House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone. Thanks for being here today. It is the hearing of the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian affairs on Thursday, February 13th, at 2pm here in Conference Room 325, the State Capitol. Thanks very much to all the testifiers who are here, and thanks to the Members who are here.

And there are other Members that are watching on TV. So that's why I want everyone to come up to the podium when you give your testimony.

And if you would, instead of just standing on your testimony, if you could briefly summarize your testimony and if you could just use regular language and no Jargon and no acronyms, because we want to be speaking in plain English for the public to understand what's going on. It's very helpful for those who are testifying.

I would request that you keep it to two minutes. I'll ask you to summarize at that point. And if you're testifying on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and video off until you testify, and then turn your video off and mute yourself after you're finished with your testimony.

If you have technical issues, just use the chat function and talk with our great technical staff here and they'll help you out. Please don't send me any message. I won't get it if the. If you get disconnected, just rejoin. Take a deep breath. Don't panic. I'll try to fit you in as soon as you come back.

If power goes off in the room and we have to delay the hearing, we will post appropriate notice so you'll know when we're going to be coming back for the hearing or decision making. If I would request that, if you're testifying on Zoom, don't use any trademarked images or.

Or copyrighted images because that kicks us off of YouTube. And that's a problem because we really want the public to be able to watch what we're doing. And if you would please conduct yourself in the best of aloha spirit. No profanity or rudeness. Pretend like your mother's in the room.

And if you would be able to just explain your position, let's listen to everybody else and give them respect. It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. We're all working together for the best of Hawaii. Okay, let's go ahead and start the agenda. HB 655 relating to motor vehicles.

This measure limits the required payment of certain unpaid motor vehicle taxes and fees and accompanying financial penalties to those incurred during the most recent five consecutive years of delinquency. First up, we have Department of Transportation.

Aloha Chair Melissa Miranda Johnson for the Department of Transportation. We submitted testimony in opposition. Basically, we acknowledged the intent of the bill relating to abandoned vehicles and helping to alleviate financial burdens. However, we believe that this will be a significant impact to the state and the counties should it go forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Tom Yamachika, Tax foundation of Hawaii.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika from the Tax Foundation of Hawaii. What this bill is essentially doing is putting a statute of limitations on collection of back motor vehicle taxes and fees. Most tax systems do have statute of limitations on collection. Ours does. We have a 15 year statute. Feds have 10 years.

This bill has five. That may or may not be appropriate. But I'll leave that call to your brilliant minds. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thanks. I appreciate your levity. Next we have Bart Dame. Welcome, Mr. Dame.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members. I'm here as an individual and I'm not someone who collects old cars, but I support this bill.

I became aware of this bill last year and I have friends who have abandoned, or not abandoned, but old cars sitting in their lots that they're hoping or their father hoped that they would revive them, fix them up and get them running again.

And most of the time they ran out of steam and ran out of time before they got their cars fixed. I currently have a close friend whose father died last year and she has inherited as part of the estate three classic old T birds from the 1950s, 1955 and 56. Last paid registration was 2008.

They are sitting in the yard, half covered by the carport and rotting away, but still. Yet people stop by and say, hey, I'd like to buy one of those things. Until they look at it closely and they see how much work and expense it would take to fix them up.

The number of people who would be affected by this, and I have have to disagree with the Department of Transportation and even my friend Tom Yamachika. I don't think there's a large amount of money involved here because currently, if you have an old car, you can junk it and you can get out of paying your back taxes.

This will only impact that small group of people who rather than junking their car and having it go to auction, would prefer to pass it on to say, a family friend or a family relative so they could fix it up. And paying five years is actually still fairly expensive in this case.

And the economics of most of these old cars, the fixing them up are not. It's not like Rolls Royce being fixed up in most cases. We're talking about old, classic sort of, you know, cars. Classic cars. So I would urge you to pass this bill. And I think that the opposition to this is somewhat exaggerated.

And if they think about it more and more, they realize that there are very few people who would benefit from this bill. Basically only those who want to hold on to some interest and pass on who gets the car to fix it up. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's all who signed up to testimony testify on this bill. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 655? If not. Questions, Members, I have a question for the Department of Transportation. Could you please give me an estimate if this were adopted?

What kind of significant loss that this, you know, you're worried that potential cost and fiscal impacts. You say it's unclear. Do you have a sense of how much this would cost if we implemented it?

Chair we were not able to estimate a cost at this time. We could try to look at it and get back to you.

I don't know if that's even possible. Right. I mean, how do you figure that out?

Exactly. Because it doesn't only impact older vehicles. We have a lot of vehicles that people are still driving that are behind in their registration. So it's a hard amount to try to quantify.

So if you're getting. Oh, your boss just walked in.

Apologies. I walked on the screen.

She says, yay, welcome, Director Sniffin. So I was just checking in to see. I know that we got the late testimony from your Department opposing this, and there was a concern that it would be a significant burden on cost.

And I was just trying to get a sense if you had any idea how much, and I bet it'd be very difficult to estimate.

Very difficult right now. And so sorry, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Puer Poi and Members. Ed Sniffin from Hawaii Dot.

Everybody knows you, Ed. You're very famous. But it's always good to introduce yourself. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The difficulty for us is unclear to see what the impacts would be on what we could not collect should this bill go through. Second part of it, though, is everybody else followed the rules. I mean, everybody else was able to pay their registration and their fees.

Very difficult for me to see that we should be balancing off the system on those that followed and paying off. I mean, buying out those that didn't. So for me, it's an equity thing as well, rather than just an economic impact.

And I appreciate that. In one of the testimonies, you're talking about individuals, you know, they. Their father, grandfather passes away and they've got a collection of old cars and they'd like to do something with it.

If they've been sitting there for years, would they have to pay for every annual, you know, every annual payment that was missed in order to bring it up to compliance?

If we follow by the letter of the law, then yes. If this bill was changed to give us the flexibility to go on a case by case, then we could work with them directly on those types of.

Situations if we were to. So right now. So instead of limiting you to five years, you would be open the idea of giving you authorization to limit the required payment.

Yes. And if we could turn it into a May versus shall based on the consideration of the DOT, I think that would give us the flexibility to work specifically on situations where people were in the situations where they adopted cars from relatives rather than those that just didn't pay for the last five years.

Yeah. Okay. Thanks for your willingness to consider that. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Any other questions, Members? We don't get Director Sniffin here very often. Any questions, Project? Okay, no. Thank you very much, Director Sniffin. We'll move on. Thank you. Okay, next measure. House Bill 697 relating to transportation.

This measure allows authorized employees of the Department of Transportation and Department of Law Enforcement to inspect and provide a certificate of certain evidence of speed limit violations obtained by Automated Speed Enforcement Systems, appropriates funds to the Department of Transportation to establish and implement the Automated Speed Enforcement Systems program. First up, we have the Department of Transportation. Director Sniffen just left, so you'll have to come back on Zoom.

Hi, Chair. Melissa Miranda-Johnson for the Department. We are in support of this. We believe with the success of the two year pilot program that we've had for the red light, if we increase cameras, there'll be obviously a larger workload and we need to be able to assist HPD and the Prosecutor's Office to be reviewing the video evidence and submit citations.

Okay, thank you. Next we have the Department of Attorney General.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. I am... Bless you. I am Deputy Attorney General Denise Wong. We have provided our written comments, and I'll just summarize briefly. HD 1 amends Hawaii Revised Statute Section 291 L-4, allowing... Excuse me.

Authorizing personnel from both Department of Transportation and the Department of Law Enforcement, along with the county police departments, to inspect and provide a certificate of certain evidence of speed limit violations obtained by the speed enforcement systems. However, Hawaii Revised statute. Section 291 L-5D authorizes only the county police department to verify the evidence obtained by speed enforcement systems.

So we recommend that for efficiency purposes, section 291 L-5D be amended to replace, quote, unquote, the applicable county police department with, quote, unquote, the reviewing entity, so that authorized personnel from both the Department of Transportation and Department of Law Enforcement can also provide the verification required in this section. And finally, we also recommend that the term, quote, unquote, reviewing entity on page one, lines 14 through 16, should be made applicable for the purposes of the entire chapter 291L and not just only for section 291 L-4. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support, and three individuals in opposition. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on HB 697? If not, questions, Members? Seeing none. We'll move on. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Next measure, House Bill 711, related to driving under the influence.

This measure requires defendants convicted of causing the death of a parent or legal guardian of a minor child by the operation of a vehicle in a negligent manner while under the influence of drugs or alcohol to make a restitution in the form of financial support to each surviving child of the victim.

First up, we have the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers in support. Next, we have the Office of Public Defender in opposition. Welcome, Ms. Cheng.

Good afternoon. Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Haley Chang. I'm the First Deputy at the Office of the Public Defender. And we are opposing this bill for the following reasons. We, of course, support and believe that complainants or victims should be made whole.

But we just do not believe that the criminal justice justice system is the mechanism by which this type of restitution should be ordered. 706646 subsection 2 requires that restitution be for reasonable and verified losses, all of the projected expenses outlined in this bill.

There is no way that the criminal courts can verify those losses ahead of time, especially when we're talking about making compensation to children until the age of 18 or 19, and possibly for the surviving guardian or parent. Additionally, we absolutely believe that the civil justice system is the remedy for this matter.

There's also the possibility of deterring people away from a civil remedy if they believe they can be made whole in the criminal system. The civil system allows for a much closer look and better adept attorneys who can figure these things out.

It will allow for children to have conservatorship set up, trust set up, that will better manage and allocate the money accordingly. It will also have the opportunity to go after insurance companies, which are often the people that have the money to pay for these types of losses.

And finally, just so the Committee is aware, currently in the criminal system, the people who are responsible for determining restitution are the probation officers. They are not equipped or trained to take on this type of financial responsibility and make a determination in this amount. The criminal system does not have the infrastructure to support something like this.

