House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone. I know you all wanna be out there for the concert, but I appreciate you being in here for the hearing. My name is David Tarnas, Chair of the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. We're here for our hearing agenda today to consider numerous measures. Vice Chair Mahina Poipoi is here as well.

The other members will join us presently. For those who are testifying, I request you keep your testimony to about two minutes. I'll ask you to summarize at that point. We have a new sound system here, so please speak up. We are competing against some wonderful music, so please project and articulate your words so that everyone can hear you.

Just a heads up that this sound system picks up your side conversations, so be careful of that. Those who are testifying on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off until you testify and then turn off again. If you have technical issues, you can use the chat function to contact our technical staff to see if they can assist you. If you're disconnected, don't panic. Just come back in as soon as you can, and I'll try to fit you in to provide your testimony.

If the power goes off here and we have to reschedule, we'll make sure to post appropriate notice. You'll know when we're meeting and about what. If you're testifying on Zoom, please avoid using any trademark or copyrighted images. And as always, it's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. We're all here to do our good work for the state, for its people, for native Hawaiians, all people the state of Hawaii, and its environment.

So, first up, we have House Bill 1768 relating to immigration. This measure prohibits any law enforcement agency or law enforcement official from entering into an agreement under Title 8 United States Code Section 1357G or any other federal law that permits state or county agencies to engage in immigration enforcement. This prohibits law enforcement agencies or law enforcement officials from engaging in certain immigration related actions except under limited circumstances. First up, we have the Office of the Public Defender.

Welcome, Ms. Chang.

Always good to see you.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and members of the committee. The Office of the Public Defender strongly supports this measure, and we've articulated in our testimony some of the issues that we believe this bill addresses. But anecdotally, from the perspective of the Public Defender's Office, as the office that represents most of the people in criminal proceedings throughout the state, we can share with this committee that we've already seen the consequences of not having something like this in place.

Our community members, unfortunately, some who are involved in the justice system or who have family members who are involved in the justice system, there has been a chilling effect already—a fear of attending court proceedings, whether you're a defendant or a supportive family member, a witness, or even a victim, checking in with court-required mandates such as probation officers, and things like that.

I think there needs to be some sort of delineation about what is the role of the state, and also to create safe spaces for our community members to be able to go to these various locations without fear of federal enforcement. As we highlighted in our testimony, this bill keeps in place appropriate federal enforcement mechanisms and appropriate collaboration if certain criteria are met, which we are obviously supportive of. So, thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I will be available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next person who said they wish to testify is Veronica Mendoza on Zoom. Not present. She's in support. Next person, Aparna Petri, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. I'm, I'm sorry. Could you tell me how to pronounce your last name?

That's correct.

Great. Thank you. Please proceed.

Thank you. Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair PoePoe members of the committee. My name is Aparana Petri. I'm a Legal Adviser with the Hawaii Coalition of Immigrant Rights, and I'm testifying in strong support of this bill. This bill would prohibit state and county law enforcement agencies from assisting federal agents in conducting federal immigration enforcement and it would also prohibit them engaging in discriminatory targeting of immigrants.

We strongly believe that Hawaii's public safety institutions should not be used to facilitate unlawful and unconstitutional conduct and that they should be used to protect and serve Hawaii's residents first and foremost. This bill is important because constitutional rights apply to all people, regardless of their nationality and regardless of their immigration status. This bill enforces those constitutional safeguards. It ensures that federal agents have a judicial warrant when engaging in conduct. It contains a prohibition on holding immigrants for longer than the period allowed by the Fourth Amendment.

It prohibits state and local officers from engaging in racial profiling, and it's an extremely important measure to ensure that Hawaii's residents feel trust and safety with local law enforcement and do not feel that if they were to come forward and cooperate with law enforcement that they they would be harmed because of their immigration status. This bill draws a necessary boundary in ensuring that Hawaii's precious resources are not used to do the job of the Federal Government to conduct immigration enforcement.

I'm available for questions and thank you very much. Urge your yes vote for this bill.

Thank you very much. Next person that said they wish to testify is Christina Sablan with the Legal Clinic. Welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. Christina Sablan here on behalf of the Legal Clinic and our Board President, Amy Aglayan. We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. House Bill 1768 establishes important guardrails that help preserve trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement. This is foundational for public safety, which depends on whether people feel safe reporting crimes, cooperating with investigations, and seeking help when they're harmed.

When fear of immigration consequences is tied to contact with local police, people are less likely to come forward, which undermines safety for everyone. This concern is grounded in current enforcement realities. Nationally, immigration enforcement has shifted away from focusing primarily on individuals with serious criminal convictions and toward community arrests in workplaces, on the street, in court houses, in other public spaces, and including individuals with low-level offenses or no convictions at all. Hawaii's data tracks with these national trends.

On any given day, approximately 70 to 80 individuals are in ICE detention at the Honolulu Federal Detention Center and roughly 75% have no criminal record.

In 2025 alone, of 70 ICE detainers placed on individuals in state or county custody, fewer than half had criminal convictions and the remainder involved individual—individuals—with pending charges or no charges at all. Entanglement between local police and civil immigration enforcement creates widespread fear and research confirms the public safety impact of that fear. Studies have shown that informing people that local police cooperate with federal immigration enforcement reduces trust by approximately 15 to 30%.

People are less likely to call 911 or report crimes when they don't trust their local cops. Conversely, policies that create clear boundaries between local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement actually build trust and enhance safety for everyone.

This bill ensures that Hawaii's law enforcement resources remain focused on Hawaii's public safety priorities and we urge your support. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Mandy Fernandez, ACLU.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair PoePoe, and committee members. My name is Mandy Fernandez. I'm the Policy Director with the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii. We strongly support this measure.

And I'm here today for the same reason that I think a lot of us are here today, which is that, you know, ten, twenty, thirty years down the road, when our children or our grandchildren or members of the younger generation ask us what we did personally in this moment, we wanna be able to say that we did everything we could.

We wanna be able to say we did our absolute best. And this is what, this is what this bill is about. It's about making sure that to the extent that the state and our localities have authority to not be complicit in the federal immigration regime that we are not. When state, local, and federal police are all mixed up, it creates confusion and fear in communities.

And for police officers, when they've tried to build trust with their communities that they're policing in and the streets that they're trying to keep safe and they're being confused for federal agents or vice versa, that really—that really that really sows distrust.

And like the previous testifier said, it makes it so people don't wanna come forward. They don't wanna go to school. They don't wanna go to the doctor, and they're afraid, they're afraid to just interact with the people who are supposed to be keeping them safe. One issue or one topic that hasn't been brought up yet is the topic of liability. We've seen that this administration has directly told ICE agents that they are above the law.

That is fundamentally untrue, and it's concerning if our police are also operating with, with the reckless abandonment of, of our ICE agents. And we've seen the civil rights violations that have been going on in Minneapolis and other places on the continent. And if that gets mixed up in our local police departments, it's gonna be the taxpayers that pay for any sort of settlements or lawsuits that come out of those violations.

As a watchdog organization, the ACLU is gonna be the top of the list of organizations that will be bringing those lawsuits. Regardless of who's in the, in the White House, we believe that our local police should not be outsourced and co-opted into federal agents—or into federal agents and to carry out civil immigration enforcement.

Because as a reminder, just simply being in this country without appropriate status is not a crime. It's a civil offense, and our local police should not be co-opted into being a multiplying force for this federal immigration agenda. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We received a total of 86 testifiers—or testimonies—and 83 in support, three in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1768? If not, questions, members? Any questions? Yes, Mr. Schmizu.

Who do I wanna ask a question from? I'm sorry. What was your name? Can I ask you a question?

Christina Sablan from the Legal Clinic.

Sorry, Christina Sablan, Leegal Clinic.

I'm not sure if you're the one who mentioned that you're seeing people that have been apprehended by ICE. So, would you say that this bill would have prevented that?

This bill would help ensure that people who are in state or local custody have their due process protected, that they're notified of their rights, that ICE have judicial warrants, and and that they have at least the opportunity to seek counsel before they're transferred to ICE.

But that should be happening currently. Right?

That should be. But from the data from what we're seeing in the data, people are being held as a result of bystanders. They're making statements. Who knows if they're being notified of their rights? But right now, there's no requirement, whether it's state or local custody, that they be notified of their rights before it interferes.

I guess what I'm trying to discern is, there's no question that we should be following the law, we should be respectful of of everyone no matter their status. Everyone does have the right for due process. I believe in that. And if there are violations, those violations should be addressed and corrected accordingly.

Yeah. I'm just trying to wonder, are are we maybe going after the wrong thing? Because if there are violations that are that are happening, then we should be addressing those violations specifically.

Don't you think?

I think what the the most important thing that this bill would do is establish clear really clear boundaries between local law enforcement and civil immigration enforcement. Yeah. And and also would ensure that people who are in state or local custody are notified of their due process rights.

There's no question. That that should be happening. So, my thought is: wouldn't it be better that local law enforcement cooperate and coordinate with federal so that there is cooperation. There is even possibly accountability to make sure that one entity is not doing something that they shouldn't, and then there's a conflict between local and federal? Because it feels like we're -

Wouldn't us working together be better? Don't you think?

I mean, in general, that's a good principle for maintaining public safety. But with when it comes to immigration enforcement, these are civil violations. And federal, if this is an area of federal law that I'm sure the attorneys in this room would be able to speak to far better than you. But our local law enforcement authorities don't have federal immigration enforcement. This bill would prevent that, would establish the clear boundary, and ensure that local law enforcement resources really stay focused on local law enforcement priorities and aren't conscripted into doing the federal government's job.

Understood. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Any other questions? Representive Belatti?

Can I just make a comment? And I think the question I need to ask is probably of either ACLU or maybe Public Defenders.

Oops.

Yeah. The question is, are we currently - is anyone aware if any state law enforcement is currently under any agreements with AUSC Code Section 1357-G. And this is where -

Do you want me to ask Miss Fernandez to come up?

Miss Fernandez or the Public Defender? It's really unfortunate that we don't have the state attorney general here. That's what I'm really disappointed in. The state attorney general is not here.

So, right now, as far as we know, there have not been any county police departments that have entered into 287 agreements with the federal government. Again, this is a completely voluntary program. And not entering into these agreements, to go back to Representative Shimizu's question, does not in any way thwart the federal authorities carrying out their their enforcement. So, but, no, we are unaware.

We don't believe that there are any 287-G agreements, and we've been told as much by the county police departments.

