House Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. Convening our Committee on Public Safety. Today is Wednesday, March 18, 2026, 9:30am. We are here in Conference Room 411. We have a small-ish agenda. Chair just wants to remind the public that if you are on Zoom, please don't use any trademark or copyrighted material, as that will bump us off of YouTube.

I do not necessarily have time limits, but encourage folks to share the highlights of their testimony. So that gives us time to be able to answer, ask and answer any questions that might be necessary. My recommendation is that given the short hearing notice, we will likely defer all of these measures until the 11am decision making agenda. So no need for everyone to stay, but if you want to, you're also welcome to.

So let's get started. First up, we have Senate Bill 2645, relating to fire prevention. This does a number of things, such as eliminate the State Fire Commission as part of the process for selecting a State Fire Marshal and then amends the positions that we had previously provided to the Office of the State Fire Marshal a year ago. First up, we have comments from senior advisor of the Office of the Governor.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tory Nakata on behalf of Will Kane, senior advisor with the Office of the Governor, standing on our written testimony with comments. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We have testimony in support from the Office of the State Fire Marshal. Testimony in support from the Hawaii State Fire Council, Sheldon Hao. Thank you for joining us.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. Gary Lum testifying on behalf of the State Fire Council. We stand on our written testimony and comments on this bill. Thank you. Available for questions if you need.

Alright. Thank you. Testimony in support from DLNR, Michael Walker, Statewide Forest Protector. I like that name. Is that your official name?

Actually, he's a protection forester, but...

You're listed as statewide forest protector in our, in our notes. That makes you a superhero.

Elevated me a little bit. So, yeah, the department has submitted testimony with comments supporting the intent of the bill. In summary, the department is in favor of the amendments to Chapter 133, Sections 1, 2, and 4, but opposes the amendments proposed to Section 3, which would change the nomination of the Marshal from the committee style to a governor appointee. I'm available for comment, questions.

All right, Mr. Protector. We have testimony from Maui Fire Department. We have testimony from AIA Hawaii State Council, Melanie Islam, President. We have testimony in opposition or comments from Hawaii Wildfire Management organization. Comments. Any other testifiers here or via Zoom? Members, questions?

I have a question, Chair.

Okay, go ahead. And please speak up.

Okay. Sorry. Fire Marshal.

Not present.

Fire Council? I'm sorry. I don't know. That's why I'm asking a question. What is the connection between the Fire Council and the Fire Marshal?

Originally, when the legislature passed a bill to reestablish the Office of the State Fire Marshal, the State Fire Council was the lead agency to generate the position description for the State Fire Marshal, accept applications, screen the applicants, and select the State Fire Marshal that we have now. So current legislation right now is the State Fire Council is in an advisory capacity to the State Fire Marshal Commission. So this bill would change all that.

So the council advises the commission and the commission chooses the Fire Marshal?

Correct.

So other than that, does the Fire Marshal, you guys have any interaction together? Does the Fire Marshal utilize your services to advance their cause or their workload in any manner?

Correct. We, the State Fire Marshal is actually a member of the State Fire Council now, and we work together collaborating on legislation, testimonies such as this.

And the State Fire Council are volunteers?

The State Fire Council is made up of all the four County Fire Chiefs, the State Airport Fire Rescue Chief, the DLNR State Protection Forester, Mike Walker, just spoke, State Fire Marshal.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that education. Unfortunate that the Fire Marshal is not here. Some questions for them. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Any other questions?

For the Governor's Office. So you guys are sending comments, but is it my understanding that you're advocating for it being a governor's appointment with approved. That's your position. Is there... But we just heard that the process of getting the current Fire Marshal was more of the council slash commission.

I would like to make a slight correction with your statement, if you don't mind. For our testimony, we are in support of the overall intent of the measure, and it turned into comments because we are saying that we support having the commission remain the sole entity that does the appointment for the State Fire Marshal.

