Transcript Highlights:

• Please state your name and proceed with your testimony.
• Dahl, thank you for your testimony.
• Please state your name and begin your testimony.
• Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.
• I appreciate you bringing your testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• So thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you Mr. Chair.
• Thank you so much for that testimony.
• Thank you so much for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you so much for your testimonies. Now we bring it back to the dais.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Thank you both very much for your testimony.
• Thank you both very much for your testimony.
• Thank you all very much for your testimony today.
• Thank you all very much for your testimony today.

Summary: The committee heard several public safety bills and took testimony on each, with members often noting amendments and continuing negotiations. SB 1009 by Senator Becker would require juvenile courts to find that less restrictive alternatives are unsuitable before ordering detention, and would require periodic review of continued detention and consideration of alternatives at disposition. Supporters argued it would reduce unnecessary youth detention and improve transparency; probation, judges, and police groups opposed it as an undue limit on judicial discretion and potentially unsafe in serious cases. The chair said he would recommend an aye with amendments, but the bill was held pending quorum and later remained on call. SB 1130 by Senator Gomez Reyes would update privacy law for wearable recording devices such as smart glasses, requiring consent before recording in places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy and banning devices or accessories designed to defeat recording indicators. Supporters said the bill addresses secret recording and invasive surveillance; opponents from tech and hospitality groups sought clarification to avoid unintended liability for businesses and exempt workplace communication devices. Members discussed those exemptions, and the chair recommended an aye, but the measure also remained on call. Senator Blake Spear presented SB 99, which would let courts consider military protective orders in domestic violence proceedings and require better communication between civilian law enforcement and military authorities. Supporters from the Department of Defense, local officials, and military representatives said it would close protection gaps for military families; the ACLU opposed it on due process grounds because MPOs are issued without judicial process. The chair and author emphasized that the bill only allows consideration of MPOs and does not require civilian enforcement of them. The bill passed out on a vote, though it remained on call for additional members. The committee also heard SB 937 by Senator Gonzalez, restricting flashbang use for crowd control and banning flashbangs and explosive breaching charges in immigration enforcement, and SB 1022, creating a statewide anti-trafficking task force. SB 937 drew support from civil rights and community groups and opposition from police and sheriffs over the use-of-force standard and limits on tactics; it passed out on a vote but remained on call. SB 1022 was supported by survivor and faith groups and opposed by public defenders and sex worker advocates who raised concerns about racial disparities and enforcement harms; it also passed out on a vote. Later, SB 1395, extending criminal protective orders for certain felony sex offenses against minors up to 20 years, and SB 1230, increasing penalties for repeat illegal dumping, were both heard with mixed testimony and were held on call after committee votes. The committee also adopted a consent calendar and several bills were moved forward with amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• We our written testimony and support.
• We support the intent of this testimony.
• Um would you care testimony in support.
• And, um, there are two, um, testimonies in And um there are two um testimonies in support and one opposed
• Um DOE's uh testimony stated that chair?

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Public Safety heard several resolutions, including HCR 944/HR 90 to request a gubernatorial proclamation designating Hawaii as a Purple Heart state on August 7, 2025; HCR 205/HR 197 urging Maui County and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to expedite a permanent replacement for the Kulani Hakoi Bridge; and HCR 164/HR 159 urging counties to maintain an electronically accessible list of hurricane refuge shelters. No one testified on the first two measures. On the hurricane shelter resolution, the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities supported the intent and requested a wording change from “special needs” to “access and functional needs.” The committee then heard HCR 70, which asks the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to expand personal and professional development programs to include community service programs. Director Tommy Johnson said DCR supports the intent and described existing community service work lines at Kulani, the women’s correctional facility, and Wawa, including tasks such as pothole repair, tree trimming, and school grounds work. In response to questions, he said participation depends on inmate eligibility, volunteer status, and whether the work would interfere with programming; inmates must have no serious misconducts in the prior year and no escape attempts. He also explained that some work lines are tied to security classifications and facility type. The committee spent the most time on HCR 153/HR 148, which requests DCR to incrementally reduce the number of inmates housed in private out-of-state facilities. The ACLU of Hawaii strongly supported the resolution, arguing that private prisons are unsafe and that Hawaii should bring incarcerated people home. The ACLU cited federal findings and actions against private prison contractors, conditions at the Saguaro facility in Arizona, and the need for in-state rehabilitation and oversight. Director Johnson also supported the measure in principle but said population levels, security classifications, and available in-state facilities limit how quickly people can be returned. He said DCR provides annual reports on inmates eligible to return and suggested more frequent reporting could be considered. Committee members discussed benchmarks, quarterly reporting, parole, and reintegration services, and the ACLU argued that other states have reduced or phased out private prison use through sentencing reform, parole changes, and reintegration programs. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:01:26.680> offering um we submitted testimony offering um we submitted testimony offering
• There are two late testimonies from Robert B. and Roor Carris on Zoom.
• There are two late testimonies from Robert B. and Roor Carris on Zoom. Yes, hello Robert.
• Sorry, but my testimony was late. I got an email.
• Did one more testimony from Roor Carris?

