House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone. This is the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Thursday, February 12th, 2PM here in Conference Room 325. My name is David Tarnas. I chair this committee, vice chair Poepoe is here as well as our members Shimizu and Cochran.

Other members are watching from their offices, and will join us presently. Thank you everyone for being here today to provide testimony. I appreciate your willingness to participate in our legislative process. We all do better when we hear testimony from people, to help help us understand the the impacts of the legislation we're considering. I would request that those testifying would try to limit their testimony to two minutes per person just so I can try to get through all the testimony in time then go into decision making.

We've recently upgraded the microphone and sound system in our room here. You'll notice there's these two green lights up here. Those are the microphones. I would just encourage you to speak clearly and loudly. You can use your outside voice.

Articulate. The system will pick up that and broadcast it and also amplify it slightly in the room. Just a hint, it will also pick up all your side conversations. And so I would urge you to refrain from having side conversations, so that it doesn't interfere with our proceedings and it doesn't embarrass you. For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify and after your testimony is complete.

And use the Zoom chat function if you need to chat with technical staff on any technical issues. If you're disconnected unexpectedly, please rejoin us when you can, and I'll try to fit you into the hearing so you can finish your testimony. If the power goes off in the room here and we have to reschedule, we'll make sure to post appropriate notice so you'll know when we're meeting and what we'll be discussing.

If you're on Zoom, please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images that kicks us off of our streaming service we use, which is YouTube, and that's a problem because we want the public to watch what we're doing here so they can be engaged in this process. And, for all testifiers, please refrain from any profanity or uncivil behavior.

It's okay to disagree, but let's just not be disagreeable. That's okay. We're all here to work together as best we can for the benefit of our people and the state, our environment, everybody here. Okay. First up, we have measures that we're considering today.

And first on the agenda is House Bill 2046 relating to the Olelo Hawaii Commission. This measure establishes and appropriates funds for the Olelo Hawaii Commission to coordinate and promote initiatives that support the use of Olelo Hawaii. First up, we have the attorney general. Welcome.

Chair Tarnas and members of the committee, Alyssa Couchie for the Department of the Attorney General. We just like to note that the commission the bill establishes a temporary commission, but doesn't have an end date for the commission. So we just suggest adding an end date. That's all. Thank you for the opportunity to come.

Sure. Thank you very much. Next, we have Bonnie Irwin from the University of Hawaii in support. Next we have Leina'ala Ley, Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support. Welcome. Please come on up and introduce yourself. Let us know why you think it's a good bill.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Mahalo for inter hearing this bill. OHA strongly supports the formation of the commission. We supported a resolution at the county council and the County of Honolulu last year to support a similar formation of a commission.

I will note OHA does already have many programs and activities to support the perpetuation of Olelo Hawaii, but we see the value of a commission that would bring together key government stakeholders, the University of Hawaii, and other important parties that are dedicated to the same mission to work together and to provide information about maybe where more funding could best be directed to assist with our various programs to support a little fight.

Thanks very much. Next we have Heather McVay, Hawaii Civil Rights Commission on Zoom. Please proceed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and vice chair Heather McVay with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. I use she/her pronouns. And we like the bill, one point of correction is that this is a staff recommendation as it had not been we did not have authority yet from the commissioners to support the measure.

However, we do find that language rights are civil rights, and we feel that this would help to provide support and consistency, especially also with state agencies that are working to renormalize Olalo Hawaii and could use the support of some consistency. So I'll be here for questions if you have any. Thank you.

Thank you very much, miss McVay. Next, we have testimony and support from Shelby Billionaire on Zoom. Please proceed. Mister Billionaire, are you there? Please proceed.

Hello, guys. Sorry. I'm on an Ipad now. So aloha, guys. I support this.

We'll make it real simple. Aloha, Chair Tarnas, everybody. So I support most of the bills. I know we gotta speed through a lot of these things. So I support the bill under Ohana Unity Party and Kingdom of Hawaiian Islands.

Thank you. We've received a total of seven testimonies, all in sup, eight testimonies, seven in support, one with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2046 here in the room or on Zoom? No? Questions, members?

Question. Yep. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for all that does. I'm I'm hearing that this this bill, forming this commission, would be a positive because that's not happening now without this commission.

I just wanted to share an example of, what I experienced where it was question. It was a situation where O'lelo teachers were hard to get, so the class was gonna be canceled. How would this commission affect a situation like that or prevent it or support it?

Yeah. I can say the commission would be able to as many I think there's other bills that are more directly addressing that, but I do think there would be value in having the University of Hawaii and other entities who are responsible for helping to create that pipeline of educators because we do have a teacher shortage.

With that in mind, if there's specific, you know groups or entities, I could see the value of also not having the membership closed for the commission, but allowing I see the Department of Education on here, University of Hawaii, but there could be other slots potentially left open in the commission where we could bring in different groups from the Department of Education. Office of Hawaiian Education is more specifically focused on charter schools and immersion.

So we could definitely have spaces in the commission for other voices, and then we could also, as a commission, take testimony from those groups. So I think it would help with the coordination that you're talking about.

Yeah. For sure it would help. Thank you. Sorry, you go ahead. Thank you, chair.

Certainly. Thank you very much. A question for Office of Hawaiian Affairs, if I may, since the university is not here to talk to ask. I'm sensitive to having discussed some of these things with other members and with the public. I'm sensitive that there the native Hawaiian speakers of the Ni'ihau dialect are distinct, and I'm wondering it might be a good idea to have someone with that expertise on this commission. Does that make sense to you?

Yeah. Yes. Similar to my answer to the last question, it does have subsection three six does allow for other subject matter stakeholders as recommended.

So you I mean, you could

But I think it's all I I would agree either with putting it into the statute or just leaving it to the discretion of the other commission members to address some of the issues everyone's raising as far as diversity of who's being represented.

Okay. Yeah. I'm just sensitive that when we speak about Olelo Hawaii, that those who are native speakers of the Ni'ihau dialect really emphasize their distinct differences.

Yeah. Thank you very much. Other questions, members? Seeing none, thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure.

It's Mahalo.

House Bill 2438 relating to the Hawaii Cultural Trust. This measure establishes the Hawaii Cultural Trust within the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. It establishes an income tax credit for contributions made to the Hawaii Cultural Trust and qualified Hawaii Cultural Organizations under certain circum under certain conditions. It also establishes a special number plate for motor vehicles to support the Hawaii Cultural Trust, and it would apply to taxable years beginning after 12/31/2025.

First up, we have testimony from the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism with comments.

Next, we have Department of Tax oh, yes, please. Please come on up to the podium and introduce yourself.

Yes. Aloha. Chair Anderson, vice chair Poepoe, and members of the committee. I'm Rick Manayan for the on behalf of Director Tokioka for the Department of Business Economic Development and Tourism. The DBEDT stands by its testimony and comments on House Bill 2438 HD 1.

Thank you.

If you could, usually, I don't let people just stand on their comments or stand on their testimony. Could you highlight the major points that you want members and the public to know that are in your testimony?

Okay. Sure. I think what we'd like to do is work with the committee and others where to effectively implement the responsibilities of establishing this cultural trust within DBEDT. We will need the adequate resources And at the minimum, I think, a staff person, full time staff person, one physical management staff person, and administrative support. So those are some of the highlights that we noted in our comments.

Okay. And I appreciate your testimony and and that you're here. So if we have questions, I'll I'll Yes. Able to ask them of you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from the Department of Taxation. Welcome. The floor is yours.

Dean Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Clinton Pfeiffer, Department of Taxation. We'll largely be standing on our written comments, just to, highlight a little bit about the department's role. We generally will not weigh in on the merits of a, bill as far as why it should or should not go. We will focus more on the administration and enforcement of the bill.

To that effect, we have two recommendations, to amend the bill. The first would be, an recommending, altering the approval sorry, the effective date. So that Section three will apply the taxable years beginning after December 31 sorry. 12/31/2026. The reason for this is to give us time to do instruction changes for new forms, system updates, and provide notice to taxpayers.

Our second request is that section three be amended to include a provision that the credit will be claimed within one year of when it is earned. This is to ensure that we don't have credits hanging loose out there. It's not within my testimony, but it is common when we are asked what is going to be the financial impact of this bill. I don't have those numbers yet, so I can't represent that to this committee. I did check before coming over.

We do have an analyst assigned, and we do anticipate that we will have, numbers when it gets to the, money committees.

Thank you. Great.

Thank you. That is something that we are all asked to do as chairs. If we're moving a bill to finance committee, we will be asked what the fiscal impact will be. So if you could share that information with us whenever you get it, then we can and share it with finance committee if the committee moves it on, so that we would be fully aware. Yes.

Thank you very much. Okay. Next, we have, next person that said they wanted to testify was, Lena Alalei, Office Hawaiian Affairs. Welcome.

Mahalo again. OHA supports this bill. We, support the intent of providing funder funding for culture, arts, and perpetuation of native Hawaiian heritage and other cultures in Hawaii. I did want to flag that we had a concern with the language on page 10 lines one through six because it's asking that OHA maintain a list of qualified organizations for purposes of administering the tax credit.

But the way that OHA's grant program currently works is we put out a request for proposals, and then entities that have the capacity to fill it will submit applications.

So we are concerned that having to pre identify organizations is gonna limit who can be eligible to apply. So we would, you know, recommend deleting that language, and we also are independently governed with respect to grant proposals by HRS section 10 dash 17. So we believe that our current process whereby we can post that, you know, a grant is available for these purposes and then let entities or individuals who can satisfy that grant apply without trying to restrict it in in advance.

That could just unfairly disqualify people unnecessarily. Mahalo

K. Thank you very much.

Next, we have Mr. billionaire on Zoom. Please proceed.

Hello, guys. Pikachu Shelby Billionaire, I'm gonna represent Ohana Unity Party King, the Hawaiian line. So I agree with what OHA said and the tax man. I understand it when I read the bill. I support the bill 100%, but how I would qualify if the IRS is involved, you gotta be a NHL, the native Hawaiian, you know, qualified organization under the Department of Interior, and that how that's how it'd be easier to track.

How you guys finagle the language, that's up to you. But if you're gonna get the tax credit, obviously, it's gonna be income. Then how you guys streamline, it should be financially transparent. And, that's all I have to say. But I do approve this bill, and you can make some amendments.

Call the attorneys to go put the fine language in there. But heck yeah.

Thank you. Next, Tom Yamachika, Tax Foundation of Hawaii on Zoom.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, member of the committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We we don't object to additional support of Hawaiian culture and the organizations that will keep it aligned. We are concerned about the funding mechanism. The proposed trust fund doesn't meet the statutory criteria for being a trust fund.

