House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone, to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. Place where we all get to learn new things. And all of you giving testimony help us to learn lots more about these important issues. So thank you for testifying.

Today is Thursday, February 20th. It is 2:00pm we're here in Conference Room 325, and we're here for the purposes of considering numerous measures. Those who are testifying, I would request that you keep it to about two minutes. I'll ask you to summarize at that point.

If you're testifying via Zoom, please keep your video off and your microphone muted until you give your testimony. Then turn everything on. And then when you're finished with your testimony, if you could mute yourself and turn your video off, that would help us.

Please don't use any trademarked images behind you on Zoom, because that kicks us off of YouTube, which is bad because we want everyone in the public to watch what we're doing.

And I would just request that everybody conduct themselves with Aloha and don't use any language that your mother wouldn't want you to say and treat each other with respect, because we're all here together to work to do the best things for the State of Hawaii. I appreciate your kokua with that.

Let's move ahead and consider our measures today. House Bill 706 relating to highway safety. This measure requires all skateboard users under the age of 16 to wear a helmet while operating a skateboard. First up, we have testimony from the Department of Transportation via Zo-, oh, in person, of course. Yes.

Aloha Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poipoi, and Representative Shimizu. Tammy Lee, Deputy Director for the Department of Transportation. The Department of Transportation stands on our written testimony in support of this measure that requires helmet use for skateboarders under the age of 16 on roads, streets, bikeways, public property. And I'm here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Whenever you provide testimony, it'd be great just for you to highlight the parts of your testimony if you've got any particular things you want to highlight. And that goes for everybody, if you would do that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it, Ms. Lee. And we've received written testimony and support from AAA Hawaii, from Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children, and from four individuals. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 706? If not, questions Members? I guess everyone thinks it's a good idea. How about that? Okay, let's go on.

House Bill 860 relating to liability. This measure specifies that the state or county that repairs or maintains a street of which the ownership or jurisdiction is in dispute between the state and the county shall be immune from liability for personal injuries or property damage arising out of the repair or maintenance of that street.

First up, we have testimony from the Department of Transportation.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tammy Lee from the DOT. The DOT supports this measure. And just to highlight some of our testimony is that this measure provides immunity to the state and county should either do repair or maintenance on what we consider roads in limbo or when ownership of the road is in question.

You know, we think that any kind of public or private injury or public property, you know, we think it's important not to be on the hook just when we do some maintenance. And we shouldn't be like, you're the owners now because you did some repairs. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Luke Siber for a DLNR. We'll stand on our written testimony offering comments. But just in short, it's roads are either highways maintained by DOT or roads under the county so...

So, yeah, you, you would wish that, that, that would be so clear, but it doesn't appear to be so clear. But thanks for that assertion. I appreciate it

We say the same thing every year.

Yes. Thank you, sir. Okay.

Next we have letters or written testimony and support from the County Council of Maui, the chair, Alice Lee, and written testimony and support from County Council Representative Heather Kimball on Hawaii Island. And then we have testimony in opposition from Hawaii Association for Justice. I'll refer you to testimony that's in writing from the Hawaii Association of Justice.

And we received testimony and support from two individuals and in opposition from two individuals. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on HB 860? Seeing none, questions Members? Seeing none, we'll move on. Thanks very much. Next, Bill, House Bill 1162 relating to motorcycle instruction permits.

This measure requires all applicants for a motorcycle instruction permit to successfully complete a basic motorcycle rider course approved by the Department of Transportation before becoming eligible for the permit. First up, we have testimony from the Department of Transportation. I appreciate you being here. It's great.

Happy to be here. Thank you Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. The DOT - Tammy Lee - the DOT supports this measure. So we currently there isn't any class that you have to take before you get your permit to operate a motor vehicle.

And unlike cars, you know, you have a driver with you that is licensed. So this is just, you know, safety is our number one priority. And this just provides that level of safety. Thank you.

Certainly. And. And you do, in your testimony, you've got a recommended amendment. Could you highlight that?

Sure. Okay, so that exempts, if the motorcycle is used, being used for training purposes, then you don't need to go through the class before you get the permit.

It's a very practical amendment, and I wanted you to explain that. Thank you. Okay. Next we have written testimony with comments from the Department of Customer Services, City and County, Honolulu. Written testimony of support from one individual. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on House Bill 1162? If not, questions, Members? Yes, Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Can I ask a question to DOT, please? I guess the question is, currently there's no requirement for motorcycle users to pass any kind of course, they can just buy a motorcycle and jump on it and get a license?

It's actually before you get the permit. So the current process, it was explained to me. Lee Nagano. Are you on Zoomsville? I'm phoning a friend.

Hello, friend.

Thank you, Lee. I know you told me. I apologize. I cannot remember.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Lee Nagano. I'm here from the Hawaii Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Office. Right now, you do need to take your written knowledge test to get your permit, and then you have the option. It's not a requirement to take the class.

If you can learn on your own and then go take the road test and you pass, then you're given your endorsement. This would require everyone to take the class so we can be sure that they're competent, safe on the road because we have too many motorcycle fatalities. So I hope that answers your question.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Appreciate calling in, friend.

Hi, friend.

Any other questions, members? Seeing none. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1259 relating to transportation. This measure specifies that an engineering study is not required to be considered when reducing the maximum speed limit within 10 miles per hour of the current speed limit for that road. First up, we have Department of Transportation.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Tammy Lee, here again on behalf of the DOT. We stand on our written testimony in support. Not too much to highlight, except it allows us the flexibility. Like I said, we're all about safety. It helps us to not require the engineering study when we're around a school area to install speed tables, speed humps. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This is why we tried to schedule all the transportation bills on one hearing. So you can just come to one hearing and try to get them all through. Okay. Next we have the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization, often called OMPO, testifying in support, in writing, and then testimony from two individuals in support.

Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on HB 1259? If not, questions, members? Seeing none. We'll move on. Thank you to the testifiers. Next, House Bill 1158 relating to firefighting at commercial harbors. This measure limits civil liability of individuals who render firefighting services with a firefighting vessel at any of the state's commercial harbors or roadsteads, any commercial harbor or waterfront improvement belonging to or controlled by the state, or any vessel within a commercial harbor or roadstead to only damages resulting from an individual's gross negligence or wanton acts or omissions. First up, we have Department of Transportation. Oh, we got a new.

Aloha, Chair, members of the committee. I'm Dre Kalili. I'm the deputy director of transportation for harbors. Thank you so much for hearing this bill. This is one of our our bills in the governor's package. And the genesis of this bill is actually the aftermath of the Lahaina fires, where we are assessing what tools we have available for firefighting within our commercial ports. And we identified in partnership with the Honolulu Fire Department that in each of our commercial ports we have vessels that are home ported that are equipped with firefighting equipment.

They are all privately owned, but when a situation arises where they're asked to partner with a fire Department in putting out a fire in a commercial port, sometimes there's some resistance and hesitation because the liability issue. And so we put forth this measure to try to reduce some of that liability and to ensure that we do have the availability of these tools that are already in our ports to help assist with the fire available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. And thanks for giving me the orientation tour of Kawaihae commercial harbor, where we actually saw a tugboat that had firefighting equipment on it. That was a perfect example of why this bill was important. So thank you, Deputy Director.

