House Standing Committee on Public Safety

This is the Committee on Public Safety. We are meeting in room 325. It's now 9:10. Let's see, this says I'm going to be acting as Chair today and the normal Chair is acting as Vice Chair today.

Here's some basic housekeeping. Because morning hearings must adjourn prior to the noon floor session, not all testifiers may have the opportunity to testify. In that event, please know that your written testimony will be considered by the Committee.

Please keep yourself muted if you're attending via Zoom and your video off while waiting to testify and after your testimony is complete. The Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only. Please use the chat only for technical issues. If you're disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting.

If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifier's end. In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making.

In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted. Please avoid using any trademarked copyrighted images. Please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior.

Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. The first, the first—these are all going to be resolutions—so the first HCR 94 and HR 90 will be heard together, and this is requesting the Governor to issue a proclamation designating Hawaii as a Purple Heart state on August 7th, 2025.

I don't believe there—anyone signed up to testify in advance. Is there anyone in the room or anyone on Zoom wishing to testify? Thank you. Seeing none, we'll go on to the next resolution item, HCR 205 and HR 197.

This is urging the County of Maui and the United States Army Corps of Engineers to prioritize and expedite the planning, funding, and construction of a permanent replacement for the Kulani Hakoi Bridge. I don't see that we have any pre-registered testifiers. Is there anyone in the room wishing to testify on these resolutions, or anyone on Zoom?

Seeing none, we'll proceed to the next set of resolutions. This is HCR 164 and HR 150. None urging the city and County of Honolulu, the County of Maui, the County of Hawaii and County of Kauai to create and maintain a comprehensive list of hurricane refuges and shelters electronically accessible to the public.

And I see that we do have people wishing to testify. The Hawaii State Department of Education wants to testify in person. They're not here. Are they, are they online? No. And then we have the State Council on Developmental Disabilities. Please state your name.

Aloha, Vice Chair, Chair, Committee Members. My name is Chase Silvert. I'm with the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities. I'm here for Daintry Bartoldus. We will stand in our written testimony in support. We just wanted to highlight our requested amendment, which is just a language change. The terminology, "access and functional needs," is more appropriate than "special needs."

Typically, special needs are only used for children. Access and functional needs are kind of a broader spectrum, but specifically also in emergencies. So, thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Don't see anyone registered to testify in person. Is there anyone else on Zoom wishing to testify on these resolutions? If not, are there any questions, Members? Okay, on to the, the next set of resolutions.

Actually, it's one House Resolution 70, requesting the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to expand its personal and professional development programs to include community service programs. Testifying in support, I see Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, Director Johnson. Good morning.

Thank you, Acting Chair Kokimoto—Iwamoto, sorry—and Acting Vice Chair Belatti. I'll just summarize our testimony. We support the intent of this measure. We do operate community service work lines out of Kalani Correctional Facility in the Big Island and ACCC.

Particularly, the Kalani Correctional Facility work line, does do pothole repair and tree trimming along Stainback highway, because part of that belongs to us. We also operate community service work lines out of the WCCC here and out of the...Community Correctional Facility here. Thank you.

I don't see, oh, one second, I don't see anyone registered to testify. Is there anybody in the room who wishes to testify on this resolution or anyone on Zoom? Seeing none. Members, do you have any questions for Director Johnson? I actually—I have a question, if you don't mind. Thank you for submitting testimony. Is there any difference?

So, in this resolution, they identify community service, but the actual work they're learning, I guess, how to do, if they didn't know how to repair potholes or trim trees, is that considered like a, do they—is it community service or is it actually a kind of a workforce development program?

Well, we have—out of the four facilities, we do community service work lines. Like we'll go to Waipahu High School and cut the grass if needed. We'll do some of those things. But we also have Hawaii Correctional Industries work line that actually will teach inmates a viable skill when they get out.

Like is tree trimming or filling potholes?

Well, filling potholes is not a, not a skill, to be honest with you. I mean, you mix the materials you need, you fill in the pothole, you tamp it down.

Tree trimming could be to some degree, but to be honest with you, if it's a serious tree trimming event, we need to do, we do hire outside arborists to come in and do it because we don't want to damage trees and trying to trim them back from the road.

Okay. Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

I have a question.

Thank you, Chair. Director, so this, this resolution would be to expand what you shared you already do so, can you envision an expansion to what you already have started or in place?

Only if we have the—two things have to happen. One, if we have the inmate work—the inmates who qualify to be out of the facility on work lines, and two, as long as it does not interfere with their programming, because that is key.

I'm going to finish the second substance abuse treatment educational program and those things, then we can expand. But you won't see work lines out of Halawa because that's a medium security facility, which you will see it is out of the jails because inmates are going back through.

The only reason we have it out of Kulani and Waiava is those are medium security facilities with no fences, and they are minimum in community custody there. So, they're allowed to go out on work lines.