If the idea is to support these organizations, it's better and more transparent to appropriate the money, give them grants. That way you know how much you're giving, with the tax credit you don't. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We've received a total of 13 testimonies, nine in support, four with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House bill 2438 in the room or online? If not, questions members? Seeing none, thanks very much to the testifiers.

Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2584, relating to the Public Land Trust. This measure temporarily increases the total amount of public land trust revenues transferred to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs while reaffirming the state's obligation to the 20% pro rata share pursuant to the Hawaii State Constitution. And it reveals, 06/30/2028. First up, we have, the Attorney General.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, members of the commission excuse me, committee. The Attorney general recommends amending section two of the bill to delete the requirement that OHA receive a minimum of the amount necessary to satisfy the 20% pro rata share required under the state constitution. The constitution itself, the admission act, they don't expressly say that it was entitled to 20%. And without more specific standards, it would be impossible to determine what dollar amount would equal a 20%, pro rata share.

That's, that's the the same problem that the Hawaii Supreme Court wrestled with in the Yamasaki case.

And in that case, the Supreme Court held a it was up to the legislature to decide how the 20% should be allocated. So a blanket requirement looked up to be unworkable. For example, is it 20% of gross revenue, net revenue? Would it for example, would it be 20% of public housing authority rent, 20% of, faculty housing rent if the faculty housing's unceded land? Are there restrictions on, the particular income stream?

For example, the Hawaii Supreme Court has already held that federal law preempts from receiving 20% of certain airport lease revenue even though the airport sits on ceded land. Another example could be an income stream that is already committed to paying off bonds. And, you know, this isn't an an exhaustive list by any means, but I think these are some of the examples of the questions that need to be answered.

And right now, the legislature has already, established the working group which, which is, you know, hasn't finished its review yet and it seems like, you know, that process should be allowed to play out. So that's, all I have.

I'm available to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you very much. Next, Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee.

There's a number of OHA trustees here, so I'm gonna cede my time and let them speak and then if I can answer technical

Sure. Who should I ask to come up?

Questions afterwards. We do have a number though. It's in our testimony. It's $80,000,000, and we can talk Understood. About that number.

Understood. Trustee Lindsey, welcome. Please floor is yours.

Mahalo. Aloha, chair, vice chair, and honorable members of the committee. My name is Carmen Hulu Lindsey, trustee for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify before you today. I stand in strong and unequivocal support of House Bill 2,584 to ensure the fair and lawful allocation of revenues from the public land trust as clearly established in state law and affirmed by our state constitution.

The law provides that OHA is to receive 20% of all public land trust revenues. Yet currently, OHA receives approximately 5% or 21,500,000, far below what is mandated. This disparity is not merely a funding issue. It is a matter of legal compliance, fiduciary responsibility, and justice. The full and proper allocation of these revenues will enable OHA to expand and strengthen programs that directly serve native Hawaiian communities, addressing housing, education, health, and economic stability.

By honoring this obligation, the state will not only uphold the law, but also reduce long term reliance on additional state funding by empowering OHA to fully to fulfill its mission more effectively. House Bill 2,584 is a necessary step toward restoring integrity to the management of the public land trust and ensuring that commitments made to our people are honored in practice, not just in principle. For these reasons, I respectfully but urgently urge the committee to pass House Bill 2,584.

Mahalo for your time, your leadership, and your thoughtful consideration.

Mahalo. Good to hear from you, Trustee Gauthieria.

Yes. Okay.

Please proceed.

Boy, this place is familiar to me.

Glad to have you back, sir.

Glad to be here. Glad to be here. I hope for the opportunity to testify in strong support of HB 2584, I would like the words of the previous speaker to be entered into the record as if they were my own. And then I could expound a little bit. On behalf of the the board too, we do have, other fellow trustees here to share at this moment.

Our Chair, Kai Kahele, our Vice Chair, along with representatives of Kalei Akaka's team here in the house. Let me just continue the thought from Chair Emeritus Hulu. This gap that we're looking at closer to 80,000,000 included including those of the state the state has historically contested. The gap is a matter of compliance as trustee said, but OHA is underfunded. Native Hawaiians are underserved in housing, education, health, cultural programs, and advocacy needed to address systematic inequities.

But I also want to highlight two issues that have remained unresolved for decades even during my time here at the Senate. Firstly, the state has never maintained a consistently recognized authoritative inventory of the public land trust lands themselves. That's very true. Secondly, there is still no uniform transparent reporting system across all departments that collect or manage PLT revenues. When I was in the Senate, I asked at the time BNF director, I think Wes Machiras, circling around.

He's in the Speaker's Office from what I understand. I asked him to come in and explain to me clearly, was this an honor system? To which he replied, yes. That's all we needed to know. So there's the two inequities and inadequacies that are very, very I think reflects the accountability difficulty here.

So HB2584 is a necessary step towards correcting these long standing inequities. It does not create new benefits. It simply moves the state toward honoring existing laws, and moves us towards trust, fairness, and fulfillment of constitutional and statutory obligations. I respectfully urge the committee to pass HB 2584. Thank you for your time.

Mahalo. Mahalo. Chair Kehle? No. Trustee Souza?

No? Sure. Thank you. Sure. Trustee Akaka?

Do you wanna speak? You're all set. Okay. Alright. Well, thank you for the whole delegation from the trustees of Hawaiian affairs, and we'll turn it back to, Miss Alalei to wrap up the OHA testimony.

Sure. Mahalo, Chair. I just wanted to, make the point in response to the attorney general's comments and some of the, the comments in the testimony from DLNR. There might be certain details around the edges of what is the exact 28% table, but we certainly have, data and evidence that has been in the records in the PLT working group, test report that was due to the legislature last year, and it shows that uncontested historical amounts are between 35,000,080.

So we don't have to talk about what is this number that that is so uncertain.

There actually is certainty that OHA's 20% is much higher than 21,500,000, even if we don't have an exact number. I also wanted to point out that the state maintains the carry forward account, and that is money that agencies put into a trust account when they have, basically, they've met their contribution to the cap the state has set. So right now the cap is 21,500,000, so the agencies, that's the maximum that they give.

But there's a trust account that takes any overpayment that should have rightfully gone to OHA, and the amount of money currently in that account is $55,000,000. So if there are, in fact, fiscal concerns, that is a revenue source that exists, that is money that's indisputably owed to OHA because the agencies themselves have already identified it identified it as so.

So I just wanted to highlight that point. Mahalo.

Mahalo. Thank you to all the testifiers from Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Next, we have the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Hi, Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Please come on up and tell me who you are. Introduce yourself and

Hi.

Good afternoon.

Find the highlights of your testimony.

Okay. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. My name is Lauren Yasaka. I'm the acting land division administrator currently. The department has opposition to this bill mainly because one there's an unspecified amount regardless of all his testimony today.

At the time when we were writing our testimony, we did not know what the ask was. Secondly, the impact to the special land development fund is unknown at this time without that specified amount. Currently, as you are aware, the administration turnover has been quite different, and we are expecting to do, I think, more management hands on management of our encumber lands and our encumber lands.

Recently, as you folks know, our a lot of our leases are expiring, and the department is inheriting the assets that come with it, the improvements like building that stuff, which are gonna take a new amount of revenue to help us manage. And in the interim, while we get new tenants into those as well. So we're beginning to already budget for the next year and we've already budgeted for the twenty sixth, twenty seventh fiscal year.

So, you know, anything that would put those programs and those management things in jeopardy is what we would be opposed to at this time.

Thank you very much. Next person that said they wish to testify is Dimon Kalei Manaule with Home Manopono. Welcome, sir.

Yes. Aloha. Iman Kolai Manole. Call Co manager of Manoa Poa LLC. I need

it when I proceed corporation operating on a one night course. And I support this bill because it supports Koha. But I got a problem because I don't think this bill was far enough. You know, the attorney general's office, like, quibble about what amount and whatnot. You can read my testimony.

It's pretty intense. The thing is is that the state agreed before it became a state to to to take care of fiduciary duties of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. They agreed to to abide by the Admissions Act of 1959. And I just find it funny that the legislature will have no problem handling Hawaii tourism authority $80,000,000 just like that. They don't even have to fight for it.

Right? This was some number of years ago. They now get problems or any other agency that's not even in a constitution.

A lot of your agencies not even in a constitution. You guys have no problem giving them millions of dollars. When it comes to native Hawaiians through OHA or DHHL, we gotta come here and beg and plead with you guys to do it. So what I'm asking you in this bill, stop playing games. You know, it's an election year.

I realize, you know, it's election year. You like get our votes so you're gonna create one bill, feel good for us, and then you wanna sunset them in two years and just in time for the next vote. We're tired of playing a game. We're asking you to come correct. Come correct in what you're supposed to owe and to quibble about all.

We don't know what the percentage is. You know the 20%. You look at the five purposes for the for on the admissions act, 5 f. There's five purposes. You break each purpose down in 20 in 20%, you get a 100%.

So So I think that's probably where the 20% might have come from. But that's not our problem that you guys never figured it out. All we ask is that you guys do you do what you're supposed to do, and I'm gonna rest on this. You have no problem taking people who who their big debts who know even pay their bill for their for a child support. But then you guys don't like pay your bill for the child support that you owe to native Hawaiians.

Pay your bill. I think you should go farther than this and just grant us the the full 20% that we should be entitled to. Aloha.

Mahalo. The next person that said they wish to testify is, mister billionaire.

Hee hoo. Yeah. You. It's me, baby. Pikachu, Shelby, billionaire, and Kingdom of Hawaiian Islands and Ohana Unity party.

I sent you guys my testimony brought. Thank you. Give me two minutes. Ohio's at their board meeting on Zoom after the Waianae, Kapuna Council. So they heard everything I meant.

So I got the numbers just to let you all know. I asked the governor's representative to take all liability off of you. How much is the ceded land revenue? Because I'm Asian. I can do math.

Whatever x is times 20%. Luckily, I have AI and I did the math. Your 20% off of grace gross revenue to answer that guy's question is $394,300,000. 20% of that, I move the decimal times two, is $78,900,000. OHA is capped at 21.5.

It's already in the testimony. I sent you guys in OHA and all the trustees. That means your shortfall is $57,400,000. That's not including depreciation, appreciation, all the tax stuff that the tax man in a white shirt knows in the room right there. That's just on the base.

So you're telling me in Hawaiian that you're screwing us over 60,000,000 since OHA was made in 1978, DHHL 1920. Pikachu not even this universe till 1982. We short $60,000,000, Bro. Where is the money, honey? I don't know, but you guys are sure.

And I did the math. They can you know, people lie to me all the time, but the AI doesn't lie. So something's wrong with the math. Where is the money, honey? Where is it gonna go?

And you should approve this bill. I read the ELR's testimony. How dare they are? They're afraid. They didn't do check the math.

They didn't call Anti Dong Tang. Check that because speak with you wanna say something. I'm saying something now. The money's right here. Rep Shaniza Asian too.