Okay. Great. Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you very much.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. Good to see you. Thanks for having me. And, I'll pin on our written testimony, but, we're very appreciative of this effort and, and understand that there's been a lot of collaboration, coordination with the, governor's office and the judiciary on implementation. So, thank you again, and I stand by for specific questions regarding, the Department of Defense's support of this, measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Seeing none, we will move to Senate bill 3083 relating to protective orders. Members, we've seen this previously. We have testimony in support from Kelly Mae Douglas, US Defense State Liaison office via Zoom. Here. Go ahead, Ms. Douglas.

Thank you. We have testimony in support from the judiciary. Testimony in support from, Hawaii National Guard, Brigadier General Ross. Testimony, in support from military and community relations office.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. John Green, deputy director for military and community relations office. We stand on our written testimony in support and available to answer questions.

Thank you. We have testimony in support from DBEDT, testimony in support from Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, testimony in support from William Karen Koran, Coron. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers via Zoom? Members questions?

Is judiciary here? No. Can can I ask,

the school? Yes. Yes.

Mister Green, please come up.

Mister Green. You know, we we heard this similar companion bill earlier. One of the talking points was the the judiciary testified that there was a system in place that, was accomplishing a lot of this, paperwork and, interaction and connectivity. And it's it wasn't, I guess, in place and they were gonna try and see what they could do to reinstate it. Are you aware of that?

We've actually worked with the judiciary on amending some language in the previous bill, having worked with them in the past and the understanding that this wasn't statutorily obligated for the judiciary to do. So we just wanna make sure that there's that collaborative effort that's in our, you know, statute that we can work with our component partners, installations, the law enforcement on each installation, and there's a designated process in place. That's all. Yes. We have a for this judiciary through a middle language to address that.

So you are aware of what I'm talking about? Yes. That's that's great to hear that you're aware of it and to rectify that.

Yes, sir.

Right. Thank you.

You can stay there. Any other questions? K. Mister Green

I just wanna make sure, because I know that this has been in flux. Does this Senate draft to reflect the language that the judiciary and your office has has worked on?

Yes.

I believe so. I think we're we have submitted the amended language.

Various council, committees.

Okay.

We probably have two bills moving. Just in an abundance of caution, I'll probably move this one out, and then just do some tech amendments. And so just please watch this because I wanna make sure that it has the correct amendments that has kind of been agreed upon by the stakeholders. Okay.

Will do. Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Seeing none, let's move to Senate Bill 608. Members, this is a bill relating to veterans rights and benefits and regulates persons receiving compensation for providing advice or assistance regarding veterans benefits.

We have seen this measure previously. And so this regarding veterans benefits. We have seen this measure previously, and so this is the second go around. We have first testimony in support from the Hawaii office of veteran services. Testimony in opposition from the VFW Department of Hawaii.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Jamie Schedel, testifying on behalf of the Veterans Foreign Wars Department of Hawaii. We'll stand on our written testimony, respectfully requesting that the bill be amended to an HD1, which takes a language from the SD1. Language was removed that, comports with federal law. Suggest some key takeaways real quickly. These companies are gonna testify today.

Individuals are gonna testify today about choice. The questions that need to be asked is, are are you accredited? Who's responsible if you file a fraudulent claim? Accredited veteran service officers are live.

If you pay a fee to a third party to file your claim for you, that party is not liable for a fraudulent claim, the veteran. But I'll stand on the written testimony. There's some case law in there from Louisiana about the fee fee caps that have been allowed in the SD1 that has been deemed unconstitutional by a by a federal court in Louisiana, and it's probably gonna go to the circuit the federal circuit court for appeal. So if any of any questions, I'll stand on the. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you, mister Scheidel. We have in opposition veterans caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, Mister Carlos Santana. We have in support veterans benefits guide.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Thank you very much. My name is Ryan Scalmanini. I'm a Coast Guard veteran myself. I'm also disabled by the VA.

