House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to our Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs hearing. It's Wednesday, April 22, 2026, 3:00pm. We're in Conference Room 430 at the State Capitol. Before we get into the agenda, we'll just go through a little bit of housekeeping.

In order to get through as many testimonies as possible, we ask that you try to keep your testimony to around two to three minutes. We recently upgraded our microphone system, so please speak clearly and loudly. We don't have microphones.

They're in the ceiling, so you can just speak from the podium and try to project, and it should catch, catch you pretty well. For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify and after your testimony is complete. The Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with staff, but please do not use it for anything other than technical issues.

If you're disconnected, you can attempt to rejoin. If you're disconnected during your testimony, we'll try our best to accommodate you if you make it back in and if time permits. In the event of a network failure and in the event that we need to reschedule the hearing, we will post appropriate notice of the rescheduling. Please avoid using any trademark or copyrighted images.

Please refrain from profanity and uncivil behavior. And let's get started. We are hearing Senate resolutions today. First step is SCR 11, requesting the United States Congress to pass legislation to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, federally funded programs, credit, and jury service. First up, we have the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women.

Good afternoon. Llasmin Chaine from the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women. Pleasure to be here with you this afternoon. The commission will stand on is written testimony. We support the measure, as it affirms the principles of the federal Equality Act and its protections against discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. We appreciate the committee's consideration and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, Pride at Work Hawaii on Zoom.

Good afternoon. I'm Michael Golojuch Jr. He, him pronouns. I am President of Pride at Work Hawaii. We wanna thank you for hearing this resolution. That, make no mistake, we don't expect the federal government, given how hostile they are to the, our my community, to make a motion forward on this movement.

But we do, this does send a loud message loud and clear to the our community that we expect better of them and that they need to do more to protect the LGBTQIA plus community. And so we thank you again for hearing this, hearing this resolution, and we encourage you to pass it. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next is HOKU PAC in person. Okay. Not present. Is there anyone else wishing to provide testimony? Okay. Members, any questions?

I would just, I would... Chair, thank you. I would just like to comment that testifiers shouldn't be putting up signs or statements that are are not related to the measure that we're hearing. So that that's my comment and request.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Next measure, SCR 22, recognizing the 15th anniversary of the restoration of Abu Eneriel and affirming its unparalleled role in the spiritual, political, and cultural history of the state.

We did not have any testimony submitted or anyone signed up. Is there anyone wishing to provide testimony?

Okay. No one here to

No one here to provide testimony. We will move on to the next item. SCR 58 urging the division of voting and ocean recreation of the Department of Land and Natural Resources to develop a progressive enforcement framework for parking violations in parking lots under its jurisdiction, ensure proper use of parking areas by intended users, and improve the prevalence and clarity of signage regarding parking regulations, fees, and penalties. First up, Kate Thompson, Surf Parking Coalition.

Thank you for having me. This is a culmination of three or four years of work at the Board of Natural Resources and the board of environmental legislature with us as a Senate Concurrent Resolution.

And I'm the director of surfparking.org and got involved to protect the pre recreational parking without a lot of other. Just know that she's been the over from the

I'm here in full support of SCR 58 now. I really appreciate the last committee, water and land writing that what you're asking for is that the parking management company Secure Parking be allowed to give small funds as co park does at the White Eastern parking lot.

And this would provide public protection and contract oversight and it would more align with the legislative intent that's already written by Morwaki in here which is a progressive offer. Towing is used almost exclusively at this point. And president has to call a speech decision, and they're saying that the care officer is in there. This exhibit here. It's important to note that over and over, a deal in our and the L and R keeps saying that the first ticket is a $100.

That's not actually what the law says. The law says that, the first ticket cannot exceed $100, which is very different. And so and so we're saying, you know, that that these smaller tickets could be given, then we think this should be the same price that DLNR and DLNR still care or the HPB would be, which is $35 per day. And also they're saying that towing is normal, but actually, if you look

at bags in other apartment buildings, towing is very rare. In fact, bags would be 5,000

tickets in one year and they'd tow less one car a year or less. So and, in the SD one, they're asking for Dover to get this license plate reader car, which will cost the voters a 180,000 a year. We already paid for the kiosk that secure parking uses, but we don't think it's really fair for us to spend a $180,000 on this high-tech car that we'll be able to monitor how long these cars are in the parking lot unless that car can give citations.

