Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs

Good afternoon. This afternoon we have the committees on Public Safety and Military affairs and Waterland Culture and Arts on a joint agenda. First up, we want to announce that the meeting is being streamed live on YouTube.

In the unlikely event that we have to end this hearing due to technical difficulties, the Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business at 3pm February 52026 in Conference Room 016. And a public notice will be posted on the legislator's website. Each testifier will be given two minutes to testify.

If you have already submitted your testimony, please limit your time to highlighting important facts or standing on your written testimony, which would be greatly appreciated. First up, Senate Bill 2723 relating to the State Sheriff's Day.

This Bill establishes April 27th as State Sheriff's Day to commemorate the establishment of the Office of the Marshal of the Kingdom of Hawaii. And oh, first up, we—are you the King of Hawaii?

Not yet, but I'll let you know if that works out. And Dr. Malani, please.

Yeah, you just got a point.

So, good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Joint Committee. My name is Mike Lambert. I'm the Director of Department of Law Enforcement and I'm very grateful for this Bill to be introduced. When the Department of Law Enforcement was consolidated, some of my sheriffs felt as if it diminished their role or relevance.

So, this would really elevate the fact that the deputy sheriffs have a long standing history. I've asked Sergeant Milani to give a very brief history. He's the longest serving sheriff. He's been serving since 1981, so, to put that into context, I was crawling when he, when he first began to serve our great state.

So, you got, I cut into your time, but you got 90 seconds.

Esteemed committee, mahalo for this time. I know my time is limited. The sheriffs express a deep pride and where we come from because the sheriffs here in Hawaii were created under the Kingdom of Hawaii by Kawiki Kamehameha III.

And we were actually designated the sheriffs under the Marshal of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which was Henry C. at the time. And this came about in 1846 after the three grand divisions of government were created by Kawiki Oli—the Legislative, Judicial, and the Executive Branch. I give history to our new deputies, our new recruits.

And I've been doing this since we began basically pushing for recognition. And this goes back to our beginning because the sheriffs are unique in Hawaii. We transcend from England, feudatory England.

We go as far back as 1992 and because of that proud history, we incorporated with a worldwide group of sheriffs, 4,559 sheriff's departments, and we share a camaraderie with them. In 1940, Sheriff Duke Pau Kahamoku incorporated us. He had us included with the National Sheriff's Association with the United States on Duke Street in Alexandria.

And okay, it's really fast.

If I could ask you to kind of summarize.

In any case, we have a proud history and want to thank you for this opportunity for recognition. And I do have some brochures and handouts for you folks to read.

And we'll give that to you folks. We realize there's a long agenda, but if you guys are interested, he will stand by to the end of it. And if you guys have any questions on the posters we have, he'll be available for you folks. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, next we have HTEA. Okay, they submitted written comments. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on Senate Bill 2723? If not, let's move to Senate Bill 17, relating to wildfire mitigation. First testifiers, I believe, are Public Utilities Commission. Is representative present?

Members of the community, I'm Kyra Howe representing the commission today and we stand on our written testimony.

Thank you. Next, we have Department of Land and Natural Resources, Michael Walker. Mr. Walker.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committees. I'm Michael Walker. I serve as the Statewide Fire Protection Forester for the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife. The Department stands on this testimony as written.

But I'd also like to add that we support the testimony of the State Fire Council and the Fire Marshal with the amendments that they propose. And I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Department of Hawaiian Homelands, which has submitted—okay, thank you. Next, we have Gary Lum, individual, who is on zoom. Mr. Lum, please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committees. My name is Gary Lum. I'm testifying on behalf of the State Fire Council and we're standing on our written testimony that was submitted with suggested amendments.

Thank you very much. Mary Ellis Evans, also commenting in person.

Aloha, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Danielle Bass from the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. We would like to stand on our testimony supporting the intent of the Bill. We offer comments as to how the working group should be placed and in the structure of the working group.

We do appreciate being a part of the working group and look forward to participating that in a collaborative manner. However, due to the costs, we think that there—this does require some dedicated staff capacity, technical expertise, and reliable funding to be effective.

And we suggest perhaps aligning the staffing and funding with an agency that already leads wildfire response, land management, and fire safety functions that will strengthen our statewide coordination and implementation.

Thank you. Next, Attorney General's Office. Allison Kato or Christopher Law.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. It' Allison Kato, Deputy Attorney General. We submitted written comments on a few points. First, the Constitution requires that groups such as this working group be established within a principal department, so we recommend placing this in DBEDT because that's where OPSD is.

Or if you feel another department is appropriate, that's fine, too. Second, there's a technical correction in the reference to State Fire Marshal, which...in our written testimony. And third, we just wanted to note that some of this Bill may be overlapping with the effects of Acts 302 and 303 that passed last year.

We've included details in our written testimony. We're available for—I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Elizabeth Benechek for Nature Conservancy. Michael Hayashida for Kamehameha Schools.

Good afternoon, Chair Fukunaga, Chair Lee, Vice Chair Inouye, and Committee Members. My name is Mike Hayashida. I'm representing Kamehameha Schools. Aloha. I've been in this position for about a year and my position is Wildfire and Risk Manager for Kamehameha Schools. Prior to this, I worked in the Hawaii Fire Department for 32 years as a Battalion Chief.

Was my last 12 years in the Department. And currently, I'm a National Fire Protection Association Certified Wildfire Mitigation Specialist. We already submitted our written testimony. I just like to highlight a few points. We'd like to request that two other members be added to the working group. The first one being cultural specialists.

Hopefully that could be selected by the DLNR representative. The second being selected by the State Fire Marshal. And basically, a representative of large landowners. And the reason being is, if you look on page one, the end of sentence eight and nine, it stipulates large landowner.

However, when you look in the Bill, it doesn't stipulate large landowner as a member. Those two things stick out in our mind. Other than that, I'll be here for any questions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, next we have Hawaiian Electric, if anyone is present. They have submitted comments in support. Finally, Jordan Roth. Okay. If not, is there anyone else who would like to comment? If not, members, any questions?

OPSD.

OPSD, can we have you return to the table?

Thank, thanks for being here. Does this conflict with the measure that we passed previously, Act 302 and 303, when we created the wildfire? Didn't we give it to you guys last year?

I am not aware of that.

Okay. Do you know anything about Act 302 and 303, as noted by the Attorney General? Come on up.

This is Senator Inouye's bill, so, she may be a lot more intimately involved in.

Sorry. In our testimony, we've described, I guess, the similarities and with references to specific sections.

Oh, okay. So, someone else probably in this introduction of this, wasn't probably aware that there was already a, an established group, but I think that measure went to Fire Marshal.

Yes. That's correct.

Okay. Do you see, and does this SB 17 directly conflicts with the measure we passed in 302 and 303? Because this is creating.

This testimony was actually included by another deputy who was, is very familiar with Acts 302 and 303 from last year. But my interest, my understanding, I think, I don't think it directly conflicts with it so much as there's overlapping results.

So, what's sought to be accomplished by this Bill may already be happening with that Bill, those asks.

Okay, thank you. Thanks so much.

Any further questions? If not, we're going to, I mean, we're going to turn it over to water now.

