House Standing Committee on Health

Aloha. We are gathered for the Committee on Human Services and Homelessness, as well as some measures with the Committee on Health, Thursday, 03/19/2026 at 09:30AM in Conference Room 329. And our first measure is SB 709, SD 2, which requires the Department of Health to respond to reports of persons with severe mental illness who need assistance, assess whether they meet criteria for assisted community treatment and coordinate assisted community treatment or the processes when appropriate, and other related met items. We have...

First up, we have for SB 709 SD2.

We have the department of the attorney general.

Chairs and members of the committee. With the department attorney general providing the testimony in support of this bill. The law that addressed the needs of a person in crisis due to mental illness or substance abuse serve a vital role in promoting meaningful and appropriate responses to people in crisis. This bill seeks to improve timely intervention and secure necessary treatment for individuals in crisis due to mental illness or substance abuse, and we believe that the amendments here provide a modest but impactful clarification on these laws.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I'm available for questions.

Thank you for sticking around. Next up, we have the Department of Health.

Chair Martin, Chair Takayama, vice chair, and committee members.

First, I apologize for our late testimony. Appreciate your including it. The Department of Health supports this measure. We did provide comments regarding section two that we feel is unnecessary due to the ongoing positive work that we're doing. Appreciate your considerations for all this measure.

Thank you very much. We also have do we have in person Rayna Yeomans? Nope. In opposition. The Hawaii Disability Rights Center on Zoom.

Yes. In opposition. Please go ahead, Lewis.

Yes. Good yes. Good morning. Thank thank you, chairs. I'm Louis Erteschik, director of the Disability Rights Center.

I think as you can see from our testimony, we are very unhappy about this bill. In particular, we are really unhappy about the way that procedurally, the way this bill has come to this committee. So what happened is that this is virtually identical to what administration bill that was submitted to this session. It was House Bill 2258 and the Senate companion. Neither bill was heard this session.

So apparently, what happened is that I'm presuming the administration then went and found Senate Bill 709, which is a carryover bill from last year. It was heard last year, was referred to Senate Ways and Means. WAM does decision making without a public hearing, but that's normally on bills that have that that have been heard this year. So this was basically inserted at their request into the SD 2 with no public input and and moved over.

Now I don't claim to be an expert on the three reading bill and constitutionally exactly what has to happen before a law gets passed, but I would urge the legislature to take a look at whether the bill is legally be can legally be passed in this form without without having even been heard in the Senate.

Beyond that, we are particularly concerned about section six, which now inserts the attorney general in into the order to treat process at the state hospital and all administrative proceedings. Under the current law, they can they can assist in the assisted community treatment process, but they aren't but but they don't get involved in the order to treat process at at the Hawaii State Hospital.

It's hard to tell if the bill was just poorly written or or not because section six says that they would not actually represent anybody at the administrative process, but both the preamble language in the committee report clearly states that the purpose of this is is to have them do that. So I think that needs to be clarified. Additionally, these supposed slight clarifications about what what assisted community treatment means, we have a lot of concerns.

This this provides for periodic blood tests and urinalysis, and they can tell you where you have to live. This goes far beyond what assisted community treatment currently does. So this is a major expansion of the of the authority over an individual under the assisted community treatment provision. This was supposed to be a data tracking bill, which which we still which we think that that we would support, but they but but the administration removed the data tracking provision.

We they were supposed to file a report at this year, and and we still haven't seen it.

So I I would really urge the committee to to defer this bill. Thank you.

Thank you for testimony. Next up, we have do we have Jim Gottstein on Zoom, an individual in opposition.

Yes. I'm here. Thank you very much. Aloha. Yeah.

I'm Jim Gottstein. I've lived on Maui for six years. I submitted written testimony. I wanna emphasize something in it. But first, I wanted to let you know that I was lucky not to have been made permanently mentally ill by the system.

Also, I've won five Alaska Supreme Court appeals ruling various aspects of Alaska's foresight psychiatry proceedings unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. I recently joined the Hawaii Disability Rights Center PAIMI Advisory Council as an attorney member. Ninety five percent of the people diagnosed with serious mental illness are not as lucky as I was.

The mental health system primarily through its insistence on psychiatric drugs for every everyone, especially the neuroleptics often against people's will, such as this bill supports, reduces the recovery rate from a possible eighty percent to five percent and reduces their lifespans by around twenty years while catastrophically diminishing their quality of life. I know this seems impossible.

I mean, it's hard to believe, but that is why I included the report on improving mental health outcomes as an attachment to my written testimony. It is meticulously referenced with links to the sources, so anybody can check out the sources, and it has never been rebutted. As to SB 709 specifically, it goes further in this very harmful and counterproductive direction. It does so by exacerbating the unconstitutional procedures under Hawaiian statutes for forcing people to take these harmful and counterproductive drugs in the community.

The report on improving mental health outcomes also describes the types of approaches that can move Hawaii towards the eighty percent recovery rate.

And it seems to me that rather than go farther down the current counterproductive and harmful path taken by SB 709 Hawaii should implement the recommendations of the report. I would be pleased to work with the legislature and administration on this. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and welcome questions.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure in person or on Zoom? I have a lot of questions, but first let's open it up to members. Are there any questions? I'll go first.

Okay. For the, maybe the AG's office first. So I just wanted to, I wanted to clarify just first for everyone who might be listening to this hearing about the process, the issues brought up. But if you can clarify, you know, does the WAM hearing count as a real hearing? They did receive written testimony, not oral testimony.

So can you clarify whether that counts as a hearing? Can you clarify that about how a bill introduced last year being heard last year in the same biennium counts. I just wouldn't want you to clarify the process question so that that is not a distraction.

Thank you. Complicated question. I'll try and, summarize it as best I can. The crossover allowed for the continuation of bills that were introduced last year, and this bill in its original form had touched upon a lot of the same issues. In in fact, the same issues that, were the cause of question and testimony here with regards to, the the mental health codes system for orders for treatment, with regards to ACT.

It allowed for crisis response. So the addition of these bills, you know, is aligned with that. And we believe that, because it's talking about the same subject matter, it it falls under the same, type of criteria that you would look to when determining whether or not the the readings were valid, that this is an appropriate addition to the to the bill in its current form.

Thank you. Okay. Go ahead.

I think the question is whether because WAAM receives testimony, but they don't actually conduct a hearing, whether that counts as one of the three required hearings.

Yes. I I believe it does. I I believe that the the third hearing was was was counted, and and so that would have satisfied the the requirements.

Okay. Thanks.

Yeah. Okay. So I I also believe that, but I just wanna clarify that for our viewers that this is a normal thing for girls to come back from the previous session, and that WAM hearings aren't hearings. Alright. So for the content, you know, one thing that is different about this bill is that wasn't ever explained in any testimony.

The reason for it is moving the certification and training from Department of Health to Department of Law Enforcement. Can you explain how that came to be and what rationale was for that?

You know, it it it involved taking a look at the existing law. The crisis intervention officer was in place for was on the books for several years at that point. And, ultimately, it calls upon law enforcement to be able to be credentialed and qualified to make assessments beyond what their normal duties are and be able to respond to crisis in specific training so that they can respond appropriately.

And I believe was administratively speaking that it would be a better fit for the Department of Law Enforcement to be able to govern what standards it is gonna require of law enforcement in order to be able to make those types of decisions.

It still allows law enforcement to consult with a lot of the subject matter experts that would have, you know, the best information about how to go about doing this consultation with other departments including department health, consultation with with outside experts as well experience in this area.

So this is more of an administrative change that would see to to better implement the requirements of the crisis intervention officer.

Is there any issue or problem with the Department of Health's training?

Well, I would defer to the Department of Health on on that question, but I I I think there were a lot of questions about how they would go about starting that process because it was ultimately a law enforcement criterion. So organizationally, it it made more sense.

He never said that.

I would defer to the department.

Can we get Department of Health, please? To just understand, did did this training actually start, and certification already already start? And if so, how is it going?

So I appreciate, Doctor Lambert being here. He can come up here and add some information as well. Okay. My understanding is, what's proposed is, what occurs in other states. And there are established programs and officers who, upon this training, can make these determinations in the field how best to direct where where to take people.

I think from the Department of Health's perspective, we probably could do could have done, could be doing a better job, or I think there's engagement. I think we have to accept some responsibility to have had more of an active role and then more responsive in certifying the proposed training. Now the training can occur and people can complete existing training programs. They can be kind of, as such, CIT certified.

However, what they would not be able to do absent the Department of Health kind of approval is the ability to independently transport people. So that's the key thing. I think with that training, they could still be extremely effective at diffusing situations, at connecting with services. So it's a very valuable training, that they're providing. I think the the way the the law is currently written is UH's role creates a limitation to their ability to more expediently connect people and bring them into services.