And then it would be small fines, then it would be fine.

Just wanna show you real quick, and now I'll sit down, is that we had about 20 people in these shirts and instant towing at the border and natural resources. For two years, we've been working at that level, and the

board just isn't going deep there. They're not asking for analytics of the time between the when the car was towed and, you know, when the meter expired when the car was towed. And we have people many testimonies at the board level, people being towed within seven minutes. And they want to give warning, but warning still isn't where it's out because there's stuff.

I go there and I get a warning and I forget to tell my family member and they go to the Alaouac Roadhouse and they don't even know that I got a warning and then all of a sudden their car is towed. So we really just prefer to.

Thank you. Next is Margaret Hallahan on Zoom. Not present. Elizabeth White White's on Zoom. Not present.

Next in person, Althea Rothman.

Yes. Hi. Good afternoon, chair, representatives. Thank you for taking testimony today. I'm here in support of this bill.

I'm also here in support of miss Thompson, who does an incredible amount of work trying to reduce this unfair situation on the people. I look at it as an affordability issue as well. We're so focused on how to make things affordable, what's fair. Is it fair for people to go to the beach, come back ten minutes late and their car is towed? What does that do to a young family's budget?

Is it fair for people to pay all the taxes with, you know, GED, the price of paradise, and go to a CERC and come back.

Is that really how we want to treat people? I think we can do better. I think maybe it has evolved into what it is for certain pathways. But if you can change it or encourage change, I think that would be very helpful. I have a personal experience where I went down whatever time it was to pick up somebody whose car had been towed.

They were about fifteen minutes late. We take them all the way out to Sand Island. For some reason, the towing company doesn't have their credit card machine working, so you have to go get cash. This is a burden on people's lives, on their wallets, and there's really no need for it. Tickets deter illegal parking, I believe.

And abandoned cars could be towed, which they're not towed right now in the harbor. Secure parking is leaving a number of vehicles there, perhaps because it's not, profitable. In fact, I'm sure it would be unprofitable to take those vehicles and lean them and go through the entire process. That is a factor in the awarding of the contract, not in how citizens should be treated as we go about our lives in our city. We should

be able to go to the beach, have to work without paying our consult We're a few minutes late. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Kathleen Clark.

Aloha Chairman and Committee members. I apologize for not submitting testimony in advance. I was, gone, so I just cut home a day or two. I am in support of, Senate Concurrent Resolution 58. There's a couple of things that I would like to recommend as considerations as this moves forward.

The first is that, there are a number of users who use these parking lots. Many of them are recreational, surfers, sailors, etcetera, etcetera. But they're not all able to have a voice. And so if they're gonna move forward, we create a different structure for parking. There should be an opportunity to give voice to that. And public hearings, as we all know, are not necessarily the best way to do that.

So my recommendation is that you potentially modify the resolution, also call for the creation of some kind of a committee that is, representative of the users of the harbor to provide input into this new way that they're going to enforce the parking. And also, I do support instead of towing, issuing tickets. We all know that the ocean is a fickle place. We all know that you cannot predict what's gonna happen when you're out on the ocean.

There is a need to be able to give some leeway to people.

There's all kind of things that could happen out there and the opportunity to be able to have that, and know that your car is not gonna be gone when you get back is truly important. I think the last thing is that, you know, some of us go away on the boats for a couple days, maybe three, maybe four, whatever. There needs to be consideration for how you build that in to this parking process as well.

You know, one of the fishing, you don't necessarily come back when your parking ticket is done because you wanna catch the fish. So I just want you to think about all of the things that would provide input into a process that would be fair and reasonable and representative of all the users.

Thank you. Jason Bruske. Jason?

Okay. I'm also in well, I'm also in support of the bill and towing. Or not towing, but ticketing because towing is unfair. Katie has worked, up up most of many years on this just to have fair for the people. I also am an Uber driver here on the island, and I've taken many people who have gotten towed.

It's ruined their vacation or their visit. I've had to take them to, the towing spot, and they had to, they were required cash basically. So I had to take them back to an ATM and then bring them back. So it's just not fair and I think we could work on something that's fair for all the people. So then I stand upon my written statement.

So thank you. Thank you.

That's all we have signed up. Anyone else wishing to provide testimony?

Okay. Members, questions? Oh. For Shimizu?

