Transcript Highlights:

• Um, but I do want to testimony.
• testimony. We did read through it all. testimony. We did read through it all.
• We've submitted testimony.
• We've submitted testimony. We this bill. We've submitted testimony.
• testimony in strong opposition. testimony in strong opposition.

Bills: HB1924, HB2121, HB1928, HB1979, HB1650, HB1543, HB1981, HB1982

Keywords: mattress recycling, waste management, producer responsibility, environmental health, steafardship program, electronic cigarettes, disposable devices, environmental protection, plastic pollution, lithium batteries, pollution control, public health, deposit beverage container, bottle bill, container deposit law, container redemption, recycling refund, extended producer responsibility, EPR, deposit return system

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures related to waste, recycling, and environmental review. On HB 1924, which would establish a mattress stewardship program, the Department of Health said it stood on written testimony and offered comments, while Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition and one individual supported the bill and the International Sleep Products Association opposed it. No questions were raised and the committee moved on. A large portion of the hearing focused on HB 2121, which would prohibit the sale of disposable vapes in Hawaii. The Department of Health supported the measure but suggested the bill may be better placed in a different part of state law because the cited waste-management section regulates products after consumption, while still praising the effort to remove disposable vapes from the market and environment. Testimony in strong support came from the Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii Youth Council, Hawaii Public Health Institute, Hawaii COPD Coalition, Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center, the City and County of Honolulu, and many individuals; supporters emphasized youth vaping, toxic waste, lithium battery fire risks, and environmental harm. There was at least one opposing individual and the International Sleep Products Association was listed in opposition. The committee noted there were many written testimonies and no immediate vote was taken. The committee also heard HB 1928 on the deposit beverage container recycling program. The Department of Health stood on written testimony. The Solid Waste Task Force of Hawaii Environmental Change Agents and Upstream supported the bill but urged amendments to better integrate reuse and reusables, strengthen enforcement, clarify definitions, and protect existing redemption centers. The Hawaii Food Industry Association supported the concept of a backdrop program but preferred strengthening the existing program and raised concerns about undefined fees, existing infrastructure, and future audit costs. The Chamber of Commerce Hawaii supported the bill, and the chair said the measure needs work and that decision-making would occur in a few days. Finally, the committee took up HB 979 on environmental review and HB 1650 on environmental assessments. For HB 979, OPSD offered amendments, HCDA supported the bill but suggested clarifying the affordable-housing definition, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative supported it, and Earthjustice was asked about the court process for environmental challenges; the chair asked about shortening the challenge period and the relationship between environmental court, the intermediate court of appeals, and the Supreme Court. For HB 1650, OPSD and the State Historic Preservation Division stood on written testimony, OHA asked to retain historic sites, and several groups and individuals testified in support or opposition. Opponents argued that removing Wiki special district and historic sites from Chapter 343 trigger language would weaken environmental review and risk impacts to iwi kūpuna and historic resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:00:53.760> for going to live a testimony for going to live a testimony for individuals
• <00:01:50.759> opposition Ki has submitted testimony opposition Ki has submitted testimony
• We have our written testimony.
• DOE will stand on our testimony. Laura Breer has a testimony in support.
• DOE will stand on our testimony. Laura Breer has testimony in support.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint hearing began with SB 133 on energy, which drew opposition testimony from James Abraham, who said the bill was unnecessary because the Public Utilities Commission had already opened a proceeding to investigate wheeling, including intergovernmental wheeling, and should be allowed to finish its collaborative process. The committees then moved to SB 161 on county permitting and inspection, where several agencies submitted written comments or opposition, while the Grassroots Institute and HCDA-related testimony supported the measure. Members raised concerns about accountability and whether state agencies would report back on projects approved under any permitting exemption, and witnesses suggested annual reporting or amendment language to address that issue. The hearing then turned to SB 232 and SB 588, both related to renewable energy permitting. Testimony on SB 232 was largely supportive, but Rocky Mold of the Hawaii Solar Energy Association said SB 232 was an older version of a bill and that SB 588 was the preferred, updated measure. Members discussed whether the bill should be limited to residential or behind-the-meter customer-sited systems rather than utility-scale projects, and Mold clarified that the proposal was intended for customer-sited systems, not utility-scale facilities. For SB 588, the Department of Land and Natural Resources warned that state or county laws inconsistent with the National Flood Insurance Program could jeopardize flood insurance eligibility and related federal assistance, while Mold argued the bill’s FEMA floodway exemption was needed to avoid blocking solar installations on existing structures. The chair expressed concern about risking federal funding and questioned whether the exemption could be narrowed without defeating the bill’s purpose. SB 412, also on renewable energy, received supportive testimony from the State Energy Office and others. Members questioned whether a single coordinating entity should compile agency assessments, and Mark Glick said the Energy Office could take on that role if given the duty and sufficient staff. The committee then discussed SB 635 on energy efficiency, which would require state agencies to use energy-efficient lighting. Mark Glick testified that much of the work was already underway through benchmarking and related contracts, and a DAGS representative said the state was already assessing 590 buildings over 10,000 square feet, with results expected around 2027. Members suggested amending the bill to require annual status reports so the committees could track progress and avoid duplication. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you prefer your testimony to be sent to us in confidence, feel free to send that testimony to our
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you, Paul, for your testimony. Thank you, thank you, Paul, for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. Christina, thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony, Ellen. Thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing opened with the co-chairs introducing House and Senate members and explaining the hybrid format, three-minute testimony guidance, and the deadline for written testimony. The committee then heard extensive testimony on S. 2665, which would require employers to post notice to employees when an I-9 audit or similar federal immigration inspection is underway. Supporters, including immigration attorneys, a pediatrician, a labor leader, and an affected family member, argued the bill would protect privacy, give workers time to gather documents and consult counsel, and reduce fear and wrongful arrests. One witness from Illinois described a similar law there and said it had not caused the problems employers feared, while others said recent ICE enforcement has made notice especially important. The committee also heard testimony on S. 1360, a bill affecting collective bargaining rights for State Police, with the State Police Association arguing that a statutory gap lets departmental rules override their contract and that the bill would restore intended bargaining protections. A separate labor bill, S. 1305, was also briefly supported by the AFL-CIO as part of broader worker-classification protections for app-based delivery drivers. A large portion of the hearing focused on H. 2066, which would impose fines on transportation network drivers who refuse rides to people with disabilities using service animals. Testimony from blind and disabled riders, service dog users, advocates, and the Disability Law Center described repeated ride cancellations, drivers pulling away after seeing a service animal, and the difficulty of enforcing existing anti-discrimination laws through MCAD or other agencies. Witnesses said the current system leaves riders without practical recourse because drivers are hard to identify and complaints can take years, and they argued that fines on individual drivers would create a real deterrent. Several witnesses also described the impact on employment, medical appointments, and daily independence. Committee members asked about service-animal verification, whether refusals are ever appropriate, and whether penalties should target drivers or companies; witnesses said legitimate refusals are limited to misbehaving or unsafe animals and that companies already have policies and some training, but enforcement remains weak. The committee also heard from a witness supporting a related bill on rideshare accessibility and from advocates describing broader transportation discrimination issues. One witness discussed a separate proposal to study service-animal denial, and others noted that Uber’s self-identification feature and company policies have not solved the problem. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the meeting ended after the final witnesses on the service-animal bill and a brief organizational discussion about related legislation and committee business.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:14:06.120> reflects please I know the testimony reflects please I know the testimony reflects
• UH has your testimony. We can stand on our testimony.
• UH has your testimony. We can stand on our testimony.
• testimony we can stand on our testimony testimony we can stand on our testimony um<00:26:49.440>
• <00:27:39.760> and yes uh we'll stand on our testimony and yes uh we'll stand on our testimony

