House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome everyone to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Thursday, March 20, 2025. 2:00 p.m. here in Conference Room 325 at the State Capitol. We're here for the consideration of numerous measures. Thanks to all the testifiers for being here today. Thank you and thanks to the Members for being here.

Those who wish to testify, I would request that you keep your testimony to 2 minute time limit and I'll ask you to summarize at that point. If you're testifying on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify. And then after your testimony is complete, turn your video off and mute yourself again, please.

If you have technical issues, please use the chat function to contact our technical staff here and they'll try to help you out. If you're disconnected, just rejoin as soon as you can and we'll try to fit you in and provide testimony if time permits.

If the power goes off in the building here or the network fails and we have to reschedule, we'll make sure to post appropriate notice so everyone knows when we're meeting and what we're discussing and what we're doing. If you're testifying on Zoom, please avoid using trademarked or copyrighted images.

That kicks us off of YouTube and we don't want that because we want the public to see what we're doing here. And please conduct yourself with aloha and refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior. As I always say, it's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. Okay, let's go on to the first bill.

Senate Bill 1296 Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1 relating to disaster recovery.

This measure exempts reconstruction of any lawfully constructed structure that was damaged or destroyed in a disaster proclaimed by the Governor to constitute a State of emergency or a disaster declared pursuant to federal law from the requirements of a special management area minor permit or a special management area use permit under certain conditions.

First up, we have testimony from the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. Welcome, please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and the Members Committee. OPSD Stand Alone is written testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony from DLNR. Mr. Kane, welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, Committee Members. Michael Cain on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources. This bill primarily affects OPSD's jurisdiction, so we stand behind them in support of the measure and I will be available. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Mayor Bisson, Maui County on Zoom. Please proceed. Please proceed. If you could unmute yourself that'd be great.

I apologize. Chair and Members, this is Jordan Hart on behalf of the County of Maui. And merit business testimony, we support this measure. The existing language of HRS 2005A unduly burdens owners, residents and employees occupying previously lawful structures and improvements that may have been destroyed by disasters requiring significant cost, time and effort in obtaining approvals for reconstruction.

This proposal is a more efficient path forward. In recognition of the. In recognition of and consistent with HRS 205A2 coastal zone management Program objectives and policies, and we encourage the passage of this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next we have testimony from Ola Maui LLC, Lahela Iwohi on Zoom. Not present in support. Next we have testimony from the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii, Ted Kefalas on Zoom. Not present with comments. Next we have testimony and support on ZOOM from Jeff Uioka, Front Street Recovery. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair. Members standing on my written testimony in support of this measure. Thank you.

You want to just tell us highlight why this is important to you?

It will help to expedite the rebuild of Front street and other areas of Lahaina in the SMA. The SMA process is difficult and time consuming. And I'm not sure whether or not we're equipped here on Maui to handle this many SMA permits coming in all at once.

Understood. Okay, thanks very much. Appreciate that. In total, we've received 40 testimonies in support, zero in opposition, and 139 with comments. Most of the ones with comments are people with shoreline parcels saying please include us because right now the bill exempts them, it excludes them.

Is there anyone else wishing to provide testimony on Senate Bill 1296, House draft? One in particular person here or on Zoom? Okay, you're next. Sir, please introduce yourself.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Ted Cas, Grassroot Institute. I just called you. Yeah, sorry, I was stuck in the elevator.

I'm glad you made it out.

Yeah, no, I. I just want to keep my comments brief, but we are generally in support of this bill. The only thing we do want to note is that we allow shoreline units and properties on the shoreline to skip past the SMA process as long as they are within the same dimension or rebuilding.

You know, what was lost in the fire. Again, just to stress that this was a fire and not necessarily sea level rise or flooding or anything like that. So we do think that it is important for those folks to be able to rebuild.

Thank you. Appreciate it very much. Thanks for your testimony. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this Measure if not questions, Members. Representative Shimizu, please proceed.

Thank you. Chair.

Question for OP OPSD Planning and Sustainable development.

The question is do you know if there's a time limit to rebuild?

Yeah, the proposal give five years from the proclamation claimed by the Governor. Okay. Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, this is from Shelby. Yeah, thank you. Other questions, Members? Yes, please, Vice Chair, we'll try OPSD.

So this bill would not allow previously non conforming structures.

The non conforming structure is coding site because there's a lawfully means it was not permitted nonconforming. Also, if lawful means permitted structure and non conforming structure always lawfully.

You need to explain non conforming structures. Are they lawful?

Yes. The reason because before like cesium law 1975 for SMA, 1977 for cesium program approved by Hawaiian legislation. That's if structure before that time is a non conforming structure. So that means still encoding as a null folate structure.

Okay.

Yeah, that's. You know, we put two terms permitted structure and a non conforming structure. But finally they remove these kind of two terms. Just say low folate structure, construct structure.

Okay.

Yeah, we already know. We provide two terms, non conforming and the permitted structure. Then they combine these two terms and say low Foley conform construct.

I get it. Okay. And then so if the, if it would need to be rebuilt in the footprint of the the previous structure and it's on a coastal property and does it need to be built in the exact same location on the property?

The, the, the. The proposed language didn't say exactly location, but should be same size, same parcel. That's why the reason for this kind of same size is really important. But dimension definitely should be similar to the previous situation.

Okay, so if it's on a coastal property and the previous structure was closer to the ocean, closer to coastal hazards, they could potentially opt to move it more inland on the property to you know, address or you know, considering coastal hazards.

Right. Your question is already solved by the proposed language. Proposed language not encode doesn't include the shoreline parcel and parcel impact by this kind of erosion, storm surges. This kind of parcel not exempt, they will require SMS permits. That's why the proposed language have three bullets. Right.

The fourth bullet regarding location, if it is shonai parcel or parcel impact by shonai erosion, storm surges, high tide or waves. This kind of parcel will not be exempt if.

Okay. Unless the bill is amended to exempt it.

Yeah. Because right now only for long shoreline parcel. For example, shoreline parcel still require SMF permit. Okay. That's the exact location for this kind of exemption.

Okay, thank you. Yeah.

So if. Other questions, Members. So let me ask a question about structures that were built without permits, that were not built prior to the CCM law. So I know, I know those are non conforming. But if there were buildings that were built but they didn't have proper permits for it, that's not included.

That's unlawful. This means because they supposed to apply for permit but they didn't. Yes, that's non conform. That's not a long conforming. That means I will call, say unlawful or illegal structure. Okay. That's not including this exemption.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay. Other questions. Members, if you're going to continue to speak, could you move the microphone closer to you?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Just move it closer all the way.

The question that arises is, is there a definition for lawfully?