I also worked at the VA for eleven and a half years adjudicating thousands of claims. I understand this part of law very intimately. After eleven years, I moved over to veteran benefits guide where I worked for four and a half years and still work as director of, quality and VA compliance. So I would be more than happy to avail myself to answer any questions about this process. As amended, we support.

This will allow one more additional guardrail, which is a fee cap. Fee cap of $12.05, which is also running through the Federal Government as we speak and has passed many other states. If you have any questions, more than happy to answer them. There are a few inaccurate statements made by the opposition. We'd be happy to address those if you so wish. Thank you.

Thank you. We had testimony in support from Aloha Independent Living Hawaii. Testimony in opposition from Michael Yousenior. Testimony in support by Mr. Shelby Pikachu billionaire. Are you on zoom? You must be at another hearing. We have testimony in support from Mark Raposa. Any other testifiers in the room? Please come to the podium, state your name and, you can provide your oral testimony. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you Chair, Vice Chair, Representatives. My name is Anthony Humphrey. I am a current military member of Coast Guard and I am in support of SB608. I'm available for any questions.

Okay. Thank you. And sir, your name and support or opposition.

It's Fort. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members. Danny Hernandez, I am a veteran, sixteen year veteran, and I am in support of SB608. So I'll be standing by for any questions you guys have.

Okay. Thank you. Seeing no other testifiers, members questions. Representative Iwamoto.

For gift [unintelligible]. Thank you for your testimony. Did you read, the testimony from Michael Galio Senior?

I did.

And he said that he was in opposition, which is like your position, then his arguments actually read like he was in support. I just wanted to did you read the testimony the way I read?

I can't, I can't speak for mister Greenfield.

Okay. Sorry. Maybe hit the wrong button. But I wanna ask you about the fee cap that's in this bill. Do you support the fee cap concept?

Fee caps as a previous testifier testified, fee caps are allowed in certain situations. But for in, like, appeals or attorneys that help with appeals that there's a veteran's court of appeals, those are permissible under federal law. For claims, initial claims, fees are not allowed, period, under federal law. So the fee cap has been preempted by a federal court in Louisiana, and their version, it's about the same language that's in the SD2. The fee cap has been has been adjudicated that it's the fee cap under state law is preempted by federal law.

Got it. And is there any data that you've collected regarding you mentioned fraudulent claims. Is there do you have any data to show that, like, as veterans who use a third or an advocacy organization, submit more fraudulent claims versus people who don't use that service, is there a comparison of fraudulent claim activity and it's higher with third party? Because I would imagine Yeah. Is a higher with third party.

I can't answer that question right now. I did provide some information about a case out of Puerto Rico. Refragile claims were filed. I can resend that to the church to you.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Chair. Representative [unintelligible], go ahead. I'm sorry. I didn't catch your name.

Ryan Scalmanini.

Your position was? Support. Support. So, you know, I I think in general, we're we're supporting and we're agreeing to the intent of this bill. And then I'm surmising that some of the opposition is maybe in some technical aspects of it. You know? Could you comment on the the opposition's concerns? And and because it sounded like you're very familiar with this situation. I am. Whether the opposition's statements and concerns had any bearing on this bill?

Yeah. Sure. Well, first, Louisiana, the reason why that was determined to be unconstitutional is because it included attorneys. So that amendment is actually circulating through Louisiana as we speak, which will exclude, the those attorneys. And, therefore, that law will still then be upheld. As far as 614.627 and the definitions of what representation means, I'm gonna read this verbatim so you can

it's not my words. These are from the law itself. Accreditation means the authority granted by VA to representatives, agents, and attorneys to assist claimants, and this is key, preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims for VA benefits. Representation means the act associated with representing a claimant in a proceeding before VA to a properly executed filed form 2122. What that means is a power of attorney is granted to that individual to prepare, present, and prosecute claims before the VA.

What does that mean? That means if I took power of attorney for you, I could stand before the VA without your presence and present claims, make decisions on your behalf, and prosecute those claims without your presence and acting on your behalf. VBG does not take power of attorney. We do not present, prosecute, or prepare claims as defined in 14.627. Therefore, representation and accreditation does not apply. Therefore, the initial fee and this idea that we are acting in, out of accordance with VA law does not apply.