Are these agreements that are also subject to state law enforcement agreements? So, do we know if any state law enforcement has - I see.

No. There are no 287-G agreements happening in Hawaii. So, this wouldn't - this would maintain the status quo of the long ways.

Okay. And then I know and understood, from last year, that there are agreements between some of our law enforcement agencies if they have individuals who are in their custody, who might trigger some kind of immigration enforcement that there is; I don't know if it's practice or an agreement of some sort where they unlearn. So, that process is not gonna be impeded by this law.

I'll bring up my colleague, Aparna, who, works with clients directly.

Aparna Patrie, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. Thank you for responding.

Thank you for the question. Right now, whenever someone is arrested and detained in a local jail, that information is directly available to ICE. This bill does not change that. What this bill does is ensure that there aren't agreements in place between local and state law enforcement agencies and the federal government to do the job of the federal government in conducting immigration enforcement.

It ensures that if someone has witnessed a crime or been a victim of a crime in Hawaii, that they feel safe and free to go to the local police to report that or cooperate on that.

And don't worry that they're going to, you know, be arrested, detained, and deported because of their immigration status and ensures that our public safety is maintained. So, it kind of prevents this law is intended to prevent any kind of extra communication that goes beyond the normal practice of people who might just be coming into contact with the law enforcement authorities because of other things, but not because they are they themselves are subject to investigation by the criminal justice system.

Correct. Correct. And it and 287-G agreements go beyond just additional communication. 287-G agreements usually mean that local law enforcement is going out and conducting the kinds of checks and the kinds of arrests that ICE does now.

That's what this agree that this bill would prevent from stopping.

Thank you, Chair.

Certainly. Maybe just one last clarifying question for all members and the public. This bill is specifically related to agreements that are regarding immigration enforcement, not other types of enforcement. For example, we have agreements where state and local police may be deputized to enforce environmental laws, protection of marine mammals, protected species. This bill would not affect any of those agreements.

Correct.

Other agreements relate to preventing trafficking of of people, humans, narcotics, enforcement. This bill would not affect those agreements.

Correct. No criminal issue. No criminal issue is being affected.

Okay. Just wanna make that clear to everybody. This is only immigration enforcement.

Yes, sir.

Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions on HB 1768? Okay. Next.

Let's go to the next measure. House Bill 1548 relating to sentencing. This measure limits the maximum term of imprisonment for misdemeanors or offenses punishable by up to or not exceeding one year to 364 days. This allows individuals previously sentenced to a one year of imprisonment to apply to the court for a sentence modification to conform to the new limit. And first up, we have the Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon again. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony and comment on this measure. We have submitted testimony in strong support of this. For people who may not be familiar with either the criminal system or the immigration system, Some may be wondering why it matters to change a one year sentence from a designation of three hundred sixty five days to three hundred and sixty four days. But for the for immigration reasons, it is critical.

I will defer to the immigration experts in the room, but I know just in my very limited capacity, as a defense attorney who handles cases with clients with potential immigration consequences, that that three hundred sixty five day mark can trigger a lot of consequences for sometimes very minor offenses. Currently, under our statutory scheme, misdemeanors are characterized as one year of jail. The plain reading of that is three hundred sixty five days.

By reducing it to three hundred sixty four days, I believe it will eliminate a lot of unintended severe immigration consequences that are triggered if you are sentenced to one year of jail. And it's a nominal change that really doesn't affect public safety or impression of the severity of the offense if the judge wants to impose the maximum for a misdemeanor.

So thank you for the opportunity to comment, and we will be available for questions.

Thank you very much, miss Cheng. Next, we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs McKenna Woodward.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Happy Hawaiian day. McKenna Woodward in support of this measure. We feel this is a common sense approach that both preserves accountability and public safety while ensuring don't suffer outsized consequences in housing, employment, and licensing due solely to an administrative misalign misalignment. This bill also ensures consistency as noted previously, and fairness by allowing Paha previously sentenced to one year sentences to petition for conforming modifications.

So for those reasons, we are in support of this measure and mahalo for the opportunity to to provide testimony.

Thank you. Next, Veronica Mendoza from Roots Reborn on Zoom. Not present. She's in support. Next, Leilani Stacy, ACLU of Hawaii or her representative.

Sorry, chair. You're stuck with me this afternoon.

I'm glad you're here. Thank you.

Mandy Fernandez on behalf of the ACLU of Hawaii. We strongly support this measure. I'll largely stand on our written testimony that Leilani, our immigrant rights attorney, submitted. But I'll just add that this is one of those rare opportunities where we get to pass a bill that's a that's a very administratively light lift and there has negligible impact all around except for in one particular area where it's gonna really, really help, a bunch of people.

So I think, for that reason, I urge you to support it today.

Thank you.

Thank you. Christina Sablan, the legal clinic.

Please stand on our bill.

If you'd please come up for everyone on TV land who wants to see you, and if you could just tell me why you think it's a good bill, just briefly.

We we do stand on our written testimony. Tina Sablan from the legal clinic. As has been said, this this small, very modest change in the maximum sentencing cap for misdemeanors can make a huge difference for people who are facing incredibly severe and disproportionate immigration consequences. So this includes detention, it includes removal, and then bars to immigration relief. And I wanted to note that this

kind of very targeted sentencing reform has

already been adopted in sentencing reform has already been adopted in, numerous other states from California to New York. And so Hawaii would be in good company to, to follow suit and, enact this report. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Aparna Petrie, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights.

Thank you again, Aparna Petri for Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. We stand on our written testimony. But just to add, the single extra day can mean mandatory detention, permanent deportation, and a lifetime bar from entering The United States for many immigrants. And this is without consideration of family ties, long term residents, rehabilitation, or anything of of that nature. This measure does not eliminate criminal penalties.

It does not change what conduct is illegal. And the difference between three hundred and sixty five and three hundred and sixty four days has nothing to do with public safety. This simply ensures that the punishment is proportionate to the crime for immigrants. Other states, including California, New York, Washington, Nevada, Colorado, and others have enacted similar measures, and this bill promotes judicial efficiency and fairness. We'd strongly support this bill.

Thank you very much. Next, Denacole Ramos, William Richardson School of Law, Refugee and Immigrant Immigration Law Clinic on Zoom. Please proceed, mister Ramos or his representative.

Hello. Good morning. Chair Tarnas, vice chair Poi Poi, and members of the committee. My name is Ainsley Aiono. And on behalf of the William S Richardson School of Law Refugee and Immigration Law Clinic, we respectfully testify in strong support of House Bill 1548.

This bill address is a very specific but very serious issue. Under federal immigration law, deportation consequences often turn on whether an offense carries a possible sentence of one year or more. It is not about how long a person actually serves in jail. It is about whether the law allows a sentence of one year. That one day difference, three hundred and sixty five days versus three hundred and sixty four, can determine whether someone is placed in mandatory deportation proceedings and barred from seeking relief.

Even offenses that Hawaii treats as misdemeanors can trigger removal if the potential sentence reaches one year. For example, something such as shoplifting groceries, a low level theft and misdemeanor under Hawaii law qualifies as an aggravated felony under federal immigration law and can become a deportable offense solely because the maximum sentence is one year. The person may receive probation or no jail time at all, but under federal immigration law, it is the possible sentence that controls.

House bill 41548 does not change federal law and it does not excuse criminal conduct. It simply ensures that Hawaii misdemeanors are not treated as the most serious immigration offenses because of a single extra day of potential sentencing.

By capping misdemeanor sentences at three hundred and sixty four days, the bill would prevent certain Hawaii convictions from meeting the federal one year threshold for deportable offenses or aggravated felonies thereby reducing the risk of removal and preserving access to immigration relief. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have received, 26 testimonies on this measure, all in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1548? If not, questions members? Question.

Mister Schmizu.

Billy Chang, please. And thank you for your dedicated, testimony. I always appreciate your testimony. So I think I heard you say that the judge still has the discretion to sentence three hundred sixty five days. Is that correct?

Well, with under the bill,

the judge would then have the ability to sentence as a maximum of three hundred sixty four days. Yeah.

He, for whatever reason, felt it was necessary to sentence three hundred sixty five days to trigger this immigration issue. He has the latitude to do that.

Under the proposed measure, he would not. So there is a statute, and I can double check, but I believe it's HRS, Hawaii Revised statute seven zero six six six three, which articulates the maximum penalties in terms of incarceration for misdemeanors and petty misdemeanors. Right now, under the statute, the maximum sentence for a petty misdemeanor is thirty days, and the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor is one year.

So if this bill were to go forward, it would basically change the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor to three hundred sixty four years. I mean, excuse me, days.

Yeah. Not years. So as it is right now, three hundred sixty five days, you're you're saying there's an automatic immigration review process?

No. I wouldn't say that.

And again, I would defer to the immigration experts in the room, which I am not. But what I do know and what you've heard through the testimony of the other other agencies and other supporters of the measure is that that benchmark of three hundred sixty five day days, a full calendar year, is viewed as one year, which can then and the possibility of that full one year has a lot of immigration consequences that are not present if the maximum sentence is three hundred sixty four days.

Understood. So so if the person, is sentenced to three hundred sixty five days as currently written, They go through this process. If they're legal and there's no problem, then there's no penalty on that. There shouldn't be any penalty on on the person. Is that correct?

If they are not if they are a citizen?

Yeah.

Yeah. So this really is meant to deal with the immigration situation or the non citizen or that situation. But I I think what's important though is it's not that the person actually has to serve three hundred sixty four days.

It's the possibility of the one year sentence, which is a calendar year three sixty five days, which will trigger, as you heard from the the representative from the law school, Just the fact that it's eligible to be sentenced up to a year jail or for a year jail is what triggers all of these, I believe, unintended consequences that we're talking about from misdemeanors. So that that's the thing that I I wanna help frame it.

Misdemeanors can be a theft in the third degree, which is a shoplifting. It can be for a criminal trespass, which is being at a public school after hours. It can be there's a variety of misdemeanors that I could potentially trigger some very serious consequences that just with a nominal one day reduction, we will we will avoid that.

And if the individual engages in much more serious conduct that we're really worried about and maybe rightfully so should be entered into some sort of immigration proceeding, then in in all likelihood, they will have committed a more serious offense beyond a misdemeanor.

So last last question, chair, is if the person right now, if you change it to three hundred sixty four days, there's no automatic immigration review. And and let's say the person is an illegal immigrant, will that now be, like, missed or something? If

if I'm understanding the question is if are we talking about people who don't have immigration status or

So so it'd be easier to have Aparna answer that?