For lawfully, yes. The reason why we only put two terms, non conforming and permitted structure. Right now we put lawfully the county estimate rules, they have this kind of language definition. But 205A didn't provide this kind of definition for lawfully. But a county SMA rules or ordinance, they have the language.

That's why our office originally put two terms, non conforming and permit structure. RHINO just simplifies a lawfully constructed structure.

So does your Department have a definition.

Of lawfully two or five years? RHINO doesn't have the definition, but each county has made rules and ordinance, they have the definition.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

Sure. Other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Let's go on to the next measure. Senate Bill 1413, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, relating to the Hawaii Public Housing Authority. This measure allows the Hawaii Public Housing Authority to sell, donate, or dispose of property abandoned or sealed and federal public housing projects.

It requires the Hawaii Public Housing Authority to notify the known owner of the abandoned or seized property and establishes procedures for persons entitled to the abandoned or seized property. First up, we have... Oh, and I guess I should say before I go on... Oh no, I already said that. The number of testimonies we received on the earlier bill. Okay. On 1413, we have one testifier, Hakim Ouansafi, Hawaii Public Housing Authority. Welcome.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Thank you for hearing this bill. We appreciate it. This bill is about any abandoned property that's left on our properties. It does not cover the tenants and what's inside the units. These for the people that do illegal dumping and a lot of things. It gives us five days.

And this is to conform with the state. We have this in the state housing. We don't have it in the federal housing. Just to allow us to remove this property within five days. And if the value, unlikely event that the value is $500 or more, we'll try do our best to locate the owner. If not, we dispose of it. Thank you very much. I'm here for any questions.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 1413? If not questions, Members? Nope. Okay, thanks very much. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 31, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1, relating to property.

This measure allows a person who discovers a recorded discriminatory restrictive covenant to take certain acti ons without liability to invalidate the covenant. And it defines discriminatory, restrictive covenant. We have, first up, the Hawaii. We have two testimonies. No one's here to testify. First one is Hawaii Civil Rights Commission in support.

And the next comments from the Uniform Law Commission. Is there anyone here wishing to testify in Senate Bill 31? House draft one? Seeing none, we'll move on. Thank you. Next measure, Senate Bill 1341 relating to energy industry information reporting.

This measure adds the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security to the list of agencies that may examine the energy industry information statement submitted pursuant to section 486J-3 HRS. And it adds the promotion of emergency management and critical infrastructure protection as relevant purposes of the energy data collection program.

We have testimony from Department of Business and Economic Development and Tourism in support, and testimony from the Hawaii State Energy Office in support. Please come on up to the podium and the microphone so everyone on TV land can hear you and see you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee, Jon Chin from the Hawaii State Energy Office. We stand on our written testimony in support.

Tell us why it's an important measure for you, please.

Office of Homeland Security. Sorry. And the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency for a number of years on programs related to energy security. And this data is important for understanding the energy system as a whole. It's got volumetric data on fuel.

So we've been working with both OHS and HYIMA for a number.

OHS?

And so during any kind of emergency response, we're often asked how much fuel do we have on hand on island? And this is the data that they'd need to see. So we find it very important that those agencies would have access to it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 1341? If not, questions, members? Nope. Thanks very much. Let's move on to the next measure.

Senate Bill 1008, House Draft 1, relating to parking. This measure authorizes the counties to adopt ordinances to enforce the accessible parking space requirements for parking spaces reserved for persons with disabilities and electric vehicles. It repeals the requirement for any public or private entity that provides parking spaces reserved for persons with disabilities to comply with laws relating to parking for disabled persons. First up, we have testimony from the Disability and Communication Access Board. Kirby Shaw or... Yes, welcome.

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas and Committee Members. I'm Bryan Mick here on behalf of DCAB and Executive Director Kirby Shaw. We strongly support this bill. It authorizes but does not require the counties to adopt ordinances relating to the design of accessible parking spaces.

It imposes no new obligations onto the state. Agencies such as county police departments, Department of Law Enforcement, DLNR, and DAGS, Parking Control all enforce the use of accessible parking spaces and disability parking permits. However, they do not enforce the proper design of the spaces in accordance with the ADA and state law regulations.

Examples are the number of spaces, the presence of access aisles, the minimum width of the spaces and access aisles, and correct signage. In theory, an ADA violation can be reported to the Department of Justice, but even under the prior administration, they did not have the resources to investigate smaller complaints.

Historically, only a large development with multiple accessibility issues were investigated, such as at new hotels, apartment buildings, or perhaps at a large shopping complex. So there's been a real void and it's arguably one of the weakest parts in the parking program.

In 2021, the Legislature under HRS 29173 authorized the counties to adopt ordinances relating to electric vehicle charging spaces and to enforce them. So Section 2 in this bill is largely modeled on that language, but simply applies it to accessible parking spaces.

We have discussed this concept with several county council members and with the heads of the county building departments who would likely be the ones to enforce the ordinances. None of them have raised any objections. We did review the testimony submitted by other people last night. Wanted to quickly respond to a few of the points raised in them.

There was a concern about electric vehicle spaces replacing accessible parking spaces. That is not allowed under the ADA, and in fact HRS 29171 states that no parking space designated for electric vehicles shall displace or reduce accessible stalls required by the Americans with Disability Act.

The bill does not propose changing that. There was an idea that the regulation should be statewide, but we just point out that the counties have land use ordinances and building codes that do vary from county to county. So we don't think this bill actually poses a challenge in that way.

We would suspect the counties will simply mirror the existing federal and state regulations in their ordinances, with the possible exception of requiring additional accessible spaces in certain size parking lots. And finally, while Section 3 of the bill is not really our area, since it amends requirements relating to the EV spaces.

Just wanted to point out that there seems to be a concern that this bill would impose a requirement on businesses to provide EV chargers or that it allows the counties to adopt ordinances to enforce. However, both of those are already in the existing statute.

This bill simply clarifies who from the counties may enforce any EV related ordinances. If the committee's really uncomfortable with that, we would ask you to strike section 3, but to please keep section 2 in there and move the bill forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The next person that said they wish to testify is Tina Yamaki, Retail Merchants of Hawaii on Zoom. Not present. She testified in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 1008, House Draft 1? If not, questions, Members? Seeing none. We'll move on to the next measure.

No, you're not coming up. Okay. I was all ready, Michael. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Next Measure, Senate Bill 1028. Senate Draft 1. House Draft 1. Relating to youth fees and fines.

This measure prohibits the assessment of any fees, fines or court costs against a person who was adjudicated for an offense committed during the person's minority or against the person's parent or guardian and discharges all related debt obligations as assessed before the effective date of the act.

The measure limits court ordered community service for a minor to no more than 72 hours. And it repeals certain penalties imposed on parents, guardians and other persons associated with unaccompanied children in streets and unmarried minors in dance halls. First up, we have testimony from the Office of the Public Defender.