Okay, next we have testimony in writing from, in support from the Hawaii Harbors Users Group and testimony and support from one individual. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? House Bill 1158. If not questions, members? Seeing none. We'll move on. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Deputy Director.

Next measure, House Bill 54 relating to motor vehicles. This measure increases the penalty for a third or subsequent offense of excessive speeding to a class C felony. It authorizes the court as part of the person's sentencing for the third or Subsequent offense to order that the vehicle used by the person in the commission of the offense be subject to forfeiture. First up, we have testimony from the Department of Transportation. Back to roads.

Back to me, Deputy Director Tammy Lee. The DOT sends on its written testimony and support. Just some highlights, some statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 44% of Hawaii's traffic fatalities from 2013 to 2022 or speed related. We think that this is a very important law. You know, nobody should be driving 30 miles per hour over this posted speed limit or 80 miles per hour, regardless of the speed limit. Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Director. We're lucky we got two deputy directors from the DOT here. Very fortunate. Thank you. Next we have testimony from the Office of the Public Defender in opposition. Welcome, Ms. Cheng.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. I am Hayley Cheng. I am the first deputy of the Office of the Public Defender. And our office opposes this bill. We absolutely agree with and of course do not advocate for speeding, and we do understand its inherent risks.

But as we indicated in our written testimony, there are several problematic aspects of the bill that I would ask this committee to to consider. Currently, a third offense, excessive speeding is a petty misdemeanor. Making it a felony offense will do several things. It will enable and allow a defendant to demand a jury trial for these types of cases. I also, as somebody who has defended hundreds of these cases throughout my career, these are incredibly and can be incredibly difficult to prove.

Speed is tracked by HPD or other law enforcement by use of a pace, using their own vehicle to pace the speed, or by a radar or laser gun. Without going into the minutiae of the evidentiary issues that come up with that, there are a lot of challenges to the state of the evidence when trying to prove someone beyond a reasonable doubt as to a specific speed.

Additionally, the way that the bill is written, it does not give any discretion to the court to give a probationary sentence. The bill indicates that the court shall impose the indeterminate term of incarceration, which for a class C felony is five years in prison.

Additionally, there are other aspects of the bill that indicate there are probation like requirements, like a driver improvement class. That would be an illegal sentence because that would be a probation condition. Under the law, you are not able to order such a condition as a requirement of a prison term under unless the correctional facilities such as Halawa, Waiawa, Kulani, or Arizona and Women's Correctional were going to start their own driver improvement class as a treatment program or something like that.

We think the penalties that are in place are stringent enough for a third offense. You're looking at 10 to 30 days in jail, license suspension, SR 22, a litany of other penalties. And so, in sum, that is the reason that we stand in opposition to this bill. And I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony and support from the Honolulu Police Department on Zoom. Not present. And we've received testimony and support from the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization and support from the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii in opposition and from an individual in support. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on HB 54?

If not, questions, Members, I have a question for the public defender. Ms. Cheng, when there is someone that has a, you know, a third offense, do the judges usually give the harshest penalties? I bet you say it's on a case by case basis.

Yes. Well, very generally, I can say this. We rarely see third offense cases. They're just not that common because the penalties for even a first offense, excessive speeding, are actually pretty harsh. It's a minimum $500 fine, license suspension. You can get a temporary restricted license for 15 of those days. It requires community service or jail.

And the SR 22 is significant. It makes insurance and maintaining insurance incredibly expensive. I have seen in my career just a handful of the third offenses. And when those third offenses come through, I've rarely seen the judge give the maximum 30 days in jail. So the notion of going from a petty misdemeanor all the way to a class C felony without the possibility of probation is quite excessive in our opinion.

But you said that the court in the few cases. Well, I've learned several important things from you. Very few cases are brought for people who have caught speeding excessively three times.

Three times. I would say that's few. There are several. And we will acknowledge there are a lot of first offenses. And I would also just note, you know, a lot of these offenses, we absolutely get those people who are being careless and just speeding. But a majority.

I would, I don't want to say majority, but a huge number of our excessive speeding cases are cited at what we call speed trap locations. For example, areas where the speed limit reduces from let's say 35 to 25, like coming down the Likelike, coming down the pulley, the airport viaduct.

Those are all known as speed trap places. And these are not individuals who are going 65, 75, 80 in a 25. They're going down probably above the speed limit. But when the speed limit drops, that's when the officers are tagging them. So we don't see a huge issue with third offenses.

However, we are gravely concerned about somebody who may get caught for a third offense. It will absolutely go to a jury trial. And I don't know if that's the best use of court resources and devotion of jury trials to a traffic offense such as this. The penalty suggested is harsher than a habitual DUI offender.

A sex assault in the third degree, an assault in the second degree, a burglary in the second degree. So we just think the level of punishment is a little bit excessive for what the goals of the bill may try to be. And it's also an illegal sentence according to how it's written.

Because of the driver's ed requirements. And then just to get back again to your experience with the judges who are adjudicating cases where this is a, you know, a third offense for excessive speeding. You were saying that the judges rarely levy the hardest penalty.

I have not in my experience. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but given the relatively low number of third offenses and then those that do come before the judge with that. I've personally have never had a case where the judge gave 30 days in jail. So there might.

If the, the committee is looking at imposing a harsher penalty, I think that's one place to start. If you wanted to do that, you could make it where it's a mandatory. Right now the judge has a discretion to go 10 to 30 because 30 is the max for a petty misdemeanor.

Or you could even make it a full misdemeanor, which is another option that gives you the possibility of up to one year in jail. You could also place someone on probation for up to two years. You could impose additional penalties such as a restricted license or things like that. I think just the leap from a petty misdemeanor all the way to a non probationable class C felony is quite extreme.

Understood. Okay. Thank you for that explanation.

This is always educational. Thank you. Appreciate it, Ms. Cheng. Any other questions, members? If not, let's move on. No, I'm Chair. I'm not a judge. Yeah, you can go ahead. Go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to really thank the testifiers. It really shows the, the care and we really benefit from that. So thank you.

Okay, thanks very much to the testifiers. We'll move on to the next measure, HB, House Bill 1334 relating to meat donation. This measure exempts the donation of wild game meat or meat products, including access deer, to a charitable, religious, or nonprofit organization for the purpose of feeding needy individuals from certain laws regarding the inspection and transportation of meat.

First up, we have the Department of Agriculture in support. On zoom. Not present. Next, we have the Department of Land and Natural Resources. Welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Nicholas Vargas. I'm with the Department of Land and Natural Resources. The Department supports, is, the Department is in support of this Bill and just offers comments. The Department supports allowing licensed public hunters the discretion to donate their quarry to religious or nonprofit organizations.

While the Department regulates the taking of game animals, it does not oversee the processing or food safety aspects of meat donation. So the Department defers health and safety requirements for donated wild game meat to the Department of Health. I'll be here for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, we have written testimony and support from County Council Member Sugimura from Maui. Testimony in support from Maui Food Bank on Zoom. Is there Lisa Paulson? Nope. So I refer to written testimony in support.