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Higher Education met on March 14, 2025, and heard five University of Hawaii-related bills. SB 741 would create an external audit committee for the UH system and Board of Regents; UH and UHPA opposed it, saying existing internal and external audits already provide robust oversight, and the committee later recommended deferring the bill indefinitely as duplicative. SB 1252 SD2 would create a dementia training program for health care providers; the Alzheimer’s Association and other supporters said broader training is needed across the care workforce, while the university discussed using JABSOM as a coordinator. The committee deferred the bill to March 19 for an HD1 reflecting JABSOM’s suggestions and removing the appropriations/FTE language. SB 1502 SD1 would fund faculty positions, student programs, and facilities at UH Manoa and West Oahu for defense-sector workforce development. UH and Chamber of Commerce Hawaii supported the measure, describing a pipeline for students into intelligence, cybersecurity, and related fields, while one individual opposed it as too closely tied to military contracting and urged investment in other sectors instead. The committee amended the bill to remove FTE references and advanced it; the vote to pass with amendments was adopted, with several members voting aye and some excused. SB 1530 would require performance-based allocation of UH general funds and efficiency reporting. UH and the Attorney General’s office raised concerns, saying the bill’s metrics would apply across the entire general fund budget and were not practical as drafted; the committee also noted opposition from the Budget and Finance Department and individuals. SB 1624 SD1 would restrict RIM funds to renewing, improving, or modernizing existing facilities and require annual reports. UH opposed the bill and explained that RIM is a lump-sum approach used to address deferred maintenance and capital needs, with Board of Regents approval and quarterly reporting already in place; the Attorney General suggested constitutional amendments. The transcript ends during discussion of SB 1624, with no final action shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• That’ll be in some written testimony.
• I appreciate your testimony. Great question.
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you.
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. I see no questions. Thank you for your testimony.
• Okay, thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources held a hearing on several late-file bills and home rule petitions, with testimony focused mainly on coastal access and wildlife management, rodenticide restrictions, and a local land-use request. Rep. Scarsdale testified for H.5113, which would name an accessible trail in Groton’s J. Harry Rich State Forest the Marion Stoddard River Walk in honor of the activist who helped restore the Nashua River. Groton Trails Committee chair Paul Fung also supported the bill, describing the trail, educational signs, and DCR’s involvement. Rep. Sweezey presented a package of Duxbury Beach bills—H.5141, H.5140, and H.5139—intended to align state shorebird protections more closely with federal standards, create parity in beach management tools, and require periodic review of outdated recreational-use guidelines; he said the bills were developed with local and agency input and aimed to balance conservation with beach access. A large portion of the hearing concerned local petitions to restrict second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides and other pesticides. Supporters from Mass Audubon, Sierra Club, Animal Defenders International, wildlife rehabilitation groups, and residents from towns including Grafton, Billerica, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Eastham, and Truro argued that these poisons harm raptors and other non-target wildlife through secondary poisoning, persist in the environment, and are increasingly ineffective. Several speakers said local town meetings had approved the restrictions and urged favorable reports on the petitions. Opponents, including a representative of the New England Pest Management Association, argued that regulation should remain at the state level under MDAR to avoid a patchwork of local rules and noted that the agency was already reviewing rodenticide regulations. Committee members asked questions about agency consultation, the relationship between state and federal bird listings, and how local beach rules would work in practice. The committee also heard testimony on H.4700 and related local pesticide-reduction petitions for Eastham and Truro, with witnesses describing groundwater concerns, pesticide drift, and wildlife impacts. Finally, the committee took testimony on S.2961, a Dighton bill authorizing the use of a small portion of conservation land for public way purposes to replace the Pleasant Street Bridge and add pedestrian and bicycle accommodations; the witness said the affected area was limited and necessary for safety improvements. The hearing ended after testimony concluded, with the chair turning the gavel over and the committee adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• None, public testimony is closed.
• Hearing none, public testimony is now closed.
• Please start your testimony.
• Thank you, Scott, for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Bills: HB103