So for all of those reasons, we do oppose the bill as it is written, we support restitution, but not in this measure, not the way that this measure outlines. And I will remain available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Department of Transportation.

Good afternoon, sheriff. We will stand on our testimony and support. Basically, we believe that increasing the penalty for those willing to drive impaired, you know, will make them think twice about it and possibly make our roads safer.

Thank you. And we have received written testimony in support of. From the Hawaii county office of the prosecuting attorney and from Keiki Injury Prevention Coalition and from one individual. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on House Bill 711? If not. Questions, Members, I have a question from the. I have a question for the public defender.

So it sounds like this bill is crafted. Is incorrectly and that they're really putting into the. Into this court something that really should be in a different court. Right?

Okay. So instead of criminal should be civil.

Correct.

And that option is already existing.

So. Yeah, you don't need to have a bill to give the individual the ability to file a civil lawsuit.

No. And in fact, I have represented. Yeah. And I've represented numerous clients throughout my career, not just for these types of offenses, but for other offenses where damage, bodily injury, things like that occurred. And I have dealt with attorneys who have concurrent civil litigation.

And truly, if we're speaking about what might be in the best interest of the victims, this is not the way to get. In my opinion, given what I know about the system, the best remedy for them, it is so limited to what can be provided. And also, I just ask the Committee to think about this.

Going through the criminal justice system is seeking money directly from the defendant, which we understand. But in terms of who might have the ability to best compensate them, it's probably not going to be the criminal defendant. It is likely going to be an insurance company or some other company or organization that has A deeper pocket.

And that is not something that the criminal justice system is equipped or should be dealing with. So we are not opposing the idea of restitution. And it's also a very complicated matter to try to identify all of these things.

And the criminal system does not have personnel or, like I said, the infrastructure or resources to even begin to predict these matters. And we have also articulated other reasons in the testimony why this might be problematic in the resolution of cases and the final judgment in the criminal system for victims families as well.

Okay. I appreciate the explanation. I think I'm hopeful that the testifiers who testified in support are listening so that they can understand the difference between the two different courts and the processes that are currently available.

So that if they support this idea, they could advise their clients or whoever might have been affected this way to follow the course that you're suggesting into civil court.

Absolutely.

Okay. Thank you for that explanation. It helps us all understand it better.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Cheng. Any other questions, Members? If not, let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 108 relating to intoxicating liquor. This measure allows direct shipment of beer and distilled spirits by certain licensees and requires the liquor commissions to adopt rules and regulations. First up, we have the Attorney General.

Good afternoon. Chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Waihe Polk. On behalf of the Department of the Attorney General. Our Department has provided comments with our concerns on the Bill.

Specifically, those portions of the draft with restrict direct shipment from out of state manufacturers unless the manufacturers are licensed in a jurisdiction that affords Hawaii licensees direct to consumer shipment privileges of beer and distilled spirits. And also that portion which provides they obtain different. Different sort of a. Different permits, more permits than the local manufacturers.

Just in brief, there's a dormant commerce clause that prohibits state legislation that discriminates against interstate commerce that is under the federal Constitution.

The Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court has long held that states laws that violate the commerce clause if they mandate differential treatment of in state and out of state economic interests that benefit the former and burden the latter.

So we believe that these, the particular sections and those different treatments could subject the Bill to constitutional challenge as discriminating against out of state manufacturers. And so we have provided recommended revisions to change the wording of those portions to deal with our concerns. Thank you. And I'm here for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony, written testimony and support from Kauai County Council Member Bulasan from Lanai Brewing Company. And we have testimony on Zoom and support from Maui Brewing Company.

Hello Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'll stand on the written testimony. In summary, this is a Bill that allows beer made here in the state and made anywhere in the country to compete on the same level as wine.

Many of us have enjoyed that perfect bottle of wine on a vacation and we simply say can you send this to my house? And the answer is no problem. What's your address? That is something that is unafforded to beer in our country and specifically in our state.

Currently I believe there are 47 states plus DC that allow wine to be direct shipped. There are only 11 for beer although many have legislation like this pending. And there are eight plus DC that allow for spirits to ship. I think given Covid, especially here on Maui, the fires, how our economy has been hurt.

Many around the world want to support by buying our beverages and we'd love the opportunity to export those directly. Addressing the young lady before me, we agree. We the language that was landed that was added in HD1 after having discussed with Rep.

Matayoshi, we're all in agreement, including Scott, that that language is, you know, needs to be amended back or modified because it does prevent that possible groundholm situation. Lastly, this is not about access to alcohol for minors. You cannot get alcohol without a 21 year old ID.

This is all shipped via common carrier via the same system that we currently use in the State of Hawaii for wine. So it is a proven system, it is an auditable system, it is a revenue system for the state and we just would appreciate your support in getting this passed.

I know all the small producers are aligned in wishing to have this right. Thank you for your opportunity, for the opportunity to testify and I'll be here for any questions.

Thanks very much. Next we have testimony from Bob Gunter, Koloa Rum Company on Zoom. Please proceed.

Thank you. Aloha. Good Afternoon Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members.

With the support of our Hawaii craft distillers and brewers, Koloa Rum Company is now asking for your help with passing House Bill 108 with amendments authorizing statewide and interstate direct to consumer shipping for direct shipment of distilled spirits and beer by certain licensees and requiring the liquor commissions of each county to adopt requisite rules and regulations.

A majority of states, 43 in total, allow direct to consumer sales from wineries. However, only nine states in the District of Columbia permit direct to consumer shipping by breweries and distilleries.

By making this law in Hawaii, consumers small and medium sized business and the state will stand to benefit and it can be done without causing negative consequences such as increasing underaged consumption of alcohol or threats to the three tier system regulating the distribution and sale of alcohol beverage products.

This legislation will level the playing field and strengthen economic competition as many of our small craft manufacturers don't produce the volume necessary to sign with a distributor compared to major producers. Moreover, existing regulations are stifling the growth of the craft alcohol beverage industry which can easily be fixed by modernizing and leveling direct to consumer laws.

The pandemic accelerated the ability and expectation to shop online and public sentiment supports such adjustments to alcohol laws. Consumer data shows that there is overwhelming support for increasing access to distilled spirits and beer through direct to consumer delivery. I appreciate your consideration and look for your support. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next person said they wanted to testify is Hawaiian Hola Brewing Corporation.

Aloha Chair Aloha Vice Chair and Committee My name is Naehalani Breland, President and Co Founder of Ola Brew and I'm in support of HB108. Ola Brew is a community and employee owned company. We have over 4,200 shareholders and employee owners.

From the beginning, our mission's always been to support the growth of Hawaii's agricultural economy and we do that by sourcing all these local fruits and botanicals and adding them into our beverages.

What that impact means is that we've sourced Since December of 2017 when we opened, we've sourced over $3.7 million in local agriculture and we've added that back to farmers pockets right here in Hawaii, creating a more circular economy.

So we've also recently begun resurrecting our Monarch Era Distilled spirit Okolehau and before it's even hit the shelves We've received over 60 international awards from the most prestigious competitions worldwide.

I stand by my written testimony regarding diversifying Hawaii Hawaii's economy through producing more value added exports which in turn increases the state's tax income through more exports and also gives the opportunity for our small businesses to create lasting relationships with visitors through these products without adding weight to Hawaii's aina and infrastructure.

I want to also point out that Direct to Consumer Shipping is not sidestepping the traditional three tier system practices as some of the narratives have indicated, but it actually creates a pathway for us to vet new potential regions of distribution with the end goal to be able to sign contracts with distribution companies in those areas.

Oftentimes small producers can't take the initial financial risk of Launching products in new regions without vetting. Some. Some vetting and assurances. With the exponential rise of E commerce in every other industry, it only makes sense for this industry as well.

Of course, regulations and compliance standards to ship alcohol are of the utmost importance and those outlined in this Bill have been successful with wine manufacturers here in Hawaii as well as other states throughout the US that have allowed direct consumer for alcohol alcoholic beverages. This Bill could help Hawaii business owners tremendously vet new areas of distribution.

It could help the state increase tax income, and of course, it could help our visitors stay connected to Hawaii with products that they love. Thank you so much for your consideration.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Final person that said they wanted to testify is Lauren Zirbel, Hawaii Food Industry Association on zoom. Not present. Okay. That's all who signed up to testify. I have received other testimony from supporters. Brewers Association, Hauseit Brewing, Kauai Beer Co. And also in opposition from the Hawaii Liquor Wholesalers Association.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify on HB 108 if not. Questions, Members, I do have a question. If we were to. Let me ask, Ms. Breland, if we were to adopt the Attorney General's recommended amendment, which I'm inclined to do, because I would like to make sure we don't have a constitutionality challenge to this Bill.

But in looking at where would you be able to ship your product to any state or to only those states that have a direct to consumer shipment on their side? How does that work?

It would be the direct to consumer shipment on their side as well. So we would be able to ship to states that are currently practicing those laws. Okay.

So we've got what, 47 states plus D.C. allowing direct shipments of wine. Only nine states plus D.C. permit direct shipping of distilled spirits.

That's correct. And as. As Garrett mentioned, there are a lot of bills in other states right now that are being.

Yeah.

So you would be only able to ship to those nine states.

Correct. And potentially if.

If Gary wants to come on, then. You could add those. But for now, if no one changes their laws, we got nine states. States. Correct. Would. Would. If we pass this Bill, would other states be able to send to Hawaii residents beyond those nine states, the states.

That currently have only those nine states? I believe so, yes.

Okay. Okay. And you're willing to take on that competition of having products shipped in from those nine states because you want access to those, the market in those nine states?

Absolutely. And I think. I think the. The main thing there is that, you know, we're not Talking about larger companies, like huge, huge spirits companies or huge alcohol beverage companies, because they already all have distribution here. We're talking about smaller companies that are, you know, again, vetting new products. For instance, our okolehau.

