Senate Standing Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs

Okay. Got it. The Senate Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs will now come to order. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, Members of the committee and Senate. We will welcome everyone. This committee is a very special committee to all of us who've served our country. To the veterans on the dais, welcome home. And all of you who've served and represented our great country in uniform. And to you. Welcome home. Here's we go.

The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the telephone conference service for individuals wishing to provide public comment. Today participant number is 877-226-8163, and the access code is 114-7276. We are holding our committee hearings here in the Old Street Building. I ask that all Members in the committee be present in room 2200 so we can establish our quorum and begin our meeting. We have twelve bills on the agenda today, and before we hear a presentation on the bills, let's establish a quorum. If we have Madam Secretary, read the list of senators.

Archuleta. Here. Grove. Here. Alvarado Gil. Menjivar. Menjivar. Here. Umberg, so we've got a quorum.

We have a quorum. Thank you. As I mentioned, we have twelve bills we have nine bills on consent, so it should be a pretty quick meeting. So the consent calendar need a motion. We have a motion by Senator Menjivar and secretary called the roll.

Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye Grove. Grove. aye Alvarado-Gil. Menjivar. Menjivar. Aye, Umberg do you want to hold that open?

The consent calendar passes now let's hear from our first author. And we will hear from Assemblymember Ramos, who will be presenting Assembly Bill 46 and Assembly Member, thank you for your presentation and loving our veterans. I know you do. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Mr. Chair and Senators, today I would like to begin by accepting the committee amendments. An AB 46 focuses on our armed services and seeks to extend a state benefit for retired veterans who usually retire after 20 years of service. Additionally, this Bill also exempts survivor benefits from being taxed in the state of California. This exemption is to begin upon retirement and will last for ten years until 2034.

AB 46 focuses on honoring those who dedicated their lives to serving our country, strengthening and attracting a skilled workforce within our economy. Today, you will be hearing from two witnesses. Josh Baker of the California Enlisted Association of National Guards of the United States, and Ramona Chavez of the Military Officers Association of America California Council of Chapters.

And we'll begin with Josh Baker, if you're ready.

Thank you, Assemblyman. Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Josh Baker, and I'm the President of the California Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States. I represent about 17,190 California National Guardsmen with a membership of 1157 who advocate on behalf of California National Guardsmen. So I believe I am the only association that supports this Bill, who represents and whose membership compiles of currently serving Members of the military, former Secretary of the Calvet, Dr. Ambassiani, affectionately refers to us as currently serving vets.

So it's a very cool title. So that provides me the opportunity to go and talk with our National Guardsmen, talk with my Members on what their plans are for retirement. And either jokingly or seriously, a lot of them say retirement in California is not in their cards because their retirement dollars can go so much further in any other state. And so that was really highlighted upon me. Looking at the US. Army produces this magazine called the Army Echoes.

And so the spring magazine, they put out a nice little article on what each state gives for its retirees. And on page nine, it lists at the very bottom, no exceptions, California and Washington, DC. And that really highlights to anybody in the US. Army who's retiring when they're trying to figure out where they're going to go and retire and plan their retirement and how far their retirement dollar can go. California, your retirement dollar is just not going to go that far.

And that really hit home for me this year when my own brother, Sergeant First Class Joseph Baker, US. Army, retired, retired out of Fort Irwin, California, born and raised in California, his last duty assignment in California and chose to retire in another state because his retirement dollar can go further. So moving his family, moving his wife, who was going to school to become a teacher, and now whether it was in his thought process of where can my retirement dollar go, well, we lost out.

We being Californians, lost out on a skilled aircraft mechanic. We, as in Californians, lost out on a future teacher because that benefit isn't there. Now we have so many military bases in California that we have this opportunity to essentially convert and make new Californians. When we have these soldiers, airmen, sailors that come into our state, whether it's voluntary or military, volunteered, right. Remember that term. But when they come and they're assigned here and they decide, well, maybe I could retire in California, the weather's gorgeous.