So can you just explain, like, right now how it happens and how it would be different with this proposed change? In terms of you're saying now they can't transfer people, they just diffuse the situation and they wait for a Department of Health personnel to come to to make a decision about transfer?

Okay. So I'm gonna do the best that I can and ask for correction. There are existing authorities now, like the MH one for law enforcement, can transport people to receive services or evaluations as necessary. With the MH one, it does require the mental health emergency worker to basically assess the appropriateness and route. With the the MH three is another tool that's out there, and they the MH3 folks will determine that an individual needs to be transported so they have kind of that discretion.

And the MHGW simply routes, doesn't determine the appropriateness of that. For the CIT, currently, if they were to transport someone, it would be with one of those existing authorities through the MHGW. The if the CIT training is approved, as of my understanding, then they would be able to transport like an MH three where the MHGW could route but would not, assess the appropriateness to potentially reroute someone else.

So they would have more independence in deciding where to take somebody?

Yes. Once there is a certified training that they complete, that is my understanding. But if the question is asked of Director Lambert, he may provide better information.

Just to understand this before we move on to other issues.

Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. Mike Lambert, director of department of law enforcement. So what this is is, when last year's bill went through that kinda cleaned up a lot of these things, What wasn't clear is who takes the lead for the CIT training. The interpretation is that it would require the DOH to certify the training. But the the issue is is that because what doctor alluded to is the fact that it's actually a law enforcement born training.

So, actually, there's nobody within the DOH that is a certified CIT coordinator.

Right? There's only a handful of them in the state. Nami is one, Pumi McDonald, Heather Lusk from Hawaii Alton Harm Reduction Center, and a handful of law enforcement officers. So what we basically wanna do is clarify the language that would put the burden on law enforcement, and that those CIT coordinators to go ahead and make sure that this program is certified by CIT International, which is the largest, most well recognized, I guess, agency or company that provides certification for law enforcement.

If you look at any type of Department of Justice journal or even into federal mental health journals, they will acknowledge that a CIT officer in the law enforcement agency is probably the best way to minimize, escalated incidences of people in crisis and, again, having better outcomes and pathway to people to health services versus jails.

So that's the background on it. What this would do is it would make sure that we're gonna allow the Department of Law Enforcement to manage the certifications in partnership with the DOH. So what happened is is that because, for example, I may I may see a a certified CIT coordinator, in other words, I can host a training. I would go ahead and create an exam with the with the help of department of health.

And what it would focus on in the within the forty hours training that covers, you know, basic pharmacology, basic, basic, you know, delusional behavior, you know, like, these different things that occur when someone in crisis and just making sure that the test is appropriate to test an officer's ability to acknowledge danger to self or others.

In other words, the goal is to not have inappropriate referrals. The goal is to not have every officer be able to do it. Only those that have gone to the training and exhibited, at least a proficiency in danger to self or others. The need for it is that, law enforcement, things happen so quickly, and it actually requires us to call. And sometimes if you're the first officer there, you can't even begin the safety interview part until your partner gets there.

But you might have already seen enough behavior that in other states, they would just go ahead and protect that individual by taking them into custody. And sometimes in this delay, people are injured because they begin to escalate while we try to call on the phone. Right? So for example, chair, it could look like this. I come in.

I see just chaos. Now I'm saying, hey, ma'am. Can I help you? Whatnot. And I'm trying to gather just enough information.

I already know. I can see it that you need to get help. But now I need to convey that under current law. I need to convey that to someone on the phone who's not there, right, which is just not very practical. So what we wanna do is within the field, having officers that have this certification, on our on our rosters, they would be annotated as having this specialty.

And if there was a type of call that comes in, dispatch would then select that officer to go there. One, they're better trained. Two, if it's so exigent that, calling an MHEW would would create actually a delay in access to care that the officer can make that determination. The biggest concern that the hospitals have with that ability is that we would inappropriately route to hospitals that we're full. So when we're trying to negotiate this this kind of, idea and concept, we said, okay.

You know what? We'll still default to the MATW for routing because we definitely don't wanna hurt our hospital systems. But what we need is the speed of decision. Right? The officer needs to make in these very high stress situations, you need to come with us.

We're gonna put you in a car. Now you're safe. You can't harm anyone or yourself. And now we'll say, you know, I'm officer Lambert. My ID number is what you know, my certification for this call is this.

Where where would you like me to transport this individual to? The MHW would still maintain control. Straub is Straub is available. Whatever. Whatever hospital has a vacancy, take them there.

Again, I feel like it's a fair compromise, in between speed, access to care, as well as not overburdening certain hospital systems that, for example, Queens that take the burden of of a lot of the calls.

And is is it always a hospital, or can it be the crisis center?

It can be the BHCC. And in fact, some of the lower level care, MH ones are taken to the BHCC, and then that's the goal. Right? So the goal is really to show the value of our behavioral health crisis centers and to utilize those in lieu of our emergency rooms. And, I think that we've shown some value with the BHTC, and I do believe that every county should have a BHTC.

And it's just a matter of where you place it based on call volume. And, again, it's one of those things where we always Kinda have these chicken and the egg things. Right? So it's like, you know, are we gonna over are we gonna inundate our hospitals, or do we need a BHEC? But then if I ask for a BHEC for 6,000,000, you're gonna say, where's the flow data?

So it's kinda one of those things where I like to kind of just get people treatment, let the data fall, acknowledging that there are there can be stressors on certain hospital systems more than others. And then, again, utilizing that data to support investments in BHECs across the state.

Thank you very much. Daisy, thank you for your patience. Please go ahead.

Thank thank you, chair. If I could ask a question to the AG's office. My question is specific to the proposed amendment to section six. And it makes reference to the attorney general either provide preparing and finding any request for authorization to provide treatment over a patient's objection. And it provides the option of an administrative process or to the court.

So I have two questions. First is in an administrative process, does the respondent receive any type of legal representation or advocacy on their behalf, or do they have to represent themselves in an administrative type of theory?

Thank you for the question. 334-1612, just the subsequent section to this one, lays out the statutory due process considerations that have to be afforded to patients who may be subject to an administrative proceeding for an order for treatment over objection. And the hospital follows all of those things, including providing them with an adviser to be able to assist them throughout the proceedings as well.

You know, where that goes, just like any type of contested hearing, can can lead up to representation of counsel. They can they can go ahead and arrange that through through that process. But all of the requirements for due process that have been laid out in the administrative treatment process are provided to patients.

And who would be responsible for making sure that those administrative rules are followed? Is it AG's office or DOH?

It's it's under the Department of Health. Administrative orders for treatment are only available to people under the correct under the custody of the director of the office.

Thank you. My second question has to do with court proceedings. What does the department take into consideration or what would the department take into consideration in terms of filing a petition for this community type of treatment versus involuntary type of treatment? And I asked that because it removes the language of what imminently dangerous to self or others is. So

Right. Thank you. The removal of that section doesn't change the the question or the elements needed to be considered for for either type of, proceeding, whether it be for cis community treatment or for involuntary hospitalization or or for, treatment over objection. All of it. That definition is contained at in the definitional section of Chapter 334 which applies throughout the entire chapter.

As as to what the department of the attorney general will consider as sufficient to to meet any of those types of proceedings is largely dependent upon the representations and the evidence of the petitioner that we're assisting, whether that'd be a hospital system like Hawaii State Hospital or whether that'd be Queens Medical Center and so forth. This amendment under section six was really the result.

And and I think the natural result of our department's involvement in proceedings for involuntary hospitalization for quite some time, and there was a gap in in terms of we could help them with the hospitalization portion. But, of course, hospitalization in and of itself is not the goal. The goal is treatment and and trying to to get them, stable to a better place that they can be discharged outside of the hospital.

And without the, specific legal authority to do that, hospitals were left to be able to to to try and take care of that on their own. They would retain private counsel in the private communities. Of course, we represent the Department of Health, so we would take care of that for them. But that gap is is what this was intended to to cover those court proceedings.

The office of the public defender represents the subject at all points in time to the involuntary hospitalization phase as well as through the order for treatment phase.

So the due process concerns are covered in every step of that proceeding.

Thank you. Your answers were very helpful. Thank you, chair.

Any other questions? Go ahead, Jenna. Sure.

I just have a follow-up question to Director Lambert.

Yes, ma'am.

Seeing this question about the crisis intervention officer training and certification. So these positions exist.

Yes. So there's over 300. Hanoi Police Department has over 300 officers that are have received certified CIT training. Big Island has over a 100. I think Maui, somewhere in the double digits. So they do exist.

They just don't have this additional function.

And I think that was some of the concern when we did the original language for this because, right, for the purposes of the MH one program or, you know, all of the transport questions to get people into these situations, we had a lot of discussions with your predecessor and everything. And I think the concern and why DOH, we want them to be involved because in statute, it only exists right in this one section, specifically about mental health.