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint hearing focused on a bill reorganizing Hawaiʻi’s biosecurity and invasive species framework, including moving or renaming responsibilities within the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity and clarifying the role of the Hawaiʻi Invasive Species Council (HISC). Testimony from the Hawaiian Invasive Species Council, DLNR, Oʻahu and Big Island invasive species committees, the Sierra Club, farmers, and community members generally agreed that invasive species management is critical, but many opposed consolidating HISC or broader biosecurity functions into a single department. Supporters of the existing interagency model emphasized HISC’s statewide coordination role, its links to DLNR and other agencies, and its ability to fill gaps with federal funding and cross-agency collaboration. Several testifiers raised concerns that the bill could weaken existing authority or create unintended legal and operational problems. The Sierra Club and others warned about possible interstate commerce issues, loss of authority to regulate movement of infested material within an island, and the need to preserve HISC as an independent or elevated coordinating body rather than placing it inside one agency. Community testimony described real-world impacts from little fire ants, coqui frogs, and landscaping-related introductions, and argued that the current system has produced service gaps and duplication when funding or responsibilities shift. One testifier also urged removing hemp movement reporting provisions, saying they do not aid biosecurity and should be treated like other crops. DLNR and Department of Agriculture representatives said they support the overall goal of stronger biosecurity but stressed that invasive species work is broader than agriculture alone. They noted that DOA, DLNR, and other partners each have different missions and capabilities, and that staff safety, terrain, and training matter when responding in remote areas. The department said it was recruiting for new positions, with some of the 44 funded positions still being finalized, and that implementation would require phased rulemaking, standards, training, and outreach. Members asked about the bill’s practical impact, staffing needs, and whether inspectors are prohibited from hiking; the department said no blanket prohibition exists, but staff use judgment based on safety and terrain. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We do read your testimony. We promise we read your testimony.
• So I loved their testimony.
• So I loved their testimony.
• And thank you for your testimony.
• Really appreciate your testimony.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing held a public hearing on a large docket focused on primary care, workforce development, and medical debt. Chairs Cindy Friedman and John Lawn outlined hearing procedures and noted that testimony would be taken on 17 matters. The committee first heard testimony on bills to establish a community health center nurse practitioner residency program and to strengthen mental health centers. Senator Keenan, Rep. Keefe, and health center leaders described the Worcester nurse practitioner residency as a successful pipeline and retention strategy, citing workforce shortages, training needs in community health centers, and the cost of the program. Rep. O’Day also supported the mental health centers bill, saying it would raise payment rates, improve reimbursement for behavioral health services, and help clinics retain staff and expand access. The committee then took testimony on bills to address medical debt through hospital financial assistance reform. The Attorney General’s Office, Health Care for All, Health Law Advocates, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, and individual patients supported the measure, arguing that hospital financial assistance policies are inconsistent, hard to find, and difficult to navigate. Witnesses said the bill would standardize eligibility criteria, create a uniform application, improve notice requirements, and expand access to discounted care up to 400% of the federal poverty level. Several personal stories described medical bills being sent to collections, confusion over insurance billing, and the burden of debt on low-income and chronically ill patients. Committee members asked about hospital concerns, the role of the health safety net, and whether the bill addressed root causes of medical debt; testimony emphasized that the proposal was meant to improve transparency and access rather than replace broader insurance reforms. The hearing also focused heavily on “Primary Care for You” legislation, H. 1370 and S. 867, which would increase primary care investment and create a new payment model. Rep. Haggerty, physicians, a patient, community health center leaders, and the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers described a primary care crisis marked by low reimbursement, staffing shortages, long waits, burnout, and difficulty recruiting clinicians. Supporters said the bills would shift spending toward preventive, team-based care, improve access and equity, and reduce long-term costs. The Massachusetts Association of Health Plans said it was directionally supportive of increased primary care investment but warned that any new spending must stay within the cost growth benchmark and preserve existing contracting structures. The hearing ended with additional testimony on a community health center workforce and loan repayment grant bill from Rep. Stanley, and with further discussion from Dr. Alan Garo about the need for payment reform in primary care.