But when looking at those benefits that every other state gives that California just doesn't have, so again, for Californians, it's another benefit. And even representing our National Guardsmen, again, talked to so many National Guardsmen who and I know personally, who I've worked with so many of them, where they go and dedicate their career and their service to the state of California in a Guard capacity.

And when it comes time to retire, they choose to retire and move to some other state because their retirement dollar just goes further. That's all I have for me. Thank you for your time and thank you for your service.

I appreciate you thank your family for their service. And now, Ramona Chavez.

Good afternoon. I'm Captain Ramona Chavez, U. S. Air Force California Air National Guard and Air Force Reserves. I'm also a chapter board Member with the Military Officer Association of America. First, I'd like to thank Assembly mendramos for leading this effort and the 30 plus Assembly Members and senators who have co sponsored this Bill. And thank you to the committee for taking the time to hear us today. And I would like to thank you, Senator Archuleta, for your service.

And please extend my gratitude to your two sons. You know, firsthand the caliber, the commitment, and the selfless dedication that is stitched into the very being of our men and women in uniform. I'm honored to have served for 23 years. I enlisted because I wanted to go to college. It was a four year commitment. I joined for selfish reasons. And like many others who have served, I stayed for selfless reasons.

I invested in the GI Bill and made good on it by going to school at the University of California, San Diego. I made a career in technology for 25 plus years in this state, juggling a civilian world with a demanding military one. In an instant, I was activated to take a crew, a 60 person crew, to the Butte County fires. Many homes were saved. Remember y two k. The California Air National Guard was on watch, setting up contingencies throughout the state and abroad.

There were demands too. For the past 20 plus years, the men and women of the United States military have been defending us without complaint through the longest wars in our history, some of them at home. The cost of them is multiple deployments, frequent moves to new communities, family separation, and a lack of opportunity to adequately build relations and home equity. And there are those that pay for their life. I'd like to share a friend's story. Her name is Sue Story.

Her husband, master Sergeant Dennis Story, served in the US. Air Force from 1964 to 1987. A Vietnam vet exposed to Agent Orange, Sue delayed her master's degree because she was supporting her husband's career in the military. Then, as Agent Orange wreaked hell on his body and mind, she gave up her career in teaching to take care of him. Master Sergeant story lost his battle in 1987. He left a widow with five children.

The only support she received was a surviving spouse benefit plan, which paid her 55% of his retirement. 55%. Let that settle in. And California fully taxes that. 55%. Let that settle in. People make decisions on where to live by many factors, but cost is a big one. California is seeing the effect of that. Losing veterans cost California. Our service Members are the most highly educated and skilled in our military's history. Their average age is in their early 40s.

They are trained managers, engineers, technicians, law enforcement, teaching. Over 75% of them are enlisted. Those are senior sergeants and petty officers. To be competitive and grow our economy, California needs to retain these quality workers. Military retirees are ready from the first day of retirement to enter numerous critical professions, including those in Stem professions, we bring great value to the state. Beyond that, let's recognize the invaluable asset our veterans and surviving spouses have been to our country and to this state.

California stands out in so many great ways, but to be the only state that fully taxes military retirement should not be one of them. When you say thank you for your service, act on it. Please support AB 46 for our veterans and for California. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your service. Now let's hear from anyone else as a support witness here in room 2200.

Good afternoon. Kyra Ross. On behalf of the City of Coronado, in support of the Bill.

Thank you.

Lawrence Gayden with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Steve Vansel, I'm a MOA Member from Solano County and Air Force and Air Force Reserve veteran. First and foremost, I'd like to express my thanks to your committee for all the hard work and support you do give our military veterans and also their families. I would like to echo our first two speakers that this is also a family issue. We are losing veterans, but we're also losing spouses and children, oftentimes when they transfer to other states. And I'm not sure the legislative analysis was fully considered, the loss of workforce and also loss of tax revenue when that happens. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you for your service.

