House Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. Convening our 03/27/2026, committee on public safety hearing. It is 10:00AM. We're in Conference Room 411. This is our resolutions, concurrent and House Resolutions hearing, for the session.

First up, we have House Resolution Three, House Concurrent Resolution Four, urging the governors to take action to protect transgender members of the Hawaii National Guard from disc from discriminatory federal policy and permit qualified transgender service members to continue their service. First up, we have testimony in support from Hawaii state LGBTQ plus commission Chair via Zoom. We have testimony in support from Hoku Pak. Not president. Testimony in support from Pride at Work Hawaii, Zoom.

Here. Go ahead.

Aloha. Good morning, and happy aloha Friday. My name is Michael Golojuch Junior. He, him pronouns. Pride at Work. I stand in we stand in strong support of this resolution.

We are we are in the middle of a, the beginnings of a genocide according according to Lemkin Institute for the transgender community. Then this, federal administration has started off, there they started off last year by attacking the trans community and those guns go almost seems like every day since then. This resolution is sorely needed. We encourage you to pass it. There are going to be, testifiers later that have lived experience that can speak more eloquently than I can.

So we encourage you to pass it. We do support the amendments suggested by the commission to extend the dissolve clause to include our Mahu and non gender conforming, service members for that. So with that being said, I thank you for your time and I encourage you to ask them questions, not me. Have a great day. Mahalo.

Thank you, Mister Golojuch. We have in person Trans Military Hub, TMH founder director, Catherine Nelson.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Catherine Nelson. I am an eight year advocate on the guard and I'm testifying in support on behalf of the division to MH in support of HCR four and HCR three. So like I said, eight year Army veteran served in 2017 to 2026. I was kicked out in January under the trans man.

I was deployed one time out of direct combat and was commissioned officer in military police court for majority of that time. In 2020, I established TMH as a way to provide resources and community for trans service members, veterans, families, and allies across the country and across the globe for those deployed OCONUS. And ever since then, we've seen a massive chilling effect. Hawaii still has a sizable population both in and out of uniform, and I talk to them daily.

And across the board, we have felt negative impacts in relation to mental health, suicidality, access to job care, safety and unit coherence, and effectiveness in the mission.

Right? By passing this resolution, you're not you're not gonna have any downsides. There is no wasting tax dollars here. You are protecting military and civilian investments from significant opportunity costs into the six or seven digit numbers. There are no additional expenses incurred by the state, by the National Guard, by anyone for letting the status quo stay.

Right? And you're retaining leaders and subject matter experts. We're tracking about 22 people who will be affected by this. A lot of them can't come forward publicly because of this chilling effect. But that's 22 non commissioned officers, officers, and senior experienced soldiers who have years and years of institutional knowledge and hundreds of thousands of dollars of training invested into them and who are passionate and consistently score within the top 10% on peer evaluations and leadership evaluations.

And you would be removing that if you fail to pass this resolution and go along with the federal status quo. With that, I yield my time. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Nelson. We have testimony in support from Robin Nelson, Trans Military Hub as well. Please come forward.

Robin Nelson. Any pronouns? Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Robin Nelson, and I'm testing on testifying on behalf of Trans Military Hub to give context to the larger ban and the human cost here. This is a memorial bracelet.

We lost someone back in April after the band dropped. I'm here because my pals can't be, and my mother would have a matching one if not for my trans women battle buddies who saved me after my assault. I was in for seven good years. During basic training, I was given my values tag that I keep with me and I kept the entire time. These dog tags have my dead name on them.

Two of these values are honor and integrity. When the executive order dropped, I was told I had neither. By being honest about who I was, I became useless despite years of training and good work. If I didn't voluntarily leave, my involuntary separation code would have been J K K, which would have labeled me as a national security issue. During an overseas training mission, I earned a challenge coin from a three star general, which go unnamed, for a job well done.

And this is the heaviest paperweight I own because a mere two months after the ban dropped. We don't do it for kudos, though. We do it because we're human, and we want to help. We made a promise to our country, So I'm asking to please let us fulfill that promise that we made. I miss my troops.

In fact, I was just talking to one out in the hallway. I miss them a lot, and I love my neighbors. So I'm asking to please let my National Guard brothers and sisters continue to serve the community that they made a promise to and that we all love so much. With that, I yield my time.

Thank you. We have testimony via Zoom by Stonewall Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii. Here. Simmons. Aloha, Chair.

Yes. Can you hear me?

Yes. Go ahead.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Abby Simmons, Chair of Stonewall Caucus, to the party of Harabedian strong support. I'm here today to testify, as Chair, but also as a member of the trans community and a veteran. I served in the Army National Guard for six years, and my job was a 13 bravo 10, which was a cannon crew member for a towed howitzer. So basically artillery.

And the values that I've learned that I learned during my time, I still hold true in my everyday decision making process. And one of those values are a group of those values is enshrined by an acronym called leadership, and it's spelled out LDRSHIP, which stands for loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. And those values help guide me today and help inform me on the decisions I make, not just as Chair, but in my personal life.

So I ask you for your leadership today. Please move forward this resolution and help protect our Hawaii National Guard members.

Mahalo for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Simmons. We have testimony in support from Roxanne Bolden. Testimony in support from a numerous individuals. I'll read these names.

Tara Sutton. Here. Go ahead,

Tara. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. I wanna start with by saying that I'm submitting this testimony on my own personal capacity. I support this resolution urging the Hawaii, State of Hawaii to protect transgender members of the Hawaii National Guard and allow qualified service members to continue in their service. I often think about the impact of whether our institutions treat people with dignity and fairness.

I believe everyone here knows someone who is able to just glide through the world aligning easily with society's expectations. Everyone here probably also knows someone who does not for whatever reason. I am the mother of adult children who don't always conform to society's norms. I think we would all agree, however, that every person deserves dignity and fairness. And I argue that every person also deserves opportunity to serve their community in the armed forces if they are capable, committed, and qualified.

Policies that remove individuals from service because of who they are do not strengthen readiness or cohesion. They simply push people out who have already demonstrated their capacity and willingness to serve. I believe that Hawaii has long valued fairness, respect, and community, and these values shape how we live together and how we care for one another across our differences. Trust in our institutions is strengthened when people know that they will be treated with dignity and evaluated based on their ability to serve.

This resolution reflects those values by affirming that capable and committed individual did not excluded simply for living authentically.

I believe that Hawaii would rather be remembered for who they include rather than who they exclude. Thank you.

