Senate Standing Committee on Health and Human Services

Good afternoon on the Joint Hearing for HHS and PSM on this Monday, March 23, 02:45pm. We're convening Room 2, I mean, we're convening Room 016. I'd like to introduce my co chair, Senator Kufunaga. And for HHS, we have Senator Keohokalole and Senator Kanuha. This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube.

In the unlikely event that we must abruptly end this hearing due to technical difficulties, the committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business later at 01:41pm, Wednesday, March 25, in Room 225 and a public notice will be posted on the legislator's website.

To facilitate this hearing in a timely manner, we will be enforcing a one minute rule limit on testimony. I will be reading a list of individuals who submitted written testimony for each measure. We apologize if the closed captioning does not accurately transcribe the names.

If you're interested in reviewing the written testimony, please go to the legislator's website. You'll find the link on the status page for the measure.

We appreciate your understanding and remind you that the committee does have your testimony, that we review them, so I encourage you to use your time to either add additional comments or otherwise stand on your written testimony.

First up, HB1976 relating to Dementia. We have Hawaii Law Enforcement Standards Boards in opposition.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, and committee members. My name is Victor McCraw. I'm the Administrator for the Law Enforcement Standards Board. My written testimony on behalf of the board is very detailed. I just like to reemphasize here face to face why we oppose the process, not the purpose of this.

We certainly agree with the purpose. There is no documented problem, and there is no training gap as far as law enforcement in the State of Hawaii. CALEA, the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement, accredits every law enforcement agency in the state.

They have 34 different categories. Number 21 of which is mental illness response, which already includes dementia training, which the agencies are getting. If that needs to be updated, we can certainly do that, but there is no training gap.

This is being promoted as no cost. There's no such thing as no cost training. The best I can estimate is half 1,000,000 a year at the very least, and that's just personnel costs.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Rick Tabor, PABEA in support. DCAB, Kristine Pagano in support. Hawaii Police Department in opposition. Jeremy Evangelista. James Barrows, Hawaii Emergency Management Agency providing comments.

AARP, Audrey Suga Nakagawa in support. Audrey, please proceed.

Hi. Audrey Suga Nakagawa from AARP, and we send our testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Coby Chock, Alzheimer's Association in support coming up. Come up. One up. Hello.

Aloha, Chair San Buenaventura and Chair Fukunaga. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm Coby Chock on behalf of the Alzheimer's Association. So we'll send in our testimony.

I just wanna also note that this doesn't duplicate anything because anyone that already has some training in their curriculum, this would count towards it. It just has the health review through EOA and allows a process through there in section 6E.

And I also note in section 6C page 9 line 20, there's a flexibility allowed. Specifically, EOA had an amendment in a previous hearing that we supported that changed shall to May, which allows some flexibility in the specific curriculum to each department as well. Thank you, Senators.

Okay. Thank you very much. Louis Erteschik, Hawaii Disability Rights Center in support. Hawaii Primary Care Association, Eric Abe in support. Amber King, Leading Age Pacific West in support.

Alzheimer's Caregiving at the Caregivers. Tony Vericella in support. Hayden Cobb in support. Hayden, are you present? Come on up.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Hayden Cobb, and I am in strong support of this bill because as I stated in my previous testimonies, I've lost my whole entire family because of the impact dementia has had on my family. And I've been in real firsthand situations where first responders are dealt with the task of helping my loved ones being taken care of in dangerous situations.

And that's what's critical for this bill, and I've also taken the first responder training myself. It's fairly easy too, and I think it has a lot of crucial information that could be the difference between life or death.

And I think to myself, due to the given recent events with the natural disasters happening in Hawaii, prayers to all those who are affected by it. But first responders are gonna be the first on the scene dealing with situations like that, dealing with your loved ones.

And think to yourselves, if that's your loved one that has dementia, I feel like you'd want the first responder to have adequate enough training to know how to handle a situation like that and take care of your loved one.

Thank you for allowing me to testify.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Barbara Black in support. Barbara, are you present on Zoom?

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Peter Weston Black in support. Peter, are you present on Zoom?

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Here we have Annette Tashiro, Kira Miyatake , Tori Carapelho, all in support. Steven Tam, Jo Hittner, Brian Seabaugh, Carol Perone , Stephenie Blakemore about 10 other people all in support, Executive Office on aging. Also, Calvin Hara in support. Anybody else wishing to testify on HB1976?

Members, any questions?

Seeing none.

Okay.

You're up.

For HB 2443.

Okay. Thank you. Next, House Bill 2443 House Draft 1 relating to Disaster Services. This measure integrates the needs of individuals with disabilities and others with access and functional needs into emergency planning, preparedness, response recovery and mitigation activities.

First up, we have Kristine Pagano testifying for Disability and Communication Access Board in person.

Hello, committee and Chair Fukunaga and Vice chair Lee and Senator San Buenaventura, Vice chair McKelvey and committee members. My name is Brian Mick and with me is our Executive Director Kristine Pagano of the Disability and Communication Access Board.

We'd like to start by thanking all those who assisted the communities in the recent storms that have been impacting and are currently are currently impacting our island. This is a very important bill.

By having an additional position, the Hawaii Emergency Management Agencies, Disability Integration Specialists can assist people with disabilities and others with access and functional needs in times like now.

Sure. I know I saw some videos of people being rescued that had mobility challenges and needed some extra assistance on the North Shore or this weekend. So there's definitely a need.

Should the state request assistance from the federal emergency management agency our own disability integration specialists will have already gathered most of the critical information to update FEMA and work alongside them to make sure the survivors with disabilities apply and can receive funding and other types of assistance so please support this bill thank you. So please support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Let me see. Next we have Attorney General's Office, Ryan Endo.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Thank you, Kristine.

Good afternoon, Chair Fukunaga, Chair San Buenaventura, members of the committees. Our written our comments are provided in our written testimony. If there are any questions, I will remain to answer them.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have let's see, James Barrows, Hawaii Emergency Management Agency in support, Office of Wellness and Resilience in support, Daintry Bartoldus for our State Council on Developmental Disabilities in person.

Aloha, chairs, vice chair, and also committee members. My name is Savannah Peskin. I am speaking on behalf of Daintry Bartoldus, our Executive administrator. I am the Maui Program Specialist with the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities. We are gonna stand on our testimony written in strong support of HB 2443 HD1.

We just wanted to emphasize the purpose of this position is for those with access and functional needs and disabilities. Access and functional needs is a little bit of a broader a more broad scope than just a disability identification. A lot of people that have an access and functional need might not identify as also having like a disability.

It can include those that need like refrigerated medication, have a mobility concern. So we just ask that remains, a current purpose in the bill. And then also this bill came out of a discussion with the Maui Disability Alliance.

So this is a very big, identified concern in our communities already. Thank you so much. We will be here for any questions.

Thank you very much. We have written testimonies in support from the following individuals, Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Hawaii Disability Rights Center, Hawaii Self Advocacy Advisory Council, Palehua Townhouses Association, Aloha Independent Living Hawaii, Leading Age, Pacific West, and a number of individuals led by Annette Tashiro, Natalie Greenleaf. Let's see. Kayla Hida who is available on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha chair and committee members. My name is Kayla Hida and I'm a social work student. I'm submitting this testimony in strong support of HB 2443 HD 1, which relates to disaster services for people with disabilities and access or functional needs. I work at an adult day health program for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, where I've seen firsthand that disabilities are both seen and unseen.