So, there is some room for expansion based on those logistics that you mentioned?

Yes, yes. We have the inmates and as long as they interfere to programming. For sure. Yeah.

Okay.

One last question.

So, how do they qualify to be on this?

They have to, one, volunteer to be on the workline and two, there's a screening process to make sure that the hours of the workline won't interfere with their programming and that they don't have any serious misconducts in the last year and they have no escape attempts.

Yeah. Hopefully there are people that are eligible. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Director.

Okay, so we're going to go on to the next set of resolutions. It's HCR153 and HR 148 requesting the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to incrementally and systemically reduce the number of inmates incarcerated in private out of state correctional FAC facilities. And I see that we have the ACLU of Hawaii testifying in support.

Good morning, Chair. Vice Chair. Representative Shimizu Nathan Lee for the ACU of Hawaii in strong support of this resolution. What, what we'd like to emphasize from our testimony is that core civic and other private prison operators are just bad corporations, groups to be in partnership with.

And Hawaii should be very careful about continuing this contract and should be bringing people back home. Just a couple things. In 2016, the Department of Justice found that private prisons had serious and systemic security deficiencies, often leading to harm and people being improperly housed.

Actually, in 2022, the Bureau of Prisons stopped contracting with private prisons, something that was only recently reversed under the new Administration. In 2021, the American Bar Association noted its strong opposition to the use of private prisons and urged governments to end those contracts.

And across the country, we have seen jurisdictions end their contracts with private prisons, including California and Nevada.

We also want to note that these have often led to investigations in 2024, as recently as this fall, Tennessee is under investigation by the Department of Justice for the harms that have occurred in the private prisons that are actually located in state.

And Tennessee and Florida have fined private prison contractors, specifically costs, millions of dollars for the harms that have occurred in their facilities. We believe Hawaii is no. No exception to this.

At the Saguara facility, where Hawaii individual Hawaii individuals have been sent since 2007 there have been issues of disease, of gang activity, of suicides and violence, and serious understaffing, as well as abuse of administrative segregated housing or solitary confinement.

Recently there have also been issues with water quality that have led to serious concerns about bathing and drinking water for people housed there. And so we believe that the distance of physical distance from here to Arizona makes oversight impossible, even if we make concerted efforts, as the oversight Commission has recently done.

And we also believe that we cannot contract out core governmental responsibilities like imprisonment, incarceration, rehabilitation. Those are things that need to be done in state. And we are glad that the director has also submitted testimony in favor of this resolution. And so we urge you to move this resolution forward and to bring our people back home.

Thank you very much. Also, as indicated, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation did submit testimony in support. Would you care to also testify in person?

Thank you.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Tommy Johnson, Director of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Our testimony actually supports the intent of this measure, but we also point out the fact that we do not control our population.

So, I can tell you, today, I have 3768, tomorrow, I might have 20 more, I may have 15 less. That being said, unless we build a new prison here, there's no way we can fit the inmates on the mainland here without creating overcrowded conditions, which would in turn create inhumane living conditions, which in turn invite the DOJ.

And while I do support the measure of bringing inmates back home, but we need to have the appropriate facilities and programs to bring them back, too.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody—I don't have any other pre-registered testimony but is there anybody in the room who wants to testify on this these resolutions or anyone on Zoom? Seeing none. Members, do you have any questions for any of the testifiers? Rep. Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I have actually a comment and maybe you can comment on my comment, Director, but, you know, I totally can appreciate your position and your justification.

I think it would be helpful, and maybe you already do this, if you were to, and this is just a suggestion, that if you set up a regular, systematic, scheduled analysis on this effort and we set up—not we, I guess we so that it's communicated and it's appropriate for all stakeholders—the different metrics that are considered and for whatever time, whether it's monthly or bimonthly or quarterly, and you go through this analysis and say you checked it, this is the reason why we can or we cannot or we can possibly bring two people back and have that documented on your behalf and for reporting purposes for the Legislature or the oversight Commission, whoever, so that communication is established and it's clear that you are abiding by the intent of what is being presented.

Is that something that is already done or can be done?

We do provide an annual report to the Legislature of those inmates who qualify for return based on statute that did not get to come back, and then we provide the aggregate data on why those inmates were not brought back.

Now, if you wish, we could take a look at that statute and look at amending that to require additional information in that report, but that report provides basic information on why we couldn't bring some folks back.

Chair? So, what I'm hearing is you do this annually in response to a requirement?

Correct.

So, are you prevented from doing it more often, like quarterly? Would that be a violation of statute?

Oh, no, no, no. We could, we could provide it maybe—yeah, I'll take a look at it and see. It's either quarterly or semiannually.

Yeah, because I think annually is a long time. So, I think the intent of this resolution is to promote and stimulate that activity cause of a desire of wanting to bring people home.

And again, if you can justify and share that you did consider it and you have these, you know, things, you can explain why you could or you couldn't. I think that would go a long way with communication and transparency.

