today I'm in front of you, the legislature is not just continuing to deliver and keep on their promise, we're expanding our promise. The brackets that we are keep keeping and expanding, madam speaker, those are residents that live exactly in 96792. They live in Nanakuli, they live in Maile, and we are expanding it further. And like the representative from Kapolei said, the point 31% folks that are in this new bracket, I maybe might have one or two.

For the one or two that are now income tax on that new bracket, I have thousands of residents who would severely benefit from this proposal.

And I know there are concerns about the solar tax credit, but I have said it before, in order to go green, you gotta have green. We are putting green in our constituents pockets so that they can think about adopting these proposals and going green. So I really want to applaud both chambers for stepping up to see this forward and continue to deliver on our promise to make Hawaii a better place for all and further comments to the journal, please.

Please proceed.

In support.

So ordered. Representative Grandinetti.

And I'd just like to add the words of both the fin chair and the chair of energy and environmental protection into the journal as if they were my own, and thank them both for their hard work during extremely difficult times. So ordered.

Representative Poeoe.

In support and same request.

So ordered. Representative Kapela.

So ordered.

In support. Same request.

Representative Olds.

In support. Same request.

In support, same request.

So ordered. Representative Yamashita.

So ordered. Representative Keohokapu-Lee Loy.

Thank you very much, Madam speaker. I rise in support and I will be voting straight up, but I do have concerns with this and may I enter comments into

and request to insert comments into the journal.

So ordered. Representative Alcos.

In opposition, and I wanna insert comments also. Thank you.

So ordered. Representative Cochran.

Thank you. I rise in opposition. Brief comments, please. So I appreciate

Please proceed.

Thank you so much. Appreciate all the work that went into this. In my district, I have a lot of high end tax bracket people, and so that's one of my main reasons, and I will benefit from the lower, taxation on my own self as I'm in the lower income bracket, but for me and the district that I represent with the high per capita, bazillionaires located, that's my opposition. Thank you.

Representative Pierrick.

Thank you. In opposition?

Please proceed.

This bill taken at as a whole increases taxes on the state of Hawaii. I campaigned on saying I'm gonna try to advocate for lowering taxes. This bill deletes tax credits. And if we are taxing more the rich, sometimes the rich own the businesses. And then the more they have, they can give it to their employees.

They can reduce the costs of the goods they offer because the margins are better for that. So I think from a a structured economy perspective, this bill won't help the economy of Hawaii, so I'm voting no.

K. Let's move on to HB number 2275, HD 1 SD 22 CD 2. Representative Cochran.

Please proceed.

Thank you, speaker. I rise again in opposition to this.

Thank you. This appropriates dollar amounts to different agencies totaling over $707,000,000 to offset operational costs, but there are no details as to what the funds are going to and where.

So those are my concerns.

Moving on to the top of page four, SB number 2471, SD two, HD two, CD two. Representative Souza.

Thank you, madam speaker. I rise in strong support. Please proceed. I ask you plainly, who does this democracy belong to? Is it the people of Hawaii whose voices, votes, and lived realities give meaning to this institution?

Or is it corporations, entities created by the state, empowered by law, enriched by privilege, but never intended to stand as political equals to the very people who granted them existence. Today, we answer that question. Not quietly, not cautiously, but decisively. This is not just another bill before us. It is a defining moment where this body affirms the boundaries of power in our democracy.

And with Senate Bill 2471, Hawaii is not waiting for permission. Not following the lead of others, we are leading. We are making history by restoring a fundamental truth. Power belongs to people, not corporations, especially political power.

For too long, we have lived with a legal fiction that a corporation can stand shoulder to shoulder with a human being in the political arena, That it can spend without limit, influence without accountability, and project a voice so powerful that it overwhelms the very people our Constitution was written to protect.

That imbalance accelerated after the United States Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission before it opened the floodgates for corporate money in our elections. Citizens United did not merely interpret the law. It fundamentally altered the landscape of our democracy, elevating corporate spending into a force that no individual can realistically match and allowing entities created by the state to shape the system that governs us all. But here in Hawaii, we are not bound to accept that outcome as inevitable.

We are guided by a deeper constitutional principle rooted in the very foundation of our state, political power is inherent in the people, not in a corporate charter, not in accumulated capital, not in a legal construct designed for commerce, but in the people.

SB 2471 gives that principle force. It speaks with clarity and conviction. Corporations are not natural persons. They do not think. They do not vote, and they do not participate in our democracy as human beings do.