But crisis intervention officers don't necessarily have to have any kind of mental health background going in, like a psychology or psychiatry background or wait. They get they get the training, which is great. I think it's a great program, but I think that's the concern. If we're letting them make these decisions instead mental health emergency workers specifically when they don't have that kind of training, I think that's why we wanted DOH to be involved.

Yeah. And they and they will be. So they're they're the ones that would help to certify the examination, making sure that the questions are appropriate for determining in yourself or others. I think sometimes, like, when we have these kind of discussions, especially with clinicians, right, because I get it. Right?

They went to school for years and years and years, and you're telling me that you can achieve that in forty hours. I think the the disconnect on that argument is that we're not there to diagnose or treat. That's really what you go to school for, and I think that doctor Champey could attest to that is that the diagnosis to diagnose someone to treat them, that takes years and years and years to to become proficient at.

To acknowledge that somebody needs to get in front of someone like that, most layman can can understand. Right?

So, for example, when we look at people in crisis, I'm sure that everyone in here has seen someone in some form of crisis. You don't need to go to medical school for that. Right? All you gotta do is acknowledge that this person is suffering, and I wanna get them. And, again, we'll have some you know, there's some training.

You know, they're hearing voices. They're having delusions or having hallucinations to establish some type of probable cause, again, probable cause to get them in front of a doctor. So just remember, yeah, for law enforcement, everything that we do is probable cause. Even for crimes, right, when we arrest somebody, we still need to have an agreement from a prosecutor. Same thing.

They went to legal school. They, you know, they went you know, they they went through all of that, and then it goes in front of a judge. Right? So same thing with this. It just establishes probable cause for officers to take them to someone who went to to that who got advanced training to then determine within 48 hours, do they need to continue on this?

Or, again, just like in court, right, or do we need to release them? So, again, it's just it is meant to be kind of a layman version, and just for the purposes of probable cause.

I don't think the concern was with those extreme cases that, you know, a layman or someone on the street might also be able to see. I think the concern was for the more nuanced lower level cases and how that would stress the very fragile system of the MH one program. So, I mean, that I think that was the concern. That's why we wanted DOH directly involved.

And I would I I mean, I don't have an issue with the certification moving per se, but I do think it should be explicit in the language that DOH is going to be involved because, again, this in statute, it only exists in this one section around this mental health treatment.

And I I know there's a lot of concerns about how we Sure. Build it out slowly knowing that the system does not have capacity as is in a lot of these other bills we're seeing moving through.

I understand.

Those health providers are are telling us. So, I mean, if if if it does move, I would hope that at least it would be explicitly in the new definition about DOH's direct involvement, I guess. Sure.

And I and I don't have an objection to that at all, to have it just be more clear that the DOH would participate because they already participated as trainings. So the DOH, actually, a third of the modules, I believe, are, either either clinicians or directly from the Department of Health.

Again, I I don't think the issue is necessarily the program itself. It's what is being allowed with this very specific position as it exists in HRS. It's what we're trying to make sure we keep guardrails on so that we don't exasperate the medical system.

Yeah. I don't disagree. I don't disagree with your comment. Yeah.

As a follow-up on that, so we can we can clarify that that the well, DLD will do their training certifications and sounders and procedures. The DOH would certify that training. But what about a direct role? We have the the mental health emergency workers doing routing. Is besides that, can you see any role?

Yeah. So they would still have a role because for for the officers that don't elect to get the additional certification. So in other words, for example, each treaty has about 1,700, only 300 have. So 1,400 officers still are required by law to use the MHEW to make a field determination. And even now, right, the 300 and would still have to take the examination to go ahead and have that ability.

So there's still there's gonna be still good use of the MHEWs. And even if I was in the field and I had it and it was, you know, to your point, somewhere a little bit on the fence, even if I was certified, I would still consult with the MEGW if I wasn't sure. Really, what this is for is for situations where it's pretty clear and having to call is cumbersome and it creates a delay in access to service.

Okay. Thank you very much. Members, other questions? I have a question for Department of Health, please. Just about your testimony on Section two.

What how would this change what you're doing now?

I don't I don't know that it would change what we're doing now. So we already have statewide crisis level outreach, and to the extent that they are or are not, when they respond, completing an assessment for eligibility for ACT. So we can do that administratively. And if we need to add it to the contract or look for close AC, is is there an opportunity to do more of those? I think we could do that administratively.

At the state hospital, we're actually significantly increased the number of ACT petitions prior to discharge. So we are better utilizing the tools the legislature has given us to connect people to services. And similarly, with the previous discussion that occurred about the CIT officers, right, the intent is to remove barriers to to best divert patients and connection to the services of the community.

With this so right now, the way I read this, and I'm not a lawyer, is that any person through these means of communication that are listed here could call in a a situation that the department can respond to. Is that how you read it?

So with the the language that's in there, there's a little bit unclear what is credible information. Again, we have 988, which is a great resource that people can call, and, Crisis Mobile outreach teams can be sent out to respond. I think, some of that lack of clarity of what is credible information and does it create a statewide standard, and what might be the con concern of having that kind of in statute versus our current operations, to offer those services.

We feel we're already meeting the intent of that section.

I can just say for my community that I don't feel the intent is being met necessarily when I've brought up particular individuals to IHS. They have been very dismissive of of my layperson's assessment, and they have felt that, you know, that individuals did not rise to the standard, where in my opinion, they very clearly did rise to the standard of being a danger to themselves and others and just living a terrible life that we wouldn't want for any human.

So I wonder how we can strengthen this is is what I am I am wondering. Like, if this is just what you already are doing and therefore unnecessary, how can we make it stronger?

So it'd be helpful to get a little more detail and, I'll I'll be I need to better understand that particular contract we have with IHS. I don't know if if, again, Crisis Mobile Outreach was called and it may be that there's different scopes within those contracts and what they're required to do.

So I'd welcome the opportunity to talk to you more to better understand that and to do a deeper dive to ensure that we make sure we do respond in a way that is, you know, necessary.

Okay. Yeah. I just I so if you're already doing this, what concerns you about keeping this in? Or or or how would you recommend defining credible information so that it's not too broad?

I would need to. I'm happy to get back to you on potential other language for credible information.

Okay.

Whereas we do have statewide access currently, with this now potentially creating a legal standard, and I have to purchase lawyers. How does that impact our timeliness of response or other kinds of expectations, like an EMS type thing? If there's a community expectation, you know, what is what is standard is set, and we have to assess our ability to meet that standard.

Okay. Thank you very much. Members, any other questions? Okay. If not, moving on to our next measure.

The next measure, thank you. SB 2089, SD1. Relating to mental health as well, this is, expands services eligible for Medicaid Perspective Payment System for certain services provided in rural areas. First up, we have in support, Doctor Lewin from the State Health Planning and Development Agency.

Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, and honorable members. Jack Lewin from SHPDA. First, I'd just like to defer to Med QUEST. I see the administrator of Med QUEST is here today, and just to acknowledge that we greatly support FQHCs.

We're doing a lot of work with them in a whole variety of domains, particularly in the ED Grant model and rural health transformation. We ran this by some of our advisory committees and just some of the recommendations we make on this. Med QUEST is handling this kind of training for people in a really professional way just to make sure it works well in all the other settings where this might be permitted to allow this kind of training to occur, and we strongly support it. We'd like to just add that there'll be some defined on auditable parameters, including one, permissible levels of training defined, two, the minimum supervision standards, and three, when should the licensed clinician participation occur for key portions of the vision? We also think that there's a little bit of a

nebulousness in the the term under clinical supervision. So we think these factors would would help clarify that. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Department of Human Services, .... In person? Oh, perfect. I didn't see you back there.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs, members of the committee. Meredith Nichols representing Department of Human Services, and we'll stand on our written testimony. I wanna join Doctor Lewin in our strong support of our really important Federally Qualified Health Centers. And then wanting to add, respectfully, that it will be everything that the bill proposes to do would have to be contingent upon CMS approval of our ability to do that. Thank you so much, I'll be here for questions.

Thank you very much. We also have the office of Hawaiian Affairs in person in support.

Good morning Chairs, Vice Chairs, and members of the committee. McKenna Woodward on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support of this measure. This bill addresses provider shortages that continue to limit access to care especially in rural and underserved areas. This issue is especially important for native Hawaiians who experience significant mental health disparities and often face added barriers to care. Expanding the supervised behavioral health workforce is a practical way to reduce wait times, improve continuity of care, and strengthen service capacity and safety net settings.

We'll go ahead and stand on our written testimony and respectfully urge the committee to pass this measure.

Thank you very much. Next up we have written testimony in support from the State Council on Mental Health, from the Hawaii Medical Association, the Waianai Comp, and one individual. I correct myself comments from the Hawaii Medical Association with testimony that echoed Doctor. Lewin's concerns. Is there anyone else wanting to testify on this measure?