Testimony in support from the Hawaii Farm Bureau. Testimony in support from the Maui Adaptation Project. Jackie Keith? Not present. In support.

And testimony from Lauren Zurbol, Hawaii Food Industry Association. In support. Not present. And testimony, support from two other organizations, the Purple Maya Foundation and Maui Chamber of Commerce. And testimony in support from, oh, I guess from Pulama Lanai also.

And then testimony and support from four individuals, including Todd Yukatake, whom some of you may know who testifies here regularly. That's all the testimony we've received. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1334? If not, questions, Members? No questions. Thanks very much. We'll move on. House Bill 698 relating to animal cruelty.

This measure amends the criminal penalties for various animal cruelty offenses by increasing the category of offense. First up, we have Office of the Public Defender. Ms. Cheng. Sorry to interrupt your conversation, but thanks for helping, of course, figure out a path forward on that other bill.

Of course. And good afternoon again, Haley Cheng. On behalf of the Public Defender's office, we. We are opposing this bill. But before I articulate the reasons why, we of course want to make it very clear that we do not condone, support or advocate for animal cruelty in any way. I myself am a dog owner.

I've been a dog owner my whole life. Many people at my office are. And we understand the importance of prosecuting individuals who engage in animal cruelty.

The concern that we have with this measure is the increased penalties and the increase in classifications, we are raising offenses from class C felonies to class B and then additionally even one to a class A. And just some things to note. A class A felony, there is no possibility of probation unless it is articulated in the statute.

The only class A felonies that are eligible under the law for probation, as it is written right now, are manslaughter and certain drug offenses. Otherwise, somebody who gets convicted of a class A felony is sentenced to the indeterminate term of 20 years in prison.

Additionally, we would just like to highlight that section one of the Bill indicates that there has been an increase in cases over the last five years from 58 to 73 or I think since 2018 to 2023. No cases are okay, but the amount of cases that we're seeing are very small.

I would also like to let the Committee know that the office of the Public Defender hardly sees these cases prosecuted.

I have probably handled in my career and in speaking and just knowing about how cases are assigned and the kind of the General statistics of the types of cases that we handle, we don't see many of these cases. I have only had two in my entire career.

I have people at my office who have been practicing 20-30 years who have only also handled maybe 1,2,3 cases. And that includes misdemeanors as well as felonies. So our concern really, and where we think the energy needs to be focused on is enforcement and education.

These bills are not, I mean, excuse me, these offenses are not being signed, cited, offenders are not being arrested and they are not being prosecuted. I don't know what the reasons for that is, but enhancing the penalties rather than focusing on education and enforcement is really our opposition.

And we believe the resources can be better used rather than incarcerating people or placing people on up to 5-10 years of probation and up to 20 years of imprisonment instead. So I'll remain available for questions.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony and support from Hina's Legacy Rescue Foundation, Rochelle Alameda on Zoom. Please proceed.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you. Please proceed.

Hi, Aloha chair, Vice Chair and Members of the community. My name is Rochelle Serie Alameda, and as a constituent and a Member of Anemorasi group, I mean, I was writing to express my support. I'm presenting today for my support of HD16 to strengthen penalties for animal crossing offensive in Hawaii.

It's important to recognize that these figures likely represent only a fraction of the actual incident. And I agree that more needs to be done in terms of prosecutors prosecuting and these penalties need to be enforced. I know the public defender's office also recommends rehabilitation.

But while rehabilitation programs have their place, we believe what I believe the most effective approach to deterring animal facilities, implementing stricter penalties, stronger legal consequences serve as a clear ensuring accountability while preventing strictly offensive the significant time and financial resources required for rehabilitation.

Prioritizing stricter enforcement and pressure point of view is a more efficient and impactful way to protect animals and promote change. I urge you to support this legislation and ensure that those who commit acts of animal cruelty are held accountable. Thank you for your attention to this critical issue and thank you for this.

Thank you to the community for allowing me to testify to.

Thank you very much. We've received testimony and support from the Green Party of Hawaii, from animal Rights, Hawaii Fur angel foundation, another Member of Hina's legacy Rescue Foundation, Chantel Moniz. Are you here in person? Yes. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. There's a lot I can touch up on and, you know, I don't have enough time for all of that. But in reference to what the public defender was mentioning, she's absolutely right. There's no cases being brought to trial.

Not stating that there are no cases happening, because we see it every single day. I get calls, emails, text messages all day long, pictures, videos of disrupting. I mean, just it's. It's horrible of what we have to see. Everything that we have to experience.

Watching dogs die in our arms, rehabilitating them, taking care of them, trying to nurse them back to life, Dogs being hit on their head with pipes. These are the animals that we transport. These are the animals that we care for. These are the animals that we fight for every single day.

There are so many cases, I can't even tell you a number because it's continuous every single day. She's absolutely right. But at the same time, if we had stricter penalties, maybe, just maybe they wouldn't think about doing something like that. Then maybe it'll deter them from causing these cruel acts to these animals.

Sexual abuse, I mean, you name it. It's horrifying to even have to deal with. Can you imagine what they deal with? I mean, this is what we deal with. We see it. Can you imagine what they go through? They can't talk, they can't advocate for themselves. That's what we're here for.

I am in strong support of this bill, and I feel like it should be increased because I feel like that will help us in decreasing these Animals from being hurt, killed, shot. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate your good work, Ms. Moniz. Next testimony from Stephanie Kendrick. Welcome.

Aloha chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Stephanie Kendrick with the Hoan Humane Society. I think we all agree with the public Defender's office on everything except opposition to the bill. We're in strong support of this bill. And it is absolutely true that not enough of these cases are prosecuted.

We had four cases thrown out without trial last year despite ample evidence of cruelty.

We've already had two cases this year dismissed by the court without trial despite evidence on video of a woman beating her dog and evidence with a forensic veterinary exam of a man throwing his cat against a wall so hard that it's upper palate split. And these weren't seen as sufficient to take them to trial.

So we have a real issue with educating our judicial system about the importance of these cases and getting them to take them more seriously. But we also have penalties that are too low. And this pattern of behavior extends back years.

We've had almost no one do any kind of prison time despite being convicted of crimes where multiple animals were killed. People get let off with a fine. And it's. It really. This bill is about us as a society saying we are going to take these crimes seriously. We believe that they deserve serious punishment.

And then our work continues in terms of getting the prosecutors and the judges on board with that as well.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The last person that said they wish to testify is Marissa S. Is Marissa here? No. We've received numerous other testimonies on this Measure. Total of 92 in support and 4 in opposition and 1 with comments. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in HB 698?

If anyone has not signed up for testifying on a bill, I'd like you to sign up over here at this table. We'll let you do it right this time. But if you want to testify in future bills, please sign up. Go ahead. Ms. Angela Young.

Angela Melody Young, testifying in support on behalf of ROAR Rescue of Animal Rights. So there was a series of animal cruelty bills. For example, the shark fin legislation. Oh, okay. Yes. I was just kind of giving an example.

Focus on this bill. Oh, okay.

Yes.

Know a lot about a lot. Remember we talked.