Perhaps. I'm I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding the question.

Aparna, could you come up, please, if you would be so sorry?

Representation is key.

And not I mean, miss Chang is an expert in her area of the law, but Really? You're an expert in immigration law. So maybe you could help rep Dhimizu answer his question.

I I'll try to answer this as best I can. The intersection between criminal and immigration is there are other people who know this a lot better than I do, but this isn't just about folks who are here without status. Someone could be here and have legal permanent residency, and the three hundred and sixty five days could render them inadmissible. So if they ever left the country, they couldn't come back even though they were green card holder.

And folks in the COFA community, for example, if one of Which

is the it's a compact of free association with Pacific Islands for those who might not know.

Thank you, sir.

Yeah. It could also trigger it for them. And so it's not just about folks who don't have status. And whether it's three sixty four or three sixty five days, ICE is gonna find out if someone gets arrested, detained, and is put in, you know, criminal proceedings either way. It doesn't really matter whether it's three sixty four or three sixty five days.

It doesn't matter? In terms of whether ICE finds out if they're here without status. Your question was about folks who are here without status and whether the three hundred sixty five days would trigger, you know, federal enforcement of those folks differently than three sixty four, it wouldn't because an arrest is an arrest and and ICE gets those records either way.

But the three sixty five versus three sixty four ensures that people who are applying for various forms of of immigration relief or someone who's here on a green card who's a legal permanent resident isn't then deportable or inadmissible forever as a result of that.

Okay. Representative Garcia?

Thank you, chair. Former exchange? Yeah. I have

this question. In your work as a public defender, how often do you see courts hand out the maximum penalty for misdemeanor offenses?

It's very it's way less common than

you would

think. Maximum sentences for a misdemeanor offense generally come on the heels of a reduced felony by way of plea agreement. So we're avoiding a felony conviction, but in exchange, the person must do the maximum sentence for the misdemeanor. Alternatively, if somebody has an incredibly bad record or a history of, you know, committing the same type of misdemeanor offense over and over and over, we'll see that. But it's not very common, actually, on the if if we're talking about the percentage of people Right.

Charged with misdemeanors and the potential Which

is something you give about shoplifting in the third

or Yeah.

Theft in the third degree or staying at a, I don't know, a school after hours or whatever. In those instances, judges don't hand down one year sentences for misdemeanors in those instances.

They don't, but I just wanna caveat that answer. If it's your first offense, second offense, generally, no. Generally, no. Absolutely not. What I will say though is that we now have a law on the books called habitual property offender.

So if you do pick up multiple property offenses, trespass, thefts, then you are going to be charged with a felony. If it's your third offense within a certain time window or more, so that Kinda escalates the whole thing. But, yeah, to your point, representative, it's very rare that if it's your first offense, second offense even, that you're getting the maximum jail. Okay.

Thank you. K. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers.

Let's move on to the next measure. House bill 2600 relating to the Office of the Public Defender. This measure appropriates funds to the Office of the Public Defender for one full time equivalent Deputy Public Defender three position. First up, if we'll have Haley Chang, office of the public defender.

Thank you again, chair Thomas, vice chair Puebla, and members of the committee. I first wanna acknowledge and thank the committee for the opportunity to be here on behalf of my office and in support of this measure. I think it is clear from our written testimony the reason that we need this position, and I think today's hearing and the other bills that are on the agenda show exactly why.

As confident as we all are as criminal attorneys and we're always growing and learning still, we are not immigration attorneys. And I think what's clear before the committee today, just based on the questions that are being asked and some based on the testimony that you've heard that this is an incredibly complex, and often confusing and very detail oriented area of law.

There are certain mandates now that criminal defense attorneys are required to follow in order to meet our job duties in providing effective assistive counsel. And we cited those cases in our written testimony, but just briefly, Padilla versus Kentucky was the first big one, and then our state courts followed suit. And, essentially and, again, these are not direct quotes from the cases, but we are required now as a defense attorneys in criminal matters to investigate and advise our clients on immigration matters.

So it is not enough for us to just say, hey. Are you or are you not a citizen?

And the case is, and I would encourage the committee to read them really details what our responsibility is. And I can just tell you as somebody who has had to navigate through this, it is, I would say, near impossible for our attorneys to keep up. As you can see from our testimony, last year alone, we represent we handled over 34,000 cases statewide. Many of those cases are gonna have potential immigration consequences.

So what we really need is a full time position that can serve our statewide office.

And even though I am here on Oahu and I'm here in front of the legislature on on Oahu all the time, our office is statewide. We have two branches on the Big Island, one in Kona, one in Hilo. We have a Maui office that serves the county of Maui and goes to court on Molokai and Lanai, and we also have our Kauai office. So this position one position, which we've asked for a public defender three, which is not the most senior.

It's also not a misdemeanor attorney.

It is our standard felony attorney level. We believe that we would be able to attract someone that could do this work for us that is much needed, and we are required by law to provide that representation. So thank you for the opportunity to, advocate for my office this way. I hope the committee can see the the great, great need for it and how it'll help us serve our community members better if we are able to give them very sound and appropriate advice. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Veronica Mendoza in support on Zoom. Not present. Next, Christina Sablan, legal clinic.

Hello again, chair, vice chair, and members. Tina Sablan from the legal clinic and, we'll stand on a written testimony and I just wanna note that we are one of the few nonprofits that the public defender will call on for immigration legal advice and we are a small but mighty team of three immigration attorneys who also work statewide. This is an incredibly complex field of law as miss Chang has already said.

And we wholeheartedly support this bill's, effort to expand Hawaii's public defense capacity and also support counsel on constitutional matters as including but not limited to immigration, legal counsel. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Aparna Petri, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights.

Thank you, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights strongly supports this measure as others have said. You know, this is a small investment in the very, very important work that the public defender already does. I am an immigration attorney, but I can tell you that what public defenders do is God's work. They ensure that the access to justice is more equal, that it's blind, and that it's how it's supposed to be.

Public defenders already carry extremely heavy caseloads, and they cannot reasonably be expected to master one of the most master one of the most complex areas of law, immigration law, having someone dedicated to ensuring that defendants are getting advice on the immigration consequences of their pleas is incredibly important and also protects the public defender's office from, you know, you know, complaints and allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.

This is essential for everyone in the system and for the system to work as it should, and so we, stand in strong support of this measure.

Thank you very much. Next, Ainsley Aiono, Richardson School of Law. Please proceed.

Good afternoon again, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. Ainsley Iona, again, on behalf of William S Richardson School of Law, refugee and immigration law clinic. We respectfully support House Bill 2,600 with our suggested amendment. Amendment would ensure that the funded public defender position can advise non citizen defendants on immigration issues during criminal proceedings, where the law is highly technical, constantly evolving, and the consequences can include deportation, detention, and family separation.

Here in Hawaii, immigration service providers are already stretched thin handling removal defense and humanitarian cases.

At the same time, criminal defense attorneys often do not have the time or specialized training to independently analyze immigration consequences. A designated immigration liaison within the office of the public defender would provide centralized expertise, allowing attorneys to obtain timely guidance while preserving limited community resources. This amendment recognizes the practical strain on immigration attorneys who are managing demanding caseloads while informally advising on criminal matters. That strain is especially important to address now as immigration needs continue to rise.

Embedding immigration expertise within public defense creates a sustainable structure that strengthens representation and supports informed decision making.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to pass house bill 2,600 with the suggested method. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We've also received testimony from Leilani Stacy. I don't know if that's a separate testimony.

No. ACLU will stand on our written testimony in support.

In case people didn't hear, ACLU, is supporting this measure and they sent in testimony to that effect. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2600? Seeing no more questions. Members, do you have any questions?

I have a question.

Mister Shimizu?

Mister Shimizu. You know, I I read your testimony and I wanna I heard what was shared a statement by the previous testifier that the scope of this new position would include or not be limited to immigration issues. Is is that correct?

I think it would be primarily immigration based, but if there were other other constitutional issues, that would arise, we would hope that person could fill that role as well. It's pretty unusual for our office to have a statewide position, because the nature of our caseload is it's jurisdictional, and we handle cases in our own circuits. But this would be a statewide position that could advise the entire office on primarily immigration matters, but other constitutional issues that we deal with if necessary.

So so right now, you you don't have that person or you just don't have the capacity because of the number of cases that are falling in this category. Is is is that correct?

I think it's both. We don't have. And it just to maybe help frame the issue for the the committee, the public defender's office, and we are working incredibly hard to get better funded and better resourced. For example, we do not have even a single paralegal in our statewide office. We have incredibly limited staff.

I myself, as a first deputy, have an active caseload, and all of our supervisors statewide still go to court, and have caseloads. And I think as you can see by the number of the volume that we have, it's that's just the way it has to be, and we are proud and happy to do it.

But to your question, representative Shimizu, number one, our attorneys do not have the capacity to do it the way that the Hawaii Supreme Court as well as the United States Supreme Court has now mandated that we do it. I myself, just anecdotally to share, have been brought into a proceeding where I was accused of ineffective assistance of counsel, by a client who was put in removal proceedings.

And it all worked out in the end, and I was happy to see that the judge found that I was effective, but it also would safeguard us from being placed in that situation, which can be a very draining and time consuming situation for our attorneys.

And I'm definitely not the only one that has chased that.

Alright. Thank you. Good. Thank you, chair.

Sure. Any other questions members? If not, thank you very much to the testifier. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1838 relating to visas.

This measure establishes uniform statewide requirements for policies and processes for the issuance of U and T visa certifications for non citizen victims of crime that are consistent with federal laws and regulations concerning UNT visas. It requires each state and county certifying entity to adopt a policy and process for the issuance of UNT visa certifications consistent with those statewide requirements.

It also appropriates funds for the Department of the Attorney General to provide training to certifying officials and certifying entities on all federal and state requirements for U entity visa certifications. First up, we have Jack Lewin, State Health Planning and Development Agency, in support. Next person said they wish to testify, Veronica Mendoza, in support.

Not present. Next, Tina Sablan.

Good afternoon again, chair, vice chair, and members. Tina Sablan on behalf of the legal clinic and board president, Amy Jagani. We stand on our written testimony and strong support of House bill 1838 HD one. And to just highlight some key points from our testimony, this bill strengthens public safety and due process by establishing uniform statewide standards for you and T Visa certification. Across Hawaii, inconsistent certification practices have led to confusion, delays, and denials of justice and safety for survivors.