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll have testimony on Zoom.
• You have our written testimony.
• You have our written testimony.
• You have our written testimony.
• We appreciate your testimony.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up SB 1494 on hearing aids. Testimony was generally supportive of expanding hearing-aid coverage, with the Insurance Division raising concern about possible federal defrayment issues, SHPDA supporting the goal of hearing augmentation, DCAB strongly supporting the bill as an important access issue, and health plans and insurers asking for amendments. Kaiser Permanente and the Hawaii Association of Health Plans requested changes to add a medical-necessity standard and clarify annual notice language, while HMSA suggested the proposal should be studied by the auditor. The chair noted concerns about federal preemption and the lack of an audit, and deferred the bill in favor of a related resolution calling for a study. The committee then heard SB 1448, an emergency appropriation for the Hawaii State Hospital. DAGS and the Department of Health supported the measure, with the hospital administrator saying the funding would improve the environment of care, support cleaning, and allow a third-party review of the building. Committee members questioned the size of the request and the status of litigation against the design-builder. Administration witnesses said they were pursuing a comprehensive study involving destructive testing, had made a demand on the design-builder to fund the study, and were using different processes than before. They also said the roof work would be handled through a separate CIP request. No final action was taken in the portion provided. The committee next heard SB 1432, relating to the future responsibilities of the Department of Health and land issues at Kalaupapa after the last patient dies. DOH supported the bill in part but said its long-term role would be limited mainly to environmental cleanup, with operations expected to continue under the National Park Service and land-use decisions left to DHHL and beneficiary consultation. DHHL asked that the measure reflect that any land-use or zoning changes on homeland lands require commission approval and beneficiary consultation. Testifiers from Kalaupapa and Maui County, including Degra Vanderbilt-Papa and Council Member Keani Rollins-Fernandez, supported deferring the bill, saying there had been no meaningful community discussion about provisions affecting Kalaupapa’s future management and possible transfer of responsibilities to Maui County. The committee also read into the record written testimony from Gloria Marks emphasizing that Kalaupapa stakeholders must be included in future discussions. Finally, the committee heard SB 955 on fitness-to-proceed examinations. The Judiciary and the Public Defender’s Office both supported raising pay and standardizing expectations for private examiners, but opposed reducing felony fitness evaluations from three examiners to one and opposed expanding use of expedited reports. They argued that a single examiner would reduce reliability, create a more adversarial process, and likely increase costs and contested hearings, while expedited reports do not contain enough information for a proper fitness determination. The Department of Health also supported the bill’s intent but asked to preserve a three-examiner framework and said the goal was to reduce the number of people sent to the State Hospital, where admissions have reportedly risen about 20% year over year since Act 26. The bill remained under discussion in the excerpt, with no final vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:24.120> so we hear from you and your testimony so we hear from you and your testimony
• agbayani online no okay and testimony agbayani online no okay and testimony support<00:09:15.920
• of the official testimony packet.
• support uh testimony okay testimony support uh testimony support<00:49:22.079> and<00:49:22.240
• Conklin's testimony.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs heard House Bill 4000, the Judiciary’s biennium budget bill for FY 2026-2027. Judiciary Director of Policy and Planning Brandon Kimura testified in strong support, outlining operating requests of about $6.17 million in FY 26 and $6.25 million in FY 27, 17 permanent positions and one temporary position, plus $9.9 million in capital improvements. He described funding needs for specialty courts, preparations for the Wahiawa District Court, an additional district court judge and staff for Kona, cybersecurity upgrades, the Criminal Justice Research Institute, statewide priority items, and restoration of several essential staff positions. He also said the Judiciary was seeking an additional $2 million for the Children’s Justice Center relocation lump sum because updated estimates had risen to about $8 million. The committee also discussed potential impacts from uncertain federal funding and asked for written follow-up on those risks and on the capital request, including coordination with Budget and Finance. Several organizations and individuals testified in support of the Judiciary budget, including the Hawaiʻi State Bar Association, Legal Aid Society of Hawaiʻi, and legal service providers. Mioko Eto asked for an additional $1 million for civil legal service providers, explaining that the current funding is spread across multiple providers and that the need remains high. David Copper of Legal Aid supported the request, citing statewide demand, 105 staff, 7,100 cases closed in the past year, and 15,000 calls received, while noting that many people seeking help cannot be served because of capacity limits. He also said recent federal funding disruptions and proposed cuts could affect legal services and related programs. Committee members asked about the Criminal Justice Research Institute’s mission; Kimura said its primary statutory role is to build a database focused on pre-trial reporting and data analysis, though it is also working on probation and mental health-related projects. No vote or final action on HB 4000 was taken in the hearing excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, we stand on our testimony.
• . testimony. testimony.
• Uh standing on our<01:13:41.920> testimony,<01:13:42.480> but our testimony, but our testimony
• provided testimony provided testimony with<01:59:35.440> comments.
• testimony in opposition on Zoom. testimony in opposition on Zoom.