So just focus on this bill because.

Yeah.

The actress, the actor Leonardo Dicarpio, helped with passing and enacting the cruelty bill. So that's really relevant to get more advocacy for this. Okay. All right. So about the technicalities of this bill. So if it does not fit into a classification of a felony. We can look at what the other jurisdictions are doing.

In 2013, North Dakota, the 49th state, established a felony level penalty for malicious acts to animals. And it was classified as a class A misdemeanor, not a class A felony. Class A misdemeanor for the first or second offense and the Class C felony for the third or subsequent offense within 10 years.

And then also there is another state with a cruelty bill, intentional cruelty is a class F Felony. So they created a separate classification of a class F Felony just to fit the criteria of such act upon animals. So for the Hawaii state law, you can create a new classification or lower the that cruelty offense to a misdemeanor.

And also as it relates to the technicalities of this bill, to set new standards for the dog fighting and the cock fighting, you also have to take into account that cock fighting, for example, in Miley Waianae, where there were a series of events that happened, the cock fighting is very technical because it happens on agriculture land.

And so do you then put it into this chapter, the Pinochle Chapter 710, or you put it into the Agriculture Chapter. HRS 170. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next testifier on this bill, HB 698. Michelle Opatek, please come on up.

Welcome. Thanks for being here.

Michelle Opatek. I am in support of this bill just because of being a volunteer, working with the Humane Society, working with rescues, and seeing the abuse out there. But not only for the animal, but the caretakers also. I deal with cats, but I also have rescued dogs. There's free roaming cats, and I don't want any more cats.

I want them all to be able to be fixed. There's several other bills that have been going in the right direction and enforcing them. The abuse aspect of it, no one wants to see a bird shot or a cat run over or a dog procreating and then the puppy's left in a shopping cart pushed up to PetSmart. We need to get everyone on board with getting them fixed, finding homes.

If we need to send them to the mainland, which I work with several rescues, across the Pacific, rescue kitties, they are shipping them to the mainland. But the work that the Humane Society is doing needs to be upgraded by allowing the rescue groups to be able to fix animals more days out of the week. So thank you. But the abuse abusers need to be held accountable.

Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 698? If not, questions, Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair, I have a question for, I believe it's Hawaii Humane Society. You mentioned... Oh, okay. Okay. Let's see. Anyone that's able to answer this question?

Take a peek and see if she's just outside. You can see if... If she is, ask her to come in.

Well, the question for the group that's waiting is, she mentioned that cases are being...

You have to, you have to ask an individual.

Right, right. I'm talking to...

Oh, here she is. No, it's fine. No worries. We just need to learn more. Representative Shimizu has a question.

Hi. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. You mentioned that you are seeing cases being thrown out. And can you kind of explain why they're being thrown out? Because what I'm hearing is, even with the current penalties, even if we were to increase the penalties, the enforcement is part of the problem.

And even with the current penalties, they're being thrown out. So even if we increase the penalties, I don't naturally see the benefit of that. So I think it is important to understand the enforcement aspect of it and why it's being thrown out so that we can maybe target more effective implementation of the penalties and the perpetrators that are there now. Could you please explain that?

Yeah. Thank you for that question. And I wish I had a better answer. I also wish the Prosecutor's Office was here. We are struggling to find out why these cases are being thrown out. You know, our team is very well trained in collecting evidence in these cases, and we've had multiple cases where we think we have very solid evidence to move forward and the courts don't choose to take those cases to trial. And I don't have a good answer for you as to why. I apologize.

Okay. Well, thank you for being here. Can I ask another question? Public Defender, please. Can you explain what is the current maximum sentence for this current offense?

Well, this, the bill addresses various offenses. Just generally, the existing misdemeanor offense, the court has the discretion to give up to one year in jail and up to two years of probation. A general probationary sentence is one year for misdemeanors, but the court has the discretion to go above it.

What they're proposing to do is increase what was a class C felony, which is a maximum of five years in prison, to a class B felony, which is a maximum of 10 years in prison. And then other provisions in the bill are asking for a class A felony, which would make it a mandatory open year. Excuse me, open 20 year term of incarceration.

So with the current laws in place, in your experience, you see an extreme case of animal abuse, cruelty, which as you shared, I'm totally against. What kind of maximum penalty do you see judges issuing?

Well, it might be helpful to understand that for felony offenses, the court only has two options. The court can either give probation for a class C and class B felony. The court can give up to a year of jail. And when I say jail, I'm talking about OCCC. Jail and prison are different.

The court can give up to a year of jail for a class C felony as a condition of probation and up to 18 months for a class B felony, 18 months of jail. If the court does not impose probation, they must give a prison sentence. And under our sentencing scheme in Hawaii, it's not like other states where you can give five years, but maybe you only the prison open five means you can maybe get two. You have to give an open five for class Cs, an open 10 for class Bs, and 20 for class A.

And then the Parole Board determines how much of that time the person will serve before they can become eligible for parole. So to answer your question, Chair, in terms of the sentences that I see, it's very hard to say because I think, as everybody has conveyed to the Committee, we don't see these cases being prosecuted.

I did want to clarify one other point that might be helpful. I don't know if it's the courts that are the problem. And I only say that because I, our office does not see these cases. If they come to court, meaning they have been charged by the Prosecuting Attorney's Office or the Department of the Attorney General, who.

Whatever, you know, whatever jurisdiction office has jurisdiction, then it would come to our office if that person is indigent and cannot afford an attorney. A majority of people who do get charged with this offense, unfortunately, are probably indigent individuals. We just do not see them. So what that indicates to me is that they're not being charged.

So it's actually, that's why we're messaging that it's an enforcement issue. Whether it's law enforcement, either, you know, DLNR or HPD or the sheriffs actually initiating a charge, and then on the second half of it, the Prosecutor's Office or the Attorney General is not deciding to prosecute the cases.

I'm sure there are cases that have been challenged at the court level where it's either been dismissed or a plea deal has been negotiated, but those cases are so few and far between given the thousands and thousands of criminal cases that our office represent, it probably makes up less than 1% of cases that our office handles, which means they're not being charged.

Thank you. That's very frustrating. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you. Any other questions, Members? Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Cheng. Thank you, Ms. Kendrick. Thank you all the testifiers, and thank you to the good work of Hina’s Legacy Rescue Foundation. It's very difficult work, and I'm sure that you've got to handle the trauma of seeing this, and I appreciate your good work.

Okay, let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 980 relating to animals. This measure amends the law authorizing the killing of mongoose by clarifying the circumstances under which mongoose may be killed and authorizing feral chickens to be killed under certain circumstances. First up, we have the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Not present with comments.

Next, Department of Customer Service in City County Honolulu with comments. Then testimony and opposition from Animal Rights Hawaii, testimony and support from Hawaii Self Advocacy Advisory Council, and testimony from Hawaiian Humane Society. Ms. Kendrick,

Chair, Vice Chair, committee members, Stephanie Kendrick with the Hawaiian Humane Society. You have our testimony in opposition. I will say that if the committee chooses to adopt the amendment suggested by the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, that would allay our concerns about this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. And just, members, if you haven't read the Department of Agriculture, they were basically saying that instead of identifying the ways in which one would euthanize a chicken, says that it just needs to be done in a manner that is consistent with the American Veterinary Medical Association guidelines for euthanasia of animals, rather than listing all the things that they have on here.