Aloha. My name is Darcia Forester. I am the juvenile division supervisor at the Office of the Public Defender. So I'm testifying in that capacity. We are very much in support of this measure. This is part of a national campaign to eliminate fines and fees for youth.

It's our position that we would rather have our clients who are juveniles and their families concentrate their monies on services accessing mental health services, accessing educational services and other services to help them get. Help them help their children to thrive. So we are in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Ms. Woodward, welcome.

Aloha Chair and Members. McKenna Woodward, Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support of this measure, OHA's 2010 report on the disparate treatment of Native Hawaiians in the criminal justice system determined Native Hawaiian youth are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system and that they are also the most frequently arrested ethnic group across all offense categories.

Accordingly, OHA advocates for a close examination of the juvenile justice system as a pipeline into later incarceration. While court imposed fees can be an inconvenience for some, for those already struggling to keep up with the rising cost of living, they can be detrimental. Of the five largest race groups in Hawaii, Native Hawaiians have the highest poverty rates.

6,610 families, or 12%, and 45,420 individuals, or 15.5% of this population, are living below the poverty line. And this is despite 74.5% of Native Hawaiians aged 16 to 64 working 35 hours a week or more.

In 2023, the US Department of Justice acknowledged court imposed fines upon minors could be in violation of the 8th Amendment prohibition against excessive fines. Most of the time young people can't afford to pay these fees and they're passed on to their families.

This results in impoverished families falling further into debt and forcing their cases to remain open longer than necessary, thus increasing the likelihood of recidivism and jeopardizing their employment, driver's licenses and housing, all for reasons unrelated to public safety. This is an ineffective, unjust practice.

17 other states have come to the same conclusion, passing legislation repealing all or most youth fees and fines. Continuing this practice further corrodes public trust, economic stability and community health and directly contributes to Native Hawaiians over representation in the criminal justice system and high rates of poverty.

OHA appreciates the Committee's support of HB129HD2, which is no longer moving but contains identical language to the current version of this bill. To that end, OHA urges the Committee to pass SB 1028 SD HD1. Mahalo Nuiloa for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony from Rick Collins, the Juvenile Justice State Advisory Council on zoom not present in support. Next we have testimony from the Attorney General in person.

Mr. Tom, welcome. Please proceed.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. Department is just providing comments for Senate Bill 1028 SD1HD1. This current draft is just they removed all the contents of 1028 and placed in House Bill 129 HD2, which by the way has the same title, youth fees and fines.

We just point out, because now 129 is the contents that is in this bill would point out the potential, just potential constitutional title issues. Specifically in 129 would be looking at where the restitution is kind of removed and it's only relating to restitution. Some of that could be seen in Section three, which is vandalism.

It doesn't, I guess it's not relating to the fines and fees because no fines and fees are actually imposed. It's just talking about restitution. And we just point out there's another section in curfew that I think strikes out a section that deals with fines to a parent.

The Committee might want to just take a look at some of these sections when it's just restitution to err on the side of caution to make sure that it does fit within the title. For there's just a lot of sections in here.

So would be willing to work with the Committee to look at any of those that might be a cause of concern. But we'll be here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next person who wishes to testify is Cat Brady, Community alliance on prisons. Ms. Brady, welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon. Chair Tornas, Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee. Kat Brady testifying in strong support of this measure. You know, research shows that brain development doesn't really happen until the mid-20s. So we think this is really an important thing to do.

And as I was reviewing the bill, I was thinking, so what kind of community service would they get? Well, there are things that they could do that could actually help the child, the person think about what they want to do with their lives.

There's loads of nonprofits that need help and you know, if you find out what that really lights that kid's fire, you know, maybe you can hook that kid up with a non profit and you know, maybe they'll think that they. Could actually have a career they never dreamed about.

So I think exposing them to the things that our community needs and community organizations that gather together to address those needs, that would be really cool. So that to me would be a really great community service.

Thank you, thank you very much. Next, Debt Free Justice Hawaii, Cameron Clark on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha Mai Kakou, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and Committee Members. I'm Cameron Clark, Co-Coordinator of Debt Free Justice, the national campaign to eliminate court ordered fines and fees against youth on behalf of the Debt Free Justice Hawaii Coalition of youth and community Advocates. We respectfully ask for your aye vote on Senate Bill 1028 SD1HD1.

We stand on our written testimony and thank the Chair, Vice Chair and Representatives Peruso and Takayama for your sponsorship and leadership on this critical issue. This project began with and is rooted in the advocacy of Native Hawaiian researchers and community Members all committed to improving outcomes for the most impacted youth in the state.

This bill is a culmination of multiple years of engagement with the State Judiciary, Administrative Director of the Courts, Juvenile Justice, State Advisory Council, Office of Youth Services, Public Defenders and Prosecutors alike. The bill is substantively identical to this year's House Bill 129 HD 2, which passed this Committee with a super majority vote.

We wish to offer only brief comments in relation to other written testimony submitted to this Committee. We thank the Attorney General for their comments and engagement on this issue. The bill's title quote relating to youth fees and fines does not subject it to constitutional scrutiny.

In their testimony, the Attorney General bolds the word and as if to indicate that this subjects the bill to scrutiny. However, in 2013's Villain v. Marriott Hotel Services, the Supreme Court of Hawaii validated a bill relating to wages and tips of employees in the context of subject title requirements in Article 3, Section 14 of the Hawaii Constitution.

The Supreme Court held, quote, every enactment of the Legislature is presumptively constitutional and to nullify it on the grounds that it was enacted in violation of the subject title requirements of the State Constitution. The infraction should be plain, clear, manifest and unmistakable.

An infraction rising to this level is one in which the title tends to mislead or deceive the people or the lawmaking body as to the purpose or the effect of the legislation or or to conceal or obscure the same. Unquote.

An infraction rising to this level was found in 2005's Talmi vs Lingle in which the Hawaii Supreme Court invalidated a bill, quote, for an act relating to sexual assault, unquote, because of a constitutional amendment that was added in a Committee draft that was not reflected in the title.

We're happy to work with the Attorney General's Office in reviewing the language of the bill, but we feel really strongly that the concern on the content of the bill and the subject title requirements of the Constitution know respectfully, not not actual issues that reach constitutional scrutiny.

The majority of states across the country, including Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana, have taken action to achieve debt free justice for youth. Respectfully ask for your aye vote and remain available for questions. Mahalo.

Thank you, Mr. Clark finally, we have Nathan Lee, ACLU of Hawaii.

Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair, ACLU of Hawaii is in support of this bill. What I'd like to highlight from our. Written testimony is the potential positive effects that passing this bill might have on our youth and also on our broader community. We wanted to highlight a 2023 report. From the Department of Justice that noted.