Transcript Highlights:

• testimony testimony and<00:03:24.400> um<00:03:24.800> further<00:03:25.519> the
• Thank you for providing testimony. Um, thank you for allowing us to provide testimony and comments.
• Thank you for providing testimony. Um, thank you for allowing us to provide testimony and comments.
• Thank you for providing testimony. Um, thank you for allowing us to provide testimony and comments.
• We've submitted our testimony.

Bills: SB2444, SB2446, SB2450, SB2453, SB2461, SB2457, SB2462, SB2313, SB2528, SB2532, SB2571, SB2678, SB2529

Keywords: real property, exemption, attachment, execution, consumer protection, financial security, inflation adjustment, head of family, senior citizens, Intermediate Court of Appeals, judges, Hawaii judiciary, court membership, legal system, presidential preference primary, elections, political parties, Hawaii voting, 2028 election, voting

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on several bills. SB 2444 would raise the real property exemption amount for attachment or execution, which the Attorney General said could create vague retroactivity language and litigation risk; the committee noted the exemption had last been adjusted around 1978. SB 2446 would add a seventh associate judge to the Intermediate Court of Appeals. Judiciary staff testified in opposition, saying recent internal restructuring and a pending vacancy had improved output and that it would be prudent to wait and see the effect before adding another judge. The Public Defender supported the goal of faster appellate resolution but said it would defer to the court’s assessment and had no objection to revisiting the issue later. The committee also discussed current appellate timelines, with staff saying at least 225 days is built into the process before a case reaches a merit panel, and that a two-year delay from panel assignment was realistic under the current structure. The committee then heard SB 2450, which would establish a presidential preference primary for the 2028 cycle. The Chief Election Officer said the election would cost about $4 million, less if combined with the regular primary. Several opponents argued the bill would add bureaucracy, duplicate or undermine party-run processes, and waste taxpayer money; one speaker estimated the total cost could be closer to $6 million when county costs are included. Supporters and committee members discussed that the measure would not require parties to use the results and that Hawaii remains one of the few states still using caucuses. The committee also asked whether counties could staff the election and whether the results would be useful given Hawaii’s current primary timing. SB 2453 would require the Office of Elections to include a notice with each ballot that a digital and printed voter information guide is available, with the notice in 32-point font as a separate insert. The Chief Election Officer said the insert would cost about $90,000 and asked for an effective date of January 1, 2027 because mailing preparations for the primary would already be underway. The Disability and Communications Access Board, League of Women Voters, National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii, and others supported the bill. The committee also began hearing SB 2461, which would have the Office of Elections prepare a questionnaire for candidates and publish responses online and in the voter guide; the Chief Election Officer said the office did not think it should be the agency to shape campaign questions, though he said it could work if the questions were specified in statute. Finally, the committee heard SB 2457, which would require a criminal conviction before seized property could be forfeited. The Attorney General and Honolulu Police Department opposed the bill, arguing it would prolong cases, increase storage costs, and make forfeiture less effective against crime, especially where owners flee, die, or hide assets through shell companies. The Public Defender strongly supported the measure, saying forfeiture should be tied to convictions and that people challenging forfeiture often lack counsel. The Honolulu Prosecutor also opposed the bill, but said it supported transparency, due process, and even a right to counsel; it argued conviction-only forfeiture would fail in cases involving fugitives, deceased suspects, or hidden ownership structures. The committee questioned what would happen to property if an owner could not be found, and the prosecutor said the outcome would depend on the type of property and could involve abandonment or interpleader proceedings.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you both for your testimony.
• No testimony. Oh, all right.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you all very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear testimony in opposition.
• Thank you both for your testimony.