Okay. And we received testimony and opposition from five individuals and testimony and support from one. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on House Bill 980? If not, questions, members? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Thanks to all the testifiers. Next measure. House Bill 1006 HD1 relating to the Agribusiness Development Corporation.

This measure includes agricultural tourism and the definition of enterprise to authorize the Agribusiness Development Corporation to financially support farming businesses engaged in agricultural tourism. On this measure, we have the Hawaii Department of Agriculture in support. Next. Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism in support. Next. Agribusiness Development Corporation in support. Hawaii Farm Bureau in support.

And Hawaii Food Policy in support. Maui Chamber of Commerce in support. And Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1006? If not, we'll move on to the next measure since nobody's here to ask questions of.

Excuse me, Chair. Is it possible to go back to a question that, on the Bill that we already asked?

No, let's. We gotta keep going. Is that Department of Agriculture just came in? We just called you on House Bill 1006. Would you like to testify in that one? Not that one. That's not you. Okay. Okay. We're gonna move on to the next one. House Bill 1291 relating to agriculture.

This extends the offense of false labeling of Hawaii grown coffee to include roasted coffee. First up, we have the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Boy, you came in just on time.

I was watching outside, so.

Oh, all right. So you weren't just pressured.

Well, thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Leo Obaldo, Administrator of Quality Assurance Division testifying on behalf of Department of Agriculture. We stand on our written testimony in strong support and I'm available for questions.

Also, I would like to comment that if possible, we respectfully request the Committee to add an enforcement or funding appropriated to establish an inspector for enforcement. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next. We have testimony in support from the Hawaii County Council Member and from the Hawaii Farm Bureau and from Hawai'I Coffee Growers Association, Heavenly Hawaiian Farms, Kona Coffee Farmers Association, Hawaii Coffee Association.

And we have testimony and support on zoom from Suzanne Shriner with the Synergistic Hawaii Agriculture Council. Please proceed, Ms. Reiner.

Thank you, Chair Aloha Vice Chair and Committee Members. I'm Suzanne Shriner. I'm the administrator for SHAC testifying on behalf of the coffee industry. And I am a member of the Hawaii Coffee Association and the Kona Coffee Farmers Association as well. We stand on our testimonies and would just like to add two items.

First, this is a very important loophole to close in the statute for our growers and for community who buy the coffee. We would also request the Committee Restore the HD1's original bill's financial penalties that were removed in the HD2 version. Counterfeiting is a serious crime and is never accidental.

These penalties are a clear deterrent for those who are exploiting our industries. And we appreciate your attention and thank you.

Thank you very much. And in addition, we've received testimony from in support from two individuals. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1291? If you want to testify on the coffee Bill, please proceed.

Aloha, Angela Melody Young in strong support of the coffee Bill. So the coffee and the false labeling of Hawaii grown products affects small businesses and agriculture businesses. So to protect the farmers and the coffee growers, it's an added value product because it's grown in Hawaii.

If it's authentic and locally produced, then it should be protected from false labeling. And in strong support of the funding mechanism for the enforcement. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1291? If not, questions, Members? Nope. Thank you. Thanks very much to the testifiers. We'll move on to the next measure, House Bill 966 relating to agricultural tourism.

This measure establishes statewide uniform standards to promote agricultural tourism activities in the state by establishing state agricultural tourism activity requirements that are applicable to all counties that have adopted an agricultural tourism ordinance. And it goes on. This measure, first up, we have Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Chair, Vice Chairs, members of the committee, thank you so much for this opportunity to testify on this measure. My name is Ruby Edwards. I'm a planner with Office of Planning Sustainable Development. We have we support the concept of agricultural tourism for an association with a bona fide farming operation.

And we support various measures, various elements of the bill that would clarify that these farming, this ag tourism in conjunction with an active farm would be allowed statewide. There'd be standardized ways in which these would be processed.

We appreciate that you've retained the county adoption of ordinances for this purpose as well as a registration process for ag tourism activities. We think that would be very helpful. I appreciate the opportunity to expand on the testimony that we provided to the prior committee.

We as we started to think about, we have serious concerns about the overnight accommodations provisions that were in HD1. We've mulled over this issue in preparation of that testimony and subsequent to that testimony. And then we thought it was really important to bring to light given the problems with county regulating short term vacation rentals in rentals in the ag district.

We thought it was important to bring to this committee's attention the September 2024 Supreme Court decision in Rose Hill versus State Land Use Commission in which the land use the state Supreme Court upheld the LUC's determination that farm dwellings could not be used for transient accommodations. So in light of that, we have serious concerns about whether or not this particular provision should stand given the Supreme Court ruling.

And we have recommended that either it be repealed or that we've offered some suggested amendments that could perhaps be used as a substitute to clarify that overnight accommodations shall be limited to lawfully permitted farm dwellings and that those farm dwellings should be occupied by a farmer, farm worker, or farm lessee.

So in lieu of any further clarity about how we balance this particular activity with the purpose of the state agricultural land use district which is to protect our lands for active agricultural use. We have other concerns as well regarding the minimum lot size. The repeal of the minimum lot size.

We think that that is a fundamental building block for ag land use policy that should not be removed. We made note that in other states typically land zoned agricultural may be anywhere. Their minimum lot sizes may be 10 to 40 acres, up to 80 acres for active agricultural lands.

And we wanted to be sure that we retained at least some measure of control over the fragmentation of our agricultural lands into small lots which are easier to convert to non ag uses. So I believe you have other our other testimony pointing out some of our other concerns.

And we hope that you will consider that specifically on section 5 section amendments to section 255B, we recommend that you limit those amendments to just removing those lines that say, specifically refer to ag tourism. Okay. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Ms. Edwards. Next, we have testimony from the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Not present. And then we received testimony with comments from the Hawaii Tourism Authority, the County of Hawaii Mayor's Office in support, Hawaii Farm Bureau in support, Mahina Farms Maui in support, Grassroots Institute of Hawaii in support, Heavenly Hawaiian Farms in support.

Hawaii Coffee Growers Association in support, comments from the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council, and support from Maui Chamber of Commerce and from one individual. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 966? If not, questions, members? Seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifiers.

Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 162 relating to collective bargainings. This measure authorizes the Hawaii Labor Relations Board to request the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to furnish a list of five qualified and experienced interest arbitrators in the event the parties fail to select the neutral third member of the arbitration panel.

First up, we have UPW in support. Next, Hawaii State AFL-CIO in support. Next, Hawaii Government Employees Association in support. Anyone else wishing to. Oh, yes, please.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Nui Sabas here with HGEA. We're in strong support of this measure as it looks to expand the pool of qualified interest arbitrators that can be used in interest arbitration by adding the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service as another organization that can provide the list of interest arbitrators. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thanks very much for being here. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 162? If not, questions, Members? seeing none. We'll move on. Thanks very much.