Question for Miss Thompson. I've heard this this issue in previous hearings and one of the issue was that DLNR has personnel shortages to properly monitor and and issue citations. And, unfortunately, they're not here to ask questions to them, but I'm just wondering, are you aware or do you know if they're able to just call HPD to to give a ticket since that's normal that HPD does give the tickets. Yeah.

Of course. Agency under DLNR is the destination resource people. And they used to give the tickets in the harbor, and then it was delegated to the harbor agents. But the DLNR leaderships, has as recently as 2022, Suzette case that they don't want the harbor agents giving the tickets because they were found to be arbitrary and, you know,

I have to give them a good idea of people they don't like, and it was too much to train them and everything. So that's in your in your testimony of today. Suzanne Case is known on that. And GS says at that time that the DOCARE officers should be giving the tickets because they're trained. They can go to court if there's any appeals and that sort of thing.

But the staffing, even though there was a big boost in DOCARE officers in 2022-23, They have not taken on the ticketing role and that's why they're, they're so, I mean, to me, I think it's not fair for division of voting or DLNR to say that DOCARE officers, we want them to give the tickets to them and assign them the tickets. And then right now, SD 1 says that the harbor agents or some staff be deprecating. We didn't do that either. So

I'm gonna interrupt you. I'm sorry. Not to be rude, but Yeah. Just to, make sure we're causing some of our time. But so so what I'm hearing, my my question was if they could call HPD, but what I heard was I'm sorry. It's an intern it's an internal system that they don't call HPD.

Right. They did ask they do ask for help from HPD on July 4, and there's a lot of tickets and showing that comes on July 4. Different. HPB is not involved. They can give a ticket.

Like, let's say there's a expired meter or, not expired, but expired safety check for registration and the police officer happens to be driving through notices, they might pull up the $78. I just wanted to work out one thing on here. It's got this unauthorized vehicle is is what happens. Why when the meter expires

where they're paid, they're parked in a motor spot, they become unauthorized. And that's the only way I could get these towing records. Because people do have the tow trucks do have to come in when it's a trespass to ask how it towed 5,000 cars in four years is

Thank you. Sure. Correct. She's done.

Thank you, Chair. One follow-up question is just just from your testimony, paragraph nine, you you state, leader overstate $35, wrong stall $40, and expired safety or expired registration $70. Is it my understanding that you would prefer these these citation and payment amounts in lieu of toilet? Is that one of your main, objectives?

That's my main objective and and ProCard that gives a $20 ticket at the zoo for a meter overstay. And that's when the legislature initially said DLNR cannot do their own parking contracts because there's too much money involved. And, then it was a workaround in the wording of Act one sixty three that allowed DLNR to make their own parking contracts. But now that they have, they haven't really shown in my mind good faith to do something, like, have secure parking. Give me the ticket.

Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. We will move on to the next item. SCR 60 ST 1. Requesting the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide an update on the findings of the proof of concept study titled Breaking Cycles, alternative models of rehabilitation and restorative justice on Oahu, department of corrections and rehabilitation, Tommy Johnson.

Not present. That was the only person signed up. Oh oh, yes. Corrections reform working group Robert Merson.

Thank you. Thank you, Jerry Thomas, vice chair for employee members of the committee. My name is Bob Merson. I'm the chair of the correction reform working group. We're a group of mostly lawyers who've been very concerned about the direction that the planning and the design of the new jail has been taking.

We published a paper on the new jail in 2022 that was well received, I think, by the end. It was endorsed by, among others, the Correctional Reform Working Group,

by the

Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission, the UB and the Native Model and other very many other organizations. Our concern was based on the fact that we basically didn't know what was happening with the new jail and and and what we did know was was not good. But we were really glad when the department decided to enter into contact with you, which is why the new science center could do the breaking cycle study. I won't belabor that point, but that this is an incredible study.

It's just we spent two years working, trying to find all the best ideas in general planning.

And

sadly, Bouchard, the newest CDC found them right away to put them on. Made this extraordinary extraordinary outreach to 150 military organizations. They talked to prisoners. They talked to people who were in halfway houses. They talked to people who were in hospitals.

They were in drug They they just did an incredible job. And then every one of the ideas in that report are based on that research that they did and that outreach. When you look at the design principles, the framework, the design considerations, and all the wonderful ideas, they don't really come from the architects who wrote that report. They're all based, and this is the beauty of based on what they were doing when you spoke to the community.

