House Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning, and. Oh, just once.

Twice. There you go.

Thank you. Good morning. This is the Committee on Public Safety with Chair Della Bellotti and myself as Vice Chair. Kim Coco Iwamoto. Today we are, I don't believe we're going to have time limits.

Oh, sorry.

It's Friday, February 7th. This is a 9:30 agenda. We're in room 411. Because it's a relatively small agenda, we're going to not put time limits, but we do ask people to summarize their written testimony if possible. Because morning hearings must adjourn prior to floor session, not all testifiers may have the opportunity to testify.

In that event, please know that your written testimony will be considered by the Committee. For those on zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify. After your testimony is complete, the zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only. Please use the chat only for technical issues.

If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note the House is not responsible for any bad internet connections on the testifier's end.

In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making. In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted. Please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images. Please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior.

Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. So I believe the first issue will be HB628 HD1 relating to education. And I believe the first testifier is the Office of Veteran Services in support. And that's John Alomodine. Not here, not on Zoom. Next is the Hawaii State Department of Education.

Kit Hayashi.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Tammi Chun, Deputy Superintendent for Keith Hayashi. The Department of Education stands in support of this bill. This bill would reinstate a previous law that allowed veterans whose high school education was disrupted by wartime to receive a high school diploma.

And in fact, there is a veteran on Kauai who is very interested in receiving this diploma. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Hawaii Military Affairs Council in support. Next we have an individual, Charisse Aguada Imai, in support. Finally, Kenny Wasek Institute in opposition. Okay, is there anybody here in the room who'd like to testify? Anybody on zoom who'd like to testify? Okay. Any questions? Nope. Nope. And surprising, I don't have any questions either.

Okay, on to HB1158 HD1 relating to firefighting at commercial harbors. I believe the only person who was interested in testifying in support was the Department of Transportation. Okay, is there anyone in the room who would like to testify on this bill? Anyone in zoom would like to testify on this bill?

Okay, Next we have HB1159 HD1. This is relating to commercial harbors. Excuse me. We have Hawaii Emergency Management Agency testifying in support. We have the Department of Transportation testifying in support. And we have Melissa Pav Lecke with comments from the Hawaii Harbor's user group. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this bill? Anyone on Zoom?

Seeing none. We'll go into the next bill. This is. Wait. Oh darn if they're not here. So I actually did have questions for HB11 for the Harbors Bell, which was 1159 HD1, but they're not here and no one's here actually, so that makes it harder. Next is HB1262. And this is H1262.

There is no HD 1, sorry. And this is relating to the Emergency and Budget Reserve Fund. We have the Department of Budget and Finance with comments.

Good morning, vice chair, chair, and members of the committee. Luis Salaveria, Director of Finance for the State of Hawaii. You have our written comments that we provided to you with regards to the utilization of the EBRF in the event of disaster to provide assistance.

One of the things that I was not able to highlight in our testimony is that one of the things that we need to be careful of when utilizing and providing assistance, especially during times of disaster, is this issue called duplication of effort.

During disasters, you have federal support, you have state support, you have private support, you have all of these different supports that come in, you know, obviously in times of need, but the issue comes that sometimes when you get support from one particular area, it precludes you from support like say from, for example, from the Feds or from FEMA.

So, you know, utilizing the EBR for this particular purpose could result in certain individuals being precluded from other assistance, other governmental assistance as well, and not to mention the whole issue regard to the primary function of the EBRF was to ensure that in times of, you know, economic downturn and disasters that the EBR would be used to help supplement existing governmental operations. So for those purposes, you know, please consider our concerns regarding it and happy to answer any questions.

Director, if you can stay for this one and the next bill because there will be questions and we won't try to keep you too long.

Thank you. Next, with testimony in support is the Climate Advisory Team. Next is, with comments, the Tax Foundation of Hawaii. Finally in support is AARP Hawaii.

Thank you, chair, vice chair. Craig Gima, the Communications Director at AARP Hawaii. I'm speaking for Keali'i Lopez, who's downstairs at the Kupuna Caucus press conference. AARP in general believes or supports legislation which will help kupuna. During a disaster and after disaster, kupuna are the most vulnerable to disasters and including recovery, so if--to the extent that this bill helps low-income kupuna recover from disaster, we support.