That youth should be presumed indigent and unable to pay fines and fees. And the imposition of those fines and. Fees can have drastic consequences on the rest of their life. The research also suggests that fines and fees increase recidivism in youth. And so what we think this bill will do is provide an avenue to.

decreasing youth recidivism, to getting them on the right track, as other testifiers have noted. And we believe this will have positive effects on the community at large. So we urge your support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lee. We received a total of 13 testimonies in support, in opposition, one with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 1028, House draft one in the room here or on Zoom? Seeing non questions. Members, this side, this side. Representative Shimizu, please proceed.

Thank you. Chair, Office of Public Defender, please. The question is, are fees and fines mandatory in the sentencing?

It depends on what the infraction is. So. So the reason the bill is so large is because they look at. Anytime there is a mandatory fee associated with a law violation, it's highlighted to exclude a juvenile from having to pay fines and fees. So it's very dependent.

So the purpose of the bill is to remove mandatory fees, whatever they may be, if they are required by a particular law violation.

So. So the next question, Chair, if I may. Does the judge. Does a judge already have authority to. To waive fees?

Yes, except in certain cases where it's considered a mandatory fee, I think. I'm sorry, off the top of my head, I cannot recall the specific ones. There are a few where it's required, and so the judge would have no discretion. But most fines and fees are discretionary.

And it is the common practice, at least in the First Circuit, for the judges to waive fines and fees. But that's not possible for every single law violation, especially where it's mandatory.

Last question, Chair. So the ones that are, quote, mandatory or the judge is not able to waive it, what is the nature of those offenses?

She doesn't remember. I don't know. I mean, I would have to reread the bill and highlight it. I'm just not recalling off the top of my head. The specific ones that have mandatory fines and fees, it's very few. Most fees are waivable, but there are a few that aren't. So I just have to do the research.

I could email the Committee with specifics if needed.

Would you say that the few that are are not wavable are on the serious side? More serious side?

No. There might be some traffic related offenses with mandatory fees. Dep. When you say serious, I'm thinking like a felony. So some might be related to traffic offenses which I would not put in the same category as a felony.

Right. I agree. Okay. Thank you for your help and thank you Chair.

Certainly. Thank you. Other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 292, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, relating to sexual exploitation. This measure establishes safe harbor protections for survivors of sexual exploitation who seek medical or law enforcement assistance. First up, we have the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Aloha, Chair and Members. Still McKenna Woodward from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support of this measure. Sex trafficking is a pervasive and devastating crime that preys on the most vulnerable members of our society, including children.

In 2022, OHA and the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women published the Missing and Murdered Native Hawaiian Women and Girls Task Force report, which found Native Hawaiian women to be especially vulnerable to trafficking due to factors including socioeconomic disparities and historical trauma. 43% of sex trafficking cases are Kanaka Maoli girls trafficked in Waikiki.

Similarly, 57% of participants served through the Mana'olana Program at Child and Family Services are Native Hawaiian women and girls who've experienced human trafficking. Disturbingly, on the Big Island, Kanaka Maoli children ages 15 to 17 represent the highest number of missing children's cases, with 182 cases of missing Kanaka Maoli girls from 2018 to 2021.

In 2021, the Missing Child Center Hawaii assisted law enforcement with 376 recoveries of missing children. Sadly, these cases are only 19% of the estimated 2,000 cases of missing children each year. Therefore, enacting legislation to strengthen sex trafficking laws is especially critical for protecting Native Hawaiian communities and ensuring they receive the support and resources they need to combat this issue.

Establishing safe harbor protections for survivors sends a clear message that our state is committed to protecting the rights and well being of all individuals instead of punishing them for the abuse they've endured. By ensuring victims of sex trafficking are not criminalized for their own exploitation, we can advance the delivery of social services and trauma informed care for those in need. Mahalo for your consideration of this important measure. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Next we have Mr. Hugo, prosecuting attorney, Honolulu.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Members of the Committee. Daniel Hugo from the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office, and we are testifying in support of this bill. Last session, this committee also considered Senate Bill 3036, which was an earlier version of a similar attempt. This version corrects, this current bill corrects what was identified as a potential equal protection problem in that earlier draft.

Prostitution and human trafficking have been various, at various times in Hawaii's history, been treated as a threat to public morals, as a disorderly nuisance, as a public health problem, or as an element of organized crime. And while there are aspects of that in all of these, what is important for us as prosecutors is to underline an approach that prioritizes the safety of the victims. And we believe that this bill is in alignment with that strategy. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Nadine Ortega in support on Zoom. Not present. We also have Mr. Billionaire.

Aloha mai kakou. It's great to see you all back again. This is Pikachu Shelby Billionaire. Live for all of you, for everyone here. I'm representing the Ohana Unity Party and also Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands. So my testimony, if you guys know, because you're watching on YouTube, I brought a survivor of human trafficking. Her name is Crystal Carpenter. So I'll bring it around. You guys can follow along with me.

We have a copy.

Yeah. For you guys. I'm talking to people on YouTube and Zoom. Right, so we support this bill because on this list, it's a human trafficking report in Honolulu Police Department report number 18-311435 in 2018. It is filed in the state courts of Hawaii at CV1800322, Delta, Kilo, Whiskey, Kilo, Sierra, Charlie.

Now, in this list, this is very relative to sexual exploitation. This survivor human trafficking had all of her kids killed and grandchildren killed. She has AIDS, HPV, all that stuff. Now, this is relevant to what John Pelletier is in 2018. She's listing P. Diddy, Senator Brian Schatz, people in Hawaii as guilty as sex trafficking her. So while we're talking about this bill. This is very relevant.

Just focus on the bill itself.

Right. For safe harbors. Because they don't feel safe. If you try to call Maui right now, you're going to get cement boots is what they tell me. They're going to kill you because they're part of this celebrity, Oprah, whole human trafficking ring. This is 2018. This is with Koloa.

It's not nothing to do with Joe Logan in 2025. But this tied into the Sunny Lehua Kalua case, Kaneshiro, and everything. So I implore you guys to use your hearts to pass this bill. But also figure out because when we have human trafficking case and they call me, I do not trust any places here.

There's two that I would give them to. Hoʻōla Nā Pua for girls only 11 to 17 and Susannah Wesley. If I got a boy or more than three people, we do not send them here. We send them stateside because they usually run away. The girls escape. They don't like Barbie who's in Hoʻōla Nā Pua. They escape and run.

They don't feel safe in Hale Kipa. Hope Service is dealing drugs on Big Island. So I hope you guys can use your hearts and figure out something where we can work this together with aftercare programs, OHA, prosecuting attorney, and the survivors out there. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. We've received a total of seven testimonies in support and zero in opposition and zero comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 292, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1? If not, questions, Members? Seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure.

