House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

If you're testifying via Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off until you testify, and then turn it off again after your testimony. Use the Zoom chat function if you have technical issues. Our staff will try to help you out. If you're disconnected, it's okay. Don't panic.

Just try to rejoin as soon as you can on Zoom, and I'll try to fit you in so that you can finish your testimony if time permits. If the power goes off in the room here and we have to reschedule the hearing, I'll make sure to post appropriate notice so you all know what we're gonna be talking about and when. If you're testifying on Zoom, please avoid using a trademark or copyrighted images.

That kicks us off of YouTube, and that's not good because we want the public to be able to watch what we're doing here. Please refrain from any profanity or uncivil behavior.

It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. We're all in this together trying to do what's best for the state. So with that, let's go ahead and start the hearing. And just so everyone knows, we're gonna be having testimony taking testimony on all of the bills on the agenda, and we'll go all the way through all the bills. At the end of that, we'll then move into decision making on the bills in the order on which they appear on the agenda.

So if you have to go off and do something else, you know, that's that's our schedule. That's how we'll manage today. So it is, Wednesday, March 25, 2PM here in Conference Room 325 for our hearing, on the committee, before the Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. First up, we have Senate Bill 3219 House Draft one proposing amendments to article seven sections twelve and thirteen of the Hawaii State Constitution.

The measure proposes constitutional amendments to expressly provide that the legislature may authorize political subdivisions such as the counties to issue housing infrastructure growth bonds for specified public works, public improvements, or other actions necessary for housing and community development, and exclude these bonds from determinations of the funded debt of the political subdivisions.

First up, we have Hawaii Public Housing Authority in support. Not present. Members I refer you to the written testimony. Next we have Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation in support. Welcome Mr. Minakami.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members. I'm the executive director of Hawaii Housing Finance Union Corporation. We stand in our testimony in support of this measure.

We just read the housing infrastructure growth bonds can be a valuable financing tool to facilitate transit oriented development. And, of course, TOD would need to help to address our housing shortfall. Thank you.

Thank you. And for everyone who's not familiar, TOD means transit oriented development, like the nodes of development along the rail line or along bus bus lines where we have bus stops. Next, we have Mary Alice Evans with the State of Hawaii Office of Planning and Sustainable Development or her representative.

Aloha chair, vice chair, member of the committee.

Mary Alice Evans with the office of planning, sustainable development. We do stand under written testimony and support, but just to summarize, this will just essentially add another tool to the toolbox for infrastructure financing, something that is very much needed for any housing development in Hawaii. And we also noted that we previously preferred the companion measure, h b two four seven six.

But in the previous committee, it would this bill was amended to essentially insert that language, and now the only difference is the exact phrasing of the ballot question.

And we respectfully defer to the attorney general for specifics on that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next person said they wish to testify is the Pacific Resource Partnership.

Thank you, chair Tarnas, vice chair, Poepoe,

Andrew Perro, Pacific Resource Partnership. Stand in strong support of the measure with our written testimony, but I just wanna add that, we had another, briefing with the, financial advisement company, Stifel. And they said that a lot of municipalities that suffer natural disasters are not now using this type of value capture financing to rebuild infrastructure that's lost during a natural disaster. So this would be another great recovery tool, for example, the flooding that we just suffered in, in Lahaina with the wildfires. So stand in strong support.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next, DR Horton Hawaii. Mister Iosua.

Afternoon chair, committee members. Michael Sua on behalf of DR Horton Hawaii. You have a written testimony. Just wanted to add, everybody knows we're in a severe housing crisis right now. This is an important tool to kinda help offset some of the cost of infrastructure, which can be as high as 30% of the the price of the house that you're paying.

So happy to have him answer any questions.

Thank you very much, sir. Evanoy, in support. Lindsay Garcia, Hawaii Realtors or her representative.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee.

Mihoko Ito on behalf of the Hawaii Association of Realtors. We stand in on our testimony in support of this measure and are happy to answer any questions. And just wanted to note again that this is a a very valuable tool to help support housing infrastructure and 48 out of 50 states have already, enacted something similar. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Tom Yamachika, Tax Foundation of Hawaii on Zoom.

Aloha. Colleen Teramae on behalf of Tom Yamachika. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii stands on its written comments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Housing Hawaii's future. Barry Arosmith in support, not present. Sam Kim, Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters in support, not present. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate bill 3219?

If not, questions, members? Seeing none, thank you. Well, thank you to the testifiers. We'll move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 2054, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1, relating to public safety.

This measure prohibits the Hawaiian National Guard from deploying to assist federal troops, federal law enforcement, or the National Guard on any other state operating or, excuse me, prohibits the Hawaii National Guard from deploying to assist federal troops, federal law enforcement, or the National Guard of any other state operating in Hawaii when the Governor has objected to the deployments. First up, we have Brigadier General Walter Ross, Hawaii National Guard, in opposition. Not present. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in support. Not present. Community Alliance—Community Alliance on Prisons, Ms. Brady.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Representatives Cochran and Shimizu. Community Alliance in Prisons is in strong support of this measure. We're really proud that the governor has been very clear about using local resources for local issues, and we really urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Austin Martin on Zoom. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, chair, and thank you members of the committee. This is a proposal that, in its original form, included language that was more expansive than what we have today, but it's important and it reinforces a concept where liberty is maximized, where the local people have the greatest amount of say over what happens. And I think, actually, I just wanna make myself available for any questions. I think I'd like to stand on my written testimony.

I'm sure you guys have had a chance to look it over. So, thank you for hearing me today and thank you for looking at this seriously.

Thank you very much, Mr. Martin. Next, ACLU of Hawaii. Mr. Frost.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, committee members. I'm here in place of Mandy, who I'm sure you'd much rather prefer seeing. She wasn't able to attend this afternoon, and, and, honestly, I'm, I wasn't prepared to speak on it. We stand in strong support of the bill. You have our written testimony.

You know, in Hawaii and across the country, we've seen federal agents taking immigrant neighbors. Immigration enforcement has spiked since the beginning of, of the current administration. And we've seen this administration attempt to deploy national guard in cities, frankly, that he doesn't like. So, this bill, we, we believe takes makes an attempt to, to minimize that or make it harder to do that. Again, this is—I wasn't prepared to speak.

So, but you have our testimony. We're in support and we hope you move it forward. Aloha.

Thank you very much. Liza Ryan Gill, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, on Zoom.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Liza with Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, representing about 30 immigrant serving organizations across the Pae Aina. We're in strong support of this bill and I'll just say, just to put a finer point on it right now, we are seeing, you know, our local national guard being deployed across the state to help folks in the recovery from the kona lau.

And because of the expansion of Department of Homeland Security bringing in other federal agencies and even deploying to 14 airports across the across the country right now, taking on some of the responsibilities of TSA, what that has created is just a lot of confusion as to who is who.

And we've been receiving reports—screenshots of National Guard individuals in humvees going through Kalihi, and that has created fear in in, in different communities that are immigrant communities that may have come from places where there have been martial law, and they have experienced military vehicles running through their residential neighborhoods.

If—I'm very sympathetic to the concerns of both HIEMA and other folks maybe within the National Guard over the command issues on this.

I think what we hope to see is that in all of these areas, we wanna make sure that our resources are being used to serve the people of Hawaii, first and foremost, and that the concerns of individuals who don't know which agents are have what kind of kuleana and what they're doing in their community, that we can speak very clearly as to what those roles are. So, mahalo for your time.

Thank you very much, Ms. Gil. Next, Christine Andrews on Zoom.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Christine Andrews, Maui. I'll stand on my written testimony, but I do wanna just reiterate that for the people of Maui, we have had a good relationship with the National Guard. The community trusts them based on their assistance with disaster relief, especially after the wildfires.

And we really think it is important to maintain, again, that role of the National Guard coming here to help our community and if they were to be engaged by the federal government over the objections of our Governor, that would interfere with that relationship.

So, we really are trying to ensure that the people of our community serve our community, and we delineate the lines with the Federal Government clearly. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. We received 49 testimonies in support, four in opposition, one with comments. But that's all who said they would want to prevent—provide— oral testimonies. Is there anyone else wishing to provide testimony on Senate Bill 2054 in the room? On Zoom?

If not, questions, members? If not, we'll move on.

Sorry, Chair. Chair.

Rep Cochran?

I know ACLU, you, you were, you—you open for questions?

Youm you could also, you could also ask Ms. Gill, Liza Ryan Gill, who is on Zoom?

She might. I could, I, I, so, you can ask me. I can't promise an answer.

Okay. Oh, is, is that?

If you're interested in immigration law, it might be better to ask Ms. Gill. No offense.

No, not so much immigration.

Okay.

So, this is, because you're in support, and I'm just wondering if you have any take on the position of the National Guard themselves. Are you supporting that this isn't interfering in their actions, you know, to, what their clear responsibilities are?

So, so, this is what I could say. It is—so, our, our Policy Director, as I understand, sent an email earlier today. I'll just read what, what she's—I think she sent it to everyone, but just in case. So, it's, so, what she says is, "Newsom v. Trump doesn't speak to the question about the bill."

"Whether it's already an authority the governor has here, is a question of state law. SB 2054 is still very strong and doesn't require amendments. It pertains to National Guard in state of active duty or title 32 status, not federalized National Guard, as was the case in California."

If, if maybe I could suggest that.

Sorry. I can't.

Since Liza Ryan Gill had actually spoken in her testimony about the concern of the command structure and the potential conflict, perhaps you could address your question to Ms. Gill.

That sounds great, Chair. Thank you for that opportunity.

Sorry.

Not a problem. Thank you. Hi. Aloha. Yeah, I just, a little more elaboration, I suppose. I, because I'm hearing what the National Guard was saying, you know, and this is for outside forces coming in. Is that kinda what it's trying to address to, though? Is that your understanding at all? And, and.

Go ahead, Ms. Gill.

Yeah. Our understanding in, in other jurisdictions and other states where the federal administration has gone over the head of the of the local governor to send in National Guard forces against their, against their wishes. Now, we've seen that. We saw that in Los Angeles and California and, and in other instances. And I believe what the—I was just quickly perusing, and I've been in all of these hearings to, to, to hear directly from some of the National Guard commanders.

I think that it's obviously a very awkward situation. They haven't been put in this kind of role before where they have to be concerned about what the command structure is and, and who they should be listening to on this front. And, and so, I, I am sympathetic to that because all of this is very weird and a difficult time to navigate.

I, I do think it is important given that we are have experienced multiple disasters where we have FEMA, we have our own national guard, we have others coming in. We don't wanna be in a situation where we're very vulnerable, as a state, because of a disaster, and that vulnerability is used against us, wherein we are, we are bringing in—maybe we need to bring in some support from the continent, be it FEMA or other, another, federal agency.

And then, that agency then is used against us in ways that our Governor has not condoned. So, that—I don't know if that helps you answer your, your question. This is honestly a pretty tricky needle to thread. But I think given what we, the, the judgments that we have seen out of California, that we still have the right to be able to move forward and, and make sure that our Governor has this authority to decline the use of National Guard against his, against his desires.