And so this document reflects what the people of Hawaii want.

And we have been concerned that, it's going to go on itself as so many reports do and never be looked at again. And this resolution will prevent that from happening. I noticed that this is important. They will have to respond to the really brilliant ideas in this report. And, I I really like the idea of having two hearings, or two briefings, in this.

And I can assure you they will be if you pass this, they will be well attended and we will laser focus on them because we wanna know what's happening with that new jail and this will help us along.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to testify?

Aloha, vice chair chair, vice chair, committee members, Carrie Ann Shirota. I'm an attorney and also a member of the safety community safety coalition. I'm here to share some comments on this resolution. I apologize I've not submitted written comments. As we know, Hawaii is out of cost, and we must make a critical decision about whether we decide to build a billion dollar super jail or if we are looking at more cost effective solutions to building.

Right? That's really the heart of this. But for the position that I represent, we believe that it's physically prudent and wise for the state not to proceed on this track, which is we just absolutely have to go to jail until we invest in proven solutions to divert the people who are being incarcerated with the SC. And there are proven strategies in a number of other states, other jurisdictions that have implemented more investments into diversion, community housing, into pretrial reform as well as probation reform.

And if you look at the numbers of the people who are currently incarcerated in OCCC 60 to 70% are pretrial.

Meaning that they have been accused but have not been convicted of an attorney. They typically are not able to afford a bill due to they remain in custody, remove from their families from their children, they may lose their jobs, they may even lose their children in this process. Now there are proven strategies to implement pretrial release which means people can be in the community while still having it for community safety.

We have not fully explored that avenue And if we did that, we would decrease the number of people in our jail, not only at OCCC, but at model, the other jails that have. Second, we have approximately maybe 20% of the people in our jails are there for probation revocation.

Meaning that they're not often convicted of a new crime, but they have violated the terms and conditions of probation. And that could include because they have now have a positive test for using drugs. As we know, many people have drug addictions but there's a shortage of supply of prodrug addicts. So that could be a reason prodrug addicts fix and they might be re incarcerated and we're spending over $110,000 $110,000 a year to incarcerate people and it costs far less to provide them treatment in the community.

We're facing a budget crisis and if we continue on this track to say that absolutely we're gonna build a jail, my concern with this resolution is that if you look at the very last paragraph, it says, be it further resolved that the advisory committee is rec requested to develop recommendations that incorporate the findings in the design and planning.

It's making the assumption that we absolutely have to plan and at the particular site at Halawa. And our community coalition is advocating that we look and explore also including renovations at the existing site And we not build that building and not jail through a public private partnership.

We explore renovation and implement proven strategies to deparcerate because otherwise what's gonna happen, representatives, is that ten years from now, twenty years from now, that bill if we don't stop to fuel people into the system, that next jail with larger capacity will be full. And then we will be early next generation saying we need to build a bigger jail Okay. A bigger summarize?

Yes. So if I could just ask in terms of amendments, if we are gonna be passing this measure, I would recommend that we add two persons with knowledge experience with strategies of diversion, pretrial reform, information reform to this working group. Also that we accept the technical assistance from experts from the object from prison policy initiative.

And last if we could add another paragraph that says be it further resolved that the advisory committee has requested to develop recommendations that incorporate alternatives to incarceration including but not limited to pretrial reform diversion and probation. Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to provide testimony? Okay. Members, any questions? Seeing no questions. We will move on to SCR 184, requesting the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission to examine the applicability of existing state anti-discrimination laws to algorithmic and automated decision systems. 184. No one signed up to testify. We received one support, one comment. Is there anyone wishing to provide testimony in the room? Okay.

No one to ask questions of. We will move on to the next measure and the last measure. SCR 89, SD 1, requesting the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission to establish an advisory committee to develop recommendations on the implementation of alternative models for rehabilitation and restorative justice on Oahu. First up is Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Not present. Correctional Reform Working Group. Mr. Merce.

Chair. My name is Bob Merce, Chair of the Correctional Reform Working Group. We think this is even more important resolution than the other. They're both important. Because for the first time since 2015, when they began planning this new jail, the people of Hawaii, people who are really gonna be impacted by this jail are gonna have a chance to express their views on how the new jail is developed and designed.