Next measure, House Bill 165 relating to the Hawaii Labor Relations Board. This measure authorizes the Hawaii Labor Relations Board to enforce its own orders.

We have testimony from the Attorney General on Zoom, in person oh, even better. Thank you. Please introduce yourself and proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Trisha Gibo appearing on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General in opposition of this Bill. The current law requires the Hawaii Labor Relations Board to petition the Circuit Courts to enforce its orders.

The statutory language recognizes the judiciary as the appropriate venue for enforcement actions, which provides safeguards for both the administrative and judicial procedures as well as constitutional due process rights of all the affected parties related to these matters.

We just respectfully ask that the Bill be held. And thank you for the opportunity to present testimony. I will be available for questions, if there are any.

Thank you very much. And next, Hawaii Labor Relations Board. Mr. Takamine, welcome back to the building.

Thank you. Chair Tarnes, Vice Chair, Members of the Judiciary Committee. I'm Dwight Takamine, and I'm representing the Hawaii Labor Relations Board. You have our written testimony. We'll stand on that in support of the measure. And I'll also be available for any questions the Committee may have.

Could you just briefly highlight why you think this is important?

Okay. Basically, for the board, this is sort of a housekeeping measure that it provides clarification. It does not add to the rights or take away any rights, but it does clarify that the Hawaii Labor Relations Board would have the legal authority to basically enforce its own decisions and orders.

If you're going to have a board make decisions and orders, why wouldn't you have or provide for the enforcement power so that it can be effective? And basically, that is what the Bill does, and we're in strong support.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify In House Bill 165? If not, questions, Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Question for Mr. Takamine. You said that there's no change. I heard you say there's no change in your enforcement. So it doesn't make sense to me that we're asking a Bill to change the current system where you're technically required to petition the court to enforce.

So with this Bill change, you will have your own ability to bring legal proceedings against any violations without having to petition the court, is that correct?

Yes, Representative. Actually, that's an excellent question. The board feels that we do have the authority to enforce orders and decisions, and the source of that is the statute, Section 377, Subpart E. However, I guess, unlike the representation that has been made, that is what is required by law. It is not. It's not really required, it's written.

The statute says "may". Therefore, the board has that, you know, as a possible option. It seems, though, that by providing for the clarification, then you really have a more efficient system, because rather than the board making a decision and order and then having to possibly go to Circuit Court, right, for its enforcement.

The board would be in a position to enforce its own decisions and orders. So the Bill is intended to provide for that clarification. And that's why I mentioned that we're not really adding rights or taking away rights from any of the Parties. It's just providing clarification that the board itself can enforce.

Can I ask a follow up? So if that's the case, why is this Bill even required if you already can do that?

I guess as reflected in the AG's office, there have been instances where the Board's authority has been questioned. Whether it really does have, you know, the authority to enforce its own decisions and orders or whether it would be it would have to go through the Circuit Courts in order to enforce.

Last question, Chair. So what would be your comments to AG's concerns?

You know, it's interesting because the AG's testimony begins by stating that the current law requires HLRB to petition the Circuit Court to enforce the orders of HLRB. And they cite Section 377-9 Subsection E. If you were to go to that subsection either what it says is, as I indicated, it uses the word may.

So the board may. So rather than the law requires, we would, I guess, reference the board to the statutory language which does not say shall. It really uses the permissive word may.

And therefore, I guess these are the kinds of situations that may raise issues regarding what the legal authority of the Board is. And we felt that the language incorporated In House Bill 165 would clarify that.

Thank you. Thank you for that kind explanation. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions? I just want to know you think that he probably sounds like a Legislator because he used to be one. When I first came in office in 1994, this man was my mentor. So I appreciate you coming back to the building and serving the state in your new position.

Well, I'm learning a lot of lessons from many of the people in this building. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Takamine. Okay. No other questions. We'll move on to the next measure, House Bill 915 relating to water use. This measure authorizes the Board of Agriculture to investigate and survey the availability of non-potable water, authorizes the Commission on Water Resource Management as a condition for issuing permits to require the use of a dual line water supply systems in new residential and mixed use developments located in designated water management areas, authorizes those residential and mixed use developments to be included in irrigation projects as defined in Chapter 167, and then requires the Department of Health Board of Agriculture and counties update their rules ordinances to allow dual line water supply systems in residential and mixed use development developments. First up, we have the Department of Land and Natural Resources. Please come on up, introduce yourself and testify.

Aloha auinala.

Aloha.

Deputy Director Ciara Kahahane for the Commission on Water Resource Management. We'll stand on our written testimony in strong support of this bill.

Could you explain why this is important?

Yeah, sure. Our water resources are increasingly strained in some locations, especially as we look towards further development and reuse is an evolving mechanism for addressing some of the issues that we've had with availability.

We strongly support the use of dual line systems as a method of addressing some of these difficulties that we've had, especially in drier areas on some islands. So from our perspective, it is just a good water resource management method and it's something that we would like to see more of. So having the authority to require it specifically included within our statute is very helpful to indicate the Legislature's intent to push forward these types of dual line initiatives.

Great. Thank you very much, Deputy Director, and thanks for taking the job.

You're welcome.

I appreciate you being there. Thank you. Thank you. Mahalo. Okay, next we have the Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Brian Kau for the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture appreciates the intent of this measure with the following concerns and offers comments. Chapter 167, Hawaii Revised Statute is titled Irrigation Water Development.

The findings and declaration of necessity in Chapter 167-1HRS state it is important to the welfare of the people of Hawaii that agricultural production be developed as fully as possible. The department has concerns that this measure is inappropriate to try and amend into the department's irrigation program as it seems to have limited application to providing agricultural water for commercial agricultural operations.

This measure's purpose is to serve R1 water to new residential and mixed use developments which we anticipate would include individual house lots or apartment complexes to water lawns, personal plants and possibly interior non-potable use.

Should this measure continue to move forward, the department strongly suggests that the county departments of water supply, environmental services or public works may be more suited to potential perform these tasks as many of these county departments maintain applicable fleets and facilities. I wanted to stress that the Department of Agriculture is in no way against dual plumbing. I think we would absolutely support dual plumbing the re the using of R1 water. Our sole purpose is just to ask the committee to consider whether or not the Department is a proper place for this. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Kau. Next, Department of Health. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Jon Nagato on behalf of the Department of Health. The department stands on its written testimony. Thank you.

Do you think it's a good idea? Or if so, why?

Our department supports recycled water. R1. Yes. We were just concerned that they do it correctly. But it's in line with our current rules.

Okay, thank you. And next, Board of Water Supply. The famous Ernie Lau, not present. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 915? If not questions, members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for DLNR. I think it's a great idea for sure to tap other sources of water. So the question is, where's the source of this dual line, the second line that's gonna provide this second option of water?

Yeah. So this bill, I think specifically contemplates dual line systems to provide water in parallel, both potable and both potable and non-potable water through separate distribution lines. The source of the non-potable water is most likely going to be recycled wastewater or R1 water. And the availability of that is going to depend on the infrastructure that each county in most cases is able to install.

So that that infrastructure is not currently available and will have to be established?