There's not a category for okolehau. Right. So we want to make sure that we have the opportunity to share it with product.

Yeah, exactly. So let's talk about beer. Is the same situation for beer. Would you be able to only sell directly to consumers in those nine states for beer? But according to testimony that was only related to distilled spirits. Who can you sell for beer?

I believe it says beer and distilled spirits.

Should I ask Garrett? Yeah, let's ask Garrett. Okay, let's ask Garrett. Garrett, if I could ask you if, just talking about sales of beer, if. If we were to pass this with the Attorney General's amendment, you would only be able to sell directly to consumers. Sell beer directly to consumers in those nine states plus D.C.

is that correct?

I believe it's 11 for beer right now. Zero, okay. Checking. No, it's fine. Yes, it's. Yeah. 11 states currently. And as NIHA accurately pointed out, there's a lot of legislation very similar to this, so we expect that number to double in the next few years, certainly opening up that economy for us to reach direct.

But, yes, you are correct. If. If we do pass this, it simply allows us to ship to those states that allow direct shipping to their residents.

Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. I appreciate the explanation. Any other questions? Any other questions, Members? Okay, great. This is such an educational Committee. We always learn so much. Does anyone want to ask the Attorney General any questions? No. Thank you. Very kind to offer, though. Yeah. Your testimony was.

Was very clear and your recommended amendment is very clear and sounds like everyone's happy with it, so consider yourself lucky. That's good. Okay, let's move on. House Bill 322 relating to voter registration. This measure authorizes state agencies to implement automatic voter registration if designated by the Office of Elections.

It requires eligible applicants for instruction, permits, provisional licenses, driver's licenses, and identification cards to be automatically registered or pre registered to vote unless the applicant opts out. First up, we have Scott Nago, Office of Elections. Welcome, sir. Please proceed.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Scott Nago with the Office of Elections. I'm going to stand on written testimony. While our office agrees with the intent of this bill, we would defer to the state agencies and county clerks on any operational issues as they would be. The ones that implement it.

And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Okay, great. Thanks. Next we have Daintry Bartoldus, State Council on developmental disabilities. Welcome, Ms. Bartoldus.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Community Members, Daintry Bartoldus is Executive Director for the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities. And we're in strong support of this bill. Thank you so much for hearing it. This came out from our legislative form in Hilo. Our advocates are really trying to get single use forms passed in any way we can.

Voting is extremely important to our folks. And already these agencies offer the voting registration when you apply for SNAP or Med Quest, but it's not automated. zero, thank you. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. So they're just saying that if we could put it in and then it populates to these other programs, there's less chance of error.

People automatically get registered to vote. And so we just thought it was low hanging fruit that we could maybe tackle this year and get past. Thank you so much for hearing it.

Thank you, Ms. Bartoldis. Thank you for your great work. On behalf of the State Council on Developmental Disabilities. We received written testimony from the Department of Human Services with comments. And from the Department of Customer Services, City and County Honolulu with comments. League of Women Voters in support. Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus in support.

Comments from Call to recycle. And next person who said they want to testify is our friend, Cameron Hurt, Common Cause Hawaii. Welcome, sir. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, cCair Members. I hope you guys are doing well today. My name is Kimron Hurt. I'm here on behalf of Common Cause Hawaii. We're going to stand on our testimony in very strong support. I believe this speaker before me called this low hanging fruit. And it is, but it's such a vital one. It really is.

And it's just a way to guarantee. That, you know, we can all reap the benefits of our amazing democracy. And we stand to see really this kind of help with our keiki who are transitioning into adulthood, as well as our disabled community in any type of situation where they're moving, as well as our kapona.

So really just looking out for our most vulnerable and ensuring this right to vote. Thank you guys so much.

Thank you for your good work, Mr. Hurt. Next. Evan Weber on zoom from our Hawaii not present. Refer to his written testimony. Next. Dave Mulanix, Greenpeace Hawaii on zoom not present. I refer Members to the written testimony and support. Next. Noella Von Wygant on Zoom not present. I refer to you her testimony in opposition.

All in all, we have received 76 testimonies in support, 29 testimonies in opposition, and four providing comments. But that's all. Who said they would testify in person today? Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on House Bill 322? If not questions, Members, one question for Mr. Nago. This.

If you could just make sure everyone understands the way this is written. This is automatic voter registration unless the applicant opts out. That's the way it's written, correct? Okay. Yeah. So if somebody doesn't want to get registered to vote, they have the option of saying, no, thank you.

Yes. But that would happen after the process of registering. So they'll get a postcard X amount of days later, and they would have to opt out.

Zero, so they would actually go through the. They would automatically get signed up. They'd get the postcard, and in that postcard you would then tell them. And it would be from you?

No, it'd be from the clerks.

Oh, from the county clerks.

Yeah. It would give them the option to. Opt out at that point.

That card would give them the process that they could then opt out.

Correct.

Okay. So everyone would have the opportunity to decide not to be a registered voter if they choose to. Yes. Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much. Appreciate you being here, Mr. Nago. Thanks to the other testifiers. We will move on. Next test.

Next Bill is HB380 relating to the regulation of tobacco products. This measure repeals existing statutory language that declares that the sale of cigarettes, tobacco products and electronic devices are a statewide concern and preempts all local ordinances and regulations that regulate the sale of cigarettes, tobacco products and electronic devices.

So this basically says if we were to pass this, that the counties have the authority to regulate tobacco products. This is often referred to as a state preemption Bill law. And so this measure would repeal that state preemption of the county's authority. So first up, we have the Attorney General.

Good afternoon Chair, Members. My name is Rich Stacey. I'm the supervisor of the Tobacco Enforcement Unit at the Attorney General's. We do support this Bill, as we noted. Obviously, this Committee's heard there's a huge vaping problem in Hawaii and Hawaii's youth have been disproportionately affected.

So we do support restoring the county's authority to adopt more stringent ordinances given that process problem. We do note that the HD1 contains some amendments we asked for. Thank you. And we also are asking that the effective date go back to the original, which was upon approval, and ask that this Bill pass forward. And I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next we have the Department of Health. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee. I'm Lola Ervin representing Director Kenny Fink for the Department of Health. So the Department stands in support of HB 380, House Draft 1. We know that community members want to have and care for their children and their families and that they have more situational awareness.

So often it's a public health surveillance that really then affirms what they've been already telling us. And also they're more nimble and they have the ability to test public health policies at the local level, which they were able to do until 2018. And so what happened was Act 206 was passed and a part two was added.

And Act 206 originated as a dialysis subject to provide Department of Health with funding for positions for dialysis. And we do have that great need and we appreciated the appropriation for those positions. Part two added a lot of other things, including removing the authority of the counties to pass more restrictive.

Well, to pass any regulation of tobacco products. And so public health really works towards advancing health equity and justice at the local level, knowing that where you live matters and it can vary in terms of your health outcomes.

And so we support this measure so that the counties can have the authority to pass more restrictive regulations for tobacco products. So thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you. Next person said they want to testify is Nahelani Parsons, Hawaii State Association of Counties. Good to see you, Nahelani.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe. My name is Nahe Parsons. I'm here as the Executive Director for the Hawaii State Association of Counties in strong support of this measure. I just want to highlight the fiscal impact is huge in terms of savings for the state.

Restoring counties' authority will lead to public, better public health outcomes and substantial cost savings for the state by preventing lifelong addiction and reducing our healthcare expenditures. We also really appreciate the Department of Health's testimony and agree with the Attorney General's amendment to make the date effective upon approval. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. We've received written testimony in support from the Kauai County Council, the Hawaii County County Council Member, another county- Kauai County Council Member, and numerous organizations.

And the next person they said they wish to testify is on Zoom from the Retail Merchants of Hawaii, Tina Yamaki. Not present.

Next person said they want to testify on Zoom is Jeremiah Jacinto. Please proceed. From the Coalition for a Tobacco-Free Hawaii Youth Council. All yours.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Jeremiah Jacinto and I am here today representing the Coalition for a Tobacco-Free Hawaii Youth Council. And I'll be speaking in strong support for House Bill 380. In fact, we just finished school here.

Over the past seven years, ending the sale of flavored tobacco in Hawaii has been a priority for our youth Council. We have worked to raise awareness in our communities, gathering support from more than 100 organizations and we have testified at countless hearings. Yet the state has not taken action on this issue that 74% of voters support.

For more than a year now, we have taken our fight to the county level, and last Friday I had the opportunity to speak at the signing of House Bill 156 with Mayor Bissen on Maui. Three of the four counties have now passed bills to end the sale of flavored tobacco products.

We call on state legislators to either end the sale of all flavored tobacco in Hawaii or restore the county's authority to so that these bills can take effect. This issue is also deeply personal to me. I lost a childhood friend who during a difficult time turned to vaping.

And what seemed like a small escape quickly led to addiction, harder drugs, and ultimately her life being cut short. Her story is a painful reminder that vaping isn't just a harmless habit. It often opens the door to deeper struggles with mental health and substance abuse.

I've also witnessed how this crisis cripples our schools with bathrooms locked down to prevent vaping and students afraid to use them because they don't know who's inside getting high instead of getting help. We cannot stand by while 1,400 people in Hawaii die each year from tobacco-related illnesses.

Tragedies that rarely make headlines but devastate families across our islands. We need real change now. We can't continue to wait. Please pass House Bill 380. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Michelle Jordan in opposition on Zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon Members of the Committee. I represent Discount Smoke Shop Hawaii. It's a local business, serves Hawaii's communities for 13 years now. And we oppose HB 380 because it threatens local businesses, puts jobs at risk and will push tobacco sales into the black market where there's no ID checks or no safety standards or paid taxes.

If this Bill passes, we'll see a confusing patchwork of local regulations that will make it close to impossible for small businesses to follow. It'll force shops to close employees to lose jobs and turn consumers turning to illegal sellers who don't follow any laws or pay taxes.