Senate Bill 295, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, relating to domestic abuse protective orders. This measure increases the penalties imposed on individuals convicted for violations of temporary restraining orders and orders for protection. It clarifies that the court shall not sentence a defendant to pay a fine for violating a domestic abuse protective order if the court makes an on the record determination that the defendant is or will be unable to pay the fine.

It specifies that a conviction for violation of a temporary restraining order issued under the same judicial case number as an order for protection shall be treated as a second or subsequent violation of an order for protection. And it authorizes the court to suspend certain jail sentences for violations of domestic abuse protective orders if the defendant meets certain conditions. First up, we have the Office of the Public Defender.

Aloha again. So this time I'm testifying in my capacity as the family court supervisor, which includes our domestic violence division. So I submitted pretty long testimony for me and so I don't want to repeat myself. This is kind of what I wanted to just highlight. First that not every case that goes to court involves people who are in a same sex marriage situation that involves intimate partners.

When we deal with cases on the eighth floor, which is where these cases are processed on Oahu at the Alakea Street courthouse, we deal with siblings, grandparents, people who are in non-intimate partner relationships. So we understand the reason why there's a push to get a mandatory minimum. We currently have a mandatory minimum.

It is our position that the mandatory minimum is appropriate. And we're able to still get our client services and they're still able to sort of function, understanding that this mandatory minimum that currently exists might impact them. We're worried that the five days is going to result in unintended consequences like losing jobs, which then will impact housing.

So that is our biggest worry. Also, I just want to say that this mandatory minimum happens at the back end. So it's going to be harder for us to convince our clients to get into therapy or counseling or classes if they're going to have to do five days. And they can't get that five days waived even if they're doing great. So we have clients who will ask us, you know, what can I do? Even if I did this, what can I do to show that I'm going to be serious and take this seriously and change my behavior?

And we will often tell them, get yourself in classes, get a therapist, start figuring out what you're going to do to address this stress that's causing you to violate the restraining order. But you know, we can't tell them necessarily to do that if they're still... I mean, we can still tell them, but it's really hard when they say, well, I have to do five days jail anyways. What's the point? I'm going to have to do it anyways. So I'm just sharing with you how we sort of manage these clients and these situations.

We understand the need for certain penalties, especially when you're talking about intimate partner violence. But that can be something that the judge can look at and impose. We just think that this mandatory minimum is not appropriate for every type of person who comes to court for violating a restraining order, especially when they're non-intimate partners. Thank you, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the explanation. Next, we've gotten written testimony in support from Hawaii County Prosecuting Attorney. And we've got testimony in support from Mr. Hugo, Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office, and we support this bill. The two most important provisions in this bill are, first, that it unifies the scheme for temporary restraining orders and protective orders.

So currently, if somebody gets a protective order and there's a prior violation of the temporary restraining order, even though it's the same underlying petition, that violation of a protective order is treated as if it's completely new for recidivism purposes. This bill changes that.

The second important thing about this bill is that it removes the distinction between domestic and non-domestic abuse. And there's an efficiency issue there. There's also just a general moral issue. The efficiency issue is that oftentimes it's very difficult to determine, particularly if there are offenses that have occurred outside of Oahu, to determine whether or not the prior violation was in the nature of domestic or non-domestic violence.

The other moral issue is that even though these non-domestic abuse violations may appear trivial and even though the evidence that might come to the jury looks trivial, the fact is that oftentimes these petitions have a long and deep background of prior abuse. And so what we believe a better approach would be is to just recognize that a violation of the order is a violation and that any additional crimes should be charged separately. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Angelina Mercado, Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, on Zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Committee Members. I'm Angie Mercado, the Executive Director of the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and we're the association of domestic violence serving organizations in the state representing 25 programs. And we stand in strong support of this measure. We, you've heard from the prosecuting attorney's office.

We want to also add, we support this measure because we really are addressing what we keep hearing from our survivors and their family members that these protection orders are just seem like a piece of paper. You go through all the process to go to the courts to issue this, but the actual enforcement of the actual violations, the lack of enforcement is insufficient and it does not result in additional safety for survivors.

The fact that somebody has gone through so much and taken the courage to actually try to get a protection order and having it enforced is such a big win for survivors, and then to have this failure on the other side. And to the point about making some of the changes in the legislation, we recognize that coercive control is real. It happens to our survivors.

There is CDC data specifically supporting this for the State of Hawaii as well as the Coalition's data that about 20% of the people that we surveyed have experienced isolation and coercive control. And then I also want to point to the committee that there is a flexibility in actual measure.

So if you look at page eight, line 12, it starts that the court may suspend jail sentence under paragraphs 1 and 2 upon condition that the defendant remains alcohol and drug free and conviction free. So we recognize that this abuse of a family and household member statute does have non-intimate partner violence offenses included in there.

And so we wanted to make sure that there's accountability for those, for those who are violators of protection orders, especially in intimate partner violences and in other family situations, but as well as flexibility, as public defenders have indicated in prior testimony and today. Thank you again for moving this measure, listening to it, and the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much, Ms. Mercado. Next, Llasmin Chaine, Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I stand on my written testimony in support of this measure and really feel like it will improve safety for survivors as well as increase accountability and provide a measure of justice for them. I'm available if you have any questions. But that's really the basic reason that I'm here and supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Monique Ibarra, Domestic Violence Action Center.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Committee Members. I'm Monique Ibarra, CEO of the Domestic Violence Action Center. I'm here in support of SB 295, that would increase the effectiveness and reliability of protective orders for survivors of domestic violence.

Domestic violence is a pervasive issue that affects individuals, families, and communities, and it is crucial that survivors are provided with the tools and resources so that they feel safe and supported in rebuilding their lives. One of the most important safety plan tools available to survivors is a protective order against domestic violence, which can provide immediate relief by restricting the abuser's access to the victim and their family.

And it is essential that we create an environment where survivors feel confident that these orders will be enforced and that they will be supported by the legal system. Without this trust, many survivors may hesitate to pursue a protective order, fearing that the legal system will not take their safety seriously and that the abuser will face no real consequences if they violate the order.

For these orders to be effective, survivors must have confidence that law enforcement will respond appropriately to the violations, that courts will take these matters seriously, and that there will be real accountability for those who violate these orders. Trusting in a protective order gives survivors the courage to seek justice and the peace of mind that they are no longer alone in their fight for safety.

I ask for your support of SB 295, as it will increase survivors faith in the judicial system and protection orders and will demonstrate that it is more than just a piece of paper, as well as hold abusers accountable for the harm they caused to their victims, families, and the communities. Mahalo. Thank you for having me.

Thank you, Ms. Ibarra. Next person that said they wish to testify is Joseph Alpuro on Zoom. Not present. He's testifying in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify In Senate Bill 295, House Draft 1? If not, questions, Members? Representative Shimizu, please proceed.