There are a limited number of locations currently in our state that have access to R1 water. Several of the counties are looking to expand that access. But at present it really depends on the location where the infrastructure is available. So yes, you are correct that it is not available everywhere statewide.

Yeah. Second question, Chair. Because this bill is stating that using the dual line is a condition to receiving a permit, do you think or have you folks done any analysis of whether it's cost prohibitive and might prevent further progress in developing housing or more farming or whatever it is because they just can't afford this cost?

Yep. Reuse can be expensive. That's definitely true. And a reuse study was performed a few years ago that would have some more specific figures for us. This is an option to require it as a condition, not an absolute requirement. And so we would be making that determination on a case by case basis.

When we issue water use permits, we go through a pretty stringent balancing test and analysis of alternatives to the requested water use. So the cost element would be balanced against the other costs and benefits of requiring this in our permit issuance process.

I don't understand that statement when you say it's the cost is balanced against other considerations. So what is the other consideration that balances the cost?

One of the other considerations might be the general availability of water in that location. It could be the use for which the water is intended. So for residential, the cost of installing a dual line system might be measured against the benefits that the project has for the community, it might be measured against the economic benefit that it might have for the community. So all of those things would be taken into consideration when the commission actually goes through that balancing.

Okay, thank you for the answer. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Vice Chair Poepoe.

Okay, we'll try DLNR since you're already up here. So when we're hearing testimony often referencing reuse as the type of potable water, R1 water, and it's, you know, in the bill, I think it's assumed that that's the main type. You mentioned that most likely it would be R1 or reused water. But what are some of the less likely sources of non-potable water that could potentially be used? Like, could it be stream water? Non-potable groundwater?

Yes. Yes. So non-potable groundwater, like water that does not meet the requirements to be considered potable for drinking water, could be one of those sources. Stream water is a potential non-potable source and would fit within the language of the statute. There's also the potential to use water from desal. So those are some of the potential sources.

Okay, thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. I think we're using non-potable and R1 a little interchangeably. But non-potable is more expansive than just R1 or reused. Thank you.

Yes, that's correct.

Thank you. Question from me. Does the Commission on Water Resource Management currently have the ability to place a condition on permits that would require the use of dual line water supply systems?

Well, we've never done it before, so it is perhaps within our authority under the alternatives analysis. I think having it specifically included in this statute is very helpful because it makes it clear that we have the statutory authority to do so.

You know, I think based on how the water code has been applied in the past, we very likely would have the ability to require this. But it is very helpful to make sure that we have our bases covered by having it in the water coat itself.

Yeah, yeah. Thank you. I appreciate you. You like the clarity by having it articulated. But I would agree with you that it's likely you do have the authority. You just perhaps have never used it. And since you're new on the job, I won't hold you accountable for the previous actions of the commission.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

Any other questions, members? Yes, Representative Belatti.

Is the Department of Ag here?

Mr. Brian Kau. He runs all the irrigation systems in the state. Well, he's responsible for them. State run irrigation system. State irrigation system, yeah. All the state owned irrigation systems. Please proceed, Representative Belatti.

Thank you. This is curious. In your testimony, it's saying that you would need resources, staff to do this.

Yeah. If I'm not mistaken, I left the bill under my seat. But the requirement is for the department to essentially stand up a program to perform this R1, I guess, availability, and specifically for mixed use and residential. So we currently don't have any ability to, I guess, perform those activities. Our staff is relatively small because of the, I guess, focused use that we currently go through.

Okay.

All right. So it would take resources and financial. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Thanks very much. Any other questions? If not, thanks very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the last measure on our agenda today. House Bill 1283 relating to family. This measure establishes an exemption from mediation in paternity proceedings where there are allegations of domestic abuse.

It clarifies the exemption from mediation in divorce proceedings as it relates to domestic abuse. On this measure we have testimony and support from the judiciary. Next, testimony, support from the Hawaii State Coalition against domestic violence. Ms. Mercado, welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, I'm Angie Mercado, the Executive Director of the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. We are the association for domestic violence service providers statewide representing 25 programs and we are in strong support of this measure.

This measure is one of the key initiatives that we take on behalf of survivor safety when they are facing their abusive partner. Currently they are required to seek mediation. This gives them the option to seek mediation and also allows them to have support staff.

We know that there has been a request to make an amendment to the Committee that would actually reference HRS658H-10 participation and mediation so that there are no conflicts with other parts of the statute and we are in agreement with that. I'm available for any change, any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony and support from the Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks. Testimony in support from two individuals. That's all the testimony we received on this measure. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in House Bill 1283? If not, questions, Members? Seeing none. Thanks very much.

That concludes our testimony on all the measures in today's hearing. Let's move directly into decision making. Moving to the top of the agenda, House Bill 706, HD 1, relating to highway safety. I recommend we move this out as is. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 706, HD 1, as is. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. [Roll Call] Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. That's impressive, Representative Garcia. You were prepared. Very impressive. Okay. Next, House Bill 860, HD 1, relating to liability. On this measure, I recommend we move this out. This is a long standing issue on Hawaii Island, and this is an attempt to solve the issue, and I'd like to move this forward as is. Questions or concerns, Members?

Chair, I just have concerns.

Representative Belatti.

Sorry. I'm sorry I didn't get to tell you this sooner. I have concerns because I think the broadening of liability is too broad. So based on the opposition of HHA, I'll be voting no.

Understood. Yep. I had long conversations with them about this and urged them to work with the introducer to try to find a path forward, which they said they would work to do because this may not solve the problem. But I would like to move the conversation forward. Other questions or concerns with my recommendation on HB 860, HD 1 to move forward as is? Reservations for Representative Perruso. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on HB 860, HD 1, as is. Representative Cochran is excused. A no vote for Representative Belatti. With reservations for Representative Perruso. Any additional noes or reservations? Reservations for Representative Garcia. Okay. Hearing no others, recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 1162, HD 1, relating to motorcycle instruction permits. I would like to recommend we adopt the amendment that is recommended by the Department of Transportation. And then that's the only amendment. And then I would request that in the standing committee report... That we, that we...

Oh. The Honolulu DMV, Department of Motor Vehicles asked that the implementation date be July 1, 2026. So I just want that in the standing committee report. But the only amendments are the ones recommended by the Department of Transportation in their testimony today. Questions or concerns Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 1162 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations? No vote for Representative Garcia. Okay. Hearing no others, recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 1259, HD 1, relating to transportation. I recommend we move this out as is. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 1259, HD 1, as is. Representative Cochran is excused. Any noes or reservations? Okay. Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 1158, House Draft 1, relating to firefighting at commercial harbors. I recommend we move this out as is. Any questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 1158, HD 1, as is. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 54, House Draft 1, relating to motor vehicles. I'd like to move this forward with technical amendments. And then I would like to take the recommendation that came up in the testimony and discussion with the Public Defender that we change the penalty under subsection D on page five from a felony C to a misdemeanor, a full misdemeanor, and for the third offense within a five year period.

The second thing is we would be requiring a minimum of 30 days in jail. The third thing is that we preserve the language in the House Draft 1 about no possibility of probation or suspension of sentence. And that on page six, line three, we'll be changing from one year to six months.

