House Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. Convening our Committee on Public Safety. Today is Friday, 02/13/2026, 10AM agenda, in Conference Room 411 here at the State Capitol. Happy little Friday, everyone. We have a short agenda, and I just wanna let everyone know we're not gonna be doing decision making on any of these bills because of some scheduling conflicts.

And we're going to move the decision making to our next decision making agenda, which I believe is Wednesday, February.

Wednesday, February 18 on the 11:30AM agenda. Alright.

For those of you who are on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting while waiting to testify. Please avoid using any trademark or copyright images as this will bump us off of our YouTube feed.

If there's any network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making. So in that case, an appropriate notice will be posted. No other housekeeping measures, but, and so we'll just jump right in.

Members, up first, we have House Bill 2264 relating to protective orders requiring notification to the security forces of each branch of the military when a protective order order is issued in a case involving a military affiliated individual.

We have, testimony in support first from US Defense State Liaison Office.

Via Zoom?

Yes. Good morning, Chair Belotti, Vice chair Iwamoto, and members of the committee. My name is Kelli May Douglas with the U. S. Defense State Liaison Office on behalf of the military families stationed in the State of Hawaii.

I stand on our written testimony in strong support of the provisions reflected within HB 2264, which aims to protect victims of interpersonal violence by strengthening information sharing and collaboration between military and civilian law enforcement. Thank you.

Thank you. We have testimony in support from Brigadier General Walter Ross, Director of the Joint Staff. Testimony in support from the Military Affairs and Community Relations Office, DBEDT.

Good morning, Chair. Good morning, vice chair. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is John Green, Deputy Director of the Military and Community Relations Office. We stand on our written testimony in support.

Our office is seeing a need for better communication between the judiciary, police forces, and the military when it comes to protective orders notifications. Ensuring that military security forces are notified within 24 hours allows commands to take appropriate action, reinforce compliance, and provide additional oversight where necessary.

Early awareness supports accountability, helps prevent escalation, and strengthens coordination among agencies responsible for safety and enforcement. Military affiliated individuals often face handling both civilian and military systems when a protective order is issued.

This measure will create a more efficient and cohesive system where individuals will be better protected. Thank you.

Thank you. We have testimony and support, from Director of Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. We have comments from the Judiciary, which is really opposition.

Good morning, Chair Belatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto, members of the committee. My name is Jesse Hall. I am a family court judge. We are actually in support of the intent but we are asking that it be deferred to get the military to re-engage with us. Until September 2025 we had a system in place.

Our petitions have a box on it where parties can check whether they are they or the responding party are military. When we had those boxes checked we had a fax number. Yes I know it's old school. But a fax number that we would fax the petitions and the orders for protection to. As of September 2025 the fax no longer works.

We attempted to email the HASP officer the Hawaii Armed Service Police officer that was on island the emails were never responded to. We attempted to call them and the nobody answered the phone and we couldn't leave messages. Our staff had continually tried to connect. There was an officer cop who was the HASP officer who told us that he would come to the courthouse to pick up the documents.

So we to this day have been keeping all of the documents and we have stacks of them that he has never come to pick up.

So a reason we are asking for the deferral is to give an opportunity for the military to reengage with us. We also have a TRO task force that is run by our lead judge in the special division that runs the TROs. Officer Cop did participate in some of the meetings but he no longer participates in the meetings. We don't know if he was transferred out. We don't know if there's someone new.

Nobody's communicating with us. So we do want to make this work. We just want some time to have them re engage with us so we can create a proper system because even if this passes, it doesn't create the system.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

And I'm sorry, you are?

Jessi Hall.

Jessie Hall. Okay. Thank you, Miss Hall.

We have testimony, sorry. Testimony from Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Angelina Mercado, Executive Director.

Morning, chair, vice chair, committee members. I'm Angie Mercado, Executive Director, Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and we represent 20 member programs statewide who are providing services on some level to survivors. And we are, in support of this measure and we are offering a an an an amendment actually, two amendments, one that is not in my testimony. So as Judge Hall indicated, there is a place on page four of our protective order petitions, happy and I printed this for the committee.

It's also linked here in my testimony where, a petitioner can indicate if the respondent is in the military armed services and or deployed.