Thank you. We also have testimony in support from Richard Velasquez, Tina Evan, Theresa Parsons, Vesper D, Ben Sutton, Sebastian Kirby, Sylvia Rahm, and Shonda Brack. Any other testifiers here in the room? Any other testifiers via Zoom? Seeing none, members questions.

Just make a comment.

Sure.

Thank you for the testimony, everyone. I appreciate, and Aye, and Aye, appreciate you as a person. Thank you.

I have a question for, best probably by who's Nelson? Catherine Nelson. Has there been any other state passing a resolution like this or taking steps to protect transgender troops in national guard? Can you So share that?

So I'll start historically and then go into what's happening in this go around. Okay.

So in the previous go around in 2017, I believe, Hawaii was actually in coalition with 15 states and DC to pass similar resolutions and bills and actions depending on how their state turns it. And a lot of them actually ended up functionally making the ban a moot point and allowing for their service members to stay and continue their service.

And in some cases, you know, very much a case by case basis, people were able to switch from active duty to a national guard in those States to carry on their career and go back or stay in the national guard.

You said

This go around. Yes. We currently have a couple of things in the works with Maryland, California, Colorado, and don't quote me on it, but I wanna say Oregon. K.

Is there more concern this time as I go around for states to act in COVID?

Significantly. Because in the last band, we saw a grandfather period. We saw a period where people could, like, self identify if they hadn't come out yet and say, okay. Hey. I'm trans.

And then they'd be ushered in, allowed to continue service. There's a lot more leniency and a lot more permissiveness and willing to work with people in the last go round compared to this one where it's very much driven by animus, which has been proven in federal court in cases like Schilling and Talbot.

Okay. Thank you. Members, any other questions?

Yes. I agree.

Representative Iwamoto. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you so much for your testimony. I appreciate the work that you do for the community. So I'm not that familiar with how the Hawaii National Guard is funded. I'm assuming there's some state taxpayer dollars in that. So I'm imagining so I'm not sure I'm actually was I was surprised that that when taxpayer Hawaii state taxpayer dollars flow to an entity, that the entity would be allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender identity and expression.

I would have imagined that they would have been able to enjoy the full benefits of protected classifications that this legislature has adopted through civil rights commission in terms of employment, prohibitions on employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression. Can you is there anything that you could share with me addressing my surprise?

Yeah. So, just to kinda get at the heart of what you're asking to make sure I'm on the same page, it's just a matter of, like, why are the tax dollars going towards something so discriminatory?

Correct.

So a lot of it has to do with the way that the National Guard is federalized under orders, like, I believe it's title 10.

Title ten and 32.

Yep. Yep. I was always active, so I'm a little in on the complex you know, complete National Guard and reserve sites.

But, yes, title 10 orders activate them and apply federal policies to a National Guard unit that's federalized, whether that's for a intrastate or interstate mission or whether that's for a mission like at the border, which is kind of between interstate and intrastate, or whether it's for disaster relief or combat deployment or an overseas training exercise, anything like that can functionally federalize a National Guard and apply federal regulations and standards to them.

The the gray area that we run into here is that the National Guard answers to the governor, not to the president.

And so that so having a separate commander in chief allows for that commander in chief to I don't wanna necessarily say ignore, but have discretion over how much enforcement they allow to have. So the governor can functionally say, hey, we're not gonna kick you out if you're trans. We're just gonna kind of look the other way on that.

Right. So I guess since the ban began or restarted, is that the correct way?

I mean,

it was re re Six of

one and

a half dozen of the other.

I have, how many, how many, have been kicked out of the Hawaii National Guard or as?

So? The National Guard has been moving slower. And what we're seeing is, it's it's all happening in waves depending on how people are doing things like my experience active duty army, right? We had earlier deadlines in active duty than the reserves National Guard had. And so what we're seeing is we're seeing the first wave of active duty being separated starting in January.

And then now, we have another wave who are fighting it a bit more because their situation allows it. As an officer, I had to take the quote unquote voluntary separation. Otherwise, I would have risked, like Robin said, the JDK separation code labeled me as a national security threat who went to somebody who sold secrets to China or Russia. Right? So now we have involuntary separations who are fighting it and fighting their process, and their their separation dates are kind of up in the air.

As for the Hawaii National Guard, their enforcement began in, it's like August or September, I wanna say. And since then, from what I've heard from the few national guardsmen who've come forward, and I don't wanna give too many things that might dox their situation, we're seeing commands start to, like, slowly implement things. And depending on the case, the individual may be required to detransition.

But it's a little different when you only have to show up either one weekend a month or, you know, a week every three months.

Yeah. Are you, are you well, I'm surprised. And as I have to follow the form of the question, I was surprised that the State Department of Defense didn't, submit testimony, weigh in, make themselves available for questions. I'm really disappointed by that, actually. And I wonder if we should put something in the Committee report, urging the Next Committee to, or for them to show up to the Next Committee, if there is another.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you again for your testimony. Sure. Can can

I ask another question? Yes. Go ahead. Representative Shimizu.

Again, thank you for being here. Just just to, educate myself. So right now with with the current federal policy, if you didn't say anything, then things would go as normal. Is that how it goes?

No. So the way it works at the federal level is they did put a quote, unquote waiver in there, but that waiver functionally says that you met would have just have to say, I think I'm trans, and you go talk to what we call BH behavioral health therapist or social worker, and they say, well, you can't do it in the military. You good with that? No? Okay.

Bye. Or you good with that? Yeah. Fine. And you stay.

But if you've done anything, like, come out to your commander, which is something that you had to do when the policy was going the other way and allowed you to transition. You had to keep your chain of command in the loop on everything. So what the whole time I was in all the way up to Fullbirds knew about my status and knew what timelines were on surgeries and if I missed an appointment for getting my hormones refilled or anything like that. Sorry, ADHD.

But you were you were asking about if they don't say anything, they're good to go.

That's not necessarily the case because now what we're seeing is we're seeing records reviews by, like, commands and not just medical personnel. So we're seeing army doctrine, which national guard follows army doctrine in a little bit of air force for the air national guard.

We're seeing army and air force doctrine basically requiring commands to go beyond their initial UCMJ command authority and search records and order medics to search records and find anything related to gender dysphoria or symptoms of gender dysphoria, which isn't even a formal diagnosis. And anything that could present like that is grounds for initiating a review to initiate the discharge process. Sure.