House Bill 1838 HD one addresses this gap by requiring written policies, reasonable response timelines, confidentiality protections, reporting and training. These are all essential provisions to support fair and consistent statewide implementation. The amendment strengthened the bill, particularly by clarifying the judicial review process and confirming that survivors are not required to exhaust administrative reevaluation before seeking court review. This bill has received broad cross sector support from local immigrant justice and civil rights advocates to health professionals, domestic violence service providers, and law enforcement.

It has also received strong support from national legal experts including the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and the National Immigrant Women's Advocacy Project or NIWA.

I'd like to draw your attention now to NIWA's testimony recommending several clarifying amendments. These include one, consistently referencing all stages in a case where a survivor may provide helpfulness. Two, strengthening the confidentiality provisions in Section seven by explicitly referencing the same federal conception signed in in Section nine. And three, clarifying in the bill or the committee report that certification training should utilize existing well developed nationally tested curriculum. The legal clinic supports these amendments.

In closing, House Bill 1838 HD1 promotes survivor safety, strengthens trust in our justice system, and supports law enforcement's ability to hold offenders accountable.

Thank you very much. Next, Aparna Petri. Welcome. Please proceed.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this important matter. I we stand on our written testimony, but I just wanna add a little bit of what a U Visa and a T Visa is for the benefit of this committee.

UNT Visas are federally created tools in immigration law that are meant to allow non citizen survivors of qualifying crimes, including violent crimes, fraud, domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking, the opportunity to come forward, report the crime, cooperate with law enforcement investigations, and as a result, obtain a certification from a law enforcement agency that they have cooperated and use that certification to try to obtain a visa to stay in The United States. Without that certification, there's no chance for the individual to get the visa.

And depending on the law enforcement agency you're dealing with, the processes are completely different.

Some law enforcement agencies are receptive, are responsive, provide the certification, understand the national standards of what is required for giving such a certification. Some law enforcement agencies simply do not. So as a result, Duwys residents right now are getting a total patchwork of experiences at different law enforcement agencies when it comes to U visas. And as a result, some law enforcement agencies are getting more cooperation from immigrants who are victims of crimes and who have who have witnessed crimes than others.

What this bill does is standardize that across the state to ensure that every law enforcement agency has a process and a policy for dealing with U visas and that they respond in a timely way.

I I do these cases very often and sometimes we wait months and months and months before we hear back from the law enforcement agency on whether the certification has been approved or not. This ensures that there is a time limit and that they're required to respond in a certain amount of time. I'm available for questions. Thank you very much for allowing us the opportunity to speak.

Thank you very much. Angie Mercado, Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Welcome.

Thank you. Aloha, chair, vice chair, committee members. I'm Angie Mercado representing Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence and our 20 member programs who are often on the other side of these immigration issues with survivors who may be petitioning for youth visas. And we do stand on our written testimonies in strong support of this measure. And I wanna just really take the opportunity to articulate to the committee why this is so important for survivors of domestic violence.

As a prior, previous testifier indicated that there is a delay when we don't have a certification process that is streamlined. And why does this really matter? It matters because there's an actual national cap on the number of visas that can actually be given out in any year. So, U visas have a 10,000 cap. So, the cap is 10,000 in one year and T visas 5,000.

So, in fiscal year twenty twenty four, USCIS, and that's The US, Citizenship and Immigration Services, actually received 41,556 principal used visa petitions and 15,332 t visa petitions. And it takes about five to seven years to get a U visa and about twelve to thirty six months, so up to three years, to get a U visa. So the longer that we delay at the state level law enforcement certification processes, the longer the delay is for any survivor who's trying to get access to these visas.

And with these caps in place, we're not just jeopardizing, victim safety, but we're also delaying justice for these people. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Certainly. Thank you. Mandy Fernandez?

We'll stand on our written testimony.

Sorry. Everyone really wants to hear you and see you.

It was the wrong day to wear these shoes.

Mandy Fernandez on behalf of the ACLU Hawaii. We'll stand

on our written testimony in strong support

of this measure. Support this measure. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1838? If not, questions members? Seeing none, thank you very much to all the testifiers.

I appreciate your indulgence that I have you come up and testify. You're not just standing on your testimony. Okay. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1870, relating to protected community locations.

This measure establishes statewide standards for state and county agencies, officers, employees, contractors, and recipients of state funds to limit participation in civil immigration enforcement in or near protected community locations. By 01/01/2027, the measure requires all state and county agencies to operate - excuse me. By 01/01/2027, this measure requires all state and county agencies that operate protected community locations to adopt and post written policies, provide annual staff training, and maintain data privacy protections. The measure appropriates funds for implementation by the attorney general.

First up, we have Haley Chang.

Last time for today. And thank you again for the opportunity to testify. The Public Defender - Office of the Public Defender, stands in strong support of this measure. And I know that we're gonna hear from other individuals who will talk about the immigration climate and the context for why this measure is important. And I just do wanna note one takeaway from our written testimony; as this committee is well aware, we represent indigent clients in our community.

These clients are often poverty stricken, houseless, and these are the very individuals that need to access public and community resources, such as public schools, public health facilities, shelters, libraries, and state funded social services. This measure, I believe, affects the necessary barriers, delineates between federal and state, and creates safe zones that we think our community members need and should be able to access without fear. For those reasons, we stand in strong support, and we'll be available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, Keith Hayashi, Hawaii State Department of Education with comments. Not present. Next, Veronica Mendoza on Zoom. Not present, in support.

Next, Christina Sablan, Legal Clinic.

Thank you again Chair, Vice Chair, and members. TLC will stand on its written testimony in strong support of this measure. I do wanna note that, ever since the the Trump administration revoked really long standing federal protections for sensitive locations, we have seen an immigration enforcement across Hawaii at or near schools, churches, and courthouses and and other community spaces. And so, these are these types of actions really undermine community safety, create fear, and discourage residents from from accessing essential services.

And so, once again, we support this bill.

It will strengthen community safety and it recognizes that access to services really benefits everyone. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Aparna Patrie.

Thank you very much. Aparna Petri with Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, testifying for the last time today. We strongly support this measure, a bill to prohibit federal immigration officers from conducting enforcement in schools, hospitals, and other secure facilities. These are institutions that are supposed to be safe havens for people, places where children, patients, and community members can learn and receive health care without fear that them or their family members will be arrested, detained, or deported.

For many years, under long standing federal policy, the US Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security designated these locations as sensitive locations where immigration enforcement was generally prohibited.

This administration has upended that. And we've seen, not just in Hawaii, but on the continent, enforcement actions occurring in emergency rooms, in schools, as young as elementary schools, and it's extremely disconcerting and saddening to see that happen. These harms extend beyond schools. They occur across the Mainland. There have been reports of people being arrested in emergency rooms, like I said, while seeking care, and they create a climate of fear that discourages immigrant communities from accessing important health care, from going to school.

No child should be afraid to go to school. No patient should hesitate to seek life saving care. So, we strongly support this matter.

Thank you very much. Mandy Fernandez, ACLU of Hawaii.

Good afternoon. Mandy Fernandez, on behalf of ACLU of Hawaii. We strongly support this measure. And, what I will mention is that we need to think about the spaces that we wanna see in our communities. When you go to the doctor, when you go to - when our children go to school, do we really - do we want our teachers, our health care workers to interface and navigate complex immigration status. While they're at work, that's not their job.

They're not trained to do that. We're already demanding so much of them each and every day. And to expect them to also navigate this area of the law, to have to to be some sort of intermediary between ICE agents, and federal officers, and their patients or their students?

What kind of environment do we want for our keiki when they go to school and what kind of environment do we want for our patients when they go to the doctor or people who are seeking food at food pantries. That's what that's what this is really about.

It's about making sure that these essential services are protected and shielded from what's going on on the outside, so people can, feel more empowered to access them.

Thank you very much. Members, we've received 88 testimonies: 85 in support, 1 in opposition, and two with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1870?

Aloha, Chair. I'm Nicole Wu from Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks, and my written testimony is in that list. I apologize for sending it in late.

But we also strongly support this bill because, schools, pediatricians, libraries and other places where children and their families need to be safe, not just for the families that are currently in the immigration and naturalization process, But for all the other children and teachers around them, it has a chilling effect, and it's frightening for our entire community when these sort of agents are coming onto these place, properties that, in the past, were protected from these types of enforcement activities.

So, we support this bill as well.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in the room here? Please introduce yourself.

Angela Leon, in strong favor of the protections for the protected locations within the communities for civil immigration rights. So, historically, churches offer sanctuary for refugees escaping political asylum from their home country. And so, if I can offer amendment, although, I think the legislation only references state protected entities, if they could consider faith based organizations because churches, you know, they're so protective of providing sanctuary for all people.

So, historically, ICE had a policy, it's called actions in or near sensitive locations, and it was a non binding discretionary memorandum directing ICE agents to avoid conducting enforcement actions within sensitive locations such as within churches and places of faith.

And so, when the political tensions happened in the president's office there, this policy was then revoked, that now it's under the agent's discretion if they may enter a church sanctuary. And so, if the state of Hawaii could consider, because there's a lot of faith based places in Hawaii, that the church can provide sanctuary for refugees, seeking political asylum status. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1870? Pull up, please.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, committee members. I'll make it quick. My apologies. My late testimony did not make it to you. Angie Mercado, the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

We stand in strong support of this measure. We know from survivors already in Hawaii that the chilling effect of civil enforcement by ICE is palpable throughout the community. We've already seen domestic violence shelters experiencing ICE raids on the continent. And our judiciary's website and our protective orders section says that everybody has a right to seek justice and safety through a protective order regardless of immigration status. And can you imagine the chilling of a protective order regardless of immigration status.

And can you imagine the chilling effect that you get a protective order, but now you can't go to the hospital? Or now you can't go to a domestic violence shelter? Or now you can't talk to an advocate because they get state funding? And now that you're concerned that they don't have policies in place, we'll be able to protect their staff and protect you.

So, again, we stand in the strong support of this measure, and thank you for this opportunity to testify late on Friday.

Glad to have you testify anytime. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members? Mister Shimizu, do you have a question?

Yes, please. Can I ask you a question? Yeah. I know we we see on the news what what's happening on the continent.

I'm sorry. I might not be aware of it. Are you seeing this happening? Those examples that you mentioned, are you seeing that happen happening?