Members, are there any questions? Doctor. Lewin, I would like to respond to your concerns as well as the very similar concerns raised by Hawaii Medical Association by clarifying in this measure what the standards are for an accredited training program, you know, if it, do you think I looked at the what is referred to in this bill, the definition of mental health professional that they have, And what it is either someone who's enrolled in an accredited training program or someone who's completed everything except for their, supervised post degree experience.

And I'm wondering, I was thinking that maybe the appropriate credential would be exclusively the second item, people that have finished their coursework.

That would be more clear. I think people benefit in the training process before they've completed that. And I wouldn't exclude that portion of it. That happens for all of us in training and health care in the spectrum. We learn as we go in a way and wanna make sure it's done very carefully and supervised very appropriately. But I would say that, you know, it'd be safer if you took your definition.

You don't have an issue with both of with, I mean, that is pretty clear. It is defined.

Right. We would We have no issue with that.

You wouldn't have an issue with that broader definition. That is in the bill. Okay. What's not in the bill is minimum supervision set standards when a licensed clinician partition is required.

And then one item brought up in testimony was patient notification regarding the provider qualifications. And I wondered if, prior to submitting the committee report, you would help me come up with some language for those, those items so that I can offer it to the next committee if they wanted to clarify those.

Be happy to do that. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Alright. Any other questions? Any other questions? Go ahead.

Thank you, chair. Question for Meredith, please. Thank you, Meredith, for being here this morning. In your testimony, you said you're hopeful that language would be inserted, that this solely goes into effect if we receive the CMS approval. Could you very briefly explain how that process is conducted and how long it would actually take to do that. that so we get a general idea of how long that if we pass this, it could potentially have to sit and wait.

Yeah. Well, you summarized it beautifully. It just then that is exactly the process. And, really, the length of time that goes into a CMS reviewing is largely based on the content of the ask. I will say, full transparency, I worry that an ask like this, at this moment, with the current administration, it could be very difficult. There aren't a lot of other state examples out there where this is allowed. We did a bit of research. Our team did find that in Illinois, in 2023, there was a state plan amendment that allowed for sub-license insured individuals to be able to provide this kind of service under clinical supervision, but that was limited to people who had already completed their, master's degree or their doctoral degree.

So there were a lot of caveats in that and even then that was a very small, approval. So I think given the context and wanting to be really clear and work at this together, I don't think it would be an easy ask or an easy road ahead. I do think there would be complications.

We're absolutely willing to do the work and to see what is possible, but I would expect a significant amount of pushback, and we'd have to work pretty, pretty diligently at trying to articulate a case that would meet a current CMS muster to make this allowable.

Thank you. One more quick follow-up. Do you see given the current federal administration that this is almost essentially a nonstarter from the get go with them?

Oh, I'm a very hopeful and optimistic person. I do think this would be difficult.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thanks very much.

Okay. Next up, we have SB 2090 relating to child custody.

We've heard this before, the same exact bill came through our community in the House, to allow licensed mental health counselors to be appointed as child custody value makers. And first up, we have in person in support, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs, and committee members. Makena Woodward on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support of this measure. Hawaii faces evaluator shortages that contribute to backlogs and prolonged custody disputes. Delays in custody determinations can intensify family conflict, prolong instability, and increase stress for Keiki and Ohana during already difficult transitions.

While there is limited Hawaii specific data isolating the impact of family court custody proceedings on native Hawaiian Keiki, we do know that native Hawaiian youth are disproportionally represented in both the child welfare, and juvenile justice systems.

Given those disparities, it is not unreasonable to recognize that prolonged or destabilizing court processes may have significant immediate and downstream effects for native Hawaiian Keiki and their ohana. Ensuring timely access to qualified evaluators is one way to reduce avoidable stressors within the system. Licensed mental health counselors possess graduate level education, clinical training, and experience in trauma, family dynamics, and child development. Allowing them to serve as evaluators reflects their qualifications and strengthens work capacity. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committees to pass this measure.

Mahalo for the opportunity to testify and I'm available for questions. Thank you.

We had another individual with different support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Okay, none. Members, are there any questions? And then we'll move on to our next measure, which is SB 2108 SD 1, which amends the factors a family court is required to consider deciding whether it's court may waive jurisdiction over a minor adult for criminal proceedings.

And first up, we have in support, the Office of the Public Defender.

Aloha. My name is Darcia Forester. I'm here in my capacity as a supervisor of the Juvenile Division at the Office of the Public Defender. So, we strongly support this measure. We're seeing an increase of kids coming into the system who are really experiencing bullying and pressure from adults to commit crimes, and it's very troubling to us.

We're also seeing adults preying on specifically our kids that are in shelters because they're in foster care and living in shelters and being exploited not just to commit crimes but to then become victims of crimes, specifically sexual exploitation. So we really want this to be included in the factors when waivers a waiver's on the table. Waivers a big deal. It means you're not gonna be treated as a child.

You're gonna be put in the adult system and treated as an adult, and that decision should be a very serious decision.

And we think these factors should be included when that decision is being made. So thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next up we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Morning again. McKenna Woodbird on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support. This bill makes clear that courts should consider trauma, child welfare involvement, and whether the youth was trafficked, sexually abused, or raped by the alleged victim in the case. That matters because many justice involved youth enter the system with serious histories of abuse, exploitation, and instability.

This bill recognizes that youth who offend under conditions of coercion or abuse should not be treated like adult offenders and are more likely to benefit from trauma informed services and rehabilitation in family court.

This is especially important for native Hawaiian youth who are disproportionately represented in both the juvenile justice and child welfare systems and are more likely to experience early and repeated system involvement. By limiting unnecessary transfers into adult court, this measure helps reduce the long term harms linked to adult prosecution including including higher recidivism and fewer opportunities for rehabilitation. We respectfully urge the committees to pass this measure and mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Do we have on Zoom, Human Rights for Kids? Go ahead, please.

Yes. Thank you. Good morning, Chair, members of the committee. Teresa Kominos on behalf of Human Rights for Kids in support of SB 2108. We are here because this measure would ensure that a child's lived experience is considered by a court before their case can be waived into adult criminal court by adding additional factors for courts to consider at a waiver hearing that allow the court to understand that child's experiences more extensively and, in a trauma, informed way before making such an important jurisdictional decision. In addition to the provisions outlined in the measure, we would also encourage the committee to adopt an amendment to ensure that only children over 14 years of age, or older, may be waived until adult court. Section 571-22d has no minimum age requirement for a child to be waived into adult court, meaning that 12 and 13-year-old children could be subject to waiver and execution as adults. To put this into context, these are elementary and middle school age children.

Several other states have set a minimum age of 14 years old regardless of the crime charge before a child may be prosecuted as an adult, even for the most serious offenses. These include Utah, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, among others.

Additionally, Connecticut, California, and Oregon all have 15 years of age set as the minimum. So we would urge the committee to add the necessary language to section 571-22 to establish that a child must be 14 years of age or older before waiver. Research done by human rights for kids has shown that nationally, more than 70% of children tried as adults experienced both physical and emotional abuse prior to their offense.

Another 45% experienced sexual abuse, and the average adverse childhood experience score was 6.31 out of 10, with the average onset age of abuse at 6 years old. Further, approximately 30% of the people we surveyed who were tried as adults or crimes they committed as children were trafficking survivors.

This type of trauma impacts the child's brain development, particularly the prefrontal cortex, which means that beyond what we already understand about developing adolescent brains, for kids who have experienced significant trauma in their homes and communities, their brain development has been further impacted in a way that influences behavior and decision making, which is why it is so important that courts consider this information and ensure that children before them have an evidentiary hearing that evaluates all these factors.

For their convictions of trafficking, who commit acts of violence against their abuser, juvenile court is the most appropriate venue for these children to be referred and have specifically tailored treatment and services. And so these are the reasons we're urging the committee to vote favorably upon this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

I do have one question. Thank you, Chair, for Public Defender's Office. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify because I heard testimony about suggesting to increase age to 14.

So I wanted to clarify, what is the current age of waiver here in Hawaii? And if the committee did consider that amended proposal, wouldn't it increase the number of juveniles that could be eligible for waiver to adult

So, I believe okay. So, I'll be honest. I really would wanna reread the statute, so I'm anecdotally gonna answer. You can be prosecuted not prosecuted. You can be adjudicated as a law violator in our state beginning at the age of 12.

So I think the concern is 12 and 13 year olds are middle school students, and we want I think so I do support the recommendation that we set a minimum age and eliminate middle schoolers and elementary school students from even the possibility of being waived. So I believe that's the intent of the recommendation from Human Rights for Kids. You can be waived. There are restrictions.