Summary: The committee heard several public safety and criminal justice bills. AB 837 by Assemblymember Davies would add ketamine transportation to existing drug trafficking law; supporters, including district attorneys and peace officer groups, said it would address a growing and dangerous drug trend, while opponents argued increased penalties do not reduce drug supply and can worsen health harms. The bill was approved on a due-pass-as-amended vote and sent to Appropriations. AB 352 by Assemblymember Pacheco would make threats against judges and court commissioners an aggravating factor in sentencing; judicial and law enforcement groups supported it as a response to rising threats, while ACLU and criminal justice advocates said existing law already covers threats and the bill is unnecessary. It also passed to Appropriations. The committee then took up AB 938 by Assemblymember Bonta, which expands vacatur and affirmative-defense relief for survivors of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, and sexual violence, including for some violent offenses. Survivors and advocates testified that the bill would allow people coerced into crimes to tell their full stories and seek relief, while district attorneys and sheriffs warned it could sweep too broadly and affect public safety. The chair and several members strongly supported the measure, and it passed as amended to Appropriations. AB 475 by Assemblymember Wilson would make prison work assignments voluntary and is tied to a broader effort to remove involuntary servitude language from the state constitution; supporters framed it as a rehabilitation and dignity issue, while one member objected to the premise and cited the defeat of a related ballot measure. The bill was voted out to Appropriations but left on call pending additional votes. Assemblymember Lowenthal presented AB 704, which would allow people convicted of low-level offenses before age 26 to petition to seal and destroy records after a waiting period. Supporters said the bill addresses the limits of expungement in the digital age and recognizes young adult brain development; prosecutors and police groups raised Brady/disclosure concerns and objected to treating 18- to 25-year-olds like children. The committee debated those issues at length before sending the bill to Appropriations. Lowenthal also presented AB 812, which would expand resentencing opportunities for incarcerated firefighters who serve on conservation fire crews; supporters emphasized rehabilitation, wildfire response, and reduced recidivism, and the hearing continued with support testimony and the start of opposition testimony as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will now move into public testimony on the bill.
• Seeing none, we will move into public testimony.
• Seeing none, we will move into public testimony on the amendment. No public testimony.
• And I think we've covered that public testimony.
• Chair Melo: Seeing none, we will move into public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please introduce yourself and begin your testimony. Thank you, Mr.
• If you'd like to please come forward and begin your testimony.
• Please introduce yourself and begin your testimony.
• Please introduce yourself and begin your testimony.
• We will close testimony at this point.

Bills: HF2439

Keywords: environmental protection, pollution reduction, waste management, climate change, funding allocations

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I stand on my testimony that was submitted electronically, but I'm here to answer any questions if
• have<00:15:18.480> testimony<00:15:19.040> in testimony.
• We also have testimony in testimony.
• We also have testimony from Will Duke, an individual in support. Members, are there any questions?
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being here. Okay, that's all.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard several resolutions focused on culture, heritage, and community partnerships. HR 90/HCR 94 would request a proclamation designating Hawaiʻi as a Purple Heart state on August 7, 2025. HR 123/HCR 127 urged the state to acquire the Hawaiʻi Theater to preserve its historic and cultural significance and keep it publicly accessible; testimony from Hawaiʻi Theater Center leadership emphasized rising insurance costs and the theater’s long-term viability. HR 135/HCR 141 sought a working group to study a Hawaiʻi Cultural Trust, with support from the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts, the Hawaiʻi Tourism Authority, and the Hawaiʻi State LGBTQ+ Commission; the LGBTQ+ Commission asked for a seat at the table to ensure queer history is included. HR 156/HCR 161 urged counties to establish sister-city relationships with Pacific Island municipalities, and HR 158/HCR 163 urged SFCA to create an annual Pacific Island culture and arts festival, which SFCA said it was already exploring. During decision-making, the committee adopted all measures. HR 90/HCR 94 and HR 123/HCR 127 were passed as is. HR 135/HCR 141 was adopted with amendments adding the Hawaiʻi Tourism Authority and a member of the LGBTQIA+ commission to the working group. HR 156/HCR 161 was adopted as is. HR 158/HCR 163 was adopted with a technical amendment clarifying that copies did not need to be provided to the President of the Senate or Speaker of the House. No opposition or reservations were recorded on the votes, and the meeting adjourned after the final adoption.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um first we'll have general testimony Um first we'll have general testimony from<00:58:59.960>
• testimony before member questions. Mr. testimony before member questions. Mr.
• yourself and present your testimony. yourself and present your testimony.
• yourself and present your testimony. yourself and present your testimony.
• And so uh thank you for your testimony And so uh thank you for your testimony and<01:31:51.960><