Thank you. Okay. Any--oh, I think we just--you're just in time. Jeff, right? The Climate Advisory Team. We are on HB 1262, relating to the Emergency and Budget Reserve Fund.

Thank you, vice chair. Thank you, chair. Jeff McLean, testifying in support of House Bill 1262, on behalf of the Climate Advisory Team of the Governor's Office. We're in strong support of this measure, making sure that residents can get timely payments in the face of disaster, and just want to highlight that this isn't a replacement for individual insurance, obviously, but just making sure folks can recover as quick as possible. Thanks for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Are there any others in the room who'd like to testify on this bill? Are there anybody--is there anybody in Zoom? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

I have some questions. Director, so just to kind of illustrate for the public, because there is interest in the public from this, why--what this duplication of efforts looks like in the latest, in the latest disaster we had like Lahaina, if these payments had been in place, right, this might have precluded some of the assistance that we would have been receiving from Department of Human Services, the kind of direct assistance that we paid through DHS that might have been funded by federal funds, correct? That's the concern you have?

Well, primarily the concern is like some of the direct federal assistance that comes from FEMA. So there's individual assistance, there's public assistance, so there's direct federal assistance that individuals in the event of a disaster are afforded to directly from the federal government.

I think in this last disaster, the governor--because of the severity of the situation--did make certain provisions available from the Department of Human Services, but again, when--as we approach this thing, we just need to be very careful. Duplication of efforts--the Feds are always going to be probably the largest pot of money that individuals will be able to access, but we just don't want to put ourselves in a position where, you know, our best efforts and, you know, good intentions could result in some unintended consequences.

Okay, and I think it's with knowing that, is there language that we can fashion for this moving forward so that we say that it's after the provision of any other federally provided funds or is that not something that we can craft? Like, we don't know what the language is that we need.

I don't know. I would probably defer to probably the more legal people to address how that would be crafted. I'm not saying that it would be colluded, I just, I don't, that's not my level of, you know, expertise.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, chair.

Okay, thank you. So how long does it take normally for the Feds to get money to the individual?

Gosh, I mean, just using the latest, the past disaster, I mean, it's relatively immediately. I mean, you know, in terms of like shoring up, you know, sheltering, all of the different things, you know, the whole process, and disasters are chaotic events. We all know that.

And I think one of the big things is that you have this period of time, especially in the onset of a disaster, where you have like this safe harbor period where individuals can come, they can just get assistance, they can do it, and then it really is kind of the--for lack of a better term--the accounting as well as the, you know, the documentation and all the things that happen afterwards, but as soon as those things are, you know, are taken care of, federal assistance comes quite quickly.

Okay, does federal assistance ever say--is there ever language that says if you receive from the state money after we give you this first money that you need to refund the first money? They never have language like that, right?

Yeah, I don't know. This, I mean, this is something that's quite, I mean, quite unique. I think, in particular--and I'd probably defer to the, the disaster managers in terms of like, how that would be addressed. You know, I think--and I'm approaching it from a finance perspective, and again, utilizing this past disaster--I think the state's position has always been to maximize and make efficient and effective use of every single dollar that we get, whether it comes from the Feds, whether it comes from the state, whether it comes from philanthropy.

We want to make sure that one: we're not duplicating efforts, but also at the same time, we want to be able to maximize every single dollar that comes in, so, you know, obviously to the people who need it the most.

Got it, and okay, another follow-up question. Is there any segment of the population who automatically cannot access federal funds in those emergencies--that we know you're never going to get it, but we can help you now?

I know there are provisions. I'm not the expert, I think the disaster people--but you know, again, there is a period of time, like what they call post, like right after the disaster where there's a safe harbor period, and that safe harbor period, basically, you know, there--you can come in and you can get assistance, but then afterwards, you know, there's going to be the requirement for documentation, and there could be instances where, you know, an individual just doesn't qualify for federal assistance. You know, they could be undocumented person, you name it.

So if those--and it's those individuals that I think that if somebody comes and applies for the state money and says there's no way, we don't have our documents, you know, and we don't think we're going to get federal funding because of our, because of our immigration status, but we've, we've been here in Hawaii for 20 years, can we--there's a way that we can say, 'okay, we're going to help you immediately because you're not going to apply to the Feds for that.'