All right, thanks very much. Moving on to the next measure, Senate Bill 2358, relating to search and rescue, which requires government entities to seek reimbursement for all or a portion of search or rescue expenses for persons who require rescue after leaving the hiking trail to enter an area closed to the public.

Testifying first on 2358 is the Hawaii State Fire Council.

Good afternoon, again. Gary Lum with the State Fire Council. We stand on our written comments that were submitted and available for questions.

Thank you. Also signed up testify online, we have the SAR Alliance, Rosemary Johnson.

Okay. Hello. Okay. It wasn't on. Hi. Thank you very much for having me. And I am speaking on behalf of the Hawaii SAR Alliance, a collaborative effort that has been involved for the past five years, but bringing together multiple agencies, teams, and organizations to conduct that conduct search and rescue across the state of Hawaii.

And I stand by our written testimony submitted and would like to just simply add that each year, legislation related to search and rescue is introduced and experiences opposition as there's no foundational support to effectively implement the proposed bills.

As it stands now, there are existing structural and administrative gaps within Hawaii's fragmented SAR system that spans over a dozen different agencies and jurisdictions that should be addressed prior to implementing reimbursement mechanisms, for SAR reimbursement policies to be effective and sustainable.

So, right now, there is a proposed bill, SB 2938, for a SCate SAR coordinator, and we would recommend that this type of legislation be held off until such a coordinator is put in place. I'm here for any additional questions.

Thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on SB 2358? Seeing none. Are there any questions? If not, have just one real quick for the Fire Council. Mr. Lum, if you're still online.

Yes, sir.

Thanks. I think there's been a number of these bills over the years, but this one in particular, several of the testifier—testifying agencies—had raised the same issue, which was if there's a penalty or fee or something that someone would have to pay if they're rescued, that it might deter them from calling for help when it's probably most helpful.

How do—is there a path forward where other places have explored this and come up with a mechanism that doesn't have a deterrent effect?

From what I know from State Fire Council meetings, I believe the county of Kauai has implemented a similar measure. And from our discussions with the Kauai Fire Chief, he does not know of any situation where they have sent an invoice or bill to any of the persons they rescued.

Okay, thank you very much.

I can, I guess, based on, you know, many years of instances where we've had trespassing into areas that were not really in hitchhiking or other kind of activity was not really allowed, the consistent, you know, commitment has, from the search and rescue entities has been that they didn't want to see a seek reimbursement.

However, as the cost of government increase and we have shortages in law enforcement throughout the community, do you know of any other penalties that could be imposed that didn't necessarily include reimbursement?

Say, for example, you know, some sort of penalties that attach to either driver's license or other kinds of regulatory frameworks in which individuals who may be trespassing and for whom, you know, search and rescue operations must be carried out, could be penalized in a way that doesn't necessarily involve additional costs?

I'm sorry, was that a question for me at the State Fire Council?

Yes.

Oh, I'm. I'm sorry. Gee, I really couldn't say. I'm not a subject matter expert in law enforcement, but perhaps maybe the Sheriff or Department of Law Enforcement could address that question.

Okay. Director Lambert. Given that many of these instances involve, you know, locations where hiking is not permitted anyway and people who are trespassing are usually violating the law, so, you know, it's sort of like fireworks in that if there's no penalty or there's no deterrent, people continue to break the law. So, I think in other areas, you know, you have identified some alternative.

I mean, as regards to pathways, I mean, and again, I'm, I'm kind of coming off the cuff here without any ability to research. But yeah, if you were to, let's say, garnish their taxes or do other things for the cost of it, that may discourage.

Of course, it gets problematic if they're out of state and how you would recoup that. But I'm sure that there's other avenues that could be used to deter instead of going down criminal proceedings.

Okay, thank you very much. Sorry. Thank you.

Any further questions? Seeing none. All right, thank you very much. Let's move on to the next measure, SB 2475, relating to Red Hill, which appropriates funds for studies on remediation of substances released from the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, monitoring, testing, and other sorts of research and requires DLNR to seek reimbursement from the Department of Defense.

U.S. Department of Defense. Testifying first on SB 2475 is the Board of Water Supply. I'm sorry. Oh, yeah, okay, sure. Good afternoon.

Aloha. Good afternoon, Chairs Fukunaga and Lee and Members. Ernie Lau, Manager for the Board of Water Supply. We are in strong support of this measure that provides financial resources to the Red Hill by to continue the efforts to do more investigations, collect data. Red Hill is not...

We are now entering the phase of trying to figure out where past leaks went into the environment, into the aina, in the vi. And the challenge is going to be how to clean it up. But, so, mahalo for your support. Thank you.

Up next is the Department of Land and Natural Resources. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. Keala Richardson, DLNR, the Policy Coordinator for the Red Hill Water Alliance Initiative or VI. DLNR submitted written testimony in support, and I just wanted to highlight two important points. One being that defiling of Red Hill marked an important step in this progress.

However, there's decades of research, remediation, and monitoring that are necessary to protect groundwater resources, restore aina, and rebuild public trust.

And the second point is that this measure advances those VI initiatives in collaboration with various UH teams, teams from the School of Ocean and Earth Sciences and the Departments of Civil, Environmental, and Construction, Engineering, Geography, Natural Resources and Environmental Management, including the UH Water Resources and Research Center and also UH Community Colleges Leeward and Honolulu. So, I'm here today.

There might be some subject matter experts that are part of these teams that are available for questions, but I, I can do my best to answer some of those questions today. Thank you.

Thank you. Testifying next is—signed to testify on Zoom is Sierra Club of Hawaii.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chairs—Chairs, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club of Hawaii. I will stand in on a testimony in strong support of this measure. Thank, thank you very much.

Thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on SB 2475? Seeing, oh.

This bill and I just want to add in just a few amendments, just to clarify administrative purposes only, just to ensure that, you know, DLNR cannot reassert control over CWRM decision making to make them, you know, completely independent and to reconsider ex official voting membership for DLNR and DoH or to narrow its scope to avoid reintroducing political pressure to commission votes.

And finally, and lastly, just to make sure that this is solely used for Red Hill contamination response and protection of potable water and so, that that is not repurposed for unrelated development or extractive uses without clear public notice, review, and consent.

And again, yes, we need to have the Department of Defense pay for this remediation and cleanup and for the studies as well. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none. Are there any questions?

Chair. DLNR, please. Thank you for spearheading this important responsibility that we've had with VI. However, with Red Hill, there was an interest, and I remember that Congresswoman Tokuda and some of the members of our congressional delegation, this was a hot item for them, and I remember, I think there was a potential appropriation. Did we receive, the state, did we receive any funding from the feds yet or Congress?

That's a great question, Senator. To my understanding, there hasn't been any state appropriations. Most of the federal appropriations are to like Indo Paycom or directly to the Navy to handle remediation, monitoring, and for public engagement.

But we haven't received any into the state?

The Special Fund for Red Hill remediation was established in 2025, so the Special Fund, as it is now is.

But we created that.

Correct.

Yeah, but did receive—did we receive any federal funding?

I would have to check with other departments. From DLNR's side, I don't have any knowledge of.