So we will recommend actually making a change to the statute so that it's not all the protective orders that may be going to the armed services, but just those that are indicated as being military involved. And there's actually a place in all the circuit petitions for that lang for that indication.

And we also recommend changing the effective date because as written, it's effective upon its approval. But again, to Judge Hall's, issue with implementation and actually having a system in place, changing the effective date to 01/01/2027.

That's it for me. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this matter.

Thank you, miss Mercado. We have testimony in support from Diana Espinas.

Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers in the Zoom?

Seeing none. Members, questions?

Go ahead.

Thank you. For anyone who's connected to the military, who's testifying on this call?

So, from the Military Affairs.

Would that be we have testimony from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of War or Brigadier Gent. Okay. Sorry.

So we have, Miss Douglas, Defense State Liaison Office.

Good morning.

Good morning. And, did you happen to hear Judge Hall's testimony?

Yes.

Can you respond to her concern?

Yes. I appreciate the comments of Judge Hall and they're very well taken here. And so just as I was listening to that, I had two thoughts. One, is I'm definitely happy to make the connections. I think a lot of times, the reason why these types of bills are helpful is that there's a lot of transition within the military.

So I think there might have been a loss of contact because of that. So putting this in place, I think, will be very helpful. But I'm also very happy to make the connections needed to reestablish those points of contact.

Additionally, I think, and this is not part of the bill but a lot of times we see states also adding a piece about establishing written MOUs, which would have I think a little bit would strengthen that collaboration, make sure it's mutual, and also ensure that those points of contact are provided and not just a fax number. So I'm happy to help.

And do you think this is something that you can work on, and have concrete contact information for the court, for the Hawaii court before next week?

I can do my best. We have a holiday on Monday, but I will I'll be I'll be on it and, I'll send some, I'll send some, emails after this hearing and see if we can start that process.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. So I hope so.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Go ahead, Representative Shimizu.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony.

Yes. Judge Hall, thank you very much for being here. I apologize for not saying, Judge Hall.

So if this system that was previously, in place is reinstated. I just wanna confirm, is this bill still needed?

In our opinion, no, it's not. Because we've been able to work with the military for years in with that system. Granted, we may wanna change from a fax system to more electronic system, but we don't feel it's necessary.

So what I'm hearing is if this communication, this checkbox is reinstated that

So the checkbox has never gone away.

Okay. But they're not doing it?

Well, the parties are the ones that check the box. Granted not everybody checks the box. But those that are checked we are actually holding all the documents of the ones that have been checked waiting for someone from the military to contact us and pick them up.

I guess my, what I'm trying to get at is, if it works the way it was supposed to work and it's contingent on military doing their part, will what this bill is trying to put in place be accomplished already?

Yes.

Okay.

So definitely if what we said gets put back in place, this bill is doable. It just make maybe it just codifies that system, that requirement, that communication that is being done as part of your policy right now.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Correct.

Judge Hall, can I

Yes?

Just just so that I can get some understanding. And I think, you know, there's been a lot of turmoil in the Federal Government, so things have developed. How long has this program been in place?

The exact start date, I'm not sure, but it has been several years prior to September 2025.

Okay. And then is it statewide. So, that it's in every circuit?

I cannot speak to statewide. I do know it is here in the first circuit on the Island Of Oahu where the majority of the military are. The neighbor islands don't have as many military personnel, but they also don't have a designated staff for the voters for protections and TROs. So it may be a little more work for them, and they may need more assistance if they had to turn everything over.

But I don't know their numbers.

Okay. My inclination is that we need to understand more what the system is statewide because there may still be a need. And what this law will then do is maybe formalize what have been practices in the past. And so there's there may actually still be that there's value to this bill if we can understand the system statewide.

So I, can say that there has been a total, It looks like the numbers I was given. And I believe this is for TROs that have been marked as military involved. The total is 1,529 on Oahu in the first circuit. There's been 832, Maui 2nd circuit. 254, The Island Of Hawaii. Third circuit, 385 and Kauai Fifth Circuit, 58. And that is for the calendar year 2025.