Yeah. And I think, you know, the state has, and in the past, in this most recent disaster, you know, there were cases and situations where individuals were not afforded federal assistance. There was, you know--and you, there are a number of reasons why a person may not need necessarily get federal assistance.

They could have other forms, like primarily, at least--and I think some of the HI-EMA guys are here, like FEMA will want you to use, like, for example, your insurance first, especially when it comes to rebuilding, right?

They want you to utilize all of those sources and then they'll, and then they'll help, basically, you know, continue on forward. So the duplication of effort is one of the things that we ran into or we really want to avoid going forward.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Do any other members have questions?

I have a question. Thank you, Director. Thank you. Thank you, vice chair. Question I have is, as you understand this bill, it's setting a requirement of individual payments. This money would come through the Governor's Office as far as distribution?

Yeah, well, that's kind of a unique situation because the EBRF actually requires legislative appropriation in order to access. And so, you know, the EBRF actually requires two-thirds vote of the Legislature in order to access. So the Legislature would essentially be involved in the release of the EBRF money.

Thank you. So this bill, if passed, would set up this requirement, but the Legislature would still need two-thirds approval to appropriate that money to the Governor's Office for distribution?

That's my understanding of the bill. I could let others that have more intimate detail with regards to the utilization--or how the disaster thinks, but my understanding is that the EBRF basically requires legislative authorization in order to access.

One last question? So in your position, in looking at the bigger picture, if we were to consider a different option than this bill as far as individual payments and appropriating monies that way, would we be able to use that fund of money in a broader sense to provide more lateral and uniform coverage to a general population in need versus individuals? I'm just looking at a comparative option.

You know, the EBRF, the Emergency Budget Reserve Fund, I mean, is really something that's set aside conjunction between the executive and the legislative branch for utilization in times of need. You know, it's, it's why it's called the Rainy Day Fund.

So I think what you're asking in terms of like, is there some kind of uniform way of distributing it, so this--utilizing this passage--sorry, Senator, I don't mean to keep going to that particular thing--is like, when the emergency proclamation is said, the executive is provided a high degree of authority in order to make sure that we, again, life, safety, and property to address those particular needs.

And the governor does have, through executive powers, the ability to tap the issue. After this is the major disaster fund, and how the governor and how in conjunction with the Legislature works together can provide the level of support, you know, to those in need in whatever shape or form is necessary.

Thank you, Director. I guess we could get some other directors to better answer that question also, yeah? So thank you for the explanation. Thank you, vice chair.

I think chair has another question.

Director, just because, just for education of the community and other members who are newer to this, what is the current amount in the EBRF and can you tell us, you know, you, you have in your testimony that we have been able to make substantial deposits in recent years. Can you just kind of review that history with the committee?

So the Emergency Budget and Reserve Fund currently has a balance of a little bit over $1.5 billion, and that has been accumulated over the past couple of years. There have been major infusions into the Emergency Budget and Reserve Fund.

I think in the last years, one of the things that you saw was like significant, like $500 million infusion into Emergency Budget and Reserve Fund at the start of the Green Administration in order to kind of shore up that. There's also provisions when the state has an excess of 5% carryover over two years that, you know, that the Legislature would have to work--has three options.

They could either pay down unfunded liabilities, they can pay down debt service, or they can make infusions into the Emergency Budget and Reserve Fund. So that is something that the Legislature has done over the past several years.

Are we in that situation this year so that we're going to see that process triggered for the three options?

Yep. There is a bill inside there, so there possibly is. Again, it's within the Legislature's purview in which one they would decide to do.

Okay, what were the three options again?

One is to pay down debt service. The other is to pay down unfunded liabilities for the pension as well as the OPEB--other post-employment benefits--and actually, a tax rebate is also another option and infusion into the Emergency Budget and Reserve Fund. So I'm sorry, tax rebate, paid on debts, which includes debt service, ERS, OPEB, and EBRF infusion.

Okay. All right. And what is the governor's or executive's position about the amount of money we should have in there?

So we actually have an administrative policy that we would like to maintain 15% of the General Fund revenues in the Emergency Budget and Reserve Fund which is approximately $1.5 billion.

And again, this is again the access for funds when when there's an emergency that we can immediately tap into for those powers and needs identified under the executive orders? Before we add anything new to this?