I'm Fred Jeff, and I'm a 28 year old, 28 years of service with the US Navy. I live in Hayward, California. I have served in the shipyards at. Merry Island in Vallejo. The shipyards in San Francisco at Hunters Point. During my active duty, as well as in other areas of California, I also was on a commissioning of the USS California CGN 36, which is a nuclear powered cruiser. I support this Bill. It's needed. It's about time we recognize the service that all of these folks have done, and I hope that you will all see fit to approve this measure.

Thank you. Thank you, sir, for your service. Thank you.

My name is Major Sydney Jordan. I'm 93 years old. I spent my first overseas tour in 1948, and from there I went to Japan, and from Japan back to Korea. On 15 July 1950, I was in Tucson working as a combat transportation sergeant. So I spent the Korean War and came back to the United States. Signed TDY to West Point. We're going to go to OCS. I was denied OCS. They said, we'll get you a direct appointment based on your combat experience. I did so, became a second lieutenant at West Point. Not to graduate, but I associated with them, and I enjoyed being there. And, sir, your sons are in my dreams, I tell you.

Thank you.

I'm in total support of this. I had three kids. They all use the UC system. I have spent three careers after I got out of the military, one as a seven year. I've worked at WBAL Radio in Baltimore as operations manager running the station. I came back to California and I've worked with the State of California, starting out with Alameda County Office of Superintendent's office handling home school transportation for handicapped kids. So my whole 1315 years I worked there. I love California.

I love working with the kids. I love what it had to offer. My kids all were UC graduates. So this is where I want to be, and this is where we all should be. And we are not begging. We put in the time. We put in the time, and we really need the support. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. And thank you again for your service.

Yes, sir.

Thank you. And thank for you for your 82nd Airborne. Yes, thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Hi, I brought my husband along. This is Master Sergeant Dennis Story. Master Sergeant Dennis Story is my husband and I'm a surviving spouse. My husband, sir, came of the Agent Orange. And I want to tell you how important this is for me, living on the little bit of money that I have and having it all taxed is really hard. And I ask that you pass AB 46. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Well, new oh, here we go. Keep going.

Dana Nichol representing the following veterans organizations in support am Vets Department of California, American Legion, Department of California, California Association of County Veterans Service Officers California State Commanders Veterans Council Military Officers Association of California, Vietnam Veterans of America, California State Council thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room in support? We'll now move on to any witnesses in opposition in the room? I see none. Now let's hear from any opposition witnesses. Let's see no one else's. Opposition. Thank you very much. Those in the room. Now we are going to testify and hear testimony teleconference service moderator if you would please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of AB 46 will begin.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 46, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 65. Your line is open.

Good afternoon, committee Members and also Assemblyman Ramos. Thank you for your support in this issue. My support AB 46, and I hope you all will too, and I hope you'll be able to lobby or whatever the courtroom, convince your fellow senators on the Appropriations Committee not to place this Bill in suspense and allow a vote by the full Senate. This received such a tremendous amount of bipartisan support in the Assembly, it is only fair that it gets to be heard by the full Senate. Very good.

Thank you, sir. California. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your testimony. Next up moderator.

Thank you. We'll go to line 66. Your line is open?

Yes. My name is Bill Taylor. I retired out of Travis as an six and I also worked in the Travis Unified School District. As a school administrator, I've watched too many people leave California because of financial situations. We need ad. 46. Thank you. Thank you. Next up Operator .

Thank you. Line 71.

Mr. Chairman, Members Nicole Wordleman on behalf of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you. Next up. Moderator.

Mr. Chairman, Members Randy Perry, with Aaron Reed and associates, on behalf of PORAC. And the California Association of Highway Patrolman in support thank you.

Moderator thank you, line 78.

Thank you. Chairman Members, Ashley Walker on behalf of the County of Monterey Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 67.

This is Colonel James Fair, Member of the Alameda County Veterans Commission and the American Legion in support of AB 46.

One moment here. I have to reopen his line. One moment. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. 67.