We haven't heard, for instance, like the example that I gave about the shelter on the continent. We haven't heard that of happening in Hawaii yet, but we certainly have heard on the neighbor islands when there has been immigration activity around the courthouses that survivors are concerned and they're afraid to actually go and petition for a domestic violence protective order. Now in some cases, you still have to go to the court to actually petition in person, submit a petition in person for protective order.

But you can schedule an order to show cause hearing via Zoom, but you gotta show up to the courthouse for sure. And so, when they when there has been immigration activity around the courthouses and specifically, we know that there has been in Maui and there has been on Big Island.

We have heard from advocates who are working with survivors in the community that they are now afraid to seek, for instance, protective orders.

So, that's just at the courthouse example you're mentioning?

That's an - yeah.

Sorry. Follow-up question, Chair? I'm sorry. I'm not familiar, but what was the previous policy before this current administration made made changes?

So, specifically, when it comes to domestic violence services?

Regarding this bill as far as the protected areas.

So, I would actually give - yeah.

I would ask another testifier to respond because I think it might be more appropriate.

There's two parts to that.

Thank you, Chair. Appreciate your help.

Miss Fernandez or Aparna Patrie, if you could please respond.

Sure. Absolutely. The policy before was that the federal government had a policy of not conducting enforcement in these areas. So, states didn't really need to do anything to address this issue. Now that the federal government has lifted that prohibition, states are responding by ensuring that state funded locations are not are, you know, requiring folks to have a judicial warrant to enter and things like that.

This is the state's response to the federal government lifting a safeguard that they had before.

And if you could perhaps answer the first question was, are there examples in the state where we've had incidents of ICE showing up at places that are sensitive places?

Yeah. In Kona, we had an incident where ICE showed up at an elementary school, and we have we have examples of ICE standing outside of courthouses in the state right now. But most of the most egregious examples are on the continent, And what we're trying to do with this bill is prevent it from coming here.

Okay. Representative Garcia.

You mentioned the instance in Kona. What exactly happened in Kona? Was a child taken, or what happened in Kona?

I'm not intimately aware of the details of that particular incident, if someone else can speak to that. But, yes, the child was taken from the school -

Okay.

- by a federal enforcement.

Could you please provide the specific details to my office regarding these instances in certain safe spaces here in Hawaii? And the Kona example, I think you mentioned Maui example, courthouses. And then also, question: previously to the lifting from this administration, could ICE arrest or or make arrests at court houses across the nation and and here in Hawaii or no?

I'm not sure about... I'm not sure about whether they could go inside or have to stay outside. And I know that folks who are convicted of crimes, obviously, you know, they get handed over to ICE in a lot of instances. So, I'm not - I'm not sure about that. I don't know if...

If I may, any information that you can provide, so that I if you could share it with me and I could share it with Representative Garcia and the other members of the committee, that would be great.

One more follow-up. Sure. Sure.

For the AG, if possible. Is the AG here?

We don't have the attorney general here.

Oh, okay. No.

We have a public defender here, who is not in immigration law.

I am here.

I'm just serious. I'm not a lawyer. And, you know, I'm looking at there's federal, there's state law. If this bill passes, this becomes state law. Could state law supersede federal law, if they have the the go ahead from the chief executive to enforce federal law in this manner: would state law prohibit them from enforcing federal law?

So, that's a really complicated question. But what I can tell you, and if I I can look into the specifics of that exact dynamic, as you've described in the context of this bill, if that would be helpful to provide that information to the Chair and the committee. But I can say that state and federal are completely different jurisdictions. Right? So for example, federal authorities cannot enter a state facility and execute, you know, whatever they're gonna do.

They will usually engage with state law enforcement to do those things. So, for example, like, if somebody, what I can speak to is if somebody is dually in state custody and federal custody, there is a very complicated back and forth between the two different sides, as to how to handle that individual that's in custody, and the federal government cannot just grab, a state body; we call them that.

I know that's not great, but that's how we refer to it in the criminal system without a lot of writs and granting of paperwork and things like that. So, I'm not sure if that answers your exact question, but there are a lot of jurisdictional barriers between state and federal. But they're also the State of Hawaii has also, in many ways, granted more protection than the federal government in certain areas.

That helps.

I'm just curious because if there are different jurisdictions, like state facilities or whatever, and federal immigration officers can't enter state facilities, then what's what is the the need of this bill? If they can't do it already because of jurisdictional issues, then then why pass this bill?

So, maybe I'll caveat you. I don't think it's that it stops him from entering all state facilities. So, some of the things that we're talking about, right, are like schools. That's very different than like a jail or a correctional facility. And we do have, you know, if there's a federal investigation on state property, we have seen that happen where we have the DEA or the FBI, who obviously has the right to go on to search a property and engage.

So, it's a complicated jurisdictional question, but I will say, and I can share the anecdotes of others, we have seen ICE vehicles and ICE agents around the courthouse in the parking lot at Circuit Court. We have not seen, I can say, at least for the first circuit, I have not seen a ICE agent enter the courthouse, but we have had clients who have gone outside after a court proceeding and never came back in. That has happened.

So, that is why, right, I think something like this is is important.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you very much. Rep. Belatti?

I have a number of questions. I don't know if these people are here, but first question would be for the University of Hawaii System. Is there anyone here from the University of Hawaii System here or on Zoom?

We did have someone from the law school.

No. Do we have anyone from the University of UHPA? Okay. Do we have anyone from the Department of Education?

And do we have anyone... no one from the attorney generals?

No.

Could I ask you a question?

Rep. Belatti has got the floor at the moment.

I guess, sure. Chair, with your indulgence, can I ask my questions and then ask that maybe we'd be able to follow-up in in writing with these these representatives? Because it's questions specifically from their testimony. I mean, just for because this does go on to the next committee. You know what, I'll reserve it for my comments.

Okay. Yeah.

Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. Other questions?

Last question. Okay. Okay. It's okay.

Be as quick as possible, please.

What happens in, like, emergency situations or justifiable situations where, you know, people need to respond? Whether it's eyesore or what would happen in those cases? If there needs to be, entering of these established, community effective community spaces?

If you're articulating an emergency that would be federally related outside of - are you talking about within immigration enforcement or outside of immigration enforcement?

Yeah, let's just say that there there is an identified perpetrator who is identified as an illegal immigrant and is on school campus for whatever reason and, you know, they're they're they need to be apprehended. So..

I think the measure allows for warrants. Right? Appropriate judicial warrants.

Perhaps it might be better to have somebody else answer this. I think Yeah. Rather than have Miss Chang struggle through an area of law she's not as familiar with, perhaps we can have Aparna or Mandy Fernandez here.

No. No. Yeah.

We always assume she knows everything, but Aparna, if you wanna respond, or Mandy.

Sure. No. This is actually more just about the plain language of the bill. If you look at Section 2-C, then one through three, that says that so this does not this section does not prohibit, one, responding to an imminent threat to life or safety, two, executing a judicial warrant or court order, or three, performing duties unrelated to civil immigration enforcement, including fire code, building safety, or public health inspections.

So, this is not creating, like, a total sanctuary of these that so, like, where you go in, you're like, "You can't get me now."

That's not what this does. So, it just requires additional civil rights protections, including an additional warrant. Sorry?

What was the section? I can't - I'm sorry. What was the section? I can't -

I'm sorry. That is Section 2, Subsection C one through three.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Stay there.

Oh, we have one more follow-up question from Rep. Belatti.

Actually, we might get to some of the questions that I have. If the people are not present. Really fast, for the ACLU, did you offer any guidance to any schools or the Department of the Attorney General's Office when reviewing any of the policies that the schools put out?

I don't know. I will have to ask Wookie. We've done, you know, know your rights generally around schools, but I don't know that we've advised the schools at all.

Okay. One of the concerns expressed in the Department of Education's things testimony is that they say that current guidance expressly includes US immigration and customs enforcement. But what we've seen happening on the continent is that enforcement is not just limited to immigration and customs enforcement. Is the language in the bill cover all immigration enforcement by CPB, Department of Homeland Security, any of the areas of any of the law enforcement agencies that have been deputized to do it in immigration enforcement.

Is is the language in the bill protective so as to exclude all of the federal agencies?

Yeah. So, this would encompass all civil immigration enforcement.

Okay, so then I guess the next question is, if that's why if you guys have been helpful in helping draft any policies: do you know if the current state policies might be covering more, like all of this broad umbrella of agencies that we know that are now active in this space?

I haven't personally reviewed those policies and I'll say that it's important to pass this to require judicial warrant too. I don't know that we could do that with the Senate Department's policy.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you very much. This has been very educational, very complicated area of law. I appreciate all the testifiers.

Thank you to the members for your questions. Let's move on to the next measure. We're gonna go through all the measures on the hearing agenda and do vote, decision making at the end just for those who are here for the first part of the agenda. Moving on, House Bill 1565, House Draft 1, relating to child welfare services.

This measure establishes a working group within the judiciary to improve family court processes, including access to legal representation for youth in the child welfare system and appropriates funds for the working group.

First up, we have Department of Attorney General, Derek Peterson. In person.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm deputy attorney general Derek Peterson, and the department is offering comments on this bill. It doesn't get more minor than this. For clarity and consistency, we are recommending that the wording in Section two c eight be amended from three or more individuals with lived expertise navigating the state child welfare system as minors to three or more individuals with lived experience navigating the state child welfare system as minors.

And, again, this is a minor technical amendment for clarity and consistency, and it will match the language that's used in section two c.

Thank you. And I'm available to answer any questions.

Appreciate you catching that. Next, Office of Wellness and Resilience and support.

Aloha to your vice chair, members of the committee. Naomi Leipold, the Office of Wellness and Resilience. We stand in our testimonies and support.

Why Why do you think it's a good bill?

Because it uplifts the voice of, youth that have gone through the system, and we believe lived experience should be at the forefront of this issue.

Thank you. And for those I I always ask for you to at least give a highlight of your testimony for people who are listening because not everyone read your testimony.

Thank you for hearing us.

Thank you. Next, McKenna Woodward, Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. McKenna Woodward on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in strong support of this measure. OHA was a member of the Malama Ohana Working Group and appreciates this bill codifying the mechanism by which we can effectuate the working group's recommendations. Despite representing only 33% of the state's youth population, native Hawaiian children comp comprise 45% of those in foster care. This imbalance reflects not only current socioeconomic challenges, but continuing effects of historical injustice, systemic poverty, and intergenerational trauma.