Yeah.

Okay, great. Thank you, vice chair.

I notice additional Members have arrived. Are there any questions? We are on HB 1262. No. Okay, thank you very much. Going on to HB 1296 relating to the Major Disaster Fund. First up to testify would be testimony in opposition from the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency. Hi.

Hello, kaka yaka. Chair, Vice Chair and the Members of the Committee. Yes, we stand on our written testimony.

What is your name?

Oh, sorry, I always forget that, she reminds me. But HI-EMA, Executive Officer Don Aweau. Sorry. Yea.

Again we are in opposition of House Bill 1296, of course for obvious reasons on our part as an emergency management response officials, it's important that we are able to be flexible in an emergency or in a disaster. So this affords us the flexibility.

But this Bill will put stringent requirements for notifications as well as reporting requirements. And that's difficult in a life saving, life sustaining or critical needs situation as in an emergency. So we stand on written testimony. If there's any questions, just let me know. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have comments from Senior Advisor, Office of the Governor. Not here. Next, we have comments from the Department of Budget and Finance.

Thank you Vice Chair, Chair, and Members. Again, Luis Salaveria, Director of Finance. We'll stand on our written comments.

But to reiterate the concerns that have been highlighted by HI-EMA, I think the issue really here is in the event of a disaster, I mean, it's a chaotic situation, and the amount of flexibility that we would that the Executive needs in order to address life, safety and property is paramount.

So I think that there are certain provisions and structures in place to try and get the information as quickly as possible. All of the agencies are trying to work together, but there's always going to be a significant amount of reconciliation afterwards from a reporting aspect.

So, again, you know, echoing the concerns of HI-EMA, flexibility in order to address those emerging needs is probably the paramount issue. So we'll send down our comments. Be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Are there any testifiers in the room? Are there any testifiers online?

Yes, Madam Vice Chair, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation of Hawaii. I wanted to echo the concerns of budget and finance. The Major Disaster Fund only has $5 million in it, as opposed to the 1.5 billion that the EBRF has.

So I think it's certainly prudent to have the $5 million available for deployment quickly while discussions then take place with lawmakers, including yourselves, to basically position the main troops, namely the EBRF, to go where they are needed. I'd be happy to answer any questions about this or the previous Bill. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. And you're welcome. If you have not submitted testimony on HB 1296, you're welcome to submit them after this hearing as well. Are there any questions from Members?

I don't know who...Director, I think you're going to have to be the one. And I didn't get a chance to dig into this, but Act 10 Session Law 2024 apparently has some reporting requirements. Is that duplicative of 127A-16?

I think this particular Bill would codify the provisions that are included in Act 10. Act 10 was primarily for the Lahaina disaster.

Okay. Well, and on that note, I mean, and maybe this is for HI-EMA. What has been the experience of reporting and make. Because you. You obviously had to hit some of these, these milestones.

Yeah. The previous reporting requirements. Yes.

For the Lahaina. So has it been problematic for the Lahaina?

Well, you know, of course, you know, it's by capacity, too, of our agency and of course, the counties. Cause it's a process, too. Right. We have to go through all. We're a division of the Department of Defense. Then we have to go through our.

So it takes a little bit of time, you know, for it to process through all the way through to Luis' department, Budget and Finance, and they work with us. And, you know, I just want to reiterate the support from our state agency as well as the Legislature and doing the Lahaina Wildfires.

But when it gets to our BNF, we also work with our Emergency Support Function 16, which is ESF 16, which is all our finance agencies that we all work together to resolve any of the budgetary concerns, as well as getting the funding to the people and the survivors.

In the case of Lahaina Wildfire, it was trying to get that funding for all the services that was needed during the response and then the interim recovery.

They're different. Thank you.

Yeah. No, thank you so much. So you mentioned the flexibility, and it's not clear to me how simply communicating what monies are being expended limits flexibility. It's, it's. I think from my understanding, this is by increasing transparency. I feel like the Legislature just wants to know where we at. You have all this money.

Why isn't it being spent down? You know, you know, what's your rate of spending? Does the Legislature need to start generating some revenue or like, you know, so I think that's what it's about. Yeah.