Bills: HB1617

Keywords: carbon emissions, tax credit, fossil fuel, agriculture, food security, environmental tax, greenhouse gas, 910, house, all

Summary: The committees heard testimony on HB 1949, which would create a public dashboard for the green fee to improve transparency and accountability. Testimony from the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, and many community and conservation groups was generally supportive, with several speakers urging that the governor’s project recommendations remain largely intact and that community-driven projects continue to guide spending. One amendment was suggested to place the dashboard at the Department of Budget and Finance for fiscal expertise, while other testimony favored keeping it with the commission. Members asked about procurement, ETS involvement, recurring hosting costs, and whether the dashboard could be funded from green fee revenues; the commission said it could work with ETS and that green fee funds could reasonably be used. The committees then voted to pass HB 1949 with amendments. The committees also heard HB 2618, which would require the governor to submit a separate bill for amounts tied to any increase in the transient accommodations tax and, in later discussion, was expanded into a broader restructuring of future green fee allocations. Testimony from the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition, and others supported the bill and emphasized the value of more predictable, dedicated funding for conservation and climate-related work. During decision-making, the chair described amendments creating several special funds under DLNR, including a watershed biodiversity and wildfire risk reduction fund, an aquatic resources conservation fund, a coastal restoration fund, a cesspool conversion revolving loan fund, and a green fee special fund for remaining revenues, with recommended amounts discussed for some of the funds. The committees voted to pass HB 2618 with amendments. The hearing then moved to HB 1644, a consumer protection measure for residential solar sales that would require compliance with consumer protection laws, licensing or contractor affiliation for sellers, and a standardized disclosure form. Testimony in support came from the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, DCCA’s Office of Consumer Protection, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, the Hawaii Solar Energy Association, and several solar companies and individuals. Supporters said the bill would address complaints about third-party sales practices and improve disclosure, especially around financing. The committee then began hearing HB 2243, which would require electric utilities to provide public, electronic customer bill impact analyses and annual reports to the Public Utilities Commission; the Division of Consumer Advocacy and the PUC offered comments supporting the measure’s intent.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will be taking in testimony today.
• We will be taking testimony today.
• Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? Great. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
• We'll be submitting written testimony. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Paul testimony. Perfect.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Health held a lengthy hearing to take testimony on a wide range of bills related to environmental health, PFAS, medical device chemicals, food access, lead poisoning, air quality, oral health, and school food additives. Chair Driscoll and Chair Decker emphasized that the hearing was for testimony only, no decisions would be made that day, and that written testimony could still be submitted. They also noted the high volume of speakers and asked witnesses to keep remarks brief. A major portion of the hearing focused on PFAS-related legislation, including bills to restrict PFAS in products and food packaging and to create a PFAS remediation trust fund. Municipal officials and advocates described the high costs of PFAS cleanup, especially for drinking water systems, citing Easton’s multimillion-dollar treatment investments and rate increases. Testimony from legislators and advocates argued that Massachusetts should act despite federal uncertainty, and that the state should stop PFAS at the source rather than leaving municipalities and residents to pay for remediation. The committee also heard strong support for a bill banning DEHP in medical devices, with physicians, nurses, and a bill sponsor saying the chemical can leach from IV bags and tubing and that safer alternatives already exist. The committee also heard testimony on bills to establish statewide food truck permitting, with food truck owners and a senator describing the current system as costly, duplicative, and inconsistent across municipalities. Another set of witnesses supported the “Bean New Deal,” which would expand plant-based food options in public institutions, senior nutrition programs, and WIC, citing health, equity, and cost savings. On lead poisoning, housing advocates and a representative backed bills to expand lead-safe housing requirements to all rental units, arguing the current law contributes to discrimination against families with children and leaves too much pre-1978 housing uncertified. The committee also heard support for an outdoor air pollution bill that would create an advisory committee, identify pollution hotspots, expand monitoring, and set reduction targets, with testimony from environmental justice groups, pediatricians, and legislators describing disproportionate asthma and other health harms in overburdened communities. Later testimony addressed oral health bills to create dental therapists and allow dental hygienists to administer nitrous oxide, with supporters saying the measures would expand access, reduce costs, and help underserved patients. The committee also heard testimony on a bill to prohibit harmful food dyes in competitive school foods, with parents describing behavioral and health concerns tied to synthetic dyes. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for hearing my testimony. Thank you for your testimony. Welcome back.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• We'll continue testimony on Senate Bill 2753. Public testimony is open.
• Thanks for your testimony. Welcome. Thank you. Thanks for your testimony. Welcome.
• Laura Presley’s testimony.