This is Colonel James Fair, Member of the Alameda County Veterans Commission and the American Legion in support of AB 46. Also, as a public high school teacher and local teacher union representative, I can confirm that CTA, the California Teachers Association, which represents over 70% of California's public educators, does not oppose this Bill. Thank you. Thank you. Moderator thank you.

Mr. Chair, we have no other support or opposition. Thank you.

Would you ask one more time?

Sure. If you're in support of opposition of AB 46, you may press one and then zero. And we have no one in queue.

Very good. Now we'll bring it over to the Members. For questions or comment, please go right ahead.

Thank you. Senator Ramos, you never fail to disappoint me when you bring forward your bills. I want to thank you so much and also just kind of share my sadness that it takes a legislative act for us to take care of our veterans. So thank you so much for bringing this forward. I'd also like to acknowledge surviving spouse Sue Story, who's from my district. And thank you so much for continuing to share with us master Sergeant Dennis Lee's story with us here in the Legislature. Thank you.

Thank you.

I will move when appropriate.

Okay. Veteran Shannon Grove.

Thank you. Thank you. Assembly Member Ramos, for this Bill. I really appreciate you allowing me to be a co author on it as well. I ran a Bill similar to it a couple of years ago. The California Teachers Federation killed the Bill. It was about property tax exemptions. So if you were right now in California, you can only get 100% disability and then you get property tax exemption. And we tried to correlate it with the disability itself.

Like if you were 50% disabled to be 50% 20%, because right now you have to have both legs gone, an arm and be blind in order to get a property tax exemption. So I applaud you for pushing forward. I applaud you for not letting them kill your Bill. I hope this Bill gets off of appropriations. And again, thank you for allowing me to be a co author on this Bill. I think it's out of 29 states that have already done this.

I think it's about time California stepped up and protected its veteran population that put its right hand in the air to swear to defend this country against all enemies, born and domestic. Appreciate this Bill, and I would also move at the appropriate time, but my colleague beat me to it.

Thank you so much.

Just a minute. No. Okay, before you close, I would just like to also like to be a co author, if you would. But I'd like to thank you. I think everyone in this room is heartfelt Assembly Madam Ramos for authoring the Bill. And as you heard, we've been trying to do this for a good number of years. And I think that men and women who serve our great country 20 years plus need this.

There's no doubt as the only state and we've heard it once before, that we're the only state that does not provide a tax cut to military retirees and their pensions. And it's no surprise that California retirees and the population has declined by 14% from 2010 to 2021. And the booklet that you brought forward, I'd like a copy of that so I could show it myself.

Military retirees in California receive approximately $2,465 per month, $2,465 per month from the federal government or 29,000 annually, which is hardly a golden parachute. You can imagine what the tax might be on $2,000 or so.

And I will give a plug to my son, Lieutenant Colonel Brandon Archuleta, who wrote a book on military pensions a few years ago, and three important points that he points out that military pension policies are as old as the Republic itself, residing in the intersection of U. S. Social, economic and defense policies. Military pensions have a long standing tradition as a means for social uplift and mobility, vaulting generations of service Members and their families into the middle class after years of faithful service to our nation.

Consequently, military retirees are typically inspired to take on an active and participatory interest in civil society and political process. And families here in California, we must not forget their service. A number of military retirees are, in their will, have a second career. And I think that is the point. We're missing a second career. Imagine the money they will make in California if they remain so. Careers that will provide 25 or more years in state economic productivity from working age military retirees.

And as we heard that these are bright, intelligent, ready to work individuals we must retain here in California. By attracting and retaining highly skilled military retirees in California, we will be able to count on them to contribute to our workforce, grow our economy, raise their families, and, of course, pay state taxes on their primary post retirement incomes. So for these reasons, I support you and ask to be a co author. And I didn't mean to take the wind out of your clothes.

But I tell you what, I am so passionate that for the years that all of us have served, all of us in this room, we just so humbly grateful for your steadfast passion to make this Bill go forward. Now you can close.