Correct.

Aware of.

Okay. This is rather interesting because it seems like it was a hot topic in Congress. And you know, I remember, you know what, what Congresswoman Tokuda has been sending us communications, and it was pretty active. CRAM, did you receive any monies from, for anything to do with Red Hill?

They may not have known that you're not part of the discussions when we did this last year or a couple of years ago.

Vice Chair.

Can you please come forward? And Ernie, if you know of anything as well, let us know.

Kira Kahane, Deputy Director, Commission on Water Resource Management. We haven't received any direct funds, federal funds, for—related to Red Hill.

Okay.

Senator, there was a federal appropriation that—or some federal funds that went to the Red Hill Registry, but that was to study the health implicate—you know, implications—similar to other events like Flint, to have a registry of those that are impacted by the Red Hill water crisis.

And that was a federal appropriation?

It was federal funding.

Maybe, maybe that took care of part of our problems, I guess. But I think the biggest issue we have in Red Hill is the main infrastructure and the problems that happened, you know, several years ago. And that's why, you know, we had at least set up a mechanism within, you know, the Legislature and the agencies to make sure we're on top of it.

Ernie, you wanted to share anything? If you know, if you're aware. Oh, thanks, thanks...

In terms of federal funding going to the state, and I'm not 100% sure, but maybe it's a question that could also be directed toward the Department of Health. I had thought that they may have received some funding support because remember, they were expending a lot of effort and cost in the response to Red Hill.

I don't know if the funding came through the Department of Defense or through the EPA. I suggest that maybe set the inquiry toward the Department of Health.

Thanks, we appreciate that and at least we know where we are. But I think coordinating with the Department of Health is important because this measure is not cheap. It's $11 million. Okay, thank you. Thanks for all you do as well. Chair.

Further questions?

Yes, please. DLNR, if you don't mind. DLNR, have a question. Yes, thank you. The Bill calls for DLNR to seek reimbursement from the DoD. What happens if you guys don't get reimbursed?

That's a good question. I think we're still understanding the mechanisms for seeking reimbursement. And so, I can—I don't have an answer right now, but I can find, you know.

Sure. I'm just concerned that if you folks haven't gotten any appropriations yet, and there's not necessarily the plan to be reimbursed, that the state will continue to have to use its general revenues to keep funding this project.

So, I don't know if we're putting the cart before the homes but sounds like you guys are still kind of figuring it out.

That too, and just seeking all available funding sources—federally, state, other programs that might be able to, to fund different aspects of the project. So, we, we're seeking as funding broadly.

Sure. You just don't have those numbers yet?

Well, for what we're presenting or what was included in this is the priority projects that would fund to, you know, based on the initiatives that were established, these are some of the top priority projects. So, this is what we're proposing to move forward with now.

Sure. And then the $11 million that you folks are requesting, I'm assuming that's a small slice of the pie considering the overall cost that this is going to.

That's a good point. It's the first step that we're initiating in a long process. Right? What we understand is that this is something that will take years, if not decades of research, of understanding. We have a very different groundwater system here compared to anywhere else. According to the researchers, it's 99% different than anywhere else in the world.

And so, yes, there's fuel contamination in other parts, but we have a unique system and it's important to fully understand the implications of any kind of bioremediation that might be proposed as a part of the research.

Okay. I would be interested maybe at a future time, to know what the breakdown of what the DoD is going to be investing or the Navy or Department of Health. You know, it really is their Kuleana that they need to be responsible for this and take fiscal responsibility for this. So, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Chair, can I add, to continue the discussion? And Members, just as, you know, once we delegate an agency like DLNR, you know that we're telling them to use their special funds. So, I'm sure that's what the plans are, if you're going to continue managing this program, that your first touch of monies is your special fund.

So, that means that they're going to be depleting some of their funds and on a new policy that we gave you to undertake. Thank you. Good luck.

Sorry, you can stay there. I just wanted to get Clarification for part of that funding, the $4.3 million for environmental monitoring and testing, can you also use that for monitoring wells?

So, part of the plan of the environmental monitoring includes hydrology, it includes ecology, it includes streams, springs, and so, monitoring wells are part of it. Part of the consideration is in, you know, being able to secure access to wells. So, wells are a part of the scope and.

Okay. I have a follow up, Chair, if I may. So, if I recall, one monitoring well costs up to like maybe about $3 million. Kara, you can correct me if I'm wrong. I know. Okay, so that will take up like majority of that money already, and.

So, to respond to that, we won't be proposing any drilling of monitoring wells. It would be the monitoring and testing of existing wells.

Okay, yeah, that was okay. Sounds good. Thank you so much.

Okay. Any further questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Let's move on to the next measure, SB 2002, relating to water, which allows the Commission of Water Resources Management to retain independent counsel, repeals the first deputy to the chairperson, establish, establishes the Executive Director and administratively attaches CWRM to dlnr, makes a number of other changes. Testifying first on his B2002 is the board of Water Supply.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Ernie Lau, Board of Water supply. We support SB2002, the issue of governance and it's clearly. It was back actually in 1929 that the board of Water Supply was created by the territorial Legislature at the time. And the idea there was trying because water was such an important issue for the community at that time.

And it is still even more important today that they looked at ways to try to minimize the influence, and I use the word politics very carefully, not disrespectfully, but with great respect. Try to minimize politics or political motivations and decisions when it comes to critical water resources decisions.

And it's worked for the Board of Water supply for nearly 100 years. You know, in 192029 we'll make our 100th anniversary. So I think that's a good model to follow. And this is somewhat along those same same vein we do, I do support that because water resource decisions are intergenerational decisions.

They affect not only the people of today, people today, but they affect it for generations to come. So I support that we ask that when it comes to penalties that the commission consider involving stakeholders in providing input into those penalty schedules.

And also keep in mind that as a utility, a large utility, you know, we have greater capacity to pay the penalties. But when the penalties are imposed on people that are not as economically strong, it could be a severe hardship for them. But I think the key point is to comply with the commission's orders.

And Malama our water resources so suggest their stakeholder involvement in setting that penalty schedule. Thank you. Thank you.

Testifying Next. I apologize. These are slowly out of order. So to be state agencies first, my apologies. But that said, up next is the Attorney General.

Good afternoon. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Committee Members. I am Deputy Attorney General Miranda Steed, and the Department of the Attorney General respectfully opposes this bill based on the provision that it requires independent counsel for the Commission on Water Resource Management. The Department of the Attorney General is uniquely situated to provide legal counsel to our state agencies.

The Department has a breadth of knowledge and experience that is unique compared with any other private law firm in the state. Additionally, representation of the Commission goes beyond just litigation.

And so while outwardly litigation would appear to be what most attorneys do actually at the Department, we do so much more than that when it comes to advising our state agencies. We advise on issues relating to procurement code, to uepa, to Sunshine Law.

These are areas that private attorneys generally are not versed in and requires a lot of advice and counsel back and forth State agencies that we are uniquely equipped to make sure they are in compliance with. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next on 2002 is DLNR Se. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Aloha Chairs, Members of the Committees. Kira Kahane, Deputy Director, Commission on Water Resource Management. I want to begin by expressing the Department's appreciation for and support of the portions of this bill that relate to enforcement, penalties and water response.