They exist because the state allows them to exist, and that matters. Because what the state creates, the state defines. What the state grants, the state may limit. A corporate charter is not a right. It is a conditional privilege.

Bill makes that unmistakably clear. It affirms that corporations may conduct business, build, invest, hire, grow, and contribute to our economy and communities. But it also draws a firm and necessary line. They may not spend money to influence our elections. Because when corporations enter the political sphere, they do not simply participate.

They dominate. They bring financial resources no individual can match, amplify certain interests while crowding out others, and tilt the playing field through sheer financial force. Over time, that distortion erodes. Trust distances people from their government and leaves voters questioning whether their voices still matter. This bill corrects that imbalance.

It restores fairness. It protects the integrity of our elections. It ensures that when the people of Hawaii participate in the electoral process, when they open their ballots, consider their choices, and cast their votes, they do so in a system where their voices are not overshadowed by corporate spending. It reinforces a simple but powerful truth. Democracy belongs to the people who participate in it.

And let us be equally clear about what this bill does not do. It does not limit the rights of individuals. It does not silence speech or restrict advocacy. People remain fully free, fully empowered to speak, to organize, to support candidates and causes, and to make their voices heard. What this bill does is define the limits of entities that exist only because the state has granted them that existence.

It draws a clear and principled boundary between economic power and political power, and it makes clear that they are not the same. The work we do in this chamber every day matters deeply. It shapes our communities.

Representative Kong.

I yield my time.

Thank you. The work we do in this chamber every day matters deeply. It shapes our communities, supports our families, and moves Hawaii forward. And today, we build on that work in a profound way by strengthening the very foundation on which all of it stands, our democracy. So I ask you again, who does this democracy belong to?

Stand with the people of Hawaii. Stand for a democracy grounded in human voices. Stand for the principle that corporations are not the sovereigns of this state. The people are. I urge your strong support for Senate Bill 2471.

Thank you.

Representative Muraoka.

In opposition.

Please proceed.

And can I have the words from the representative from Makakilo adopted as my own? My opposition my opposition doesn't come from the intent or what this bill stands for because I support that part. What my opposition comes from is our attorney general's opinion that this has already been decided in a higher court. And our job as legislators is to look out for the people of Hawaii.

And if this bill passes, it's almost certain it'll end up in court again, which means the people of Hawaii will again be footing a bill for something that they didn't want.

So the intent of this bill is amazing and maybe we should take a look at it and figure out another way on how to get the same results, but this bill will almost guarantee end up in court, and the people of Hawaii who are already struggling to afford life here will have to foot another bill. Thank you.

Representative Matayoshi.

Thank you, MMadam speaker. In support.

Please proceed.

This bill is a positive step forward. It certainly is not a perfect bill, but if we had a perfect way to attack and defeat Citizens United, states would have taken it long ago. This bill is an interesting concept, a very innovative concept. The concept is that under Article one Section 21 of our Hawaii constitution, corporations, unions, nonprofits, entities created by the state are not given inherent powers. They are given powers by us, the state of Hawaii.

And as the state of Hawaii, we can also remove those powers should we so choose. And the power that this bill is seeking to remove is the power for these entities to spend money for political election activity. You know, it's an interesting bill. It's an interesting concept. My fear is that this bill is going to work a little too well in this sense, that we are going to be able to remove the power of our own Hawaii entities to engage in elect in election activity.

But the provision here that really ties it all together is the provision that if other entities in other states, a Delaware corporation, a Texas corporation, a California nonprofit, comes to Hawaii and engages in in election activities that they will also be bound by the same restrictions that our entities are bound by. And if that is ruled constitutional by the courts, we're golden. That that's gonna be a huge step forward in restricting corporate money to influence our election, influence our politics.

My fear was that if that provision is struck down and and we bind our Hawaii entities while not binding mainland political activity coming in, we will effectively be silencing Hawaii voices and only allowing mainland voices in our politics, only allowing Mainland money to flow into Hawaii to influence election activity and that is the situation that the House stood very strongly against and in conference, the House put in a fail safe to trigger that if this situation were to occur, if we are binding the hands of our own entities and allowing mainland money to come in to influence Hawaii politics, that this bill will unbind the the fail safe will trigger and it will unbind the hands of our own entities and give them voices back.

Now this bill is not without its risks. I wanna be very clear about that. And as the previous speaker mentioned, it is inviting a lawsuit, but that's that's the point of this. The point of Citizens United was inviting a lawsuit. When they when Citizens United brought this case all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, they were actually overturning the law of the land at the time which was Austin versus the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

That was the law of the land before Citizens United. So if we if the states are not brave enough to challenge Citizens United and other court rulings at our highest at the highest court in the land, those rulings will stand forever. We need states to step forward in order to challenge these rulings. We need to be brave enough to take these root these court cases all the way up to the top in order to change our democracy.