There are you can be waived from 12 on, but there are restrictions and there are a lot of factors that have to be looked at and there is a cut off in terms of options that it's much more restricted I believe plus 16, under 16, the factors are a little bit more strict. So, this measure would add additional factors and we would support making it, restricting any kind of waiver to 14 and above.

That's my answer, but the waiver statute has it it's a little detailed. I just would I think I'd wanna reread it carefully to give you a strict age statement about I'll be honest. I just can't recall right now what the difference is between 15 and 16. I apologize. I'd have to look that up, and I can email it to you.

If you could share it with the committee, I'd appreciate it.

I'm looking to share it with the next the next committee that'll be hearing this bill. Thank you.

I will. And maybe I'll add it to the written testimony as well.

Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate your candidness.

Any other questions? Seeing none. We'll move on to the next bill, which is SB 2211, SD 2. This makes an emergency appropriation to the Department of Human Services for SNAP assistance, which was provided in the fall, and also potentially for assistance to people using the ACA in the future. And first up, we have the Department of Human Services here in person.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Joseph Campos, Deputy Director, Department of Human Services, here on behalf of Director Yamane. The Department of Human Services stands in strong support on its written testimony, and we appreciate having SD 2 incorporate the 16.5 million that was requested by the governor to help assist families to have the subsidy for the ACA payments that were being expired December 31, 2025. Thank you.

Next up, we have... Do we have the Office of the Governor? No. Okay. Hawaii Appleseed in person. Not present. In support. Hawaii Public Health Institute.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. I'm Kris Coffield from the Hawaii Public Health Institute. We're also in support of this bill. And, again, mahalo to the Department of Human Services and to all of you who worked to make sure that SNAP benefits were solidified during the federal shutdown last fall. We think this measure is incredibly necessary.

We fully support backfilling the funding that DHS spent safeguarding SNAP benefits during that difficult time. We also would support emergency fundings to secure health care for those facing higher health insurance premiums to the federal marketplace, who may otherwise people who may otherwise voluntarily or involuntarily discontinue their enrollment in health insurance, as the Department of Human Services just noted, the ACA's enhanced premium tax credits expired, at the end of last year.

HR 1 barred from US residents and work authorized individuals earning under a 100% of the federal poverty level from health care subsidies. So as the federal government is reducing essential services, we feel that our state has a responsibility to fortify the safety net for vulnerable populations. So we hope that the funding called for this bill will move forward and fix some of those critical shortfalls for our state. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your testimony. Next up, we have the Hawaii Food Industry Association on Zoom. Not present.

Sorry. I'm here. Sorry. Alexis Chapman for Hawaii Food Industry Association. We stand on our testimony in strong support. Just wanna thank legislature, the governor, and DHS for making this happen. It was critical support at a critical time, and the system worked and it was great. So thank you guys and stand in strong support. Thank you.

We have AlohaCare in support on Zoom, also not present, or maybe in person. Written testimony in support from the Office of the Governor, Hawaii Primary Care Association, Catholic Charities Hawaii, HCAN, and Hawaii Food Bank. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

I have a question for DHS, please. I was just wondering if for the committee, you could, and for myself, including that committee, if you could clarify more about the proposed ACA subsidies. Who would they be target? What types of plans? There's no information. So we just don't really know what it's for.

Sure. And for that, I will defer to our supreme administrator who will be able to provide you the real details, all the details on that.

Thank you, Joe. Mahalo and mahalo for the excellent question. I know we've been talking about this a lot. And the definition that we're working under for this particular pot of funding would be those people who they make a little bit too much money to be eligible for Med-QUEST, but they are still really struggling at the lower ends of the federal poverty level. So this targets people who are at 250% of the federal poverty level and below.

One of the challenges we have, our state uses the federally facilitated marketplace or the FFM. You might see that sometimes, healthcare.gov. It's all the same thing, many different names. The we have two health plans here, health insurance companies, Kaiser and HMSA. Those are the only two that are available on the federally facilitated marketplace for our Hawaii residents.

The only information they receive, or I should say it differently. They do not receive information about their members' income. So it's very difficult if we wanna target people 250% of the federal poverty level and below. How do we do that if we don't receive that information? There is a program offered on the FFM. If you're at 250 or below and if you choose a silver level plan, then you can be awarded you will be awarded something called cost share reductions or CSRs.

So the way Kaiser and HMSA will be able to distinguish who is at the lower end of this income spectrum is by seeing who is enrolled in these silver CSR plans. You cannot be in a CSR plan if your income is above 250% of the federal poverty level. So that's the target audience. It's a way that we can move forward knowing with certainty that the people receiving what is a large amount of money, but in the grand scheme of things doesn't make up for all that is lost by the lack of the expanded tax credits at the end of last year.

So I hope I answered your question. That is the target population, and the way this would work is by working very close. HMSA and Kaiser have been excellent partners in these conversations, coming to the table in conversation, and with a readiness to be able to move forward. So we're all looking forward to this.

So how much, how far, how many people would benefit from?

So we're still it's an estimate right now. The final numbers on coverage don't actually come in for another couple of months, but we're estimating somewhere around under 6,000, around that in in those silver CSR plans. For our state, there's typically about 24,000 people enrolled on the marketplace. And then we would say about a quarter of that or about 6,000 or below would be eligible through the silver CSR plans.

Thank you very much. Any other questions, Members? Oh, go ahead.

So Meredith, sorry. And what is the estimated cost for this this group of people who are just below or or just above the threshold for Med-QUEST qualifications but still at that federal poverty level? What's the amount that's being asked for here?

So the amount that's being asked for is 16.5 million. When we use the estimated the average cost, and again, we were using a lot of available data based on 2025 plan year to make estimates since we don't have the actuals, like, fully for this plan year. So when we multiply, you know, what the average cost would be, the remaining premium cost for people enrolled in silver CSR level plans, and estimate the amount of people who are likely in those plans, It actually comes out to about 15.5.

The reason 16.5 is important, we think, is that people who become newly eligible, so people who now lose their Medicaid coverage because maybe they make too much money now, maybe they didn't at the beginning, but they got a raise, but they still don't have employer sponsored coverage. They need health insurance. So that extra sort of buffer piece does allow for new people to also come on.

Got it. Thank you.

Any other questions? Seeing none. We'll move on to our next measure, which is SB 2250, SD 1, which is another one that we also already heard in this committee, that has draft, which amends the offense of promoting controlled substance in, on, or near, various locations to include homeless facilities. And first up, we have in opposition the Office of Public Defender.

Hello again. I'm filling in today for Hayley Cheng, who's testifying in another hearing. So I believe we're gonna stand on our testimony in opposition. Our opposition is specific to due process concerns about notice and about the definition of a homeless facility. When I looked up the definition of a homeless facility in the statute, it says it needs a development designed to provide shelter for homeless families or individuals pursuant to this park or to facilitate any other homeless program.

So our concern is the notice requirement to know that you're committing a crime when the radius of the zone is so large and some we have pop up programs where we may not have signage and people just aren't gonna understand that they're in a zone that prohibits this that or not, well, not prohibits. Excuse me. That has higher penalties attached to it. Because the language is a little bit vague, it says or to facilitate any other homeless program. So what does that mean?

Does that mean if you're within 750 feet of a pop up, like, where they have cleanup, where you can go and take a shower, the van where you can take a shower, or other types of services? So our main concern is the notice to people so that they understand that they're in a zone that has higher penalties. But we don't have any problem with it being in a facility or at a facility or it's the near the facility that we're worried about. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up we have the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chairs, and Committee Members. I first wanna apologize for the late submission of our written testimony and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Benae McFarland representing the Honolulu Department of Prosecuting Attorney in support of Senate Bill 2250, SD 1 because this bill closes a public safety gap where vulnerable populations are currently unprotected.

Current statutes protect schools, parks, public housing, school buses, but do not include homeless facilities. These individuals have taken a difficult first step off the street into shelters in an effort to stabilize their lives, access services. Unfortunately, opportunities routinely undermined by drug dealers who deliberately operate outside shelter doors, fully aware that residents are struggling with addiction and are most vulnerable.

This bill aligns with existing legislative intent. Hawaii already recognizes drug free safety zones around specific locations. This bill is a logical extension, not a new concept. Our city has invested heavily in homelessness services, allowing drug activity near shelters undermines these investments. Senate Bill 2250, SD 1 does not criminalize homelessness, but targets those intending to distribute controlled substances within protected zone.

While concerns about notices are understandable and have been highlighted in opposition to this measure, courts have long upheld drug free zone laws without requiring posted signage. This bill follows that same well established framework. Individuals are already on notice that promoting dangerous drugs is illegal everywhere. But 2250, SD 1 simply ensures that enhanced protection for some of our most vulnerable communities are there. We support it and we ask for favorable consideration. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We also have the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in opposition.