And one follow-up, please, Chair. Thank you and thank you for those comments. So, there's a portion that says prohibits National Guard from assisting or cooperating with federal troops. Would this include just our own military people that are here in our, on our island? Because they're federal employees.

Right? They're federal proof troops, actually. Right?

If I may just clarify—if I may clarify up for all members that this measure is specifically related to the occasion when the Governor has objected to the deployment of the National Guard. But the president, in, as we've seen in another state, has overruled and sent and deployed National Guard into the state where the Governor has objected to it. So, that's what this bill deals with. Just so you know.

Alright. Okay.

Awkward situation, at best.

Yeah. Well, yeah. I have an answer, but yep. Thank you. Thank you for your time, and thank you,

Thank you, Ms. Gill.

Any other questions, members? Okay. Thank you to all the testifiers on this measure. Let's move on to the next measure.

Senate bill 2688 Senate draft one relating to compassionate release. This measure establishes a protocol for compassionate release for a certain ill or seriously debilitated incarcerated persons and it appropriates funds. First up, we have the crime victim compensation commission.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members. Pam Ferguson-Brey, the executive director of the Crime Victim Compensation Commission. Our commission has represented the interest and concerns of victims and survivors, in the penal number of penal code review committees, the Justice Reinvestment Initiative among other things. The criminal justice reform, we believe, must not only serve the interests of the offender, but must also include meaningful protection for the interests of crime victims. Our comments actually are are opposed to the bill.

I'll clarify that by sending additional updated testimony. We believe the bill does not meaningfully protect the rights of crime victims because no notice to victims is provided to them until after there's a release decision. The bill only provides notice after the offender has been released unlike, the other the draft that's in the Senate right now.

So victims have no opportunity to provide input regarding release decisions, And failure to provide this information to the polling authority actually deprives them of the ability to make a meaningful decision about whether or not the person represents the risks to the community safety of a particular victim. It deprives victims of their ability to create a safety plan in a timely manner, and it deprives the HPA of information needed to craft release conditions that would be necessary to safeguard the safety of the victim.

In addition, the working group does not have a representative from the crime victim community to represent the the interest of victims in creating the administrative rules. So those two things, we oppose the bill as a result of those. There's a lot of information from the National Council of State Legislators about, how to craft meaningful proposals that do protect crime victims and medical release.

Additionally, there's a compilation from the National Crime Victim Law Institute of every state, how they handle this, and how they make sure that victims receive notice, have an opportunity to be heard, and can be protected, with compassionate release decisions. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, miss Ferguson Bray. Next, Hawaii Paroling Authority.

Sir? Welcome, mister De Mello.

Hi. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, and members.

So the probabtion authority offers comments

Oh, I'm sorry. Gene De Mello junior. I'm the, paroling authority chairman.

Introduce yourself, would you?

The Paroling Authority offers comments and has a suggested amendment to section I. And that deals with the eligibility of the, person sentenced to mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment, which we would like to see them serve that full term. And it also addresses life with parole in the bill. Those would be the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Director Johnson, welcome.

Good afternoon chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'll summarize my testimony. We oppose this measure specifically section two for different reasons. The first reason is we do not believe that people who are serving life without the possibility of parole should be eligible for compassion release because their sentence hasn't been commuted by the governor and HPA hadn't had a chance to set a minimum sentence of hearing.

We also believe that people serving mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment shouldn't be eligible because the court requires them to serve a mandatory minimum term.

The third thing is we believe that another inmate should not be allowed to assist another incarcerated person with applying because we believe there's an opportunity for issues with fraud. And at the same time, that inmate would have to have written release from the person to know about the person's medical care and condition. So there are federal and state HIPAA concerns with that.

And then the fourth issue of concern we have, with the bill is that, it does not take into consideration the nature of the offenses that these people committed. So I provide with our testimony real quickly a graph indicating that of the 20 people serving life without the possibility of parole, they committed 101 crimes, which is 5.5 crimes apiece.

And all of those crimes were either rape, murder, kidnapping, and in a few cases, they have committed more than one murder and more than one rape. For those reasons, we oppose this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Carrie Ann Shirota. I'm offering comments. I absolutely support compassionate release for moral ethical reasons because it reflects our value. It's also a best practice and it will save us money.

I am asking this committee to incorporate amendments from the House Bill HD 2 into this measure. And I just want to address a few of the points that I've heard today. Number one, compassionate release, we're using that terminology, but in a number of other states and our own policies, procedures, we call it medical release.

And as Bob has pointed out in attorney, there's a state case law directly on claim. There's also a US Supreme Court decision in 1976, Estelle v. Gamble, which states that states that incarcerate people have a legal duty to provide a standard medical care. If they fail to do so, they violate the Eighth Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment.

So there are both federal and state case law supporting the state has a duty to provide the level of care. And if they fail to do so, the state can be liable, but also the doctors and staff can be held personally liable. And I know that the doctors and medical teams here are working as hard as they can. They're short staffed. We don't wanna put them in this situation.

Second, we wanna expand eligibility criteria for all persons because it reflects our values of compassion and aloha. Even individuals who have been listed and put in the spreadsheet of heinous crimes. For many of us, we both were from faith traditions. We believe in compassion and people have the opportunity to transform their lives.

But beyond that, there could be individuals in there that we're making judgment upon who have been wrongfully convicted. And there are people who have been wrongfully convicted and who have died without any compensation from the state. So I think we need to remember that.

The carve outs, the Attorney General spoke today providing comments. They did not provide nor did they say that there's any constitutional violation by allowing this measure to go through and allowing HPA the authority to release individuals with mandatory minimums or people sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

There has been no case law, no treaties, nothing to support. That's merely conjecture. This decision is also medical. It's not any one of us making these determinations. There are trained medical providers and staff who determine whether a person is meeting this eligibility criteria.

And then in turn the HPA paroling authority considers that and they have the discretion if they believe a person is not ill. If you were to go into Halawa infirmary or to hear or even see some of the people who may be at Pali Momi or the hospital, these people are gravely ill.

They are not a threat to anyone, and you need seeing is believing. I also want to add that there's significant cost savings. I've heard from victims rights groups, survivors. This bill has allowed for notification, which is a custom that's currently in place between Hawaii Paroling Authority and prosecutors, which Tommy Johnson stated directly.

So we support that. But I also wanna say by all of the cost savings in this bill, that money can be used for rehabilitation. That cost savings can be used to support victims, and so we need to start looking at what really creates safety for all of us. And something that's missing in all of this because we're focused on saying that certain people may not be eligible are the families.

There was a letter submitted by Sharla Manuel from Hawaii Island. I don't know if she was able to tap in. She talks about her brother who was dying at Halawa. He served thirty years. He was on his way out. He got COVID. Please read her testimony. There's people with glioblastoma, brain cancer, all of these conditions.

When you deny that person compassionate release, you're denying their ohana the ability to have time together and closure and that is devastating for family members, so please think about them. And last I just want to add, I looked at research in other states.

In all 49 United States listening to hearings, others looked at reading testimony more. Of all the states where this information was available, nearly every Department of Corrections was either neutral or in strong support of compassionate release legislation. And so I humbly ask that we embrace best practices and that we pass this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2688? Mr. Frost.

Apologies. I thought I submitted testimony. I can send it to everyone this afternoon. The ACLU stands in support of this. I, you know, all the other supporters basically said it all. I just wanted to highlight that Hawaii is the only state that has no statute that speaks to compassionate release. And also, we support the amendments requested by OHA and the Oversight Commission. So we hope you make those amendments and move the bill.

Alright. Thank you. If you would submit your testimony. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Yes.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Mrs. Susan Mahiai, and I'm gonna share on behalf of the compassionate law. So supposedly, my daughter is the little girl that got shot in her head. Her name is Richianna DeGuzman, and this was almost three years ago. Right?

We haven't had any support. They had a suspect, but no more enough evidence to prosecute. But see ladies and gentlemen, it's okay. Me and my family had the compassion to forgive this person even if he's not in jail today. Yeah?

You know, on this island, we have a lot of evil fighting evil. Today, I choose to fight evil with love and compassion and forgiveness. You know, this guy is still out there, but it's okay because I don't wish him going jail. I wish him doing the best thing, which is staying out of trouble and stop hurting people. There's a lot of guys in prison today.

Yeah? And they've been in there for many, many of years. A lot of these prison prisoners are sick, yeah, sick with internal diseases, from HIV to cancer, to just being old. We gotta have the compassion, family, to let these guys out and stop using our taxpayers' money to fund and take care of these people.

There's families out there that's willing, that has the willingness to wanna take care of these guys. We gotta have this compassion law passed, family. It's okay to forgive today. Yeah? This place I think would be a much nicer place to live in if we had love and compassion. My daughter today is still out there struggling, but it's okay.

I choose to embrace the pain and the struggle. It's okay because she's alive today. I have compassion for this person or persons that this to my daughter. I came out of my way to come here to support this bill. We gotta stop locking these guys up like they animals because really, really they're not. They just need love and they need the compassion to know that we care about them.

Yes. They have did something really bad. Nobody's saying that they didn't. But as years went by, as they continue to get old in there, come on, family. We know they're thinking. You know they did wrong. They know they did wrong. They not gonna come outside be reckless again. They need that second chance to know that we care.

We can. We have enough faith in them that they're gonna change and they're gonna be one. They're gonna be something good in this community. Let's stop being, yeah, that problem. Let's get into the solution today and start forgiving and start being compassionate. From what I heard on this item, this is the only island that does not have the compassionate law.

Why? Why? Why we cannot be forgiving and loving? We just had one flood, guys. We had plenty people in danger of losing their lives. Let's start being more compassionate and start loving each other. Stop the fighting. Stop the locking up and putting these prisoners like they're animals in there because they're not. They're not.

They need people like us that care, that has the willingness to give them a chance to change. And I'm sure they're gonna be one of those good citizens out there, helping those that's in need of help. We gotta continue to be the light in these people's darkness, and that's what I am today.

I'm this light that's in the darkness, you know. My daughter is coming along, and that's because I choose to forgive. I choose to have compassion. I know I don't wish no harm on this person. No harm. No victim advocate. Nobody is helping us. Nobody.

And it's okay. Because today in my life, I get God. Yeah? And I know there's a lot of people out there that have compassionate and love for us. Even if it's just a hello, even it's just a hug, that's good enough for me. You cannot put a dollar sign, family, on compassion. There's no way. You cannot. You know?

And I'm gonna stand with this law, and I'm gonna fight for this law because I feel we need to have more love, more forgiveness, and more compassion on this island because that's who we are. We are aloha. We're the Aloha State. Let's start standing up for the Aloha State. With that said, I love each and every one of you folks, and I'm all for this law. Thank you.

Oh, sister, if you could give your name to Kamana over there just so we can keep track of who testified. Appreciate you coming in to give your testimony.