And that is exactly what Hawaii is doing by passing this bill and by standing up against Citizens United in this case.

I think we all need to understand, speaker, that this this bill was not taken lightly. There was a lot of time. There was a lot of thought. There was a lot of a lot of experts being consulted. So thank you to Avi and and Mark and Claire for their help.

We spent an inordinate amount of time trying to pass this bill in a responsible way, in a way that would not it would that would ensure that Hawaii interests were not harmed at the expense of, mainland interest coming in to spend money here. So I'm very proud of our legislature for coming to this bill, to coming to this conclusion. And frankly, I'm very proud of the state for stepping up to try to challenge a court ruling that has plagued this nation.

Honestly, a court ruling that is hated by the left, the right, the center, everybody. It's an incredibly unpopular court ruling.

The fear though and the fear that the danger that we have to confront too is that if we are to

I yield my time.

Representative Grandinetti.

Thank you. The danger that I think we need to be very, upfront about is anytime we give the Supreme Court another chance at a ruling on this issue, we run the risk of making the situation worse. And with the current makeup of the US Supreme Court, I am concerned that if we make it up there, it may further cement Citizens United as the law of the land, which is why another reason why I wanted this fail safe in there to protect Hawaii interests.

So I appreciate your support through all this speaker. I appreciate the support of the Senate and their willingness to work with us. When the bill first came to us, there were a lot of things wrong with it, but we fixed one after the other until we finally, at the eleventh hour, literally, came to conclusion that or came to the solution of the fail safe as well, which allowed us to pass irresponsible bill to try to overturn Citizens United.

Thank you, speaker.

Representative Olds.

In support.

Please proceed.

And may I have the words of the CPC chair and the rep from, Makakilo insisted to adjourn as my own.

So ordered. Representative Belatti.

Please proceed.

Thank you, Madam speaker. I stand in strong support of Senate Bill 2471, CD two.

May I have the words of the, representative from Makakilokapole introduced if they are my own? So ordered. Thank you. Last November, in preparation for our 2026 good government caucus bill package, I was looking at proposals to curb dark spending money in politics. For years, as a legislature, we have been calling on Congress to act and propose amendments to the United States Constitution to overturn Citizens United.

The 2010 US Supreme Court decision that essentially equated money with speech and imbued corporations like human beings with a constitutional right to spend their money without limitations. Hence, corporations are treated like human beings with the First Amendment right to free speech.

This disastrous decision has corrupted our political system and effectively turned out, drowned out the voices of everyday people and amplified the concerns and special interest of corporations with deep pockets to influence our elections and policy making at every level from Congress to state capitals to city councils and even into executive boards and commissions to the appointments made by those elected as governors and mayors. In 2016, Hawaii lawmakers even floated a proposal to support a limited national constitutional convention to take up the problem of Citizens United.

This last proposal was heard, but never made it out of our legislative committee of our state legislature, of any legislative committee of our state legislature for good reason.

So fast forward to November 2025, and here we come across Robert Reich's short article entitled, How to Get Rid of Citizens United. We can do away with it without a new Supreme Court, nor do we need a constitutional amendment. There's a simpler way. That simpler way is the Montana plan, a statutory initiative being being forged by grassroots leaders like Liana Kessing at the Transparent Election Initiative.

According to the Montana plan, Montana residents will vote this fall for a law much like Senate Bill 2471 before us if they are able to collect enough signatures.

This law, this plan would reset corporate powers just as Senate Bill 2471 does in Montana and limit corporations' powers to spend money in elections, all but neutralizing the toxic effect of Citizens United. I was excited about this prospect and how we are and could be part of a larger national movement among states. If we pass this bill and it is enacted, we will be a leader among those states, a little state that could.

I have kept an eye on the big sky state's proposal even as we in the good government caucus kept working to introduce a bill this past January. Through good government caucus meetings, I and the senate judiciary chair began discussing the so called Montana plan with colleagues and committee stakeholders, community stakeholders such as the League of Women Voters, Common Cause Hawaii, Hawaii Alliance for Progressive, Action.

At our pre session Good Government Caucus press conference, Aye, a co convener of the Good Government Caucus, announced our intention to introduce the Montana plan bill.