Bills: SB1540, SB2225, SB2284, SB2382, SB2487, SB2514, SB2595, SB2876, SB2877, SB3031, SB2753

Keywords: election officials, confidentiality, personal information, government transparency, public safety, spirit beverages, alcoholic beverages, Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, distribution, taxation, firearms, local regulation, archery equipment, weapons, voter registration, statewide list, county requirements, election integrity, computer services contracts, mental health

Summary: The committee first adopted a committee substitute for Senate Bill 30 and then voted to report the substituted bill favorably to the full Senate; the roll call showed six ayes and one nay, with later unanimous-consent corrections noted for additional aye votes. The committee also reported Senate Bill 801 favorably to the full Senate by an eight-to-one vote. Both bills were left with no further action in the meeting after the votes. The committee then heard Senate Bill 2595 by Senator Middleton and Senate Bill 2876 by Chairman Hughes, both aimed at addressing masked harassment and riot-related conduct. Supporters said the bills would deter intimidation, protect public order, and respond to recent protests and anti-Semitic incidents, while opponents from civil rights, disability, and advocacy groups argued the measures were overly broad, could chill peaceful protest, and would burden people who wear masks for religious, medical, or disability-related reasons. Public testimony was taken on both bills, and both were left pending after testimony closed. Senate Bill 2753, by Senator Hall, proposed consolidating early voting and election day into a single continuous in-person voting period with common procedures and equipment, while preserving countywide voting and mail voting. The Secretary of State’s office said the bill could improve ballot secrecy and simplify administration, though witnesses raised concerns about ballot privacy, logistics, and access for disabled voters; some county election officials were neutral or supportive of the concept, while others opposed it as confusing or potentially burdensome. The bill was left pending after extensive testimony. The committee also heard Senate Bill 2225 on allowing spirit-based ready-to-drink beverages to be sold in grocery and convenience stores, with supporters arguing the law should focus on alcohol content rather than the source of the alcohol and that the bill would modernize an outdated code. Later, Senate Bill 1540, which would add election officials and related workers to confidentiality protections, drew support from county election officials who described threats and harassment, though one witness suggested the bill’s language may need technical adjustment to better match its intent. Finally, Senate Bill 2382, concerning statewide voter registration systems and offline counties, drew opposition from county election administrators and vendors who warned about capacity, cybersecurity, and single-point-of-failure risks, while others suggested a phased approach or API-based integration; the transcript ends with testimony still open on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:05:12.800> from Transportation first uh testimony from Transportation first uh testimony
• So thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. Thank you very much for your testimony.
• We stand by our testimony and support.
• Thank you, Chair. testimony and support from the testimony and support from the Department<00:25:28.159
• <00:37:09.599> from<00:37:10.160> the heard the testimony from the heard the testimony