Thank you Chairman and Senators, and thank you for coming together today and hearing from testimony from Captain Ramona Chavez real life experiences, as well as hearing from the testimony that those that upon a retirement of service have given back into the state of California. And knowing that California is one of the states that has not approved any tax exemptions for our military, I think it's time that we start to move in that direction. I ask for your aye vote.

Good. Madam Secretary, go for the vote.

Assembly Bill 46 do pass as amended. But first re-refer to appropriations. Archuleta aye. Archuleta. Aye Grove. Aye. Grove. Aye Alvarado Gil. Aye. Alvarado Gil. Aye Menjivar. Aye Menjivar Aye Umberg. That's 4-0. It passes out, sir.

Okay, the Bill is passed. Congratulations. Thank you so much. And I think that deserves a round of applause. Ladies and gentlemen. We don't normally do these on committee meetings, but I'm as excited as you are Assembly Member. Thank you. Okay, so let me go on and we'll finish up the meeting. Where are we?

Okay, AB 1665 is next, sir.

Where am I?

Page five.

Here we go. There you go. Okay. All right, now we go to AB 1665. Welcome Assembly Member Soria and please present your Bill.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. AB 1665 is a Bill that will help protect the right of the spouse or domestic partner of a veteran living in a state veteran's home to remain in the home in the event of a divorce or separation or the discharge of the veteran spouse as they prepare to exercise their rights under the California End of Life Option Act.

The state law currently establishes the right of the spouse or domestic partner of an eligible Veteran admitted to a veteran's home to accompany them, provided that there is space that joint residency is in the veteran's interest that the spouse or domestic partner is a California resident who has been married or cohabitating with the veteran at least one year, and that the veteran and their spouse or domestic partner agree to pay the requisite fees and charges.

The law also currently provides that the Member spouse or domestic partner may continue residence after the veteran's death, so long as they continue to pay all the applicable fees. However, the law is otherwise silent on other conditions under which a Member spouse or domestic partner may remain at the home such as divorce or separation.

Additionally, since the passage of the End of Life Option Act, calvet has had to formulate policy providing for the exercise of rights under the act by home Members, while remaining compliant with federal law under which medical aid in dying is still forbidden.

Calvet regulation forbids the Department from providing aid in dying drugs, and forbids its employees and contractors from participating in any activity under the End of Life Option Act while on the premises of the veterans home, or while acting within the course of the scope of any employment by or contract with the veterans'homes.

Further, Calvet regulation also requires that should a Member intend to take an aid in dying drug to end his or her life, that before receiving and taking the drug, the Member must discharge from the home, though it does not provide for their return if they end up electing not to take the drug after all. However, it does not currently specify that the veteran spouse or partners may remain, or that they may remain in cases of divorce or separation.

CALVET is now considering proposed regulations protecting continued residency in those cases, but there is still no statutory protection. This Bill will provide certainty to a non veteran spouse or domestic partner to continue residency after the death of the veteran they're discharged from their home or after divorce or separation. And just to add, I wanted to know, many of the residents in these homes are elderly, and we know that we have a homeless problem in the State of California.

And what we want to do is to protect those that have been a spouse or a domestic partner, also of those veterans so that they don't end up also homeless and adding to the issue that we have in the state of California. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Very good. Thank you. And any witnesses in support here in room 2200? Yes. Do we have anyone? No. Okay then. Now let's hear from well, we'll move down anyone in opposition? I see, none. Let's hear from anyone in opposition or in support. So we will go with a teleconference. Moderator.

Thank you. For in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again, we are on AB 1665 for support or opposition. No one is queuing up at this time.

Would you ask one more time before we go on?

If you are in support or opposition of AB 1665, you may press one, then zero. Mr. Chair, no one has queued up.

Thank you. Moderator let me bring it over to the Members. Any questions or comments? Senator Menjivar?