I think this is all helpful, and I think, really appreciate that you just shared coming forward with data right away. Any other questions, members? Alright.

Thank you. Thank you, chair.

I have a question. I'm not sure if it's for Judge Hall or for the military, but when you guys have this these stacks of protective orders that have never been delivered to the military. And it's my understanding that when there is a TRO or something that may affect the respondent, if the respondent is the military connected individual and they have access to weapons, that part of that contact would be maybe this person shouldn't have access to weapons.

So, usually, if their occupation in the military requires them to have access to weapons, they bring their command with them to the hearings to have it explained to try to get a weapons exemption where they can use it for their employment purposes only.

And we have confirmed with the military because we had worked with the Judge Advocate Generals last year or maybe the year before, that these weapons are signed out as they're going on a plane. They leave with it.

When they come back, they turn it back in. So on island, they never have the weapons.

Okay. So it's not like you've been able to track an incident that has escalated where a weapon was involved, and you're like, oh my god. This order was never transmitted.

We're not aware of any of that happenings.

Thank you.

Excuse me, chair. Can I pass on?

Yes?

Related to Representative Iwamoto's questioning. What you just explained as far as the command coming in and explaining, justifying, is that triggered by self reporting?

So if they don't self report, then you wouldn't know that they have authorization for and the commander would not come in because that person for whatever reason didn't trigger that process.

Yes.

Correct. But then they don't have the exemption. And if they use that weapon for work, they are in violation.

Right. Exactly. Yeah.

Yeah. That's what we wanna prevent.

So they're actually it's in their best interest to tell their command.

Yes.. In the public's best interest also. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Judge Hall. Members, any other questions?

Alright. Seeing none.

Members moving on to House Bill 2336 relating to federal military installations, which authorizes the Department of Transportation to enter into agreements with the United States Department of Defense for the provisional services at federal military installations under certain, conditions, authorizing charging and administrative fee.

Members, we have, first up, testimony in support from the Department of Transportation.

Hi. Good morning, Chair, members of the committee. Curt Otaguro. I'm the Deputy Director for Airports. We stand in support of this measure, and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. We have testimony in support from the Military Affairs and Community Relations Office, DBEDT.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Deputy Director John Greene of the Military and Community Relations Office. We stand on our written testimony in support. House Bill 2336 allows the state to receive critical support through a partnership with the Department of Transportation and the military, improving infrastructure and further protecting Hawaii from natural disasters. This bill will allow the Department of Transportation to directly invest in Hawaii's protection with no additional cost to taxpayers.

In Hawaii's isolated geography, harbors and logistics hubs are not only national defense assets, they are essential components of the state's disaster response network. During hurricanes, wildfires, and other emergencies, these facilities serve as staging areas and transportation lifelines that directly protect our residents. This measure reflects a fiscally responsible partnership model, and by enabling coordinated, efficient project delivery and strengthening day-to-day collaboration between the state and federal partners, that reinforces our shared kuleana to safeguard Hawaii's people and infrastructure. Mahalo.

Thank you. Testimony in support from the Hawaii Military Affairs Council. Okay. We have-- moving on to House Bill 2298. Oh, sorry, sorry. Questions. Questions. Sorry. Go ahead. Questions.

Thank you, Chair. I think you're the only one here this morning. How did the military build its roads prior to this?

Depending on whether it's on base or off base will dictate how they actually receive funding for that. If it's-- so the Department of Defense has a huge construction bill that's part of the National Defense Authorization Act which is planned years in advance and then kind of put in front of the Congress for approval. That's primarily on base.

If it's off base but also important to the military, there will be partnership efforts put in place, specifically as it relates to examples like Kalaeloa where the military helped Hawaii Community Development Agency. They have $16 million to improve the infrastructure in Kalaeloa because there's also some type of mission for the Navy out there. They have cottages, and I think there's a horse stable on Kalaeloa. For the Hickam ramp, improvements to Hickam ramp, knowing that that was also essential to our civilian population, the Department of the Air Force worked with the Department of Transportation on improving those runways on Hickam, so--

So those were-- I'm sorry to-- for interrupting, but those were executed through the state putting out bids for construction or--

It's a-- typically, it started from the state identifying a need, but if there's kind of a crossover need from the military's point of view as well-- I'm trying to think of the name. It's an intergovernmental service agreement that will go in place and then the military can contribute funding for those projects as well.