Aloha, Chair and Committee Members. McKenna Woodward on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in respectful opposition to this measure. Apologies for our late testimony and mahalo for including it in the record. OHA agrees that shelters and other homeless service sites should be safe for residents, staff, and providers. But this bill relies on a punitive tool that is not the strongest nor most effective way to achieve that goal.

As drafted, the bill would create enhanced felony exposure not only inside a homeless facility, but also within 750 feet of it for distributing or possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance in any amount. That is a very broad approach, and homeless facilities are not always obvious, as we've heard, or readily identifiable in the way schools or parks generally are, which raises basic notice and fairness concerns.

More importantly, this bill moves against the direction of evidence based homelessness policy because federal housing research continues to find that housing first and other low barrier models improve housing stability and reduce homelessness, including for people with mental health and substance use needs.

Drug free zone laws themselves have also been widely criticized as overly broad and ineffective at deterring drug crime, and even the American Legislative Exchange Council has called for states to narrow rather than expand them because of their arbitrary scope and unintended consequences. Pardon me.

Hawaii has also been moving through expungement reform and related justice measures toward reducing unnecessary long term collateral consequences for low level conduct. So expanding a new geographic felony enhancement around shelters cuts in the opposite direction of that broader policy trend.

OHA is especially concerned because Native Hawaiians are already disproportionately impacted by the criminal legal system, and OHA's prior research found that Native Hawaiians were admitted to prison or jail for drug offenses at disproportionately higher rates relative to reported drug use.

If the legislature wants to better protect shelter environments, OHA respectfully suggests more targeted approaches such as stronger on-site safety measures, behavioral health response, treatment linkage, peer support, and focused enforcement against serious trafficking activity. For these reasons, the Office of Hawaii Affairs respectfully urges the committee to hold this measure. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Do we have HPD on Zoom? Go ahead, please, Honolulu Police Department.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Clinton Corpuz. I'm the acting captain for the narcotics division, the Honolulu Police Department. I'm here to provide testimony on behalf of Senate Bill 2250, relating to the promotion of controlled substance, in support of the bill. From a law enforcement perspective, it's important to acknowledge of vulnerabilities that present that are present in homeless facilities where substance abuse can relapse.

By implementing measures to deter drug use in these sensitive areas, we can help protect the well-being of our community, much like we do in schools, public parks, and public housing complexes. This ensures a safer environment for all residents. The Honolulu Police Department urges you to support SB 2250, relating to the promotion of controlled substances. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much for being here. Next up, we have Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii on Zoom in opposition.

Aloha, Madam Chair, Members. Nikos Leverenz with Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii and also Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center in opposition to this measure. At a time when the state budget is already under significant pressure from lost federal funding, the increased cost proposed by this additional penalty calls for this bill's deferral. As the cost of a single application of this penalty enhancement is almost one quarter of a million dollars.

Policies makers should consider whether there's actual utility in having the current code itself, not in expanding it. And it's most unfortunate that Hawaii has joined states like Texas and Arkansas in expanding these laws in this century. It's very curious that the Honolulu prosecutor seeks to have the state position itself to the right of the American Legislative Exchange Council and states like Indiana, Kentucky, and Utah that have curved and not expanded their drug free zone laws.

As noted in ALEC's resolution, most drug free zone laws were established decades ago, but have not been reformed despite evidence that drug free zones are arbitrary and often unnecessarily broad, are ineffective at deterring drug related crime, and create significant unintended consequences, including unwarranted disparate impacts on minority defendants. So please defer this measure, and mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you very much. We also have written testimony in support from IHS, comments from Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition, and Hina Mauka in opposition from Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center, and a handful of individuals. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions for our testifiers? Seeing none. We'll move on to our next measure, which is SB 2325, SD 1, relating to juvenile offenders.

It authorizes courts to modify sentences imposed on juvenile offenders if certain conditions are met and the court finds that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any person in the community. First up, we have the Office of the Public Defender.

Aloha. Again, I'll put my juvenile hat back on. So we strongly support this bill. As some of you may know, this bill has been around for a few years, and we this is our current version of it. We think that this is the cleanest version. And I just want to say that we think that this is an excellent version of the bill. I specifically came up to comment beyond our written testimony to assure you all that this bill will not impact restitution.

Restitution is a totally separate issue, and this bill does not impact it at all. This is about arbitrary court fines and fees, and we just have so many of our youthful clients come from families that are really struggling financially, and we would rather have these families focus on services to help their children versus paying court fees.

I think you're on the wrong bill.

Oh, I'm on the wrong bill? I apologize.

Yeah. This is SB 2325, and this is a bill about... I'll let you look it up.

Okay. I'm sorry. I apologize. There's just been so many bills. I apologize. Okay. I'm sorry. This is sentence modification. I apologize. I shall rest on our written testimony, and we do support the bill. And we do think that it is appropriate for the court to look at the factors that are in the bill and to have more of a trauma informed response. So I apologize. I apologize. Thank you.

Is the Judiciary here? They submitted a very lengthy written testimony, but I see they are not here. Okay. We also have the Office of Hawaiian Affairs again in person.

Aloha again, Committee Members. McKenna Woodward on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support of this measure. OHA appreciates the recent amendments reducing the eligibility threshold from fifteen years served to twelve years served and clarifying that any period of supervised release will be administered in the manner of parole supervision.

This bill recognizes a basic principle supported by research and constitutional law, which is that youth are developmentally different from adults and have a greater capacity for change. Rather than creating an automatic sentence reduction, this measure allows for individualized case by case review after a substantial period of incarceration.

The bill also includes meaningful safeguards, including a full court hearing, victim input, prosecutorial recommendation, correctional records, and a required judicial finding that the person is not a danger to any person or to the community. Many youth prosecuted as adults have significant histories of trauma, abuse, family instability, and prior system involvement.

And those factors matter when courts evaluate culpability, rehabilitation, and readiness for reentry. This issue is especially important for OHA because Native Hawaiian youth are disproportionately represented in serious system involvement and long sentences. A second look sentencing process gives courts a meaningful opportunity to recognize demonstrated maturity, rehabilitation, and fitness for reintegration where appropriate.

This bill promotes accountability and public safety while also recognizing that children are different from adults and that people can change over time. For these reasons, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs respectfully urges this committee to pass the measure and mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Human Rights for Kids on Zoom.

Thank you. Good morning again, Chair and Members of the Committee. Teresa Kominos on behalf of Human Rights for Kids in support of SB 2325. The Supreme Court in a series of decisions starting in 2005 established that children are constitutionally different from adults for the purposes of sentencing under the Eighth Amendment and must be treated as such.

One way this has been effectuated is to afford people a meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. This measure would create a mechanism for judicial sentencing review after a person has served twelve years of incarceration for a crime that was committed when they were under 18 years old.

Courts in making the decision to reduce a sentence would have to consider several factors limited to the person's age at the time of the offense, any history of abuse, trauma, or prior child welfare involvement, the diminished culpability of children as compared to adults, and the hallmark features of youth as defined by the Supreme Court.

We would also ask the committee to consider an amendment to section one of the proposed measure to clarify the authority of judges to reduce the sentence of incarceration despite any mandatory sentencing framework that currently exists in statutes. These proposed changes come from further conversations we've had with stakeholders and advocates about the specific Hawaii sentencing structure and how this can be addressed in the language of the bill. I included in our written testimony the proposed language, but I'd be happy to answer any further questions about the specific language.

But the intent is to ensure that the judicial authority to impose or reduce sentence is clear despite Hawaii's indeterminate sentencing structure. Just to further talk about what we know about adolescent brain development, it's that the area of the brain reason decision making is not fully developed in children, and this is especially true for children with severe trauma histories whose development has been further impaired.

But because the area of the brain responsible for reasoning and judgment is still developing in children, any criminal behavior is likely reflection of transient immaturity, making children more amenable to rehabilitation than adults. That's why laws like this are so important. It doesn't guarantee that a guaranteed release, but allows judges to take a second look at a person's sentence and reevaluate if it is still the most appropriate outcome after considering all the specific factors, including looking closely at a person's background and all the factors pertaining to the development of youth.

Can I ask you to wrap it up, please?

Yes. The last thing I just wanna note is that this type of policy has been enacted in states using very similar language to circumvent any existing strict sentencing guidelines or mandatory sentencing structures. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth in support online.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, Vice Chair, Members of this Committee. My name is Jose Burgos, and I serve as policy advocate with the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, where we work across the country to end extreme sentencing practices for children and ensure meaningful opportunities for review.

I am also a former incarcerated juvenile lifer who served 27 years in prison for a crime I committed as a child. I wanna thank the committee for taking up SB 2325. I come before you not only as an advocate, but as someone who lived in this reality. I know firsthand what it means to enter prison as a teenager, still developing, still capable of change. I know the power of hope, rehabilitation, and redemption.