Thank you. Mr. Chair, as a Member, I think how you ended your talking points is really I completely understand the intent here. Can you explain a little bit more? I see there's only eight of these in the state of California, and you're right, the growing population of our elders and homelessness is astronomical. What then if someone divorces and there's a veteran that needs that space, is there room for these homes to then prioritize the veteran, make a plan for the divorcee of the veteran to find other homes? And I'm trying to figure out how we're not taking up space for non veterans in these homes.

Absolutely. And I do get your point. I obviously don't want to take away from the veterans having the priority of having the space. I don't have the answer in terms of what the process is at the moment. Obviously there are limited homes. So that is an issue that we still, I think, grapple with in the state of California to ensure that there's enough space for our veteran population. So would, yes want to make sure that that doesn't happen.

If there's a way that we can include language in the Bill to ensure that there's appropriate process to recommend or refer this former spouse or even the spouse that is still the spouse until the person decides to elect the option to end of life. I think that we as a state should have a responsibility to help navigate the process. Many of these folks, the spouses, the partners are also very elderly. And so the last thing that we would want is to ensure that these folks don't end up on the streets.

I understand the second provision, the end of life option, I understand existing law has to do with the widow witter of a veteran. But maybe, Mr. Chair, in your conversation with the consultants, if you can explain if there's protections here for ensuring that we're always prioritizing our veterans in these limited homes and not just giving up a room for the divorcee of a veteran, is there any protections that we can look at or that perhaps you already looked at?

I think we'll get the committee to look into that. But I think the foundation of the Bill, correct me if I'm wrong, it's oftentimes you have the husband and wife or the partner, it could be either one together at the same time. And the primary the veteran will pass on. And I'm assuming that in the past, then they would ask the survivor to leave and vacate. And I think this prevents that.

I understand that part, but the divorce part, is that the part I don't understand quite well.

You mean someone who's not living there at the home with that veteran? That's what I'm and to come in, take the spot. Right, that's a very good point because the primary reason is to house the veteran.

Not the divorce, live away partner, whatever that person may live in the state somewhere else and invite them to come in. And as the Senator has mentioned, then pushing a veteran aside and bringing the civilian in even though they're a partner or a married partner, it doesn't matter. So that's something I think we will look into and see if we can clarify that as we go forward.

Yes.

Yeah. And I'm happy to. I don't think the intent is to bring someone from the outside. I think that what we're talking about is the couple that is currently housed in the veterans homes. But I am willing to work with the committee to do some clarifying language and I think to stay within the intent of, yes, prioritizing the housing of veterans.

And I don't want to get into different scenarios, but what I'm thinking is, are they living together because they're amicable and the veteran says, hey, we're divorced, but I still want this person to live with me? Okay, that makes sense. But they're divorced and then the veteran left and then that individual still stays. I didn't see any clarification, and maybe I mean, I didn't read the entire Bill, but I read the analysis and I didn't see any clarification on that. I'll vote your Bill out, Assembly Member, if it sounds like I have a commitment from you to ensure that there's clarification on protections before it gets to our Senate floor.

Absolutely, I will make sure that I work with the chair and the consultant to ensure that there is clarifying language and that obviously that we don't miss an opportunity to prioritize what the homes were built.

And these are very good points that the Senator pointed out. That very important to look into because clarity is needed again for the veteran, the spouse partner, and what they can expect if the veteran does die and so on. So it's good. Great question.

The dying part, mr. Chair, I would say I think that one makes a lot of sense, like 100%. Right? That 100% makes sense. It's just a divorce part.

Okay, very good. Any other questions or comments? If not, you are welcome to close.

Well, thank you so much to Senator Menjivar for her questions and for being willing and letting us work with the committee to continue to address and really tighten up the Bill and make sure that there are no ambiguities as to the intent and very good. Thank you so much. And I respectfully ask for a night vote.

Good. And with that, let's call for the vote.