And HI-EMA understands, you know, from our previous testimony and of course, our. The hearings that, you know, you folks need that information as well, you know, to. And, you know, because we didn't have disasters in the past, you know, the past 30 years. I mean, Hurricane Iniki was probably the largest one that we had.

We don't have the historical experience like other states do. So, you know, this was kind of a, you know, I would say an Anomaly because we had this disaster and everybody had to learn the process as well. A lot of the situation was fluid, and it's still, it's a learning experience still.

We're only maybe 18 months out of the Lahaina wildfires, and that incident really made it, I guess, a learning experience for the whole state. And to see all our emergency management agencies, our state agencies, of course, with the Legislature, to see how we were going to make this all work for the survivors. This situation is always fluid.

Then it's like Luis says, it's chaotic at the time. We're trying to get these resources. We have what we call a WebEOC software program that all the emergency management agencies use, including FEMA, in order to get some of that information from the counties if they need a request for assistance, which is the RFA.

And we work with the ESF 16 and the BNF to get that funding and get all the information so that when FEMA asks us for information, we have that so the state can get reimbursed for those funds that were already expended from our MDF.

Got it.

So it's the same on the FEMA, on the federal level, too. They have the DRF and the infrastructure.

Right. So compared to past disasters, we have a lot of useful technology that you use for operations. And I think maybe what the Legislature's thinking of is that there'd be some kind of updated website about when decisions are made.

Because you're getting all these requests, but when commitments are made for money, like whoever's making them at the top, that we just be informed as close to real time as possible that a decision was made, this money's committed, done onto the next piece of money or next piece of the solution to deal with the disaster.

I think that's it. But I think so. I don't know if it requires this.

Yeah, let me add a comment to that. So, yeah, I mean, that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to put together along with the budget and finance financial dashboard. You know, eventually that dashboard will be updated so you can get timely information right away.

But like I said, you know, took time to get to this point, so, you know, hasn't been easy. But, you know, we're trying.

That's helpful. Thank you so much. And I know Representative Shimizu has a question.

Thank you. The way I understand this, this Bill is it's a timing of the report. So currently the report required is 60 days after the expenditure being changed to 14 days prior to the idea and spending of the funds. But it doesn't affect your ability to expend funds. Is that correct?

Yes. So, you know, our staff is already, you know, engrossed in trying to get the funding. So the reporting requirements would also kind of hinder because you would have to make sure you get these, in 14 days, I believe, it was that you folks wanted it. Like I said, the process is fluid.

You know, even our financial software is already dated here, as you folks understand, you know, a contract with the enterprise services. I mean, it's. We're still trying to get that and then get it online with all the agencies so that we can report altogether, which would give you an accurate financial report.

Then that right now is not in place. And we're trying on all levels, right, to get that information so that it's accurate because you don't want inaccurate, you know, just reporting it to you just because we need, you know, we want to.

Or we're giving you figures that may not be backed up because not only you folks will be looking at it, the Federal Government and FEMA will be looking at it as well. So that's important for us to, you know, have those accurate figures for you.

And right now, including the capacity, our staff, including all the agencies, right, We only have a finite number of hours that we can do that.

Understood. I understand the Budget Chair's intent and wanting to have more transparent information on finances for Legislature's purposes.

So what I'm hearing from you, what you just said is there's something that could be put in place where the monies being spent is transparently available to the Legislature and it's not in place, but it could be put in place that might accomplish the intent of this Bill. Is that what I heard?

Yes. Hopefully right now it's the 60 days, but hopefully we'll make it even shorter once we have a lot of the software and tracking in place. And like we said in our testimony, we want to be transparent and you know, we support accountability as well for all of our funding.

So you said once you have the software. So you don't have the software yet, you have to purchase it and implement it.

Well, right now we, we need to, for our agency, we need to find in a software that works with all of our agencies, state agencies. Because right now it's not everything is, I guess I would say, able to talk to each other or communicate with each other, which is always a challenge with all states, especially with the amount of money cost for some.

That's an indefinite time frame as far as when and if that might occur then.

Yeah, I would say at this point right now, yes, it's kind of indefinite. But we're doing the best as we can. Yeah. With the resources we have.

So what would be an appropriate and agreeable time frame as far as reporting that would be an improvement over the 60 days after the incident and help Finance and the Legislature be on board and in tune with the expenditures. What would be an agreeable time frame that might be more doable for you?