Okay, I can do that. But I would recommend we revisit a statute next year to amend the statute so the next Director that comes in after me is required to do it quarterly. Otherwise, it may fall by the wayside.

That's a good idea. Thank you, Director.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. With the—I have a question for the ACLU. So, we heard Director indicate some of the challenges that he has for, for, I guess, implementing some of the details in the resolution. Do you have a response to something, some of what he shared?

Yeah, sure. So, Nathan Lee, ACLU Hawaii, and Director Shirota can jump in. So, I understand that there's differences in the security classifications, as Director has explained in the past, with the people who are at Seguro and the people who could be housed here.

But the fact does remain that if you look at the reports put out by DCR, there is space to bring people to facilities here, and it may be a matter of thinking creatively about how to adjust available space.

But we do want to make clear that if you look at both the operational and design capacity of our prisons, there is more than enough space, bed space, compared to the people who are actually housed on island prisons. And so, I think we can work on what that looks like and changing security classifications or having some real procedure about having people evaluated properly so that maybe they can be brought back home.

But we do think that the space is there, and we just need to be creative about how to bring people into that space.

Thank you.

If I could just add to what Nathan is sharing here, just on a practical level, there are a number of people who could have also the possibility of being paroled, and sometimes they may choose to, "be maxed out."

But if you look at the data, when people max out, there's a higher likelihood of recidivism because they don't have that time to transition.

For some people, if we have more incentives like parole reform, other types of reforms to bring people home, there may be more of a likelihood they want to come back because we've improved conditions in our own prisons, and we have more reentry opportunities for them to then transition back home into the community.

And so, part of it is like looking at this systemically, why some people might choose to "max out" instead of transitioning. The second part of it is just looking at it from a systems perspective. You know, there are 23 other states that do not have incarcerated people in private prisons.

And if you look at California in particular, in 2000, they had almost 5,000 people in private prisons out of state. By 2021, and I think it's 2019, they brought everybody back from a mixture of strategies. Alaska, which is similar size to us, had 1,300 people in 2,000 private prisons. In 2021, they had 300.

So, you can see over time, and there's a list of states from the Prison Sentencing Project, the number of states that have decarcerated or phased out private prisons. And so, it can be done. And so, I think the part of it is we need to have benchmarks for the phase out over a period of time.

And I like the idea of quarterly reports so that we can see traction. We have made a reduction, which is positive, but we can do more when you consider the number of open beds at Kulani and Waiava.

Thank you. Did acting Vice Chair have any questions?

Yes, actually. Can I ask Director to come up? So, we just heard the previous testifier say that part of the problem is that inmates want to max out and we need more incentives. Can you explain what that—as you were listening to that, what does that mean?

Yes. Some inmates elect to max out both here and on the mainland because they don't want to be paroled. That's a decision that they make, and they are allowed to do that. But I would like to state that.

Wait, wait, wait, wait. So, they, they—and what does max out mean?

It means they'll stay to the end of their term.

Okay, so they are—that's what they're voluntarily choosing to do?

Right. They actually have to sign a form to that effect that they do not want to be considered for parole, that they want to max out on a term. That doesn't mean we don't provide services to them. We still do, but they may refuse.

And then, at the moment that they max out, then they're just released?

They're released, but they're brought back here. The law requires us to bring them back here for their release, rather on parole or of max out.

And then they are just let go? They're just without any further kind of processing or anything like that?

Correct.

Okay, so that's a choice then?

Correct. Now, some make that choice to max out, and some get parole revoked for the balance of the maximum term because they were released on parole and violated the terms and conditions of parole, and some have misconducts in the parole board does not parole them. And they may max out as well.

But those are decisions that the paroling authority makes, not DCR. I have no control over parole whatsoever.

Okay. And then, in terms of—I'm trying to understand this in the context of bringing them back. So, the inmate chooses it, for whatever reasons, they max out, they come back here. What is the time period between—is there a little bit of a buffer where they come back in there for a period of time before they're released?

Yes. So, the law requires us to consider them to return within 48 months of their tentative parole date, which is end of the minimum term or max out if they've already been paroled or not paroled.

So, they're here 48 months, which is how many years?

Four years.

Four years before then they're released?

Some are. That's what the annual report provides information regarding why they did not come back.

Okay, so they, so the way the process currently works is they come, they're maxing out, but they're, they're on the mainland four years in advance of when their, their term is up out, they're back, here.

Unless they refuse programming, which means they stay, at minimum, medium custody, and they'll stay there until a few months before. And then we'll bring them back.

Okay. And again, this is all at the choice of the, in part at the choice of the, of the?

Yes, because they're electing to max out or electing not to participate in programs. So, they can't, they can't work their way to Kalani or Waiava, the minimum security facilities, or they have misconducts or gang activity, and misconducts would prevent them from participating in programs and moving downstream, we call it.