Many individuals have sensory sensitivities, communication barriers, or cognitive differences that make emergencies quite overwhelming.

Working with them has taught me that disaster preparedness must include targeted supports, like mobile mobility assistance, accessible transportation, and clear communication to ensure everyone's safety. Including a disability integration specialist or another trained professional is a vital component of this bill.

Having someone on staff who understands and can support the needs of people with disabilities would make disaster planning and emergency shelters much stronger. This bill addresses a critical gap in Hawaii's emergency preparedness and response systems.

Thank you for your time and consideration in allowing me to testify. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next, we also have written testimonies submitted by the following individuals, Kassie Sunada, Raelene Tenno, Dominic Gawrichevsky, Leilani Kailiawa, Daniela Bond-Smith, and Catherine Abellera. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this measure?

Seeing none. Members, questions?

Okay. If not, thank you. We will recess.

Yeah. Recess?

Okay. Recalling the Joint Calendar for HHS PSM for decision making for HB 1976. Chair's recommendation is to pass it with amendments.

We understand that there is nobody training, but we want to point out that the training for mental health is different from dementia training. As somebody who has cared for somebody who had dementia, especially for caregivers who all of a sudden gets accused of awful things that never occurred.

First responders need to be aware that there is a difference, and so we are gonna be passing it with amendments. We are going to change on page 3 line 17, change the word require with the word urge.

We're gonna substitute the word may for the word shall on page 4 line 13, page 5 line 19, page 7 line 5, page 8 line 11, and remove the phrase the sentence, the first annual training cycle shall be completed by 06/30/2028 for all of its occurrences. Technical non substantive amendments need for clarity and consistency.

Any comments, questions, concerns? Vice chair.

It'll be great to note that, your points in the committee report for the legislative intent in the future should it be required.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Vice chair. Any other comments, questions, concerns? I'm seeing none. Vice chair for the vote, chair votes aye.

Okay. HB 1976 House Draft 1, recommendation of Senate draft noting presence of all members. Any reservations and no's? Seeing none. Recommendation adopted.

PSM.

Okay. For PSM, same recommendation. Chair votes aye. Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1976 recommendations to pass with amendments.

[Roll call].

Thank you. For the next measure, House Bill 2443 House Draft 1 relating to disaster services. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments from the Attorney General testimony and to add specialized communications for special needs populations and comprehensive communications planning, which were previously in Senate Bill 2109 Senate Draft 2, as part two of this bill to better consolidate many of these special needs types of reparations.

Any discussion? Questions? If not for PSM committee passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Voting on HB 2443. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting all members present. Are there any reservations or no's? Seeing none.

Recommendation is adopted.

For HHS, same recommendation. Vice chair for the vote.

Okay, 2443, House Draft 1 recommendation, Senate Draft, noting the presence of all members of the committees. Any members voting no. Seeing none, recommendation is adopted.

And with that, we are adjourned. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. We are convening the Committee on Medic Safety and Military Affairs with Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs for our 3:00 PM committee hearing on a number of immigration and civil rights measures. For this afternoon's agenda, we have a number of people who have submitted written testimony, so that—I believe we have about 11 pages worth of testifiers.

So, if you are someone who has not requested to testify in person or on Zoom, the chair will just note that we have a full range of testifiers and then ask for anyone in the audience or on Zoom who would like to testify. With that, let's get started on House Bill 1768, House Draft 1, relating to immigration.

This measure prohibits any law enforcement agency or law enforcement official from entering into an agreement under federal law that permits city and county agencies, state or county agencies, to engage in immigration enforcement. It also prohibits law enforcement agencies and law enforcement officials from engaging in certain immigration-related actions, except under limited conditions. And for this afternoon's agenda, first up, we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs submitting written testimony in support, followed by Michael Golojuch, testifying for Pride at Work Hawaii, on Zoom. Mr. Golojuch?

Not present on Zoom, chair.

Okay. Thank you. We'll come back, in case he arrives later. ACLU of Hawaii, Leilani Stacy, in person.

Good afternoon. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. I'm Leilani Stacy. I'm the Immigrants' Rights Attorney at the ACLU of Hawaii. We stand in strong support of this bill, and we'll just note that Hawaii is one of 11 states in the entire country that has no existing 287G agreements or agreements with federal law enforcement, to do any sort of immigration enforcement.

And we think that's important to keep our communities here at home safe, to have federal law enforcement do what they do best, and to have our state and local police focus on efforts in keeping our communities safe as well.

And really, that's a way for Hawaii as well to ensure that it's not susceptible, to what we've seen as massive civil rights violations, particularly our friends over in Minnesota. We've seen the effect of having federal law enforcement just really running amok in our communities. And so, this bill just ensures that we're keeping communities, immigrants and citizens alike, safe here at home. So, thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Roots Reborn Maui, on Zoom. Veronica Mendoza.

Not present on Zoom, chair.

Okay. Thank you. Next, we have the Legal Clinic, Christina Savlan, testifying on Zoom.

Not present.

Oh, you're...

We stand in support of our written testimony.

Please come forward.

Thank you so much. Ana Flores representing the Legal Clinic. We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. And also, just to add, there are other states like Oregon, California, Illinois, Washington, New Jersey, and New Mexico that have similar policies to protect our community trust and constitutional rights.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, we have League of Women Voters of Hawaii and Mercado De La Raza submitting testimony and support followed by Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. Liza Ryan Gill testifying in person.

Aloha, vice chairs, members of the committee. Liza Ryan representing the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, about 30 organizations across the Pai'aina serving immigrants. One of the reasons why this bill is so important is that typically these type of cooperative agreements have not been that popular because the Federal Government has not reimbursed our local law enforcement for the work they do as federal agents when they deputize them. That changed under H. R.

One. This Administration put a bunch of money into a pot to try to, encourage our local law enforcement officers to, to sign these agreements to be deputized. And in fact, at the beginning of January 2025, there was only about 35 287G agreements across the country. There are now more than 1,521.

They are expanding so rapidly that even we have seen, school security in a K-12, system in Oklahoma signed one of these agreements with the Department of Homeland Security to deputize their school security as ICE agents.

We're very concerned that the federal administration is gonna continue to push for us to give our local police officers as federal agents, and that's very detrimental to our to our local safety, especially for women that are experiencing violence. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next, we have a series of individuals all testifying in support. As part of this listing, Christine Andrews is testifying in support on Zoom. Is miss Andrews present?

Not present.

Okay. Next, we have Ramon Quizon from Maui also on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, chair.

Okay. We do have a continuing list of individuals who have submitted written testimonies in support. Is there anyone else on Zoom or in the room who would like to testify on Senate, House Bill 1768? K. If not, members, any questions for testifiers?

Quick question

Senator DeCoite?

Oh, ACLU.

Hi. Thank you for coming. So has there been any immigration enforcement action that would have been prohibited if this bill were already in effect?

Here in Hawaii. You know, I think there are concerns that without this sort of proactive ban, we could be seeing some we did some public records requests at the county level for each of the police departments, and we're concerned that they're potentially informal ways that local county police officers could be assisting federal law enforcement.

And so just to make that explicitly clear that that sort of overlap is not permissible under state law, And also just ensuring that no further collaboration happens in terms of taking police officers away from their duties and in facilitating those sorts of detainments.