So follow-up question, sir.

Yes. Yes. Go ahead.

So based on what you're presenting, would you say that, the opposition is, has a misunderstanding of the technicalities of what you just explained? Correct. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Any other questions? And you can stay there. If there are no other questions. I have a question. Aloha Independent Living Hawaii has recommended a narrow amendment that would add basically CILs to the exceptions list. Are you comfortable with that? And have you seen that language?

I'd like to see that language first.

Okay. Sure. Alright. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Go ahead, Representative. You have one more question.

So I asked the yeah. I thank you. I asked the VFW representative to if there are any is there any data to show fraud? It increases when when, veterans are represented by a third party if there's more instances of fraud or less versus the two groups?

Yes. GAO and the OIG, so got the government office of accountability and the office of inspector general, have commented on this in committees both in the HVAC and the SBAC, and there is no evidence of fraud. I repeat, there is no evidence of fraud that they could find. However, they did find accredited agents and attorneys and PSOs in their diligence have misled veterans and acted as an agent without properly executed 2122's. Those were the findings that were presented to the HVAC and the SBAC two years ago.

So what does I'm sorry. What does that mean?

There is no evidence of fraud that is, in excess or different from whatever has been found in OIG or GAO findings, which is why the opposition couldn't comment.

Okay. Thanks.

Thank you. See, one follow-up question. Go ahead.

Thank you. Yes.

Jamie. Okay. So VFW.

I'm hearing, hearing the line of questioning and the, the answers provided. Are, are you okay with that?

I can provide the evidence. There's evidence.

So you're you're still in opposition based on Absolutely.

He only mentioned one portion of the the court case out of Louisiana. And that language is taken out of the bill last year, which is the, you cannot compel a business to do a statement. The other part of the ruling is specific to fee caps. That's been preempted in that court case.

Last last follow-up, Chair.

Sure.

Go ahead, representative. So based on this this bill passing, is there more good in this bill that you would, agree that it's a benefit to veterans and, and whatever, specific instances where you're you're clarifying that it might not cover. It is maybe a minority portion when you compare the overall benefit of what this bill is trying to provide.

The bill has passed. It'll probably be litigated as written because it is a court has ruled that the language that's in it right now with the cap is, unconstitutional. And then speaking about what the previous testifier stated about, accreditation versus the law is very clear. He he, he quoted it verbatim. Those companies are abusing a loophole in federal law to assist veterans.

We're not opposed to them assisting veterans. We just want them to be accredited so that they're held accountable to the VA. Period. That's what the language in SD1. They they need to comply with the CFR.

They need to comply with the US code. They choose not to. They have no responsibility. If that claim the veteran files is fraudulent, they can assist the veteran all they want because if veteran wants a quicker, their claim process more quick. But at the end of the day, they're not held accountable.

Our accredited veteran service officers are held accountable if that claim is fraudulent. And I will provide the data out of Puerto Rico, which has some cases of fraudulent claims. The issue is is is is accreditation, and they choose not to be accredited because they're abusing a loophole in in federal law.

Okay. Thank thank you for sharing your Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

I actually have a question from either Mister Hernandez or Mister Humphrey. Since you made your effort to come here, if you can come forward. You have a different position of supporting these organizations like VPG. Can you explain why?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. It comes down to two things, choice and time. With, I have a 22 years currently in and I have a few years before I retire. And so when you get to my age, you run into a lot of people who have retired and the multitude of stories of how long it takes them, in that transition to get representatives.

So that's time. And then, the results. Multiple times, they're not being accredited for the proper things. And I love the VFW, and I love the VA, and I love my service, but they're overwhelmed. And there's not enough there to support all the retirees and veterans.

And having an extra, other company to be able to fast track that and get a claim, not fast track it, but to, to see it properly and, not guarantee a result, but also not be paid out in a lot of instances if they can't help you any further. For me, that's a great choice.