He knows exactly what I'm talking about. So chair Tarnas, please approve this bill. Let the finance people work the money out. Chihu, Yayu. I support this bill.

Aloha.

Next person said they wish to testify is Julian Ako on Zoom. Please proceed.

Thank you.

Hi. Aloha. Each committee chair operates differently. So I did submit testimony in support of the bill. What I am asking for is that the state discharge its responsibility to our Kanaka people.

Every year, it seems as though there's this little game that's playing about why all he should not get more than it it's entitled to. And I think that's time to to put an end to that. You know, this this whole thing about on on what is the 20% base. I I just don't understand why the state is unable to come clean and and really tell us clearly the revenue from the public land trust is each year to be able to calculate the 20%.

And the other thing that I find absolutely abhorrent is that that the state engages in this thing.

It's about saying, oh, you know, the University of Hawaii spends money in Kanaka. So let's let's just take take money out of the the revenue entitled to OHA for for that money. That's not that's not any anything that that OHA has control over, the budget for the University of Hawaii. I you know, it's to to me, it's it's just absolutely unbelievable how the state of Hawaii plays this game with our Kanaka people and and denies us of what we are entitled to.

I stand on my testimony, and I will remain available to answer questions if there are any.

Thank you.

Mahalo. Next person they said they wish to testify is Jermaine Myers. Welcome. Please come up to the podium. The floor is yours.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas.

Vice Chair Poepoe and honorable members of the committee. My name is Jermaine Myers. I am a native Hawaiian beneficiary and a Nana Kuli Hawaiian homestead lessee. I'm here today in support of House bill 2584 from a very practical place. When families in our communities lose federal support and face delays and shutdowns, they don't experience it they don't experience it as a budget issue.

Aloha.

They experienced it as instability. What OHA has provided during those moments is continuity, keeping programs operating, keeping services available, and keeping trust intact between government and community. House bill 2584 recognizes that reality. It gives OHA the capacity to continue showing up for native Hawaiian families while longer term public land trust issues are still being worked through. The temporary nature of this bill matters.

It reflects care, restraint, and accountability, not excess. As beneficiaries, we are not asking for more than what is fair. We are asking for steadiness, responsibility, and respect for the trust relationship. For that reason, I respectfully urge you to pass House Bill 2584, and I also stand on my written testimony. God bless all of you.

Mahalo. Next, Angela Young on Zoom.

Aloha, Angela. Melody Young cares. I'm in strong favor of this legislation, and I'd like to propose a amendment. And I don't know much about this, but I am setting properties management. So I'm just gonna offer an amendment because the legislation talks about a work group.

So I think in the work group, if you amended to include OHA, DLNR, DHHL, and the county's office, key office from the DPP, which manages the building permits for homesteads. It can then help with clarification of responsibilities and trust judiciary responsibilities to assist with transfer of lands and the money owed to the Hawaiians.

And I think perhaps this is just my opinion is that there is a lot of confusion with the public land trust because we can see a very successful example of a well managed land trust, which is the Kapiolani Park trust. And so, it's not included in the Hawaii public land trust, but it is very successful because the the county offices manage it. And, the city council members are the trustees and responsible for enforcing the trust's provisions, ensuring the land is used, for park purposes in perpetuity.

And, with the Honolulu Zoo and the Waikiki Shell, they have, a bunch of events, and it generates profit and economic development for the people of Hawaii to benefit the economic development of the Hawaiians. So you can see that from this example, the role and the responsibilities of the trustee and the beneficiaries are managed very responsibly, very responsibly. And so I think the confusion here can be cleared up if the work group starts to talk to each other a little bit more. Yeah.

And, of course, I love the moolelo of the ancestors of Hawaii, from Kaneohe to Makaha, from Maui to Hilo to build upon the reparation for the compensation for the Hawaiians.

So thank you.

Oh, thank you very much. Next, Tara Rojas on Zoom.

Aloha. Tara Rojas, yes, I also approve, and what the other testifiers have mentioned as well, the fact that when it comes to Kanaka Maoli, that's when of a sudden that's when all of a sudden you have an issue with, money. You know for how long that you're supposed to have been providing the 20%.

And I know this because also the the OHA have been going to neighborhood board committees, neighborhood Board Meetings, and mentioning how they're only getting, if at all, two to 4% knowing that you're supposed to be providing the 20%. So why is there hesitancy as the other testifier said when it comes to Kanaka Maoli?

You actually should be going retroactive and how, Pikachu had given you the numbers. You have no problems spending money for things that are so heavy. And you said at the beginning of the the meeting, and I wrote it down, Sherry, you said, if you can be upset, you can be, not agree, but please, you know, be, no profanity and do not be unnice for the benefit of us all.

You should apply that comment, not only just about whether how you expressed your upsetness or your anger, but you should really apply that to your the bills that you guys are passing or not passing. So for the benefit of the environment, do not approve negative ones.

For the benefit of Kanakamole, financially finally talking about financially for Kanakamole for this one, approve it. And also owe what you haven't been paying all these years. So there should be no hesitancy to provide your required minimum 20% to Kanakamole. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. We've received a total of 55 pieces of testimony on this measure. 53 in support, one in opposition, one with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2584 in the room or online? If not, questions, members?

Vice chair.

For OHA, maybe Lena Alalei. You mentioned the, the OHA's ceded lands account, and that's a special account where the public land trust funds specifically owed to OHA or is pending being paid to OHA is held. Is that correct?

Yes. That is correct. And I'm looking at the, act 61 annual report, and the way it's labeled is report the subsection is report on administratively created accounts and funds And, the ceded lands, transfers are in that subsection of the report. That's how it's listed here as OHA ceded lands. It actually says overpayment collections to OHA ceded lands.

So meaning, again, the agencies identified it as part of the public land trust revenue, but because it was above the cap, the legislature has sent it when it's this account.

So essentially, we have a fund of money that can only be paid to OHA that we are just not giving you for some or because of the act, but I don't under really understand the reason why.

I think the way it's been interpreted is what the legislature sets is the annual amount is capped. So in 2022, that was actually raised. You remember from different 2020 to '25. So it was raised, but it's considered a cap.

But there's still a significant balance Exactly. And that's what the account was just collecting. And I wonder, I do believe that we are gonna get to a place, hopefully soon, where we do figure out what that 20% is. But in the meantime, perhaps we're creating a backlog of money that we will owe to OHA when we figure that out. I think it's gonna be a lot higher of a number than we think it's gonna be.

Well, then, you know, maybe it's being projected, but I wonder if paying out more incrementally by what this bill kind of proposes to do, it'll help us in the end not owe such a big lump sum, you know, when we figure that out.

Does does that sound like kind of an accurate concept of a statement or or not?

Well, I would encourage rather than incrementally that we think about more immediately because of the funding landscape that we're facing, federal cuts, the urgent need for OHA services, and also the fact that in 2022, there was also a new mechanism. So in the past, again, all the amounts that the the agencies identified that were due OHA but were overpayment were put into account. But now there's actually a mechanism for the agencies to get the money back.

So we actually think that urgent action is needed rather than incremental action.

I agree. I think maybe I just didn't state the question correctly, but thank you.

Thank you.

One question.

Sure. Any more questions? I'm sorry.

I'm okay.

Okay. Mr. Shimizu. Sorry.

So that, what you were just talking about that I believe you mentioned $55,000,000. That's actual money that's sitting there.

Yes. It is in the Act 61 report filed for the legislature this year.

And sorry for my ignorance for lack of a better term. OHA is capped to receive $21,500,000. So even if even if we had more money, by whatever statue or language, you guys are not able to receive it and then it goes into this fund.

Correct.

So do you see any, way in this bill of correcting that?

I think that the issue is raising the cap. So this is an interim step towards addressing making sure, like, we're just talking about that this money there does not go to waste or doesn't revert back to the state when the state has already identified it as belonging to OHA. So that's the immediate urgency.

And then we do certainly want to get to a point that rather than having OHA's payment capped, it's being accurately reflected in the share of revenues that the state is bringing in and that 20% funding stream that should be coming to OHA. So that's the work of the public land trust working group.

It's a little bit longer term, but in the meantime, we have this urgent need and available funds for that purpose. So

I totally agree. So I guess it goes back to my original statement. Is there a way of of of starting language or crafting language in this bill that would accomplish that?

We do have the Go

Our office directive, I think a way to amend it would be to increase the cap so that we can get the the money that is in this account, which is an overage of the end of the annual contributing from the different departments.

So the cap cut would be, besides increase, you know, if it's not increased enough, you folks still cannot get access to all of the $55,000,00., You know what I mean?

Right. Yeah. So it was just increased into 2022 when we moved from $15,100,000 a year to $21.500,000. So I think it needs to be increased again. And depending on how the future goes with the resources, we can increase it then even more. But our ultimate goal is to get 20% of our gross income of the of those lands, and that would be around $80,000,000 a year.

We're far from it. We're only receiving 5% right now.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Representative Garcia.

Thank you, Chair.

For OHA as well, just a question, maybe, Inala. In that special fund that's just sitting there, the $55,000,000, can you confirm that OHA has no access to that special fund? No access. Okay. Thank you for that.

My next question is for the AG, please. The AG is here. Yep. So I just want a legal interpretation here, because if the constitution is quite clear that 20% of our public land trust revenue goes to OHA, is it your view that having a cap is constitutional or not constitutional?

So the the constitution and the admission act don't say 20%. It just says pro rata share. And so, it's up to the legislature to determine what OHA receives.

So it's your view that the cap is constitutional then?

Yes. Absolutely.

Vice chair, back to you.

Thank you. For OHA again, just listening to the conversation with this fund and money that is in there that can only be paid to OHA but isn't would I mean, it seems to me like removing the cap and expensing the funds, I mean, it can only go to OHA. So I is that something because you talked about increasing the cap, but what about removing a cap?

Yes. That would be ideal, but there that would be ideal to have a a formula and to have that that would be the annual amount would fluctuate with the payments coming in. There are certain technical limitations on that right now, but, yes, absolutely. That would be the goal, not have a cap. It needs to reflect 20% on an annual basis.

We absolutely agree with that. That's okay. Yes. Thank you.

Representative Kahaloha.

Thank you, Chair. Can I ask a question of the attorney general? Mahalo for your testimony. As you can see, I think the intention is as in OHA's testimony showcased that there is extra funds sitting in the ceded land fund. And so the question is understanding federal cuts and the obligations to the 20% of the public land trust revenue.

I understand we don't have a full inventory, so it's hard to lean into a number. But the intention is if there's money sitting in that fund, how can we as we're looking at what is the true public land trust inventory, which we still need to process through with the working group. As we look through that, I think there's a need that OHA does deserve more funding.