What about nationwide?

Nationwide. Sure. So I think the sort of agreements that are being entered into, those are instances in which arrests are happening that are allowed in certain counties where they've allowed state police officers to make arrests for in the in the way that only federal law enforcement would normally have that ability to do. And so in counties where they agree to enter into these sort of agreements, then that's permissible.

Whereas if there's a ban here in Hawaii and in states where there are bans on those sorts of agreements, local law enforcement can't do that. K.

Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Chair, can you stay

Okay.

So my my understanding because what what you guys are asking is that they don't share information and then our county law enforcement. So you know the incident that would happen on Maui?

Which incident?

The one that they went into the home and was the wrong person's home.

Right.

Okay. And you know why they did that?

I'm unaware.

Okay. Because they never have collaboration with law enforcement locally in the county. Then they would have known that they was going to the wrong area if they have that kind of collaboration. So safety wise, that kind of mistakes and then ongoing on having criminals that's hiding behind this law by prohibiting our law enforcement just law enforcement in general and sharing is always a good plus to share information when it comes to any kind of part of the law.

But, again, that incident would not have happened if our local county law enforcement would get involved It kinda told them that the person was a citizen and not a non citizen, but we didn't have cooperation with, law enforcement.

So that said incident that had happened, on Maui.

Thank you for that comment. I would respond in just saying that there are existing agreements between local law enforcement and federal law enforcement to conduct criminal investigations. HSI is already, authorized to do that sort of thing. So this sort of agreement really prevents local law enforcement from going beyond those agreements that are already in place, to be deputized to make purely immigration arrests that are civil law that should only be enforced by federal law enforcement.

So as it stands, there are in fact, memorandums of understanding that were in place far before this administration for local law enforcement to share some information.

So I'm not exactly sure what happened with the Maui County incident. And I would just also say that on the record, we know that a majority of people being detained under this administration have no serious criminal records and a majority of those detained at FTC Honolulu, including folks we have represented, have been unlawfully detained. That means they're going through their green card process. They have absolutely no criminal record.

And so, really, what we want is to prevent, you know, HPD officers from just stopping people on the street, stopping them at traffic stops, and picking people up for federal immigration, civil issues, and certain circumstances where people are already going through the lawful immigration process.

We don't need HPD doing that. We want them to be focused on responding to 911 calls, and we don't want to make our communities less safe by making people scared to pick up the phone and call HPD because they think they're gonna get in some sort of immigration trouble.

That's okay. So follow-up on that. So, again, so we rather have people come from the continent. We have no ties into the community to go ahead and enforce these laws with when it comes to ICE, instead of teaming up with HPD, having that kind of governing powers to know a localized law laws and localized people and how to enforce these laws, or you rather them not being part of it because you're thinking somebody could be afraid to call 911?

So data suggests and reports across the country show just to be clear, immigration law is a federal issue. And so our local law enforcement officers, they know local law best. They know our local neighborhoods best, and they should be focused on, right, doing their work. We know they're already under resourced. So what 287 agreements really have us doing is having our local police officers try to learn immigration law, try to enforce federal immigration law.

the way it should be is that federal law enforcement can follow-up and enforce federal law, but we want to ensure that our county departments are focused on keeping our communities safe here at home.

So otherwise no. I didn't see nothing in here in talking to local law enforcement that they would have to learn of of any new laws. It was just assisting with ICE in enforcing the federal laws with with what they was doing. The reason why I bring this up is because if you're illegally in this country, period, you're not gonna call 911 anyway. You're not.

You're not. Because you're afraid regardless of the fact, whether we have this in place or not, they will never call HPD. As in my area, the some of the immigration, they won't call. And that's the reason why they get take advantage of. That's why they get their Social Security check stolen.

That's why they get mugged because they don't make reports. They don't report of getting bused up or getting hijacked because they're afraid that because of their immigration status, whether it's good or bad, they get this done. So they don't call 911. So that's when I get involved in this, when I help the community. So I'm just saying it's kind of to me, it's a point that we try to be like other states because stuff is happening in other states.

We don't have a really enough statistics on how bad it is in Hawaii to prevent this from being in Hawaii. We cannot, we're not like the continent. Hawaii is different. Always be like be like them. Why don't we be like Hawaii?

Hawaii is still here with the with the aloha. But again, you want continent people to come, enforce all of these kind of things, and take our city and our local people out of the equation that they will come and enforce these laws that they shouldn't have. K? I agree with that. But then you should be dealing with local law law enforcement.

If they wanna go and be on this task force, then they can bring a local flavor to it. I'm not saying it's right to go over there and harassing people, and I don't think HPD would go ahead and pull somebody over for immigration. You know, you seeing stuff like that statistically wise. But our local law enforcement, we deal with a lot in our community that have alien cards in my community.

Not one of them got pulled over or harassed by HPD because of their status, even if what you are saying is true.

So, again, taking law enforcement locally out of the equation is only gonna do more harm to the community than good.

Right. So I think I hear your concern. And I think, you know, here in Hawaii, we do know that there's been a 500% increase in immigration arrests already. Right? And we also know that about 80 people are detained at FTC at any given day.

And so that's a huge increase here in our communities already. And so I think the concern is, well, yes, under normal circumstances, folks are already afraid to call HPD. I think given the climate of the country, even here in our islands, when people are disappearing at green card interviews, they're going in for their check ins, they're going through the lawful process. Already then it seems like, oh, is HPD now gonna be on the side of federal law enforcement? They're helping them out more than they should.

We already know that there are agreements in place for HPD to have some sort of courtesy hold, and that's within the law. You know, but our job as the ACLU is to ensure that civil rights are honored in all circumstances. And so when ICE officers are now directing HPD what to do, how to do it, there's great evidence from the continent, perhaps, and, you know, universe willing that would never occur here. But the concern is, it could happen if there's not a ban.

And then if there's federal enforcement telling our local officers what to do, we could see all sorts of civil right abuses starting to happen.

Not saying that our local law enforcement officers would be trying to do that, but could start engaging in massive civil rights violations that would encourage litigation against state, against, local county officials, and that's going to divert resources a 100 definitely going to divert resources from the focus on community safety.

So you're saying that the HPD officers have to sign on to be a part of it. How much of the HPD officers now had signed up on with this 500 something people that detained, and how much of those 500 people that was detained was caused by HPD have helping ICE to enforce the immigration laws?

Right. So sorry if I must spoke. It's been a 500% increase.

500%.

And so I'm not sure the number of individuals that maybe a couple extra 100 compared to prior administrations. And it's actually difficult to know because there's not a lot of public accountability of the involvement. We are the only organization to date that filed those requests, which each of the county, police departments to determine whether there were these sorts of member and of understanding in place, and then to ask for copies of, incident reports that are related.

And there are some incident reports that suggest that, you know, there wasn't necessarily a clear criminal investigation already happening by the police officer when there was then some contact with immigration enforcement, and that raises concerns because it means that perhaps there is local law enforcement already acting outside of the scope of state law and outside of the scope of their ability to do that.

And so 287G agreements would make that sort of enforcement more common, and it would, again, just jeopardize the average person on the street to being subjected to immigration enforcement by local law enforcement when there's no reason for HPD or any sort of local law enforcement to be doing that on a normal basis.