And then, the point of them being back here, like four months or that, again, that is because they need to be reintegrated into the community. So, it could be between four months and four years before their final release. Okay, thank you. Thank you for that kind of clarification of the system. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Are there any other questions from Members? Yes, Rep. Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Director Johnson, approximately what percentage of the prison population that are in Arizona...

Versus here?

No, no, I'm sorry, I didn't, I can—I'm trying to word my question. Percentage of inmates that are in Arizona that have chosen to max out, would do you have a percentage?

I don't have it, but I can get it from our mainland branch because we have documentation. I can get that to Chair Belatti within the next day or so.

Okay, thank you. And, and Chair, if I may ask a question to ACLU, please.

Sure.

You mentioned some information that other states have reduced their, their numbers to private facilities. Besides numbers, do you have like specifics of what they did to, to make those numbers drop?

I do. I, I don't have it maybe broken down by states and it is a combination. So, some of it is sentencing reform, reintegration programs. In some states, they did build facilities, but some of them, not. Other ones, that they could increase parole.

So, there's a number of strategies that can be used and I can send you more information relating to that, Representative, if that's something of interest to you, as well as the other Committee Members.

Yeah, sure. Always wanting to learn more and envision different options and possibilities. Thank you.

Representative, just to add to that, I want to note, Hawaii sends far more of its incarcerated population to private facilities out of state, so something like 45% to 50%. The next closest state is Vermont. And so, you know, when we're looking for parallels, Hawaii is the worst offender when we talk about funding private prisons.

And so, when we look at other places, I think it has been easier to bring back, at least as a proportion of the population. I know, and in some places...pulled out because they couldn't get enough people promised to them. And so, that's another example of the profit seeking motive.

I think in Estancia, New Mexico, they said we need 300 people in prison beds or it's not going to work out for us, we're not going to make enough money. And the city couldn't promise that, obviously. And so, they pulled out.

And so, there's kind of a mixture of like, on one hand, the profit seeking motive and on the other hand, states making the right decision, sometimes even counties making the right decision to not contract.

All right, thank you for sharing that. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Did you want to answer Rep. Shimizu's question?

Well, I just think that this larger question about there are also people who are not being paroled that could be paroled and brought home. So, that's a larger systemic issue I think that we need to take a look at.

If you look at the data representatives that you see over the last so many years, there's been a decrease in the number of people who've been paroled that could be paroled and brought home. I think that some of you are already aware.

But because immigration is often on our mind, these private prisons are also responsible for detaining immigrants as well. So, something to think about if who are we are contracting with and their, the type of services that they're providing, and just last, when we provide robust reintegration services—and I think this speaks to your question, Representative Shimizu.

People who are incarcerated know which programs are helpful—what's going to help them to successfully transition. So, there's some programs right now, right, at Halawa for higher education with Chaminade University, which has great outcomes. We want to have more of that. I used to work for a MEO program on Maui Reintegration.

We had people at Halawa who were writing us years before they were going to be maxing out saying, can we get in? It was only eligible for those who are going to be coming back to Maui County. We had to expand to get additional funding so we could serve more people.

It was targeted to class A, class B felonies, and eventually class C. But again, people know what works for them because they know that they're getting case management, housing support, if necessary, job training, family reunification, cultural practices.

And so, when we have more robust programming for people in higher education, I can tell you that there will be more people will be like, bring us back to Halawa or Waiava or Kulani so that we can earn a livelihood and go back and take care of ourselves and our family. And so, that, that is missing.

And if we improve that, more people are also going to be again, bring me back home.

Thank you. Representative Hashem, did you have a question?

Yes, I do. Director.

Director Johnson. Do the inmates actually have a choice on where they go?

As far as what facility?

Yes, here on the mainland.

No. They do, but they will be returned to the county in which they held employment or residence immediately prior to their incarceration so they can participate in work furlough program in that county.

Because I remember I—probably the only person that here that toured the mainland facility. And when we toured that facility, a lot of the inmates, they prefer to be on the mainland. Is that a fair statement?

Yes. In fact, the recidivism rate for those who do most of their time in Hawaii is slightly higher than those who do most of their time on the mainland. And they prefer it because it's a more modern facility. It's clean, it's well lit, it's well maintained.

And the reason—is it correct that if somebody's sentence is like, let's say 10 years, but their parole may go well beyond their sentencing.

For example, if they're supposed to get out in five years from now, 2030 is the end of their incarceration time and they go out on parole, but for whatever reason, their parole gets dragged on well beyond their maximum date, does that still happen? Does that happen?

The only way that happens is if with their letter on parole, they abscond, say the person has three years left on their sentence, they abscond for a year. That year is added to the expiration date once they return to custody. So, their term is extended one year.

But let's say they have three years left and they're going four years, only the three years is added to the end of the maximum term. So, that's the only way that the date of the max out will be adjusted. If they're paroled, abscond, and the return to custody in that period of time.