We respectfully refer these committees to the Department's testimony on House Bill 306 and House Bill 510 from last legislative session. Those were on the same topics and address those provisions in more detail with respect to the remainder of this bill. This ultimately reflects, I think, two different philosophies of governance, and neither is inherently right or wrong.

Each has its own benefits and drawbacks. The Department believes that the benefits of the current structure prevail. Those benefits include strong integration and coordination between the Commission on Water Resource Management and our sister divisions within the Department.

They also include a Chair who works on a daily basis with issues of land and water management, who's current on relevant legal developments, aware of the Department's administrative capacity and limitations, and is readily accessible.

One of the most important features of the current structure is the alignment that it allows between the Chair and the Deputy Director in this Department. That kind of unity and shared understanding is critical to effective Administration and decision making. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you. Signed up to testify. Next is Sierra Club of Hawaii on Zoom. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee going to strong support of this measure. So the Water Code was passed in 1987. Thirty years later, in 2017, water management areas were designated only in three places right. Oahu Molokai and no Waeha.

We only had science based stream flow requirements for 14 of the nearly 400 streams that were supposed to have the stream flow standards. You know, six of these was because the DAR administrator told the commission, testified to the commission and he got fired for it.

Right.

It's 30 years. That's all we got. And. And why? Because the code can require plantations and their successors and interest to share water. So they use their political influence to get the Governor and the AG to hamstring the commission for decades. Right. The state auditor called this out in the 90s.

The person who wrote the water code was fired bill Tam for providing too much water to the cauliflower farmers Waiahole. The DART administrator, Dan Bohemas, as I mentioned, lost his job. East Mall had to wait 20 years just to get an EIS while their streams were diverted the entire time. Requests for deprocessor were denied again and again.

When it came to Hoenn wire rights from 2017 though, something changed. We had Khalil Manuel and the commission's loyal Members were able to navigate the politics to implement the code. And we've seen dozens and dozens of streams restored for the first time in generations. We had an additional water management area. And then what happened? Right.

Politics stepped in again and the line of fire was used to scapegoat Kale. So enough is enough. Please don't let you know. Please don't let DLNR's hand wringing keep you from doing the right thing after. After over almost 40 years. Right. Please pass this measure.

I do want to note that the Attorney General who just testified the deputy after the fire misrepresented what happened and essentially was lied to the Supreme Court and was called out for it and was and and again just another example of politics influencing and undermining the public trust in water. We need this to stop.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Testifying. Next. Signed up to testify. Next is Lahaina Strong. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. Earth Justice.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Members. Drew Hara. I'm an attorney with Earth Justice, so I first want to thank you, Chair Lee for scheduling a hearing on this bill and recognizing its importance. And Senator Inouye, I know you've been a champion of this, of this bill for several years now.

And the importance of this measure, I think is really aptly laid out in the preamble. In oral testimony today, I want to emphasize that reforms in this bill are not hasty, short sighted or reflexive.

And they're not targeted at any individual Administration or but they are really the product of long standing recommendations coming from a review Commission over 30 years ago.

We also just heard from the Board of Water Supply how similar administrative structures granting more independence to the agency who's Kuleana is to manage our public trust water resources has really benefited that that agency and allowed them to operate independently and keep the resources best interest in mind.

Just would also highlight that had some of these issues been addressed earlier on, we would not have seen the same situation that we did in 2023 after the Lahaida fires where the Chair was able to unilaterally suspend in stream interim instream flow standards and the then Deputy Director was effectively dismissed without cause in response to the AG's opposition to this Bill.

Just wanted to highlight that with the Attorney General being the exclusive counsel for the commission, there have been times historically where the commission has been left without counsel as in the Waihole situation or been beholden to counsel that has been repeatedly overturned by the Hawaii Supreme Court.

Also want to highlight that the provision in HRS 28 that the Attorney General highlighted in the written testimony which would allow for a retainer of independent counsel would still be relying on a determination by the Attorney General's office and approval by the Governor.

So that provision does not provide the same type of independence or political installation that this bill would. Yeah. Last thing you can please summarize. Yeah. So quickly. The Department cited unprecedented challenges as a reason not to move forward with this measure at this time.

I would say these reforms will provide the type of institutional ability that we need to move forward. Thank you.

Okay, up next, Lahaina Strom on Zoom.

Unavailable on Zoom Chair.

Okay. Also on Zoom. Lauren Palakiko. Good afternoon.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chair and Members of the committees. My name is Lauren Palakiko. I'm the wife of a Kalo farmer on Ayla huleana in Kawa' Ula Valley, Lahaina, Maui. I strongly support SB 2002 which will allow our water commission to uphold the water code and protect our streams and aquifer without political interference.

Our Ohana has felt firsthand what happens when political powers favor luxury developers and private water companies. Instead of abiding by our state water code, which is law. When the Commission is pressured to look the other way, it is our community, our land, our food and our traditional and cultural practices that suffer.

This has led our Lahaina town, which has always been known for being a wet and fertile land, to burn down, killing over 100 of our people. After the Lahaina Fire.

The Governor listened to the lies from La Nu Poco Irrigation Company or lic the private water utility that takes from our stream water and delivers it to luxury ag zone gentlemen estates nearby. This led to Deputy Director Kaleom Manuel from being removed because he was Kekahu Vaipono.

Right now the Water Commission's independence is compromised because the chairperson and legal counsel are appointed by the Governor. That means whoever holds political sway over the Governor can influence the commission's decisions. Putting profit ahead of public trust.

SB 2002 helps to restore balance by letting the commission choose its own chair, its own Executive Director and its own legal counsel. Strengthening accountability to the the people, not politics. I can.

I also support adding stronger penalties for water code violations so that wealthy corporations like LIC and Maui Landen Pine can't just invest their finds back into their tyrannical businesses and continue to take more water. Letting our streams run dry and aquifers suffer.

In my allotted time, I can't begin to touch the devastation that's been done to our water supply. Our groundwater has been so over pumped that the salination levels have surpassed the EPA's threshold of safe drinking water for human concession consumption. Thank you. Including a nominee from OHA in the Water Commission Nominating Committee as an important. Thank you.

We have to stop you just to make sure we have time for all testifiers to.

Okay, I just have one more sentence. Is that okay?

One more sentence real fast.

Our kupuna understood that water is life. And we do as well. It connects us all and must be protected and preserved. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, up next is also on Zoom. Tara Rojas.

Aloha. Can you hear me. Okay? Yes. Yeah. So for SB 2002 I strongly support. This and Kalamai, I believe I mentioned about the maintaining the distinction of the C WORM as its own independent entity. And not having political influence or pressure from dlnr. When I mentioned the last one there's a lot of.

So that was relating to this one SB 2002. So mahalo.

Thank you very much. That's everyone who had signed up to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure this afternoon? All right. Seeing none other questions. Just one for the Attorney General. We've still backed up. Thank you.

Obviously I think you've heard the some of the testimony regarding the Attorney General's history with some of this.