But only if they sign up on. Right? If local HPD officers or county officers sign up on, then that would fall into what you're seeing. But what I like know is when you call the different county police stations, how much of those guys have been used in now or probably in the future? How much of them have been used and and and wanna get within the feds and help to do this work?

How much of that had been happening? Because we can see this. The reason why what the problem that they're having with this bill is you guys using prohibit, ban, all that kind of stuff. Yeah? Just like how they wanted to defund the police, and now all of a sudden they, like, ban this.

Right? You you we cannot have both both sides. It's either we're gonna have law enforcement and they're gonna enforce the the letter of the law, which HPD officers can choose or not to choose to join ICE or whatever for doing again the letter of the law and going forward. Because then you come in with statistics that you're saying about the 500% or whatever you're saying, but then you don't talk to law enforcement.

Do you guys even go out there, talk to HPD, a Maui County, and saying and talking to them.

So they give you the statistics of how much manpower they had issued during these times with this 400%?

So, again, I know that our coalition has been in conversation individually with the chiefs and with the new Yeah. Chiefs as well. And so what we now I think what's important to know about this bill, right, is that it's not banning any of the prior agreements that are already existing. So to your concern earlier about there not being enough information sharing, those are already in place.

And so I think this ban is really to ensure that going forward, there's no more collaboration that might have already been happening inadvertently.

We don't know what the percentages are because, again, it's really difficult for us to even get requests back. We didn't get that information back from Maui County. We're still waiting for that. And so it's really difficult for the public to know, actually, at this moment, are there violations of civil rights already happening by HPD or local county enforcement enforcing the law beyond the scope of their authority? Difficult for us to know what that is.

Unfortunately, I don't have the answer for you. So I can say from federal data, we know there's a 500% increase in arrests. I would love to know what percentage of those were facilitated through local police departments. We don't know, unfortunately, if that's something we're working on. But day in, day out, I think what's most important to keep in mind in the big picture then is if we want to ensure community safety.

The way to do that, right, is to keep Hawaii safe with its own local law enforcement being separate from federal law enforcement as it relates to immigration enforcement. That's not saying criminal investigations are not going forward.

Those are already facilitated through the FBI HSI, and so this bill really is focused on this huge immigration enforcement actions that are happening by this administration, many of which have been proven unlawful in court that we've had to litigate here to get people out of detention because they've been unlawfully detained. We don't need our local law enforcement engaging in that sort of behavior. It's a waste of time and resources, and that's what I think this bill is focused on.

And I don't agree with what this administration is doing when it comes to immigration. My thing again is right now government, you get you know, not you guys, but people don't like when government interfere with a lot of things. But this is government overreaching. Now we're gonna ban and say, hey. You guys cannot do this, and we cannot do this because we're making one law.

So that's the only thing. I'm just thinking that this is an overreach for us to ban something that all the counties have an opportunity to opt in or opt out. It's it's up to them. But we shouldn't be telling the county law enforcement, hey. We government.

We're making the laws. This is banned. You guys cannot do it. And and that's the problem I have.

I think the the bill doesn't ban all activities. It makes very specific limited exemption. So we can talk about maybe

Okay.

How that should be addressed. Thank you very much.

Chair. I do have a quick follow-up. I just wanna let you know this, that I've spoken with the chief from NPD, and they do not support this at all. So thank you. Thank you, chair.

K. Moving on to house bill 1839, house draft two. This bill requires state and county law enforcement agencies to notify an individual in the custody of a state or county law enforcement agency of their rights before any interview with federal immigration authorities pertaining to certain matters regarding civil immigration violations. It also designates all records relating to federal immigration authorities access to detained individuals provided by a state or local law enforcement agency as public records.

Again, we have a whole slew of individuals who have submitted written testimonies in support or opposition.

We have 54 in support, three in opposition. So I'm gonna be focusing on those who either signed up to testify in person or online. And if any of you in the room would like to testify after that, we'd be happy to have you. First up, Michael Goluhu on Zoom.

Notpresent on Zoom. Not present on Zoom, chair.

K. Thank you. Next, we have Leilani Stacy testifying for ACLU of Hawaii in person.

Thank you so much. I'll just be brief and say that we support this bill as well. It really guarantees that individuals in custody before they're making any decisions. And that's important, just because we all have the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. So this is just really codifying that right and allowing folks, to receive that notice in a variety of languages.

So, this version just, clarifies that, makes it clear that these are rights that are already enshrined in our Fifth Amendment, and including language as well to protect juveniles under this provision, so that folks are receiving the kind of clear, voluntary, and informed consent they need to know before being detained.

And as I mentioned, in relation to the last bill, we've seen a large increase in immigration arrests here in Hawaii as well as, a great need for different language access, just based on the practitioners that work with people who are detained at the federal detention center in Honolulu. And so this bill just really underscores those rights, and would do a lot to protect immigrants in our community going through this process. Thank you.

Thank you. K. Next, we have Christina Sablan testifying for legal clinic.

Diana Flores with the legal clinic, and we stand in our written testimony in strong support of this measure. Recent data highlights the need for these safe words. According to government data provided by ICE, in respond to a freedom of information act request by the deportation data project and analyzed by TLC. Between October 2023 and October 2025, ICE placed detainers on approximately 132 individuals in custody in Hawaii.

Detainers are formal request asking another law enforcement agency to hold individuals for up to forty eight hours beyond their scheduled release date so ICE may conduct interview interviews or assume custody.

Compliance with detainers is discretionary, and detainers have raised concerns about constitutional violations and potential liability exposure because they may result in unlawful detention without probable cause or judicial warrants. And, also, very important to mention that it mandates that individuals receive copies of immigration hold or transfer request and notices in different in their language. And so this will be very, very helpful for our our attorneys in immigration law. Thank you

Thank you. Very much. Next, we have Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. Liza Gill in person.

Aloha, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. Liza Ryan Gill with Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. And and I just wanted to speak to the fact that we do know that on this particular bill, we've had some pushback from the chiefs of police. We've reached out to all of them, And we've also recommended and passed along some recommendations based on the concerns that they had. Part of that was just that this might some of this could be considered an unfunded mandate.

And we pointed them again to this is their obligation under Title VI law, and that they need to provide language access. Right? So if somebody's being held in our local law enforcement, what this says is if they're held in our local jail and ICE wants to come and talk to them, ICE can absolutely come into the jail and ask for that, but they have the right to decline that interview. But that needs to be said in a language that they can understand.

We have had conversations with the previous chief here in Honolulu, and he was very supportive of this bill because he said, okay. We can go to the office of language access. We just need this in a couple of languages, a sheet of paper that we can give to people. It's a very low burden there, and I think we just haven't been able to have those conversations yet because there's been so many interims.

So we've talked to all the previous chiefs, and now we need to have conversations with the new chiefs as they have been been replaced, but we're I'm supposed to be meeting with chief Mahuna next week. So

Oh, no. Mine is chief Palakir.

Yep. And in a while. So so we're in process on that. And I think once we can explain the low burden because of the support from office of language access, then we should be able to get over that.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Next, we have Christine Andrews on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, chair.

K. Veronica Mendoza on Zoom?

Not present on Zoom, chair.

K. Let's see. That's the end of the list of those who have submitted written testimonies. Is there anyone else who would like to submit, testimonies on this measure? If not, members, any questions for the testifiers?

Immigration.

So we're talking about if somebody is detained in a kind of one of our county jails

Yep.

To make sure they have the language in case when they get, I guess, interviewed.