Thank you for having me.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Brother, you coming up? Okay. Please introduce yourself.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Afternoon.

My name is Matthew Taufetee. I'm the executive director and founder of an organization called The First LAP. LAP is an acronym for Life After Prison. So I've been housing and mentoring men coming out of prison for 24 years now. You know, we no government funding.

You know, so we talk about this thing called compassion. I support this bill. Yeah. Because I understand today, you know, with Governor Josh Green declaring our state as a trauma informed state. Now that's been my passion for years of understanding trauma.

Yeah. So for a lot of guys, you know, they come out, they commit the crimes to the trauma that they experienced at home. You know, so being able to understand that, that allowed me to have more compassion for a lot of these men and better serve them.

You know, 37 year plus years, I took a person's life. And since coming out of prison, I was able to turn my life around. I found Jesus in my life. Ever since then, you know, God just used me in mighty ways to go back into our communities, you know, to help them to understand what forgiveness can do.

In 2016, I was I became part of the HCR, the task force, you know, appointed by Governor Ige. You know, so got to understand. They visited our organization and they were amazed to see how I managed it all these years with no government funding.

You know, that way we could use the funds to support other organizations that might need the money. You know, so having this compassion for these people. So anyway, I committed a crime. I got out, turned my life around, and working with gang members, trying to prevent them from going to the gang.

I was invited to go and speak at Annex 1 to all the gang of affiliate members. Not knowing, the pastor not even knowing my story, I shared my story, and sitting in the front row was the man who took my brother's life. So he was in tears, came out, hugged me. You know, ever since then, I became one of his mentors.

He became my speaker at Waiawa Corrections, you know, in 2024 and finally got released, you know, to a treatment program on the outside. I was just with him last night in the AA meeting. So we talked about having compassion for one another. It's through the power of forgiveness. So I hope we can support this bill to help a lot of our guys spend the last days with their family. So with that, thank you.

Thank you very much, sir. And if you could provide your name to Kamana, that'd be great. Thank you. Is anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, Members? Rep Shimizu, do you have a question? Please proceed.

Director Johnson, please. Director, thank you for being here. Thank you for what you do. You have a very tough job. I have a lot of respect for you. You know, I support this bill. I don't understand based on testimony that we heard from the Oversight Commission, Kat Brady, Office of the Public Defender. All the positive things of what this bill accomplishes and addresses all of that I'm hearing about.

Where there are prisoners, inmates, excuse me, that are dying and they're beyond care. I would think that you in your position that is short of staff, that is not able to take care of these people, that is short of funding, that saves so much money. Not that money is more important than the person. I'm just wondering why you wouldn't be behind this.

Okay. We're not against, the Department of Corrections Rehabilitation is not against compassionate release. If you recall, we believe that two categories of offenders are listed in the bill should not be considered. And those are people serving life without the possibility of parole and those that are serving any unexpired portion of a court order mandatory minimum term.

Everyone else who qualifies, we support that. We just don't believe those two categories of offenders should be considered. One thing that's not mentioned is that whenever we send someone out for specialized care and they're out of the facility overnight, we're reimbursed by the federal government. So the issue of the $2 million and $900,000 is bogus. We're reimbursed by the federal government for those funds that are expended.

Now we have to initially expend the funds, but those funds are reimbursed back to us. Again, we're not against compassionate release. When I was the administrator for HPA, I set up those expedited processes for compassionate release with the prosecutors and working with Department of Public Safety at the time. It's just those two categories of offenders. That's all. Just those two.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Director Johnson. Thank you, Rep Shimizu. Yes, Rep Cochran.

For Mr. Johnson. Hi. Thanks. And I heard you, and I too support it. And so the two categories even though, I mean, they're, you know, terminal illnesses, they're just cognitively not there anymore. They're whatever, you know, bedridden. I mean, they're not gonna come out and, you know, create crime again.

I mean, it's just clearly, they're just not. You know? I mean, I'm just thinking back at my mom at the, at her... So, I mean, there's already, you know, that. I mean, are you still really adamant that even as heinous as a crime is that a person had committed, even if they're in that condition, that physical, mental condition, you still are really, really like, no. No way.

That is the position of the department. But I think if you ask the Hawaii Paroling Authority, they'll give you examples of people who release on compassionate release who simply would not follow the terms and conditions of parole and who told the Hawaii Paroling Authority they have nothing to lose. So...

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Can I get...

Can I get a follow-up question, Chair?

Representative Shimizu, and then Rep Cochran.

Director. The last statement that there were instances where a person was released on compassionate release and they didn't do what they were supposed to. I heard from an earlier testimony today from the Office of Public Defender that if the person is released and they don't follow what is required, that they would be recommitted. So isn't that a safeguard of an address to what you're saying?

It is. But if the Department of Public Safety doesn't have the capacity to take care of them, then they'll apply for compassionate release again. And in order to get the care they need, they would probably be released again into the community. So what happens then? They still don't care.

They still don't follow the terms of parole. I'm not saying everybody gets on compassionate release does that. But we have had instances with that and they were not terminated. They did have, they did have issues, serious health issues. So I'm not trying to paint every offender with a broad brush.

I'm just saying that the the HPA... I mean, excuse me. The DCR believes those two category offenders should not be considered. That's all. The legislature can pass whatever legislation you deem fit. We will follow the law. I wanna make that clear.

So you think you, think that those exceptional cases of that didn't work out outweighs all of the positive that can benefit the people that really need it?

No, I'm just saying you should consider that. That's all.

Rep Cochran, final question?

For HPA. So I heard concerns about on the victim's aspect. Right? And that there's no notification and all that. I understand this does have you folks hold the administrative hearing. Is this public? Does this, where the victims are notified that such, you know, a hearing is is occurring?

So there is a 48 hour notice. It's an abbreviated notice. They normally get sixty days of our minimum hearing hearings in regular cases. But because of the expedited nature of these proceedings, we send out a 48 hour notice.

And this is to victims and prosecutor attorney's offices and anyone who's involved with this particular case. Indictment, whatever, conviction. So they are notified. I mean, because I heard people saying there isn't.

They are notified.

And is this a public type hearing?

It is not.

Okay. Closed sort of court sort of thing. Okay. And also this, Ms. Brady mentioned, there's very few, that would maybe fall into this category of compassionate release. Do you have, like, a number at this time?

So let me provide that now. So in the last three years, there were 13 compassionate release applications that made its way from DCR to HPA. All 13 were granted compassionate release. All 13 in the last three years. Eight of, eight of these inmates were released.

Four were granted release, but are pending getting out the door for lack of placement, proper care, and so forth. One inmate had passed away after being granted release while getting that care placement in the community secured.

Let me also say that this notion about people being medically released or all compassionate release not having the capability to do further harm to either victims and or the general community, needs to consider. We have a case who's a paraplegic, bedridden, out on the West Side, is now facing four new felony charges.

A friend of his had brought him a firearm and he decided to shoot up his mother's garage where his he was living because he had an argument with his mother. We have other cases that have posed problems to our community and to our parole officers. They're basically saying, my life is over. I'm gonna do what I wanna do. I'm gonna smoke. I'm gonna drink. I'm gonna take care of myself and not worry about you.

And that's a problem. So when you talk about having to manage them in the community, they are still getting back into their addiction and criminal activity. The problem with revoking these individuals is exactly what Director Johnson brought up.

If this bill passes the way it is, then we, as the board, will need to consider their medical and or mental health condition and or incapacitation in relation to the nature of the violations and where that proper care could be provided. So you're talking about a very complex issue that will require a lot of thinking about.

Chair, just one follow-up, please, real quick. And so I heard testimony about, I think, Public Defender and others said that HB had some really helpful verbiage in there. Are you familiar, and would you be amenable to that? Would it make it a lot more palatable if those types of amendments were inserted into this particular bill?

I would really have to go back and review that.

Alright. That's fine. And then the... I'm sorry. The gentleman here that was in and came out of LAP, I think, was the his organization that helps with... No. But, sir, I was gonna ask you. The ones that you said medical release, they're pending. You have a bunch that are pending because there's nowhere for them to go. Perhaps have you reached out to an entity like his that can help, you know...

It depends on what the needs of the inmate is. Yeah. Yeah. If they need extensive medical care and in a facility or like a care home, then Matt's place may not be appropriate.

Okay. Got it. Okay. Well, thank you for your time.

Thank you, Rep Cochran. Any other questions? If not...

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much to all the testifiers on this measure. I appreciate you taking your time to come in and testify on this. We're gonna move on to the next measure. Okay. Next measure, Senate bill 2575 Senate draft two relating to firearms.

This measure establishes mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for certain class a felonies involving firearms.

Changes from a class b felony to a class a felony, the penalty for owning, possessing, or controlling any firearm or ammunition while being prosecuted for or having been convicted of, committing a felony, a crime of violence, criminal offense related to firearms, or an illegal sale, or distribution of any drugs, changes from a misdemeanor, changes from a misdemeanor to a class A felony, the penalty for ownership, possession, control, or transfer of ownership of any firearms or ammunition by a person who a court order has restrained from contacting, threatening, or physically abusing any person.

Also changes from a misdemeanor to a class a felony, the penalty for carrying a firearm while under the influence of a controlled substance. And finally establishes unlawful possession of methamphetamine while carrying a firearm as a class A felony. First up, we have the office of the public defender.

Good afternoon.

The office of the public defender respectfully has submitted opposition to this measure. And before I start my testimony, we wanna first acknowledge that the committee is going to understandably hear a lot of support for this measure. And I wanna frame the degree of our opposition. We absolutely understand the reaction and the response to wanna address the tragedy that occurred, in the namesake of this bill. And we believe that perhaps there are measures that need to be taken to address some of the concerns.

Where our opposition lies is respectfully within the four corners of this measure, and that those are some of the things that I'd like to highlight right now. First and foremost, I just want to put into context what a class A felony is. A class A felony is reserved for the most egregious offenses in our legal system, our criminal legal system. And what we are talking about here is not the acts that are sometimes associated with firearms.

We are talking about basically possession or control, and in some cases, the use of them.

But really what this measure is doing is seeking to enhance penalties for having a firearm. A class a felony under our current structure is reserved for murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, continuous sexual assault of a minor, sexual assault in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, with a weapon, to name a few. So I just wanna highlight for this that for this committee. Also the language in this measure that says no possibility of parole.

A class A felony under our current sentencing structure requires an open twenty year term of incarceration.

What this measure would do would make that open nature of any prison term irrelevant as somebody would have to serve all twenty years. It takes away any discretion from the polling authority to decide whether that person has been reasonably and meaningfully rehabilitated. And so that is our opposition as well. And I know I'm coming up in my time, but I just wanted to highlight for everyone's benefit the current sentencing options that we already have in our existing system.

Right now, there are mandatory minimum sentences if you are sentenced with the use of a firearm, and that is highlighted in our testimony and found in a clarifies statute seven zero six six sixty point one.