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Humphrey, I'm assuming that it's your testimony is similar, but can you explain why? And then can you explain if there are other veterans that you know of who also have the same kind of sentiment?

Thank you, Chair. Yeah. Sure. Again, actually, I've told a lot of veterans about this company. Well, I came from Arizona, just recently moved on to the island.

I had issues with getting my knees looked at on my own. I did basically everything on my own when I left the military 2014. That's when I started my disability stuff. Throughout those years, my knees worsened, got worse and worse and worse, but I could not get really looked at because I did not get compensated enough. Last previous job, I had a veteran come to me, he was like, Hey, I had no company that can help you out with that.

They came on board, they looked at all my records and I have the records. I have a missing ACLs, I have torn meniscus, I have patellas that are misaligned, I have scars all over my body. So I went with them, they looked at my records, they went through the, you know, the proper steps to get everything and they got me what I needed. Now, I'm looking at, you know, here at the VA of getting surgery on my knee finally. So now I'm gonna be able to actually walk normal, go up Manoa Falls like normal instead of hurting every time and not telling my kids that my knees are killing me, you know.

With that, I also told a lot of other veterans that were having the same issue. They were having a hard time getting compensated for all their problems. Sleep apnea is huge. IBS is huge. Back problems is huge.

In the military, we do we deal with a lot of that deployments. You know, we have problems with foreign food. We have we get mixed and matched with sleeping. You know, we sleep a lot of plethora of schedules that messes up our time, and that doesn't get looked at. Companies like DOO, like this, they look into that. They take care of you. And that's why we support it or that's why I support it because they actually do look out for the veteran.

Thank you. Alright. Any other questions? Seeing none members, great discussion, let's move on to Senate bill 2054 relating to public safety. This would prohibit the Hawaii national guard from deploying to assist federal troops, federal law enforcement, or the National Guard of any other state operating in Hawaii where the governor has objected to the deployments. We have first up opposition from the Hawaii National Guard.

Good morning chair, vice chair, members of the committee, regional retired, Neil Mitsuyoshi. The department stands on his testimony in opposition and I'm prepared to answer any questions, you may have.

Okay. Thank you. We have testimony in support from office of Hawaiian affairs, comments from Hawaii military affairs council, testimony in support from ACLU of Hawaii via Zoom.

Good morning chair, vice Chair, members of the Committee. Mandy Fernandes on behalf of the ACLU of Hawaii. We support this measure. The Trump administration has federalized State National Guard troops in multiple states against the governor's objections, and these actions were largely justified as necessary to protect federal property. It's imperative that we act right now to prevent this happening in Hawaii, especially with the unique history of colonization, and military bases in our land.

This would pit state national troop members against their own communities where they live and serve. We've heard concerns from the Hawaii National Guard. I understand that they feel this would put them in a difficult position requiring them to choose which order to disobey, but that's not an accurate characterization of what's happening with this bill. We have seen large scale civil and human rights violations on the continent, especially in jurisdictions where troops have been deployed, And yes, troops generally have a duty to obey orders of their superiors. They also have a sworn duty to disobey unlawful orders.

If anyone is putting our State National Guard troops, in a difficult position, it's the Federal Administration. None of us want to be in this difficult moment, but here we are. This bill in many ways makes things easier for the State National Guard troops as they don't have to make this legal analysis of lawfulness of their orders on their own. They'll have the partnership of the governor and that offers them more cover to disobey unconstitutional orders from the federal administration. We're available for any questions and we thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Fernandez. We have testimony in support from the MUA Alliance, support from the Libertarian Party of Hawaii, support roots reborn Maui, support legal clinic, support unite here local five, in support Hawaii Filipino lawyers association, in support league of women voters of Hawaii. We have testimony from an individual in support, Christine Andrews, Juris Doctor via Zoom. Go ahead, Ms. Andrews.