History shown prohibition leads to many consequences and this Bill sets forth a dangerous path. Counties have arbitrarily passed trigger bills to abolish products that have been approved even by the FDA that are geared for adults looking for alternative ways away from cigarettes. This takes away the right for adults to consume FDA-authorized products.

We all agree that keeping tobacco out of keiki's hands is critical. HB 380 doesn't solve that problem. It punishes responsible retailers already following strict regulations while allowing unregulated illicit markets to thrive. Rather than remain with Hawaii's statewide framework, we should focus on enforcing existing laws and holding bad actors accountable, even criminally.

For the sake of Hawaii's small businesses and the workers and public safety, I urge you to vote no on HB 380.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from He Nam Huang on Zoom. Not, not present. No, not present. Next person said they want to testify is that was Shani. Shani Carvalho, Hamakua Health Center. Please proceed.

Aloha nui kakou. My name is Shani "Kai" Carvalho of Paauilo, Hamakua. I serve my community as a certified tobacco treatment specialist at Hamakua-Kohala Health here on Hawaii Island. I am also a mother of four ages 7 through 17 and I strongly support HB 380 HD1.

Over the years Hawaii Island has led the way in passing laws at the county level such as raising the age from 18 to 21, smoke and free environments including smoke-free cars with keiki.

At the present time as we holomua, as we move forward to protect our keiki against big tobacco and vaping companies, we kindly and urgently ask your continued support of passing HB 380 HD1 to restore local control back to the counties to regulate tobacco sales.

As a health educator on the harmful effects of electronic smoking devices, the youngest student I have worked with to get her quit was 11 years old. She started vaping at 8 years old. This is one of the many stories we see daily in both our public and private schools.

Please also know that for small towns such as Honokaa, such as Kohala and our rural areas where our foundation is based off of mom and pop shops, we are not trying to put anyone out of business, but simply trying to protect our keiki who have access to these devices even though they're under 21, who are not getting it through mail order, but who are getting it from older kids who are selling it to them in their schools as a tobacco treatment specialist.

Of the folks that I work with who use this as a cessation product, they actually become dual users where I see more of them becoming more highly addicted than using this device as a cessation tool. Please choose our keiki. Let us protect them at the county level as we have historically done so with success.

Bills in Honolulu County, Hawaii and Maui County to end the sale of favored tobacco has already been signed by our mayors where makaukau, we are ready. Please choose our keiki. Mahalo nui kakou.

Mahalo Shani. Next we have testimony on Zoom from Travis Yoshinaga. Not present, in opposition. Next person wanting to testify is Elizabeth Ryan, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Hawaii.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Lisa Ryan-Gill with Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids here in Hawaii. Really thankful to be working on this Bill one more time. Here we are and excited just to have seen it pass in Maui, our third county.

I will say that we've had almost unanimous votes on these bills as they have gone through the county. And it's really to the credit of the youth that have shown up on those council meetings and educated their council Members about the things that they want to see for their future and for their school.

So I'm just going to give you a few statistics about where bills like this have passed in other states so far. That is in California, Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island.

Since it's passed in California and been defended multiple times on the ballot against campaign tobacco companies threatening it multiple times, we've seen a total monthly e-cigarette unit sales decrease by nearly 50%. So 49.6% since December 4, 2022. In Massachusetts, e-cigarette sales have decreased by 89.8% since September 15, 2019.

In New York, e-cigarette sales have decreased by 62.6% since May 24, 2020. Rhode Island, they have decreased by 55.3% since October 13, 2019. In states that have not passed these, we've seen increases in e-cigarette sales across the board. It's pretty simple.

And I always try to remember, since kids are in the title of our organization, to encourage you to put yourselves in the seats of our youth that are advocating on this behalf.

It's really hard to be 10 to 14 years old and have a device that is where companies are spending millions of dollars telling you that this is something that you need in your life and that have it ubiquitous all around you, something that is so highly addictive.

And many youth say that they try this because they want to get a handle on their anxiety. And what we know is, is that a few puffs and they feel a little bit better for a minute and then that anxiety rushes back, right?

And so we put them on this roller coaster where it makes it that much harder to both achieve like a better equilibrium of their mental health, something that we've been dealing with in this Legislature and across the state.

We want to help give them the tools to be able to become healthier and to think about and put their own mental health first. So that is one of the reasons why we really want to see this one move.

And also just a reminder that the counties have been leading the way on tobacco control and on smoke-free beaches and restaurants and they have a proven history of doing this. So we'd love to see them have that control back. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next. Kevin Ramirez, Hawaii Public Health Institute.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Kevin Ramirez, program manager for the Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii, a program of the Hawaii Public Health Institute. Since 2017, youth use of electronic smoking. Devices has soared with flavors being a major driver.

The problem is statewide, but over the years has been felt more acutely in our counties with prevalence rates well above the state average. Because of these alarming numbers, three out of four counties have now passed ordinances to end the sale of all flavored tobacco products within their counties.

The councils and mayors worked with youth to pass these policies, though they are unable to go into effect without state legislation. By passing HB 380 HD1, the counties will be able to enact these important policies. Voters also support this.

Recent polling found that 86% of registered Hawaii voters believe counties should have the ability to regulate tobacco products at the point of sale. Thank you for your consideration of HB 380 HD1. We respectfully ask you to pass this Measure.

Thank you, Mr. Ramirez. Next testifier is Mike Nguyen from Aloha Care on Zoom. Not present, in support. Next person wanting to testify is Meiyun He, SNK Wholesale on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha community Members. I'm presenting SNK Wholesale and I post HP380. Allowing each county to make its own. Tobacco laws create confusion and extra costs for small business. Local store owners face many challenges. Different roles across countries could make it. Harder to stay compliant, leading to loss sales and the possible job cuts.

Wholesalers like me could also struggle with higher costs and the complications which could. Mean higher price for business and customers. Please keep the statewide rules in place and vote no on HB 380 to support Hawaii small business. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Next, Don Weisman. Not present.

Can you see and hear me?

Yes, I hear you. Please proceed.

Great. Great. Thank you. Aloha Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee. Many of you know me because I worked for 34 years before retiring last January on health issues, especially on tobacco control issues, for a major health organization. And I'm still involved as a volunteer because this is an important issue.

Personally to me, I've lost numerous family members and family friends to tobacco issues, and I want to end that cycle. And as was stated earlier by the Department of Health, this Bill, this law was passed in 19, I'm sorry, in 2018, in the final moments of a legislative session.

This provision that took away home rule of our counties to control one of the most important health issues in our state. It was taken away without the ability to give anyone to have testimony on the provision or to even allow legislators to properly review.

And it was added to a Bill that would provide funding for kidney dialysis centers. So it made it almost impossible for those of us in the health community to try to get the Bill vetoed after it passed because it would have ended up killing kidney dialysis patients.

And so we were stuck having to accept this and then work since that time to try to remove that provision that was added to the otherwise well-meaning Bill. And so you know, this, this would.

And after about a year after this was passed, a lawsuit was decided by the State Supreme Court that basically said that type of maneuvering is not constitutional. So today that Bill would not be able to pass because it was done in ways that aren't constitutional. But it passed and it was, it's grandfathered in at this point. We're trying to correct that, that error.

I've heard arguments that the state should be controlling all these issues because of the importance of the tax revenue. When you really look at it though, the state is losing hundreds of millions of dollars on these issues because we're paying over a half $1.0 billion a year in health-related costs from tobacco issues.

Tobacco-related health issues. And tobacco is the leading preventable cause of disability and death in our state. So we're spending over half $1.0 million. We're roughly $100 million a year in tax related to tobacco product sales. So we're way in a big deficit. We're subsidizing the tobacco industry big time.

And for years, the tobacco industry tried to pass this type of law. And years after year after year, I and many other health advocates fought against those types of measures to make sure that the counties could control these issues as well as a state.

And there's a long history of the counties passing really effective laws that help to reduce youth consumption. And it wasn't until counties showed that these were going to be effective and the sky wasn't going to fall that the state follow followed up by replicating those laws in the state level.

Thank you. Thank you. Could you summarize, please?

Yeah. So basically this is, this would right a wrong that occurred in 2018. And since that time, nothing has really been done by the state to rein in the problem with youth use of these flavored tobacco issues or nicotine, nicotine and tobacco issues. And so the counties are poised to be able to take on these issues.

They just need to be able to get the power back to do that. So we hope that you strongly support this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you, Mr. Weissman. Next person has said they wish to testify is Malia Lehua-Ball on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Malia Lehua-Ball and I'm submitting testimony and strong support of HB 380 HD1, which would restore county's authority to regulate tobacco products. As a nationally certified tobacco treatment specialist, I've spent over a decade helping individuals in my community overcome nicotine addiction.

Unfortunately, I am now seeing a disturbing rise in addiction among our youngest keiki due to flavored tobacco products and the ease of access to e cigarettes. At a recent elementary school event, a security guard handed me a gallon-sized Ziploc bag filled with confiscated vapes, many from second graders.

Some of these devices contain up to 30,000 puffs, delivering dangerous levels of nicotine to young children whose brains are still developing. I'm holding up this gallon-sized bag of vapes right now because I want you to see what's happening in our schools this is not from high schoolers. These are from elementary age keiki.

Some are as young as 7 years old. If this doesn't alarm you, what will? When I displayed this bag at the Waianae Farmers Market, parents were shocked. Many had no idea how widespread this issue had become. One of the most heartbreaking encounters I had was with a mother and her six year old son at my tent.

When she told me my son quit vaping, I assumed she meant a teenager. But then the little boy proudly told me himself. At just six years old, his mother had no idea he had been vaping every day at the park with other kids his age.

His addiction became so strong that he started stealing his father's vape, taking as many puffs as possible before getting caught. A six year old should never have to quit an addiction. Yet this is the reality. Today, HB 380 HD1 will restore county authority, allowing communities to take immediate action to prevent another generation from becoming dependent on nicotine.