You already have, measures in place to deal with the severity of possessions of guns for those who should not lawfully have them. We also have extended terms of imprisonment, which can extend class A felonies or our existing opening terms to double. So a ten year term can be extended to a twenty in certain circumstances, but that gives the courts the discretion to examine and look at the offender and all of the circumstances surrounding it.

I'd also just like to highlight that the court can impose consecutive sentencing if there's multiple charges. So there are a lot of existing options.

What we wanna do is just make sure that everyone is aware of that and that we note that our opposition again is not to the crime that was committed here. We understand that, and that individual has been charged with the most serious offense in our penal code, which is murder in the first degree, which carries life without the possibility of parole and appropriately so. Our opposition is just to this language of possession of guns and all of these enhancements that this measure is seeking to create.

I'll be available for questions. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next, the Department of Law Enforcement.

Good afternoon.

I'm Jared Redulla. I'm the deputy director for law enforcement. Our department is in support of this measure. One of the most important functions of the criminal law is to deter criminal activity. Keeping that in mind, when a person is a convicted felon or when they're restricted by a restraining order and they decide to get involved with guns, that is a huge calculus.

So significant that it should carry with it the most significant of consequences. Last October in addition to that, last October, I received a call no police chief wants to hear. That one of my officers had been shot during a drug raid by a person who was already a prohibited person, not supposed to have guns, and got involved with drugs. For the safety of our community and to deter future criminal activity like this, it should have significant criminal consequences. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Next, chief Vanic.

Hello, chair, vice chair, council member, committee members. I'm chief Vanic interim chief Vanic with Honolulu Police Department. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. We're gonna stand on the testimony that we submitted, but I just wanna point out, like the Department of Law Enforcement and I'm sure you're going to hear the other chiefs also talk about it. Anytime individuals are out there and there's a combination of firearms and drugs, which our officers routinely come into contact with, that's a dangerous combination.

Not only is that a danger for our officers, that's a danger for our public. So what this bill does is that really helps to keep not only the public safe, but our officers safe. So that's why we're supporting this bill. So I I strongly urge you to support this bill as well. Thank you, and I'm here for questions if you have any.

Thank you very much for being here, chief Vanic. Next, chief Mahuna.

Good afternoon, chair Tarnas, vice chair Poepoe, and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Reed Mahuna. I have the honor of serving as the chief of police of the Hawaii Police Department. I'm here to speak in strong support of Senate Bill 2575 SD2, also known as the officer Suzanne O crime bill. I did intend to appear via Zoom, and I have submitted written testimony.

But out of respect for officer O and for all those who have been lost to gun violence, I felt it was important to come here in person and share a story that I have not spoken about publicly before. On the night of 07/18/2018, I was a lieutenant working in Puna. I wasn't assigned to the district at the time, I was there on a special detail helping oversee the response to the ongoing lava flow.

It was late, about 09:30 at night, and I was at the Pahoa Station when I heard a call come over the radio. At first, it was just fragments, a report of shots fired, confusion, raised voices.

The call wasn't clear, and I was far from the scene. But I got in my car, and I started driving as fast as I could. As the radio continued, I heard something that has stayed with me to this day. The tone of an officer's voice. There was desperation in it.

He was asking where the medic was. He was asking for help. I remember taking the radio and telling him to put the officer in the car and start driving. And I remember hearing his answer that he couldn't do it. At some point, I noticed a sharp pain in my leg and for a moment I was confused and then I realized it was because I was pressing so hard on the gas pedal.

I was trying to get there just a little bit faster. I remember seeing the ambulance racing toward the scene faster than I have ever seen an ambulance drive. Lights and siren cutting through what would end up being a horrible night. When I arrived, the scene was not yet safe. The suspect was not in custody.

There was still that uncertainty, that danger that every officer understands but can never fully describe. Then I saw officer Bronson Kaliloa lying on the roadway, medics working on him, doing everything they could. At that moment, my first thought was, oh my god. His kids, his wife. I could see his injuries, and I knew they were catastrophic.

Bronson was a hero to the very end. He fought for his life. He fought for his wife. He fought for his children, and he fought for this community, but in the end, he did not make it. That night changed me forever.

I am not the same person I was before 07/18/2018. I have not spoken about this publicly in until now in part because there are many people who are closer to Bronson than I was, his family, his closest fellow officers, and I've always felt that their pain was far greater than mine. But the truth is we all carry the loss. Some of us in big visible ways and some of us in quiet ways that never leave us.

When I think about officer Suzanne O, I think about Bronson.

I think about their families. I think about how many times in Hawaii and across the country someone who should have never had a gun in the first place ends up with one, and someone doesn't go home. This bill would not have saved officer Kaliloa, and it may not have even saved officer O. No single law could promise that. But Senate Bill 2575 targets some of the most dangerous situations we see.

People who are already prohibited from having firearms, people who ignore court orders, people who mix guns with serious drugs, and people who choose to carry firearms while under the influence. It says that when you are in one of these high risk categories and you still choose to arm yourself, there will be serious and certain consequences. I am convinced that this bill will save lives. Not every life, not every tragedy, but some.

And those lives will be saved in the honor of officer Suzanne O, in honor of officer Bronson Kaliloa, and in honor of every person in Hawaii who has been taken by gun violence at the hands of someone who should have never had a gun.

So today, I ask that we move forward a bill that is as strong as we can make it. Let us stand together in law enforcement, in the legislature, and in our communities and fight for a safer Hawaii. Mahalo for this opportunity to testify, and I will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, chief Mahona. Chief Pelletier?

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify in strong support of SB 2575. Today, we are not just discussing a bill, we are honoring a life. Officer Suzanne Oh served her community with courage, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to protect others. She put on a uniform knowing the risks, and she paid the ultimate price.

The bill ensures that her sacrifice and the sacrifice of all others are never met with anything less than the full weight of accountability. SB 2575 establishes a clear, firm consequence, a mandatory twenty year sentence for those who are already prohibited. Remember this, they were already convicted. A judge already had them in front. They already went through a system, and then they chose knowing full well that they shouldn't pick up a gun or they're under the influence of controlled substance or they're served with a protective order.

These are people that should not have firearms. This bill is not about punishment alone. It is about deterrence, justice, and a reaffirmation of our collective values. Prohibited persons with firearms are not just attacking individuals. They are attacking the rule of law, the public safety, and the very fabric of our communities.

This bill is supported by all four county agencies, by DLE, by SHOPO. I do not know of a time ever, me personally, that you have had that amount of unified support in front of you asking, begging, pleading for something to make our community safer. While no law can erase the loss of Suzanne, we have a responsibility to act, to send a clear message that firearm related criminal violence, again, firearm related criminal violence will be met with decisive consequences.

Our officers stand on the front lines every day in Hawaii, often facing unpredictable dangerous situations. They do so to ensure that our families are safe, our neighborhoods are secure, and that our very way of life is preserved.

They, she, deserves to know that their state stands behind them. This bill will make Hawaii safer, and I respectfully urge this committee to support the measure. God bless you. Mahalo. Thanks, chief Pelletier.

We have a number of other testifiers from the police department, but out of respect, I'd like to ask, officer O's brother to come up and testify. Shen?

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of committee. Aloha and Tawilfa. My name is Shen O. I am the brother of officer Suzanne O for APD. Today, I stand before you guys to witness, but not just a brother, but a brother whose life was forever changed by the loss of my sister.

Officer Suzanne O. I strongly support this, Senate Bill 2575. The night we lost her, our world stopped. Not just mine. I'm pretty sure every single community.

There is no way that I can fully describe the happiness left behind someone so full of life is taken. And then there's the birthdays, holidays, simples, simple phone calls, and all that feel different now. There's no permanent silence. Her voice used to be. But Suzanne's story cannot end with tragedy.

This bill in her honor is about more than a policy just like chief Pelletier was saying. It's about accountability, protection, and preventing other families from experiencing this kind of loss. It's about standing up for the men and women who put their lives on the line every single day and ensuring that their sacrifices are not met with preventable harm or injustice. This bill can save one life. Can protect one, even one officer.

If it can give one family, one one family more time with their loved one, then Suzanne's legacy continues in a powerful way. She believed in what she was doing. She was right even when it was hard. And today, I ask that we do the same, not just for Suzanne, but for every ohana and every life that depends on these choices we made in this room. Thank you.

Mahalo for your time.

Thank you, mister O. Appreciate you being here. Rudy Tai, Kauai Police Department on Zoom. Please proceed.

Hello, honorable chair Taunas, vice chair Poepoe, and members of the committee. My name is Rudy Tai. I'm the chief chief of Kauai. On behalf of the Kauai Police Department, we strongly support SB 2575. The intent of this bill imposes stricter penalties on individuals who unlawfully possess or use firearms, particularly those already prohibited due to criminal activity or court orders.

By prioritizing community safety and accountability, this measure makes clear that individuals who are already engaged in unlawful conduct or subject to court order restrictions must not be permitted to possess or carry firearms in the state of Hawaii, and it reinforces penalties for serious firearms offenses. SB 2575 also reflects our collective responsibility to support those who we serve and protect our communities daily while honoring Maui Police Department's fallen officer O.

It stands as a reminder of the sacrifices made by law enforcement officers across Hawaii and acknowledges the lasting impact on the families they leave behind. While no measure can change past outcomes, we can and should act to reduce the likely future of loss. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, chief Tai. Next, Arnold Seguccio, Honolulu Police Department.

Good afternoon, chief chair Tarnas and vice chair of Poepoe and moving numbers. We're the Arnold Sagucio, acting major of records and identification division of Honolulu Police Department. We're in strong support of the bill, and we rest on our testimony that we provided. Okay. If you have any questions

Thank you very much. Austin Martin on Zoom. Not present. Melissa Pabasak.

Good Good afternoon, chair Tarnas, vice chair, and members of the committee. My name is Don Faumuina, and I'm the president of the state of Hawaii organization of police officer, greater known as SHOPO. I'm in strong support of this current bill. I I had this whole presentation to to share with you, but I think my colleagues, the chiefs from all the four counties as well as Suzanne's brother, pretty much said everything. And I'll be very honest with you.

I don't know Suzanne. But let me tell you what I do. We share a lot of similarities. Suzanne and I come from the same hometown right in Kalihi. We graduated from the best high school in Hawaii, Farrington, go Govs, along with captain Segushio behind me.

We're both immigrants from Samoa, and our sole purpose is just to make our people proud and serve the community that we love. But more importantly, the one thing that Susanna and I share is that the love we have for law enforcement and the communities that we share. I just wanna say in closing that officer Susanna will be the ultimate sacrifice in the protection of others, and her loss is a solemn reminder of the risk our officers face every day.

Naming this measure in her memory reflects the legislature's commitment to officer safety. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next, Michael Rice on Zoom. Not present. Next, Dennis Dunn on Zoom. Not present.

Next, Stacy Moniz on Zoom. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate bill 2575? Line up, introduce yourself.