So should we be looking at changing language in the bill to reflect instead of the 20% change of language as you recommended in a solid number as we and and the reason the bill had a sunset was because we're waiting for the PLT to get to a true inventory. There really shouldn't be a sunset in funding to OHA, but we did that because we know we're trying to get to true numbers.

Should we change this language instead to an increase in a cap versus So versus the way the language is written currently?

Yeah. No. Thank you for that question, representative. I think that aligns with our testimony in that, if you have a set number, we don't have any of these ambiguities anymore. And and that would that's the standard that the legislature had set.

If I may, I can clarify, some of the issues regarding this account, this overage account, if I may. So when when the legislature set the 15, the $15,100,000 cap in 2006 in act one seventy one seventy eight. It, authorized the governor to establish administrative procedures on how to satisfy that $15,100,000 payment. And, the same thing happened when the legislature increased it, in 2022. So, there's an executive order that governor Ihia signed.

It's, EO 22 Dash04, that lays out all of these administrative procedures on how the agencies, you know, the the agencies basically transfer their money to BNF. BNF then pays OHA every quarter and there's, an account called the carry forward trust holding account that I I think that's the one we're talking about. So it's not, a special fund per se. It's an administrative account that B and F set up in order to ensure there's money to pay OHA, the the $25,100,000 share.

Thank you.

K. Other questions, members? Sure. Representative Cochran?

No. Thank you. And for Mr., for AG's officer sorry. Before you walk off. Yeah.

I'm trying to, decipher your testimony concerns with section two of the bill. I'm feeling like, you're trying to address that cap language and you're saying deleting these different items. Is that kinda what that's that's, guiding towards or can you explain a little more?

Yes. Because the the way the bill is written now, there's an unspecified cap amount and then there's also a requirement to pay at least 20%. And so even if the legislature sets a cap, because you have that minimum 20% requirement, there's always gonna be a question as to if the state meets the cap,

maybe the the state needs to pay more because there's this 20% language. And it's very difficult, if not impossible, to figure that out because of all of these lack of standards that I testified about earlier. And so our testimony is to basically delete the 20% and just keep a cap.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions, members?

No. No. I just want chairs.

Chair Lindsay, I or Trustee Lindsay, it looks like you wanna say something.

I'll ask you to come up and ask you a question if you would like to make any final comments before we move on to the next bill.

I did.

Thank you. I want to make a clarification on the 20% number. In the previous speakers that, that 20% is not defined anywhere, but it is. In the Hawaii State Constitution, Article 12, section six mandates that a pro rata share of income from the public land trust comprising former Crown government lands be paid to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for Native Hawaiians. This was later codified in Hawaii revised statutes 10 dash 13.5 to define that share as 20% of all funds derived from the trust.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Any other questions, members?

Last question, Chair. Attorney Chair.

Seriously. Last question. Yes. Okay. I'm here.

You know, as this bill is written, it it it's stating that we're we're increasing the cap temporarily. So could that be interpreted to say that Bola can access the $55,000,000?

No. If the blank is filled in with the new cap, I I don't believe that that would affect the the carry forward trust holding. Because, again, that that account is just an administrative account that BNF uses to ensure Ola has paid the $25.1.

Okay. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, members, for your questions. Thank you to the testifiers for your information. It's It's an important topic. We will take this up in decision making and, see if we can move this forward. Let's move on to the next measure.

Thank you

20. This is House Bill 2,433 relating to the Hawaiian language. This measure requires that the Hawaiian version of a law be held binding if the law in question was originally drafted in Hawaiian or if the law was originally drafted in English and if the law was subsequently amended, codified, recodified, or reenacted in Hawaiian and meets certain criteria. First up, we have the Attorney General.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Charles Jung Min Lee, deputy attorney general. So this bill changes the rule for conflicts between English and Hawaiian statutory text by making the Hawaiian version controlling in certain cases. And our concern is that as drafted, it can create uncertainty about which version controls, especially when an English law later has a Hawaiian version and then gets amended again in English. So that's why I'm here, and I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, we have the judiciary testimony. Thank you for being here. Floor is yours. Please proceed.

Chair Tarnas, vice chair Poepoe, and members of committee. My name is Johanna Chock-Tam, and I'm here on behalf of the judiciary. I serve as the director of the Aloha banking program of. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify on HB 2433, which has a very important question. When the English and Hawaiian versions of the law say some something different, which version should we follow?

Under current law, HRS 113, if the two versions differ, the English version automatically controls. HB 2433 tries to fix that by removing the English preference. As written, the bill replaces it with a text origin model, tying the binding version to the language of the law which was originally drafted in or later amended or later recodified in. The judiciary appreciates this intent, but we do have some comments. A text origin model, relies on information that is not always meaningful.

For example, a law may be recodified or amended purely for technical reasons such as renumbering without changing its substance. But under this model, the technical change could shell shift which language controls. This creates uncertainty for courts, agencies, and the public. Instead, we are recommending a neutral intent based standard.

Our proposed language reads, wherever there is a material difference between the English and Hawaiian versions of a law, priority shall be given to the language that best reflects the intent of the legislature as evidenced by legislative history, context, and purpose.

This is the same approach used by bilingual jurisdictions like Canada where both languages are given equal, authoritative treatments. Our goal here is to remove the automatic English preference and honor the co official status of Lolo Hawaii and provide standard statutory review. Mahalo for the opportunity to share my knowledge.

Certainly. Thanks very much. Next, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Mahalo chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. OHA supports the intent of this bill to ensure that if a law is drafted in Olelo, Hawaii, that the interpretation is intended in the original language is preserved.

I understand the judiciary's technical concern, so we would support the the amendments to the extent that they ensure that there's not technical con conflicts between the version of the law, but we do think that the essence of the measure to ensure that laws originally written in Olelo, Hawaii, have the Olelo, Hawaii version binding would best meet the goal, just man mentioned to ensure that the intent of the legislature at the time is preserved as well as understanding of people who are involved in the legislative process at that time as well.

Mahalo.

Mahalo. Next, Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Heather McVeigh. I'm the deputy executive director of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, and I use she/her pronouns. The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission supports this measure and suggests the amendment as well as the legislature I'm sorry, the judiciary to indicate the law should not be sidestepped by having been amended unless the amendments are material. Language is a cornerstone of civil rights and this bill advances civil rights for native Hawaiians.

And we also note that our state's motto and foundational values that have made Hawaii national leaders in civil rights are enshrined in Olelo Hawaii. So recognizing and honoring original Olelo Hawaii versions of laws under certain conditions will go beyond symbolic recognition and make a real commitment to Olelo Hawaii renormalization. I'll be here for questions if you have any. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Next person, mister billionaire on Zoom.

Mister billionaire that are you present? If not members, I urge you to take a look at his testimony and support this bill, you know, go ahead.

I support this bill. I got Internet issues. Support bill 100% for Olelo Hawaii

Thank you. Thanks very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on how It's

all absorbed at HRS 1-1. So I support this. Thanks very much for the language. Aloha.

Sure, yeah. Aloha. Thank you. Is there we received seven testimonies on this measure. Six in support, one with comments.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2433 here in the room or online? If not, questions, members? Really Vice chair?

Really quick clarifying question for judiciary. In your spoken testimony, you suggested an amendment that says wherever there is a material difference. Is that correct? And in, the written testimony, it says when whenever there is a difference.

I see that. Okay. Yeah. It should be material. But if you did submit written, so, in the second round, if we come to the well, we'll make that change.

Okay. So that material word is completed. Okay. Thank you.

Other questions, members? If not, thank you to all the the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1982 relating to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. This measure appropriates funds to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands for certain geothermal resource exploration and development activities and the hiring of consultants.

First up, we have, Department of Hawaiian Homelands.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Oriana Leao of DHHL. The department stands on its written testimony in support of this measure that was approved by the Hawaiian Homes Commission. Our testimony outlines five different islands with different prospective sites. At this time, the department is interested in pursuing preliminary investigative and exploratory work. We also recognize the need for environmental review and beneficiary informational meetings that will be initiated in April and May of this calendar year.

I'm available for questions. Mahalo.

Mahalo. Next person that wish to testify is Dimonkale Manole. In support, not present. Next, we have Terry Napiahi on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha mai. Mahalo nui to our commissioner to our committee members here for judiciary and Hawaiian affairs. My name is Terry Napiahi representing Truth For The People and Keaukaha Action Network. In the early eighties, geochemist scientist Donald Thomas did thermal subsurface exploratory drilling statewide, But his studies pointed to Puna where the best geothermal resources were. They planned on 25 geothermal plants hoping to produce at least 20 megawatts each for each plant.

They were planning on producing at least 500 megawatts and also using an undersea cable to go from our from our Moku to Oahu. This project failed, and the public monies that were received, $80,000,000, were lost. We're asking that you not fund taxpayers' dollars again to to do the same thing that Donald Thomas had done in the past. In 2014, Donald Thomas and protege Nicole Lautz from HGDRC began their endeavor to drill water and geothermal resources at Waikiki, Pohakuloa, and State Park.

They also, at the same time, received the funds well, they, proposed to do 22 exploratory sites on Hualalai.

We filed a lawsuit, nine plaintiffs. We had standing and waited for judge Ibarra to do the ruling. UH pulled out. It would be a waste of money, of taxpayers' dollars to support this all over again. And I implore you to look at the the testimonies that are being submitted and also look at the probability maps.

Probability means maybe. You're going to spend a lot of money on a maybe and if. You're far away from the source, which is in Puna, and you're going to lose a lot of money again. I implore you to look at the history. We have fifty years worth of it, and I implore you not to fund this bill.

Thank you very much, miss Napiahi. Next, mister billionaire on Zoom, please proceed.

Hello, guys. So speaking to Shelby, everything, representing Auckland, Hawaii, Kimball Island, blah, blah, blah, blah. So I did support this bill, but after sister's sister's testimony I'm supporting this bill for a unique reason. I've been there with big eyes from Mauna Kea. When you talk to the OGs, the aunties, uncle, they're gonna tell you what sis was just saying.

I didn't believe my first. What they tell you with the geothermal, which is why I'm supporting this because I want DHHL to do the study, and what you're gonna find is how do diamonds and precious metals are made through compression to the volcano. So you got people, there's holes, caves going inside, like the cenotes in Mexico, and then you're gonna find precious metals, gems, everything.

So when you're digging for stuff, the the drill which you're using melts because you're trying to get magma from to Pele, and they don't agree to extorting magma from lava to trying to convert it. Then you're talking about steam.

You're gonna melt stuff. You know, you can use zero point energy with the alien tech, which is much more usable, in my opinion. It's not gonna be on that thing, but if you encourage study, because they're gonna talk about New Zealand Aotearoa, that's gonna cost multi million dollars, all the infrastructure level, lava rock, moving things, labor. It's gonna be very expensive. But if you do the study, that's where all the diamonds, gold, silver, sapphire, amethyst, emeralds, all comes out of Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, Kilauea.