Yep.

And it's not in everybody's language yet.

No.

Because everything else is that's why it's kinda not understanding. So SNAP benefits, all these other benefits have every single language that we have. Why is it why would be at what would you think is the challenge and the difficulty for us having this on hand for every language?

I it is a pretty low burden. I think, especially, you just need to get it translated once, and then you need to be able to show them. They need to be able to identify the language that they speak and then give them the right piece of paper so that they know what they're citing. We we haven't seen as many of these interactions previously.

I think we brought this bill forward right now because as the immigration attorneys that are in our coalition are responding back, we've seen a change in the way the federal administration is pushing towards expedited removal.

Right? And so those folks then are are being removed within forty eight hours from the state and not necessarily getting access to counsel. And I think that is one of the big concerns that we have in that.

Obviously, like, Department of Homeland Security has every right to pursue those cases with those individuals, but those individuals should also understand that they have the right to acquire their own counsel even though counsel is not going to be provided for them, and also that they have the right to decline an interview if they don't want to do one at that time.

What we have seen across the country and we have had heard instances here in Hawaii out of cases on Hawaii Island is that individuals are essentially signing documents that they don't understand and signing their own removals and being and and experiencing expedited removal.

So, again, we just wanna ensure due process, and we don't wanna make it burdensome for the chiefs. I think one thing that they've been concerned about are the meetings that we have included in there. This was actually a product of some frustration from the chiefs over on Hawaii Island having immigration advocates being very involved in the police commission and the and choosing of a new chief.

And then so our thought was maybe, you know, if there was one or two meetings a year that was specifically around immigration, then maybe, some of our advocates would not feel that they needed to come to every meeting to raise those concerns. So we just thought maybe having a place for that transparency.

But, again, we're open to, you know, listening to the chiefs if they feel that's too burdensome. I think the thing that is most important in this bill is that people understand their rights so that they don't sign documents that change their life without knowing what they signed.

Well, the conversation that you had with the chief, was it more administration or financial that they cannot provide the documents because financially, they cannot?

I think they're concerned about a part of the bill that has to do with the tracking, you know, because we were again, there's a lot of concern of transparency of what are these interactions between federal agents and our local law enforcement look like.

And so in there, there are some some mechanisms to say, like, if you are holding people and ICE does request to talk to them, please give them the piece of paper so that they know that they have the the right to decline and to call their own counsel. But in that, then we said, okay. Can you mark that down?

So we're very open to figuring out ways in which that that the attorney generals can provide a quick checklist or make it super, super simple so they don't have to create an entire database and, like, have a person that is dedicated to that.

I think that is I think that's unnecessary. It shouldn't have to be that difficult. But the public is very concerned about what these interactions look like. And so, again, we're very open to figuring out something that's amenable to the chiefs.

This is going to well. So do we have a budget for it? Is there is there money appropriation? Nope. Yeah.

These are all JDC bills.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair.

Okay. Chair, do we have anybody from the any of the police departments?

I don't believe so. And I think, you know, this is the week that we have everybody involved in recovery and, you know, restoration. So I know for a lot of the first responders, they're they're not available at

this point. I'm looking at the Big Island police chief's testimony and, you know, it goes into everything for for financial accountability as well as mandates that having to be dealt with. So I just saying that, you know, they're opposing this bill. So thank you. Thank you, chair.

Okay. Thank you very much. Let's see. If there's no further questions, let's turn to House Bill 1886. Again, we have a range of support testimonies and opposition testimonies submitted primarily in writing. First up, Michael Golojuch from Pride at Work Hawaii on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. Also, Roots Reborn Maui, Veronica Mendoza.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

The Legal Clinic, Christina Sablan. Oh, in person. Where are you?

I'm representing the Legal Clinic-- representing, yeah. Amy Agbayani. I work for president as well. We stand in our great testimony in strong support of this measure and just want to mention that this is part of the package of bills that the Campaign for Immigrant Justice is trying to push, and last week, we have a very successful lobby day with lots of people from the community coming from different islands, and they were just-- this is a specific measure, and the next one that we're gonna talk about is, like, where a lot of the people were just concerned and wanted to participate in this, and it was just nice to see all of the advocacy from the community. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, Liza Gill.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chairs, members of the committee. Liza with the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. Again, we are strongly supporting this bill as a key part of our campaign for immigrant justice package. Again, this is less for folks that may consider themselves immigrants and, individually and actually more for individuals that are concerned about the erosion of civil rights.

So I think, specifically, this has to do with folks that might be protesting and expressing their first amendment rights and wanting to make sure that if they are encountering law enforcement, that that law enforcement is easily identifiable so that they know that they can be trusted.

And to speak to the senator's earlier sentiment about make wanting to have our Department of Homeland Security agents or folks that are doing civil immigration enforcement here in Hawaii. I will say that only about six to eight months ago, Department of Homeland Security did come here to Hawaii to recruit locally for for more federal agents. So there's nothing that stops them from actually recruiting. They have at the beginning of this administration, there were about 7,000 immigration officers in the country. They have hired 12,000 more.

They are on a hiring spree, and they have been hiring here locally. So even if we're not giving our police officers to be deputized as ICE agents, they are hiring local folks to do that work.

Thank you. Let's see. Christine Andrews on Zoom?

Not present on Zoom, chair.

Okay. That brings me to the end of our list. Is there anyone else in person or on Zoom who would like to testify? Please come forward.

Aloha, Chairs, Vice Chairs, and members of the committee. My name is Salmah Yasmin Rizvi, and I'm the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii representing over 4,000 card carrying members in our state. We stand in strong support of HB 1886. This bill is about three things. One, non-cooperation.

Two, no masks. And three, IDs. First on non-cooperation, the Tenth Amendment is clear. The Federal Government cannot commandeer state and local resources to carry out federal programs. That anti-commandeering principle is not abstract.

It is a Constitutional safeguard against government overreach. When the federal immigration enforcement agents rely on asks of local agencies, those asks function as a tool of the creeping authoritarianism that we know exists at the federal level. Hawaii has both the right and obligation to decline such asks, and this bill affirms that line and ensures that the state of Hawaii is protected from any liability that might flow from these actions. Second, on no mask, in a constitutional democracy, the exercise of state power cannot be anonymous.

Armed agents operating without visible identities erodes through process and invites abuses.

Our sister affiliates have already witnessed federal mass agents murdering innocent US citizens. We do not want this happening here in Hawaii. Anonymous enforcement is not about safety. It is about shielding power from accountability.

Please begin to summarize, we would appreciate it.

And so lastly, visible identification is a minimum. We know that law enforcement has a concern about doxing, but many of us in the civil rights work face doxing often as public servants, especially backed by the authority of the state. The use of force carries heightened responsibility and the duty of transparency. Essentially, we hope that there will be a question as to whether we tolerate anonymous force or do we demand government accountability, and we hope that this law passes to demand that accountability. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Members, any questions for our prior testifiers? Okay. If not, let's move to the last bill on this immigration agenda, House Bill 2540 House Draft 2, relating to law enforcement. This measure is very similar to Senate Bill 3322 which the committee previously heard.

It establishes provisions limiting state and federal collaboration for purposes of immigration enforcement operations, requires county and state law enforcement agencies to establish and publicly post written policies regarding civil immigration enforcement. Again, the list of testifiers is very similar to the last group of testifiers, so I'm gonna read through those who have signed up to testify on Zoom or online. First up, Michael Golojuch on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. Next, we have ACLU of Hawaii, Leilani Stacy, in person.