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The commission approved the March 17 minutes and then heard testimony on Senate File 4419 / House File 4069, as amended, which would exempt J-1 visa-holding teachers and their school districts from Teachers Retirement Association contribution requirements during the teachers’ exchange term. Senator Pappas and Representative Feist said the bill is intended to help districts fill hard-to-staff special education and other positions by letting J-1 teachers keep more of their pay for immediate relocation costs, while also redirecting employer savings toward onboarding, mentorship, and cultural orientation. They argued the teachers are temporary by design, often cannot stay long enough to benefit from TRA, and that the bill would be roughly neutral for TRA because contributions and matching liability would both be removed. Supportive testimony came from Matthew Connelly of Lattice Global Teachers and Melissa Schaller of Intermediate School District 917. Connelly said J-1 teachers arrive with significant upfront expenses and only a short window to establish themselves, and that the exemption could save them about $4,000 to $5,000 while helping schools afford recruitment and support costs. Schaller said her district has relied on international special education teachers to fill vacancies, that the H-1B option is no longer workable because of a large fee increase, and that J-1 hiring is needed to remain competitive; she noted 17 open special education positions for 2026-27 and no other applicants. Caitlin Snyder of Education Minnesota opposed the bill, arguing it lowers compensation and removes a retirement option without enough input from teachers themselves. She said the bill does not ensure the employer savings would be used for housing or other supports, and urged more direct consultation with J-1 teachers. Several members raised concerns about fairness, pension protection, and whether the bill could create unintended consequences for teachers who later remain in Minnesota. Senator Pappas responded that the circumstances are unusual because J-1 teachers are temporary and often cannot return, and said TRA had indicated the proposal would be neutral or supportive, unlike a separate St. Paul teachers issue. Representative O’Driscoll asked about J-1 teachers in higher education and private schools, and Mr. Connelly said the visa is mainly used in K-12 settings but can also appear in charter and private schools; he also noted many J-1 holders face a two-year home-residence requirement. The chair indicated the bill was slated for inclusion in the omnibus pension bill, but no final vote on the bill itself was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for bringing up written testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. It was great testimony.
• I'm submitting testimony today to support HB 67.
• I'm submitting testimony today to support HB 67.
• <00:56:33.400> to if you could hand your testimony to if you could hand your testimony to

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Election Law Committee held an orientation and then opened a public hearing on House Bill 67-FN-A, which would make permanent the use of accessible voting machines in local elections and provide funding for additional systems. The chair outlined committee procedures, noting a heavy workload of roughly 70 to 80 bills, mostly Tuesday meetings, likely time limits on testimony, and a default of executive session unless a bill is specifically noticed. Members and staff were introduced, and the Secretary of State’s office described its election-related responsibilities, including voter registration, cybersecurity, ballot-counting equipment, and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) program. Secretary of State David Scanlan and Deputy Secretary Aon Hennessy explained the current pilot program created by last year’s law, which requires accessible voting systems for local elections and allows the state to share machines with municipalities during the first half of 2025. They said the office has made hardware available, but towns have raised concerns about the speed of implementation and the cost of programming each election, especially for towns with multiple ballot questions. Scanlan said the state is also vetting longer-term options, including devices that could remain in polling places year-round, and suggested the committee consider delaying the bill’s effective date to January 1, 2026 to better align with implementation needs. Hennessy said the current state devices are older and complicated to reset for each election, and estimated programming costs could be about $600 for a small single-election ballot and much higher for towns with multiple elections. Supporters of the bill emphasized the importance of accessible voting for people with disabilities. Representative Robert Wy said the measure builds on 2024 law and would move the pilot into a permanent agreement, citing ADA concerns and prior testimony about discriminatory voting experiences. Fred Forier, a legally blind voter from Exeter, testified that accessible voting systems allow him to vote privately and independently and urged support for the bill. Committee members asked about the gap if the pilot ends before a permanent system is in place and about the cost range for programming. No vote was taken during the hearing, and the committee moved on after public testimony began.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's really important testimony.
• All right, we'll now begin public testimony. We will now begin public testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• My testimony for literacy, right?
• We've heard testimony after testimony of closing schools, overcrowded classrooms, almost all of these