That as it's been relayed by others in your testimony you basically said there are the Department has the expertise and authority and ability to provide counsel testimony seemed pretty Clear that throughout history, I'm quoting here, the Commission has repeatedly been deprived of effective counsel or denied legal representation altogether at critical times. Can you speak to that?

Sure. We would respectfully disagree with that characterization. So I believe a couple cases that may have been mentioned, Waiahole was one of them. In most proceedings before the Commission of Water Resource Management, when it comes to designation, there's going to be many, many parties involved.

And so there have been instances where there's another State Department that is actually also a recipient or user of water. And so when you're talking about designation of water use permits, you're going to have one state entity that's also an applicant in that process.

Actually, the most recent case the Supreme Court heard, the second Nava EHA decision, is actually a good example of that. State Parks was also an applicant in that process.

We had one Deputy Attorney General who represented State Parks through the application process and represented its interests, and another deputy attorney General that represented the Commission on Water Resource Management. There was no issue. Obviously, the deputy attorneys General do not speak or interact during that time. It's frankly similar to when the Department also manages enforcement actions.

So, for example, there's numerous enforcement actions being brought by DLNR right now for different resource violations. I myself serve as Tribunal for Hearing Officer and BLNR on a number of those issues, and someone else in my office will prosecute those issues because there's a case hearing for them.

So I understand that there's a concern about when we have multiple deputy attorneys General representing on either side, but we put a china wall up. We're very careful to not interact, and our position is that that has not been a problem.

If I may also address the, I guess, concerns about the Attorney General not agreeing with Commission decisions, I would also like to point out that I understand that may be perception by some groups, but at the end of the day, we, as the Attorney General, represent the interest of the client.

We litigate and defend them in court, and we advise them on what we think the law is. Our clients make their own decisions, though. So the decisions that the Commission makes are the commission's decisions. It's not the decision of an attorney General somehow forcing them to decide a matter. It's their decision.

And at the end of the day, whatever decision it is that Commission makes, regardless of whether or not it followed advice and counsel, and I'm not saying that they don't follow advice and counsel or trying to disclose anything privileged, but regardless of whether they follow that advice and counsel is with them, between them and US and we represent their decision in court at the end of the day.

So I just want to be very clear that our role is limited to advice and counsel. Council and representation were not dictating policy decisions made by these bodies.

In this case, you're seem to be strongly opposing the ability for the council or excuse me, for the. Yeah. The Council Council on Water Resources Management to have outside counsel of its own though in in its own right for whatever purpose.

The gentleman from Earth justice seem to I don't know if you want to up as well, but seem to suggest that there would still be the ability for the Attorney General or Governor or the Administration just in General to have ultimate say when the council that when Seaworm seeks its own counsel. Is that right?

So that's correct that the it comes through the Attorney General and the Governor because you're discussing an expenditure of state funds to pay for a special counsel. We actually do have a number of special counsel that work with the Department of the Attorney General on a number of matters.

Frequently they're brought in because it's something specialized that maybe is outside of normal state law litigation. And so we might call a more specialized attorney in. If Cworm had a matter that they believed they wanted specialized counsel for some reason to come in on, they could make that request.

I'd like to point out you haven't heard testimony that Cworm has been trying to request independent counsel and been denied that they could make that request and that would be decided between them and the Attorney General. But there's no allegation here that that somehow is happening and being denied is.

Is that the so the testimony quoted was worth Justice's testimony in cases of repeatedly being deprived of effective counselor Denied legal representation. Is that are you both speaking to the same thing here?

Yeah. I think that testimony and specifically referencing the waihole case where the Attorney General who was in charge to the commission at that time was ultimately dismissed because the attorney General at large, that office, that Department did not want to did not support the position that the commission had been taking.

And I also want to highlight that being able to there's been sort of a dichotomy or a lot of emphasis on the subject matter expertise that the AG's office provides, which I don't dispute. But I would say that the option is not necessarily for private counsel.

We under this provision the commission would be able to have its own in house counsel, something that's already done at other commissions like the Public Utilities Commission where they have lawyers that are dedicated to that specific agency and handle sort. Of across the board.

Okay, thank you both. Further questions. Why don't we stick to this floor? All right, Vice Chair.

Well, just to add some historical background and I'm glad that Ernie highlighted that this issue dates back over 100 years and reason I personally introduced this measure which has been around for three years. It was approved by both houses three years ago. It was held in the House on a political thing within their own sector.

Nonetheless, it did pass. And I just wanted to share to add to what Ernie did mention in 1979 under Governor Ariyoshi. At that time, the water commission asked the Governor that it's about time we should be in its own class and that the authority should be established. So nothing happened.

1984, it happened again at a request to the Legislature. Legislature. And I believe during. I think. I believe it probably was during Waihe's time as well. 19841990 it appeared again.

And reason I bring this up, I was a former planning commissioner, Member of the Hawaii county, and as a former mayor as well, I also was appointed by Governor Ariyoshi to be on the Hawaii State Plan Policy council. We did 12 functional plans.

One was the water plan, and I'll tell you, for Oahu, nonetheless, it was one of the worst data that we received with the least amount of waters for its future populations. Hence, we're back here. I firmly believe, and I agree and I'm glad that the water departments in the counties are in support of the measure.

It's just about time. I think we need to get politics out of it. We have every eight years we have new Administration, attorney generals come and go. So the attorney General who's working with the commission now may not be here four years from now or thereafter. They have their own agenda. And I'm very concerned. We heard that.

The importance of what our Constitution says and it protects our vi. Having said that, I'll stop here because our time is limited.

So for my Members, this is the reason that this measure keeps popping up again and one of the reasons that one of the things that I've omitted in this measure was the appropriation because we really don't know if we're. This measure will pass.

If there is no appropriation for a position, then I don't want the Bill to die. So in the event that. Let's keep the discussion open whether it continues on for the next couple of years, but hopefully we can put this to rest, get this in statute and work on the measure as we move in the coming years.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you Chairs. Sure.

Further questions? All right. Seeing none, that is the end of our joint agenda and take a quick recess for decision making. Excuse me. Recess.

Thank you. Returning to Senate Bill 2723 relating to state Sheriff's Day. Chair would like to recommend that we report this bill out unamended. This kind of acknowledges the role that the sheriffs have played. Played. And we do want to make sure that we keep that legacy alive. For Committee on Public Safety, I vote yes.

Oh, yeah. I'm also Vice Chair of PSM, so this is interesting. Yes. Okay. Voting on SB2723. Recommendation is to pass. Sorry, that was as is. As is correct as is. [Roll Call] The recommendation is adopted. Okay, thank you. On Senate Bill 7. Wait, sorry, one Sec. So for Committee on Waterland, same recommendation.

Okay. The Committee on Water and Land recommendation by the Chairs on SB2723s to pass unamended.[Roll Call] Measure's adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Okay. Senate Bill 17 relating to wildfire mitigation. Chair recommends that we defer decision making until Monday, February 9th in this room, 3pm There's a number of concerns that were raised. We'd like to amend the Bill and bring that back to the Committee.

All right. Recommendation for water land is to also defer. We'll defer it to Friday 2:13 at the end of our 1:00pm agenda in conference room 224.