Thank you, Chair. I think I'm going to ask this to the prosecuting attorney. There's language in here that the sentence, the jail sentence, can be suspended if the violators agree to certain corrective action. I'm wondering how is that enforced? Because when I read that, it's like a promise. I promise to do this so I can get off jail time. So that doesn't sound too guaranteed for me. So how does that get enforced?

So essentially, the way that a suspended sentence would work is that failure to comply with those conditions would trigger the sentence.

And how would that failure be detected?

So it wouldn't be the same as with probation, where there's a probation officer who would be doing reports. But of course, we can file a motion if we get information about a violation of the terms.

So it might be a too late kind of notice that signals a violation?

Well, I mean, anytime you're dealing with a punishment or a breach of a violation, it always is a too late situation. But a suspension would just essentially mean that there is a recognized exception so that this doesn't become a procrustean solution.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Thank you very much. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much. Testifiers. Let's move on to the next Measure, Senate Bill 951. Senate Draft 2 House Draft 1 relating to child protection. This measure requires mandatory reports of child abuse or neglect to include the military status of the child's parent or guardian if known.

It requires the Department of Human Services to inform the appropriate authority of the United States military when upon receiving a report of child abuse or neglect, there is sufficient information to determine that the report involves a family where one of the parents, guardians, or alleged perpetrators is a Member of an identifiable branch of the United States military.

First up, we have the Department of Defense. Kelly Mae Douglas on Zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Kelly Mae Douglas with the Defense State Liaison Office. And we are in strong support of SB951SD2HD1.

The policy proposal within this Bill, if approved, would codify a reciprocal state requirement that will support the statutory responsibility of the military services to report allegations of child abuse and neglect to the state, increase military families access to prevention services and facilitate better coordination of available state Child Welfare Services and military preventative and rehabilitative services in support of military children and families.

We've been in ongoing discussions with the Department of Human Services and the Deputy Attorney General to address some potential implementation concerns. And I think we're in a really good spot. But we're committed to continuing continued coordination with DHS and to develop specific guidance as they develop MOUs. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next textifier Kathleen Ciarantona, U.S. Department of Defense on zoom. Please proceed.

Hello, Kathleen Charantona, United States Department of Defense. I'm a subject matter expert in support of the child abuse response in the military. I'm here to answer any questions and I stand in support of the Bill and on the written testimony of Kelly Mae Douglas. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Tammy Perrot, Department of Defense on Zoom.

Aloha Chair Tarnas and Members of the Committee. My name is Tammy Perot and I also represent the Department of Defense. Today I'm here in strong support of SB951, this legislation that will ensure the coordination between the Department and the State of Hawaii to better protect military children residing in in the state.

As you have heard from my colleague Kelly Mae Douglas, this is a federal requirement for us to ensure this coordination. And in 2020, the Government Accountability Office reported to Congress which highlighted the importance of state statutes requiring the collection and reporting of military affiliation.

Again, I stand on the written testimony which has been submitted and refer any questions to my colleague. Katie.

Thank you very much. Next we have the Department of Human Services on Zoom.

Aloha. This is Tonya Mahi on behalf of the Director Ryan Yamane. We stand on our written testimony.

You want to summarize the highlights of your testimony, please.

DHS supports the measure as it aligns with our existing child welfare practices of identifying and notifying the appropriate military branch when a service Member is involved in a child abuse and neglect report.

While DHS is committed to ensuring child safety through information sharing with authorized military entities, it anticipates needing time for training and finalizations of memorandums of understandings with the different branches of services on the islands through the Department of Defense.

Thank you very much. We've received testimony and support from Michael Older, Derek Carlin and Mr. Billionaire who stepped out. So is there anyone else wishing to testify In Senate Bill 951, House Draft 1? If not questions Members being none. Thank you very much. Thank you. To the testifiers. We're going to move on to the next measure.

Senate Bill 1382 relating to the National Guard. This measure specifies that intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to a National Guard Member in the performance of duty is a Class C felony. First up, we have the Hawaii National Guard Department of Defense. Welcome, sir.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. I'm Brigadier General Ross. On behalf of the Hawaii National Guard and Major General Logan, our Adjutant General of State of Hawaii, we stand in strong support of 1382. It provides the needed protection for our service Member in the performance of their duty in the service of the State of Hawaii.

Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, sir.

The next person said they wish to testify is Christian Trent. Honolulu Police Department on zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. This is Acting Captain Trenton, Honolulu Police Department. And the Honolulu Police Department urges you to support Senate Bill number 1382. And thank you for the opportunity to appear today. And I'll be available.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 1382? If not questions, Members Seeing none. Thank you very much. Thank you. To the testifiers. We're going to move on to the next Measure, Senate Bill 102. Senate Draft 2. House Draft 1 relating to restaurants.

This measure prohibits third party restaurant reservation services from listing, advertising, promoting or selling restaurant reservations without first obtaining a written agreement from the applicable restaurant authorizing the action. It also establishes a private cause of action for civil remedies. First up, we have, well, we have written testimony and support from two organizations and one individual.

And written testimony with comments from another organization. Is there anyone here wishing to testify on Senate Bill 102 or on Zoom Seeing None. We'll move on since there's no one to ask questions of next Measure, Senate Bill 1051. This is our last measure. We're taking testimony on and then we'll go into decision making. Senate Bill 1051.

Senate Draft 1 House Draft 1 relating to Hawaiian History Month. This measure designates September as Hawaiian History Month. First up, we have testimony. Well, we've received seven testimonies in support, one in opposition, and nobody here who is scheduled to testify. Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify In Senate Bill 1051 House Draft 1?

Oh, yes, please.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. McKenna Woodward, on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Apologies we were not able to submit written testimony in time for this bill. But we are in support; September seems a fitting month since it is the Queen's birthday and birth month, and we would like to commemorate her.

So strong support of this measure.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 1051 House Draft 1. If not, questions members? Seeing none. Thanks very much. We're going to take a brief recess to see if anyone else, other members are able to join us. Recess.

Reconvening the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. This is the 2:00pm agenda, March 20th here in conference room 325; March 20th, 2025. We're going to move into decision making to the top of the agenda. Senate Bill 1296, Senate Draft 2 House Draft 1 relating to disaster recovery.

I am recommending we move this forward with amendments to delete on page seven, lines 14 to 17, so that that would actually include the shoreline parcels in this exemption. And I know not everyone's going to be happy with that, but that's what I'd like to do. Questions or concerns, members? First here, Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to be voting with reservations. I support the bill, but I'm just a little bit concerned about the amendment.

I know that this bill was primarily in response to the Lahaina fires, but like looking into the future and, you know, other disasters that could happen, like a tsunami and I just think that shoreline parcels should have that extra layer of review. So that is - that's my reservations vote. Thank you.

Understood. Yeah. Very reasonable. Other comments? Yes. Representative Perruso.