Good afternoon, chair, members of the committee. My name is Cameron Hurt, and I am here to testify on this bill as an individual. I feel like we've heard a lot of great testimony from the police force.

When I give one from the citizenry. I had a sister who was stabbed 25 times in her bathroom while her daughter hid under the bed, who was four at the time. My sister passed. I'll never forget the first hearing that

we had for her case where they said that there was a potential that her killer could get 13 years. This was not in this state. Her killer could get thirteen years. So to be prepared for that is the worst case scenario. I'm a man of God.

I'm a man of love, and I have a lot of compassion and grace to give. But to ask me to have to deal with a killer of my sister thirteen years after her horrific murder when her daughter wouldn't even be 18, did not seem fair. Luckily, we ended up getting 27 years. If you ask me, that's never gonna be enough because I'm never gonna get my sister back. My niece is never gonna get her mom back.

Protect officers. Yes. A deterrent. Or protect the families. When these when people are able to be released, it's not that people don't wanna see them do well if they can be rehabilitated.

But it's the thing of it's a certain type of trauma when victims' families have to know that their murderers of their family members are in the general public. And it really asks yourself and it begs the question, can you exist in a city, in a state, in a community where they are and you feel safe? So, I just wanted to add that and say that I strongly support of the bill as an entity.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hurt. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members?

Thank you, chief Pelletier from Maui.

Aloha.

Aloha, chief.

Thanks for coming all this way from

Maui to Kauai and appreciate your time and putting this together on behalf of yeah. So, I guess my biggest question is, will this make a difference?

Thank you.

Mahalo, representative. I I with my heart, I really do believe it. And I would just like to say, when we put this together, we took what happened to Suzanne and we looked at that case without getting into all the specifics because there's a there's a trial and I am the head of the agency. We took that and we said, what did this individual do and how can we prevent this from happening to anyone? And again, you want a deterrence for accountability.

And the individuals that we're talking about, they're already convicted ex felons. They already had their day in court. They already did, and they already know they can't have a gun, but they ignore it because it's too lenient. They don't care. They don't listen.

So we wanted to create something that says that's not okay here. And, you know, it's it and this is why I think it works too. There's testimony earlier about we don't want the Federal Government to come in. We don't want DHS, HSI. We don't want the FBI.

Fifteen years if it's a federal case. So if there's a if there's an ex felon with a gun, we go we as law enforcement, we go to the feds and we say, hey. I'm only gonna get a couple years here in the state with this charge, but you can give me fifteen years. Can you adopt it and go federally? So you force us to go federally.

Why not make it where every single ex felon in the other 49 states do not want to come here because if they do and they commit a crime with a gun, they're gonna go to prison for twenty years. That's not that's you know, I appreciate Cameron's I appreciate mister Hurt's testimony. I thought that was extremely compassionate because he talked about his I didn't know he was gonna say that, but but he was real and he was raw and.

You you talk about Shen so I do think it'll make a difference because I believe it'll cause people to second guess whether they pick up that gun. If they know that there's a gun in that situation, they get out of that situation.

If the you're served with the TRO, and I and I will share this, where that murder of our officer took place is a short distance a short distance from the shelter that the family was hiding that was just that just served that individual a couple days prior. My personal opinion only is I believe he was going to hunt to kill them.

But if you have you have a a charge now that all of a sudden makes this a lot more serious, are you gonna pick up the gun? And you so you think about this. It's only affecting people that already shouldn't have guns.

Thank you. Yes.

Thank you. And, chief, thank you. Yeah. And just one, follow-up, chief. Thank you again for the explanation.

I mean, I know there's never a perfect bill.

Okay.

But, if there was something you wanted to, add to make it towards maybe a perfect, bill. Is there something you need to hear?

It's a very fair question. I I would say this. If we're gonna sit here and have an honest debate of what amendment or what would I do to to make it where it is the fairest bill, maybe compassion, I would add in the narcotics part or the controlled substance part. I would put unless prescribed. Like, I'll just use, like, maybe there's an adult with ADHD.

Maybe they're on Adderall. Okay. Maybe it so it shouldn't be. So if there is a a lawful prescription, I I have no problem us having the ability to to consider that and then this not applying it in that in that sense because we all know you're not gonna get a prescription for methamphetamine. You're not gonna get a prescription for cocaine.

But there are other things that maybe you do have a a medical need for, and and I can understand that. I wouldn't come off the the the the federal system is 15. The the the the judge already got a bite at the apple, and it didn't work. And so that's why I would say I would I would really encourage us to keep that or be reasonable with with the length on that, but I I wouldn't I wouldn't, be opposed if you made the with the prescription.

K.

Okay. And just to for clarification on that comment, chief, so you're saying something like unless prescribed by unless prescribed a controlled substance or

So, like, in because it's schedules one through three. Right? So certain certain threes, people people in this room might be under certain threes, right, even now. But if you have a prescription, then then you have a legal reason to have that. I I don't think that should preclude you or cause this the Suzanne O law to then kick in.

I think that there should be a reasonable accommodation because you have a prescription.

Okay. Well, thank you again, and thank you for your time on coming here.

Thank you very much. Other questions? If not if not, I wanna say thank you to all the testifiers. This is a very difficult tragedy that motivated the Maui Police Department and legislators to propose this measure, and I wanna acknowledge that. It was a it was a severe tragedy, and I appreciate you, sir, the brother of the fallen officer to be here today.

That's very difficult.

Sure.

So I appreciate you being here. And thank you to all the other testifiers as well. So I'd like to move on to the next measure. You asked your questions. Did you have another question?

I had a clarifying question, I think, to address prosecute public defender's office.

Did you have a question?

And it was,

yes, I do.

No. It's actually a question maybe for the authors or maybe,

I don't know, chief Pelletier or

The authors of the public Defender's office.

The people who worked on this, such as

Choose the person you wanna ask the question of.

Chief Pelletier, I suppose, since I'm more familiar with yourself being from Maui and all. There is a a point made that possession, the word possession, possession is not defined. So because it was said that constructive possession, meaning not an actual possession, can be is in this.

So the beauty of that is that then is that's where the court comes in and the the prosecution would then argue what the constructive possession is. The the defense would then argue that they weren't in possession. And so, the beauty of it is that's open to interpretation for the court, and it would be decided there. We all know what possession means, and the other side's gonna say, these aren't my pants, but you're wearing the pants.

And so the beauty of of that and I'm and I'm being honest because we've we've all had bad guys, and we've said, you know, the cocaine's in your pants.

These aren't my pants. I'm not making that up. And so that therein lies part of it is let's allow the court system to then let that play out.

Okay. Alright. Well, thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for that explanation. That's it. Thank you, sir. Chair.

And I just wanna say again, as we wrap up testimony on this measure, thank you.

To all the testifiers, I know you've had very strong feelings about this. And I appreciate you taking the time to come in here, answer questions, provide your testimony. So I appreciate it. Okay? We're now gonna move on to bills that are on voter registration and procurement and insurance.

So there's a lot of other things we do. We'll make decisions at the end of the hearing. So if you need to leave, please do. If you wanna stay, you're welcome to stay. Okay.

Thank you. We'll move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 2239 Senate Draft One relating to voter registration. This measure requires a person who applies for an identification card or driver's license to be automatically registered to vote unless the person affirmatively declines. Measure requires the name and address of a person who applies for an identification card or driver's license and is registered to

vote to be vote to be automatically updated on the person's voter registration record unless the person affirmatively declines. In this measure, first up, we have the state of Hawaii office of elections. Our director, of Scott Nago.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to to provide testimony on this measure. We support the intent of this bill, and we appreciate the committee's efforts to expand access to voting and strengthen citizen engagement cover. We would like to note that the National Federal Federal National Voter Registration Act requires that an applicant attest to the following statements. They're a citizen, they are 18 years of age, and they're a resident of the state of Hawaii.

So we would just like to note that it's not included in this bill, but we believe the National Pro Registration Act required.

Understood. Thank you. Thank you very much. Attorney General?

Deputy Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Chariman Lee, Charles Lee, Deputy Attorney General. Kind of mirroring what was just said, the we just wanna note that the state and federal law require specific attestation. And so, if the committee could consider adding that in, I'll put the the information better. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next, Sandy Hardo Livingston on Zoom. Not present. Next, Jamie Detwiler on Zoom. Please proceed, miss Detwiler.

Thank you. Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Members of the Committee. Jamie Detwiler, Hawaiian Islands Republican Women. Thank you for this opportunity to testify in opposition to SB2239 SD1. Automatic voter registration lacks a paper trail.

Therefore, it raises concerns regarding, the auditability of of this database. Right? And currently, individuals have to, opt in. What this measure is saying is that it's reinforcing automatic opt in. So it's changing the current practice, stipulating that applicants shall be registered to vote by default unless they explicitly choose to opt out.

There are other issues of concern including addresses. So you may have an individual that comes in for services to any of our state agencies, you know, whether it's motor vehicle registration or, DLIR for, you know, employment benefits. Where are we tracking any any possibilities of duplication of applications? Sometimes people move. Are we keeping these individuals on the voter rolls?

Sometimes they, leave out a middle name or, you know, add in a middle name, you know, or is the system gonna be set up to identify the duplicity, in this database? Also, some of the concerns include a strain on resources and administrative capabilities on state agencies, county clerks, and the office of elections. There's also the element of startup costs, which, I don't believe this measure addresses any startup costs to develop this database. And the issue of privacy and security, we're transmitting sensitive information across, agencies.

How is this gonna be protected?

And and one of the greatest concerns for us is that we should be cleaning the voter rolls before we start adding any new voters to the voter roll. We also have concerns about the self attestation. You know? So we have a solution for all of this. The solution is I know at the federal level, it's currently a very hot topic.

It's the Save America Act. But should that be implemented, that would address many of the concerns that I've stated here today. It will simplify the matter. It will make sure that we have people who are eligible to vote registering to vote. So, you know, I don't know how the state agencies are gonna add this to to the work that our frontline workers, you know, such as, you know, SNAP, Medicaid, DLIR, DMV.

They're already taxed with their primary duties. So there are many concerns, but we have that solution. And hopefully, it gets resolved at the national level to implement the Save America Act. So please vote no on SB2239. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you, miss Detweiler. Next, Cameron Hurt, Common Cause.

Thank you, Chair Tarnas, Members of the Committee. My name is Cameron Hurt, Common Cause of Hawaii. So we're standing in strong support of this bill. You guys have heard me talk about the cost benefits before, how this is actually a net save for us. What I do wanna address though today, speaking about this, or more so the misconceptions.

As I understand it, this bill and and its, new draft and its newest version would only include the DMV. If it's only including the DMV, then we're talking about the agency that goes through issuing out real IDs. So we know that in order to get a real ID, you must present proof of citizenship. We know that if you cannot, you get in our state what's called a conditional ID, which would show that for some reason you could not get a real ID.

So to this notion that somehow we're going to get so many people who can just register unabashedly, it's just it's not backed up in fact.