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs heard several transportation and public safety measures on March 28, 2025. SB 1195 would prohibit parking within certain distances of crosswalks and intersections, direct parking fine revenue to the Safe Routes to School special fund, and remove the need for signs or curb markings in some cases. The Department of Transportation, Department of Health, and Ulupono Initiative supported the bill, emphasizing improved visibility, pedestrian safety, and funding for school-route improvements; written testimony included both support and one opposition. No vote was taken during the hearing segment provided. The committee also heard SB 1102 on the aircraft rescue firefighting unit chief, which would set term-based appointment provisions for the airport division’s fire chief. DOT supported the measure, saying it would give the director flexibility to select leadership and adapt to changing needs, while a member asked about current removal procedures for underperforming employees. The bill was presented as a management and leadership measure, with no action taken in the excerpt. SB 1216, addressing noisy mufflers and safety inspection requirements, drew DOT support in principle but concern that existing rules already cover inspection standards and that enforcement after inspection remains difficult; DOT also described a planned noise-detection camera pilot on Oʻahu. Testimony included support from neighborhood and advocacy groups and opposition from three individuals. For SB 30, which would require helmets for moped riders under 21, DOT and HPD supported the bill, citing crash data and injury prevention; testimony was evenly split overall, with six in support and six in opposition. SB 344 would require helmets for skateboard users under 18; DOT supported it, and a DOT witness explained current helmet rules for other devices such as e-bikes, scooters, and motorcycles. SB 1095, increasing decal size limits for special number plates, drew DOT concerns that larger decals could interfere with plate readability and automated enforcement. SB 1522 would make proof of filing required vehicle-transfer notice forms a complete defense to actions arising from the vehicle’s later use or abandonment; the Judiciary said it had no position on the bill’s merits but objected to language requiring new court forms and raised access and legal-advice concerns, while Honolulu’s Department of Customer Services supported the measure. The committee then heard SB 597, extending the deadline for the Administrative Driver’s License Revocation Office to issue written review decisions. The Attorney General and DOT supported the extension, citing limited toxicology capacity and shipping delays for testing, and several law enforcement and public health entities also supported it. In contrast, the ADLRO hearing officer testified with serious concerns about due process, warning that eliminating or delaying the review process could create constitutional problems, disproportionately burden people without attorneys, and jeopardize thousands of cases. Finally, SB 1285 proposed a tiered revocation system for DUI arrests; ADLRO strongly opposed it on due process grounds, while DOT supported it as a safety measure and the Hawaii Public Health Institute commented that evidence is lacking for standalone mandatory revocation and suggested stronger impaired-driving standards instead. The committee had not yet taken final action in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you both for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thanks for your testimony.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Higher Education heard testimony on a broad set of bills focused on making public higher education more affordable and accessible, protecting student information, and changing social work licensure rules. Chair Rogers and Senator Comerford opened by emphasizing the committee’s focus on financial aid, tuition and fee waivers, scholarships, admissions, and institutional changes, and they reminded witnesses about the three-minute testimony limit. No votes were taken during the hearing. A large portion of the hearing centered on the “Super Act” (H. 1423/S. 218), which would eliminate the master’s-level social work licensing exam and create grant support for social work internships. Supporters—including students, practitioners, educators, and advocates—argued that unpaid internships and the exam create financial barriers, worsen workforce shortages, and disproportionately affect Black, brown, older, ESL, and other marginalized candidates. Opponents from the Association of Social Work Boards argued the exam is a necessary public-protection standard, helps maintain uniform licensure, and is important to the social work licensure compact; they said workforce shortages should be addressed through pay, working conditions, and caseloads instead. Committee members asked detailed questions about compact participation, exam accommodations, and how other states such as Rhode Island and Connecticut have handled similar changes. The committee also heard extensive testimony in favor of debt-free public higher education bills (H. 1436/S. 929). Witnesses, including students, faculty, advocates, and Senator Eldridge, said Massachusetts should expand on free community college by covering tuition and mandatory fees at public colleges and universities, with additional aid for living costs for lower-income students. Supporters said student debt delays homeownership, family formation, and career entry, and that the state should use Fair Share revenue to invest in public higher education. Some committee members voiced support but also raised concerns about prioritizing K-12 funding and the cost of expanding free college further. Several witnesses also supported bills to extend tuition and fee waivers to young adults raised by grandparents or other kinship guardians outside the DCF system, arguing that these students face the same trauma and financial barriers as foster youth but do not receive the same benefits. Representative Donato, Joseph O’Leary, Shauna Manning, Sandra Vecchio, Karen Gardner, Judy Walter, Elaine Arsenault, and others described the financial strain on grandparents raising grandchildren and urged parity with DCF-related waivers. In addition, Senator Jake Oliveira testified for a bill to protect public higher education student directory information from data mining and unauthorized sharing, and Deirdre Cummings testified for an open educational resources bill to reduce textbook costs. The hearing concluded with continued testimony on kinship care and college access, with committee members thanking witnesses and indicating follow-up on some bill language issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the deputy state epidemiologist and here to offer testimony with written testimony as well. >> Okay
• testimony, I'll stand there. Thank you. testimony, I'll stand there. Thank you.
• >> I'll stand on my testimony. >> I'll stand on my testimony.
• possible on our testimony. possible on our testimony.
• >> Yes, we stand on our testimony. >> Yes, we stand on our testimony.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Health and Human Services heard several health-related measures. SB 3132 on syndromic surveillance drew support from the Department of Health, healthcare organizations, and others, with DOH explaining the bill would formalize a surveillance program that has helped with real-time flu tracking and response to events like the Maui fires. A member raised privacy concerns from opponents, and DOH responded that the data are deidentified and do not include Social Security numbers or dates of birth. No votes were taken on the bill in the portion provided. SB 3134 on emergency medical systems of care received broad support from SHIPA, DOH, military and EMS representatives, and others, who said it would modernize the EMS system. SB 3136 on lead materials and water infrastructure was also supported by DOH and SHIPA; members asked whether the bill would allow Hawaii to keep stronger standards if federal drinking water rules were weakened, and DOH said the state would not have to follow weaker federal standards as long as Hawaii remained as stringent or more stringent. SB 3138 on independent audits of deposit beverage distribution drew support from DOH and several industry groups, but with amendments to reduce burdens on small businesses, raise the audit threshold, and modernize reporting; opponents also testified. DOH later clarified that the measure would affect a limited number of distributors and said it is working on an electronic submission system, though not yet for audit filings. SB 3139 concerning SHIPA was supported by SHIPA and the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii, while HMSA suggested one provision should remain under the insurance commissioner’s purview. SHIPA said the bill is about collaboration and a broader health vision, not regulation, and members indicated they were comfortable with removing the disputed portion. SB 3207 on background checks drew support from healthcare providers but opposition from the Attorney General and DOH. Supporters argued the FBI fingerprinting requirement is costly, duplicative, and difficult to schedule, while opponents said the bill would improperly shift fingerprint collection authority to hospitals and other facilities and could conflict with federal law. The committee engaged in extended questioning about costs, federal requirements, and whether the mandate would be passed on to patients; no final action is reflected in the excerpt. The committee then began SB 2271 on hospital licensing, with support from SHIPA, the Developmental Disabilities council, healthcare groups, Kaiser Permanente, and DOH, and commenters said the bill would allow hospitals to demonstrate compliance through CMS-recognized accreditation, with a suggested wording change to “approved” accrediting organization.