Follow-up.

Yep. Go ahead.

So what you just described or if you were honest and you declare, then you would be forced to terminate and you would lose all all of your privileges.

There would be an extremely high risk of that. Yes.

K. Thank you. Thank you for explaining that. Thanks, the Chair.

Thank you, representative Shimizu. Seeing no other questions. Thank you. Thank you, guys. We will be doing decision making on this at around 11AM.

So we'll just keep going. Next up, HCR 40 requesting the Department of Defense to convene a working group to develop recommendations for our state of Hawaii commemorative Vietnam Veterans Memorial. We have and this is just an HCR 40. We have, testimony in support from the Department of Defense, Miyo Mitsuyoshi, retired brigadier general, testimony in support from brigadier general Walter Ross, Hawaii National Guard in support. Anyone here in the room to testify?

Anyone, via Zoom? Seeing none, Members questions? Seeing none. Moving on to HCR 117 HR 109 urging the governor to assess food insecurity conditions and implement a statewide food security response plan. We have testimony in support from Agribusiness Development Corporation.

Testimony in support, Hawaii Food Industry Association via Zoom. Testimony in support from Waiakea Inc, and testimony in support from Hawaii Primary Care Association. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers via Zoom? Seeing none, moving on, to HCR 140 HR 132 urging state agencies that own or control land in West Maui to implement and enforce aggressive vegetation management, fuel reduction, defensible space, and emergency access measures to reduce wildfire risk to Lahaina and surrounding communities.

We have testimony in support from Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Kaile Watson. Testimony, comments, DLNR or representative. Good morning.

Good morning. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee. My name is Michael Walker. I serve as the statewide fire protection forester and the department has provided testimony with comments, and I'm available for any questions you may have.

Thank you. We have testimony in support from HHFDC. Good morning, Mr. Minakami.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members, Dean Minakami, the tech collector of HHFDC. We stand on our testimony and support and offering comments.

Thank you. Any other testifiers here in person via Zoom, seeing none. Members questions?

Oh, question for DLNR.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry. I didn't have time to, look at your testimony. Can you just summarize your comments for me, please?

Yes. We just wanted to make sure that any work that the legislature would like to see done in this resolution is in line with the developing statewide wildfire strategy that is being developed through the depart department of attorney general's contract with Hawaii wildfire management organization. It's pull pulling all of the state departments together, assessing, the risks to their property, what their values are at risk, and how each can contribute each department can contribute to fire prevention, suppression efforts, and recovery efforts.

So basically, you're supportive based on their qualification.

Yes. As long as it's in within line.

I understand. Yes, sir. Alright. Thank you. You're welcome.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Okay. We any other questions? Alright.

Seeing none, let's move on to HCR 141 HR 133 urging the County Of Maui to enforce the provisions of the fire code of the County Of Maui relating to fire hazards, Blush Brush Clearance, fuel breaks, roadside vegetation clearing, and emergency access. We have testimony. No testimony. Okay. Seeing none.

Moving on to HCR 150 HR 142. Requesting the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency to identify and assess emergency shelters capable of withstanding hurricane conditions and to develop a plan to improve the state's hurricane shelter capacity. We had testimony in support from Aloha Independent Living Hawaii, Roxanne Bolden. Testimony and support from Terry Yoshinaga. Any other testifiers in the room?

Any other testifiers via Zoom? Seeing none. Members, questions? Seeing none, moving on to HR, HCR 171, HR 161, requesting the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency to assist in organizing a statewide summit of organizations working on community resiliency hubs. We have testimony in support from, Roxanne Bolden. Aloha Independent Living Hawaii and testimony in opposition from Theresa Ambruster.

Go ahead, Ms. Ambruster.

Hello, my Chair and Committee Members. I'm Teresa Armbruster and I oppose HR 161, HDR 171 because there's really no need to use our tax dollars for this summit because communities already work together to help each other, especially in times of need and disasters. Also, there's gonna be an ongoing funding challenge with this. Even vibrant Hawaii and Serene that are supposed to be leading this summit, they already have ongoing challenges with funding and maintaining community support.

And even though this summit is supposed to be about disaster preparedness and resilience, I think you're gonna get more resistance from communities, especially if this is gonna be more government directed and controlled because we have not forgotten all of the lockdowns, mandates, and, tyrannical government control during COVID.

And one of the goals of this summit is for Hawaii Emergency Management Agency to to put together all of the findings and recommendations and then possibly propose new laws. And we don't need any more laws because the current laws right now in 127A are already disastrous. And, lastly, when communities and churches and charities help during disasters, 90% of the money goes directly to those in need and only about 10% overhead. But when government tries to step in and help, it's just the opposite.

90% of the money goes to administration and bureaucratic red tape, and only 10% goes to those in needs.

So even though Chair Belatti, I know you're one of the introducers of this resident of these resolutions. I just respectfully ask you and Committee Members to vote no on HR 161 and HCR 171. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Allen Burster. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers via Zoom? Members, questions?

Oh, go ahead. Please state your name for the record. And then if you can provide your name to the, staff and, and go ahead and provide your testimony. Okay.

Aloha. My name is Margaret Mejia and I'm here on behalf of Hawaii Christian Coalition. Hold on. Let me just pull this up here. Sorry.

Okay. All right. Yeah, so I oppose HCR 171 and HR 161. I don't know if you guys already-- I just got here, so I'm sorry if I missed the other one. But anyway, the two entities, Vibrant Hawaii and CERENE, who would lead the summit, they already have challenges of ongoing funding and maintaining community support.

Another concern is that after this proposed summit that the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency and Hawaii EMA will report findings and may propose new legislation. There's no need for this resolution. The communities were already working together and helping each other in these times of need. We already have hubs.

A lot of them are initiated by churches and other 501c3s, and I think the previous testifier said that when the government, like, does a homeless initiative or disaster emergency management, that the money doesn't go to the people where the people need it. When the government does it, a lot of it goes through the administration and other people before it even gets to the people.

So I've always believed that churches in the community are the best to provide these services because more of the money goes directly to them. I think the previous testifier said 90% goes to administration when the government does it and only 10% to those in need.

And then, when the people do it, the churches and the community, then 90% of the money goes directly to the people, only 10% through administration, et cetera. So, yeah, I think that we don't need the red tape, and I know that this bill would also raise our taxes. So, yeah, I'm against raising taxes, and I think that more power should be in the hands of the people instead of the government. Thank you.