And then when we talk about voter fraud in general when it comes to this bill, which has nothing really to do voter fraud. But if we want to talk about voter fraud, which is fine, then we must address the fact that it is a 0.003% problem across administrations, across parties. That's agreed upon. Now, no, it's not gonna be perfect. Nothing is perfect, but Jesus Christ, my grandmother used to tell me.

In that case then, a 0.003 average is dang good, especially in government. So there is nothing that we're not doing already. The issues around this bill really have to do with federal statutes more than what we can do here as a in a state. This is already happening in seven states, mind you. And we're not talking about the most liberal states in our union.

We're not talking about California and New York. We're talking about our Alaskas. We're talking about our Nevadas. We are talking about our Colorados. Those are the people who are enacting this.

We're talking about DC. We are also talking about a a bill, a practice that has withstood two Trump administrations with no court challenges, mind you. So I am here for safe and secure elections. Tell me where to show up and I'll fight with you for it. But when it comes to this bill, you're literally going to the people who give you the real ID.

So I just wanted to, address those concerns primarily. Thank you, guys.

Thank you, mister Hurd. Next, Michael Golojuch.

Good afternoon. Michael Golojuch Junior. He/him pronouns, president of Pride at Work Hawaii. Pride at Work Hawaii stands in strong support of this legislation. AVR works, automatic water registration works.

I do want to correct the previous speaker. We actually have it in 10 states now. And there is, as he stated in his testimony, there is not voter fraud. Voter fraud is a red herring brought to you by those that do not like the name that they are. So I will not say that out of respect for you, chair.

You're very welcome, chair. Avr works. ABR is we represent unions. We represent the working class. We have here in Hawaii, we need to lower the barriers because voting is a right.

And the more barriers that people want to put in place, if people are able those that are eligible to be able to vote is Un American. It is Un it's disrespectful to who we are as a people. And so we encourage you to pass this bill. We the amendments are there that it this is who are we gonna trust? The people who give you the real IDs?

Are we gonna trust people that read something on Google? They Googled something and so they didn't think, oh, I now know everything about voter registration. If the 10 other states can do it, we certainly can. Oh, and the District of Columbia. Sorry.

And so we have we have our working families that are working two, three jobs. And so when they go into the DMV to go in and get their their driver's licenses automatically registering to vote, They will be able to check those things if they are citizens and if they're eligible at that location at that time. And so it just makes sense. We encourage you to pass this, lower the barriers.

I believe everybody that has the right to vote should be able to vote, and we need you to make it easier.

And the audacity that we should be stripping people off the voter rolls is un American as well, and I just don't understand how anybody could support that as well. Thank you.

So, again, pass this bill, please. We thank you. I thank you for your time, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Next, Coco Pac on Zoom. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members? Mister Chair.

Representative Garcia?

Thank you, Chair. For the AG, please. To my understanding from your testimony, the bill as written would be in in violation of federal law?

Potentially without the attestation.

Without having attestation, it would violate which federal act or federal law?

It would be 52 USC Section 20504 C2C.

Okay. Thank you very much. And and one follow-up question here. Right. Mister Nago, thank you for being here.

Since and I I just wanna say and clarify, yes. Hawaii already has auto automatic voter registration. But but it is an opt in process. This would make it an automatically occurrence unless you choose to opt out. Question.

Since Hawaii passed the automatic voter registration act some years back, how how many names were added to the voter rolls from that passage of of that act?

Like I said the last time, I don't really have that number, but we're not really it doesn't benefit the new registrants more so as people who moved. We have a transit state. We need you need to keep your registration updated. So when and you also need to keep your driver's license updated. So when you go in to get your new driver's license with your new address, you'll be able to register at the same time instead of having to go to two spots.

And that's the benefit we see in this.

And what process does your office use to check if somebody, say, signs up for a a driver's license here and they're going through the process of of automatically registering that they're not registered in another state? How do you check

on that? So there is not a process to check on registration in other states unless that person says that they're registered in another state.

Okay.

When they do that, we will send the notification to the other state that this person has registered in Hawaii. We may want them to follow-up to remove them from

So they have to tell you that? Yeah. Tell us that.

Otherwise, they could be registered in three states and they would automatically be registered here in Hawaii.

Potentially. Potentially. But we have something coming online which is the electronic registration information center or ERIC, which would potentially eliminate that with ERIC states.

Got it. Thank you.

Other questions, members? If not, Rep Shimizu?

Thank you, Chair. Mister Nago, there was a statement by testifier about cleaning up the voter rolls. So with this automatic registration and and possibly a lot of new voters coming on, would that be a problem with you cleaning up the voter rolls?

I, I don't understand. So the way the voter explain how you maintain the rolls.

So the way the voter rolls are maintained is pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act, which voters the only way a voter can be removed is if a mailing comes back, an election mailing comes back, such as your ballot or your yellow card, your voter notification card. Even when that comes back, we still have to follow-up with affordable card.

And then once we do that, the voter gets is inactive for two general elections before they can finally be removed. So that's the only we cannot remove somebody for not being not voting. The federal law specifically says how you can remove it.

So that your voter maintenance process is really dictated by federal law.

Yeah. And then you need to have two election cycles. Two general elections go by before you finally definitively get removed.

Okay. And how often do you yell out

those those yellow cards here as well? Every election. So it should be coming soon for this election.

Just every two years, I guess.

All voters get a yellow card prior to each election.

Tell me, say, go to the elections. Near you.

So if you if you do receive one that's for a voter that's no longer there, don't throw it away. You just put not at this address and make sure it so that we can start the process.

Okay. Thank thank you, sir. Sure. Any other questions? Sure.

No problem. So mister Nava, thank you for being here. What about people who pass away?

That we get a from If you pass away in the state of Hawaii, we get a death list from the department.

Alright. Thanks. Thank you, sir.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much to all the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate bill 2601 Senate draft two related to procurement.

This measure ensures that awarded contracts are supported by sufficient appropriations by requiring the contract amount does not exceed 10% of the amount of the appropriation or balance of an appropriation that is available to cover the cost of the contract.

It requires a contract that exceeds the 10% threshold to be approved by the chief procurement officer, amends the criminal penalties under the Hawaii public procurement code by providing that a person who intentionally violates the code is guilty of a petty misdemeanor for the first offense and a misdemeanor for any subsequent offense. It also establishes positions within the state procurement office and appropriates funds. First up, we have the state procurement office.

Hi, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Dayna Omiya. I'm assistant administrator with the State Procurement Office. We stand on our written testimony providing comments.

Do you wanna highlight your, if nothing else, your amendments?

Oh, yeah our recommendations to this bill. Yes. So the first one is, the Senate draft two includes the language that stipulates that any intentional violation of the Hawaii procurement code is subject to a petty misdemeanor for the first offense and the misdemeanor for second any offenses after that. So what we initially proposed in our language was our recommended language was to include the misdemeanors for any egregious violation of the procurement code, not just any any violation of the procurement code.

Secondly, we also included a 15% threshold versus the 10 because it's just it would be an administrative burden to each jurisdiction. So there's 22 jurisdictions, each with their own CPO. And so you all Chief procurement officer. Chief procurement officer.

People don't use acronyms in this committee because no one remembers them all. So if you could just tell us what it means instead of using an acronym, it would help everybody, including the public who's watching you.

Chief procurement officer is the CPO. And so this bill also includes, an FTE position within the State Procurement Office to address those administrative burdens, but there's 21 other jurisdictions besides Hubani Kahakui as administrator. She's the CPO for the executive branch. So there's 21 other jurisdictions, each with their own CPO. So those are just highlighting

Thank you.

What we submitted

I appreciate you provided that highlighting of your amendments so that the public knows and others know what you're suggesting.

You're welcome. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members?

Question.

Yep. Rep Shimizu.

Thank you. Do do we have a existing problem and that's the reason we have this bill?

An existing problem?

Yeah. That this bill is trying to address. I guess the way that I understand your testimony State of you're referencing HRS section 103 D 2309 and also HAR section 3-122-82. They're already what this bill is to me, the way that I understand this bill, what what this bill is trying to achieve is already established based on what you referenced that there is a process that is in place based on your testimony and your references.

Correct.

That the only thing this bill does is maybe adds penalties for not following what you folks already have in process.

Correct.

So that's why I asked the original question. Is there is there a problem with abuse or needing to increase penalties for mismanagement or wrong administrative processes or something?

As far I'm aware of, the misdemeanor provision is barely ever used. So I'm not sure why this bill is used.

You have to ask to introduce her.

Yes. I'm not exactly sure.

This is not an administration bill.

Gotcha. Okay? Alright. Thank you. Thanks for your time.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? If not, thank you to all the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate bill 1166 relating to insurance.

This measure allows the Hawaii Property Insurance Association and private insurers to bring claims against responsible parties for amounts paid by the insurers for losses resulting from climate disasters and extreme weather attributable to climate change. It requires insurance rates established by the Hawaii Property Insurance Association to account for any proceeds from the civil claims against a responsible party. First up, we have insurance division.

Hello, chair representative Shimizu. Matt Tsujimura on behalf of the insurance division. The insurance division doesn't have any comments on the substance of the bill, but we do have concerns that the placement of the proposed language in HRS 431 chapter 13 is an inappropriate place for that language as HRS 431 13 is more so the insurance codes unfair and deceptive trade practices section, which regulates the practices of insurance licensees.

The division would recommend as an alternative, to insert this language into title 36 under HRS, which would be the civil remedies, Civil remedies and defenses and special proceedings chapter of the wholly revised statute since it is more so a it

is proposing a new civil remedy and civil procedure to recover. Even though it's by insurers, it's still not necessarily the regulation of insurers. So that's the only amendment and request that the division has. But happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, Wayne Tanaka on Zoom.

Mister Tanaka, are you there?

Oh, yes. I I'm sorry. I'm having a technical Go ahead. Good afternoon, chair of the committee. We are in strong support of this measure.

We do have a friendly amendment we'd like to highlight regarding the inclusion of Bill Hoyer on as a potential claimant for any payouts from climate related disasters. Otherwise, happy to answer any questions, and thank you so much for your consideration of this measure.

Thank you very much. Next, Kayla Economou.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, and members of

the committee. Thank you for

the opportunity to testify. My name is Kayla Economou, and I am testifying on behalf of the polluters pay Hawaii Coalition. Polluters pay Hawaii stands in strong support of SB 1166 with amendments outlined in our written testimony. Hawaii is currently on the front lines of a climate crisis and an insurance crisis. Both are intertwined and accelerating.

The past few weeks have just shown with the kind of low storms, you know, some of the worst flooding that we have seen in the past twenty years. And then in 2023, we, of course, had the devastating impacts of the Lahaina fires. These climate driven disasters are happening more frequently and severely. And in parallel, insurance non renewals have increased by 216% since 2018. And premiums have gone up by 300% or more in some extreme cases across the state.