No, I mean, what I'm saying is they're paroled. They'll, they'll be released to parole and their parole will be going far beyond their, like if they stayed incarcerated, their parole will be the—the parole longevity will be well beyond their maximum date. I've heard cases of that.

No, that's not correct.

Is that not? Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Director. Actually, can I ask ACLU to, to add further comments about the idea of inmates choosing to stay at Saguaro?

Well, I just want to highlight, I think Director just mentioned that he says that there's less recidivism for people who are out of state. And I think we need to look closer at that study. I can attest to you that the program that I worked for previously, there was a third party evaluator, Dr. Marilyn Brown, who we evaluated individuals who participated in our program versus a control group who came back from either out of state or Halawa, back home to Maui.

And there was a statistically significant reduction in recidivism for those who participated in this comprehensive reintegration program.

So, I think we need to be looking again, what study is referring to. I'd like to look at it more closely because at least in our study, it showed that this comprehensive type of services and transition time was necessary for people to successfully transition back into the community.

And I think to answer Representative Hashem's question, I'm wondering if you're referring to—so parole sets the minimum sentence, and there are a number of times if someone is, the minimum census is completed, then the parole board can set up, can schedule a parole hearing.

And in a number of instances, someone will be eligible for parole and then parole will not parole them. And so, that time, it could be one year, two year, three years, past a minimum sentence. And we see that that's another area for reform, that people could be eligible and brought back home and transitioning into programs.

But these are systemic issues. And I think you look at other states, it can be done to phase out the private prisons. I think that there's been a commitment from every Governor since we started sending people out under Governor Cayetano.

And I'd really like for this legislative body to take credit for being the champions for passing this resolution. Thank you.

Any other questions from members? Seeing none, let's go on to the next set of resolutions. This is for HCR208 and HR200, urging the United States Department of Defense to make recreational facilities on military installations in Hawaii accessible to all Hawaii residents. And there are two testimonies in support and one opposed.

I don't see anybody signed up to testify in person or on Zoom. Is there anybody in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom wishing to testify? Okay, seeing none. Let's move on to the last set of resolutions.

This would be HCR 19 and HR 19 urging the Governor to create a task force on military partnership to develop and strengthen the public military relationship in Hawaii. And I don't see any testifiers we did receive for testimonies and support. And one opposed. Is there anybody in the room wishing to testify? Is there anyone on zoom wishing to testify?

Seeing none. So I think we're. I think we have quorums so we can go into decision making for HCR94. HR90, Acting Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Is there any comments, questions or concern? Okay, seeing none. Acting Vice Chair for the vote.

Representative Ichiyama.

Aye

Aye.

Representative Lamasao.

Aye.

Aye.

Chair's recommendation is to pass HCR 94 and HR90 as is. We'll be taking up the vote in tandem. Members, Chair, and Vice Chair vote aye. Representative Hashem.

Representative Poepoe.

Representative Souza.

Aye.

Representative Morikawa.

Aye.

Representative Woodson is excused. And Representative Shimizu.

Aye.

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. For HCR205 and HR197, Acting Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Are there any questions, comments, or concerns?

Chair's recommendation is to pass HCR205 and HR197 unamended as is, noting the excused absence of Representative Woodson. Any reservations? Any no's? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Going on to HCR164, HR159, Acting Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. And the amendments were made by, are offered by the State Council on Developmental Disabilities.

Let me just go back up to their exact recommended amendment replacing special needs on page one, line 20, and page two, line 26 with the term access and functional needs instead of special needs. Any questions, comments, concerns?

Concern.

Yes.

Would you be open, Chair, DOE's testimony stated that what could be confusing about an electronically published list is that not all of those emergency shelters will necessarily open up for a particular emergency.

And so I, I've known like, you know, schools that do not open, and so that only becomes announced at the time of the emergency.

So I think there needs to be a disclaimer perhaps that might, that might alleviate the concern, so that if it's published electronically, there should be something said that this does not mean that this is going to be the, you know, the emergency shelter will be announced at the time of emergency.

Yes, I'm sorry I missed that. I think that's an important amendment to include. So as stated.

Yes.

I will. Is it possible to polish the words and provide it to you?

But with that amendment.

Okay.

Thank you.

With that amendment as well. Any comments, questions, concerns?

That's good.

I agree.

Thank you.

Yeah. Please take the vote.

Chair's recommendation is to pass HCR164 and 159 with amendments, noting the excused absence of Representative Woodson. Any reservations, any no's? Seeing, none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Now we're moving on to HR70. I would like the indulgence as Acting Chair to, I mean, maybe this is, this is not, not permitted by the rules, but as Acting Chair, I want to make a recommendation to pass this as is.

Again, this is the requesting the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to expand its personal and professional development programs to include community service programs. However, as an individual member and representative from Kaka'ako, I want to reserve my right to vote in opposition to this.