In many Native Hawaiian traditions, children are not seen as disposable. They are viewed as sacred, held within the collective responsibility of the community. When a young person causes harm, the response is not to throw the child away, but to guide them, restore balance, and create a pathway for healing for both the individual and the community.

Senate Bill 2325 reflects that same spirit. This bill recognizes where research, common sense, and lived experience all have shown us. Children are different. They are they have a unique capacity for growth, accountability, and transformation. Sentences that ignore that reality undermine both justice and public safety.

Since my release, I have worked as a reentry specialist with the Michigan State Public Defender's Office, mentoring returning citizens, advocating for legal reform. I am also a member of CFSY Incarcerated Children's Advocacy Network, a national community of formerly incarcerated youth who now lead, mentor, and support others coming home after long term incarceration.

For individuals who may be receive a review under the legislation like SB 2325, connection to a network like ICAN can be transformative. No one should have to navigate reentry alone. Through membership and shared lived experience, we help people move from surviving incarceration to becoming contributing members of their communities. This bill does not guarantee release. It does not erase harm.

What it does is create a meaningful opportunity after years of demonstrated growth for someone to come back and be seen for who they have become. Hope is not a small thing inside of prison. Hope is what drives change. Hope is what turns accountability into transformation. I stand before you today as someone who once had no hope, as someone whose life was changed because a second chance became possible.

I ask you to see that children, I ask you to see these children not only for what they have done, but for who they can become when hope is restored. When we choose restoration over permanent punishment, we are not just changing one life. We are restoring balance to families, communities, and to the future we all share. I respectfully ask that you pass SB 2225 and affirm that in Hawaii, no child is ever beyond hope, no child is ever beyond redemption. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. We also had testimony in support with a lot of recommendations from the Judiciary, from campaign, the one that just testified, from National Life Without Parole Leadership Council, and from ACLU of Hawaii. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Seeing none, we'll move on to our next measure, which is, SB 2803 SD 1, which requires the Department of Human Services to submit a plan for the consolidation of the Statewide Office of Homelessness and Housing Solutions with the Homeless Programs Office and provide the timeline for that.

First up, we have The Department of Human Services.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chairs, the committee members. Joseph Campos, Deputy Director of Department of Human Services here on behalf of director Yamane. The Department of Human Services stands on its written testimony, appreciating the intent, providing comment, and deferring to SOHHS. Thank you.

Next up, we have the SOHHS. You okay Jun?

Good morning, June Yang with the Statewide Office on Homelessness and Housing Solutions. Thank you, Chair, Vice Chairs, and committee members. We stand on our testimony. Just wanted to, just highlight a couple of things.

We would like to request the consideration for the funding for the line items for the 8 million dollars for HONU and A'ala Medical Respite. It is to help the ongoing operations of these two great programs for this community and also for the consideration for the 10.1 million dollars in general bond funding to help us continue developing additional ... sites as well. And lastly, to consider funding for our office expenses.

Thank you very much. Next up we have just written testimony in support from City and County of Honolulu and from the Department of Health. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this matter? Seeing none, members...

Oh, aloha.

Oh, okay. Please state, tell us your name and...

Yes. I'm Carolyn Weygan-Hildebrand here on behalf of the State Council of Mental Health and also on behalf of the Chair, ... I hope you received the testimony. The Council supports the bill, and they would like to emphasize that how homelessness is not only a housing issue, but also a health and poverty issue. And therefore, especially with people with serious mental illness and co-occurring behavioral health conditions, the placement in housing is not the only solution.

The recovery is based on a continuum of care, and so, therefore, housing solutions should also be paralleled where meaning there's a continuum also in housing solutions. And I think the data and point in time shows that the people affected by chronic homelessness are, many of them are people with serious mental illness and co-occurring behavioral health conditions.

So, the most specific thing the council would really like to make sure that the nexus between housing solutions and health and poverty is embodied in this governance and reporting plan or ... measure, and they have two specific amendments requested. And I think it's written in the, it's written there, basically, on page 2, lines 8-10, establishing a plan for data sharing and collaboration between the consolidated entity and continuum of care, including a continuum of housing solutions aligned with the continuum of behavioral health care needs. And on page three, it's about performance metrics to also include whether placements are appropriately matched to service needs.

So, thank you, and I will be here to take questions or answer maybe. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing no members, are there any questions?

I have a question for DHS. Just the the testimony that was just provided by our online testifier, do you I don't know if you were able to see that in writing.

I wonder if you have an issue. It would just be adding a clause to some of the requirements for the, what data he's supposed to report on. So, one was it's already stated to establish a plan for data sharing and collaboration between the consolidated entity and continuums of care. The added bit would be including a continuum of housing solutions aligned with the continuum of behavior. Do you have an issue with that?

I don't personally have an issue with that, but I would defer to see if the SOHHS would have an issue with that.

We don't have a a specific issue with it in that.

Okay. Let me ask the next one. So, performance, the next one in there already is performance metrics to evaluate the state's performance on homeless services, housing care, care coordination, other needed service to end homelessness in the state.

The added part would be including whether placements are appropriately matched to service needs.

We understand the intent of the language. The concern that we have is tying performance metrics towards any type of future funding for department of human services programs that might fall under my office or under the Homeless Programs Office. It may cause limitations in services across the state, and so that's the only concern that we do have in this. We love the ideas behind it, but it is a little bit of a concern.

I mean, if there is no funding, you could always say it is not appropriately matched, but we don't have funding for the appropriate match. Right? It wouldn't require you to have the appropriate one, It would just be alerting the legislature that there is an issue there. Yeah.

Alright. Thank you very much. There's no further questions. We'll move on to our next measure.

SB 2866, SD 1, relating to Kupuna housing. Again, this is one that we heard and passed already. The House draft, it repeals the sunset date for the state rent, state rent supplement program for Kupuna. And we have in support the Hawaii Public Housing Authority.

Morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committees. My name is Ben Park on behalf of Executive Director Hakim Ouansafi. Stand on our testimony in support.

Thank you. We also have Navian Hawaii in support. Are they present? AARP Hawaii also in support, not present. We have support from a number of organizations, Executive Office on Aging, Catholic Charities, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, LeadingAge, and one individual. Members, is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Okay. We'll move on to our next measure.

Our last measure, SB 3245, SD 1, which requires DHS to adjust the minimum certification periods for SNAP benefits for households to participate in an elderly simplified application project. So basically, allowing elderly people to not have to reapply as frequently. And we have up first the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities in person.

Aloha, Chairs Marten and Takayama and Committee Members. Zos Arista from the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities for Executive Administrator Daintry Bartoldus. The State Council on Developmental Disabilities supports SB 3245, SD 1. I would like to highlight that for individuals with disabilities and aging caregivers, SNAP is not the barrier. The process is. Frequent recertification leads to preventable gaps in food access.

This bill fixes that by simplifying and stabilizing access to nutrition, helping people to stay healthy and remain in their homes. During March for Meals month, this bill reflects exactly what we should be doing, strengthening access to essential supports in a way that is efficient, person centered, and responsive. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. And DHS, I apologize for skipping over you. You were buried in the Zoom section, but I see you're here in person with comments.

No problem. Good morning, Chair Marten, Vice Chair, and Members. Scott Morishige, a division administrator on behalf of Director Yamane. As you mentioned, we appreciate the intent and stand on our written testimony with comments. Thank you. I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have in support Hawaii Appleseed.

Aloha, Chairs, Members of the Committee. Genevieve Mumma from Hawaii Appleseed. Daniela Spoto wasn't able to be here today. We are here in strong, strong support of HB 3245. Last year, just wanna highlight a version of this bill was passed by this committee, and we were talking a lot about discussions of federal cuts that have now been finalized.

We now know what that looks like. I think last year, we agreed that it was not the year for ESAP, and we didn't wanna add additional pressure to the department. And now those new federal cuts are very clear or as clear as they can be. So we know that over 16,000 individuals in the age group from 55 to 65 are gonna be impacted. And as they mentioned in their testimony, their written testimony, the payment error rate is a huge concern, of course, because of the cost share it can be, and then also there's an admin cost share.

Coming down the line. I think this was discussed earlier with the emergency appropriations. Obviously, we know that the department is working far on mitigating the federal changes, and what they detailed in their testimony is, you know, extremely important and it should be a focus. But we know that despite what's happening at the federal level, we need to be making it easier for SNAP participants to apply for and stay on the program. So federal rules actually allow us to extend the certification periods to 36 months with ESAP.

And even without ESAP, it can be extended to 24 months because right now, it's 12 months for Kupuna. 25 other states have implemented ESAP. 29 other states have extended those recertifications to 24 months, and that's without, it doesn't need legislation. So we know that that passed last year, also the legislature passed HCR 146, HR 140.