I'll move the Bill.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you once again, welcome AB 1665 do pass, but first we refer to preparations. Archuleta aye. Archuleta aye Grove. Alvarado Gil aye. Alvarado Gil aye. Menjivar, aye. Menjivar aye. Umberg aye. Umberg aye. That Bill passes out, sir.

Oh, okay, good. That Bill passes out, that Bill will pass. So please stay close to us so we can go ahead and follow up. And Senator, you're welcome to jump in if you have any further questions down the line as well. Okay. And with that, I think we've covered. Oh, my goodness. All right, here's one more. We're trying to get you everybody back to their committees. So Assembly. Bill. 1745. Go right ahead.

Thank you, chair and Members. AB 1745 raises the annual income eligibility ceiling under the college fee waiver for Veteran Dependence Program from the Federal poverty level to a level that is a better fit for California. The sacrifices made by Members of the military have long consequences, sometimes across generations. The spouses and children of family Members also experience professional and educational instability, which further is exacerbated by their military parent if their military parent is killed or disabled through their service.

Because of this, federal and state governments offer educational and other benefits in attempt to offset those conditions and provide aid to the veterans and their dependents in transition to and success in civilian life. Among other benefits, California offers a college fee waiver benefit to veteran dependents attending a California public college or university. It is a generous benefit, but it is also complicated and sometimes contradictory, providing benefits to children and spouses in some cases, but not in others.

Under one category of eligibility, the dependent children of service, disabled veterans are subject to an income cap defined as the federal poverty level. Under that definition, a disabled veteran's child working halftime at minimum wage in California would make too much money for this means tested waiver. A better measure is one that reflects California's economy.

Rather than ruling out the children of disabled veterans because of a national one size fits all measurement, AB 1745 substitutes the national poverty level, which is currently just over $15,000, with the annual income triggering the requirement to file state income taxes for a single person with no dependence, which is currently $20,913. So I'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any witnesses and support in the room? Yes.

Thank you. Dana Nichol with Reeve government relations. Our clients Am Vets, Department of California, the California State Commander's Veterans Council, the California Association of County Veterans Service Officers and the Vietnam Veterans America support this Bill. Military and veteran related higher education benefits have vastly expanded opportunities for people who may not have been previously able to attend college. The pursuit of an Egalitarian ideal is part of the freedoms that the men and women who served in the military fought for. Many lost their lives and many were injured.

It is fitting that their dependents be afforded every opportunity to access an education. In some cases, these dependents may be the first from the family to progress beyond high school. And Senator Archuleta. You brought this up on AB 46. It applies here too. If there is any doubt about the benefits of increasing access to college for our veterans and their dependents, look no further than the huge societal progress this country underwent since the GI Bill went into full effect after World War II. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in the room? Thank you for coming forward.

Taylor Thompson, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kunalakis in support. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else in the room in opposition to Senate Bill 17, Assembly Bill 1745? I see none. Then let's hear from the teleconference. Moderator, anyone that you have on the line waiting to testify in support or opposition.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 1745, you may press one, then zero again. For support or opposition, you may press one, then zero for AB, 1745. Thank, Mr. Chair. We have no one in queue.

Very good. Thank you, Moderator. And thank you for your testimony and support of the Bill. Now I'd like to bring it back to the floor. Move the Bill that's Menjivar, please, and go ahead and let's call roll.

AB 1745. Do pass. But first, we refer to preparations. Archuleta. Aye, Archuleta. aye grove. Alvarado Gil, aye. Alvarado Gil, aye. Menjivar aye. Menjivar aye. Umberg aye. Umberg. Aye, sir. That Bill passes out.

That Bill will pass. Thank you very much. That is a great Bill. Really appreciate it. Okay.

We're good. We had the three.

The consent calendar. Alvarado gill, aye. Alvarado Gil. aye Umberg aye. Umberg aye that passes out.

There you go.

AB, 1745. You guys look forward to that one. So never mind on that one. So it's just one other one, right? I've got you on everything else, but we're good.

There's only three bills. Thank you.