We have not had that voice for, since 2015. We have tried over and over and over, but our efforts have been rebuffed. But this is really important for us because the people who are selected to be on this advisory group will represent a a large section of the community.

And jails, it's important to understand, sit at the middle of all of the of the issues that we have in our criminal legal system. In order to really think about designing a jail, you have to know a lot about, about houselessness and homelessness or and and mental illness and the way which you're handling mental illness, poverty, and certainly a whole range of social problems that impact on the jail.

And those voices never been heard, and this jail has been planned by people who are bureaucrats and well meaning. But for some reason, they just don't wanna listen to the people who really know something about the problems that the people who come into this jail bring with them. Therefore... As things now stand to really turn this billion dollar project.

And it's a shame that we have to spend this much. I don't think we do. I agree with many of the points that Carrie Ann Shirota made a moment ago. But being things being what they are and the fact that this jail is moving ahead, it's just so important that we have this voice. We call it in one of our reports the wisdom of the community.

And I believe that's a really good phrase. We didn't develop it, we read about it. But there is a really strong wisdom of the community out here. If you start to talk to people like, like Laura Thielen about houselessness. And what are you going to do when these people come out of the jail?

Are you gonna put them back on the street or not? And if you are, then you're just you know, it's gonna be a failure. So we need to talk about all of those issues as part of the planning of the jail, and this is going to go a long way for realizing that that agenda. So thank you very much for, for, the hearing on this. We really appreciate it.

Thank you. That's all we have signed up. Is there anyone else wishing to provide testimony?

I actually just realized that I'm here to testify on this bill, and so I'm so sorry that I thought I was on something on the other one. Although, they are related. Again, similar thing, comments. I had very specific amendments for this bill, but I think I wanna illustrate a point by giving a real life example.

As you know, some years ago, our juvenile justice system, our juvenile facility was overcrowded. And we had a decision at the time. There were people in the community said that it's decrepit, there are problems, we should build a larger, bigger juvenile prison.

And there are other members of our community that said no, we should look at alternatives to incarceration. And fortunately that segment of the community won. The working group was created, they worked with a national organization, and they started to implement best practices in reducing juvenile incarceration.

And we are now considered a national leader in reducing the number of youth in our prison system because we invested and we took the time to work with community and not just focus on a bigger building. And we managed to sustain that and something we need to be diligent about. Extrapolate that to our adult system.

We have, we're at a crossroads. We have the choice and we're still choosing to just to build. And I'm so grateful that Bob and others are saying, yes, design principles are completely important, but also what size are we building for? And years ago, this is 15 years ago, Representative Cochran is aware of this. On Maui.

Maui was considered more overcrowded than any other jail in Hawaii. I have the numbers over the years. And if you look at MCCC population as of last year, they were at one point over 400 individuals crammed into a facility that was built for 209 people. So it's double the capacity. And as of October, it's been consistent.

There are 214 persons below the rated capacity and just a few over designed bed capacity. But there was a push to build a 900 bed regional prison complex on Maui to lock up people in our community, most who are poor, struggling with mental health challenges, substance abuse, houselessness. And if we had invested all of that money, we would either need to fill it or we would have empty beds.

But the community in Maui came on and said, we wanna invest in alternatives. And I think that as part of this working group, we should be examining what did Maui do in terms of prosecutors, community members to reduce the number of people. And therein lies some of the answers for us, in addition to national best practices. So thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to provide testimony? Members, questions? No questions. I think we can vote.

I'm sorry. Can I ask, can I ask Carrie Ann Shirota a question? You asked the question of what did Maui do? Do you know what Maui did?

I do have a partial answer, but, of course, I think it should be further explored. I think a number of things had happened at the time. The criminal economic opportunity integration program had previously served with the director. So we were working with individuals who were incarcerated, usually one year before they were released, to provide options that to get services including case management. If they had a relapse, we would help with treatment.

We work with not only the individuals but their families. We help them with jobs. So for people who were exiting, you know, typically, Representative, it's about a 50% recidivism rate. And we had a third party study done by a professor, and she showed that individuals in our program significantly reduced the recidivism rate. So that was part of it.

But also for the prosecutor on Maui, Andrew Martin, he worked with our group at the time and others, and he I think he really uses judicial prosecutorial discretion. So a number of people they could push for like more harsher punitive sentences.