If a six year old is struggling with addiction, we have already waited too long. We must act now. I strongly urge you to pass HB 380 HD1 and give our counties the power to protect our keiki and our communities. Mahalo for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much for your testimony. In total, we've received 56 testimonies in support, 22 in opposition, one with comments. Anyone else wishing to testify in HB 380?

Hey Chair, Vice Chair. Richmond Lazar, testifying for Hawaii Dental Association. Sorry I didn't register. I'll go over to you, Ashley, afterwards. We testify in support.

Yes. You know the routine. Could have done this earlier.

I know, I know, I know.

Testifying on behalf of HD 380 in support we stand on our written testimony, I would just highlight that vaping causes gum disease, tooth decay and you know when testifiers mentioned that a lot of young kids are doing this, our oral health among our children is among the worst in the nation. So this only makes it worse.

The other thing I would add is as Jeremiah mentioned, three out of four counties have have passed a trigger ban for this. I was actually in Honolulu county when Bill 46 came through and what Liza mentions where there were, there was an outpouring of support and that's a lot of the reason that it moved forward.

I can attest to that. So thank you and I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you very much and thanks for signing up. Please introduce yourself and proceed.

Cynthia Au on behalf of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network or ACS CAN. I did submit testimony, but I guess the automatic was for written testimony.

I just didn't know that you were here to testify. Please proceed.

Thank you for hearing. Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members, thank you for hearing this important Bill. We stand in strong support. Local policymakers can often identify problems in their community and more easily craft proactive solutions to address the unique needs of their community to make healthier living easier for those who reside, work and play in their community.

There has been an increase in middle school use of e-cigarettes since 2023 in the state. The long term health effects, the long term health risks of e-cigarettes are still being studied, but health problems have been found for people who have used them. Children and teenagers are at a greater risk for these health problems.

Thank you for hearing this important Bill.

Thank you very much, Ms. Au. And just so for everyone who didn't hear, she's with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. Great. Thank you for your testimony.

Okay, is there anyone else wishing to testify on HB 380? If not, questions Members? Nope. Okay, thank you. We're going to move on. Thank you to the testifiers.

House Bill 594, relating to hotels. This measure requires hotel keepers to provide adequate notice of service disruptions to guests and third party vendors under certain conditions and it allows for recovery of damages by injured consumers. First up, we have Hawaii State AFL-CIO in support. Next we have Kohala Coast Resort Association in opposition. Next we have Unite Here Local 5 in support. Please proceed.

Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. Ben Sadoski with Unite Here Local 5. Local 5 stands in strong support of HB 594 HD 1. This bill is about transparency in advertising and sales. When consumers book hotel rooms, they have certain expectations based on what the hotel or third party vendor's website advertises.

Visitors put a great deal of money into their vacations and they deserve to get what they paid for. When their expectations are not met, it is incumbent on us to mitigate this as much as possible. Yet this does not always happen. We want people to have a good impression of Hawaii so they'll want to return.

And we know sometimes things come up. Construction projects, restaurant closures, the power goes out, renovations, labor disputes, and so forth. We hope to avoid disruptions related to these things, but that's not always possible or practicable. So our union has found that guests are not always notified about service disruptions.

We've taken steps to notify them ourselves when possible, but for the most part, we don't have the ability to reach guests, especially individual travelers, before they arrive. And so this bill is an attempt to remedy that. It does not in any way impair hotels abilities to make things right in the way that they see fit, but it does allow guests the ability to get their money back and or cancel.

And it gives them a private right of action as a recourse to do so if they, you know, are not able to, if they're not notified correctly or if they're not able to get their money back, per the language of the bill. So we urge your support on this. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. That's all the testimony we received on this and all the testifiers that said they wanted to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on HB 594? Yes. Please introduce yourself and your affiliation.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Jason Murai, Unite Here Local 5. I work at the Sheraton Princess Kaiulani hotel. I was on the Hilton Hawaiian Village strike line for 40 days and spoke to roughly about 800 guests during that time that were staying at the Hilton Hawaiian Village.

And when we asked them, were you notified by the Hilton before you got here that we're on strike, and an overwhelming majority said either they were not notified or they were told yesterday or two days before coming to Hawaii. And that's a bad look for our state, you know, not just the Hilton. But especially for guests who are coming for their first time to Hawaii and, you know, to all of a sudden be blindsided by a strike. Or even at the hotel I work at, we answer phones for Sheraton Princess Kaiulani and the Moana Surfrider.

And as you may know, last year, Moana Surfrider had a lanai incident, and they've been doing repairs since then, which involves, like, loud tile and spalling work. And we have a lot of guests that have written negative reviews online regarding the construction noise, yet the hotel is not letting the guests know beforehand about the noise.

So that's why we're in strong support of this bill. We feel it's not fair to our guests visiting the islands. The tourism industry is, you know, one of the largest industries in Hawaii, and we want to make sure that we provide a good experience to everyone that comes to visit us to make to make sure they come back and visit us again. Thank you.

Thank you very much. If you could provide your name and affiliation to our staff here, that'd be great. Just walk over to the table, that'd be great. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 594? If not... Oh, yes, please introduce yourself and your affiliation.

My name is Michael Bursack, and so I'm just here as a private individual. But I am affiliated with CLEAR and so... Oh, I am affiliated with CLEAR at UH West Oahu. And so I just wanted to speak out in strong support of this bill. We do need to hold those taking advantage of both our local people and tourists accountable and give people recourse to be able to find the justice that they need, whether it is in economic terms or otherwise. Thank you.

Thank you very much. If you could provide your name and affiliation to our staff, that'd be great. Just for the record. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 594? Seeing none. Questions, Members? Yes, Representative Perruso, go ahead.

Well, I wish someone from the Lodging Agents Association would have been here, but since they're not, I guess someone from Local 5 Unite Here. I'm a little bit offended that their testimony or one of the testifiers says this law is overreaching, excessive, and does not adequately address the unique needs and desires of our guests. My understanding is that the measures like this have been passed in other jurisdictions. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

What states?

Yeah. So the State of New Jersey has passed a similar measure, as well as the City of Newark, separately, and Washington, D.C. also.

I believe New York City has also passed something as well.

I think that's correct, yes.

Okay. Also, like, there's a suggestion that somehow this is an overreaching law and that it could apply to places like malls, retail outlets, restaurants, condos, et cetera. But isn't this sort of a different situation where you have guests who are coming to spend maybe an extended period of time and they should be told about some of these disruptions? I mean, that's a basic consumer protection matter. Would you agree with that?

Yes, and I would also point out that, I mean, unlike... Well, I don't think this applies to malls and stuff like that. But, you know, people pay a lot of money for hotel rooms. The room rates per night, especially in Hawaii now, are quite significant and, you know, on a much larger scale than even at restaurants. So, you know, I think it's a significant investment that people are making into coming to Hawaii.

Well, I just, I think this is a... Well, I'll make one comment. I went to a hotel and had a similar experience. Not here in Hawaii. I would really have liked to have heard about some of these kinds of disruptions. So I think this is actually a really good consumer protection matter. Thank you. Thank you for answering my question.

Thank you, Chair Belatti. Over to you, Representative Perruso.

I just had a question for someone in Local 5 who may have gathered the data from the last strike. So, you know, when I visited the strike line, I saw that you folks were collecting just responses from guests, but also the variation in how the hotels responded to the guests. It struck me that it was widely divergent. So there's a big, huge spectrum. Can you speak a little bit to how this measure might help the hotels themselves avoid some of those losses?

Yeah. So if this bill passes, it would allow guests to make their own decision before even coming here, whether they are willing to go through the disruptions of a strike or construction noise or make their own choice to avoid all of that and book somewhere else. So many people were blindsided getting here.

I was on the beach with those boards showing how much compensation each guest had gotten. And one woman, she had spent over $25,000 for four suites and she had a small conference room booked for 30 people. And she had to, she called a week prior to coming to make sure everything was okay.

She didn't know about the strike. And it was then that they told her, oh, I'm sorry, we're not going to be able to host your conference, a week before. So she's scrambling, trying to look for another meeting room. And she couldn't find another meeting room, so she ended up having to go and buy her own charcuterie and drinks and hosting it in one of her suite rooms. And for that inconvenience, she went and complained to the Hilton and got over $11,000 in refunds.

But still, you know, she spent over $25,000 and it was a huge inconvenience for her and her meeting. You know, she wasn't the only one. There was so many people and the amounts were different because it was up to the guests. They had to go and complain on their own.

And depending on how far they took their complaints was, like determined how much compensation they're getting. You know, a lot of people, they were only getting their resort fees waived, and the hotel was saying we can't do much more than that. But then we would, you know, basically help them to what to say to complain to the hotel. You know, they weren't notified before, they weren't getting housekeeping service. You know, there was no valets, there was a lot of restaurants and bars were closed.

So they were using these reasons to go back and complain more and get more compensation. And the compensation for each person was so different because some people complained more than others. And there's, if you look on TripAdvisor, there's 30 pages of negative complaints from people who stayed during the strike. 30 pages on TripAdvisor.

And that is very bad look for our state, you know. And think about how many people, not only the people who came that don't want to come anymore because of that, but the people that they're telling when they go back home. You know, like, I went to Hawaii. It was terrible, you know.

You know, stayed at this hotel. The workers were on strike. Hilton did nothing to, you know, make it right. And we don't want our guests to have to go through that. We want our guests to have a good experience when they stay here, to come back, keep coming back, and, you know, brings in more money for our state. And it's just a win win for everyone if the guest is told prior to coming.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Chair.

Certainly. Thank you. Any other questions, Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I guess I'll be asking to Unite 5 the question. I understand the requirement for the notice. My question is about restitution. There's language in here that the guests, the injured guest is compensated up to three times. And I wasn't sure what the process or that whole... Yeah, the process. It sounds pretty ambiguous right now.