I don't know. That wouldn't be, that's above my pay grade. So I apologize. I think it would be something the Governor would have to, you know, explore. Like from his level. Yeah. Yeah. So sorry. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. Chair. Vice Chair.

Okay. Thank you. Looks like we have. There's no other questions. Thank you very much. Oh. Oh, really? Okay. Do you need us? Do you need a script? No, you have to.

Oh, I see.

Okay.

Okay. So, seeing that we have quorum to vote on the bills, the Chair's recommendation is to pass as is—HB628HD1. Questions? Comments? Concerns? Seeing none.

Chair, your members' recommendation is to pass unamended. Chair and Vice Chair vote Aye. Representative Hashim—excused. Representative Ishiyama—excused. Representative Lamasel.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Going on to HB-1158HD1. The Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Any questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, we're ready for the vote.

Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended, noting the excused absences of Representatives Hashem and Ichiyama. Any no's? Any reservations? Seeing none, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you.

I will take the next one—House Bill 1159.

HD1.

HD1. Thank you. Requiring Masters or persons in charge of vessels to follow an order by a harbor master to evacuate a commercial harbor in emergencies. Members, we had some comments by the harbor user group, but they weren't here.

So, just to move this along—it does have a defective date, and it's an HD1. So, chair's recommendation is to pass unamended. Vice Chair, any comments, questions, or concerns? Seeing none.

Chair, I have—sorry. I'm going to be voting with reservations because of the concerns of the small boat operators and their safety in complying with the orders to leave the harbor.

Same same for me.

Okay.

Zero, sorry. I have to catch up.

Take the vote.

Okay.

Okay. Voting on HB 1159 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. I'm going to do it—roll call SAO, just because. So, Chair votes Aye. Vice Chair votes with reservations, recognizing the absence of Representatives Hashem and Ichiyama.

[Roll Call]

All right, Members, moving on to House Bill 1262. We're going to defer this for decision-making until Friday, February 14th. I don't believe our first lateral deadline is not until the following week.

So I think next week, Thursday.

Next week—Thursday is lateral. Okay. So, moving this to decision-making on Wednesday, February 12, at 11 a.m., so we can go back to the introducer and see if there's any amending language that we could add to this House Bill 1296. Chair's recommendation is also to move this to decision-making for Wednesday, February 12, at 11 a.m. agenda.

There being no further business of this Committee, we are adjourned.

Convening our Joint Committee on Public Safety and Transportation. Welcome to my colleague, Chair Kila, and his committee. Members we have one bill on the agenda. First up is House Bill 657, relating.

First and only up is House Bill 657, relating to disabled veterans, which exempts disabled veterans from the state's vehicle weight tax and repeals the exemption for disabled veterans from the annual vehicle registration fee. We have testimony in support from the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Madam Chair, Mr. Chair, Jamie Schedel from the Veterans of Foreign Wars Department of Hawaii. I know you guys have a very busy schedule this morning, so we'll stand on our written testimony, pending any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Military Affairs Council Hawaii "MAC" testimony in support. Testimony from Tax Foundation of Hawaii, comments.

So, good morning.

Go ahead.

Thank you very much. Aloha, this is Jade McMillen on behalf of Tom Yamachika for the Tax Foundation of Hawaii. We submitted some comments on the measure, generally noting that it should be remembered that all motorists use the state highways and should lend a hand in paying for the good roads.

Any exemption granted to a select group requires that the lost revenues will be made up by those who must continue to pay. So, generally, those who still use the road will have to pick up for the lost revenue from any additional exemption. Thank you.

Thank you. Testimony in support from Ramon “Maui” Quizon from the Hawaii National Guard Enlisted Association. Testimony in support from Tim Reimer. Testimony in support from Mike Golojuch, Sr. Testimony in support from William Chang. And testimony in support from Teri Heede . Any other members in the audience? Any other members via Zoom? Seeing none. Any questions? Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you, I guess the only. Thank you sir, if you don't mind. So, you know, we heard from the Tax Foundation that when we give a tax exemption to one particular group every, other people pick up the, what is your response to that?

You have tax credits and exemptions for different classes of citizens. In this situation, it's a reversal from a fee exemption to a motor vehicle weight exemption. I mean, that's a cost balance that then would eventually have to make.