All right. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers via Zoom? Members, questions?

I have a question.

Go ahead, Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you. So I just reread the-- I just reread the resolution, and I didn't see that we were going to-- it was asking to create more laws?

It's at the-- at the bottom. Look way at the bottom of the thing. It says, in-- Hawaii Emergency Management Association is to report to the Legislature findings and recommendations and possibly propose new laws. It'll be--

Oh, proposed legislation. I see what you're saying. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Sorry.

That's what I'm saying. We don't need new laws concerning this. We already have enough.

So I guess one of my concerns is that, do we-- are you aware of any-- what do we do if there's a Level 1 Hurricane? You know, they-- it gets as bad as Level 5. But for even Level 1, so we've sat in informational briefings where we were disclosed-- it was told to us that there actually is no plan. There is no place to go.

We can't tell people to go to this facility because even the schools that are used as temporary shelters aren't hurricane rated. I was hoping that a summit like this, maybe people can start talking about that. Like, hey, in our district, most of the homes are single-wall construction, and they're gonna all be blown away by Hurricane 1.

You know what I mean? Like-- and so where should we go? So a summit, I thought, would actually provide the opportunity for communities go, well, we're really screwed-- like, I mean-- because, like, in Kaka'ako, there's a lot of high-rises that may be able to withstand hurricanes because of their structures, and we may be able to get neighbors into those buildings.

I want you to note that one of the previous resolutions was already about the government preparing, giving, shoring up structures for hurricane force winds.

So if the government does their part of that, this bill is more towards just gathering information and strategies, but it seems like it's gonna be getting the strategies and help from the community but then taking it and enforcing laws as opposed to really leaving it in the hands of the people to help each other out, and we don't need more red tape. That's what I was concerned about.

Right, right.

You know, when the recommendations are gonna take all the information from the community, thinking they're gonna have their input, and all of a sudden there's gonna be laws imposed on people, and that's what we really are against that.

We really wanna keep it in more in the hands of the people because we've seen it time and time again that communities work better together when they're not imposing all these laws and regulations, that they really share the love and aloha for one another and help each other out because we didn't-- I just wanna note, we did see a lot of that during Lahaina wildfire.

It was the communities and churches and everybody pulling together to help each other out, and sometimes it was actually the government agencies that were trying to stop them from providing the sources. I mean, people were trying to bring things on boats. They were trying to stop them at the harbors, stop trucks from going in there. So that's why we don't want something like that to happen again.

But how do we prevent that? Like, part of me thinks that this is an opportunity to say, you remember when you did this in Lahaina where you stopped people? Like, how do we prevent that on the next time? You know what I mean? Like--

What do you mean stop people? From what?

No. You mentioned that the government was stopping aid.

They're actually-- yes.

So how-- right. So how do we use an opportunity to bring people for everyone to--

You can just use regulations and for the agencies not to do those kind of things because they're supposed to be, you know, helping and not hindering.

Got it. Okay.

So that's what I would suggest more, that they already have certain guidelines and laws, how they're supposed to do their duty.

So a summit to have a conversation from diverse geographical locations is, like, let's not talk about it. Also, I think you made a reference to different churches helping. I've been surprised in this position to learn how much of our taxpayer dollars go to church, go to religious organizations to offer the help.

For instance, Catholic Charities offers a lot of rental subsidy stipends, like first month check or the deposit. A lot of that is state taxpayer funds that we partner with church organizations, so it's not either or. A lot of times there's partnerships and we're working together.

Well, there's a difference between a charity like a Catholic Charities. That is an organization, but churches themselves, that's donations from people. It's not like-- it's not regulated by-- it's not tax dollars to the church.

You know? So-- and the government's not giving the churches money. They're doing it out of their own love and caring for the community to make donations and help.

Got it.

And volunteer. So that's why there's a difference between that.

Yes.

Also-- I've also learned that we-- there is state funds going to, like, the Hawaii Food Bank, and then the Hawaii Food Bank might partner with the local church in the community to serve as a distribution hub. So often to the public, it looks like, oh my god, these amazing parishioners are buying all the food to give out to the community, but many times, and people aren't aware, that it is taxpayer-- also, I'm saying it's both, but it's not like we're excluding. We're partnering. I just wanna make sure that people are aware of that.

Well, I just also wanna, you know, emphasize that we don't need-- it seems like what this is gonna-- it sounds like a good idea at first getting the summit together, but it sounds like it's gonna be more laws and regulations, how you can do these things and wherever, so I'm just wanna have that distinction and make sure there's guidelines that, yeah, it's okay to gather information, but communities are already doing-- working on that together, so we don't need to use our tax dollars towards the summit.

Got it. Thank you.

So we can just have a volunteer get together without having the government involved, have the communities work together.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. There's been a lot of conversation about this. Moving on to House--

Chair, can I ask a question?

Sure. Go ahead. Well, one more question and then let's move on so that we can get to-- make sure we get to decision-making. Go ahead.

Question to Ms. Terry. Can I ask you a question? You mentioned Vibrant Hawaii and CERENE already facing funding shortages, and I was just wondering, have you been in communication with them to confirm that they oppose this bill?

No, I didn't. No, and they didn't-- I didn't state they oppose the bill. I'm just saying that when we're trying to put these hubs together, so.

I understand that. I was asking if you knew if they oppose the bill because-- I understand you're not speaking on their behalf, but you referenced them, so I was just curious if you did have communication with them.

No, I did not. I just was looking up information because they're gonna be leading the summit, so I'm gonna find out, you know, what kind of things they're working on and what kind of issues they are already having. And it's mainly is very-- can be specific-- you know, significant challenges for ongoing funding and even maintaining-- they're already saying they're already having trouble maintaining community support. So, okay.

Understood. I just wanted to--

Thank you.

--establish that. And, I'm sorry. One more--

Go ahead. One follow-up.

You know, as was--

Yeah, please. I'm sorry. As was mentioned by Rep. Iwamoto, we did have a informational briefing on resilience hubs, and Vibrant Hawaii and CERENE and other stakeholders attended and gave presentations on, you know, the great work that they're doing. And HIEMA was also here, Hawaii Emergency Management.

Is it for me or--

And, you know, as we had the discussion, they-- one of the things that they did express was the desire to establish, or have a summit, and bring more stakeholders together because I can understand, you know, your perspective of the possible negative ramifications, but I guess we could also look at-- could we also consider that there may be positive aspects of this?