I'm just surprised that we need this bill because I'm like, how have-- again, you've just stated all these ways that we've been doing this previously. What's the need now for this?

It's not necessarily our bill, but it's-- I mean, it's-- I would probably defer to the Department of Transportation to identify the actual need for it. Maybe it's to strengthen that partnership moving forward. Again, I just--

Chair?

Go ahead.

Just-- well, maybe Curt Otaguro. So is this--

Yes. Thank you.

I'm sorry if I missed something. I was trying to catch up on some notes, but is this a new arrangement?

ISGAs that we have, we've had different intergovernmental agreements over the past, but this one in particular is new. We believe that the partnerships that we have with the military are extremely important, as stated before for national security, their synergies with infrastructure, as was mentioned at Hickam as an example, so we have the ability to procure locally.

And so with our fellow partners and military, we believe that this partnership and the ability for HDOT to do work on behalf of the Department of Defense or Department of War would be extremely beneficial to both military ourselves and for the economy of Hawaii bringing in, as an example-- 700 million, I believe, is just for airfields, other different airfields across the state.

As mentioned, you know, we have approximately 14,400 flights coming into our commercial airports, and not just military. That's, you know, over and above. But-- you know, so our airfields do share the same resource and that makes total sense. So we believe that this legislation to allow us to enter into these agreements will further strengthen the combination of resources, construction, and also--

Thank you. Yeah. I'm sorry to interrupt you. I don't think we need justification of the merits of this bill. I'm just trying to understand as Rep Iwamoto is trying to understand what was the previous arrangement, and maybe that's not important to know at this point going forward. One last question, Chair. I read that Title 23 Federal Highway funds is prohibited. So if that monies are prohibited, who does that work? Did you hear the question?

Oh, you're asking Department of Transportation? Since highway funds are not available--

No, no. I'm sorry. I'm sorry if you didn't hear me. Title 23 Federal Highway funds are prohibited in the transaction under this bill. So what happens in that case?

Right. Then we would have to work with military to seek other funding that would provide that kind of funding, right? So, yeah, we're not using any funding from the state or resources, but we could certainly combine our efforts to ensure the federal government that the funds would be deployed and spent accordingly.

So what I'm hearing is there's ways around it to maneuver that monies. Is that what you're saying?

I wouldn't say maneuver. I would say that we need-- every project will require additional research to determine the best source of funding, and so not in all cases may we get that approval but we're gonna work diligently to ensure that maximum funding comes to projects that are staged in Hawaii.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Chair, can I ask a follow-up question?

Yes. Follow-up question from Rep--

Thank you. I must-- I'm sorry for-- so this question is for the Department of Transportation. I apologize asking it to the wrong person earlier, but what happens if this bill doesn't pass? Doesn't everything continue on as it's been, which has been kind of working? So what value added does this bill offer?

Thanks, Vice Chair. We believe that the intergovernment service agreement will help to expedite things that we can take advantage of the local market. So projects that the federal government may have funding for but have no capacity can be supplemented by the HDOT. So it's really combining the resources of both entities to ensure that we handle the top priority projects. So it's one of more expediting these projects.

Got it. And so the question that Representative Shimizu asked about specifically the funding, that was about not making-- making sure that the additional funding that's coming in isn't supplanting but supplementing. Is that correct?

Yes. That is exactly correct. Thank you, Vice Chair, for that.

Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? All right. Seeing none. Moving on to House Bill 2298, relating to education. Members, we've seen a version of this bill last year, so we're moving this one, as this appears to be the one that's going to hopefully make it past the finish line.

This would authorize the Department of Education to award a high school diploma to qualified persons who did not receive a high school diploma as a result of compulsory or voluntary induction into the Armed Services of the United States or whose high school education was interrupted due to wartime practices during World War II, the Korean War, or the Vietnam War. We have testimony first in support from the U.S. Defense-State Liaison Office via Zoom. Is she still there? Go ahead.

Good morning, again, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Kelli May Doug--