Aloha. Leilani Stacy, Immigrants' Rights Attorney at the ACLU of Hawaii. As noted, this bill is very similar to the one I spoke about earlier, but I just wanted to highlight again that, you know, we don't need our local law enforcement co-opted by a national or a federal deportation agenda that is unlawful, and that's essentially what entering into these sort of 287[g] agreements does.

It diverts the focus and attention and resources of our local law enforcement to be directed by federal law enforcement, telling our local law enforcement what to do, even if there's no guarantee that that direction is lawful, and it could be in violation of civil rights. So I think that's just important to keep in mind with any sort of 287[g] agreement is that federal law enforcement is essentially directing local law enforcement what to do without meaningful oversight from our local offices.

And, you know-- and at least one court has found that detaining an individual at ICE's request occurred without probable cause under these sorts of agreements and so I think that just highlights that-- sort of the points that I've made earlier. So thank you so much.

Thank you. Next, we have Christina Sablan, Legal Clinic.

Ana Flores with the Legal Clinic, and we stand in our written testimony in strong support of this measure that prohibits officers from initiating or prolonging a stop solely to investigate civil immigration status and clarifies that reasonable suspicion. And it's-- we just wanna say it's not okay for people to be stopped because of their race, the way they look, or their language, or even their accent. So, thank you so much.

Thank you. Finally, Liza Ryan Gill, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights.

Aloha, chairs and vice chairs. One thing that I just wanted to comment kind of on the broad swath of these package is that there's nothing in these bills that stops the Immigration and Customs Enforcement from doing their job. We can't do that, and we've specifically crafted and worked on all of the language to make sure, and even in our testimony in response, there's nothing that we can do to stop the sharing of information.

We can make a decision as a state on the collection of information, but there's nothing in these bills that stops-- if an ICE agent has a warrant signed by a judge and wants to walk into Stevenson Middle School and detain a 7th grader, there's nothing in these bills that can stop them from doing that.

The only thing that we have control over is our local police and whether or not our schools, our hospitals, our local state institutions and county institutions have the proper information and training to understand the difference, for example, between an administrative warrant and a judicial warrant. One has the power of the law and one does not have it behind it.

And I think what is so difficult and challenging in this moment and as we look at all these bills is that it is very confusing because we wouldn't have needed a bill like this a year and a half ago because Department of Homeland Security used to have a memo that they abided by for the last 20 years before that when they did not conduct operations at schools, hospital, places of worship.

Under the first Trump Administration, under many Republican and Democrat administrations, they decided not to do that. All of that has gone out the window, and so if it feels like we're scrambling a little bit to figure out how to do this now is because the landscape is changing so very quickly, and it is difficult. We don't have very many levers in order to change what is happening or to keep our community safe, and so these bills are really just about establishing and making sure where we have that right and where we have the ability to say we are going to stick to the Constitution and make sure we don't get dragged into these kinds of liabilities and abuses. We want to take that stand.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on any of these--I mean--on this measure? If not, members, questions? ACLU. Thank you.

Hi. Thank you.

See, the thing that I kind of not understanding is that we coming up with this bill because of the reactions of what's happening in the continent. And it's understandable. So my question is, how is it safeguarding our community when you are in Hawaii--I'm just gonna use Hawaii--and you had numerous of times-- reason why I have a problem with this, in my community, it voiced to me-- okay, so I don't know if you know the process for coming from the Philippines to come over here, how difficult it is even though you have family members here--yeah--to come here.

So they come here to the front door working hard, working two, three, four, 10, 20 jobs. Yeah? Minimum wage jobs, right? Being mistreated in the workplace. All those things. But then we have other people that's coming in that's not doing the same fair share. But then they wanna have different status of protection over the people in my community who work hard generations from plantation to now to come here to give their family and a better life in Hawaii. And not gonna say America. In Hawaii, because we're different.

Why are we having these laws that you wanna say to protect for people that is not here legally? So I can understand we're protecting the ones that's here legally, but we're making these laws to saying that all of these stuff that we're dropping through-- we didn't do none of that for the legal guys to bring them in here. Even though Philippines is our sister country, we don't make it easy for them to come here.

Some of them gotta go California, then they end up coming here. So again, why are we making these certain laws because of what's happening in the continent for individuals that is here illegally? If they're here illegally, they're here illegally, you know? But we're making special privileges for the people that's coming here illegally, and then all the ones that came here generations before legally and the generations of family came here legally, they feel it's not fair to them. So, again, I mean, why would we be making these laws for a handful of people that have been here in the islands, you know, illegally?

Sure. Thanks so much for the question. I think, you know, I definitely relate in the sense that most of us here on this aina, right, we come from immigrants, whether it's generations in the past or now. And I think what's important about this bill in particular, in this package of bills, is that it applies and is there to protect folks who are migrating legally as well, because what's happening under this administration--as well as in prior administrations but particularly under this one--is we've seen the arrest and pickup and targeting of folks who are going through the lawful process.

As I mentioned, we represented a client who was getting his green card, right? He was unlawfully locked up by ICE. We have folks who are going, seeking asylum--might be from the Philippines--are adjusting status. It takes years, decades, right, for folks to go through that process. It's really difficult, and I hear your frustration with the federal immigration scheme. It's really difficult to change. Congress sets those laws. It's a really strict scheme that we have.

That's not something within our control. However, what's happening right now is the enforcement that we're seeing, it's regardless of whether someone enters without documents, someone with documents. Even citizens are being picked up off the street, or folks who are going to their check-ins with USCIS who are going through the lawful process are still being targeted, right?

And we don't know just by looking at someone on the street, how is, you know, our local law enforcement supposed to know what their immigration status is and why are they helping federal law enforcement do their job. It's not really the state or local police department who should be involved in enforcing criminal law, right? I hear you in the sense that there are folks who enter without documents. That doesn't necessarily mean they've committed any crime. They might be seeking asylum.

They might be going through-- you know, like, they might have someone else here in the country, like you said, and I think what this bill does in particular is it make-- those are all, for the most part, civil immigration issues. So these people have committed no crime but they're being locked up right next to people who have been accused of federal crimes.

And so I think what's important is that, really under this administration, under this sort of really aggressive deportation agenda, people who have committed no crime, people who are going through the lawful process are still being locked up, and it doesn't make any sense to be using state and local resources and officers to be helping out with that, locking up people who are working and living in our community, who are trying to get their full permanent status. Those are still the people being targeted by this administration, and so it's not enough to just sit by anymore unfortunately.

It used to be the case that people going through that lawful process wouldn't be locked up while they're going to their Immigration Court hearings. They were contributing to the community, they were going to church, et cetera, but now those people, while they are awaiting and going through the lawful process, are being locked up. And so this bill ensures that it's not our local law enforcement helping out with that agenda because it's, frankly, just a waste of time and energy and it targets our constituents' communities. It makes overall communities feel less safe.

So people come over here with work visas, yeah? And they overstay. They don't report DBEDT. Is that illegal or not illegal? If I come here on a work visa, and then after my work visa runs out and I just in the wind, is that illegal or legally?

It sort of depends on that individual status. The reason they're staying, they might still be seeking some sort of adjustment of status. I don't work directly in Immigration Court, so there's a variety of ways someone who overstays might still be going through a process of seeking asylum again or trying to gain status because of a family member or other sorts of immigration statuses.