100%. Now they told me that the money is already sent sent out 50% to state of Hawaii, 30% to the county. Mayor Mitch Roth knows about this. It might be going to OHA or some other nonprofit.

I don't know the triple math, but since you guys are legislators, you guys can figure it out because there's something dirty behind the scenes, which is why I said I support the bill because I want you guys to investigate because it's gonna cost a lot more money like Sis was saying earlier.

So aloha.

Thank you. Next, James J Maiojo. In person, not present. Next, who's person said they wish to testify is Anuheia Lee. In opposition on Zoom, not present.

Next. Keola Maolo O'Havailoa Moat, in Zoom, in opposition, not present. Tara Rojas on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha, Tara Rojas. On Wednesday, HB 1983 was heard and was deferred. Why? Because of the testimony that was brought up regarding the actual health effects of geothermal for over forty years as Anake Terry Napahi has mentioned in this and other bills and other meetings. It was deferred.

And in her testimony, she mentioned how last session as well, HB 1307, which also did not pass, how the royal order of the royal order of the still standing Hawaiian kingdom also said no. As you read the six to eight pages of testimonies in which 41 in opposition. One, I think, might have been a misplaced testimony. And then number three, in support, but taking now, Pikachu's one was one. So two in support, 42 in opposition.

And of the two in support, one is a DHHL chair, and one is the who's with, like, I guess, the HGGRC. Anyhow, all I know to say is that the beneficiaries are saying no. The beneficiaries have not been consulted. Even the studies that none of us is, they haven't been consulted because it was Nanatona Kaye Terry found out a a person poking in front of her mom's driveway that they found out. You need to stop the process now.

You need to know about public trust as you said it in the Wednesday one as well. It's in the bill for the benefit and the protection of the land and the people. Economic profit and probability. And as we just heard in this this meeting, OHA is not even getting there 24% for how long. We know that it's just like a cash cow.

It's just like a money coming in, and it's just for the people who are doing it, the companies, the cultural consultants that gonna be paid to study it, and then all of the DHHL that but the DHHL, oh, the money doesn't trickle down to the beneficiaries. We see there's beneficiaries still needing, you know, their land. They need a home. So this geothermal should not be built at all on DHHL lands. The DHHL lands have a specific person a purpose, and you guys have a trust.

You guys took an oath as well to uphold what is right for the environment and the people, and the people always come before profit. We all are on the same island. And as I said before, I said again, do not wait. Look at the studies. Look at what not being shown to you about the over forty years of health effects and the forty over forty years of no to geothermal.

All islands are different, and the long lasting effects will be forever. Once geothermal's in, it's forever. So if if if it gets and it reaches you, even if it's not in your backyard, and if the toxic air reaches you, it's gonna be too late. You're gonna be on the side with us saying no. Stop it.

Shut it down. Like, what Puna Community have been doing for over forty, fifty years. They haven't got the testing air testing done. It's being covered up, and they're just suffering. They're literally suffering.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

So no to geothermal.

summarize? Muhammad. Could you summarize your testimony? Oh, thank you.

Yeah. Yeah. Just no. Just no to geothermal. Please do not pass this.

Okay. Thanks thanks very much. I appreciate your testimony. So we've received 46 testimonies, 41 in opposition, five in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1982?

Oh, please. Please proceed.

De Mont Kalai Manaole, co-manager of Ho'omana Pono LLC, an LLC corporation operating on Hawaiian coast. And I support this this this bill wholeheartedly because in 2011, New Abercrombie had got a bill passed that said that 100% of the revenues from geothermal are the the royalties of the, revenues that come from geothermal goes to Hawaiian homelands. And yet, we have nothing because nothing is being done. We need to support the department to be able to do geothermal. At least on Oahu, I know in Lualualei, it'll be a great spot.

I live in Lualualei, you know, and I don't have no problem with with them doing geothermal here. And you know why I have no problem? Because I'm tired of HECO. I'm tired of HECO and I'm tired of all these oil companies and all these other people coming here and extorting us. I mean, look at look at what happened with Lahaina.

Lahaina went burned. We informed them from from the state legislature and asked for $700,000,000 to build them out. And at the very same time, they they went to the POC to raise our rates. So they've got in our pockets twice. I'm tired of that monopoly that HECO has over us.

I think that we should have our own energy creation on our own homelands so we can take care of our own people and to be able to fund our people. Finally, have something that can fund the department on on a lasting mission so that we can fulfill the Hawaiian Homes Commission that can get rid of the 30% of the 30 almost 30,000 on the wait list.

And then the other thing I like to say is this is that, you know, every time we come and and our own people say, oh, the trust beneficiaries never say they say they don't like this. I'm a trust beneficiary. So they never asked me.

And if you ask me, I won't tell you I support it. Right? So there's a lot of guys like me that won't support it. So one person does not speak for everybody, and everybody get their own opinion. So for me, I support it.

Thank you. Aloha.

Mahalo, appreciate your testimony. Anyone else wishing to testify on HB 1982? If not, questions, members? Represent Garcia first.

Thank you, Chair. For Chair Watson. Mahalo, colleague for being here. One of the I mean, this topic has been around for a while and Common arguments I hear against it is that the lack of consulting the beneficiaries. I'm just curious what efforts has the the the department made in recent years to engage in this conversation across the state with beneficiaries.

Yes. It's been very limited without a doubt. So in the coming year, that is gonna be our primary focus to consult with the beneficiaries, but at the same time, identify viable sites. You know, we're we're looking at basically about 10 different sites across the island. And so which are viable?

I don't wanna be wasting time or, you know, spending money like how some people are criticizing unnecessarily. We wanna do this very preliminary analysis, even boreholes, which are less invasive, But do it in a way that can identify. But at the same time, I think it is critical. This is one of the things I learned from Mars when I went to visit New Zealand, is you gotta lead with your beneficiary. If they don't want it, then you don't do it.

But if you can educate them as to the benefits, whether it's 11,000 homesteaders that we have that spend about 32,000,000 a year in electricity costs, where we can reduce it, and not only reduce it, but stabilize it and control it.

You know what Demond said about controlling it? The department would like to control it and not only put it on our land, but get the revenues, but, you know, also address 7,000, what do you call it, project lessees that we're gonna have to put the infrastructure in. How do we put that in? How do we pay for that? Part of it is through generation of money.

And so but it has to be done in a in a very collaborative way with our beneficiary that are supportive. If they don't support it, then that doesn't work. But also identifying sites where you know, we're obviously not gonna put in a hay owl or historic sites or next to a large residential development. No. We're not gonna do it like that.

We're gonna look at that with this buffer zone. The technology today is it's totally different when they built it way back in the sixties at Puna. The there's a very small footprint. You don't have these toxic settling pools anymore that are, cause of a lot of health issues. And then you can do it in a way where it's less a lot invasive or it's a closed loop system.

So there's a variety of things. But let me, again, stress. We have to talk with our beneficiaries, which we're gonna be doing throughout the state in the coming year, but also educate them as to the the value. But also, whatever we do, we're gonna go through the 343, you know, requirement to make sure all the environmental issues are addressed, as well as follow the protocol regarding the cultural approaches.

Just a quick follow-up, Chair. If it does pass and you folks proceed with this, would all the energy production directly benefit homestead households and homesteaders, or would the energy be sold back to the state for for the general public?

Well, you know, it's a combo. Obviously, wherever we locate a geothermal plant, my primary focus is gonna be the beneficiaries in that area. Just like how the Maoris do it. The whoever they have, like, three, plants that I looked at, and the tribes surrounding it were the ones that directly benefit. The majority of the profits went to them, went to reducing their costs, housing construction, and all kind of rents and various other things.

Another thing is, you know, it has to come from them. They have to be willing to accept. Only the benefits, which I view as an asset and a benefit, but more importantly, support it and manage it, make decisions. They make the decision. They're gonna be basically controlling this.

And it it's not gonna be a DHHL or a lot of things. It's gonna be the beneficiaries that'll eat and benefit. Thank you.

Thank you. Representative Cochran.

And thank you, director Watson, for being here. So I'm looking at the, potential areas you're looking for on Maui itself. And in my district, which is basically the head of Maui, we have the Leali'i's and Lahaina, the Wai'eho Kos and the Waikapus. So Kahikinawis is totally on the other side of the island, to the query of mister Garcia, to benefit the existing beneficiaries.

I have the largest population of beneficiaries in my district right now. I think do you think that, you know, the and the amount of money you're saying you want beneficiaries to guide this discussion and to move forward, but you're asking money now appropriately and then go back to the informed consent and asking the beneficiaries after the fact.

When you already have this money, potentially, this body is gonna give you and you know what I mean? So you already have it predetermined.

The money that we're asking for 5,000,000, it's it's identified. That's for preliminary test to identify the viable sites. Right. That's it. We're we're not gonna build anything with that kind of money.

You need about a 150,000,000 to do a 30 megawatt plan. Right. It's not it's not cheap. 5,000,000 is to do tests.

Yeah. And so sorry. A follow-up, chair.. I mean yeah.

And that in itself, just any dollar amount that's already being expended by DHHL with these type of efforts without going, you know, thoroughly to the beneficiaries themselves to pre ask, is this how what you think is a proper fit for us utilizing your funds ahead of time? But you're already going to do the preliminary site testing. You have places picked. You know? So it it feels like

Nothing is picked.

So I mean, I don't wanna sit here and debate

Let's let Chair Watson answer your question and then we'll go on.

Yeah. There's nothing that's been picked. The beneficiary consultation that will happen over the next year, Hopefully, it will be done as we also do the testing, very preliminary testing. And again, no site has been picked regarding or committed to a particular geothermal plant. We gotta do the beneficiary consultation, get their support.

That's very important. We also gotta you know, if this particular site doesn't make sense to put it, so I'm not gonna say, well, we're gonna put it in 10 different sites without knowing which are viable. And that's just basic, you know, diligence and seeing whether it's viable. These tests are they have the boreholes which are very noninvasive, and then they have your your slim whole, which are a little bit more expensive, but a little bit more invasive. But we've done some preliminary studies.

We have identified 10 different sites we wanna more fully explore as to viability. And once we've done that, but at the same time, do the consultation. Like I said, that we're gonna leave it with our beneficiaries.

Sure. I have a follow-up, though.

So I know because I was part of I was energy once upon a time, and Olowala was a site on Maui. Is that are you aware of that? So this is not a potential site, though, for you folks I'm

I'm not sure.

At this time.

I'm just reading your testimony as well.

And that that's all, chair. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Vice chair?

Thank you. We need to follow-up on that point regarding the concurrence of the testing and the consultation. What I'm hearing is a desire from community members in the industry's desire to have the consultation prior to any even testing action. Do you do you feel that that might be a better avenue forward? Because I think that when they're happening concurrently, there's a perception that a decision has already been made, whether or not it has been.