Because I think this is a good idea to get people together and get more expansion of an establishment of resilience hubs because, would you agree that we need more resilience hubs whether they're private, we need more of them throughout our state to help people?

I think we can work together, but the main issue here is about where is all the money gonna come from? Right now, they're asking for private donations and things like that. You're gonna run people dry trying to build all this infrastructure for all these hubs. So I still, you know, am against this. I don't-- I'm not really against maybe just getting information from people, but not when it's gonna be more government-directed and controlled.

I would agree with you, but I'm just posing the possible positives that would come out of this summit and getting people together, sharing best practices, expanding and establishing more resilience hubs to strengthen communities throughout the state, and that's, I think, the vision of this resolution. And it's just that I--

I guess-- I guess another question I had, too, is, it was saying relevant groups. Who is considered relevant, you know? Because, you know, before, during Covid, they were saying essential and nonessential. A lot of the community was considered nonessential. Who's gonna be the relevant groups?

They're gonna come to this summit. It's only gonna be the ones that agree with all the government guidelines right now, or is it gonna be all input from everybody and not just-- because I even saw one that was saying, like, there's people with disabilities and things like that. Are they gonna be included in here? Because there's a lot of things with people with disabilities, thoughts and things. So I thought, who are gonna be the relevant groups? You gotta consider more about this.

You bring up a very good points, and those are things that we should consider. I agree with you. We should consider those things and make sure that those things are part of the summit and there's equality and fairness for equal representation, so thank you. Thank you, all.

I also recommend, do not rush this, and, you know, that I think there needs to be a lot more discussion on this. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Really good discussion, members. Good questions.

Moving on to HCR 186, HR 176, urging the United States Department of Defense and Defense Health Agency to extend the renewal period for secretarial designee health care authorizations related to the Red Hill water contamination crisis and to improve health care access for affected individuals.

We have testimony in support from Board of Water Supply, in support from Sierra Club of Hawaii, in support from the Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii. We have testimony in support from individuals, and I will identify those. First via Zoom, Tara Sutton. Thank you.

Aloha, Chair and Members of the Committee. Again, thank you for allowing me to testify twice. I'm submitting testimony again on my personal capacity in support of HCR 187. My family lived on joint base Pearl Harbor-Hickam during the 2021 Red Hill fuel releases, and we only moved out of that home this past January.

For my family, the Red Hill crisis did not end when the water was declared safe. Years later, we are still dealing with the health impacts and the ongoing struggle to access appropriate medical care. Shortly after the crisis began, my family experienced symptoms.

Including asthma attacks, heartburn, nausea, skin irritation, stomach cramps, other GI issues. Even our cat avoided her water bowl for days and would become sick eventually when she did drink. There was a great deal of confusion in those early days about whether the water was safe or not safe and what the Navy water line actually was.

Like what was included in that. My family followed guidance that the gym was safe on base, and so we would walk down to the gym and shower, only to learn later that we were continuing our exposure. When I first sought care at the Red Hill Clinic, it took four hours to make an appointment through the nurse advice line.

I eventually was referred to neurology at Tripler, and they diagnosed me with migraines that have brainstem auras. After three months of treatment, I was referred. I was informed that I could no longer receive care at Tripler because the hospital no longer had enough neurologists to see any civilian patients.

This is despite the fact that I'm a spouse of an active duty service member insured under TRICARE Prime and a patient of the Red Hill Clinic. When I went back to the Red Hill Clinic hoping they could reconnect me with care, as is their mission for the Red Hill community.

I was told they could not provide that referral and that I would need to find a neurologist on my own. There was no warm handoff, no transition plan, and no continuity of care. Ultimately, I spent a year on a wait list while my condition went untreated.

Today, I am again facing barriers to care as I seek diagnostic testing that is only available on island at Tripler, and that department is, again, not seeing civilian patients. So I'm being referred to the continent for testing. The recently released report from the National Academies of Sciences confirms that the Red Hill crisis is not over for many families.

The committee recognized that affected communities continue to experience both physical and mental health impacts and emphasized the importance of ongoing clinical follow-up and consistent access to care along with stronger collaboration between military and civilian health systems.

That's why HCR 187 is so important. Policies that improve the continuity of care, strengthen coordination between military and civilian providers, and expand access to care will help ensure that the Red Hill victims are not left navigating these barriers alone.

Many families are still dealing with the impacts of the water crisis years later here in Hawaii, across the country, and even around the world as military families have been relocated. I respectfully urge you to support HCR 187, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify. I also wanna offer that if there are questions, I do have extensive knowledge on this topic. Thank you.

Thanks, Ms. Sutton. We also have testimony in support from a Ben Sutton. Testimony in support from Jamie Simic via Zoom. Jamie, are you there?

Aloha. How's everybody today? Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify. My name is Jamie Simic, and I support HCR 186 and HR 176. To this day, too many of us family members and the civilian community who drank the waters was poisoned, and we are still struggling.

I submitted my physical testimony, but I'm gonna speak a little bit off the cuff. You can read my physical. I have used, I'm one of the few that have used the current Secretarial Designation Letter, and there are flaws in it. There are struggles, and I still... Sorry.

I still struggle physically, and I've only been able to obtain medical care or see providers for specialty care maybe four or five times over the year. There is issues with gaining access to base access. I am a former military spouse of eighteen years and have been left behind.

So I have had the opportunity to see both the civilian sector as well as the military spouse sector, and we need changes to this designation letter. We need this designation letter to be ongoing and change over every two years. We also need for us to be able to see civilian providers locally. I have to travel an hour and a half as a single parent one way to have care done.

I needed a colonoscopy and an EGD done, but I would have to have done the prep an hour and a half away. They also were not able to put me under anesthesia at the facility. If the facility is small and they don't have the specialty care appointments, you cannot be sent out to a civilian provider right now. Need a Holter on my heart.

They could not order me a Holter and have it sent to my address in order to get an accurate reading of what's going on with my heart. They also cannot send it to the clinic and have it put on there. Also, there comes the issue with base access. I had to have somebody sponsor me on.

They've now given me permission or granted me special permission, but I haven't been able to go pick it up due to living an hour and a half away and having to care and take care of my children, as they always will come first. So I plead with you guys, and I thank you for introducing this resolution.