The forced separation from Ohana can be especially damaging to native Hawaiian Keiki as it may also mean separation from

their cultural identity and ancestral lands. Native Hawaiian Keiki and their Ohana,

both historically and lands. Native Hawaiian Keiki and their Ohana, both historically and today, face entrenched disparities rooted in legacies of colonization. The dispossession of land, the suppression of cultural practices, and structural discrimination have contributed to high rates of poverty and housing insecurity. Many Ohana are being forced out of their ancestral homelands either in homelessness or to the continent. Every child deserves to be raised in a safe, stable, and nurturing environment. However, many native Hawaiian keiki

in the child welfare system are in the child welfare system have experienced significant trauma resulting not only from abuse or neglect, but also from removals triggered by poverty related conditions that should not be mistaken or neglect. If left unaddressed, this trauma can have profound effects on mental health, educational success, and long term well-being. Removing a child because their parents are being priced out of their homeland and later terminating parental rights represents a continuation of the same systemic forces that displaced native lands in the first place.

It is colonization or colonialism by another name enacted through state systems, and it perpetuates cycles of loss and trauma for generations of Ohana. Please pass this bill so we can move toward a more equitable restorative system for our keiki and their Ohana.

Mahalo for your time and I'm available.

Mahalo. Next, Patricia Chin, IHOPE's initiative, EPIC Ohana on Zoom.

Aloha chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. My name is Patricia Chin. I'm the High Hopes Initiative statewide manager with EPIC Ohana. Our statewide initiative works with young people ages 14 to 26 who have experienced foster care, ensuring they have the resources, opportunities, and relationships that they need to thrive. The High Hopes Initiative stands on our written testimony in support of House Bill 1565 with the suggested amendment to include a former GAL as a working group member.

A former GAL can offer critical insight into how representation currently functions, where gaps currently exist, and how the system can evolve to better support youth voice, their rights, and well-being without the procurement or conflict limitations that apply to active jails. My written testimony has data around, research that we see from other states who currently have counsel for youth implemented. I would like to uplift more powerful evidence, which comes directly from Hawaii's young people themselves.

Many of them would like to testify today, but are unable to due to work, school, and family responsibilities. One young person shared that they didn't they felt lost and did not feel represented.

Another young person shared that if they had a lawyer, they could have avoided four grueling years in a placement that wasn't right for them. Another young person told us that if they had a guardian ad litem, but still didn't feel as if they were part of the decision making that impacted their life. And a current 17 year old who is in the foster care system shared that important decisions were made about their future without their understanding or involvement.

This bill is truly a meaningful step forward, and Hawaii has the opportunity to truly lead the way in honoring young people's voices, protecting their rights, and building a system where they feel truly seen and heard. It ensures that no young person must navigate the system in the dark or rely on chance to be listened to.

The High Hopes initiative again stands firmly in support of this bill with its suggested amendments, and mahalo for your time, consideration, and your commitment to Hawaii's young people.

Thank you, miss Jin. Next, Nicole Wu, Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks.

Aloha, chair and vice chair, members of the committee. Yes. I'm Nicole from Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks. We support this bill. We coordinate a a policy agenda.

We've done it for eleven years. It's called the Hawaii Children's Policy Agenda. There are dozens of organizations and individuals who care about our keiki, who come together, talk about ideas for the legislature, and then vote and decide on the bills to include in our agenda. Last year, this this bill was brought to us, and we were very surprised to hear that Hawaii is one of only 13 states that does not guarantee foster youth the right to legal representation in their court proceedings.

So last year and this year, we've included this bill in our policy agenda because we think it's a really important way to make sure that our youth are represented and respected as they go through their court proceedings.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Is there any so we have a total of 28 testimonies, 27 in support, one with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1565? If not, questions, members? Question. Yes, mister Schmizio.

I I just wanted to confirm that the scope of this working group, goes beyond the, previous Malama Ohana working group.

Yes.

To clarify, yes. The Malama'ohana working group did sunset, and recommendations were put forth in that report. And it is our office's understanding that this bill that has been put forward falls within the recommendation that has been listed. One of the recommendations in the report. So it it it it's separate from the Molama Ohana working group because that had sunset.

So my understanding is this measure is proposing a new working group to be established.

Right. I guess my understanding was Walaamawana working group had this scope and now this is another scope beyond that's original scope. Because when otherwise, we're doing the same thing over and I just wanna confirm that we're not re rehashing the same things.

Yes. Thank you for that clarifying question. So my understanding is this working group that is in front of us is specifically looking to around the court system involving child welfare cases. Whereas, Malama Ohana working up was

the whole system Thank you. So. Thank you. Sure.

Thank you. If there's no other questions, let's move on to the next measure. Thank you to the testifiers. House bill 1645, House draft one relating to liability. This measure provides certain liability protections for nonprofit child welfare service organizations that are under contract with the Department of Human Services to provide child welfare services to children and families.

It requires contracts between nonprofit child welfare service organizations and the state to include a state indemnification clause and requires these organizations to name the state as an additional insured. It prohibits punitive damages and pre and post judgment interest for nonprofit child welfare service organizations, requires actions against nonprofit child welfare service organizations to be tried by the court, except in certain circumstances.

And removes joint and several liability for nonprofit child welfare service organizations and specifies that no bond shall be required from a nonprofit child welfare service organization on appeal. First up, we have insurance division from DCCA with comments.

Afternoon chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Matt Sujima on behalf of the insurance division. You have our written testimony. The division just wants to point out that we are aware that this is a growing issue, not just in the state, but across the country.

And, you know, what we're really while the provisions in the bill will potentially help with the stabilization of insurance prices, the division will note that there's no guarantee that the provisions of the bill will actually cause the prices or the premiums of insurance to decrease.

And so to that end, the division has had discussions with other state regulators and as well as the local nonprofit community to determine if there are alternative coverage mechanisms that may be optimal for the situation. Namely, we've been just throwing around the idea of potentially having a captive insurance company here locally to provide that coverage. Those stocks are still very preliminary. Still trying to determine the viability and if there are partners in in other jurisdictions that might be able to work that out with us.

But I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Keep working on it. Next, Trisha Kajimura, parents and children together. Welcome.

Thank you. Aloha chair, vice chair, and members. My name is Trisha Kajimura, vice president of strategy and external affairs for parents and children together or PACT. Thank you for hearing this bill and the opportunity to testify and support requesting amendments. PACT is a statewide social services organization founded in Kuhio Park Terrace Public Housing in Kalihi in 1968.

We serve 18,000 people annually, including 8,000 children through 20 programs that address child care, pre k, domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, community building, and youth mental health. We're supporting this bill so we can continue to provide these services and do this work. So in September of last year, PACT encountered a problem that we'd never experienced before when we were up for our annual insurance renewal. Our liability insurer pulled out of the market for child welfare service organizations nationwide.

Other companies declined our business and our broker struggled until the last minute to find a replacement.

We ended up paying three times the premium for less coverage than we had before. The reason for this difficulty getting reassured was clearly stated as due to our work as a nonprofit providing child welfare services on behalf of the state. We cannot operate without insurance. Our operations would cease without. And one reason is that it's required by our state contracts.

This was a very close call, and unfortunately, it could happen again this September and every year until solutions are implemented. So we've been researching this issue ever since and found that it's a nationwide problem documented as a crisis for child welfare organizations in 46 states. To avert this crisis in our state, we must implement solutions that will make organizations like PACT insurable, and this is what is in this bill.

So if I may address the amendment request, on the topic of indemnification, the bill requires indemnification, but this is already in our state contracts. Contracts such as Pac must contractors such as Pac must indemnify the state, taking on their liability and their potential legal costs.

Since we provide these services on behalf of the state, we ask that this be changed and the bill prohibits indemnification by either party in state child welfare service contracts. Our current insurance crisis shows that when we are required to take on the state's liability, the burden becomes untenable. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Betty Lou Larsen, Catholic Charities Hawaii.

Hello, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Betty Lou Larsen, Catholic Charities Hawaii. We also have written testimony. We support the amendments that Tricia has just brought up because we feel that this is an ongoing crisis. It's only gonna get worse.

We wanna try to make it easier for our organizations to continue the services that they want to do and that are mandated and that the families and children desperately need. So these would be ways to give a little bit more protection and to really help them to absorb some of these already in high insurance costs. Thank you very much for listening to our testimony.

Thank you very much. Evan Oye, Hawaii Association for Justice. Welcome.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Evan Oye, on behalf of the Hawaii Association for Justice. We respectfully stand in strong opposition to this measure, and I think our primary concern is that this really greatly affects the most vulnerable parties in this whole situation, which are the victims of the actual sexual abuse within the foster care system. You know, to highlight a few concerns, of course, it's gonna be the joint and several liability, the removal of that.

That's a that's a very victim friendly mechanism built in within our judicial system, which emphasizes compensation and prioritizes compensation for the victims of this abuse.

Our second concern, it lies in with the removal of punitive damages. So punitive punitive damages really kinda gets after, you know, fraudulent or intentional or willful malicious acts with our conduct. And that's a it's a tool within also within the judicial system to really deter these types of acts from occurring within the system. And then, of course, second or the the last one is gonna be removal of bench trial or jury trials and making it solely bench trials.

You know, the access to being, you know, a jury of your peers is is one of the core principles of the judicial system which we should uphold.

You know, so this bill, at the end of the day, kind of reframes it as an insurance issue. But at the end of the day, it's really should be you know, if we're looking at risk mitigation to bring that down, we should be looking at internal changing internal practices and creating other forms of accountability, which ensure that these cases don't happen at the

end of the day. And I

think that should be the ultimate goal. But removal of liability is not the answer to to get to that goal from our current point. So, you know, for those reasons, we're you respectfully oppose this measure and are available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Amanda Pump, child and family service and support on Zoom. Hi.

I apologize. My name is Brady Schmaru. I am the last speaker. Amanda couldn't make it today, so I'm representing her. I could either speak right now or during my turn. I could either speak right now or during my turn.

Go ahead.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much. So good afternoon again. My name is Brady Schmaru, testifying on behalf Child and Family Service.

We are strongly in support of HB 1645 with a request for an important amendment. Child and Family Service is a statewide nonprofit that provides child welfare services to Department of Human Services contracts. Each year, we serve thousands of children and families across Hawaii, and nearly 90% of the families would work with experience positive outcomes. HB 1645 HD one is an important step toward ensuring nonprofit providers can continue delivering critical services on behalf of the state.

These organizations operate as essential partners in the child welfare system, and they must be able to carry out this work without being exposed to legal risk.