Transcript Highlights:

• We now are open for public testimony.
• We have sworn testimony on that effect.
• Bledsoe, I want to thank you for your testimony here today and all of your testimonies and work that
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your testimony. That would be the end of your time.
• Thank you for taking the testimony.

Summary: The Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting held its first regional hearing, focused on South and Central Texas, including Bexar County, Travis County, and the Rio Grande Valley. After establishing a quorum, the committee adopted its rules on a 6-3 roll-call vote, with Senators Alvarado and Miles voting no. Chair Phil King explained the regional-hearing format, the use of 2020 census data, the online testimony process, and the availability of written comments and future hearings. Several members then gave opening remarks, with Republicans emphasizing public input and Democrats arguing the special session and mid-decade redistricting were unnecessary and aimed at minority districts. A major procedural issue arose over whether the committee should invite or subpoena the DOJ attorney who authored the July 7 letter that prompted the redistricting discussion. Senator Miles moved to subpoena the attorney; the motion was seconded but then set aside after the chair said the committee could not take formal action on a non-procedural matter during a regional hearing under the adopted rules. The chair said he would consult legal counsel about issuing an invitation, and members discussed the August 7 deadline referenced in the DOJ letter. The committee then moved on to public testimony. Witnesses, including Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia, law professor Ellen Katz, and Texas NAACP president Gary Bledsoe, argued that the DOJ letter misread the law and that the targeted districts were lawful opportunity or coalition districts. They said the Fifth Circuit’s Pettway decision was limited to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and did not declare coalition districts unconstitutional, and they cited Bartlett v. Strickland as warning against intentionally dismantling effective minority districts. Garcia and Bledsoe said the hearing was politically motivated and would harm Black and Latino representation; Katz said Texas would act illegally if it followed the DOJ letter’s instructions. Members asked questions about the legal status of coalition districts, the 2021 map-drawing process, and the difference between opportunity, coalition, and crossover districts. The hearing continued with additional public witnesses, including labor representative Emily Amps, who said workers and communities of color were being harmed by the proposed redistricting effort.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thanks for your testimony. Welcome. Introduce yourself. Give us your testimony.
• . testimony.
• Seber, open up public testimony to see Seber and Rob Koehler. Public testimony.
• Do we have invited testimony? There is no invited testimony.
• Your written testimony is here and your testimony is being heard.