And I plea, and this is just my flight in Florida, but this is what I hear over and over from people on the island as well as off the island. And we now know that this goes globally because people have left there and not many stay, or many do stay, but they also transition out. So aloha, mahalo for your time, and I thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Simic, for joining us. We had testimony in support from Chris Anton, Stephanie Wagner from the Red Hill Registry, Nanea Lo. Individuals, the following are all individuals in support. Nanea Lo, Patti Choy, Monique Delgado, Peggy Wagner, Mariko Jackson, and Sherry Pollack. Any other testifiers in the room? And if you could provide your name to the staff.

Robin Nelson. Again, I wasn't able to submit written testimony in time, so I apologize on that. So this can be off the top of my head. First and foremost, I wanna recognize that the military are guests on the island, and a lot of us, before we join, are in scouts growing up. I was a scout growing up.

And one of the key tenets we're taught when we're young is to leave the place better than you left it, and we are not doing that here. It's high time we start taking care of our people, taking care of our land, and of one another. With that, I support this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers via Zoom? Members, questions? Go ahead, Representative Shimizu.

Ms. Sutton.

Ms. Sutton, if you can come back on.

I'm here.

Thank you.

Good seeing you, Ms. Sutton. Thank you for your good work and how you established the registry to go forward with this crisis turning it into a positive. My question would be, without this extension, what is the determination on...

Testing. 1, 2, 3. Testing. Testing. 1, 2, 3. Mahalo.

At least it's not telling us to leave. Go ahead.

Yes. The question was, without this extension, when would the the current situation be terminated? And what, and what are the associated consequences with that?

The secretarial designation is currently it was just renewed on March 10, 2026 for one year until March 10, 2027. So I believe this resolution is requesting that it has two year periods that when it gets renewed, it will last. So that way it will provide a little more continuity of care for the people who are seeking care.

Consequences if this bill does not go through or this resolution does not go through is if the secretarial designation letter is lost, first of all, if it's not renewed in 2027, then there are 93,000 people who were potentially exposed based on the Navy's records.

And those people will no longer have access to care for the symptoms that are related to this exposure. As long as I have, for example, I can use myself, as an example. If I have access to TRICARE, I can continue seeing military facilities as long as there's adequate coverage of the doctors.

Otherwise, civilians will get kicked out even without that privilege. But if I, say, divorce from my husband, he's one year from retiring, or if he, you know, separates for any other reason, then we, I would lose access to that care again. And he would have access through VA, but that's different as a service member. So it's significant.

Also the one of the biggest things is just the NASEM report, the National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. They call for additional data on this exposure because there's not enough known about jet fuel exposure and what will happen to our bodies in the years to come.

And they call for continued relationships with our primary care providers, and they also call for research to be done based on data collected by this health registry that I'm a part of, the Red Hill Registry here in Hawaii, and also the DOEHRS registry, which is part of DHA.

Okay. Ms. Sutton, can we go offline and can you help me to pursue additional action that goes beyond this resolution? I'd like to see how that can happen.

100%. I can send you an email with my full contact information.

Thank you, Representative Shimizu. Any other questions? Ms. Sutton, can you just hang on? I have a question. Are you familiar with how the military may be handling other situations where there's been contamination? And have they done a better job?

Okay. So I can't really speak to the last question, better job. That that's a judgment call that I'm not qualified to make, but I can say that the military has a system of collecting information for a registry. They have one big registry. I know the acronym, so forgive me, but it's ILER.

When that is, data is pulled for that automatically, it's not opt in, if you will. It's based on your location and your duties. So if a service member is in an area where there's active burn pits going, their information is automatically put down as part of the burn pit registry.

So ILER kinda houses everything, and then there are individual registries. So the department of, the Department Health Agency has a registry for Red Hill. They do not have opt in elements, and they do not have self reported data. It's all based off service records and health records, I believe.

So better job, not better job, I can't really speak to that. But I can say that they do at least communicate that information to the VA so that the VA can do some, the VA acts in a manner that's called exposure informed care where they assume exposure occurred based on your presence and duties around the world during your service.

Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Thank you very much.

That, those don't include any service members or contractors or people who attended school or day care. You know, it only the service member and DOD related people.

Yeah. Oh, wait. Can I... I'm gonna do one follow-up and then you can ask yours. You know, what I'm curious about is because we know that the military has been sued in other places. Right? Obviously. And so that's why we have these registries. I'm wondering if there's been experience with other places where there has been water contamination.

I think Camp Lejeune is a big, is a big site. So I'm just wondering and I understand that you can't comment on the value judgments of what's better or not, but I'm just wondering if there are other practices that you've seen with other incidents that are not being adopted now currently.

Well, one thing I wanna be clear about since my professional affiliation is brought into this, I do, I am part of the Red Hill Registry. Health registries really don't have anything to do with litigation in any way. Red Hill does have extensive litigation going on as far as, you know, tort claims, there's criminal investigation, the Board of Water Supply is seeking compensation of recovery of finances.

But a health registry is to follow people who were part of an exposure because we need to know how those health outcomes look. It's not about proving anything for a legal standpoint. It's about understanding the science of it, understanding how to guide health care providers.

The Red Hill Registry is providing, you know, like continued medical education for healthcare providers. Here in Hawaii, currently, we're expanding that to a broader audience nationally, but to give guidance on how to treat patients who have experienced this exposure. So health registries really provide a whole different area of service.

Got it. Thank you. Actually, thank you for that clarification.

You're welcome.

Representative Shimizu.

Last question is related to Chair Belatti's question on what is happening elsewhere, and you commented on the registry and the communication that was established. Those registries or communications in other jurisdictions, do they have any health coverage related to the incident or no?

Are you referring to that, like, the ILER and the Red Hill Registry. So because that is communicated through the VA, the service members who have VA health coverage, they will have their VA coverage, but those registries don't provide health care coverage whatsoever. All they do is collect and track and store data. Registries don't offer any other health coverage or compensation, things like that.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Seeing none. Members, we're going to recess, and then we'll come back and do decision making. We need to get quorum, so we're going to recess and come back at 11:15. 11:15. Alright. We're at recess.

Good morning. Convening our notice of decision making hearing. Today is Friday, March 27, 11am, Conference Room 411, the Committee on Public Safety. Members, we've had a lot of discussion. These bills are moving, these two bills are moving on both sides. But to continue the conversation, my recommendation for Senate Bill 2109, SD 2 is going to be to largely keep and retain most of the Senate Draft, but making the following amendments.