But as chair, and I just want to share with you, one of the things that I've been noticing that I see some chairs considering is that because they personally don't support a bill or a resolution, they may say, well, I'm not going to, I'm not going to recommend passing this because I'm not going to vote for it.

I think I, the way I read the rules, is that you can entertain a recommendation to pass and still remain, reserve the right as an individual member to vote in opposition to that. And the reason why this is, I feel important is because this isn't, as Acting Chair, this isn't my committee to dictate how this body should, whether we can vote on an issue or not. So I really want to just demonstrate that as chair, I can separate myself in that hat to say I recommend passing this, this particular resolution.

However, as an individual member retaining my right to represent my district, I can also vote in opposition. So, with that to be clear, my recommendation as acting chair is to pass HR70 as is. However, when the Acting Vice Chair records the vote, please record my vote as a no. Is there any comments, questions, or concerns?

Yeah, I'm confused.

Okay. No, that's fine. I appreciate that.

I don't know what. I'm confused because I don't know your recommendation. If you're telling us to do this, and we're going to support the chair. Are you, the as chair you were, so what is your recommendation, to pass it?

So as chair, it is to pass.

Then why are you going against your own recommendation? That doesn't make sense.

It's the recommendation of the acting chair. Because this isn't the way I feel about this. This isn't my committee. I am just acting as a chair.

Right. That's, so I don't understand what you're trying to do.

Yes, it's. Regardless of committee or not, if you don't like it as it is, you should make the changes to make it so that way you like it, and that's your recommendation as chair.

Okay.

Saying that I don't know everything for everyone. And maybe it's not my place as a singular, as a singular representative who happens to be an acting chair in this moment, to dictate what we can and cannot pass. I want to make sure that everyone here has the opportunity to vote and to pass this. But I don't want, I don't want to hold this back.

No, because what I've witnessed is that some chairs, they won't even take a vote on it if they personally don't support it for whatever reason. And I feel like that is there's a kind of a, I guess I'm trying to serve as chair with a level of humility.

I don't want to, I don't want to overextend.

So my question to you then is what is the recommended, recommended changes to the bill or to the resol that you feel comfortable with voting yes?

I don't, I don't have any recommendations, but as chair, I want everyone else to be able to vote for this reso, how I want to reserve.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay. Here I will vote in line with the chair and follow what the chair.

I had the same question as Representative Tarnas. I will say that. I'm sorry, not. Thank you, Representative Hashem. So I have the same.

Can I add to this conversation?

Sure.

Same question and I have the same confusion, but along those lines, I guess, based on the testimony that we heard, it seems as this might be unnecessary at this moment. So with that, I will also vote in line with the chair and vote no.

Okay. Okay. I mean that, again, that's, it's up to you. You guys all represent districts and represent constituents and represent your own experience. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. This is really not necessary because I see that it's already being done whenever possible. So I'm going to vote no.

I will also be voting no.

Yeah, I'll also be voting no.

Okay.

I mean, I can't confidently vote yes if the chair is not confidently recommending that we vote to pass this through. But, but thank you, Acting Chair and Representative from Kaka'ako, which is the same person for the record.

Representative Ichiyama. Oh, sorry.

Can I ask the chair, what is the nature of your concerns, of why you want to vote no?

Yeah, for the that it's, that it's not, I don't feel it's, as a chair from Kaka'ako. as a representative from Kaka'ako, I don't feel it's necessary. However, I just wanted to give an opportunity for people to vote to pass it. That. I guess the point I'm trying to make.

Sorry, I understand the point you're trying to make. I just want to understand the nature of your concerns about the resolution and why you think it's not fixable or worth amending.

Yeah, I mean, I just didn't, I'm, yeah, I don't think it needs to be amended. I'm just not going to support it.

So what I hear you saying is that it's not necessary.

Basically, yes.

Correct.

And so the resolution itself is not necessary because the thing that it's trying to do is already being done.

But the resolution, the things that the resolution is trying to accomplish here is already being accomplished.

Correct.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification.

Representative Poepoe, and then we'll go back to you.

Thank you. My question was similar to Representative Ichiyama. I don't, I mean, on its face, it's a pretty simple resolution. Whether or not it accomplishes something or is unnecessary, it helps us demonstrate our position as to like what it says, suggesting. We passed a lot of resolutions that don't really do anything, but it helps show.

It helps us demonstrate and like show our communities our position. And I mean, there's nothing bad in here that I see. So that's just, that's just my comments.

Yeah. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

If you.

Oh yes, Representative Hashem.

Would it be more appropriate for you to make a recommendation to hold the bill versus to pass the bill and vote no?

That sounds like an option as well. Yeah. Given the discussion. Can we, will you indulge me as acting chair that we take a motion to, well, effectively if this motion to, if the recommendation to pass fails, it effectively does the same thing, which is to hold. It's just an alternative route.