Because when you talk about local law enforcement, they're here to enforce the law, right? So if you are here illegally or you are legal-- which are the circumstances, you've been here five years but then two days later you try to go get your paperwork, whichever the-- whichever the situation, but if they're here to enforce the law and the law has been broken, you're saying that they cannot because that's outside of their scope because they're coming-- because the immigration situation. But again, not saying they're criminals, but if you break the law, you break the law, right?

So I think what's important to remember, though, is that, right, like, there's a reason we have separation of state and Hawaii from our federal law enforcement, right? Like, if this were under martial law, we wouldn't want our local police officers enforcing federal law, and sort of vice versa. That goes both ways, right?

And so it's always been the case that under state law, state law enforcement can only enforce state law. State law enforcement is never authorized, like, except for certain circumstances to enforce state law. That's why there's the FBI. That's why there's federal law enforcement, and so this bill is not doing anything new.

I hear your concern about people who are undocumented and maybe-- I hear the concern about breaking the law, but really, state law enforcement's job is to make sure that when civil and criminal local laws are broken, that's the focus of that law enforcement. Federal law enforcement is enforcing civil immigration law. It's their job to do that.

They already have the resources and ability to do that, but there's a reason constitutionally, and historically we know that there's overreach from feds into states and into Hawaii, and we don't need to authorize that. There's a reason that the Tenth Amendment exists to keep our states separate from the federal government, and so that's the reason that, historically, these two things have always been separate. That is just how it works.

So if the county police officers in other counties say that they want help from the federal government, is that illegal?

They have entered into agreements to do that, and so they're receiving resources, but it is still possible that there could be violations of either state or federal law that happen even under those agreements because if you commit an excessive use of force, guess what? That's still in violation of the law. So it doesn't mean that just because you enter into one of these agreements, it's gonna ensure our local law enforcement from being liable for really severe penalties or severe actions.

Reason why I say this is because, right now, like, I rob one bank. Yeah? And we request the federal government to come and help with local law enforcement. Not saying that's a similar thing, but that's a similar agreement in a sense of enforcing the law, right? So they can request. So now, right now, a county chief of police requests assistance on, again, immigration, right? So they cannot-- you're saying that they cannot do that because they're overstepping the boundaries of the law if they're asking assistance from federal government?

I think what's important to keep in mind is that these agreements are really a proactive way of the county and local law enforcement saying, ICE, we're gonna be at your beck and call, essentially. Like, you tell us what to do. It's not asking for assistance in immigration enforcement. That's not a priority of our local law enforcement agencies already. HPD's priority is not going out to enforce immigration law.

Their duty really is to respond to 911 calls to ensure that local crime is not happening, to keeping people safe. 287[g] agreements really are allowing the federal government to come in and use local resources to prioritize their agenda, and so I think for these committee members and for our legislature to be saying we want to prioritize or just allow ICE and federal law enforcement to walk in and make that a priority in our community, that's a statement in and of itself, and I think that should be a concern.

I'm just saying if they're very inviting. If--

Senator Fevella, can we move on?

Okay. No, no, but I'm actually gonna point because I'm gonna tell you why. Because a person within our communities, a Hawaiian community, had took in a person that robbed the bank or took money, right?

Our local law enforcement reached out to the federal government for help on this investigation. So I'm not saying it's the same thing, but you keep on saying that cannot be done. If it cannot be done, then why do all the rest of the states--you guys always talking about other states--work hand in hand with federal FBI and federal agents with DEA where they do buses in local communities, whether it's immigration, which it's not, because the drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, right, and, you know, and guns, right?

So they work with local law enforcement. So, again, having a local law enforcement working on the side of federal law or government law, whatever you wanna call it, it's a plus because-- we try to separate-- what I'm trying to get at is that we try to separate that our law enforcement agencies cannot work with federal government agencies because of immigration. But then, how are you gonna draw a fine line when we have drug-infested and gun things--especially on the neighbor islands--that we cannot utilize FBI and DEA?

So, I don't think-- this bill doesn't prohibit that sort of collaboration, as I mentioned earlier. That sort of collaboration is already written into--

I'm not talking about collaboration, but you're talking about that they cannot work side by side, and because one is going federal law and the other one is overstepping the bounds with his county law, they only answer 911 calls.

So, I'm sorry if I misspoke earlier, but I suppose what I'm trying to say is that there is cooperation and collaboration, as you're talking about, that happens in criminal investigations, and this bill would not prohibit that sort of collaboration that you're talking about if someone robs a bank, if there's DEA investigations, human trafficking, drug investigations, et cetera. That sort of collaboration all already exists and would still exist under this bill.

What this bill is in particular highlighting is that we don't need collaboration between and a diversion of resources to be focused on exclusively immigration enforcement, right? We know that there are really serious concerns that require collaboration between local law enforcement and federal law enforcement, and there have been decisions that local police departments have made to enter into those agreements, like you said, to share information to make those sorts of investigations run more smoothly. But what the state and local, you know, officials are telling us is that we don't need this prioritization of collaboration on immigration enforcement specifically.

I'm so sorry. Can you wrap up?

Thank you.

That's it.

I'm so sorry, but we're gonna be running out of time.

Thank you. Okay. Moving to House Bill 1964 House Draft 2 relating to the state building code council. First up, we have someone from Office of State Planning and Sustainable Development. Thank you for being here.

No problem. Aloha, Chairs, Vice Chairs, members of the committee. Diana Setness with the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. OPSD stands on its written testimony in support, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We also have Small Business Regulatory Review Board, AIA, Hawaii State Council, Maui Chamber of Commerce, Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii, Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce. Let's see. Is there anyone else here who has, would like to testify on House Bill 1964 House draft 2? If not, any questions from members?

Diana of OPSD? I know this is a product of the speedy task force, and I appreciate how it's trying to kind of provide clarity in state building code regulations. But am I reading this wrong? We're not mandating anybody take this training. Correct?

I believe it's just mandating the state building co-council to offer the training. And if the counties decide to implement that training, then there would be a matching fund from them to pay for it.

Because if you don't mandate it from the people who are actually the builders, then we're really not solving any problems here. Right? You're gonna offer this. And then if the same set of good characters come and the same set of bad characters don't come, then we really haven't solved this problem.

I do think that there would be a lot of interest from the counties to implement this kind of training. I'm not sure how it would work if you did mandate it. I would like to note that in our testimony, we mentioned that state building co-counsel hasn't been operational the last few years. It's suffered not from a lack of funding and dedicated staff and resources as well as emergency appropriations suspending them. So that would limit their ability to implement it unless they did receive funds.

So you can put a mandate on it, but you'd also wanna make sure that they secure the funding to be able to effectuate.

Okay. I wanna talk about the funding. In your testimony, you said that for two positions, it would be about $326,000. And not knowing the details of this, but are we paying two people that much money to once a year do a training for whoever is interested in this training?

No. So that's this, the budget item is not directly related to this bill. It is not just for training. We're just highlighting a budget item request from DAGS that is in the current HB 1800 HD 1 version, and it's for two full-time positions and current operating expenses.

Could we potentially have this service contracted out?

I don't know who would be able to provide the kind of expertise that the State Building Code Council has.