I wanna replace the language at page 12, line 7 to 18, with language that comes from House Bill 1531, House Draft 1, where we had crafted language essentially asking for a picture in picture window display. I am not adopting the recommendations of DCAB because what I've learned and I think we can vet out in JHA is that further defining and giving very, very specific sizing requirements will actually run afoul of federal regulations and federal jurisdiction.

And so that's not something I believe we can do, but we can further vet that out. Making any technical amendments identified by HMSO and then further defecting the date to July 1, 3000. Members, any questions, comments, or concerns? All right. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2109, SD 2. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. [Roll Call] Chair, your motion is adopted.

Okay. Members, Senate Bill 2151 s two. My recommendation is going to be to pass out, an HD one. And again, members, there's a lot of conversation, occurring in this legislative session actually about kind of the balance of powers, this, the checks and balances between our branches of government. So my recommendation is going to be to strike the preamble in the Senate draft two, adopt the preamble that we have in house bill 2581 house draft two.

For the definitional sections, keeping, the changes in section two and four and five throughout, but adding in the definitions for catastrophic harm and emergency of as identified, in house bill two five eight one house draft two, to further adopt the amendments by the Public First Law Center, and also to change, that the legislature made by an affirmative vote by a simple majority of the members, to terminate a state of emergency.

Similarly, we allow the county council to allow a simple majority to terminate a local state of emergency. I understand that we've been receiving a lot of further advocacy that we should not adopt anything at all, but I think that this is a really important conversation we need to have. We need to, as the state legislature, I believe, begin to rein in some of these emergencies that are far too prolonged.

It's actually an indication of the fact that we probably are not doing our own jobs on legislation.

And so I think in our research, we we actually are actually far out of line. Our governor has tremendous amount of powers in other states. Emergencies terminate actually very quickly. And so I think given what but but given our history, that it's really important that we start to put in some guardrails and changing it so that we can have a conversation about what what it will take to terminate, emergency, order is a very important part in the conversation.

So changing it from, two thirds to a simple majority, I think, actually will push the conversation a little bit further.

Any technical amendments, identified by, HMSO and then we're gonna further defect the date. So it's 3000. 3000. Members, any questions, comments, or concerns? Representative Shimzu.

Chair Belatti, I wanna I wanna thank you for, that narrative and acknowledging the concern with the governor's current emergency powers. And we acknowledge the, opposing testimony and, try to personally try to suggest some amendments that would further reduce those powers. But this is a positive step. I appreciate you changing it to a simple majority And, we we, take one positive step and move towards expanding, from there. So thank you, chair.

I will be voting yes with reservations.

Okay. Thank you. Representative Imoto Iwamoto and then representative, Suzette.

Thank you, chair. Is there any we heard testimony concerned, with the perception that the governor could, basically, exempt the state, not just from laws, but also constitutional, mandates. Is there do you think we should put something, specifically stating the preservation of constitutional rights in this, just so it's clear to everyone.

I I think, I this is gonna go to Jayha. So I think if you have some language, I'm not opposed to it, but because I don't have anything in front of me, I don't know what it would say. So I would I would, encourage you to work on something moving forward. But I understand what you're trying to say. It's kind of like an inoculating statement.

But I just so I'm not opposed to that. I don't wanna insert it now Because we don't we have to meet a deadline.

Yeah.

Perhaps we can mention it in the committee report. Okay.

We can do that. Alright. Okay. Representative Souza.

Thank you, chair. I will be voting no on this measure. I understand it's a work in progress, but I've had many discussions with my constituents in Makoquilo and Kapolei District 43. And, they have very sincere concerns about this legislation in its current form. And so, hopefully, going forward, we can make changes in a positive direction to, to appease some of those concerns.

But I do wanna thank my constituents for, articulating very clearly their reservations. And, and I'm glad that this vote is on behalf of them. So I will be voting no.

Alright. Thank you, representative. So any other comments, questions, or concerns? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Okay. I'm voting on SB 2151 SD two. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absences of Morikawa, representatives Morikawa and Poi Poi, and noting the arrival of representative Itchyama, are there any members wishing to vote? No other than member, Souza.

Okay. Any members voting with reservations other than representative Shenzhen. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. All right. We are adjourned on our 11AM agenda, reconvening our 10AM agenda for resolutions. Members first up, and we have to do both the Concurrent Resolutions and resolutions separately. So I apologize.

We're gonna have to... It's a little bit cumbersome. First up, we have HCR 4, urging the Governor to take action to protect transgender members of the Hawaii National Guard, etcetera. Chair's recommendation for this is some tech amendments. We need to just correct the number, executive order number.

Also, I wanna adopt the amendment requested by the Hawaii State LGBQT Plus Commission, which asked us just to kind of expand, to recognize the cultural context of Māhū in our communities. So taking up that language. And that's it, Members. Questions, comments, and concerns for HCR 4?

Chair, I have a comment.

Go ahead.

I can support this resolution because I don't believe in discrimination. And I think that's the greatness of God's creation and our country's personal freedom to choose. If anyone is qualified, they should not be discriminated against.

My, I have reservations that this resolution, just as we have protocol in the House floor that we don't name people personally and we use titles. I think we should strike references to personal names and maintain objectivity and professionalism.

I also point out that the third paragraph makes reference to pausing gender affirming medical procedures and hormone therapies. And my thought is, because this is a personal choice, which I, kudos to whoever has that personal choice.

We should not involve the government or any employer to pay for these processes. So I would request that we strike this paragraph and focus on the main point of this resolution to permit qualified transgender service members to continue services. And that's my position, Chair.

Okay. I'm not gonna adopt that because there's a second committee, but I hear the concerns. And so, again, just because I want to move along and I haven't had the opportunity to look at those amendments, I'm not opposed to them, but we do have another opportunity in the next committee.

Great. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HCR 4. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absence of Representatives Morikawa and Poepoe. Are there any Members wishing to vote no? Any Members wishing to vote with reservations? Thank you, Chair. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HCR 40 requesting the Department of Defense to convene a working group to develop recommendations for a state of Hawaii commemorative Vietnam veterans, medal. Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is. No tech amendments were identified by HNSO.

Are we doing HR three?

Did I not do HR three?

No.

Okay. I'm sorry. Same recommendation. Same recommendation. Same recommendation.

Thank you very much. We are voting on HR three, which is a companion bill to HCR four. Same recommendation, same comments, same reservations. Any other further discussion? Seeing none, chair, vice chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on HR three chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting to excused absences of representatives, Marie Cullen, Clay Coy. Are there any members wishing to vote no? Any members wishing to vote with reservations?