Understood. Sure.

Or not. And so I wonder if doing that consultation piece prior, like, I hear as planned, might be a better avenue because you might encounter communities who, regardless of testing being done, are, opposed enough that it won't make sense to test there even if you would want to test there because you would anticipate enough pushback that it might not make sense and, like, to maybe reduce potential sites in that way based on consultation results?

Yeah. The con consultation, obviously, will be very helpful. And I think, it also be helpful that we do the education process regarding the benefits and impacts of geothermal. You know, it's for the long term, especially for the environment in Hawaii, do we wanna continue to import fossil fuel that degrades our environment versus using our natural resources of water, which, you know, if we control, we can dictate where it's gonna be built as well as the the size.

You know, some of the sites we're looking at are gonna be very small geothermal plants because, as I said, the first focus is how can we benefit our native Hawaiians including the community that may be impacted.

Okay. A quick follow-up. Sure. I met with some DDHL representatives early in January. Now at that time, the Moloka'i sites were not on the brochure that I received.

And maybe, like, a week and a half or two weeks later, there were Moloka'i sites. So can you can you explain how that change happened?

Yeah. The, O'lehoo in Naiva is a site that there is some geothermal activity that might possibly be a site. You know, for me personally, I think if we could build a very appropriate scale geothermal plant on Moloka'i, right now, the electricity cost, we spend about 40,000 per month MIS or Moloka'i Irrigation System, and that's huge. And then the systems, the potable water systems we run are very expensive. And those are the water that's the water that our beneficiaries are using for our ag development.

So we gotta integrate and we're also looking at Moloka'i Ranch and trying to integrate with their water system and maybe move move forward possibly on acquiring it. And then, you know, integrate the cattle industry like we're doing on the Big Island with Parker Ranch and some of our beneficiary to a statewide initiative that we can not only take advantage of the cattle prices, but also activate our lands.

And we have significant lands throughout the state, but and a lot of pastoral lands that are being just vacated and, you know, are are idle and not generating any opportunities for our beneficiary. So again, you know, even in the Maori's, they use their cattle in geothermal to pasteurize the milk. They have a lot of dairy products that's created.

When they heat in the water, they can pasteurize the milk. So, you know, I can go on and on about the benefits and

I was just curious how the shift happened from not having Moloka'i on the list to having Moloka'i on the list

It is on the list. To explore and take a look.

I think, from that happening in testimony, there's, you know, a not bad amount of testimony from Moloka'i from being included on that list, primarily in opposition. But, I would also suggest consulting with the Moloka'i Clean Energy HUI, which is a community group that is very heavily invested in community engagement in determining the clean energy solutions for our island. So I think that'll be a good resource.

We've had some discussions with them.

One of their, I believe, members actually traveled to New Zealand. Came back very supportive of that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions, members? Representative Shimizu, and then we do need to move on.

Question for DHHL. Would it be to you? Sure.

I'm with DHHL.

Yeah. I wasn't sure if you're the best person to answer. But thank you for your work of everything. My question is after your 5,000,000 test test only, what's the department's vision going forward? If you if you do find something, if this is approved, you know, you find something, what is the vision of the next steps?

Well, I'm assuming the 5,000,000, and that's actually not enough. But, I guess if we do the boreholes, that might be enough. But the the vision is to, again, do the collaboration with the beneficiaries, identify viable sites. And the next step is to figure out, you know, is there support in our beneficiary base? What is the cost?

How do we fund that? How do we approach it where we have all these other ancillary activities that will benefit from it? You know, that's that this is a long term process. It's not like we're gonna start building geothermal plants next year. We're not gonna be doing that.

It's it's a very long, drawn out process. We wanna be careful. We wanna make sure the environment is not, you know, degraded like happened in New Zealand. Sure. Sure.

Sources of water as well as

Are are you aware of any other department or any other entity in the state that's doing geothermal?

Yes. The University of Hawaii. We're working with those guys.

Okay. I guess my last thought is I agree that DHHL needs needs more money for for the beneficiaries and you're thinking creatively. My my thought is we should have somebody else doing it on your land if you if you think it's, you know, there. And, of course, DHHL should benefit, the majority of it.

But I think you're kinda like getting going into something that may may not be of a good fit. That's that's my my concern. So I'm I'm wondering if you could somehow request other entities or or support to manage what your vision is.

Yeah. We're working with the Mars. We had one of their main guys, Manu Newton, who is in charge of three of the geothermal plants come and kinda gave us the approach regarding how they did it, the different funders, the different problems they ran into, as well as their interaction with the different tribes and the benefits and all the different, businesses that, benefit from it. And so, you know, it's it's a collection of knowledge, including the technology. Like I was saying, the technology is really advanced.

So we we need to use the highest and best technology when we do these geotherm thermoplast, assuming we're moving forward.

Okay?

Okay. So just real quick, I just have a point of clarification. I'm reading Jade Alohilani Smith's testimony and she strongly opposes, but yet it's it's colored in green as a support.

Okay.

So technically 42 up opposition of four in support.

Thank you. Thank you very much to the question, from the members. Thank you to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. We have several more measures on our agenda today.

Let's try to move forward. HB 2223, house draft one, relating to historic preservation reviews. This measure permits the Department of Hawaiian Homelands to conduct a review of the effect of the proposed project on lands under its jurisdiction on historical properties and burial sites subject to certain requirements. And it appropriates funds.

First up we have the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. Please introduce yourself and proceed. Thank you for your patience.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Reginald King, on behalf of the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. We just wanted to highlight that we're in support, but highlight that the current requirement creates a bottleneck for a SHPD to review every product every project, but allowing DHHL to perform these reviews could speed up that process, but also, keep in mind the cultural and the, historic preservation goals.

Thank you very much. Next, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. Chair Watson?

Yep. Good afternoon, Kali Watson, for the department. We stand on our recommendation or our testimony and also the recommendation. As we and, you know, again, this even goes for geothermal. Doing it right. We will continue to do it right.

I mean, that's our culture. We need to preserve it and especially in environment. So we will continue to do that. But this particular division in DLNR is backlogged and it's been a real impediment to moving forward on a lot of our projects. So we need to do it in house.

We'll continue to do it right, and we will do it in collaboration with SHPD.

Thank you very much. Department of Land and Natural Resources, welcome. Thanks for your patience.

Sure. Thank you for giving me the opportunity.

I know our testimony came in a little late last night or last yesterday afternoon. We had a little technical difficulty. I'm Jessica Puff, the administrator of the State Historic Preservation Division. We will stand on our testimony as submitted with concerns about this bill. In particular, it has some elements in there like citing that the DHL will hire historic preservation professionals, which aren't clarified as to who those individuals will be or what their qualifications are.

It also includes language that suggests that this internal review eligibility for DHHL should be in its own section of 6E, and this is sort of an amended statement to our testimony. The rules governing HRS 68 outline the process for which a project proponent will consult with SHPD. It includes all the review timelines and things that they need to be submitting for us. If any agency were to internal internalize the historic preservation review process, they would need their own rules.

And under HRS 6E, SHPD has the ability to write rules for the 6E, anything under HRS 6E.

So the question would be, would SHPD be responsible for writing rules so that DHHL can internalize their own historic preservation review process? Could those rules be fall outside of HRS I mean, Hawaii administrative rules chapter 13-275, which are the rules governing the 6E process.

And those rules need to specify that if any agency were to internalize their own historic preservation review process, that they they maintain positions including qualified archaeologists, a qualified historic architect or architectural historian, and a qualified cultural historian or burial site specialist for that process.

And then lastly, I think one of the points that we made is that this effort is sort of contrary to the last two years of effort we put in with DHHL to develop what's called a memorandum of agreement, which essentially does what DHHL is trying to do here in statute, but it does it through an MOA. And that MOA has guardrails on it.

For example, that requires certain qualified professionals be employed by DHHL either directly or through a contract and that they maintain those individuals and if they are not able to, then they have to consult back with us. And then they also have to consult with us whenever there's an adverse effect to historic property regardless of whether it's listed or being in the process of being listed.

Which is similar to every other state agency that they don't just take into account the effects on listed properties, but any historic property that is a state property because that property belongs to citizens of the state and not the agency itself. So, the language in this bill treats historic properties under DHHL's ownership as if those properties were privately owned and follows sixty forty two definitions as opposed to the responsibilities of state agencies to protect historic properties and state ownership, for the people.

So I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, mister Billionaire on Zoom.

Hello, guys. So Pikachu Shelby representing party of Hawaii Island. So I heard what SHPD said. I approve this bill because I did. You got my mini testimonial. It came in late. But, you know, what's happening when you called DLNR, I did this speech before because we found skulls and dead bones. So when you called DLNR for SHPD, when you find EV Cupuna, they don't bring shovels. They don't come out.

They're understaffed. The cops come with the ATVs. They go over the skulls. We found it at the Cupuna Council last year. And Chris Moroka, our rep, talked about it in yesterday's testimony, and I was in public safety meeting housing committee, but they're not there.

They don't have shovels. They don't got the scientists with the d DNA, RNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, ribonucleic acid. They're not there to testify the bones. And to be honest with you guys, even if you find dead bones, Pikachu's not gonna touch it. I don't wanna get cursed like Indiana Jones.

I don't care how many jewels, silver, gold. I'm not gonna touch no dead bodies. I'm not gonna get cursed like dinner. So however you guys work this up, I do recommend you support this bill, add amendments. But I know that SHPD Last person ain't going there out in the field, ain't going to Big Island, ain't going to Lahaina, ain't digging ditches, ain't looking for the ashes, ain't going for the bones.

Because what happens in reality, you call cops, they call DLNR, they just circle off the area, and they bury it back. That's it, and they move on. So that's the straight up honest from the streets. Aloha. Love you guys.

Thank you. Next, Angela Young.

Aloha. Angela Young here. So testifying and wishing to comment. So, it seems like DHHL is gonna manage the responsibility, and I don't think they mentioned anything about asking for assistance, but it seems like there's also a need for individuals to review. So if I could provide a amendment is to share the responsibilities so the department may consult with county offices of DPP and the the county's Oahu Historic Preservation because development projects are reviewed by these offices for historic properties and also these offices manage.

And so they can provide advice about this. And also, SHPD is the the office that has the archaeologist. The archaeologist will give you a job. And so it's within the Department of International Research to handle compliance for the projects that could affect historic properties. So I do anticipate that, in the foreseeable future, that if there are gonna be legal challenges from the Hawaiians, then to get the offices to work together is perhaps a good way forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House bill 2223?

Yes. Aloha. Iman Kolai Manole, co manager of Home Manapono, LLC, a native wine advocacy corporation operating on Waianae Coast. You know, this this reminds me of my mom used to say this, saying all the time, when she put off by people interfering our business. She she would say.