Aloha. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'll stand on my written testimony, and just reiterate for the people here on Maui where we had the support of the National Guard during the wildfire disaster, maintaining our relationship with the National Guard, that sense of trust and community, just underscores the importance of this measure for us here in Maui. Thank you so much.

Thank you, miss Andrews. We have numerous test excuse me. We have testimony in support from matriarchy rising and Kona indivisible. We have numerous testimonies in support from individuals. Not gonna read all of the names, but I do wanna comment that we have received them. Is there any testifiers in the room? Any testifiers via Zoom? Okay. Seeing none members, questions. Go ahead, vice chair.

Thank you. For the ACLU Hawaii.

Sure. Go ahead vice chair.

Thank you. Have you had a chance to read the attorney general's testimony on this bill?

I have I have not.

Okay. I think they she cites the AG's testimony cites constitutional concerns. Do you you mean you often the ACLU Hawaii often cites the constitution as a means to protect the civil liberties of citizens and residents. But you didn't have a chance to. Will this, in your opinion, I guess, as a advocacy and a litigation organization, will this stand the constitutional test?

I believe so. I think that the governor, we believe that the governor has the authority to do this.

Okay. So this would just codify the authority that the governor. This is not simply codifying with the authority the government has. It's giving new powers.

Yes. We believe that we can but we believe we can author the legislature can authorize those powers.

Got it. So also, I guess my concern is we having so I served on the board of education when we had a Republican governor who and so if in the future, if we have a governor who is happens to be aligned with, a federal agency, in the future, would that then make it worse for Hawaii in the same way that we're giving this added authority?

I mean, I do think I mean, that's a policy consideration for the legislature. Right? So right now, this is, it's not a partisan bill. This would apply in times where we have a Democratic governor, Republican governor, and it would prevent it would prevent the, deployment of the State National Guard, over the governor's objections, regardless who the governor is. There have been additional safeguards that were put in by, I believe the Senate Judiciary Committee to make sure that there is adequate justification for, the Governor's objection.

And it might be, yeah, I believe there are, yeah, so there are additional there are additional safeguards put in. But, you're right in that this is kind of a viewpoint neutral bill. Mhmm.

Okay. Thank you. K. Any other questions? Questions. Representative Shimizu.

Hawaii International. Yes, sir.

Please speak up, representative Shimizu.

Sorry. Your your position was in opposition. Correct?

That's right.

My question and I'm I'm not sure if you you know the answer to this, but if if the governor blocks federal cooperation, do you know if the state has, financial responsibilities that they're that they now incur because of the decision to not cooperate with federal?

So that representative, thank you for the question. That's it's complicated. So, I I think first you must understand that there's different titles that the national guard supports the state on. So there's title 10, which is a federal, authorization and that's, dictated by, you know, the president where we're federalized. In that case, the state has no control, right?

The Federal Government is in control. That's similar to what was done in California. And later the courts had ruled, the Supreme Court ruled that it was, improper use of federalization of national guard troops. The second, status would be title 32. In the status of title 32, we're federally funded, but we're under the command of the governor.

So the in title 32, whenever we support, like, disasters, the governor has to agree to that or request that. And so we can never be on a title 32 status without the governor's approval. And that is in, United States code, title 32. And then there's state active duty where the state's 100% in control because the governor is in control of the troops and it's 100% state funded. So the concern that we have with this bill is it seems redundant because the the governor already has the control to not put the the guard on title 32 status.

He controls it. Without his authority, we don't go on status. And when we are on status, he's in command.

Okay. Go ahead. Representative Iwamoto, go ahead.

Thank you. So regard so are you saying one way then to off skate the current presidents if they tried to commandeer the National Guard in Hawaii, would to have them pre preempt that ability by making sure the governor assigns the National Guard to a local emergency. So there are no troops available to be.