We did that, keeping our eye on several bills, most notably house bills two one two five and two one three zero introduced as part of the caucus package by me and the and the representative, the freshman representative from Kalihi Valley, House District Twenty Nine, and Senate bill this bill, 2471, introduced by the Senate Judiciary Chair and the only Senate member of the Good Government Caucus. Over the past couple months, Senate Bill 2471 passed through legislative process.

I wanna thank my colleagues in the House and Senate consumer protection and commerce committees who painstakingly consulted with legal experts. Among those legal experts include the amazing people at Center for American Progress, including Tom Moore, the legal mastermind behind this bill, and his team members, Alex Cogan and Zena Barrow.

I mentioned these legal experts because as this bill moves forward, this state, and as we recognize from the representative from Waianae as well as the representative from Kaneohe, there will be challenges. This state should not turn away the help of the experts like CAP or Campaign Legal Centre who stand ready to help this little state defend this law. Finally, I also want to express particular appreciation to both judiciary chairs of the House and the Senate and their staff.

Representative Quinlan.

You have my time.

Their staff who kept the pressure on to move this bill along and give it a fair chance for all of us all of us in this chamber to vote on this historic bill. I wanna especially thank, representative, from the of the House Judiciary Committee who accepted my April 1 memo. Some people might call it an April fools memo where I specifically requested a hearing on this bill, and he listened. Mahalo, chair. May I request that this memo be allowed to be inserted into the journal?

So ordered.

Thank you. The judiciary chairs were also paid attention as questions were raised in conference committees with proposals like a union carve out was suggested and ultimately and rightfully rejected. As someone who began my career in public service as a 23 year old high school social studies teacher who was so lucky to be appointed as a campaign spending commissioner and who is now wrapping up my twentieth legislative session as the co convener of the Good Government Caucus.

I am proud, so proud that Hawaii is centering its people in this democracy. I'm proud that we are leading the country in fighting back against the Supreme Court decision that has warped our elections, and I'm proud to cast one of my final votes as a state legislator for Senate Bill 2471 on a bill that could positively transform our nation for generations.

Mahalo, speaker.

If there are no further oh, representative Shimizu.

Horizon support with reservations and comment.

Please proceed.

Thank you, Madam speaker. Colleagues, I have previously stated my firm belief that money should be removed from influencing government decisions. And obviously starting with campaign contributions. I previously voted no on this measure, believing that was the prudent and responsible thing to do. Referring to the attorney general's strong opposing testimony that cited the strength of the citizens United Supreme Court decision and the and the likely appeal legal battle. So madam speaker, this has been a dilemma for me as I've been conflicted on my vote decision.

But on this final reading, I'm I'm deciding to take a braver step of faith and courage to believe with many of you colleagues and advocate supporters. Although the facts are the facts, Hawaii and this 2026 legislature has the chance to make history. To reset a new precedent. To eliminate unlimited money sources that totally affect our elections and bring back some sanity and sanctity to our voting process.

So Madam Speaker, I'm putting aside my practical, cautious engineering perspective, and going with my heart's desire, many of our people's desire to do something with potential greatness for the people of Hawaii.

And I I'd like to adopt the words of the CPC chair and the public safety chair as my own. Thank you, madam speaker.

So ordered. Representative Hartsfield.

Thank you, speaker. I rise in support. Please proceed. And I would ask to adopt the words of the representative from Moanalua as well as the CPC chair and, end my comments with if can can, if no can, no can, but we have to give it a try and, I look forward to what we can do for the people of our state.

Mahalo, speaker.

There are no further comments. Let's move on to SB number 2401 SD1 HD2 CD2. HB 306 HD2 SD1 CD1. Representative Kahalua.

Representative Morikawa

Madam speaker, I move to recommit conference committee report number 196-26 and that the attached proposed conference draft to conference committee

mala speaker second the motion

Any discussion Members, we will be taking a voice vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. The motion is carried.

Representative Morikawa for the vote. Oh, I'm sorry.

Representative Morikawa for the vote. Oh, I'm sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. We are continuing on.

SB Number 3203, HD 1, CD 1. SB Number 3263, SD 2, HD 3, CD 1, Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition.

Please proceed.

Thank you. Last month, I surveyed the residents of my district and asked them, should we be giving $5,000,000 for UH student athletes for their name, image, and likeness?

Should that $5,000,000 come only from private sources, or should we use a combination of private money plus taxpayer funds? I received almost 400 responses so far in the last five weeks, and 79% stated that they want—that they wanted name, image, and likeness money to only come from private sources. That's 79%. So, they said no public funds. And that's compared to only 16%.