And in last year's testimony, the department mentioned that they're gonna be implementing this new eligibility system in the fall of 2026, and they said they will be able to support what is proposed in this measure by having the ability to implement and automate the extended 24 months.

So we just wanna make sure that that happens, and I do wanna highlight that this was postdated to July 1, 2028 so it allows for this new eligibility system. I believe it's being piloted this year, this fall, and will be implemented next fall. So that should be ample time. Mahalo, and if you have any questions, let me know.

Thank you for your testimony. Next up, we have AARP Hawaii. Not here, but in support. Hawaii Public Health Institute in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Again, I'm Kris Coffield from Hawaii Public Health Institute. We support this proposal as well. As you all know, SNAP isn't just a, SNAP isn't just assistance. It's a lifeline. But right now, accessing the lifeline is important to be far more difficult than it needs to be. Our kūpuna are on fixed incomes and their financial situations often change.

They're struggling with affordability in our state, yet they must recertify every year. Some people must recertify every six months, despite federal rules that allow for certification periods as you've heard up to 36 months, up to three years. That creates unnecessary barriers. Every recertification means more paperwork, more time off work, more stress, more opportunities for something to go wrong.

I often think about rural communities, places like Hawaii Island, where there's things like a lack of broadband access that really inhibits people's ability to even access the basic processes of recertification. Missed deadlines, confusing forms, and processing delays can all impact people's reception of benefits.

So this bill would require DHS to apply for and implement a waiver to extend certification requirements up to the federal maximum. That would significantly reduce burdens for kupuna and prevent unnecessary disruptions of benefits. And it also just it would make a system work better. Hawaii SNAP staff are already stretched thin.

Reducing the frequency of recertifications would ease the administrative workload. It would allow staff to focus on improving service delivery, help more people access the support that they need more efficiently, which is very critical as you just heard because of concerns about the SNAP error rate. Keeping that low so that we don't incur federal penalties that drive up our cost share. And importantly, this change comes at the right time with the new benefit eligibility system coming online next spring.

We have an opportunity to modernize our processes and streamline SNAP operations. And I would note that this bill is postdated to 2028 to account for the new BDS coming online and any concerns that may arise out of implementation to make sure that we have the capacity to really implement the program. So with one in three households struggling with food insecurity in our state, we should be doing everything that we can to make it easier, not harder for people to get help. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Hawaii Hunger Action Network. I appreciate that. We have in support on Zoom, AlohaCare. Not present. And we have support from office, comments from Executive Office on Aging, support from the City and County of Honolulu, Faith Action Community Equity, Agricultural Stewardship Hawaii. And a handful of individuals. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Seeing none. We are going to move on to decision making. Our first bill is a joint bill with the Committee on Health.

That's SB 709 SD 2. And I think this is an important bill. I think we dramatically end your use as a community treatment in our state, and we just let people go untreated on the streets. But there are some, some concerns. So I will I'd like to, to clarify about the change in the training that in section three that department of health will certify the training.

And that, yeah, I'm not sure if there's anything in statute that needs to be changed for the role of the men of the mental health emergency workers, but it seems like they are already doing routing. And then for people that do not have the training, they will be doing assessment. So there's a a technical correction in section two of the bill. There's basically, we need to just move the language so that it's clear that it pertains to the entire section instead of to just number three.

So, prepare section 334-b.

We would change the the, the proviso provided that the certificate and petition shall not be required if an assisted community treatment order is not indicated by the examination. Make it its own line at the bottom, not part of section three. And then for where the section two that the Department of Health had concerns was redundant with what they already do.

I think I'd like to leave that in at this time and maybe have further discussions with them before the next hearing to understand if the response can be strengthened from what they're doing already. Members, are there any comments?

If I may, Chair.

Yes.

I just wanna appreciate your, your work on this bill. I, I do agree.

I make confusion on this bill.

I, I do agree with your concerns, though, about the venue section regarding training and certification of law enforcement officers. I think I think that raises some concerns among me as well. So, you know, this bill does have another committee to consider it, but I, I do think it, it warrants further consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah. Well, keep the conversation going and try to work before the next committee. Vice Chair can vote, please.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB 709 SD 2. Chair's recommendation is passed with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Same recommendation for the Committee on Health.

Thank you, Chair and members. Voting on SD 709 Senate draft two. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair votes, aye. Vice chair votes, aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

We'll move next to SB 2089 SD 1. For this one, I recommend classes also relating to mental health. Use technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, re defecting the effective date, inserting the DHS language, saying that the bill is contingent upon and enforceable only to extent approved by the centers from Medicaid and Medicaid services.

And then we will be including in the committee report some language recommended language to clarify the permissible levels of training, minimum qualification standards, and, and whether a language for patient notification about the qualifications of their provider. Members, are there any comments?

Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair.

Voting on SB 2089 SD 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. All members present. Any members voting no? Reservations?

Reservations.

Thank you. Okay. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up, we have SB 2090 relating to child custody, allowing licensed mental health counselors to be appointed as well. And for this one, I just would like to read effect the effective date. Members, are there any comments?

Chair, voting on SB 2090. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any members voting no? With reservations?

Reservations.

Reservations.

Thank you. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have SB 2108, SD 1, relating to jurisdiction. This one, I'd like to defect the date. And in the committee report ask for consideration in advance of the age here in Hawaii. Some of these bills that come from kind of national origin are very cookie cutter. And so we'd like to look and see what would be appropriate for our state and what the conditions would be at changing the age. And with that, Members, are there any comments? Vice Chair.

Voting on SB 2108, SD 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no? With reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. For SB 2211, SD 2, which makes an emergency appropriation to DHS. This one, I'd like to re-defect the effective date, and I'd like to insert into the committee report as sums needed in as provided testimony, 14,248,126 in Section 3 and 16.5 million in Section 4. Members, are there any comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair.

Chair, voting on SB 2211, SD 2. Chair's recommendation is pass with amendments. Any Members voting no? With reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up is SB 2250, SD 1. This is the one relating to prevention of control substances around homeless facilities. And for this one, I would just like to defect the date. Members, are there any comments? Go ahead.

So unlike schools, public parks, and public housing projects, locations of all homeless facilities are not fixed. And because of that, I am concerned about the issues regarding due process. And so similar to the companion bill, I will be voting with reservations as well. Thank you.

Any other comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair, please.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB 2250, SD 1. Chair's recommendation to pass with amendments. Noting the reservations of Representative Hartsfield. Any other Members voting reservations? Thank you, Rep Amato. Any other reservations? Any noes? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have SB 2325 SD 1t relating to juvenile offenders. Again, this is one of the cookie-cutter bills that came from a national, you know, movement, and I'm not sure that it is a good fit for our state. The judiciary had lengthy written testimony with some suggestions of how to, to adapt it to our already more lenient laws, and they were not here to talk.

So what I will do is I will just make technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style, and pass it out as is.

Noting in the committee report asking the next chair, judiciary to look at the Judith Sherry testimony and, and start a conversation about how the bill could be amended to be a better fit for our state. I got members. Are there any comments?

Thank you, Chair. Members voting on SB 2325 SD 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments, any members voting no? With reservations?

Reservations.

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up, we have SB 2803, SD 1, which is requiring the Department of Human Services to do a consolidation plan for the homeless services. And re-defect the effective date. And then I would like to take the recommendations provided by our testifier, which is the State Council for Mental Health, to just provide a little more information about the not just the housing data but how it how it coincides with the behavioral health care needs.

And then in the committee report include the recommended amounts of 8 million for the City and County of Honolulu's HONU and Aʻala respite programs together. 308,000 for both the Hawaii Interagency Council on Homelessness and SOHHS, and then 10.1 million in general obligation bonds for the Kauhale. Members, are there any comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair, please.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB 2803, SD 1. Chair's recommendation is pass amendments. Any Members voting no? With reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Next up is SB 2866 SD 1, which extends the sunset or, or repeals the sunset. I'm sorry. Last year, we extended it. These are repealing the sunset to the state rent supplement program for Kukuna, which, I have to tell you, my constituents have needed.

So very much appreciate this bill. And my recommendation is to just re-effect the effective date and include in the committee report the amounts requested in the appropriation, 2.16 million for the state rent supplement program and 110,160 for two FTEs in the public housing specialist positions to support the program. Members, are there any comments? I'm seeing none. Vice chair for the vote, please.

Thank you, Chair. Members voting on SB 2866 SD 1. Chair's recommendation is passed with amendments. Any members voting no? With reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have SB 3245, SD 1, which is the Elderly Simplified Application Project for SNAP beneficiaries. And for this one, I would just recommend re-defecting the effective date, but leaving in the bill language to reference to section one to give that July 1, 2028 so that we don't end up with a timeline that our SNAP program can't meet. Any comments? Vice Chair for the vote, please?

Thank you, Chair. Members, voting SD 3245, SD 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no? Reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.