This is also an issue in my district, so I will also be voting with reservations. But I appreciate your work on this bill.

Understood. Representative Belatti.

Just question, because I thought I saw in the testimony amendments that wanted to open this up to all sort of areas. But this is only limited to the Lahaina area, correct, as amendments you're making?

This is, if you look at page seven of the measure, it says specifically, I'll read it: "Reconstruction of any lawfully constructed structure that was damaged or destroyed in a disaster proclaimed by the Governor to constitute a state of emergency pursuant to chapter 127A or disaster declared pursuant to federal law."

So, it doesn't say that it's specific to Lahaina, but it's basically an area that reconstruction of a lawfully constructed structure that was damaged or destroyed in a disaster.

Okay. And then the language you're striking will be that second, that one paragraph?

It would be W Subsection 1.

Just because of the noted concerns previously, I'll be voting with reservations.

I understand. I'm sure that my suggestion is going to raise some questions, but I think I want to address this concern and have discussion about it. So, thank you. Other questions or concerns from members? Otherwise, Vice Chair for the vote. This is Senate Bill 1296 SD2 HD1 with amendments.

Voting on SB 1296 SD2 HD1 with amendments. [Roll Call]. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, Senate Bill 1413 Senate Draft 1 House Draft 1 relating to the Hawaii Public Housing Authority. On this measure, I'd like to move it with technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. And I want to make some changes on here to make it very clear the purposes for which this bill is written.

On page one, line six, I want to specify that it is federal public housing projects that we're talking about here, since this language is being added to Chapter 356D, Part 2, which is specifically regarding federal low-income housing.

On page two, line seven, and page two, line 13, and page three, line six, I want to change the word dispose to be sell, donate or otherwise dispose so that we're consistent with page one, line five, we try to be consistent in our language here and if it's not, we correct it. So that's what we're doing here.

Page three, line 11, I want to delete the word sale so that we're consistent with page two, line 19. And then as I say, technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Those are my recommendations, questions or concerns, members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on SB 1413, SD1 HD1 with amendments. Representatives Cochran and Hashem are excused. Are there any notes or reservations? Hearing None. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 31 Senate Draft 2 House Draft 1; I would like to move this out with amendments on page three, line six. I want to modify this so that we're clearly stating all of the protected classes that we should that are listed in the previous subsection.

So, on page three, lines six to seven, it will read race, sex, including gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, color, religion, marital status, familial status, ancestry, disability, age, human immunodeficiency virus infection, excuse me, human immunodeficiency virus infection, or national origin. So that's going to be the new sentence there.

And then on page four, lines four to seven, I want to delete the language referencing the Supreme Court case, because this is not an exhaustive list of the potential interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause.

So, in instead of that, I would like to reference our Hawaii State constitution, Equal Protection Clause, which is Article 1, Section 5. So that is my recommendation to move out SB31 SD2 HD1 with amendments. Questions or concerns, members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on SB 31 SD 2 HD 1 with amendments. Representatives Cochran and Hashem are excused. Are there any notes or reservations? No for Representative Garcia, recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, Senate Bill 1341 relating to energy industry information reporting. I think this is a solid bill, written as is, and I'd like to move it out as is, clean date and everything. Questions or concerns, members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on SB 1341 as is. Representatives Cochran and Hashem are excused. Are there any notes or reservations hearing? Seeing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 1008 House Draft 1 relating to parking. I think this measure is fine as is. I'm going to keep the defective date since that's how it moved out of Transportation Committee, and we'll move it forward as is. Questions or concerns, members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on SB 1008 HD1 as is. Representatives Cochran and Hashem are excused. Are there any noes or reservations? No for Representative Garcia. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 1028 Senate Draft 1 House Draft 1 relating to youth fees and fines. On this measure, I'd like to move it out with technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style.

And I want to make some changes here so that we clarify the language; on page 32, line 15, the cost for assessment or treatment or should be inserted before the word reimbursement.

That way we're inconsistent and pursuant to Subsection H on page 31, line 1 to 12, so the words cost for assessment or treatment or are inserted before the word reimbursement on page 32, line 15. Then on page 32, line 15, and page 46, line 13, I want to clarify that the prohibition on reimbursements is limited to reimbursements to the county for the cost of any blood or urine test conducted on the minor pursuant to this section.

With this clarification, the proviso stating that the court may order restitution to a victim as applicable is unnecessary and therefore should be deleted.

And that's on page 32, line 17 to 19, page 46, line 15 to 17, and similarly on page 71, line 3, I want to clarify that the prohibition on reimbursement is limited to reimbursement for costs incurred for the detention of the minor.

With this clarification, the proviso stating that the court may order restitution to a victim as applicable is unnecessary and would, and I'm suggesting should be deleted on page 71, line 6 to 7.

And that way, and then on page 37, line 20, following up, I want to insert the following language after the word treatment and the language is reimbursements to the county for the cost of any blood or urine test conducted on the minor pursuant to this section; that tracks the language under Subsection G on page 37, line 12 to 18. On page 46, line 13, the word surcharges should be replaced with the words costs for assessment and treatment.

Again, we're tracking the language under Subsection D on page 44, line 17 to 20. On page 71, line 1, the words placement or care should be inserted before the word detention as we see on page 72, line 15.

On page 72, line 18, I want to insert the following language after the word incurred, "so that it would read incurred for the detention, placement or care of the minor," end quote.

Finally, on page 83, lines 10 to 12, I want to make it clear that the court shall not order the minor to pay for the minor's support and treatment. We will be making technical amendments also for clarity, consistency, and style. Those are my recommendations. Members, any questions or concerns, if not Vice Chair for the vote, please voting.

On SB 1028 SD1 HD1 with amendments, Representatives Cochran and Hashem are excused. Are there any noes or reservations? No for Representative Garcia. No for Representative Shimizu. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 292 Senate Draft 1 House Draft 1; on this one, I would only like to change the effective date to July 1, 3000 and move it forward. Questions or concerns, members? If not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on SB 292 SD1 HD1 with amendments. Representatives Cochran and Hashem are excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 295 Senate Draft 1 House Draft 1 relating to domestic abuse protective orders; you know, we've been working on this for a couple sessions now. I think it's in good shape to move forward with technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style.

I want, on page 6, line 4 and 5, I want to change the word second or subsequent to the word prior.

So, the proviso would read, "Provided that any conviction for violation of a temporary restraining order under Section 486.4E, issued under the same judicial case number as the order for protection, shall be treated as a prior violation of an order for protection." That's more accurate.

And then on page six, lines 17 to 19, I want to clarify the new language as follows, "Or conviction for a violation of the temporary restraining order under Section 586.4E, issued under the same judicial case number as the order for protection," end quote.