Next to yours.

Yes. Okay. Moving on to SB2358 relating to search and rescue. Similarly, we'd like to defer this measure till Friday 213 at the end of our 1pm agenda and conference from 2 to 4. Like chance to just coordinate with the stakeholders and continue the conversation to figure out what an appropriate set of amendments might be.

For Committee on Public Safety, we will Defer to Monday, February 9th in the PSM time slot at 3:00 clock in this conference room 16.

Thank you. Moving on to SB2 75 relating to red Hill. Like to move this forward. This goes to the Ways and Means and Judiciary Committees. We'll move it with amendments blanking out the appropriations and noting noting on the Committee report and adding in a defective date. Any questions? Comments on this?

If not Vice Chair for the Committee on.

Oh, yes, thank you, Chair. Just letting the Committee know that I will be voting down on this Bill the President had signed into law on December 182025 fiscal year 26 National Defense Authorization act in which $6 billion was appropr to Red Hill. So I don't want the money just to be left on the table.

I think that if there is funds to pursue, the LNR should pursue that first. But there is money there. I do believe that they should pursue that first. So I will be voting down respectfully. Thank you, Chair.

So noted. Anyone else? All right. If not Vice Chair for the vote.

For the Committee on Water and Land and Culture and the Arts Chair's recommendation on SB247 to pass with amendments. Chair Lee Vice Chair goes aye Senator Chang, Senator Lamosao and Senator DeCorte, measures adopted.

Thank you.

For PSM Members, same recommendation. Chair votes aye Vice Chair Lee.

Chair and Vice Chair vote aye on SB2475 recommendation pass with amendments noting all Members present. Are there any other reservations or no's? Noting the no from Senator DeCorte.

Thank you.

All others vote aye and the recommendation is adopted. Then moving on to the last bill on the agenda, SB 2002 relating to water. Appreciate the discussion here. Like to recommend moving us forward. This goes on to the Judiciary and Ways and Means Committee like to pass it with amendments making tech amendments.

In particular noting in the community report that the Judiciary Committee should look at that issue over counsel, which seems to be worthy of a discussion as we go forward and we'll see where it goes from there. Any comments or questions? Seeing none. Vice Chair.

Okay. The Committee on Water, Land, Culture and the Arts Chair's recommendation is to pass SB 2002 with amendments. [Roll Call] Measure's adopted. Mr. Chair.

Thank you. For PSM Members, same recommendation. Chair votes Aye. Vice Chair Lee for the vote.

Voting on SB 2002 recommendations passed with amendments noting all Members present. Are there any reservations or noes? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted and with that we are adjourned. Right.

Before you adjourn, could I make a brief announcement? Okay. For those who have been sitting patiently awaiting the PSM Committee meeting, we do have your testimonies. The Chair would like to ask people to stand on their testimonies and we will defer decision making to the Monday, February 9th agenda.

So with that, you can go ahead and gavel out and we'll gavel back in. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you very much for your patience and indulgence for many of the people who have been waiting. First measure on our agenda today is Senate Bill 2730 relating to criminal justice reform. The first measure on this agenda was cancelled. So first up is Department of Attorney General on Zoom. She's present. Welcome.

Good afternoon. In light of your instruction, we'll stand on our.

Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Testifying in person for prosecuting attorney, Mr. Hugo.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee.

Thank you. Next. In person, Mr. Erdman. Retail merchants of Hawaii. If not next, we have the Policing Project at NYU School of Law on Zoom.

Welcome. Good afternoon. Given your instructions, I'll stand on my written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on Senate Bill 2730? Please come forward.

Should have submitted testimony. I just want to make sure that the Committee has it.

We have it.

Okay. And if you have it, based on your instruction, we will sign on.

Thank you very much.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Carrie Ann Chibota. I'm an attorney, community justice advocate. I strongly support this measure for the reasons that's been outlined by NYU Policing Project. I think for years we've been talking and we know that our jails are overcrowded.

Two out of the four people who are inside are not getting the medical care that they need. And people are. There's an uptick in suicides and people are being assaulted and killed. And so an arrest has consequences for people. So for lower level offenses, we'd like to see police have the authority to issue these citations instead.

And during Covid lease in every county, use citations instead of arresting for a number of types of charges. And there wasn't an uptick in crime. So let's utilize all the tools available. This is a best practice. Please pass this measure. Thank you.

Is there anyone else on Senate Bill 2730? Okay. If not, we'll turn to Senate Bill 2749 relating to sentencing. First up, we have Mark Tom, Deputy Attorney General, or, sorry, Michelle.

I'll stand on our written testimony in opposition to this.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you. Just very briefly, we've outlined our testimony, but I do just want to say that if the Committee has concerns, we would invite a conversation to go into more detail about the nuances of the bill, how critical it is.

The can provide more information about our current sentencing scheme, which will emphasize why something like this is so Important for the judges to be able to consider. Other than that, I'll stand on the origin testimony and be available for questions. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Next we have office of the prosecuting attorney. Mr. Hugo.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I just want to briefly outline what it takes for someone to be sentenced for repeat defender sentencing. What it means, first is that this person committed a felony. Second, this person was convicted of that felony. Third, this person committed another felony.

Fourth, that felony occurred within five years for a class if the predicate is a class C felony. Fifth, the prosecutor charged it. Sixth, that person got convicted again. Seventh, there is a jury trial on the question of repeat offender sentencing.

And eighth, the judge decided not to depart downward from the mandatory minimum which they are already authorized to do. After all of that, enough is enough. We strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you. Next we have Community alliance on Prisons. Kat Brady on her designee. If not turning to Senate Bill 2688 relating to compassionate release. Director of Department of Corrections Johnson.

I'll be brief. I just wanted to summarize some important key areas in our testimony. I'm Tommy Johnson, Director of Department of Corrections Rehabilitation. We do not oppose compassionate release. However, we do oppose compassionate consideration for those people who are serving life without the possibility of parole. Life with the possibility of parole.

We also note that this measure does not allow for mechanism for family members of victim or surviving victims to provide input prior to the release and that we would also require resources if this measure were to pass as is. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Hawaii Paroling Authority. Mr. DeMello.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. I'm Corey Reinke, the Administrator of the Hawaii Paroling Authority. Just for the record, also, we oppose the bill with suggested amendments, which, which is in our written testimony. And I also wanted to have a.

There's a very large view that DCR and HPA is the reason for the delay of these inmates being released from a facility under the compassionate release. And that is not the fact. I can let you know that I called 100 care homes one day to try to get housing for a compassionate release case.

And once they found out they were going to be on parole, they denied my request. So we're doing everything we can to try to work with community members to find places where we can house them, but that's really where the delay is.

We set them to grant them the parole authorities grants them parole, but finding appropriate medical housing for them has been difficult. Thank you. Thank you. We're available for any questions.

Thank you. Next, Office of Public defender, Haley Chang.

The chair's instruction will submit. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Correctional Oversight Commission, Kristen Johnson. Next we have office of the prosecuting attorney. Mr. Hugo.