And why I say that is because why we should already be at one place where DHL can exercise section 101 of the act. Section 101 of the act was created by you guys in in '19 in 1990, thirty six years ago. You guys said that we have the right. The purpose of that Williams Commission Act is to allow us to practice self so, to be self sustaining and to practice self determination.

How is it that we can practice self determination if we gotta come to you all the time, pay you guys for to do what we should be allowed to do on our own homelands?

And I think that the department should be able to control the historic preservation issues on our own homelands. Because I can tell you right now, I testified right in this room, like, in the speed on the last speed working group thing. Not even, shipping not even, the the website not even up. You can't even present any new projects with them.

If you go on the website, they're gonna tell you you can't present any new objects, new projects. So if you cannot even manage your own system, how you gonna come tell department line home? And so you know what? You guys gotta stand by and wait until we fix our system. And by the way, we're not gonna let you do what you like doing your own home lands.

Hey. If section 101 of the act is a real thing, then you guys should support this bill and allow the Department of Homeland to take care of our own. And then for us as Kanaka, we know what we're gonna do on our on our own homelands. We know when we see EV what we're gonna do. But the guy was talking about no shovels and all that.

It's kinda nuts the way things is working. So just I just say, please support this bill because we have a right to practice self determination on our own homelands. And if you guys meant what you meant when you made that that, session one 101, then support this bill. Aloha.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify at House bill 2223? If not, questions, members? Representative Shimizu?

Ship date, please. You know, you mentioned the the MOU. Can I get a copy of that? Yeah. And then can you kinda explain that as briefly as you can?

Yeah. So a memorandum of agreement, we also have a programmatic agreement with DHHL for the the Federal Historic Preservation Review process. Essentially, what it does is it it creates a binding contract between us and another agency about how they are going to follow, in this case, the 60 Historic Preservation Review process.

And we pre consult on a whole number of things, from certain project types to project locations to treatment types for, like, anything from landscaping to to to routine maintenance and repair to new construction, whatever it may be. We pre consult to say, okay.

These types of projects likely won't have an effect to historic properties if they're there. These types of projects will. Of all of these projects, these are the ones that we wanna consult with you on or in this scenario. So if you have a new project site, you're gonna build a new entitlement community, and there's there's surveys been done that identify there's no historic properties there, then this agreement will outline that those locations can go forward with development without any further consultation with SHPD.

They just report to us annually what they did under the programmatic agreement. Similarly, if through survey and previous documentation, it's identified that there are historic properties there and and, a project type is such that it's gonna adversely impact that historic property. Like, in one community, there's some work going to be happening on a single family dwelling that has a historical significance for a person that DHHL can avoid adversely affecting. So under our consultation with them, they're gonna do some interpretive stuff, so that that that that history isn't lost.

So this agreement lays out the parameters for all of that and creates guardrails for how, in a customized way, DHHL will coordinate with us.

And and and her testimony is helps to expand on some of this information too.

Yeah and I'm happy to follow-up with any more detailed questions.

So within the framework of that MOU, do you have, like, dedicated staff to address those concerns at DHHL, their projects?

Yeah. So that agreement specifies who DHHL either needs to have on board as their direct staff people or it allows them to contract with a consultant who meets those professional qualifications to do the work. So if the work includes ground disturbance or requires an archaeologist, it has the professional qualifications for the archaeologist. If it involves altering a historic building, it has qualifications for a historic architect or something like that.

Last question. So so, you know, instead of giving DHHL money to do their own thing, if we were to give you that money and dedicate your staff for their projects because you have the infrastructure, the the the organization, you know, the, you know, your certified whatever, would that work? Where where you address their concerns? Because they're so frustrated that they're saying, we we can't work with you guys. We gotta do our whole thing.

Yeah. Well, I think another a third option to kinda split the difference would be if we were to keep these agreements in place, both the PA for the section 106 National Historic Preservation Act review and the MOA for the DHHL 60 requirements and then gave DHHL financial support so that they could hire their own dedicated professionals to administer their program under those agreements, I think we would be completely happy with that.

SHPD would always be supportive of taking more positions to focus those positions on housing, But I know that in order for people to coordinate with us, they also need subject matter experts supporting them so that they know what to submit to us and how and all of that. So I don't I don't really care who gets the positions just as long as the submittal and the consultation and the evaluation is done using the best professionals we can get.

Very good. Does that work for you, DDHL?

Yep. Any other questions? If not, thank you very much. This is definitely an important topic, but I need to move on to the next item on the agenda.

House bill 2308 relating to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act 1920 as amended. This measure increases the limit of the state's liability for monies borrowed by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands or loans made to lessees that are guaranteed by the department from 100,000,000 to 500,000,000. First up, we have the Department of Hawaiian Homelands.

Good afternoon, Kyle Watson, with DHHL. Our testimony, is, obviously supportive. I would point to the additional testimony that was submitted by Hawaii Community, pending by Jeff Gilpin. They kinda laid out the scenario we're facing or situation we're facing, which with the 600,000,000 that you guys provided us through Act 79, we're looking to do maybe 7,000 new homesteads. We got about 3,000 in the hopper, moving along into phase one.

So just with that, maybe you times that by 350 using the conservative estimate. We'd need close to a billion dollars in loans in order to do the vertical construction and allow our homesteaders to move forward with that. Right now, we've used we have a 100,000 a 100,000,000. We've already used up seven years in our existing home. So we we need help. We need the increase.

Thank you very much. Next, Demont, line up. What? Just make it real quick.

Good morning, Kolai Manole. Stay on my support on this bill.

Thank you very much. Next, mister Billionaire.

Hello, guys. So I I sit on my written testimony. Obviously, Kylie said everything, but I want all of you guys on the Senate and representative side to run the numbers. Make sure the map, because it should be financially transparent and open and make sure it's honest. Because Pikachu doesn't trust people, but we can run read the black and white. So thank you, Aloha. Please pass the bill.

Thank you very much. Next. And, miss Young? Angela Young? Not present. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on HB 2308? If not, questions, members?

One question.

Representative Shimizu.

DHHL. Do do you folks have any default or loss history on any of your that are back?

Yeah. We we do have some delinquent loans. You know, they're they're we call it, rural development, the 502 loans with some delinquencies. We have some direct loans that we do in house. There's delinquencies. We brought on some new people to address the delinquencies.

One of the things we wanna do is set the example that the you know, I hate to say this, but the department has been somewhat there, like, in going after the delinquent hours. So we're trying to kinda increase our contested case hearings officers as well as you know, set set an example. If you take it on and receive the benefit of receiving a new house, you took out a loan, you have obligation, you have payment.

And so, we try to mitigate that and, we usually, the more common approach is to work and work on some kind of payment plan. But moving forward, we wanna set not only a a kind

of more effective enforcement of the delinquencies. So we have to set the example upfront, do the workshops, the training, teach a lot of them how to do it. But this one is more the ability to, you know, make more loans. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, sir.

Thanks very much. Any other questions? If not, let's move on to the next measure. Two three HB 2309 relating to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act 1920. This measure amends Section 208 and 209a of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act to include nieces and nephews who are at least one quarter native Hawaiian as qualifying relatives of lessees for the purposes of lease transfer and lease successorship.

Department of Hawaiian Homelands. Everyone on TV land needs to see you. Chair Watson?

Good afternoon. Kali Watson with the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. We're stand on our testimony.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next, we have a written testimony in opposition from oh, wait, sorry. We have testimony support from Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Do you wanna provide any oral testimony? No one on TV land can see you.

In support.

In support.

Good afternoon again. Vice chair members of the committee. Mahalo, I'm gonna stand on our written screen and answer questions.

In support. In support. Okay. Next, Iman Kolai Manole?

I stand on my support. One of the main reasons I stand on my support on this is because I am waiting for the day that we can actually fulfill Kuhio's dream of having one thirty second be considered. And we can't even get there unless we get everybody off the wait list, and this will help to get people off the wait list now. So I support this bill. Aloha.

Thank you, Iman Kolai Manole. I'll get it right. Mister Billionaire, next.

Hello, guys. Thank you, it's Shelby Billionaire. So why I support this bill 100%? So, Anthony, real life example. I am not a current beneficiary under DHHL because according to their math, which doesn't make sense to me, I'm not 50%.

My grandma's a 100% who married Okinawan, and then I my parents and their brothers and sisters are 50%. So according to Stacy Eli, the beneficiary advocates, blah blah blah blah blah, I'm not 50%. So I can't hear anything until everybody dies. My mom, my dad, auntie, uncle, my grandma and grandpa already mock it. So currently, where I'm staying at the homestead land, that's under my auntie's name.

But unless it goes under successorship like DHHL knows, I can't inherit daily squat. I don't get no equity, no cash flow, no nothing. It's a lease. This goes up against everything. Donald Trump, Robert Keith, talking to me about real estate, which is why I want to support this bill because the nieces and nephews are not gonna get squat.

And here's my example of why I challenge DHHL and the quantity. This is a bottle. Right? Let's say it's a 100% water for all of you guys. This is the DNA.

Now this is a 100% water. If I take a drop of my blood, drop one drop of 1% of my blood in here, is it 99% water and 1% blood? No. You cannot break this up because you're a 100% Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Cherokee, chopped up because you're coming from the ancestors. That's not how deoxyribonucleic or ribonucleic acid works according from a high school where I graduated from.

That's not how blood quantity works. You can do it because they're a 100% of their bloodline. So thank you very much. Pass the bill.

Thank you very much. Miss Young?

Angela Melody Young testifying on behalf of CARES. In strong favor of this legislation to honor, the nieces and the nephews of the families that are the beneficiaries, so that the wait list can as expand as much as possible

to accommodate the Hawaiian families and to honor them. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to testify on HB 2309? If not, questions, members? Seeing none, thanks very much. We'll go on to the next measure, House Bill 2400 relating to economic development. This measure appropriates funds for the Department of Hawaiian Homelands projects eligible for general fund revenues that are generated by increases in transient accommodations tax collections and intended to be expended equally across projects related related to natural resources, climate resilience, and destination management.

First up, we have the Department of Hawaiian Homelands.

Yeah. Good afternoon. Kali Watson for the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. We support the deal. I'll send in my testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Testimony in opposition from Hawaii Lodging and Tourism Association. Not present. Mister Billionaire, do you have testimony for us?

Yes. We'll we'll make it short and sweet. I know I was trying to get you out be out before four. So I support this testimony for economic development. Thank you very much. Aloha.

Thank you very much. Miss Young, do you have testimony for us? Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2400? If not, questions members? If not, thank you very much.