I think I got it. Thank you so much. Chair, you're working on the agenda as adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HCR 40, requesting the Department of Defense to convene a working group to develop recommendations for a state of Hawaii commemorative Vietnam veterans medal. Again, members, chair's recommendation is to pass this as is. No tech amendments were identified by, each missile. Questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on HCR 40 chair's recommendation is to, pass as is noting Vixi's absences of Marikawa and Poepoe. Are there any members wishing to vote now? Any members wishing to vote with reservations? Seeing none material recommendation is adopted.

Chairs recommendation on HCR 117 urging the governor to assess food insecurity conditions and implement a statewide food security response plan. Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is. Any questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none, vice chair for

the vote. Voting on HCR 117, chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Noting the excused absences of Representatives Marikawa and Poi Poi. Are there any members wishing to vote no? Are there any members wishing to vote with reservations? Seeing none, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. HR 109 which is the companion to HCR 117 same recommendation, pass as is. Questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Noting the absences of representatives Poepoe and Morkawa, Are there any members wishing to vote no or with reservations? Seeing none, chair your recommendation is adopted.

K. Moving on to HCR 140 urges agencies that own a control land in West Maui to implement and enforce aggressive vegetation management, fuel reduction, defensible space, and emergency access measures to reduce wildfire risk to Lahaina and surrounding communities.

Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with house draft one with an additional whereas clause to ensure that this is effort is going to be in alignment with the work already the work being done currently with the Hawaii Wildfire Management Organization through the work and recommendations based on FSRI. So this is really acknowledging the comments that we received from DLNR. Any questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on HCR 140, chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments, noting the excused absences of Marikawa and Poipoli. Are there any members wishing to vote no or with reservations? Seeing none, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

HR 132 is the companion to HCR 140, same recommendation for house draft one. Any questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none, vice chair for

the vote. Okay. Voted on HR 132, chair's recommendations to pass with amendments. Noted and excused absences of Poepoe and Morikawa. Are there any members wishing to vote no or with reservations? Seeing none, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Moving on to HCR 141 urging the county of Maui to enforce the provisions of the fire code of the county of Maui relating to fire hazards, brush clearance, fuel breaks, roadside vegetation clearing, and emergency access of

Excuse me. 140.

141. Oh. Did Ido 132? Did I do HR 132? Yes. I did.

Give it to a full trip. No. Sorry. They told us no. Why am I I have.

Sorry. I don't know.

So it's HCR141 and HR 133.

Sorry. No. That's so this is H R

H CR 141. HCR 141.

Sorry about that.

I acknowledge we didn't receive, testimony. I think it's in part because of all of this storms that we're having, and so, County Of Maui could not have weighed in. My recommendation is gonna be to push this forward, unamended as is. And there's another committee that's gonna hear it, so, hopefully, we can get testimony then. Members, comments, questions, or concerns?

Seeing none, vice chair for the vote on HCR 141.

Okay. Sorry. Voted on HCR 141. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is, noting the the excused absences of Morikawa Poepoe and now representative Hashem. Are there any ... or with reservations? Seeing none, chair recommendation is adopted.

Hey. Yes. HR 133 is companion to HCR 141 same recommendation. Questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on HR 133 chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Noting the excused absences of representatives Hashem or .... Are there any members wishing to vote no or with reservations? Seeing none, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. HCR 150, requesting HIEMA to identify and assess emergency shelters capable of setting hurricane conditions and to develop a plan to improve the state's hurricane shelter capacity. Chair's recommendation is some tech amendments.

We are gonna change page one, line 30 from shall to request to. Resolutions cannot mandate actions the same way that bills can. So it's gonna be a request. And that's it. So tech amendments identified by HMSO. Questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HCR 150. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absences of Representatives Hashem, Morikawa, and Poepoe. Are there any Members wishing to vote no? Or with reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Same recommendation for the companion measure of HR 142. Questions, comments, or concerns. So that's for house draft one to HR 142. Vice chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on HR 142. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. I know that the excused absences of Hashem, Marikawa, and Poipoi. Were there any members wishing to vote no or with reservations? Seeing none your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Moving on to HCR 171, requesting the HIEMA to assist in organizing...

Do we just lose quorum?

Okay. Okay. Thank you for asking. Requesting the HIEMA to assist in organizing a statewide summit of organizations working on community resilience hubs. Chair's recommendation for HCR 171 is to do a House Draft 1. To strike at page 2, line 4, relevant. We wanna make sure that this is an inclusive summit. And then in the second, be it further resolved...

Actually in the, be it resolved clause from line 17 to 23 on page 2, striking so that the recommend the report of its findings and recommendations regarding the best practices of the best practices for communities resiliency hubs in the state.

And striking the language, including any proposed legislation. So hopefully that addresses some of the concerns that were raised. And any tech amendments identified by HMSO. Seeing... Any comments, questions, or concerns?

Thank you, Chair, for your consideration.

Okay. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on HCR 171. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the absences of Representatives Hashem, Ichiyama... Oh, sorry. Nope. Sorry. Hashem, Morikawa, Poepoe, and now Woodson. Are there any Members wishing to vote no? Are there any Members wishing to vote with reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. For HR 161, the companion to HCR 171. Same recommendations for HD 1. Questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on HR 161. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting to excused absences of Representatives Hashem, Morikawa, Poepoe, and Woodson. Are there any Members wishing to vote no or with reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

K. Moving to our last one, and thank you members for your patience, and thank you to to the public for your patience. HCR 186 urging the US DOD and Defense Health Agency to extend the renewal period for secretary of designee health care authorizations related to the Red Hill water contamination crisis and to improve health care access for affected individuals. Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is pass this as is. Any questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Thank you. Vote on HCR 186. Chair's recommendations to pass as is. Noting the excused absences of representatives Woodson, Hesham, Floyd, and Marikawa. Are there any members wishing to vote no or with reservations? Seeing none, chair your recommendation is adopted.

Last one. HR 176. This is the companion to hcr 186. Same recommendation passed as is. No comments, questions, or concerns? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on HR 176 chair's recommendation is to pass as is, noting mixed use absences of representatives Woodson, Hashem, Poepoe, and Morikawa. Are there any members wishing to vote no or with reservations? Seeing none, chair your recommendation is adopted.

Members, have a happy Alola Friday. Please stay dry and safe over the weekend. We will see you all on Monday. We are adjourned.