Sure. So I think what you're referring to, there's a private right of action so that consumers have real recourse. So, you know, of course, there's the requirement that hotels provide this notification, that they allow guests to get, you know, to cancel without penalties, without fees. But the private right of action comes in where this doesn't happen.

One of those things doesn't happen. Right. And a guest, if they choose to, can sue. And if they do that, obviously that's a whole undertaking. But that's where, if sue, if they prevail, then they would be able to get compensation in the amount of either $1,000 or three times whatever amount that they had lost, whichever is greater. So, yeah, so that kicks in at the point where, you know, if they hadn't been notified, they have to go through this whole legal process and they're found to, you know, and they win. That that would be what the remedies would be.

Okay, thank you. I'm just thinking that that's kind of not clear, so there's going to be a dispute on what is sufficient or what is adequate notice and so on and so forth. So thank you. Thank you for the testimony, and thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Representative. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. We're going to move on to the next measure, House Bill 642, relating to administrative rules.

This measure requires all state agencies adopting, amending or repealing a rule to make the full text of the rules of the the agency available on the website of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor in a digitally accessible and searchable format. First up we have Office of the Lieutenant Governor with comments.

Next we have League of Women Voters of Hawaii in support. Next, Grassroots Institute of Hawaii in support. Public First Law center in support. ACLU of Hawaii in support. Jenny Jagdic in support. And P.L. fritz in support on Zoom.

Fritz. Yes, sir. Please proceed. I'm Peter Fritz. I've been an advocate for the disabled since before the Rehabilitation Act when it was barrier free design. I've been involved in a number of laws and you can point to places where my language has been incorporated into Hawai'I revised statute to provide additional accessibility for individuals with disabilities.

Mr.

And I support the Bill. I support the intent of the Bill, but I made some observations about the structure of documents. Right now all agencies in the State of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii is required to comply with Title 2 of the Americans with Disabilities act, which contains standards on the accessibility of documents.

And so when the Lieutenant Governor posts a document on her particular website, the Lieutenant Governor's website, that document has to be accessible or and meet the requirements of title two or it would be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

And part of the problem is that as I look at the process that I saw based on the documents on the Lieutenant Governor's website is it starts out as a digital word file and then it's printed.

That hard copy gets a signature by the ag, gets asked a form, one by the Director and one by the Governor, and then it put into a scanner and scanned into a digital document. But that scanning doesn't create a digital document at the end of it.

And so the Lieutenant Governor has the right to insist upon any documents she receives that it comply with her requirement to satisfy the Americans with Disabilities Act.

So there can be a great deal of discussion without entering into language such as digitally accessible and searchable, because a file can be digitally accessible and searchable and not comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities act, which would have tags in the document that wouldn't be seen by somebody with vision, but somebody using a program such as JAWS that converts the text to speech and alt text so that when you get to a table you don't hear graphic.

And so it seems to me that there could be a great deal of discussion between the Governor and the Department heads regarding how to make these documents more accessible and take advantage, as I pointed out in my testimony, of all the new technology that came forward that was implemented by Governor Ige and Chuck Murdoch, which allows the document to be electronically signed.

The change in the process. Thank you. Mr.

Fritz, if you could summarize, that would be great.

Sure. I'm concerned about the language that's in there. I think that a lot of discussion could take place to ensure that the documents are. That are placed on the governor's website are accessible and the Governor has. The lieutenant Governor has the ability to do that.

So I don't really see all the use of using language that's imprecise in this particular Bill. And it could be deferred or advanced so that additional investigation could be looked into. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Fritz, and thank you for your advocacy all these years. I appreciate that. Moving on. Anyone else wishing to testify on HB642? If not questions, Members see none. We'll move on thanks to the testifiers. Next Bill, House Bill 686 relating to community outreach boards.

This measure defines community outreach boards to mean a board established to serve in a community advisory capacity under a county Commission or a county Department, includes community outreach boards and existing provisions of the Sunshine Law relating to neighborhood boards and authorizes neighborhood board and community outreach board Members to organize meetings or presentations related to official board business statewide.

First up, we have the Office of Information Practices with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. I'm Jennifer Brooks from the Office of Information Practices. We submitted written testimony with comments and a proposed amendment. And I am happy to answer any questions you might have about that. I will stand on that written testimony. Thank you.

Could you summarize your suggested amendment or your highlights of your testimony? We usually just don't let people stand on their testimony because everyone in the public is watching and they'd like to know.

Well, our testimony was noting that the term community outreach board isn't defined in the Bill as introduced. It's not obvious what type of boards it would apply to that aren't already covered by neighborhood boards. But that we do understand that the Hawaii County Community Development Plan Action Committees are the impetus behind that.

And you know that there is in fact, reason why, because they're not neighborhood focused, they wouldn't be covered. We have no objection to the new definition and inclusion, but we did recommend language to add to the purpose clause to explain why this new definition is necessary.

And then we also recommended removal of the phrase or organize in an existing neighborhood board specific permitted interaction that the new groups would be added to because it would inadvertently create a Sunshine Law loophole. Thank you. Great.

Thank you very much for that explanation. Next we have the next person that said they wish to testify is Ben Kreps from the Public First Law Center.

Hi, good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Ben Kreps for the Public First Law Center. We've submitted written testimony with comments. We strongly support the intent of this bill. And in our written testimony, we offer two what I think are friendly amendments. So first, this bill authorized county departments and commissions to create these outreach boards.

And so having a board within a board seems to be a bit unwieldy and probably unnecessary. So we recommend deleting the language in Section two that authorizes county commissions to organize these boards. And as testified by oip, the impetus of this Bill does seem to be community outreach boards that are organized by departments, county departments.

And so second, our second proposed amendment same. Consistent with the testimony of the Office of Information Practices, we also Recommend in Section 5, deleting the language that would allow community outreach boards to essentially hold secret meetings. And we've got that in our written testimony.

And I thank you for hearing our testimony and I'll stand by for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next person that said they wish to testify is Nancy Paciccio on Zoom. Please proceed.

Nancy, you want to turn on your video and unmute yourself and provide testimony? Not responding. Okay, next person. Oh, that's it. That's all. Who said they wish to testify? We received written testimony from other individuals. Six in support, none in opposition, two with comments. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 686?

If not questions, Members seeing none. Thank you very much. We'll move on. Next measure, House Bill 1150 relating to tax collections. This measure suspends the statute of limitations on collections during the period an assessment is pending on appeal before the Taxation Board of Review or Tax Appeal Court. First up, we have the Department of Taxation.

Thank you for your patience, Director.

Good afternoon. Chair and Committee Members. Gary Suganuma, Director of Taxation. The Department supports this Administration measure. The Bill seeks to amend various tax types so that the statute of limitations on collections is suspended while the case is on appeal before the Board of Review or Tax Appeal Court. Currently, there's a 15 year statute of limitations on collections.

So once an assessment is made, we have 15 years to do our collections, which includes levying and initiating any type of court proceeding to collect on behalf of the state.

The issue arises because during the time a case is pending, though in the courts or before the Taxation Board of Reviews, our Department is prohibited from taking any collection action. And so as you could imagine, some of these cases can last for many years.

So in a situation where a case, for example, lasts 10 years, then once a case is out of court, we have five years left to do collection. So what we're trying to do here is to suspend the statute of limitations while the case is pending in litigation so that we have the full feature.

15 years to do aggressive collection efforts on behalf of the state to collect delinquent debts. Yeah, I mean, that's basically it. We would like this measure would essentially assure us 15 years to do collection action on behalf of the state. And I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Director. Next we are. Next person who wishes to testify is Tom Yamachika, Tax foundation of Hawaii. Not present on zoom. Next person, Louis Ma. That's all who signed up to testify on House Bill 1150. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not questions, Members seeing none. We'll move on.

The last measure on our agenda Today, House Bill 1376 relating to correctional facilities. This measure requires the Director of Corrections and Rehabilitation to reduce the number of individuals incarcerated in private out of state correctional institutions and requires reports to the Legislature. First up, Director Johnson, Corrections and Rehabilitation Department.

Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair Members of the Committee, I'm Tommy Johnson, the Director of the Department of Corrections Rehabilitation. I'll summarize my testimony if you don't mind. While we understand the Legislature's concern and we share the desire to bring the offenders back home, we simply don't have the room with respect to DCRs in state population.

Our capacity to treat and house the inmates we currently have is already strained. As an example, Halawa is designed to hold about 697 inmates.

We currently have, we're down to about 705 inmates there because we sent 240 to the mainland temporary while we're doing major repair to the housing, but they will be coming back this fall once we get done.

So Halawa is the only medium security male prison we have and the folks on the mainland are serving the longer sentences and they are medium and higher cussy level. We have no place to place them. This Bill requires us to bring 25% of them home by a certain time and 50% the following year.

The problem is we don't control the population. We have to take everyone that's sent to us by the courts and by the Hawaii Polling authority. We have no way to know what our population is tomorrow until they come to our doorstep from the courts and the Hawaii polling authority.

So I can't agree to return 25% of the people in a few years from now when I don't know what the population is going to be next week. We would need a medium security priority prison to return those inmates here.

And that would cost upwards between 800 and over $900 million to build here in Hawaii it takes a, it's 106, excuse me, on the mainland it's $106.51 a day to house, treat, provide care.

Here In Hawaii it's $307 a day to house the 937 inmates we currently have on the mainland is $36,000,416 a year to return that same population here to Hawaii, it's $104,995,053. So while we want to bring the inmates back, we simply don't have the room for them.

Even if we build the new occc, that is a jail, that's not a prison. That is a place where people spend a year or less pretrial and detainees. A prison setting is much different. It requires a different setting, requires a different model. So with that said, we would request that this measure be held.

Thank you. Thank you, Director Johnson. Next we have testimony From Office of the public defender. Welcome, Ms. Ting. Please proceed.