Bills: SB29, SB406, SB447, SB875, SB893, SB1033, SB1346, SB1362, SB1539, SCR22, SB 29

Keywords: business organization, internal management, corporate governance, partnerships, liability reduction, birth certificate, biological sex, gender identity, health and safety, sex assignment, SB 875, Texas, independent school district, ISD, school board trustee, superintendent, campus administrator, electioneering, political signs, early voting

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:29:18.640> and and stand on our written testimony and and stand on our written testimony
• please so you note in your testimony please so you note in your testimony that<00:46:21.160>
• So we have a few names here on your testimony. Thank you, Dean, for your testimony.
• <01:04:17.960> and please note we also have testimony and please note we also have testimony
• a testimony and chain not present provid a testimony and support<01:31:41.159> is<01:31:41.400

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Higher Education met at the University of Hawaiʻi’s Bachman Hall and heard testimony on several UH-related bills. HB 542 would expand the Hawaiʻi Promise Program to provide unmet-need scholarships at four-year UH campuses. UH system officials, the UH Student Caucus, and a Honolulu Community College student testified in support, emphasizing college affordability, student retention, and workforce needs. Committee members asked about current program data, eligibility, transfer patterns, and cost; UH said it had data available, noted about 10% of current Hawaiʻi Promise students transfer to four-year campuses, and estimated the full expansion would cost about $12 million. UH also suggested a possible alternative of focusing on transfer opportunities from two-year to four-year campuses. The committee then heard HB 840, which concerns athletics appropriations for UH. UH Mānoa and UH Hilo supported the bill. UH officials said the funding would help cover recurring athletics operating costs, women’s sports travel and recruiting, Austin Awards, and a new nutrition fueling station, while Hilo said the money would help with travel, per diem, and conference-related costs. Members asked about the history of the athletics funding, the difference between Austin Awards and special talent waivers, NIL planning, and whether the appropriation should be restored to the base budget. UH explained that a $4 million athletics appropriation was originally made in 2018 or 2019, later removed from the base, and has been reappropriated annually since then. Finally, the committee heard HB 842, which would fund three additional permanent mental health practitioner positions at UH Mānoa’s Counseling and Student Development Center. UH supported the bill, and Academic Labor United and a high school student testified in favor, citing student stress, overwork, and the need for more counseling access. In questions, members discussed the current counselor-to-student ratio, recruitment challenges in a tight labor market, and strategies for hiring, including looking at candidates on soft-money grants who may be seeking stable employment. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Testimony tomorrow.
• day for testimony from the general public.
• So we'll be taking public testimony tomorrow.
• and invited testimony on the same day.
• Testimony. That is correct, sir.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:43:57.160> said problematic so in your testimony said problematic so in your testimony
• <00:50:27.280> and we stand on our written testimony and we stand on our written testimony
• You have written testimony, and we'll actually stand on testimony.
• Our testimony goes into that in detail, our written testimony. Thank you.
• Our testimony goes into that in detail, our written testimony. Thank you.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your dedicated testimony. I always appreciate your testimony.
• know if that's a separate testimony. know if that's a separate testimony.
• . testimony. testimony.
• . testimony. testimony.
• for listening to our testimony. for listening to our testimony.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 1768, which would prohibit state and county law enforcement agencies and officials from entering into federal immigration-enforcement agreements under 8 U.S.C. 1357(g) and from assisting in certain immigration enforcement actions except in limited circumstances. The Office of the Public Defender, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the Legal Clinic, and the ACLU of Hawaiʻi all testified in strong support, arguing the bill would protect due process, reduce fear in immigrant communities, preserve trust in local police, and keep local resources focused on public safety. Testifiers said cooperation with immigration enforcement can chill court attendance, crime reporting, and cooperation with police, and they emphasized that the bill would not stop federal enforcement or affect other deputization agreements for environmental or other criminal matters. Committee members asked whether any 287(g) agreements currently exist in Hawaiʻi; testifiers said they were unaware of any and believed the bill would maintain the status quo. No vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee then took up House Bill 1548, which would reduce the maximum sentence for misdemeanors from one year to 364 days and allow people previously sentenced to one year to seek sentence modification. The Office of the Public Defender, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Legal Clinic, the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the ACLU of Hawaiʻi, and the William S. Richardson School of Law immigration clinic all supported the measure, saying the one-day change could prevent severe immigration consequences such as detention, removal, and bars to relief that can be triggered by a sentence of 365 days or more. Testifiers stressed that the bill would not change criminal liability or public safety, but would align Hawaiʻi law with similar reforms adopted in other states. Members questioned whether the change would affect citizens or create an automatic immigration process; witnesses responded that the issue is the federal immigration consequence tied to the maximum sentence, not actual time served, and that citizens would not face that consequence. The transcript ends during continued discussion of HB 1548, with no final vote shown.