No. I I'm not seeing that. What I'm I'm seeing is that the governor already has that we we can't go on a title 32 status without the governor's authority without the governor's request. So the governor, the reason why we think the bill is redundant and it could cause, you know, these these things that we don't know, unintended consequences is what we're concerned with because ultimately courts rule, right? So just like in the California situation where they were federalized, but then later on the courts then ruled the the supreme court

in fact then ruled that

it was improper use. And now technically, you know, there could be situations where there could be liability. Fortunately, I don't think there are any cases where they were, you know, there's liability now and those people that followed those unlawful orders, but you can see how it it could work in reverse. If what if the court won? Right?

So you never know what's what's gonna happen, but to me, courts decide. It it puts the guard in a very challenging position when we're not, in the position of obeying lawful orders.

Well, then the the argument would be that this codifies what the Supreme Court has held. Right? I mean and so to me, it's sending a clearer message. So I think it we heard from Maui that the potential for the National Guard to be used politically by the federal administration in a way to to build distrust among the Hawaii residents would be damaging. So we are saying let's codify this to protect that kind of damage of relationship.

Right. It's what

it it's the status. So that would the federal authorizes the National Guard in title 10 status. And the state has no control when it's in title 10 status. This bill only talks about title 32 status or state active duty, which in that status, the government has The governor has complete control over, the activation of national guard troops and complete command of national guard troops.

Chair.

Any other questions? Follow-up, representative Shimizu.

Thank you. I I don't understand, your response to my first question about whether, if the governor blocks, federal corporation, will the state be liable for federal funding? If if you know the answer to that. Yeah. I wasn't clear what the answer was to that.

So that that that's a little odd because when they're on title 32, they're federally funded, but the state is asking them to be you know, the governor has asked them to be here and that's why they're getting the federal funding, for, you know, for the payment of those soldiers to be on there. And if the governor didn't want it, then he wouldn't ask and they wouldn't get federal funding. So I'm I'm I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.

So so, I I guess that question might have more complications than a simple yes or no. So, from what I'm hearing from you is that, Title 32 which the governor has complete control over the National Guard is federally funded. So there there is that provision and and connection to federal funding and it is a possibility. I mean, I I would think there is a possibility that federal funding can be withheld if there's some sort of a uncooperation or disagreement on, federally requested use of the guard, which if the governor decides to not cooperate.

So if you could give me an example of what you you're thinking of, but my my thought is that, usually when we want that federal funding for those soldiers that are on title 32 is because the state has a need, and then the state will use the national guard to provide, you know, some kind of operational support to see a disaster, without the state having to pay for the guard's response. If the governor didn't want something, which, you know, this bill says we wouldn't provide support if the governor was opposed to it, we wouldn't even be on orders because the governor would have had to authorize us, to be on status.

Right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your help.

Stay there. And miss Fernandez, if you can stay there for a little while as well. Thank you for explaining the various titles under which the National Guard is activated, because I think this is a really important distinction that might not have been clarified as this bill has moved through the process. Is there anything if this was just limited to title 32, and as as you say this is redundant, is there anything in this current Senate draft two that needs to be stripped out to make it sure that we're really redundant?

I so I I think at at the at the bare you know, one, one of the things we definitely would not want in the bill is that siting on property equipment and facilities.

Because those are owned a a lot of those are owned by the Federal Government anyway, and we just use those.

Okay.

We use them as a courtesy for as a national guard.

That's right.

Okay.

But the Federal Government owns it. The state doesn't own it.

Okay. When you talk about the case, the title 10 case in the California situation, are you talking about the Newsom v Trump case law?

Yes.

Okay. General, I don't wanna put you on the spot because I know you're not a lawyer and you probably have lawyers who advise you. But can you talk a little bit about that? And if you can't, I'm gonna actually ask miss Fernandes to comment on the Newsom v Trump.

Yeah. So I know it can I I know it can be confusing because people saw national guard members supporting California? But in that case, those national guard members were not on title 32 status. They were on title 10 status. They were federalized.

The president had complete control. The governor didn't have control and therefore you didn't need The president didn't need the governor's permission to put those members in the state. But of course, later on the Supreme Court, it went all the way up to the Supreme Court and they ruled that it was improper use of federalizing those troops.