And even though I wouldn't call him a fully progressive prosecutor, I would say he's more moderate, but he has advocated for more treatment and for probation supervision more so than locking people up. And the current warden, Liane Endo, who worked for... She's implemented more programming and services inside. So it really is this holistic effort to make that happen.

I didn't see your written testimony. Can you forward that along with some of your answers that you just provided? I'd like to have that on record.

And I apologize. It just this came to my attention. I will do that. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay. We are gonna recess very briefly. We are coming back from recess. Thank you, Members. We will go into decision making starting with SCR 11. Recommendation is to pass as is. Any questions or comments? Yes, Rep Shimizu.

I understand and agree we should have no discrimination. My feeling is we should focus on state issues, so I will be voting no on this.

Okay. Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Voting on SCR 11. Recommendation of the chair is to pass unamended. Chair and vice chair vote aye. Representative Belotti?

Aye.

Representative Hashem is excused. Representative Kahaloa?

Aye.

Representative Sayama is excused. Representative Takayama?

Aye.

Representative Cochran.

Aye.

Representative Garcia.

No vote.

And representative Shimizu.

No vote.

Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. The next measure, SCR 22 SD1 . We did not receive any testimony for this measure. I think it's, a great thing to be recognizing and celebrating. However, I hope that we can look forward to signing on to a celebratory certificate, but the recommendation right now is to defer.

Okay. Moving on to SCR 58 SC 1 h d one. Recommendations to pass assets. Any comments or concerns?

Sure. I have I have

a question. I I know we're, kind of limited on amendments, but as we commented on the previous wall committee to enter Miss Thompson's amendment in the community parts, which was done in the wall committee report. We could also enter that in for consideration. Okay. Sure.

So we will enter the same comment that we entered in the Water and Land Committee report into

this committee report. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Share for the vote.

Thank you. Voting on Senate Concurrent Resolution 58 Cent. Draft one House draft one recommendation is to pass as is chair and vice chair. Both I represent a lot of

[Roll Call]

Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, chair. I think you members. SCR 60 SD 1 recommendation is to pass as is. Any, comments? Okay.

Chair,

the vote.

for

Thank you. Voting on Senate concurrent Resolution 60. Senate draft one. Recommendation is to pass as is chair and vice chair vote aye. Representative Lahti?

Aye.

Representative Hasham? Aye. Representative Kahaloha? Aye. Representative Takayama?

Aye. Representative Cochran?

Aye.

Representative Garcia. Reservations. Reservations. Representative Shimizu.

Aye.

The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, chair and members. SCR 184. Recommendation is to pass as is. Any comments? Chair?

Yes. Rep Sheena.

Thank you, chair. I I again agree that there should be no, discrimination. I'm just concerned that this might increase litigation. Point to, page two, line 28 to 30 where it notes establishing a complaint pathway for alleged discrimination. Just to me invites subjectivity that's unnecessary.

So I'm gonna be voting no on this. Okay.

Any other comments? Any other reservations?

Thank you. Voting on Senate Concurrent Resolution 184. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Chair and vice chair vote aye. Representative Balaji?

Aye.

Representative Hashem? Aye. Representative Kahaloa? Aye. Representative Sayama excused.

Representative Takayama? Okay. Representative Cochran? With reservations. Representative Garcia?

No vote.

K. And representative Shimizu?

I move. No vote.

Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, chair and members. Last measure, SCR 89 SD 1 recommendation is passed as is. Any comments? Sure. Yes.

Testimony offered by Carrie and she wrote up with some of her offerings. Included in the community. As far as suggestions for input into the

I think it's a little bit hard because I didn't see them submitted in writing, so it would be hard to include them. I think we didn't get to include them that way. But I think, it's on the record, so hopefully, they they can consider it that way. Thank you, sir. But thank you for the, comments.

Any others? Chair Fivolts.

Okay. Voting on Senate concurrent Resolution 89, Senate draft one. Recommendation is to pass unamended. Chair and vice chair vote aye. Representative Velotti?

Representative Hasham? Aye. Representative Kahaloa? Aye. Representative Sayama is excused.

Aye.

Representative Takayama? Aye. Representative Cochran. Aye. Representative Garcia, Noble.

Aye. Representative Shimizu.

Aye.

Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, chair. Thank you, members. We are adjourned.