Thank you. And good afternoon again, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. The Public Defender. The Office of the Public Defender strongly supports this measure. And we do understand what Director Johnson is saying. But with respect, we disagree with the comment that they do not control the amount of people who are incarcerated, because they absolutely do.

There's parole matters, there's transitional opportunities, furlough, minimum security opportunities that inmates can be given. Every single number that he referenced in his testimony is a human being, a client of ours, possibly, and most likely the Public Offender's Office represents the majority of the incarcerated individuals.

And we know firsthand what it means to have an individual who is more likely than not born and raised here, all community ties here, family and support, be displaced and put in the mainland at a facility where it is essentially impossible or extremely cost prohibitive for their family to maintain a connection and to visit them.

One of the strongest things that the Hawaii Paroling Authority is looking for when determining whether or not to grant release or parole to our clients is what level of community support they have.

What is the community that they're going to go out and be with when you displace these individuals and put them in a privately run facility, which. My testimony touches on the problems of a privately run facility. I know the ACLU and others very clearly laid that out for this Committee.

But just on a personal level, we deal with these individuals daily. So they are not statistics. They are Members of our community. And we have a responsibility to their families, to their loved ones and to those individuals to make sure that we reintegrate them successfully and putting them in the mainland because of a concern is due to.

The solution is not to keep incarcerating more and more individuals. That speaks to a bigger issue and a much bigger conversation about the criminal system and the reforms that we support. But not having room is not, in our opinion, the justifying reason to keep our individuals in the mainland.

So thank you, and I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Cheng. Next, ACLU, Hawaii. Mr. Lee.

Good morning, chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, ACLU of Hawaii is in support of this Bill.

We want to note that since Seguro opened in 2007, there have been incidents of violence, murder and deaths, allegations of unsafe drinking water as recent as this past fall, and a lack of meaningful oversight in staffing, which has led to issues related to drug smuggling and solitary confinement.

We also want to make clear, as you might have seen in our appendix, the core civic and private prison operators in General, are bad partners, both for Hawaii and also for different states nationwide. A number of states have banned contracts with private prisons.

And so we want to be clear that entrusting core governmental responsibilities over imprisonment, rehabilitation, private prisons who are seeking to profit off of incarceration, they're not the right people to be partnering with.

And we also want to note that if you look at the available prison space, at least looking at operational capacity versus the number of people who are actually in our prisons in the islands, there is more than enough space to fulfill a 50% mandate.

Even now, I believe, at least as of the last quarter of 2024, there's over 700 available beds, at least according to DCR's information on operational capacity.

And so I think we can be creative and look at other states in terms of what we do to change security classifications, what we do, as the public defender said, to increase work furlough and other opportunities, but the space is there, and it's also wrong to continue to send people thousands of miles from home to that to the end.

I want to go over our two proposed amendments. We'd just like to establish the baseline population as of 2025 at around 700 individuals, consistent with the testimony submitted by Director Johnson.

And we also want to require yearly benchmarks just so that the Legislature is kept up to date on how progress is going, and there can be kind of a collaborative process between the Department and you folks. So happy to answer any questions, and thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lee. Next, Cat Brady, Community alliance on Prisons.

Good afternoon, Chair Tornas, Vice Chair POIPOI, and Members of the Committee, Cat Brady, testifying in support of this for Community alliance on Prisons. So we definitely support ACLU and, you know, reducing the population. It is such a burden on families to have their loved ones thousands of miles away.

So I think it's family connections that's the thing that really helps reentry. So when we look at Saguaro, and I've been following that since we moved there, I was actually there in 2007, there have been a plethora of problems there. Murders, suicides. The lack of training is amazing.

There's been a murder and an attempted murder in restrictive housing, where it's supposed to have two guards go in, one guard went in. So these are problems that they're. It's a corporate prison, and their bottom line is money, and it really has nothing to do with the rehabilitation of human beings.

We have one problem with this Bill, and that's where it says that the Hawaii Oversight Commission should actually approve of the prison. Well, that's not really in their mission. Their mission is reentry, so they should be included. But it should be more about being inclusive to have them participate with their knowledge and expertise.

I think it would be really helpful. But bringing our people home should be a priority. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And the last person said they wish to testify is Lauren Walker, Hawaii Friends of Restorative Justice.

Please proceed on Zoom Aloha and thank you. I'm Lauren Walker with the Hawai'I Friends of Justice and we strongly support this measure.

We have for years we've been doing reentry work with people who are incarcerated and their loved ones, their children and their families and researching the outcomes of evidence based practices to help people be law abiding and desist from criminal behavior and substance disorder.

And having attachment to their family is really important and not only for them, but for the families, the children. That was one of the first things we looked at was how was how does good reentry help a child of an incarcerated parent? And it's amazing how important it is for them and those kids.

If we don't help them, they become a burden on us. The state talks about this $100 a day compared to $300 a day that just he's talking about a static thing of a cost of a bed. It's not talking about the trauma that's caused to families.

And those people need to be considered and they should have their families brought back to Hawaii and not be incarcerated in Saguaro where I have also visited and was really kind of appalled. There's three private prisons all together there. It's really creepy. Hawaii has one. At the time it was Connecticut and New York had the other one.

And it's really ethical issue and the state should not be farming out its incarceration to profit making entities. Thanks.

Thank you very much, Ms. Walker. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? House Bill 1376 please come on up, introduce yourself.

Loha Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members Carrie Ann Chibota Policy Director for ACLU of I I just want to supplement with Nathan Learning, our policy fellow has shared with you. I want to share because there are a number of new lawmakers with us. Sort of the context in which this arose.

We started to transfer people out of State in 1995 under Governor Cayetano and it was mentioned as a temporary solution to overcrowding. This year will make 30 years since we have been exporting our people, predominantly native Hawaiian from their Ancestral lands to a private for profit prison.

And you can see at any moment how their profit shares are rising. And that model, just philosophically, we need to all re examine that during that time there have been a number of deaths, there have been rapes.

At 1.0 in time we were shipping our women out of state to private prisons, Corecivic, the same place that's operating Saguaro today. But we made a decision that we were going to stop that and we brought all of the women home and today we are no longer shipping them out.

At 1.0 in time we also started sending some of our female youth in the Hawaii correctionals because we were overcrowded. The community was outraged. We brought them back home and we found ways to decarcerate and reduce the number of youth in our system.

And we have been successful doing that not only through government, but also through community partnerships and using evidence practices. So we need to look holistically at the ways that we can reduce the number of people in our jails and prisons and bring them back home.

And I want to add that if you look at other states, we can learn from them. Vermont shipped a number of people out of state. They brought over 50% back home. California was shipping over 10,000 people out of state. And in 2019, their Governor made a decision to bring everyone back home.

And over a period of years they have stopped that practice out of state. We have a much smaller population out of state. And I want to congratulate the Department for bringing more people home, but it's not enough. People who have been set out of state have been subjected again being disconnected from their family.

Rise in creation of prison gangs. And I want to speak to a number of people's names, but I will remember 11 of our clients, his family, Bronson Nunuha from Maui. He was stabbed over 140 times at Saguaro Prison.

He was a few months away from coming home for a drug related conviction and the gang carved the gang name in his chest. And we represented his family in a wrongful death suit. And since then there have been more deaths.

We get the calls, we hear from their families and we know that their children are suffering from being disconnected. So if we truly believe in Aloha and Ohana, we will find a way and use our leadership skills, lawmakers, Governor, community, to bring everyone home. So the 50% reduction is small.

We should be aiming for zero and we can do it using best practices. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Oda. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions. Members Represent Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for Director Johnson. Hearing the concerns about the current out of state prison, Are there other options that are like higher quality facilities that would offer better quality of life for prisoners that are sent out because of the lack of space here?

Well, there are other facilities, but that facility was built specifically for Hawaii and opened up in 1990. 1990, excuse me. In 2007, that facility opened up. And at that point we had over 2,000 of our inmates on the mainland. And we had over 6,000 in the system as a whole. We reduced that number down to about 700.

The temporary surges because of the 240 is because we're doing repair work at Halawa and we needed to clear those dorms. So while we could go with another company, there's no guarantee that the funding, that the cost would be less to house them there. And I want to make it clear.

Kerryannchirolter is right in that the state started sending the initial 300 folks out of state in 1995 as a temporary measure. The problem is the state hasn't had the will to put to build a medium security prison, which is what is needed.

And while we do have some bed space available in our minimum security prisons at Waiawa here on Oahu and Kulani on the Big Island, the folks on the mainland are medium security folks. And they are mainly class B and class A and serving life and life without the possibility of parole.

They will not qualify to go to the minimum security facilities. So I want to make it clear. And the other thing I want to make clear is that I have jurisdiction over approximately 5% of the population. Through work furlough and extended furlough. I don't have jurisdiction over the pro population. The Hawaii Polling Authority has that sole jurisdiction.

So again, we must take everyone that comes to us, regardless of our census. We cannot turn people away. And I cannot guarantee that we can bring people back without putting them in an overcrowded condition. That will cause inhumane conditions. And then we are sued by the Department of Justice.

Earlier, someone mentioned our design capacity versus our operational capacity. Our facilities are designed for a certain amount of offenders. Operational capacity is when you already have two people in a one man cell or three people, one person's on the floor sleeping next to the toilet. Right?

Now if you look at Halawa, we got the temporary surge on the mainland. But when we bring those people back, Halawa will be over 100% of its design capacity and into the operational capacity. So we said we don't have the room.

Right. I understand. I think we can all agree that all the arguments that were made of why we want to bring our people back here are valid and that the reason that we can't do that or we have been sending them away is because we don't have the capacity here.

So based on that and the additional information that where we are currently sending them to is unacceptable, how do we make decisions on we don't have the room here. We have to send them someplace. We have to house them someplace. Is there a better option, a better facility?

It might be cost more, but we're hearing that the current arrangement is not good and we'd like to improve that. How do we do that?