And it was improper use of title 10.

Right. Right. Basically. Right. But that's completely different. Right? Because we're talking about title 32, which is a different status from, from title 10.

Okay. Thank you. Can I follow-up with miss Fernandes? Sure. And you can sit down or you can stay there. It's fine, whichever, whatever you wanna do. Miss Fernandez, are you familiar with the Newsom v. Trump case?

A little bit. I'm I'm having trouble following along just verbally hearing everything and but I'm happy to do more research on this and follow-up with you in an email or a memo.

This this bill is going to judiciary, so I think this is an issue that needs to be looked into. So I would appreciate it. But if you can comment at all on Newsom v Trump and what the criteria were that or what the reasons were that SCOTUS decided that the federalization under under title 10 at that point had been illegal?

No. I I really wanna get it exactly right, and so I can I'll just follow, can I follow-up with the chair and I'll also include the chair of judiciary?

I'm sorry.

Oh, I apologize.

There was no, testimony actually from the attorney general.

Okay. I think that's a really important thing because I think we have to understand under what authorities the state national guard is being enacted. And from my understanding, as I read the testimony of, Department of Defense, which I don't think is actually the attorney general. I just to correct vice chair

Thank goodness. I was really

I thought Sorry. I read that. My apologies to the attorney general and to you, Mandy.

It it was the Department of Defense, which was probably vetted by an attorney general, but not the attorney general.

So there's a little bit of a difference. Sorry.

Sorry. Secret memo.

Alright. Right.

So I think the concern I have, miss Fernandes, and I think you need to look into this, is that there is one instance in our at least one instance in our nation's history where title 10 was used. And it was in a situation where I happen to agree that that might have been an appropriate use. It was used in order to ensure that young African American children could go to school. Now flip that situation here, and you could see a scenario where we might have a governor who is in alignment with a decision by a federal administration.

So are we overlooking unintended consequences? And I just really wanna get this bill right. I wanna make sure that it is redundant with the title 32 obligations. But I don't know that if under title 10, if this is expansive to title 10, what the problems are. And that's why we need to understand Newsom v Trump.

Because the SCOTUS should have provided the state's guidance as to when title 10. And what are those reasons maybe that a state could then rely upon, to say that we could disregard title 10 order? Mhmm. Right? So you see where I'm going?

Yeah. Totally. I think those are reasonable concerns. I can look more into it. I know there are a lot of there's a lot of federal law at play.

You have the army, the Armed Forces Reserve Act. You have the Insurrection Act. You have so we can I'll I will follow-up with you as soon as possible, by the end of this week, and look more into it. But I think that this is an this is a I would I 100% see and think, your concerns are reasonable. Yeah.

Yeah. And I think I think what I would also comment on and say is that the erratic nature of this administration and if they were to use the Insurrection Act because of voting concerns, that could be something that we could have strong disagreement about and where we might want to step in as a state and then put guardrails around the title 10 authorities. And I know this might be giving heartburn to our Hawaii National Guard, but that is precisely, I think, the concerns that we're addressing from individuals who are coming and watching this from groups like Indivisible Hawaii because they are afraid of the slide into authoritarianism that we are facing, which is very different from the situation in the civil rights era where we were actually protecting civil rights.

Absolutely. I 100% agree with you, chair. There is, I think the opportunity to sunset.

Okay. Thank you. I think this is a really important measure, so I think we should keep working at it. And thank you, Ms. Fernandez. And I will direct these same questions also to the military attorneys that we have standing by. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? I just wanted to thank the chair for correcting me about the AG that I was misreading that, that it wasn't the AG's testimony. And in fact, yes, it was the department of defense of the state of Hawaii. So I apologize to the attorney general and to this committee and to Matt Fernandez.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Alright. Members, we are going to recess until 11AM. We will take up all of these matters for decision making on our 11AM agenda. Thank you for your good work and your time. We are in recess.