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• >> So, but we do stand on our testimony. >> So, but we do stand on our testimony.
• >> Stand on our testimony. >> Stand on our testimony.
• <00:29:59.200> heard everyone's testimony and heard heard everyone's testimony and heard heard
• And I also sent written testimony.
• <02:13:41.920> and We stand on our written testimony and We stand on our written testimony

Bills: HB2284

Keywords: energy assistance, low-income households, electricity costs, Hawaii home energy assistance program, energy efficiency, 910, house, all

Summary: The hearing covered House Bill 2284, which would create the Hawaii Home Energy Assistance Program in the Department of Human Services to help qualifying households pay energy bills and direct the Public Utilities Commission’s public benefits fee administrator to provide information and assistance to recipients. Testimony from the Division of Consumer Advocacy, DHS, and the Public Utilities Commission was in support. A committee member asked about how the program would interact with existing TANF-related energy assistance and whether rules could be adjusted to avoid duplicative benefits; DHS said logistics would need to be worked out and that the agencies would make the rules. The committees noted the bill’s $1.5 million appropriation and moved it forward with amendments, including blanking out amounts and noting them in the committee report. Both committees voted to pass HB 2284 with amendments, with the recommendation adopted. The committee then heard House Bill 2486, relating to plug-in or balcony solar. DCCA, the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, and the Public Utilities Commission stood on prior testimony in support of the bill’s intent. Multiple advocates and organizations, including Carbon Cashback Hawaii, 350 Hawaii, Bright Saver, Sierra Club of Hawaii, and others, testified in support, arguing that plug-in solar would lower electricity bills, expand access for renters and condo residents, and reduce emissions. Several speakers urged the committee to remove or avoid registration, reporting, feed-in tariff, interconnection fee, and other requirements they said would create barriers. Bright Saver testified that the systems are safe and would not back-feed during outages. No vote was taken on HB 2486 during the excerpt. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 1568, which would prohibit the importation or storage of LNG in the state and the construction of related infrastructure. State agencies including the Consumer Advocate, Hawaii State Energy Office, Public Utilities Commission, and Hawaiian Electric opposed the bill, with the Energy Office arguing LNG would perpetuate oil use on Oahu and expose the state to price volatility. Supporters included Life of the Land, Sierra Club of Hawaii, Greenpeace Hawaii, 350 Hawaii, Earthjustice, Our Hawaii, and others, who argued LNG would lock Hawaii into another fossil fuel dependency, create major infrastructure costs and safety risks, and undermine the state’s renewable energy goals. Several testifiers cited climate and affordability concerns and urged the committee to reject LNG. The excerpt ends during testimony on HB 1568, before any committee action or vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• WE ARE IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY. SEEING NONE. WE ARE IN DEBATE. ANY DEBATE? ALL RIGHT.
• WE ARE IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY. SEEING NONE IS THERE DEBATE?
• SEEING NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY WE ARE IN DEBATE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THOSE OPPOSED?
• WE ARE IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY. SEEING NONE WE ARE IN DEBATE. ANY DEBATE?
• I SEE NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY SO WE ARE IN DEBATE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. THOSE OPPOSED.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I did file written testimony questions. I did file written testimony online.
• Stock, for your testimony.
• and for giving us your testimony. and for giving us your testimony.
• Thank you very much for uh your testimony. testimony. testimony.
• their testimony to three minutes. their testimony to three minutes.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so that's not consistent with your previous testimony.
• Vice Chair, thank you for your testimony.
• Vice Chair, thank you for your testimony. Additional speakers?
• Scott, for being here and for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Bills: HB2143, HB2273, HB2290, HB2373, HB2784, HB2794, HB4037