So we're increasing the penalties, but we're not increasing them up to the felony level, which I think would would be inconsistent with other offenses that have that level. But we are trying to address one of the major contributors to fatal injuries, crashes on our highways.

But I'm trying to thread the needle here and trying to be reasonable about increasing the penalties. So that's my recommendation, Members, for House Bill 54, HD 1, with amendments. Questions or concerns, Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you for those changes, Chair. I will vote with reservations. I think the punitive of forfeiture of vehicle is kind of maybe even unconstitutional, but that's my reservation.

Yeah. And it was just, I note that it's a discretion. It's an authorizing, not a mandating. But I understood your, I understand your concerns. Other comments or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 54, HD 1, with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Noting a with reservations vote for Representative Shimizu. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 1334. On this measure... Okay. Okay. House Bill 1334, relating to meat donation. On this, I want to clarify on page two, line four to seven, I want to clarify the definition of wild game to make it clear that it only applies to wild undomesticated animals and those that are used for food.

So for the purposes of this section, for example, wild game means a member of a species of game not indigenous to the state, including access deer that is used for food that is not domesticated and that is harvested in the wild. Wild game includes the carcasses, parts thereof, and meat or meat products derived from wild game.

Just trying to make it really clear about what we're referring to here. Then on page two, lines eight through 15, we want to state here, nothing in this chapter or Section 159 is intended to restrict the authority of the Department of Health or the Department of Agriculture to regulate, inspect, or ban the use of donated foods for for human consumption.

Next, I recommend we delete the amendments on lines 11 to 12 and instead insert the language at the end which reads nothing in this chapter is intended to restrict the authority of the Department of Health or the Department of Agriculture to regulate, inspect, or ban the use of donated foods for human consumption except for wild game donated pursuant to Section 159.

And then finally on page three, line nine, the new language should read except as provided in Section 159, comma, the, etc. So we're basically cleaning this up so it's really clear in other parts of the statute that we're referring to wild game and that we're retaining the authority of DOH, Department of Health, and Department of Agriculture.

So that's so that it's not confusing. Those are my recommendations. And just for good measure, I'm going to say we're going to make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 1334, HD 2, with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Okay. Next, House Bill 698. On this measure, I'd like to move this forward, but I would like to disaggregate the penalty sections and break them up for for each section of this bill. Because in the bill it combines the first offense and subsequent offenses in the same subsection, which can be confusing.

So I want to separate the first offense and subsequent offenses in different subsections to ensure that the charging documents for court are more concise and individuals that are being charged know exactly what sections they are being charged with and sentenced to. So I won't go and read all the details, but that's what I am going to recommend for amendment to this bill and that we would make technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style.

So we're not changing the penalties, we're just changing the way that they're written in the bill to make it clear so that the initial offense and the subsequent offenses are dealt with in different subsections. Those are my recommendations. Questions or concerns, Members? Representative Perruso. I know. Did you want to say something? Representative Shimizu. I get to decide.

You know, the Office of Public Defender. I appreciate your testimony and it was very compelling. I see that enforcement is the problem. But maybe, just maybe, like somebody said, by increasing the penalties, it might make a difference. So I will be supporting this bill.

Thank you. Now Representative Perruso.

I'm sorry, I was just trying to be polite. I have reservations about this for a lot of the reasons that the Public Defender raised. And I appreciate your modifications of the measure, but I also agree that enforcement is the problem, and I would really like to see us focus and invest our resources in enforcement. Thank you.

Thank you. Other questions or comments, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 698 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Reservations for Representative Perruso. Oh, no. No for Representative Perruso. Any others? Okay. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 980, relating to animals. On this measure, I would like to move it out with the Department... Well, no, I'm going to read the language because we're listen to the recommended amendments from the Department of Agriculture. And what we're saying is we're modifying the language on page 2, lines 13 and 17.

So the provision would read 2 a feral chicken on private land with the express written permission of the landowner in any manner not prohibited by law, including methods that adhere to standard veterinary guidelines for euthanasia of chickens and are consistent with the American Veterinary Medical Association guidelines for euthanasia of animals.

We're just trying to make sure that if people are deciding to terminate the life of a feral chicken on their own private land, they do so in a humane manner. That's my recommendation. And technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 980 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 1006, House Draft 1, relating to the Agribusiness Development Corporation. I would like to make just one small amendment so that the statute is consistent. On page two, line one, I want to change the word used to the word produced, since that's actually what is in the statute. Any questions or concerns, Members, for 1006, HD 1, with amendments? Representative Perruso.

On this measure, I voted no initially and I am still a no because I am still concerned about ADC's capacity to regulate the activities on ag land that they're currently responsible for, so I would not like to see any expansion at this time.

Understood. You've been very consistent about that. I appreciate your consistency. Other comments or concerns, HB 1006, HD 1? If not, Vice Chair for the vote please.

Voting on HB 1006, HD 1. Representative Cochran is excused and no vote for Representative Perruso. So are there any additional noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 1291, House Draft 2, relating to agriculture. This is the one that extends the offense of false labeling of Hawaii grown coffee to include roasted coffee. On this measure, I'd like to move it forward as is. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 1291, HD 2, as is. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 966, House Draft 1, relating to agricultural tourism. On this measure, I would like to adopt the amendments from the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development offered in their testimony. I would also like to adopt the amendments from the Hawaii Department of Agriculture as long as they do not conflict with the amendments from the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. And we'd also make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style.

Their opposition to the amendment on page 26.

Yes.

Okay. So striking those things. Okay. Thank you.

Yes. Representative Perruso.

Thank you so much for your work on this, and thank you to the Chair of Agriculture for her work on this. I was going to be no, but you have fixed it, so thank you.

Welcome. Well, thanks to the Office of Planning Sustainable Development. They did the hard work. Other questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 966, HD 1, with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 162, relating to collective bargaining. I would like to move this out only with some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 162, HD 1, with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 165, House Draft 1, relating to the Hawaii Labor Relations Board. This bill needs a better understanding between the Hawaii Labor Relations Board and the Attorney General's Office. And I would like to defer this measure and encourage the Hawaii Labor Relations Board to work with the Attorney General's Office and figure this out and not have the Legislature take action until they come to us with an agreement. That's my recommendation is to defer HB 165, HD 1. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, thank you.

Next measure, House Bill 915, House Draft 1. While I do support the increase in the use of non-potable water and reuse water for use in the state, this measure is not workable because it requires funding and there is no mechanism to add funding to this bill.

So I would recommend we defer this measure, and I would encourage the introducer to come up with a different bill that would is that is workable because this one is not workable. So my recommendation is to defer House Bill 915, House Draft 1. Questions or Concerns, Members?

If not, thank you. Final measure, House Bill 1283, House Draft 1, relating to family. I think this is a good measure to move forward. However, for consistency and make sure we're not being redundant in the statutes, I'd like to delete paragraph D, subparagraph 3 on page 2, lines 5 to 12.

Because this language is already covered in Hawaii Revised Statutes 658H-10. So we don't need to have it in here. So with that amendment, I would like to move this out. Is there any question or concern from any of our Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 1283 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. There being no further business before this Committee, we are adjourned.