Hawaii families and residents can't keep absorbing these costs alone. SB 1166 will provide legal tools to help address the economic strain that residents are currently facing with these skyrocketing home insurance rates due to climate change and more extreme weather events occurring. We respectfully urge the committee to pass SB 1166 with amendments. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Hawaiian Council, Madeline McKee.

Aloha Chair Cardenas, vice chair Poi poi, members of the committee, Madeline McKeig on behalf of Hawaiian council standing on our testimony and strong support. I think we just really wanted to emphasize that we have been directly on the front lines for both the Maui wildfires, as well as even in this past week, the storms, and we've seen the devastation firsthand and we've seen the recovery firsthand and we know that it cannot be just us who is doing this work.

I think we feel confident about this bill and then some of the amendments that were put forth that they can help with the recovery in the long term and that they can bring in the necessary funds that will help with the recovery. We stand in line with the polluters pay coalition, potential amendments.

Thank you very much. Next, Hawaii Insurers Council. Not present. Next. Greenpeace Hawaii, Dave Melineks.

Not present. Next, Gordon Levitt, Center for Climate Integrity.

Chair Tarnas, vice chair Poipoi, and members of the committee. I'm Gordon Levitt on behalf of the Center for Climate Integrity. We stand on our written comments and support highlighting a few key amendments for the bill. We encourage the committee to provide express statutory authority to the Hawaii hurricane relief fund to bring a civil action for qualifying damages connected to climate disasters.

We encourage the committee to amend the definition of qualifying damages to include a broader range of costs and losses that could attach to covered insurance entities under the legislation.

And finally, to include a robust savings clause that takes into account legal developments in the state since the introduction of the bill last year. With extreme weather disasters becoming more likely and more severe, plus the Federal Government dismantling its disaster response, Hawaii needs every tool in the toolbox to tackle, these problems and lower insurance costs for residents. We urge the committee to pass the bill with the suggested amendments. Thanks for your consideration and the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. American Petroleum Institute.

Afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Myeong Oh, here on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute. Respectfully opposing this measure. Senate bill 1166 would establish a new liability framework for responsible parties tied to lawful and heavily regulated petroleum industry. It is the use, sale, and of petroleum based products.

These products, these are the products that the state has permitted, licensed, regulated, and taxed for decades. And what remains essential for emergency services, keeping the lights on, and making sure that we continue to move forward. This bill is being considered when climate related litigation is already pending here and across the country, including the state of Hawaii, Maui County, and the city and county of Honolulu.

Layering a new liability scheme on top of those ongoing litigation raises due process and equal protection concerns and may call into question the validity of active litigation. This uncertainty and open ended liability exposure could chill future investments and competition in Hawaii's energy system, particularly in a geographically isolated state that already faces some of the highest energy and cost of living burdens.

For these reasons, we respectfully request the committee hold this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, David Jones on Zoom.

Chair, vice chair, my name is Dave Jones. I served as California's insurance commissioner from 2011 to 2018. I currently serve as the director of the climate risk initiative at UC Berkeley School of Law, though I'm testifying today in support of this measure in my individual capacity. Climate change is driving more severe and extreme weather related events, which are causing insurers to pay out more and more in every state, including Hawaii.

Insurers are pushing the cost of climate change onto Hawaii residents through dramatically increased rates and writing of less insurance.

SB 1161 gives insurers and the Hawaii Property Insurance Association the ability to go upstream to the oil and gas industry whose emissions are one of the major contributors to the climate change that's driving these insurance losses. The attorney general, the city, and the county of, city and county and their lawsuits against the oil and gas major do not have the right to recover insurance losses nor do the insurers nor the Supply Property Insurance Association, which is why this bill is messed up.

I wanna address, a couple of the comments from the American Petroleum Institute. First, the fact that a product is lawful does not excuse it from having to pay damages for the harms it renders. Second, the API also raises in their letter a concern about the potential double recovery from reinsurers as well as insurers recovering from the oil and gas industry.

Reinsurers are very sophisticated. They typically have in their contracts provisions that provide that if the insurer can recover from a third party, much as is contemplated under this bill for losses that the reinsurer will commence or will recover the portion of reinsurance proceeds it's paid to insure. So there's no double recovery issue. There's no intrusion on the insurance con reinsurance contracts. That's a nonissue.

I would urge your support for the bill with the amendments, including the amendment adding the Hawaii hurricane relief fund, which is also greatly exposed to extensive losses associated with climate disasters. It's a critically important stabilization feature in Hawaii insurance market, but it too should be able to recover for its losses from the oil and gas industry whose emissions are the major driver of those losses. Happy to take any questions you might have. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony, mister Jones. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Mister Roy?

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Evan Oi on behalf of the Hawaii Association for Justice. Apologies if you didn't get our testimony in time. I did just wanna stand in opposition to this bill. HHA is very concerned with the current, yeah, concept and and structure of the bill in the sense that it does contradict many of Hawaii's, HRS 663 in which, a judicially in process to handle these types of claims.

And it it it contradicts it pretty substantially. And 663 is designed and specifically consumer friendly in the sense that it creates that judicial lien process in which the consumers or the victims in many of these cases are prioritized first. And then the the insurance companies have a lien on the judgment that they obtained from the defendant. So in this case, it allows for the money out first to be prioritized towards that victim. And this will operates outside of that.

And and we are concerned that it creates kind of a almost a subrogation of us of some sort outside of that chapter. And it definitely contradicts what was done in February 25 in which the court validated Yukimura preserving that judicial lead process. So we, oppose this bill and are available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you.

And if you would send in your testimony again, I don't see it on our election.

Apologies for that, Trevor.

We will get that. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members?

If not, yes. Yeah. Ramesh Mizzou?

BCCA. I'm trying to understand this bill because it's it's

Yes. So this would create a new civil remedy that would authorize sorry. I'm trying to not use the acronym. Employee Property Insurance Association and private insurers to sue fossil fuel companies for insurance related damages. Yes.

In the sense that subrogation is meant as it is the tool that is used by insurance companies to recover for payouts to insureds or policyholders upon paying out a claim to a policy. So say if you had a if you lost your home and I I, the insurance company, gave you a million dollars, I would then be able to subrogate or go after the party who caused the damage to you on your behalf and recover the money that I gave to you.

So this would be sort of a step, I guess, a pivot step in this regard in the sense that I would pay you your money and then this bill would allow me as the insurance company to go sue Chevron or a fossil fuel company to recover certain damages that you would have incurred because of that. Or I suppose from what it sounds like, it's also to account for any rise in premiums due to climate change issues that are sourced from fossil fuel companies.

Sure.

Okay. Sure. Can I ask you something?

Isn't that establishing

Well, I think representative to your question, so the Hawaii attorney general has already filed a suit against fossil fuel companies for climate related damages. So in the sense that is this a novel idea, I suppose that's up for interpretation. But since the AG has already initiated a suit, one would deduce that said cause of action already exists in the law. Now with regards to the authorization of private insurers or the Hawaii Property Insurance Association to sue fossil fuel companies.

Under the Hawaii revised statutes that have established the Hawaii Property Insurance Association, the Hawaii Property Insurance Association is already authorized to sue and be sued.

It's a very broad power. It can be argued that this law would be somewhat duplicative of what a what the Hawaii Property Insurance Association is already authorized to do. Whether private insurers have the right to sue, I suppose they would have to be able to prove their own damages in order to bring that suit. This would I mean, this would provide a clearer path for them to bring a suit.

I I do think the question still exists as to just because you are giving them authorization to do it, will they do it?

That's that's not up to us. So, I mean, I think but to answer your question, does it set a precedent? I mean, yes. In the sense that it it would be creating a new civil right of action that is not currently established.

Welcome to the legislature. Okay. Thank you, mister Sugimura. Any other questions? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers.

Let's move on to the next measure. Testifiers to this next measure have been very patient and I appreciate it. So we're gonna move on now to Senate bill 3247 Senate draft one, clause draft one relating to Hawaiian affairs. This measure establishes a temporary royal mausoleum working group within the Department of Land and Natural Resources. It requires the royal mausoleum working group to submit reports to the legislature and sunsets the working group 12/31/2027.

First up, we have the attorney general.

Good afternoon, chair Tarnas and vice chair Poepoe, and members of the committee. Deputy attorney general, Alyssa Kau, on behalf of the department. The department, first of all, would like to thank the, committee, the House Committee on Water and land for making many of the suggested amendments that we had suggested in the prior draft. We do have one additional amendment that, however, arose from the committee. So in the in house draft one, section two of the bill establishes that the working group would be within DLNR and provides that it shall consist of seven members.

However, there is no process for how these seven members are going to be selected, and so we would just our our recommendation is just that that the committee clarify that aspect or that process as to how that happens. I'm available if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Thank you. Appreciate you, accepting our late testimony, and I apologize for that. The department is going to stand on your comments, and the comments we have is we would like you to please consider, two members to the committee, one being DLNR itself and the other being a member of an Elei Trust. And we noticed in the testimony that Kamehameha Schools has put their name forward for consideration, and we would support that.

We have been working with the Elei Trust for the last fourteen years on planning and moving forward, where to where to, fix things in the the mausoleum grounds. The grounds are DLNR, but the partnership is DLNR and the Elei Trust for the chapel, and the Elei Trust take care of the Cripps. And so we've been working together on what the needs are, who would pay for it, how would it be paid, who would take the lead on which project.

And they meet quarterly, until recently when COVID happened and they've started to, regather again. They've been doing it on, Teams. So thank you very much for allowing me to present the testimony.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Aloha kakou, Lealoha Wakunani on behalf of the office of Hawaiian Affairs. We support this measure, but I just wanted to highlight that we do have a concern with reducing the size of the working group to just seven members, especially since this has been basically shifted into a working group that's gonna provide a report to the legislature rather than being more of a executive, group and commission.

So we're no longer see the need to reduce it to a size of seven people and to accurately reflect all of the viewpoints of the Royal Society's, the Alii trusts, and some of the other stakeholders, relevant lineal descendants. And we think that it's important to expand the group to a number that is appropriate for this working group that includes all of those voices.

So that's that's just our main concern, and we're asking to include those representatives as well as the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs as well. I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next, we've got Leymomi Khan.

Aloha Mai Kaku. Mahalo for allowing us to testify in this bill. So my name is Khan. I am the chair of the, the is comprised of the Royal Order of Kamehameha Chapter One, the and three royal benevolent societies.

I am speaking on behalf of the representing these three societies. We stand in strong support of this bill with the amendments reflected in our written testimony, and I will just quickly summarize what those amendments were. One, we addressed the working group composition. We suggested 11 different organizations for people. So by people, I refer to the lineal descendants.

And we agreed with the responsibilities that the bill lays out, except that we asked that it be a little bit more specific in terms of saying that our responsibilities would be to review, evaluate, and make recommendations. And then we listed those areas that you had, assigned to this working team. The bill is important to us because our mission is to care for and honor our ali'i who rests at Mauna'ala.