We would have to go out and look for another vendor to see if they would be able to house our inmates in a different location. And I would disagree with what some of the folks said. That facility is a clean facility. It is well managed.

And when there was incidents occurred, it's because someone didn't follow proper policies and procedures. And I don't want to diminish what one of the testifiers said. These men have families, they have children, they have loved ones. But the bottom line is we simply don't have the room to bring them back.

And if we just move them from one location to another now, they have to start all over again. So I wouldn't recommend we do a mass move to another location because there's nothing wrong with that facility.

And in fact, I encourage the Legislature to go down and visit the facility for yourself, see the programs that are there, see how clean the facility is, how well maintained it is. Yes, they're thousands of miles from home, but we don't have an alternative.

Okay. Thank you, Director. There are no easy answers, but thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Certainly. Thank you. Other questions, Members? Yes, Representative.

Thank you, Director Johnson. Now, the boat, if it were to pass, calls for 25% of the mainland inmates to be returned, how many would that be?

Well, if you go down to the original 700, because we had a temporary surge because we're repairing, so you're looking at 25% of the 700 again, we would not have the room for them because Halawa would be over capacity. That's the only medium security mail prison we have.

Now, a couple of things we've done to try to reduce, to slowly reduce the population down. One is I ordered that no nonviolent, classy offender be sent to the mainland. So we stopped that beginning 1st January of this year through 31st December next year we entered into a pilot program where we'll start bringing in.

I'm sorry, can I finish my question? Zero, sure. I'm sorry. So roughly about 200 or so would have to be returned. I guess my math, as you referenced earlier, at the Waiawa Correctional Facility here in Oahu There are about 188 empty beds and Kulani on the Big Island has about 134 empty beds.

And as you mentioned, these are minimum security facilities. But given that we have about 18001900 total inmates in Arizona plus those at Halawa.

No, we only have 900. A little over 900 folks in Arizona.

Okay, 900 plus how many at Halawa?

I don't have the numbers. About 700. According to your latest population. About 700 or so.

So 1600 or so total. Can you not find 200 out of that population that would be eligible minimum security facilities?

We have a classification system where we automatically review classifications and lower classifications when appropriate to move the offenders downstream to Waiava, to Kulani, to the OCCC so they can go through and through the jail so they can go through the work furlough program.

We don't have 200 offenders on the mainland that would qualify to be to have their classification levels lowered to minimum. So they could be in a facility without a fence.

Well, they don't necessarily have to come from the mainland. They could come from Halawa and you could transfer them out from the mainland back to Halawa. Do you not have that number at Halawa who are eligible for a minimum?

No, otherwise they'd already be there. So what happens is we review classification every six months and when an inmate qualifies we do a transfer packet and we move them within 30 days of that classification change. The inmates at Halawa, all of them don't qualify.

The ones that do will be transferred to Iowa, will be transferred to OCCC or to the neighbor islands where they came from to participate in work furlough programs there. I wish we did representative have 200 beds, 300 beds, but we just don't.

Now you do house several hundred parole violators at your medium security facilities. Would they not be eligible for some consideration of minimum security facilities?

Not if they committed new crimes. And, and that would be up to the Hawaii. Well, not if they committed new crimes. And because they came back on a pro violation, more than likely they came back for a failure to report absconding or drug use.

And so they're at medium security so we can get them the programs they need because they failed to complete it on the outside when HPA gave them the opportunity to do so. I can assure you we're moving inmates downstream as fast as we can without jeopardizing public safety.

But we don't have 200 in our population that would qualify to either come back from the mainland immediately or sitting at Halawa to put into the facilities because we would have already done so. We do transfers internally every month from Halawa to OCCC to Ayava to neighbor islands.

Thank you. I would just note that under the Bill you wouldn't require to transfer 200 immediately. I believe there are several years that would be for provided. So no more questions. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. Other questions. Nobody has any other questions, so if you would want to ask another question, please proceed.

Thank you. Chair. Following up on Representative Takayama's question made me think we we have space in these lesser security facilities.

What if we were to like just think out of the box and say just to bring our people home because there's space there, could we renovate some of those facilities and upgrade them to a medium security just as a quote, temporary thing, just to again address bringing our people home?

We could, but this would take tens of millions of dollars to upgrade. Not just to put fencing around the location, but you'd have to increase the staffing and you'd have to harden the dormitories into hard cells.

Understood. Those would have to be arranged, but it could be an option if we chose to do that. That is correct, yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Thank you very much. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you to all the testifiers that came today. We're going to now go to decision making up to the top of the agenda. House Bill 655. I think this measure is in good shape to move forward.

I recommend we move it forward as is Questions or concerns Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote voting on.

House Bill 655 HD1 as is chair and Vice Chair vote aye Representative Belatti. Aye Represent- Representative Cochran. Excused. Representative Hashem. Representative Kahaloa. Aye.

Representative Perruso. Aye. Representative Takayama. Aye. Representative Todd. Aye. Representative Garcia. Representative Shimizu. No. No for Representative Shimizu. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next measure. House Bill 697 related to transportation. I would like to adopt the Attorney General's amendment and move this on to finance. Questions or concerns Members if not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 697 HD1 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any no's or reservations and no vote for Representative Garcia hearing no others. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 711. After receiving the testimony and reading it and discussing it with others, the remedies that are sought in this bill really need to be in civil court, not in criminal court.

So I'm going to defer this measure because I understand that the remedy and the process is already available and so this measure would not work. So my recommendation is to defer. Questions or concerns Members. Thank you very much. Next measure, House Bill 108. On this measure I'd like to move this forward.

I would like to adopt the Attorney General's amendment and technical amendments and with that move it forward to finance for further consideration. Questions or concerns Members if not Vice.

Chair for the vote voting on House Bill 108 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any nos or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 322. This measure would provide for automatic registration for voting but allow for the applicant to opt out as well so that there's the individual has that freedom to do so. So my recommendation is to move this forward to finance as is Questions or concerns Members if not Vice Chair for.

The vote Voting on House Bill 322 HD1 as is Representative Cochrane is excused. Are there any no's or reservations? No. For Representative Garcia hearing no others Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 380. I personally don't agree with the state preemption. I would like the counties to have the authority so I would like to move this measure forward for further consideration in finance. My recommendation is to move it as is Questions or concerns Members?

Chair, we just moved HB 756 which the state took jurisdiction and banning. How does that affect if the state is banning it but now this bill is giving it back to the counties?

I have a question.

I think we could do both.

Answers my question.

Yeah. Any other questions or concerns? House Bill 380 as is HD1 as is Vice Chair for the vote voting.

Of House Bill 380 HD1 as is Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any notes or reservations? Reservations for Representative Garcia hearing no others. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 594. I think it is very important to provide this adequate notice of service disruptions to guests and third party vendors. I like the original language of the bill on some of these sections and after getting prior concurrence from the tourism chair, my recommendation is to move this forward.

However, to make some changes I'd like to in subsection D, Delete. The phrase regardless of whether the Keeper provides the notice. End quote on page four, I'd like to revert to the original language in subsection E. And I would like to delete subsection F. And then on page four, line nine.

I'd like to define guest under this section to include hotel services users. That would be my recommendation and move it forward to the Consumer Protection and Commerce Committee for further discussion.

And I recognize that UNITE here would want to put their language back in so you can talk to the Consumer Protection and Commerce to see what they think. But from the Judiciary Committee standpoint, it seemed to be overly punitive.

While we're still including language from the original which says that any Keeper that violates or causes another person to violate the section shall forfeit to the injured party three times the amount of the sum charged in excess of what the Keeper is entitled to. The introducer, I think, did a good job writing the bill.

I- I- I support the bill with reservations. And the reservations being the uncertainty on the penalty issue.

So I would like to go back to that language. I recognize you won't be happy with it, but that's my recommendation. It will move forward to Consumer Protection and Commerce for further consideration. Questions or concerns, Members? Thank you. Representative Shimizu.

Okay. Thank you. Other comments or concerns Measure Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote, voting.

On House Bill 594 HD1. Representative Cochran. Oh, with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Reservations from Representative Shimizu. Any additional reservations or no's, hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 642 relating to administrative rules. I'd like to move this forward to Finance Committee for further consideration. I'd like to defect the date July 1, 3000 and include in the Standing Committee report the request for effective date of January 1, 2026. Members, questions or concerns? If not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 642 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any no's or reservations hearing? None. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 686. I'd like to move this forward to Finance for further consideration. By defecting the date, I would also like to include the amendments from the Office of Information Practices and further from the Public First Law Center. Both of the amendments that are included in both of those testimonies. That's my recommendation.

Questions or concerns, Members? If not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 686 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any no reservations hearing? None. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 1150 relating to tax collections I'd like to move this forward to Finance Committee for consideration by making some technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. And to defect the effective date to July 1, 3000. Members. Questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 1150 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any no's or reservations? Hearing? None. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Last measure of the day. House Bill 1376 HD1. I would like to move this forward again for further consideration in Finance Committee and correct what I think is a misstatement or an inaccurate statement. On page two, line nine. Add after the word operated the words for profit or under a public private partnership.

Because I understand CoreCivic is a private for profit entity, not a public private partnership. That way it's just accurate. So that would be on page two, line nine.

And I, the Chair of Public Safety, I'm sure will continue to work closely on this with all the different issues that were brought up by ACLU and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. So I'll leave that to you. Your very capable hands, Chair Belatti. So for us in Judiciary, we're just going to make that one correction.

Page two, line nine, as I described. Questions or concerns? Members Represent Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I rise in support with reservations. And the reservations is just to acknowledge Director Johnson's concern and the reality of space limitations.

I appreciate those concerns. I'm always open to your suggestions to how to deal with it. And so would Chair Belatti. Okay. Any other questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 1376 HD1 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Vote with reservations from Representative Shimizu. Are there any additional reservations or no's A? No. Vote for Representative Garcia. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. There being no further business before us today, we are adjourned.