Okay.

Okay.

So the ask is Chair, would you consider making your recommendation to hold? Because you will have the majority of the vote of the committee.

Because it doesn't make sense for you to. It doesn't make sense for you to recommend to pass it out and vote no against your own recommendation that this. The more appropriate recommendation would be to vote to hold, and it's up to everybody to vote yes or no. Right?

Yes.

That would be more in line with what your intent.

And with your recommendation.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I guess what again, what I, if I can clarify, there have been committees that I've sat on and not necessarily yours or anyone's heres, but that I've where I've heard the chair indicate that because they are not going to support it, and they may be in the minority of not supporting it.

They won't even take a vote to pass it because they personally don't support it. And I just want to demonstrate that as a chair, you can make the recommendation as just the figurehead chair of the committee, but retain your singular and your own, I guess power as a representative from a particular district to vote against it.

It just gives the body a chance to have a say on passing it, that's all.

Okay. I support the chair, and I follow your vote and your recommendation.

Okay. So that's going to be interesting because as acting chair I'm recommending to pass it. As the representative from Kakaako, I'll voting against it. Yeah.

I just want to say that I feel really bad like having to do this to the resolution.

I, I don't think it's fair to the resolution, but thank, thank you.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you, Representative Poepoe. With that, are there any other concerns? Questions? So does the Acting Vice Chair understand the vote that the recommendation that the Acting Chair is making?

I believe I understand.

And when you call the vote, please call us individually.

I will do that, Chair.

Thank you.

All right. Chair's recommendation on House Resolution 70 is to pass unamended as is, Chair me or acting Vice Chair me votes. No. Acting Chair Iwamoto.

No.

That will be with.

Representative Hashem.

Kanalua.

I come back in a vote at the end.

Okay. Representative Ichiyama.

No.

Representative Lamasao.

No.

Representative Poepoe.

No.

Representative Morikawa.

No.

Representative Woodson is excused. Representative Shimizu.

Yes.

Representative Souza.

No.

Representative Hashem.

No.

Chair, your recommendation is not adopted.

Well, Acting Chair's recommendation is adopted. But, yeah, I hear what you're saying. Yeah. Okay. Is adopted. Is not adopted.

Yes, correct.

So.

Is not adopted. Your recommendation is not adopted.

Yeah, sorry. No, I'm just saying that, that, thank you very much for. So the effect is basically the same, which is the bill is held. Is held.

Bill is the same result as deferred and held. Thank you so much for letting me take us through that experience.

Vice Chair, can I just ask that the there is actually no action taken officially. So would you like, what would you like to do now?

Well, that's, yhat is the action is that it's the same as if it's deferred, is it not? It's the same as if it's being held. The recommendation did not pass. Therefore, it remains. It remains just in committee, and it could always be reconsidered in the future. Right? Because it's just. You can reconsider.

So it's in limbo at the moment?

Yeah. As it would be if it were held or deferred, right?

I believe so. And yes.

So, on to the next set of resolutions. HCR153, HR148. Recommendation is to pass as is, any comments, questions, or concerns?

Chair's recommendation for HCR 153 and HR 148 taken in tandem is to pass unamended. I will go through the roll call. [Roll Call]. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Now on to - now we're on to resolutions HCR 208 and HR 200. Acting Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Any comments, questions or concerns.

Chair. I will be voting no. I feel like this is - I understand the intent, but I feel like the ask is conflicting in a way. So I, I will be voting no. Thank you.

Anyone else with comments, questions or concerns?

Chair. Yeah. I'm going to vote with reservations. Because I believe right now the public can go to some recreational facilities through certain security clearances. So that's my only reservation on this. I wasn't able to ask anyone any questions. That's why. Thank you.

I will also be voting with reservations.

I will be voting with reservations as well. I think. I think there are procedures in place and I would just rather - would want to explore what those are.

Reservations for me too. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Call for the vote.

Chair's recommendation is to vote to take HCR 208 and HR 200 and pass unamended. [Roll Call]. Thank you. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. So onto HCR 19, HR19. Acting Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. And the amendments after speaking with the introducer of the reso, who was open. Thank you so much, Representative Shimizu, for allowing me to add additional language to the items to be discussed between the Governor and the military.

So this would go to the section where it says, Be it further resolved that the task force is urged to consider how the public can benefit from military processes and resources, including - and it goes on to list water resources. No amendment to that one. Number two. The use of gyms, fields and pools for youth sports.

I would like to add in the following language, including, but not limited to, in a way that honors the state's prohibition against discrimination on the basis of someone's gender identity or expression when using public accommodations. Number three is housing.

And I would like to include additional - amend the language to include including but not limited to specifically building, renovating and maintaining sufficient housing on base so enlisted service members do not continue to strain the local supply of private rental dwellings and raise prices for local families. Number four is unamended. Number five is water stream, unamended.