Sorry. Oh, and that's compared to, 16% who, I'm sorry. One second. Okay. Well, that's compared to the 16% who said that they—only that they were open to having public funds.

This bill before us today asks for only $2,500,000 to come from taxpayers to the, the University of Hawaii to directly go towards student athletes for their name, image, and likeness. And to give perspective to what's happening here, the court case that triggered name, image, and likeness compensation only focused on only mandated that profits that universities and colleges received from the name, image, and likeness of student athletes, and these are profits from televising games or selling merchandise.

Basically, after you deduct all of the expenses, then those leftover profits can go to the students, those individual athletes for their name, image, and likeness. But what's happened, is it's morphed into beyond profits, and now, the University of Hawaii, partly because our market is so tiny, there isn't much profits to share with the student athletes.

So, now they're asking the state to, to give taxpayer funds to help them boost up their recruitment monies, their retention monies, to keep student athletes in Hawaii, to represent the University of Hawaii system. But what's happened is, what, what concerns me the most is that they, this money will always be chasing—we'll always be because we're never gonna compete with those larger markets.

For instance, in Texas, there's a quarterback, a single student athlete, who'll be making around 6,000,000 doll, 6 million-point 8—6 million-point 8 million dollars just for their name, image, and likeness in one—this school year. And then, in Arizona, there's another quarterback who'll be earning $3.6 million in a name, image, and likeness compensation.

And those are just individual athletes. How are we gonna keep—how are we gonna compete with that? And I just feel like it's a way that we're chasing and chasing, and my concern is will UH come back and ask us for more money next year, and more money. Will we ever really be able to compete, and how much funds will we have to divert from other important needs?

And that's an—also an interesting concept that we, the Legislature, have contemplated requiring financial literacy from our high school students. And I'm like, well, look at ourselves first. We're thinking about funding a want, meanwhile, we're putting some of our needs—we're borrowing to fulfill the, the—using bonds to pay for some of our needs.

And here we go. We're giving general fund money cash to U—the University of Hawaii—to, so that they can recruit more student athletes, and that is a want. So, for those reasons, I'm opposed to this bill.

Representative Lee.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In support.

Please proceed.

As a coach, we can all say that sports can inspire communities. There are life lessons for our youth and our athletes, but this is more than just about sports, speaker. The University of Hawaii at Manoa is Hawaii's only R1 research university and the flagship university of our state. Maintaining this R1 status requires funding. Top faculty had strong national visibility in today's landscape.

NIL is structural, is not optional, and falling behind shrinks that visibility. It weakens UH's brand, and it limits its ability to attract students and researchers, as well as to secure research education grants, and sustain donor support. Supporting NIL isn't about professionalizing college sports; it's about protecting the long-term competitiveness and national presence of Hawaii's only R1 university and our promise to our local youth that our education system and our public higher education system will produce strong results for them in the future.

For those reasons, I am in support.

Yes vote.

Representative Garrett.

Thank you, madam speaker. Rising in strong support.

Please proceed.

Thank you, madam speaker. At its core, this bill is about the future of University of Hawaii athletics. College athletics has changed. Whether we like every part of that change or not, the old system of amateurism is gone. Name, image, and likeness is now part of the landscape.

Student athletes are being recruited differently. Programs are being built differently. Conferences are being shaped differently, and the schools that adapt will have a chance to compete. The schools that do not will fall behind.

For Hawaii, doing nothing was not a neutral option. UH already competes with challenges that many other universities do not face. We are isolated by geography. Travel is more expensive. Recruiting is harder.

Our athletics program carries a pride of an entire state, but it has to compete in a national marketplace that is moving faster every year. And in this new landscape, standing still does not preserve tradition. Standing still means falling behind.

If we want new ways to remain competitive as it enters the Mountain West Conference, if we want our student athletes to have the same opportunities as their peers across the country, and if we want Hawaii to continue showing up on the national stage, then we have to give the university the tools to compete. That is what this bill does.

It provides immediate support, so UH can respond to the NIL landscape now. It establishes an endowment fund so we're not only thinking about this year or next year, but building a long-term foundation for the future. And it creates a governance framework so NIL does not become a free-for-all. It protects student athletes. It protects the university.

It price—it provides transparency and accountability when public resources are involved. This bill affirms that student athletes may earn compensation for NIL activities. It requires UH to adopt policies governing NIL—agreements, disclosures, education, agent interactions, and Title 9 compliance. It also establishes reporting requirements, so the Legislature and the public can understand how this system is being administered. That matters, because we are not just funding a program.