Districting this bill, we respectfully request an amendment to prohibit it indemnification clauses and the requirement that nonprofits name the state as an additional excuse me, as an additional insured in state contracts. These provisions shift liability and defense responsibility away from the state and onto nonprofit providers even when providers are acting as agents of the state. This amendment would more fairly align liability with responsibility, improve consistency across contracts, and help protect the stability of Hawaii's child welfare system.

We urge you to support this amendment, and I'd like to thank you for your time and this opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next is Mihoko Ito.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Michiko Ito. I'm working with PACT and the other, child welfare service providers on this matter, testifying in strong support. One thing that I think to add to this discussion is that the child welfare service providers are really stepping into the shoes of the state when they're providing these services, to to vulnerable children and families. So they are providing services that the state does not have the capacity to provide and for that reason, they're contracting out.

Now the policy on liability, we think, should be the same as it is on the state.

The state already enjoys no joint and several liability, already has no punitive damages, already is allowed to, have bench trials only. So we think there's an imbalance. What's happening right now is that in addition to the state's, you know, extra protections that they have, there are indemnity clauses that are, that the child welfare service providers are being required to sign, and so when they agree to that, they're liable for the entire thing.

And so while the state is only liable for their comparative share, the providers get left stuck with potentially the entire judgment. And that's what we think is is has brought this imbalance and is contributing to the fact that the insurability is is where it is right now.

I think, you know, we certainly appreciate the insurance commissioner's interest in this matter and, are happy to work with them. I think there have been some meetings that have taken place already, but we'd also note that what's needed right now is relief for these child child welfare service providers. And I think the real risk is that if nothing isn't is done now, that providers will either reduce services or, in the worst case, exit, leaving thousands of children and families without without these really vital services.

So happy to answer any questions, but wanted to add add some commentary on the on the reason why we really need this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

So we received a total of 15 testimonies, 12 in support, one in opposition, two with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1645? If not, questions members? Representative Shimizu.

Sure. So

did I hear you correctly that

what you explained is included in the bill here, that you're supporting it?

Yes. Supporting the provisions in the bill to put the providers on the same plane of liability as the state.

And and and also, there's a recommended amendment that is in the past testimony that, Miho Quito also, supports.

Yes. And what that would do is to make sure that neither party it actually is not just to prohibit state from requiring indemnity, but it it what we're proposing is to be fair, that neither party can indemn require indemnity of the other.

Sure. I guess I thought this was a easy decision, Jay. But when I heard talk about the clients being, uncovered, what what is your comment on his testimony that expressed that concern?

Well, you know, I think the way that the law is structured right now, the fact that there's no joint and several liability for the state and yet full joint and several liability for the provider means that the the potential is for the victim to recover the entire judgment plus the comparative fault of the state, potentially. So I think, you know, the way it's drafted right now, it's just incongruent. Right?

And I think if you should if this law were to pass, what would happen is that each party would be liable for their share of their fault. So if you if you look at think of the the liability as a as a piece of the pie and the state is half liable and the provider is half liable, the victim would recover in full.

So you see it as a a positive for for the clients then?

I I think yeah. And I I I think to be clear, the the child welfare service providers do not want for victims to not be able to recover. I mean, that's not the goal of this bill at all. It's just to balance where the division of that pie lies.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? If not, thanks very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure, House bill 1732, related to housing. This measure establishes the Kamaaina Homes program within the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation to provide funding to the counties to purchase voluntary deed restrictions from eligible home buyers.

First up, we have part of taxation. Aloha. Aloha.

My name is Eliza. I'm here on behalf of the Department of Taxation. The Department of Taxation doesn't take a position, but we have comments that we can administer this exemption in the conveyance tax. And we could do that by 01/01/2027.

Thank you very much. Audrey Suga Nakagawa with AARP Hawaii on Zoom. Please proceed.

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas and members of the committee. I'm Audrey Suga Nakagawa from AARP, and we send our testimony in support. This particular bill aligns with AARP's long standing housing priorities, which which expands access to affordable and stable housing for Hawaii's people. And we're very much concerned about the fact that many of our younger people are leaving the islands, not just younger people, people are leaving the islands because they cannot afford to live here.

And so having an it's making the supply of affordable homes for our workforce is very, very important. And, of course, if working families can remain in the community, they can also stay intact with their family and kupunas who really need them to be able to live and thrive in Hawaii. So thank you very much for the opportunity to testify in support of this measure.

Thank you very much. Kieran Polk on Zoom. Not present. In support. Next, Matt Prelberg, Holomua Collaborative in support.

Welcome.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Matt Prelberg on behalf of Holomua Collaborative, a local nonprofit founded to advocate for policies that will keep local working families in Hawaii by making sure that they can afford to stay here. Wanna mahalo each of you for staying so late on a Friday night, before a long weekend. Really appreciate your time and commitment to the people of Hawaii.

We all know that we are in a housing crisis and that we are in an affordability crisis in the state of Hawaii.

Our sister organization, Holomua Collective, puts out a survey each year and this last year we surveyed 3,200 local working residents And in that survey, we found that 75% either said that they were, yes or unsure if asked if they were going to move to a less expensive state.

More than half of the respondents cited housing costs as the primary driver of their cost living in Hawaii, and two thirds of the respondents said they spend more than the expected and recommended 30% of their household income on housing. Housing costs in Hawaii were always gonna be outbid by folks that live on the continent or out of state. There are always folks who are gonna wanna move here. We all understand what makes Hawaii great and why folks wanna come out here.

And what the Kamaaina Homes program does is it offers a creative solution that is modeled after other programs on the continent that can create dedicated local housing for our local workforce while also creating, when this as this program expands, it can create a secondary market that is cheaper than the market that the out of state folks are willing to spend on.

The way that this program works is that it would authorize the counties and provide some funding for them to enter into negotiations with home buyers to purchase a deed restriction on the home that would require the home then in perpetuity to be lived in by someone who works in the community for a business that works or that is based in Hawaii. These homes can either be lived in by the homeowner themselves or the homes can be lived in by a long term tenant.

Additionally, and change in the HD one was to allow this funding to be used also for the construction of an ADU so we can also be building homes, building new properties that would be, dedicated for local workforce.

There is a lot of housing that is being built but the amount of housing that's being built in the state, vastly is much smaller than the amount that we already have and we need to be locking up some of the housing that we currently have in order to make sure that our families can still stay here.

There's more information about this program in my testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions you have about the details. Mahalo.

Thank you very much, mister Perlberg. Next, Lindsay Garcia, Hawaii Realtors with comments. So that's all the testimony we've received. Total of 18 testimonies, 16 in support, two with comments. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure?

If not, questions members? Seeing none, we'll move on to the next measure. House bill 2049 relating to housing.

This restructures the conveyance tax to a marginal tax rate system for the sale of properties with residential use, adjust the tax for multifamily properties to reflect value on a per unit basis, and applies a cost of living adjustment to conveyance tax rates, allocates revenues from conveyance tax collections, allocates a portion of conveyance tax collections to the dwelling unit revolving fund to fund infrastructure programs in county designated transit oriented development areas that meet minimum standards of transit supportive density, and allocates a portion of conveyance tax revenues to the Hawaiian Home Lands Trust Fund.

First first up, we have Department of Taxation.

Aloha. Eliza here on behalf of the Department of Taxation. We are requesting a small amendment just to clarify that the adjustment will be on the value of the brackets rather than on the rates. So it would it would adjust for inflation. The value of coal prices rising.

Thank you. Thanks. Appreciate it. Department of Hawaiian Homelands.

Hello, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Orianna, Leal, DHHL. The department stands on its written testimony in strong support of this measure. As much of the testimony as reflected, there is broad support from our beneficiaries because this bill would allow for dedicated funding for the department because we not only administer leases for ninety nine years, we serve a trust in perpetuity.

And having a dedicated source of funding for the department would tremendously improve the program for us in terms of not just delivery of lots, but also maintenance, needs for our and agricultural and pastoral lots as well. We appreciate this opportunity and wanna thank this committee for hearing this bill, And we also wanna make it clear that DHL does not have any intention to impede upon the opportunity to benefit from conveyance tax, by the current stakeholders.

And we don't have a scarcity mindset concerning this bill because when buyers purchase properties in Hawaii out of state for properties they don't reside in and they do not work in the state, they don't have a scarcity mindset. I'm available for questions. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Mary Alice Evans in support. State of Hawaii Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of

the committee. Office of Planning is in support of this measure to restructure the conveyance tax to a marginal rate system. Back in twenty twenty twenty three, our office did a TOD infrastructure financing study.

Transit oriented development.

And so we did development study to finance infrastructures in TOD areas. The finding found that we need new revenue sources to help address our significant funding gaps. And one of the key recommendations was to increase revenue through available tax rate or tax mechanisms such as the company's tax. And to dedicate a portion of this increased tax revenue to address infrastructure and housing needs around transit oriented development areas.

And thus, we support this convenience tax revenue to support housing and their for infrastructure and county designated two areas.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Sure.

Thank you for being here. David Penn, DLNR, in support.

Hello, Chair Tarnas, vice chair Poi Poi, members of the committee, and all the rest of us. David Penn, program specialist for Legacy Land Conservation with Department of Land and Natural Resources. Our testimony is in support of this bill. The Legacy Land Conservation Program and the Land Conservation Fund are also in a funding crisis these days. We've been sinking for over a decade, and hopefully, this proposal will help us to get to where we wanna be.

The bright spot in the testimony is the statement that our current goal for funding on an annual basis is $10,000,000. Based on some of the projections, it looks like this bill would get us there. The question is when based on the allocations to the various organizations in the waterfall of conveyance tax revenue. So we're at the headwaters of the waterfall, but we've been drying up. Thank you, and I'm here for questions.

Thank you very much, mister Penn. Aruna Haim, Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Devin Thomas. My colleague couldn't be here today. Excited excited to testify in strong support of this bill for various reasons. I wanna highlight firstly the marginal rate changes because we believe that this will make the overall structure of the conveyance tax fairer.

It'll prevent the cliff effect which happens when folks move, or when the properties rather move from one value bracket to the next. So that's a fairer way to tax properties that are being sold. Secondly, we believe that the spirit of this tax and although the rates are blanked out, they'll be inserted later. The spirit of it is to ensure that folks, especially those who are out of state homeowners, those who have second homes, that they're paying their fair share towards programs and services for the state.

Really, this the way this bill is structured, it ensures that, the average homeowner, someone who occupies their home or is going to occupy their home is not going to be tax unfair.