Number six is unamended. Number seven to expand, to add on language that says after employment opportunities, including but not limited to...sorry...the state's prohibition against employment discrimination on the basis of disability and gender identity and expression, specifically the ban on Trans service members. Number eight.

I want to add in a number eight impact aid, including identifying formulas used by the Department of Defense to determine the financial impact military dependents have on local departments of educations given the large number of students from military families in Hawaii that may not pay Hawaii income tax or GET due to their out of state residency and purchases made on base, noting how these taxes are the only sources of funding for public education in Hawaii.

And so a new nine would be thorough environmental cleanup of leased state lands, identifying which lands have been completely cleaned or restored and an update on those lands where cleanup has not been completed, including status updates that that include completion timelines and resources allocated by the Department of Defense to complete the cleanups. And then the new 10 would be as it was originally drafted. Any other beneficial uses. So those are my amendments. Any comments, questions or concerns?

Chair, I have a comment. Please. I guess personally speaking, I did. I should have clarified with you the amended language that you were intending to add and make sure I understood the understood clearly what you were intending to do. In a large sense, I feel like.

I feel like my resolution got hijacked and my intent was to be pretty germane and you know, a goodwill gesture to I guess initiate the conversation and not to inflame any differences that admittedly are there. So the resolution was meant for a goodwill offering and the hope that something positive would come out of it. So that's why it was very germane in its nature so that it wouldn't start off with a conflict.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Thank you. Chair, I have a comment. I just want to note that, Chair, I think you said that the introducer agreed to the language - to the amended language.

That we could - he would be open to allowing us to add in additional.

Oh, okay. Thank you.

My amendments, by the way, do not limit the discussion that he proposed. It just.

Thank you, Chair. I think before we even take the vote, I just want to know, just to clarify, what exactly about the amended language does the introducer not agree with? Just so I know for my knowledge.

I think I did state in general.

I just wanted to know specifically, just for the record, so I know how I'm voting based off of. This is your resolution. Right. So I just want to make sure.

You know, I don't have all of the wording in front of me. But again, it goes beyond the intent of what my resolution was proposing. Was, again, just a very goodwill gesture to start off a conversation with. With no animosity and, you know, not bringing up each other's faults, in a sense.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I just. I think I just wanted to know if he was against the Trans language and the gender identity language specifically, just for my knowledge. Thank you.

I have no position on that. I just felt like the resolution was not addressing that issue, and it was not intended to be a discussion point. It was just to discuss what was already listed as possible benefits for the public. And that was basically, how can the public benefit from the military's presence and open its doors to the public to benefit from the military being amazing resource. They are amazing resource. They have great facilities and lands. And I just wanted the military to consider opening their doors to the public for beneficial use.

Again. Yeah, if I can just respond to Member Shimizu. Yes, for me, my amendments are yes an. Like, yes, it can have all of those broad discussion areas. And I just wanted to make sure that if there's an opportunity for the Governor to make these inquiries, that that was - so it doesn't limit the goodwill discussion. It just says. And by the way, can we also get some the military's response to these issues?

Acting Chair, since we are in conversation about decision making, I would like to say that in light of hearing that the introducer is not comfortable at this time, and that this is a singular session or singular hearing, singular referral. There is going to be time to resurrect this because we do have another opportunity, and that my vote on your recommendations at this time is not about the content of that, but more about the procedure.

And so I'm going to be voting no with the hope that you do have time to work out some language that may be amenable, and then you can bring that back to the Committee. So, like the other previous measure that was not adopted, it will then remain - it may remain in limbo and then give the Committee, as you said the Committee the opportunity to reconsider and retake up this measure. So that's going to be the reason why I vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I was going to vote no just based on the native Hawaiian aspects of - just as a native Hawaiian. I guess it's not necessarily addressed in the Bill, but just, you know, this whole thing with military relations. But I do appreciate your amendments, so I'm going to go with you on this one and vote yes.

Okay. Oh, yes. Representative Mak

Can I ask the introducer if, I guess what their vote is going to be? I don't know. All right. I can just wait and see.

You can actually take his vote first.

Okay.

And you guys. I will support the Chair, regardless of which. I would prefer that the amendments. I would hate to. I would hate that the introducer vote no against his own resolution. And as a courtesy to the introducer, I would prefer that you work out the language so he votes yes, prior. Basically, prior concurrence with the introducer.

Got it. Okay. So if we. So are you voting? Well.

I mean, I will support you, your decision regardless of what you do, I will support the Chair.

Got it. Thank you. So if the recommendation from the Acting Chair fails, I will reconsider as Acting Vice Chair Belatti suggested. Okay.

All right.

So you can take. You can take ...

Chair's recommendation for HCR 19 and HR 19 is to pass with amendments by direction of the Acting Chair. [Roll Call]. Chair, your recommendation is not adopted.

Thank you very much. Okay. So. Yeah. We're adjourned. Thank you.