But we see this as a benefit for those that have served our country and our nation's armed forces. Veterans that, you know, how do you quantify somebody that's 100% disabled? It can be unseen trauma. It could be somebody that's lost both legs.

You know, it's hard to determine that somebody that's made an ultimate sacrifice for their country like that. So that's the benefit cost benefit analysis that I would make.

You know, I'm not—we're not—suggesting raising fees for other motor vehicle owners. But, you know, recognizing the service of our, you know, the most severely disabled veterans, it's already in place. Just giving them a little more, especially for our kupuna, you know, our veterans that are on fixed incomes—that, you know, we hear it every day that they're struggling.

So, this is a measure that moved forward in 2023, it died in conference. It wasn't resurrected last year. So, the strong support that we've seen in testimony from the National Guard Enlisted Association and the Military Affairs Council—we thought it was prudent to have this bill to discuss.

If I may, Chair, follow-up. Thank you so much for looking out for the kupuna, especially those who are struggling economically. Would it—would you be open to limiting it for those who have an economic need for the waiver of this tax? Can we say—because—could there be disabled veterans who don't need the fee waiver?

You could make the same argument for the waiver in place. There is a process for National Guardsmen and reservists to—you have to physically go into your unit, get a paper filled out. I believe that's how it's set up through OVS for the current fee exemption. It's an annual thing that you have to do.

There's a lot of veterans that—that's humbug—and that they, they're not going to do it. The—and I anticipated a form of this question—is quantifying it. There's a—as I stated in a previous hearing—about 112,000 veterans in the State of Hawaii.

About 23 to 26% of them have service-connected disability ratings. Due to HIPAA and the data that's released by the Department of Veterans Affairs—it's difficult to quantify how many would fall at that 100% level.

So, that data for the existing exemption would probably be best extrapolated from the Department of Transportation and, here in Honolulu, from the city's Customer Services Department. I tried to look—I anticipated it. I tried to look for that data to see how big of a burden it would be. And I just—

But that data point was very informative. So, thank you for sharing that with me.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Any other questions? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, thank you, Chair. First of all, I want to thank you for your service and all military members. Question—I think related to Rep. Iwamoto's question was how, many, approximately, do you know? Approximately how many 100% disabled veterans would be considered for this?

Again, the latest Census data shows 112,000 veterans. 23.6% of them—could be higher because that's 2020 data—have a service-connected disability rating. So, within that 23.6% is an unknown figure that I was unable to pull to determine how many would qualify for the exemption.

Right. Because I actually have an uncle and a father-in-law who have a percentage of disability rating. So, I would imagine a 100% rating is—I mean, I can't even imagine what that looks like. But thank you, Chair, for the time.

All right, thank you. Seeing any more questions? Thank you, sir. Members, we, good discussion. Bill that's been moving through the legislature in the past for, for some of the veteran members. Chairs, we're ready to vote. Chair's recommendation is going to be to pass with an HD1 with a defective date and any tech amendments. Questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing, go ahead.

Yes, thank you. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to be voting with reservations. There's been a long history of well, obviously people who are born with physical disabilities aren't even eligible oftentimes to serve in the military services. And they may also require, I mean they may be in financial hardship and could benefit from this waiver of vehicle fees.

Secondly, there's a long history of discrimination by the Department of Defense against LGBT individuals. First, not allowing them to serve, secondly, discharging them dishonorably. And I'm afraid that we could return to that. And so this would exclude them.

Even if they are 100% disabled by their service, they might then be dishonorably discharged for being openly Trans or openly LGBT and they're going to be excluded from this. And I just want to say for the record, my father is a veteran and he is today, he's disabled, but it's nothing to do with his service.

And anyway, there's a huge range of financial capabilities that veterans have. So that's what I want, that's why I'm voting with reservations. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Any other comments, questions or concerns? Representative Muraoka?

Chair, just comments like I brought to your attention. I am a disabled veteran, so I just want to have that noted.

So conflict noted. It would, I believe, be waived under our rules because you're a member of a class. But thank you for informing the committees. All right, Vice Chair for the vote for Public Safety.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you. House Committee on Transportation, members, same recommendation. Any questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you.

We are adjourned. Thank you, members. Happy aloha Friday.