In fact, they will get a tax reduction or they're slated to, in the prior version of the bill. And

really what this this bill focuses on is raising the convenience tax rates essentially for number one, high value properties, and number two, non owner occupied properties that are largely owned by out of state folks. So for those reasons, we we strongly support the the changes made to the structure and the rate system. And we also just wanna highlight one more thing, which is that the funding or or the revenue streams, right, generated by this bill go towards really targeted funds that desperately need more revenue.

One of those being the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. We spent over $300,000,000 per year on our correctional system, or at least this year it was that number, As opposed to a 185,000,000 for the Department of Hawaiian Homelands.

To help correct this disparity, right, we should be directing more funds towards building housing for Hawaiians, for, you know, for people who have been waiting far too long to receive the homesteads that they're owed. So thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next, Nicole Wu, Hawaii Children's Action Network speaks on Zoom.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Thank you so much for hearing this bill. We support this, for many of the reasons of the prior testifiers. Also, just for folks who don't know, Hawaii has the lowest effective property tax rates in the nation, which seems like a shame because we also know that we have some of the most expensive properties in the nation.

A lot of the very wealthy people who own some of our most huge mansions and oceanfront properties are not residents of Hawaii, so they are not affected by our income tax.

They don't pay that. And at the state level, our state constitution does not allow the state to tax property. So how do we get at this resource, these multimillion dollar properties that are being purchased by out of state people? One way is the conveyance tax. It's basically a sales tax that's applied when a property is sold, And the conveyance tax has two different rates.

It has a higher rate for second homes and investment properties, and it has lower rates for owner occupied homes. So that's an important way that it's designed to make sure that we get at some of those out of state folks who are benefiting from the beauty of our state.

The way that this rate is changed, as Devin said, the prior testifier, it actually will, provide some savings to people with lower priced homes, and then it will, apply higher tax rates to the to those higher value properties. In my testimony, page 18, talking about the rates that were in the original version of this bill, we know that it's been blanked out.

But just to give you an example of, the kind of effects that the original bill would have, I have a table in there that shows you how some lower income properties will actually save money, on their taxes while richer people will pay more.

So there's many ways to adjust this to get at what we need to get at, so I definitely appreciate your hearing this bill and hope you'll move it on so we can continue the discussion in this session on it. Thank you.

Thank you very much, miss Wu. Next, Lindsay Garcia, Hoye Realtors, in opposition. Next, Evan Hoye, in opposition. Next, Betty Lou Larsen, Catholic Charities in support.

Again, I'm Betty Lou Larsen with Catholic Charities. Thank you. We strongly support this bill. We feel there is a need for this predictable ongoing funding for the 30% toward the to partner to find homelands for the infrastructure needs. Those are critical needs that need ongoing funding.

Our amendments have to do with the rental housing involving fund. This is the major source for all the rental housing, affordable rental housing that's been built over the last twenty years or more in the state. And so we are concerned that the rates for this particular fund is reduced from 50% to 20% with a cap approximately what it is now. No real extra money. So we would like to suggest that that rate be increased to 30%.

So it's kind of balancing the other needs, but the overall state's needs for more affordable housing. We have to note that our renters are under extreme pressure. 53% of renters are paying what's called an extreme burden, more than 50 of their income for rent. More than 50% income for rent. These are Kupuna.

These are our working poor. These are our eldest families. So many. And so we feel that, you know, to have a balance with this, we really would encourage you to look at the rental housing revolving fund and increase that percentage because it really we need affordable rental housing. I think everyone agrees.

How do we do it? And this has been the vehicle that's been very successful in creating thousands of units. There's another amendment I'd like to make. I'm sorry. It's not in my testimony.

The homeless providers got together yesterday, and we're looking at an issue that's been coming up the last couple of years in the legislature, and that is a percentage of the conveyance tax. We'd like to recommend 10% for a a a homeless services special fund. Because, again, these funds are under threat, and you cannot get homeless people off the streets without services. It's not just build the housing, which we need, be able to make it affordable, but you need to have services.

You need to have permanent supportive housing, which helps the very needy, those who are most hardest to get off the streets, get into housing and remain there.

But it has to be it has to be affordable and it has to have services. And just the regular service, prevention services, services for, helping, like, housing first if the federal monies go away. What's the that's been a very successful model in Hawaii, taking people off the streets and providing those services ongoing so so that they can and it's not just, here's a housing that'll get you in. It really is working with them to get them there.

After people have been disappointed many times, it's hard to say, yeah.

Okay. I'll make the changes. I'll try for the tenth time. And so this services fund is so important, again, just like the others, to have predictable ongoing funding. And so that's why we're asking, and I'm sorry.

It's not in my testimony I know. That 10%, which would be, approximately $1,020,000,000 dollars, I believe. You'd put on cap, of course, just like the others. But we really encourage you to think of that so that we're really looking at the whole spectrum of housing from infrastructure to native alliance, which is desperately needed, to our overall population for affordable rentals. And how do we get the homeless into housing?

Because that is such a crisis in our state and it's a top state priority also. Thank you very much for listening.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Next, Brandon Maka'ala'ala, nation of Hawaii. Not present. Next. Heolani Sonoda Palle on Zoom.

Please proceed.

Aloha. Aloha, Chair Tarnas. Aloha, Vice Chair. I'm testifying on behalf of Kalahui Hawaii, a native initiative for self determination. We are in full support of this measure.

As we have testified for many years, the best way to address the housing crisis is to tackle the 29,000 still waiting for their homestead. And the average household size of a household is 4.1. So if you times 29,000 by four, that's almost a 100,000 people that you could get housed if that list is addressed. And also, you also have the state has a judiciary responsibility to address this housing crisis. And for having this bill move forward, and we are in full support.

So we've received a total of 65 testimonies, 57 in support, five in opposition, three with comments. Anybody else wishing to testify in House bill 2049? Please.

Uh-huh. Excellent. Melody Young testifying on behalf of CARES in strong Support. So this mandate supports a few priorities.

The bill is about. Tell us what you think about it.

Okay. What do I think? Okay. It has a very focused single legislation to modernize real estate transaction taxes.

We know what the bill is about. Tell us what your opinion is on the bill.

And I can offer an amendment.

Please. We're waiting.

Okay. To consult with the county's DPP office for zoning regulations because in various zones, and they talked about this at the city council in Honolulu, LA, about the empty homes tax and how foreigners are buying out the market here in Hawaii. And so, I think working in consultation with the counties on this will be very helpful to this legislation. And also because the real properties tax office is from the county.

And so legislating it then empowers the county to work with the state offices to help modernize real estate transaction taxes to better support housing state and to accommodate the transit oriented development while funding the $660,000,000 for the final homes.

So although this bill focuses on revenue generation and allocation, it does not focus on data infrastructure, sharing a database, which is what I think Devin was talking about is that if a creation of a database, let's say you amend it, that there can be a shared database between county and state offices of housing portfolios, the value of the property, the value of property taxes, then you can have a more comprehensive view, and outlook of how to successfully implement this legislation.

And it will help with interagency coordination and to help with improving the, quality of life for families across the state. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions members? Seeing none, let's move on to the last item we're taking testimony on today. House bill 1776, house draft one relating to the residential landlord tenant code.

This measure requires the Office of Consumer Protection to periodically publish an accessible multilingual notice of tenant rights. It requires the notice to be included in the informational handbook on the residential landlord tenant code maintained by the office and requires a landlord to provide a tenant with a copy of the notice of tenant rights in the tenant's language, if available, and subjects the landlord to a fine for failure to do so. First up, we have Emma Olson with the Office of Consumer Affairs.

Thank you for your patience.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Emma Olsen for the Office of Consumer Protection. We will stand on our written testimony with comments. I will highlight that our office is happy to publish the notice of tenants rights. We do already publish and annually update the landlord tenant handbook, and we're working on expanding accessibility and language access. So we are willing to publish the second resource. Our office just may require additional time and resources. Thank you. Available for questions.

Thank you. Next, Nicole Wu, Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks.

Aloha again. I am personally a big fan of the landlord tenant handbook, so shout out for that. My organization, White Children's Action Network Speaks, worked during the pandemic and also after the Lahaina wildfires to make sure that families could access their pandemic relief benefits and then FEMA assistance. And we learned from that that there's a lack of meaningful language access for many of our limited English for 50 families.

We look to the federal, for federal resources, and most of the standard translations that are available are not in the languages that families in Hawaii speak, such as Ilocano, Marshallese, Tongan, and Chuukese.

So I think as a state that has some of the highest portion has one of the highest portions of foreign born residents, our state needs to take extra extra actions to make sure that our limited English family English proficiency families have access to and know about their rights. So that's why we support this bill in addition to the fact that we wanna make sure our children don't get evicted. Thank you. Bye.

Bye. Thank you very much. We've received a total of 13 testimonies, 12 in support, one with comments. Anybody else wishing to testify in House Bill 1776? If not, questions, members?

I have a quick question, for the Office of Consumer Protection. Do you already produce translated handbooks? And if so, in what language?

No. We are working with the Office of Language Access though to get, them into the most used languages in the state.

And any timeline before they're done?

I can get back to you on that. I don't have the yeah.

Yeah. I think we're all very interested to know because there's a lot of folks that English is not their primary language, and they need to be aware of their rights. Of course. Yeah. Do you have a question?

I have a comment. I appreciate everyone's testimony but I appreciate yours and specifically just because hearing I can do something or we can do something is very nice. Yeah. So thank you. Yeah.

Nice way to end Friday.

Yeah. Any other questions, members? I have a question.

If if if your office doesn't have the translations, and how would the landlords be able to get that information? Because this bill is tasked with our landlord to be responsible for that.

So I believe the way it would work, the landlord would contact our office to get the notice in the language that they need to provide to their tenant. Yeah. Thank you.

Chair. Sure. Any other questions? If not, we're gonna take a brief recess while we round up one more member so we can vote. Recess.

Reconvening the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. We're on the 2 p.. agenda. It's Friday, February 13, and we're moving into decision-making on the bills we heard today. Members when they, hearing notice was put out, I was able to request some advice from immigration attorneys, the private sector and public sector.

And, and what I've provided to you, around in a memo that I, I just provided to you are my recommendations for some amendments to these measures, and I'll work through each one, based on people reviewing these and giving us their best advice.

So, House Bill 1768, I recommend we move it out with amendments. There'll be technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. I would like to defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000. On page four, lines one to nine, we're gonna change the definition of law enforcement official to quote, an officer or agent of a law enforcement agency.