Yeah. Because, you know, like, all of us on this side of the table, we have to go through annual harassment training. Right? We don't have some good government training as we hire out a local law firm that does their one, 2-hour training, and then we check off and we can sit here. So, I thought, like, maybe the same way here.

Like, if you could find an entity out there, they could do this annual training for whoever. We don't need two full-time state employees to effectuate what we want to achieve with this bill. Correct?

Yes. Though I do wanna mention there are several other bills that are asking more of the State Building Co-Council beyond their regular duties. And I think that this may not even be enough to fully cover all of that. It's just giving them something so that they can be functional and operational and effectuate some of the mandates given to them.

Thank you, Diane.

You're welcome Chair. Thank you.

Thanks. Okay. That brings us to the end of the agenda. We're gonna take a brief recess and come back.

So first on the agenda, House Bill 1768 House Draft 1 relating to immigration. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments to replace the 07/01/3000 effective date with a 07/01/2065. I'm sorry, '55 effective date. Any discussion? Questions?

Okay. I believe that PSM, committee has quorum.

So for members just arriving, bill that we're recommending action on is House Bill 1768 House Draft 1 passing with amendments to change the effective date.

Voting on HB 1768 recommendation to pass with amendments. Chair Fukunaga and Vice Chair vote aye. Senator Hashimoto?

Aye.

So, Chair votes aye, Vice Chair Lee for vote.

Chair the recommendation is adopted.

No.

Senator Inouye? Excused. Senator DeCorte?

For members of EIG, same recommendation we fully support moving up the date 45 years. Any discussion? If not, I vote yes.

Chair's recommendation for HB 1768 is to pass with amendments. Chair votes yes. Vice Chair votes aye. Senator DeCoite?

No.

Senator Richards?

Senator Fevella?

Recommendation is adopted.

Reservations.

No.

Thank you. Moving to House Bill 1839 house draft two, relating to immigration. Chair's recommendation on this bill is to pass with attorney general amendments and to replace the 07/01/3000 date with the 07/01/2055 effective date. Any questions, concerns? If not for PSM committee.

Voting on HB 1839 electing to pass with amendments, noting to excuse the absence of Senator Inouye. Are there any reservations? Any no votes?

No vote.

No vote for a Senator DeCorte.

And the recommendation's adopted.

Thank you.

For EIG, same recommendation. Any discussion? If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes.

Chair's recommendation for HB 1839 is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote yes. Senator DeCoite?

No.

Senator Richards?

Reservations.

Senator Fevella?

No.

Recommendation is adopted.

Next measure on the agenda is House Bill 1880. I'm Sorry 1886 House Draft 2 relating to Government Operations. On this measure, Chair's recommendation is that we pass again with Attorney General amendments and replacing the 07/01/3000 effective date with a 07/01/2055 date.

Voting on HB 1886. Recommendations to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absence of Senator Inouye. Are there any other reservations? Any no votes?

No vote.

No vote for Senator DeCorte. Chair the recommendation's adopted.

Thank you.

For EIG, same recommendation. Any discussion?

If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes. Chair's recommendation for House Bill 1886 is to pass with amendments.

Chair and vice chair vote yes. Senator DeCoite?

Reservations.

Senator Richards?

Reservation.

Senator Fevella?

No.

Recommendation is adopted.

Next measure House Bill 2540 House Draft 2 relating to Law Enforcement. This bill is a companion to Senate Bill 3322 Senate Draft 2. Chair is going to recommend that we adopt the measure with amendments that insert the contents of Senate Bill 3322 Senate Draft 2 to continue discussion on this measure.

Voting on HB 2540 recommendations to pass with amendments noting excused absence of Senator Inouye. Are there any reservations or no's?

No.

No vote for Senator Decorte. Then, Chair the recommendation is adopted.

For EIG, same recommendation. Any discussion?

Not, Senator Chang, I vote yes.

This recommendation for House Bill 2540 is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote vote aye. Senator DeCoite?

No.

Senator Richards?

Reservations.

Senator Fevella?

No.

Recommendation is adopted.

Next measure on today's agenda is House Bill 1964 House Draft 2, relating to the State Building Pool Council. Chair recommends that we pass this measure with replacement effective date of 07/01/2055 to continue discussions on the measure, noting some of the concerns that were raised during the hearing in the committee report.

Any discussion, questions?

Not PSM committee, Vice chair.

Voting HB 1964 the recommendation is to pass with amendments noting excused absence of Senator Inouye. Are there any reservations or no's?

Hearing none, the recommendation is adopted.

For EIG, same recommendation. Any discussion? If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes.

This recommendation for House bill 1964 is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote yes. Senator DeCoite?

Reservations.

[roll call]

Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. It was a very serious hearing to oppose. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. We are convening, let's see, the Public Safety and Military Affairs Committee only for a 03:01pm agenda.

This measure is House bill 2606 relating to On-site Construction. We have a number of testifiers that are, let's see. Oops.

Okay. Mary Alice Edwards or her staff?

Chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Diana Setnas with Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, OPSD stands on it's testimony in support. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Next, we have, let's see. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Leialoha Makuanani on Zoom.

Aloha Kakou. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs stands on our written comments in support of this bill. And we've just further thank the legislature and encourage the continued advancement of structural solutions such as this one to increase housing production and widen the scope of methods for the legislature to support housing in Hawaii. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next, we have Department of Hawaiian Homelands testifying in person.

If not, we have Plumbers and Fitters UA Local 675. Mister Bukowski?

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, committee members. We submitted written testimony in support. Just like to highlight our support for the bill as written and to offer our support as written because we believe that, you know, we should be targeting these types of modular homes towards affordable units and the sizing.

When you look at estimated cost per square footage and 80% to a 100% AMIs, the square footage that we're looking at is within the reach of a person or a family within those lower AMI rates.

So those that's the rationale as I understand it for the sizing of these types of off-site construction homes. And, of course, supporting locally constructed and locally look toward to local standards.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks.

See. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this measure?

If not, members, any questions?

If not, we'll take a brief recess.

Good afternoon. We're returning to House Bill 2606 House Draft 2 relating to On-site Construction. Chair recommends that we pass this measure with a different effective date of 07/01/2055 to continue the discussions. Any questions, comments?

If not, Cice chair Lee for the vote, and I vote aye.

Thank you. Voting on HB 2581. Recommendations to pass with amendments.

Yes.

Sorry. Noting the excused absence of Senator Inouye. Are there any reservations? Any no votes?

Seeing none, the recommendation's adopted.

Thank you. And members, we have one final agenda for today. It was a decision making agenda for which we had House Bill 2581 House Draft 2 relating to Emergency Management. Which was heard previously and deferred to today's agenda.

I believe this measure has been removed from our agenda. So the remaining bill on today's agenda is House Bill 2498 House Draft 2 relating to Care Homes.

This measure requires and appropriates funds for the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency to establish a Central Oahu care home community resilience pilot program to assist eligible care home facilities to implement a structural and operational resilience improvements. Requires a report to the legislature and the effective date is 07/01/3000. Chair would like to recommend that we pass this measure with a different effective date of 07/01/2055 to keep the discussion going as we are coming up on deadlines very soon. Any questions, discussion?

If not, Vice Chair Lee for the vote.

Voting on HB 2498. The recommendation is to pass with amendments, noting excused absence of Senator Inouye. Are there any reservations or other votes? Hearing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much, members. We are now adjourned.