Good afternoon, Chair, vice chair, Members of the Committee, just briefly, I do want to note our Department does not oppose compassionate release in cases of terminal illness. However, I do want to emphasize two very important things. Number one, this bill does not have any provision for victim input, not just notification. We'll do that. That's our moral responsibility.

But victim input, Some victims forgive the offender, some don't. Both are valid. And when this society broke its promise to victims, which is what happens when that crime was committed, we have a moral obligation to ensure that they are not forgotten.

The second thing is that this bill, there are many provisions in it that we believe are overbroad and will be manipulated. Somebody who did not hesitate to rape a child or who took a life without remorse will not hesitate to throw back your compassion at you if you do not word these provisions very carefully. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Hawaii Disability Rights Center. Mr. Erdeshek.

Thank you, Senator. I'll be brief. We've been working on this for a long time, both advocating it as a policy and case by case. I've worked with Bob Merce over the years. The beauty of this bill is that it formalizes what is now a very ad hoc scattered practice.

There are some people that do get released compassionately, but there's no real formal process. Bob works in some of these cases. Sometimes they get released, sometimes they don't. So this creates a structure. And this is not a get out of jail free card just because you're sick. I mean, there's a whole process.

The parole board has to review it. A lot of times these are people that committed crimes, maybe serious crimes when they were much younger, but now they're old, feeble.

And so not only is it humane, but even if you're looking at this totally as a cold, calculating number cruncher, I was kind of laughing because Tommy Johnson is complaining about the resources this is going to take to take a look at how much money is being wasted on the current system.

He doesn't have enough money to do what he needs to do to fix the prisons at the moment. If these people are released into the community, not only is it cheaper to serve them there, but they can go on Medicaid and the Federal Government will pick up half the cost.

So these are the most expensive prisoners imaginable, and Bob and others can probably tell you more about that, but it's way cheap. It's a no brainer economically to try to get them out in the community and get them served that way.

So between that and the humane aspect, it's just to me, this bill makes common sense all around. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Next we have Demont Kalai Manaole on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay, next we have Community Alliance on Prisons, Kat Brady.

Aloha Committee. I'll be really super brief. Thank you so much for hearing this bill. It's about the humanity and the values that we have as a community. At a recent informational briefing, one person, it took $2 million to provide what he needed. These are people who are really ill. They have chronic and, you know, irreversible diseases.

Another person spent $900,000 of the department's budget just on medication. And then shortly thereafter, I received an anonymous email from someone in the Department saying, we have no money for medication.

And then I started receiving calls from families saying, you know, my son didn't get medication and what he's really worried about is people who need psychotropic medication are not getting it. So this is a really important bill about our values and about how we spend our money correctly. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Next we have Hawaii Health Harm Reduction Center. Mr. Leverens.

Aloha, madam Chair, Vice Chair Members, Nikos Leverens with Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center and strong support of this bill. Just to emphasize what we, what we heard earlier today, Hawaii is the only state without a compassionate release law on its books and we should join the rest of our states on that front. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next we have Lynn Costales Matsuoka Sex Abuse Treatment center on Zoom. Unavailable on Zoom. Chair. Okay, thank you. Next we have Ohana Kele in person, a representative. Okay. If not, we have Molly Crane testifying for FAM in person.

Hi, everyone. Thank you so much for having me. All the way from Chicago, we. My name is Molly and I work at FAM. We're a national nonprofit, nonpartisan, an organization. We worked on compassionate release for 25 years. And there's just a few points I'd love to emphasize in our support.

The first is that in the federal system, in every state but one, there is a compassionate release statute. And that's because people who are critically ill are the most expensive to incarcerate, the most burdensome to care for, and the least likely to recidivate.

Hawaii is the only state in the country where this program is not governed by statute. There are a lot of great features of the bill. There's just two that I will emphasize today. The first is eligibility criteria.

It's best practice around the country that the eligibility criteria is based on medical factors and an individualized determination rather than categorical exclusions. People serving mandatory minimums and or LWOP are eligible for compassionate release in the majority of parole based states. This is common practice. This is because of what we all know.

People are costly, burdensome and least likely to recidivate. And this is true irrespective of sentence or conviction. The second is the importance of timeliness. People with critical illnesses are deteriorating very quickly. And so in this bill we've set deadlines and timelines. We have asked that the 60 day notification period be waived.

However, this does not preclude victim notification or input. It just says that it's not practicable to wait 60 days when someone has a terminal illness. I have visited Halawa myself on many, many occasions and I've seen the harms of this bill not existing.

And so we respectfully urge you all to pass this bill which will reduce costs, support staff, provide dignity and promote public safety.

Thank you. Next. Chanel Santiago hall as an individual. Okay, next. Maisona. An individual. Welcome.

My name is Maisona Eldeger and I am a ex correctional officer who had life experience with inmates dying on us and we're not trained as nurses. There was this one incident where the inmate was dying of AIDS and there was no help for her, no visitors.

But my job was to keep her shackled both hand and feet doing it throughout her coma. And I really ask that you guys support this bill because, you know, nothing beats, you know, dying with your family, at least being unshackled. I thank you. Thank you.

Next. Robert Mercy.

I share lead Members of the Committee. My name is Bob Merce. I'm a retired attorney. I've been working and helping people seeking Compassion release for the past 10 years. And I'm here to testify in strong support of this bill. As they've said, several people have said we don't have a Compassion release bill. We do need one.

We worked on this bill and by we, I mean the group of attorneys primarily from all from here, with the expertise of three of the best attorneys in the country from FAM who worked with us, we worked for nine months to present this bill to you today. And this bill represents best practices without any doubt.

And so I hope you'll look at it from that perspective. One of the, the blowback I guess that we're getting is that we, we believe that every single person who's incarcerated by the state of Hawaii ought to be at least eligible for compassionate release.

Whether that they have a life without parole or a mandatory minimum sentence doesn't mean they're going to be released. It means they're eligible to be considered on a case by case basis. And the law clearly states the person is a danger decided they may not be released. Finally, I just want to say that I. There is no.

I can understand people saying life without parole. We should just keep them in. We do not have the facilities to. To take care of these people. Mentally ill people, people with Alzheimer's disease who need a quiet environment.

We got people now in our infirmary with brain, brain cancer, brain tumors, glioblastoma, als, and really devastating diseases because they' people and those diseases set in and we are not, we are not staffed or we don't have the physical facilities to take care of those people.

So the best practice right now would be to get them into the community where they're, they're less expensive and, and it's where they belong because they're going to die there in peace. We. That's what we're really trying to do. So thank you very much.

Okay? Thank you very much. This is the end of my list of testifiers. Okay. Okay, let's see. One additional person. Shelby Picachu Billionaire on Zoom.

Unavailable on Zoom, Chair.

Okay, Anyone else here to testify on this measure? Okay.

This special release? Yes. Okay. Oh, thanks.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chef. I don't know the protocol. My name is. My name is Van Ki Kahumoku. I'm currently the President of Ohana, which. Is. The rescue of one nation. Translated, I mean, trying to get all the inmates. I'm trying to get all the inmates. You're just talking about compression and release.

The reason they're in prison is because a foreign country decided to put us, our people, in another foreign land called the United States. Now, if they kept us here, we could have been useful to the community, learn how to do something to. Right. Right what we did wrong. Okay? We could have been here working in the community.