I want to make those changes and technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style and keep the clean date. That's my recommendation to move this forward. Questions or concerns, members? Is that a question or just a scowl?

Nope, just a scowl.

Just interesting? Okay. All right. No questions or concerns. Let's go to a vote. Vice Chair, please.

Voting on SB 295 SD1 HD1 with amendments. Representatives Cochran, Hashem are excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Reservations for Representative Garcia. Recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 951 Senate Draft 2 House Draft 1 relating to child protection. I really appreciate the Department of Defense showing up. That was quite a show of force with all three testifiers and, clearly, they support this measure. I would like to move this forward with technical amendments only for clarity, consistency, and style.

We'll keep the defective date since that's how it came to us. Questions or concerns, members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on SB 951 SD2 HD1 with amendments. Representatives Cochran and Hashim are excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 1382 relating to the National Guard; I'd like to move this forward as is. Questions or concerns, members. If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on SB 1382 as is. Representatives Cochran and Hashim are excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 102; I would like to. I'd like to recommend we move this forward with technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, and that's it. Questions or concerns, members. If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on SB 102 SD2 HD1 with amendments. Representatives Cochran and Hashim are excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 1051, Senate Draft 1 House Draft 1 relating to Hawaiian History Month; I'd like to move this from forward as is. Questions or concerns, members. If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on SB 1051 SD1 HD1 as is. Representatives Cochran and Hashem are excused. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Moving forward now to the three measures that we had deferred from an earlier agenda for decision making today. Senate Bill 112, Senate Draft 2 relating to police reports. I followed up with the Office of Information Practices of whether 92f would have been sufficient.

Her opinion was that this bill would be useful for providing additional protections for the immediate family members of the deceased person. So, with that, I'd like to move this forward as is. Questions or concerns members. If not, Vice Chair - yes.

Last hearing with testimony -

You have to use the microphone.

So, everyone on the last hearing with testimony, the question of the case being closed was a requirement for some to release information. Is that still a, is that still in the bill that they can release information before the case is formally closed?

I'm recommending we move this as is. So, if you want to know what's in the bill, you have to - I don't have it memorized yet. Look at it. Okay, so my recommendation is move it as is. It's got a clean date. Questions or concerns, nembers?

I'll be voting no on this.

Understood. Thank you. Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on SB 112 SD2 as is. Representatives Cochran and Hashem are excused. No vote for Representative Shimizu. Are there any noes or reservations?

No.

No for Representative Garcia. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 283, Senate Draft 1 relating to bribery; members, we had this hearing on this bill on the 13th, so a week ago. Since then, we've received testimony that was very late from the public defenders. I provided it to each of you here. And previously we had only gotten testimony from the prosecuting attorneys.

And so based on the testimony that we received, my recommendation is to defer this measure because, under current law, bribery is already a Class B felony offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison, fines of $25,000, restitution, and, in the case of public employees under the Employee Retirement System, forfeiture of one half of the defendant's retirement benefits.

Further, persons charged with bribery are not eligible for a deferral of their guilty or no contest pleas. So even if an offender is given probation instead of an open term of imprisonment, the stigma and effect of the conviction will have a significantly negative impact on the offender's personal and professional life.

Their strong recommendation is that the existing laws are sufficient. And I know some people have brought up saying, "Well, we want to have this law so that there is no chance of a deferred acceptance of guilt." And you know, under federal law, they, you know, they're going to be putting these folks in prison.

But we have found in recent cases that there have been pleas. And so, I think that we can keep, we can feel confident that we've got strong protection in the current statute to fight bribery by public officials. And so, we don't need this additional bill. So, my recommendation is to defer. Questions or concerns, members.

If not, thank you very much. And let's move on to the last measure: Senate Bill 1231 SD1 relating to parentage. On this measure, I would like to - this has been a long process on this bill, and we took some extra time to make sure we got it right. My recommendation is to move this out with amendments.

We're going to incorporate the amendments that were provided on this bill in testimony from the Attorney General. So, from their testimony we'll adopt their amendments.

In addition, we were in consultation with the Deputy Attorney General who was the chair of the committee that worked on this bill, and together we've come up with the following slight adjustments and revisions in the bill. Let me read them.

On page two, line seven to eight, excuse me, line seven to nine, we'll delete the term "Adjudicated genetic parent," end quote, as it is not used in the new chapter. On page seven, we're going to remove the phrase "Any licensed birthing center associated with the hospital," end quote, from the definition of birthing hospital.

On page 68, line 2 and 4, we'll replace the term clinic with the term fertility clinic. On page 21, line 20, the term functional parent should be replaced with the term presumed parent.

In addition, the term presumed parent should be added to the list of individuals on page 99, lines 6 to 7, who can sign voluntary written acknowledgments of parentage. On page 25, lines 10 to 11, we're going to change the term birthing facility to birthing hospital and birthing center.

On page 52, line 12, we're going to add sections 601 and 606 to the list of sections that may be used to challenge parentage of a child by two or more individuals. On page 57, line 10, we're going to add a citation to 402A.

On page 75, line 21, we're going to add the phrase "And the person's spouse, if any," after the word surrogate. So, it'd be "Surrogate and the person's spouse, if any," pursuant to page 73, lines 5 to 7.

On page 120, lines 12 to 13, we're going to add the following language to the end of the sentence: "Unless the child is born to a gestational or genetic surrogate pursuant to Part 9, in which case the child's name shall be chosen by the intended parent or parents," end quote.

On page 100 under Section 56-2121 we're going to replace the cross reference to Chapter 584 and replace it with this new chapter; we're going to replace the cross reference to 584-6 in 607-5B HRS with the Section 203 of this new chapter.

And then we'll make technical amendments needed to address statutory errors and technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. And we're going to keep the clean date. That's what we're going to do.

I know it's a lot of things, but this is just cleaning up what was done by a lot of people over a long time in a tome, a big document. So those are a few final cleanups that I think should make this bill ready to go. Questions or concerns, members? If not - yes, please Representative Shimizu.

I have a question, Chair. The last hearing article, the inclusion of Article 9 was requested by a lot of testifiers. I'm wondering the status of that, Article 9?

Yeah, we are not proposing to include Article 9 in this measure. It ended up being a very divisive issue within the task force working on this. And overall, a consensus of the group was to move this forward with the areas for which there is agreement and consensus.

And that Article 9 would have to be set aside for further discussion and potentially future action by the legislature. But it is not included in this measure today.

Thank you, Chair.

Certainly. Other questions or concerns, members? If not Vice Chair, vote on Senate Bill 1231 Senate Draft 1 with amendments.

Voting on SB 1231 SD1 with amendments. Representatives Cochran and Hashem are excused. Are there any noes or reservations? No for Representative Garcia. Reservations for Representative Shimizu. Recommendation is adopted.

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