We'll move on to the next measure. House Bill 2250, making appropriations for claims against the state, its officers, or its employees. First up we have Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Afternoon, Chair Tarnas, vice chair Poepoe, members of the committee. My name is Melanie Martin on behalf of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. We stand in support of this measure. Thank you.

You just wanted to add one additional claim?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, Keith Hayashi, Department of Education in support. Next, Attorney General. Thank you for your patience. Please proceed.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, vice chair Poepoe, and the members of the committee. I'm Skyler Cruz, Deputy Attorney General. The department supports this bill. This is the bill that seeks for co creation to satisfy claims against states, officers, and employees. The bill contains 20 claims that total roughly $8,000,000. Attachment a to our testimony provides a summary of those claims. Since the bill was introduced, seven new claims were resolved that total about $10,500,000.

Those claims are described in attachment b. Including the new claims, the appropriation request totals about $18,500,000 allocated among 27 claims. We we respectfully request passage of this bill to amend, with amendments to add the new claims. I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next, Department of Hawaiian Homelands.

We stand on our testimony.

Your test thank you for your testimony and support. And then, mister Billionaire, you have testimony for us?

Yes. I do. So I'll keep it short and sweet, minute or less. I oppose this bill because they should be liable for everything now that I know I understand why they're writing a bill to limit the state's liability. However, with the recent release of the Epstein files and AG Pam Bondi who had a terrible disposition we saw yesterday with Congress, and you know, chair Tarnas, I've tried to pass bills to combat human trafficking, drug smuggling.

I'm scheduling with, you know, rep for as well to get HB 43 to combat this stuff. Unfortunately, we're not getting a lot of attraction from the back. So somebody is liable how Mike Minsky dies in prison, federally protected by the airport, how Jeff Everson magically dies in his prison, not by suicide because we got my co friend ZC who was in that cell with the mafia saying no.

So I oppose this bill, but you guys should make some amendments in it because they should be fully liable. Imagine if I was in charge of correctional facilities and some of that stuff. I oppose.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, questions, members?

Question.

Yes. Representative Shimizu.

AG, please. AG, do we have any, record keeping data analysis that, you know, kind of pinpoints maybe improvements or things we can improve on to reduce future liabilities?

I believe what you're asking for, representative, is encapsulated in HRSA 37 dash 77.5. That statute does require the attorney general to provide advice to the departments who have submitted claims and recommendations on how to avoid future claims.

So that's being done?

Yes, your honor. Yes. Representative.

And is is that information available to us?

It is provided to certain members of the legislature at the start of each legislative session.

Could could I get a copy of that?

I'll have to check the statute as to who is entitled to a copy. I believe the statute provides it's not all members of the legislature. It is a confidential document. I can look into that.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to ask questions? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers Let's go on to the next measure. House Bill 2254 relating to court ordered payments.

This measure requires the judiciary to contract with the collection agency or licensed attorney to collect delinquent court ordered fees, fines, sanctions, and court costs. It allows courts to specify a period of time or installments for payment of fines, fees, and restitution, and requires the defendant to show cause if the defendant defaults on the payments. First up, we have the attorney general. Mister Tom, welcome. Please proceed.

Thank you, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the department. Department provides strong support for House bill 2254. This bill is to address a recent Supreme Court case, in State v. Fay, which essentially limited of the ability to facilitate payments of restitution owed to victims of crime. This bill, among other things, will require the judiciary to contract with a collection agency regarding fines and fees in cases. And this is already done similarly in traffic type related fines and fees.

And it'll create a statutory authority to have the court set proof of compliance hearings in cases where restitution was ordered. Again, this bill is very important as it will assist victims of crime to recover court ordered, restitution by reestablishing a clear cut procedure. Thank you. I'll be here for questions.

Thank you very much. Members, I refer you to the judiciary's comments that they sent in writing. So we have their written testimony, unless there's a judiciary representative here. If not, next move on to Office of Public Defender, miss Chang.

And good morning, chair, vice I mean, excuse me. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. I'm Haley Chang, first deputy of the Office of the Public Defender. We have submitted testimony in opposition to this measure. And as you heard from the attorney general, this is clearly an attempt to circumvent the ruling by the Hawaii Supreme Court in state v Fe.

As we outlined in our testimony, we have some language from the case that I think is important for the committee, to review and understand, but I do wanna just highlight a few key points from our testimony. Number one, we obviously our opposition is not a reflection of a disagreement or a lack of understanding about restitution. We understand that restitution is a very important part of the criminal system.

However, what is being proposed by this measure runs contradictory to the ruling and the policy of State v. Fay. As to the Office of the Public Defender, the majority of our clients are often unable to pay restitution.

It is not a matter of unwillingness. I believe the AG's testimony referred to the defendants as uncooperative or unapologetic, and that may be true for some cases. But I for the Office of the Public Defender, who represents the majority of criminal defendants in the state, Our clients are by it's their nature are indigent. Most of them are poverty level and unable, oftentimes, unable to pay. I also wanna highlight, in the bill, that there is an inclusion of the time, excuse me,

on page two of the measure, it references 70664, which is the condemnations nonpayment statute, and it inserts the language in district court, which would mean that the condemnation is nonpayment method is now only going to apply to district court. So it could not apply to circuit court or family court, and I'm not sure if that's what the intent of the bill was, but I think that's a significant change that the committee may want to look at.

Finally, I would just ask this committee to consider the impact of what this measure is proposing. To have endless proof of compliance hearings for numerous clients who can't even pay $10.20, $30 a month, I think this committee of all the committees in the house know that we have clients who sit in jail unable to post $20 bail ,$50 a bail. They can't buy their freedom, so by extension, they're not able to pay restitution.

And again, that doesn't mean the victims aren't owed it. It's just the reality. So by setting these never ending proof of compliance dates for each hearing, you would have to have a court officer investigate and prepare a report to the court. You would have to have a hearing, which means as a judge and court staff.

You would have to have a prosecutor or a prosecuting agency, which would either be the prosecuting office, the attorney generals, and probably our office, the public defenders, because these are the clients who are in this position, as well as all of the court staff and labor that it would take.

When you think about statewide, the implication for that, in all of the district courts, in all of the circuits across the state, that is very significant. There is a freestanding order mechanism in place that is already exercised by the criminal courts that does allow the victims to go back to court and seek payment outside of the criminal system, and we'd ask that it remain that way. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I will be available for questions.

Thank you very much, miss Chang. Finally, mister Billionaire, you have testimony for us?

Yes. I do. I oppose this bill, and whatever she said, I a 100% that with everything that's going through. And you already felt, you know, what's going down. So I just opposed this bill.

Let's speed up it through because, you know, we got through. So thank you. Appreciate you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in House bill 2254? If not, questions, members? Seeing none, let's move on to the next measure, House bill 2256 relating to tobacco enforcement.

This measure updates tobacco enforcement laws to confirm the authority of the Department of Taxation and Department of the Attorney General to inspect and seize tobacco products, including electronic smoking devices and e liquids, and clarify that untaxed tobacco products are subject to forfeiture as contraband without regard to the procedures set forth in Chapter 712 HRS in the same manner as untaxed cigarettes.

First up, we have the attorney general on Zoom oh, in person. Lucky us. Thanks for your patience. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Chelsea Okamoto. I'm the Deputy Attorney general and unit supervisor for the tobacco enforcement unit. Thank you for hearing this bill and for the opportunity to testify. You have our written testimony in support.

The department is in strong support of this measure. On 01/01/2024, a new excise tax went into effect on e cigarettes and e liquids, and that was pursuant to act 62. So we're asking that there's updates made to the statute, specifically Chapter 245 and chapter 712 a, to strengthen and expand our enforcement authority, for not just our department, but also the Department of Taxation. So that way, we can ensure that these newly taxed tobacco products are covered.

So we ask this committee to pass this measure. We're available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from the Department of Education.

Not present. Next, we have Department of Taxation. It's your turn now. Thanks for your patience.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Clinton Piper, Department of Taxation. As I stated in earlier testimony, my office is generally concerned with enforcement. Can we do this and can we enforce it? This, of course, is a can we enforce it bill.

We I'll just incorporate the, like, statements of the attorney general, they are taking lead on this issue. Okay.

Thank you very much. Next, Department of Health.

Good afternoon, chair and vice chair, members of the committee. Jill Tamashiro with the Department of Health. We stand on our written testimony in support of HB 2256 to clarify the authority of the AG to enforce regulations on the sale of e cigarettes. We just wanna highlight that vaping and nicotine addiction remains a problem in our state, especially amongst youth and young adults, and regulations are a critical component of tobacco prevention. Our department supports the AG's efforts to clarify.

Thank you very much for your good work. Next, Hawaii Public Health Institute in support. Welcome. Please proceed.

Aloha Chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Nate Hicks with the Coalition for Tax Fairness Hawaii, Hawaii Public Health Institute in support of this measure. Tobacco usage is the leading cause of preventable death in Hawaii and nationwide, and we wanna make sure that we are doing everything we can to make sure that people are protected from the harms of tobacco.

We feel very lucky that the attorney's general's office is taking this harm seriously and making sure that they have the enforcement issues, and that's why we support this bill to make sure that they can do their job and protect us. Mahalo.

Thank you very much, mister Hicks. Next, mister Billionaire, you have testimony for us?

Yes. I do. I oppose this bill because it's like a ATF like Tulsa King. If you used to watch a TV series, how they're gonna tax and control all of this stuff? This is like California. Meaning, for example, I vape right here.

I am not afraid of what I do. However, the California, they have no flavor stuff. So this is a market. If you wanna tax, like, the taxman in the white shirts, yeah, tax it properly, but don't try to enforce this because how are you gonna stop the people marketing stuff with different products all over the Waianae store, Maile store? We're talking about Big Island.

It's a huge hustle. And how are you gonna enforce this? Like, they're saying, because to me, it's not tobacco is your issue. Human trafficking, drugs and money with fentanyl is way bigger issues than what we're talking about. Tobacco is money. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2256? Miss Young, you're gonna present Germaine testimony.

Yes. Angela Melady Young, CARES. I'm in strong favor of the legislation. So I'm a chair of the exhibits and displays for Hawaii Children and Youth, which was founded thirty-two years ago by Senator Susie Chen Oakland and representative uncle Dennis Saragaki. And this topic is very prevalent amongst youth and teens that I help to manage.

So I'm in support. Just give me some background. And so the law strengthens the enforcement of tobacco tax laws by explicitly empowering the AG and the Department of Taxation to inspect and seize and forfeit untaxed tobacco products, and this helps to protect the teens and the minors that I work with.

And so it streamlines the seizure process by treating these items as contraband, similar to illegal cigarettes removing complex forfeiture procedures, and it has enhanced authority mechanisms, and it can help with streamlining the enforcement, allowing for rapid seizure of illegal products by treating them as contraband. And so this helps to improve the lives of teens and youths across the state of Hawaii for this modern generation.