Keywords: public safety, retirement system, investments, trust fund, board of trustees, financial report, income tax rebate, Pinal County, taxpayer eligibility, state revenue, financial assistance, transaction privilege tax, business location, tangible personal property, shared vehicle, sourcing, income tax, veterans, donations, tax refunds

Summary: The House Ways and Means Committee first set aside House Bill 2794 at the sponsor’s request and then took up House Bill 2290, which would clarify Arizona transaction privilege tax sourcing rules for tangible personal property by specifying that an order is received at a seller’s business location and that server location does not control sourcing. The sponsor said the bill codifies existing, historic treatment and would provide certainty for taxpayers, while the League of Arizona Cities and Towns opposed it, arguing it would be a major departure from current practice, could shift revenue away from rural communities, and could create multiple tax rates for a single transaction. The Department of Revenue said it was neutral, acknowledged ongoing ambiguity and administrative complexity, and explained that a 2023 draft ruling had been based on a legal analysis but was never finalized. Several business and association witnesses supported the bill as necessary to prevent inconsistent audits and to preserve origin-based sourcing for in-state sellers. After extended debate, the committee passed HB 2290 on a 5-3 vote, with one member absent. The committee then heard House Bill 2373, which would add a space on the individual income tax return for taxpayers to voluntarily direct part of a refund to the Veterans Donations Fund or a veterans service organization fund. The sponsor and a representative of veterans advocacy groups described it as a simple, voluntary way to support veterans organizations and local projects. No opposition was raised, and the bill was approved unanimously by the members present, 8-0, with one absent. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 2143, a technical change to Public Safety Personnel Retirement System law that would limit the 5% ownership cap to publicly traded corporations. PSPRS representatives said the change would reduce compliance costs and avoid unnecessary workarounds while maintaining existing investment safeguards and diversification rules. Members discussed that ASRS does not have the same cap and that PSPRS already has broader limits on concentration risk. The bill was presented as an administrative cleanup measure, and discussion focused on clarifying that it would not increase investment risk.

Transcript Highlights:

• We stand on our testimony and support, and I just wanted to add some more comments to the testimony.
• <00:14:40.880> with stand in our written testimony with stand in our written testimony with
• Do you do Q&A at this point, or after all the testimony? Okay.
• Do you do Q&A at this point, or after all the testimony? Okay.
• I think if you look at the DOA testimony I think if you look at the DOA testimony indicated<00:29

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard several resolutions focused on economic development, tourism, technology, and related policy issues. Testimony generally came from state agencies and industry groups, with DBED, HTDC, and others mostly supporting measures that would create working groups, promote advanced manufacturing and cybersecurity, encourage a Michelin Guide for Hawaii restaurants, support Taiwan’s international participation, and explore import substitution. One measure on a tourism and gaming working group drew strong opposition from the prosecutor’s office, which argued it would signal support for gambling and could worsen social harms, while other witnesses supported it as a way to gather data before any policy decisions. The committee also heard support for relocating the Pearl City Post Office to improve traffic and safety, and for a resolution to focus HTDC on advanced manufacturing and cybersecurity. Several items were amended before action. The committee agreed to amend the tourism and gaming working group resolution to narrow and clarify its purpose, and to amend the Taiwan resolution to add the president of the Republic of China as a recipient. The import-substitution resolution was also amended to add a definition, include language about avoiding new import dependencies such as LNG, and direct state and utility purchasing power toward substituting imports. A resolution on HCR 211/HR 203 was rewritten to address lowering fire insurance rates and mitigating fire risk in Puna lava zones, but decision-making on that item was deferred to a later hearing so the new language could be posted publicly. The committee voted to adopt several measures, including HCR 57/HCR 152, HCR 156/HR 151, HCR 19/HR 115, and HCR 33/HR 32, with some passed as amended and others passed as is. HCR 192 was adopted with amendments despite reservations from some members, and HCR 209/HR 2011 was adopted with amendments. The committee also recessed for decision-making during the hearing and later adjourned after completing action on the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• I wanted to address some of the testimony at the Senate Environment.
• You can begin your testimony. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr.
• And so I prepared some testimony.
• And thank you for your testimony today.
• You may continue your testimony. Are you talking about you or me?