For generations, our societies have carried this kuleana through ceremony, through protocol, and through the of kahu who have faithfully served us at Mauna'ala. We come with living experiences.

We have seen what happens when there is no clear process or policy in place, particularly in the selection of the curator of Mauna'ala, where key or key voices, including the Royal Societies, the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, the Menjivar Descendants, are not meaningfully consulted. That cannot continue. This measure gives us an important opportunity to work in partnership with the state to ensure that the stewardship of Mauna'ala is done properly, grounded in cultural protocol, guided by IK and inclusive of all those with Kuleana.

Mauna'ala is a sacred resting place of our Alii. It deserves a process and a structure that reflects that truth.

So for this opportunity again to share our manau.

Thank you, Miss Khan. Appreciate you being here. Next, former colleague of mine, Quentin Kwananakoa. Hello. Welcome, Representative.

Thank you.

Good to have you back again in the building.

Back in the house. Goodbye. Say, good evening, chairman Tarnas, vice chair, members of the committee. You know, I am glad to be here and to speak after Lee Momi because she kinda summarized everything real clear, real straight. So I have just a couple of comments.

One, I'm representing my name is Quentin Kuya, Kawananakaw. I'm representing the house of Kawananakaw. And I'm simply, wanted to note that we do agree with all the responsibilities that have been laid out in the house draft one. It seems to be windowed it down to something that made sense that we can probably accomplish by the working group.

And the other item that I've noticed is the last item was that, there's a catchall cost that simply affords us the opportunity to take up other issues that may arise that we haven't thought about here at this point.

And if we can bring other suggestions and recommendations to the legislature, we'd love to do that in the following sessions. I also wanted to note the composition of the other working group committee and to answer perhaps as a suggestion to the AG's question. All of these are groups from they are all groups for that matter. And so they have their internal processes for otherwise nominating or sending a representative on behalf of their group.

So we'll be sending the representatives to this count to the working group to otherwise make decisions and to add discussion and and profit with the the questions that you folks have given to us or anticipated to give to us.

With that, I just wanted to recognize that we appreciate your long work here this evening. And that, and also the real concern that you folks have shared in trying to amend this this bill. Because I'll I'll be the first to admit, it had flaws in the beginning. I mean, it really was extensive. Some of the wording wasn't correct, but it was a matter of us rushing to the legislature to get get something in.

And without your help in amending those those concerns, we wouldn't be here today. I think the bill is strong now. We can move forward, and, we look forward to hearing your voice.

Thank you, mister Kuwana Nakawa. Good to see you again, sir. Next, Colleen Ayu.

Aloha. I'm Colleen Aiu, Kuhi Nanui of the daughters and sons of the Hawaiian warriors, Mamakakaua, and we stand in opposition of Senate Bill 3,247, Senate draft one, House draft one, to establish a temporary working group within DLNR with seven voting members. It's really important because the controversy over the DLNR hire in 2024 is really the actual input of why this bill is being established.

In 2024, DLNR's selection panel did not follow the traditional and proven process that was used when hiring the current curator to fill the vacancy left by Kai Myoho. And we have left for you a brief history of that in your folders.

Before any new legislation, that's the one. Yeah.

Everyone's got a copy of the package.

Thank you, everyone. Because our group took time to get that to you so that you would be able to find it readily. And before any new legislation or amendments to the Hawaii Revised Statues that are existing take place according or affecting Mauna'ala, really what we're talking about is the honored and sanctified position of the kahu must be restored. Traditionally, kahu were knowledgeable, accountable, and committed to the sanctity of Mauna'ala.

As a result of DLNR's delay in addressing the at will position, Mama Kekaua has been denied access to Mauna Ola on two occasions.

Mama Kekaua believes that the Hawaii Supreme Court, Kapa'akahe o Ka Aina versus Land Use Commission should be considered. Mamakakaua is strongly opposed to this bill and we ask that you review our entire testimony from 2024-2025 February 2026, March 2026, and today. And we ask that you consider our ongoing request not to move the board, this bill forward. Let us solve the very first problem which is the re-vetting and the hiring of the current curator in 2024. Mahalo.

Mahalo. Appreciate you providing your testimony. Navahine Lanzaladi.

Aloha kou, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair [unintelligible], Vice Chair [unintelligible], and the Members of the Presiding Committee. My name is Navadine Lanzalati. I'm here today on behalf of the [unintelligible] and we stand on our written testimony in strong opposition to SB 3247 Senate draft one, house draft one. Honors the princess the heir apparent at the time of the overthrow. And we are a Hawaiian organization and been consistently participating at Manaala for the fifty years of our organization's history since princess one hundredth birthday.

I apologize I'm not in the customary attire today. I had to come straight from work. But I am here today to reiterate our position that this bill, even as amended, does not, it delays the resolution of this original conflict of the DLNR selection process of the Kahul, demonstrates legislative overreach, denies Hawaiian customary practice, and also lacks still lacks the necessary processes that are really necessary to responsibly implement the work that it sets forth.

So we just ask that the committee consider these oppositions and vote against moving forward this bill and allow the traditional those who are traditionally responsible for taking care and stewarding Mauna'ala to move forward with the resolution of this pilikia. Mahalo.

Mahalo. Anyone else wishing you to testify on this measure? Yes, please. Come on up and introduce yourself.

Thank you, Chair. My my name is James Myoho. I am representing the descendants of Ho'olulu. And I I read, you know, all the testimony through this process. My my family has been, you know, working on this.

There were some sort of form of legislation or correction for the last, you know, three years almost. And, there there's a couple things I want to address. So first, I want to commend, you folks and all the legislators that have really put an effort this time around. This is really the best solution that I've seen over the last few years for getting some sort of working acceptable process or body to to manage Mount Olive.

Mount Olive is very unique, not only within the land laws and within the inventory management of the state, but within our culture.

And and it deserves its own. And I would advocate for a a fully empowered commission of a of a proper size to look at the operations and things. The operations of Mount Olive are are really pretty straightforward and simple. Its operating budget is a is a rounding error in the parks department's budget. The process that has traditionally been for generations in place of picking a a kahu as as anti, addresses was very straightforward.

The family identifies from the bloodline. The community, the royal societies, the who he affirms that or not affirms or argues about it. And then the state supports that. You know, the DLNR, it had migrated to that department. It was just a place to park the budget.

It started out in the in public works, you know, really just to to put the the minor things through the the major, endeavors there, are done through an agreement between the trust and, like, as I said, with the DLNR that has worked very successfully since '13 since 2013.

And I I believe if we properly empower and have the the right number of of people, on the board that a lot of the cultural issues and and debates can be solved by the Kanaka Hawaiians within this body with some guidance and definition from you folks. One clear definition, I think, that would take a lot of the controversy off the table is if you define and protect the Kuleana and the bloodline and the family that's associated with.

If if that's defined, then we just have to talk about process and protocols and how everybody gets to interact with each other there. I do think it's important that some other voices are included.

You know, OHAI has just reached out to me, and I know they wanna be included. The DLNR has some very, very knowledgeable people that historically know all the projects that have happened there.

My my thought on that is that if you have what I would define as the stakeholders being the core of voting members of an empowered commission, and then as part of that commission, because they're government and not cultural Kanakas, be part of that, but be nonvoting members like the DLNR and like OHA to be included in the conversation because there are assets and historical knowledge and, and data there that would be useful.

But because they're already a state entity and not a cultural group or a stakeholder, you know, full permits are put in money, to be included in it, but not have a vote that should be left to the Hawaiians. But otherwise, I I really commend the work that's going through.

I I believe it's a very positive step, and I believe it gives us a lot of opportunity as a community to come together and work through this issue and prove that we can and as a group go on to other things that are that are important to us as well. Alright. Mahalo. Mahalo.

If you would be so kind as to provide your name and organization with, Kamana over there, it'd be great. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, questions, members? Question.

Yes. Representative. Mister Quanah Nicole. Hi.

Hello. Thank you for being here. And, since I said to your middle name, Coahuil, is, here in Fashti at tomorrow's Coahuil Day. My question is, I've heard from a few people from the state side and from, certain organizations that issue with having a seven member, group. What is your take on that?

Are are you open to more, less? I mean, it seems like there's issues with just seven.

One of the great saving aspects of this legislation is that the sunshine sunshine laws, I guess, is chapter one or section one, that wouldn't apply. So we have an opportunity to really have open conversation with many people to come forward. I think it's the vision of this working group, maybe a perhaps a commission, that would take in all this information and then vote accordingly.

And the best people to vote is also just mentioned by James is that, you know, we have these groups that have been long standing for many, many, many years, decades, have been part of the stakeholders at Mauna Ola. They know the ins and outs of it.

It's always best to get new Mauna Ola, different views, different perspectives from the community. But in the end, they can help discern what is the most important things to include with regard to taking a look at cultural practices, different protocols that we observed and not all of. So we could go on and all those details.

But the reality is, I actually offered the seven, you know, I offered two different amounts, 12 or 14 of all the people who would be very good candidates to be members and voting members. And I also agree with the comments that have been non voting members for the state and OHA, for DLNR, because very valuable, but best to leave the Kanaka Maoli to decide on the cultural spiritual concerns.

I should note that I did speak with the, DLNR, and they noted how they're very difficult to make these cultural decisions and protocols and set them in place. They're very good at maintaining the grounds, the facilities. So with that in mind, I did try to collapse perhaps the Ali Trust into one vote. Collapse the world societies into one vote. And then you have your lineal descendants, and then you have two others would be maybe daughters and excuse me.

Daughters of Hawaii and then also perhaps OHA. And maybe not necessarily, that was just an option. I just didn't wanna come to this committee with no way I can't can't live with seven. I think we could by managing ourselves. So we are flexible.

I tend to agree with the larger number. It's clear. It's more forward. We understand each of those organizations have their own mana'o and they can bring that to the table and then vote accordingly. So that would be my Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Response.

Thank you, Chuck. Okay. Any other questions? If not, we we're I don't wanna lose quorum and we are gonna lose it soon. I'd like to finish up and get to voting on it. Do you have a cool.

Doctor. Mizzou? Yes.

When we talk about well, excuse me. When I talk about opposing the bill, it's in its entirety, because when you set a number of people to be on it, you have to consider what qualifications do they bring besides being Hawaiian and a Hawaiian organization. And the sharing of information is very important as a, plastic surgeon wouldn't bring a necessarily someone who affixes bones into a conversation. You know, how we consider this is there are many things that are private to Hawaiian traditions and customs.

They are private.

They are not secret. And part of it is because they are handed down not only through legacy, meaning blood, but also lineage, training, and knowledge. It is very important that we understand genealogy and lineage, cultural responsibility, ike, mana'o, and hohonu. These are all terms that not all Hawaiian groups understand, And for me, I would feel uncomfortable sharing information that has been given to me, not in secret, but in trust that I would keep with people I don't know.

I have no idea what their background is trying, but I am mandated to share and coop ca and to discuss and then record everything that's being said.