Some of us need a little bit more help than others. And that's why we need to use the Puhua Noah concept. You know what a puhua noise. Okay? Whatever people are in that community make the rules.

It's a decentralized system that worked for Hawaiians or the natives for thousands of years, all the way up to when we left a place called Babylon to come to Hawaii.

And what I'm trying to do is get rid of this system so that we don't have any of us in this prison system, we got other ways to handle our people in such a way they become better citizens. It's called peer group thing.

I'm so sorry. Can I ask you to begin summarizing? You're. We're almost out of time.

Get rid of that state prison system for us. We're a kingdom. We're a different country.

Thank you for your testimony. Okay.

Hi everyone. Hi, my name is G. Lion. I have a shared mantle to an organization called God Forgives Bad Boys and Bad Girls Compassionate release. Move me to be present because I do have a personal situation in this. I'm hoping that such is extended to my husband, Mano Lion. But of course this is at the federal level.

For those who knew my husband, I believe can say that there are individuals that can be rehabilitated even prior to incarceration or to believe that there is a setting supporting sustainability while incarcerated. The truth is it's not so. If you are incarcerated in a state prison, nothing really available, not enough. Nothing to rehabilitate an individual.

I know as I have experienced both myself, state and federal incarceration. So I speak from experience. My heart goes out to an individual who has a state charge take two people, give each of them a 10 year sentence. One at the federal level, one at the state level. The impact and the journey differ greatly.

At a 10 year sentence, it would seem like a 20 and so forth life. Life without could compare to a death penalty. Hawaii does not have a death penalty. My hopes are that this bill finds a way to allow compassion to be extended to people incarcerated in Hawaii.

I am moved to give voice as a supporter to this bill in hopes that to extend such possibilities of compassionate release to all people that have served the length of their time. And at the same time, the shift to cost. At the same time, excuse me.

That the shift to costs allow more to go back into rehabilitating an individual rather than caring for them with costly medical needs. I support this bill. Thank you.

Okay, Members, we have one more bill on the agenda for which we'd like to take test. Okay, Angela, very short.

Angela Melody Young testifying on behalf of Kapalama Neighborhood Security Walk in strong support to raise awareness about reducing incarceration and recidivism across the state. And yeah, I'm in strong favor of the compassionate release. So there were other bills about inmates who have past traumas.

And then I brought up the concern that inmates with disabilities, mental health, anxiety, they're combating suicide or ptsd and you know, the circumstances that they grew up in that they were not properly treated for and they end up being offenders because resources were not provided to them. Then they end up in prison. So that's not good.

And so to have this measure to help reduce the burden of the state I think is a good idea. And I think an amendment could be considered for a task force of mental health professionals, faith based ministries, active in incarcerated ministries. So I help with God forgives bad boys and bad girls.

And also to include in the task force faith based programs providing mental health support for inmates to gather the nonprofits and businesses that are already doing the work in the community to come up with legislations for next year for the task force to include dle, Department of Law Enforcement, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, HPD and DHS to focus on the public health, public safety and the corrections aspect of managing compassionate release.

Based on. Can you begin wrapping up please? Inmates that have disabilities. And so yeah, also especially inmates with disabilities that have special needs. The impact of an arrest is scary. So anything that we can do to help them. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay, Members.

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members Carrie Ann Chibota I strongly support this measure for medical humanitarian for also fiscal reasons. I think it's been stated before to annually incarcerate one person without medical problems.

It's over $100,000 and on average, people with complex medical care needs that we're referring to terminally ill, et cetera, we're looking at anywhere from 600 to 900,000, nearly a million dollars. That money can be better spent helping people get into the community, get medical insurance and provide for the care that they need.

When we also keep people inside, we're also preventing their families from able to spend their last days together with one another. And I'd also like to share that individuals who even commit the most heinous and serious crimes are capable of rehabilitation and redemption.

I previously worked as a Director for Maui Economic Opportunity Reintegration Program and worked with individuals convicted of class A and B felonies, people convicted at one time of murder, manslaughter, rape, and individuals when they got the support services they need were able to transform their lives, reunite with their families and give back to the community.

And I also would like to say, not only in that respect that I saw people transform, but I think a lot of times people who are pushing for more punitive policies invoke the name of victims. And I want to share with you that my family has been impacted by crime and I'm a survivor of violence.

My uncle was murdered on Maui when I was Six years old. And whoever murdered him was never arrested, never convicted. So they're out in the, out in the community. And yet if they were to go to the emergency room or seek care, they would receive that.

And so I think the compassion is at the heart of this Bill. Aloha. We have the aloha spirit. We need to practice it. And this just makes fiscal, humanitarian self. And I just want to end with a scripture because for myself, I'm a person of faith. Raised Buddhists in one side of my family, but also Catholic.

And their scripture that remember those in prison as if you were bound by them. And we ultimately are interconnected. And I humbly ask that you pass this measure.

Thank you.

My name is a Edine Stanley. I have a father who's been incarcerated for almost 40 years. His name is Edward Stanley. He is.

Can you identify yourself, please?

Edine Stanley. I'm Eddie G. Stanley. Ed me Stanley. Thank you.

Anyways, my dad's been in there for almost 40 years. He has life without parole. He did not kill anyone, but he does have sickness. And we would love to have this bill, this compassionate bill pass. I do believe everybody in this world do make lots of bad choices.

And I, I do believe that people that's incarcerated could have a second chance to win life, you know, but other than that, yeah, I mean we as me and my two siblings are here.

He's the baby and I was, I'm the baby sister. We didn't have our dad for so long, but I got the chance and my sister got the chance to see him in person. After 30 something years, I'm not feeling that feeling of a dad. So this compassionate.

We believe that my dad have a second chance and everybody else that is in that system. But the justice system failed my dad from the beginning for his sentencing. And that's all we can share for now. And we just leave it up to you guys.

On you guys making that decision put a compassionate part for our family too.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for letting us share.

Okay, one last Bill on the agenda. We have Senate Bill 2798. This is relating to law enforcement, making the agricultural enforcement pilot program permanent. I don't see any of the testifiers who submitted testimony present in the room. Excuse me. Please come forward.

Really brief, Senator. Thank you. I'm Jared Ridulla. I'm the Deputy Director for the Department of Law Enforcement. Oh, okay. Our. Our Department is in support of this. The Agriculture enforcement program is vital for food security, biosecurity and to make sure that farmers and ranchers and those in the agriculture community are not victimized by crime.

I can tell you that since Duke's Law was passed by you this past July, we've had very regular and very frequent calls over agriculture enforcement crimes. And as a result, we are very busy. So we look forward to this passage of the measure and support it. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, I received an updated listing. So, on Zoom, do we have Maya Hunter?

Not present on Zoom Chair.

Okay. Also, Shelby Pikachu, billionaire. On Zoom.

Also not present on Zoom Chair.

Okay. That brings us to the end of the agenda, and I do apologize to those who have waited a long time, but we appreciate your being here and we will take up decision making on Monday, February 9, and at 3pm in this room. Thank you.