Senate Standing Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs

SB-943 would unleash this untapped potential by mirroring Michigan's initiative and authorizing CalHR to create a waiver for bachelor's degree requirements for veterans who served at the classification of E-6 for at least two years. By ensuring worthy candidates are not overlooked, SB-943 will expand current efforts, such as the governor's August 2023 Executive order to remove barriers, to entry into the civil service and expand our pool of eligible applicants. With me to testify in support is Seth Reeb with Reeb Government Relations.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Seth Reeb with Reeb Government Relations.

And before you begin, I'd like to just point out that the lead witnesses will have three minutes.

Thank you.

Go right ahead.

California's veterans population is significant but decreasing, with a notable exodus of veterans from the state. This Bill is essential to reverse this trend and leverage the skills and experience of our veterans. Similar initiatives in the state have shown positive results in attracting skilled veterans to civil service roles. I'm here presenting on behalf of California Association of County Veterans Service Officers, California State Commanders Veterans Council. In support.

Thank you. And thank you for your service, by the way. And now to hear from other support witnesses. The microphone is there. You're welcome to step up in support. If not, then let's go ahead and if anyone is opposition of the Bill. And seeing none. Members? Okay. I would just like to go ahead and thank you, Senator, for bringing this Bill forward.

I think Senate Bill 943, it's outstanding and it's about time we recognize our veterans who served with honor and distinction and actually did a military job that could not be done by many others. But their knowledge and skill at the level of an E-6 obviously is equivalent to an educational knowledge. And I think that it's outstanding. So I'll be supporting the Bill. And again, I'd like to thank you for presenting it. And we have the Bill moved by Senator Shannon Grove.

So we're going to hold that over until we get everybody in, but I think we can vote. Everybody's jumping back and forth, as you can see, even committees moving. So we have a motion and we'll go ahead and bring it back when it's time for a vote.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Okay. Yeah. Secretary, go ahead and establish a quorum. I think we've got that.

Thank you, sir. [Roll Call] So, sir, we do have a quorum.

Okay. That means we can take a vote. Motion on consent calendar. We have it.

[Roll Call]

Good. Senator, we just had finished Ochoa Bogh. So we'll come back to it. As a matter of fact, why don't we go ahead and bring that up. Okay. As long as we have the three, because then she might leave.

Okay. Senate Bill 943 do-pass, but first we referred to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, we'll hold that over. We have three votes on that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Senate Bill 1097 will update the Military and Veterans Code to use gender inclusive language, clarify that benefits and protections provided to surviving spouses are also available to domestic partners, and close a minor loophole to clarify that only service members on active military orders shall be exempt from jury duty. This bill is designed to keep pace with our laws. We have archaic references that only refer to one gender or don't update the law on marriage.

And that's what this bill does. A prime example of this issue can be found in the Military and Veterans Code, which features male specific language all the way through. And so it fails to acknowledge the growing number of women, as well as non-binary, as veterans, including Members of this Committee, including the person that's standing up and getting ready to walk out. She is a veteran. That should be fully...

She should be fully listening, but she also should be fully covered in the code appropriately so it doesn't, it isn't male specific. And the dedicated service of these individuals, including individuals like Secretary Lindsey Sin of the California Department of Veterans Affairs, deserves recognition. I did a similar bill a couple of years ago because the Commander of the California Highway Patrol, Amanda Ray, was the first woman ever to be Commander of the Highway Patrol.

And every reference to the Commander of the Highway Patrol in the code referred to "he." And so I authored a bill with the support of people in this room that made it more appropriate for who is actually filling these positions at times. I mentioned that there also exists a current loophole in the law that allows people to seek absence from jury duty if they've served as a member of active militia in the prior year even when they're capable of serving on a jury.

This says that you really have to be the papers of active duty. It also, certain benefits and protections are provided to surviving spouses of veterans, but current law is not clear if it expands or extends to domestic partners. This makes a clarification. So this bill clarifies that certain benefits and protections are provided to providing spouses, corrects the language, corrects the loophole on jury duty. The bill has no opposition. I respectfully ask for an aye vote, and I do not have a primary witness today.

Okay, well, let's ask and see if there's anyone here in support of the bill? They're welcome to address the mic. I see none. In support of opposition of the bill? I see none. And your closing, Senator?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, let me make a quick comment.

Comments. Yes, please. I'm sorry.

Thank you to Senator Laird for bringing this forward. My wife and daughter would be very, very disappointed in me if I did not move this bill. So I move the bill.

Okay, we have a motion. Good. And, Madam Secretary, call the roll.

Senate Bill 1097, the motion is do pass but first re-refer to Judiciary. [Roll Call] That bill does pass out, sir, but you want to keep the vote open.

We'll keep the roll open. You've got three ayes. And thank you for presenting it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The General is very happy. Okay. All right, so next up, we have Senator Durazo and Menjivar. But as I mentioned, ladies and gentlemen, everybody's running from room to room, so we'll take a, hopefully just a five minute break until they walk in. Okay, let's go ahead and bring the meeting back to order. And Senator Durazo, we're going to take you out of order and take yours until we get Senator Menjivar to come up. So with that...

I understand you're presenting with Senate Bill 1500, so go right ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. SB 1500 will change statutory guidelines from Housing and Community Development Department and Tax Credit Allocation Committee to reduce the barriers to permanent housing for unhoused people. I decided to take up this bill and introduce it on behalf of the great work that Mayor Karen Bass is doing in Los Angeles. She's, like, just dug in and is looking for every single possible way to make housing available.

Obviously, the cost of housing has increased tremendously, especially low and extremely low income. And to help provide housing opportunities for low income individuals, cities like Los Angeles over the state provide voucher programs. And those voucher programs are meant to incentivize developers to house such low income prospective tenants who may not have immediately have the means to secure their own housing. I'm going to have my primary witness here from the LA City Mayor's Office to help answer questions, and I'll just let him give the full presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I'd like to remind your witness that we have three minutes.

Sounds like a plan. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Freddie Quintana, and I serve as the Senior Director of State Affairs to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. Since she's taken office, the City of Los Angeles has made great strides to cut through the red tape that was facing, challenging people experiencing homelessness from coming indoors.

They've gone from having to fill out 30 plus page questionnaires to us being able to get waiver authority from HUD to allow them to do self certification of various things such as income, Social Security numbers, disability status, and their date of birth in order to get into a permanent housing unit and then have a period of time to prove their eligibility to stay in that housing unit.

What we found on the back end of it is that some of these developers have gone through and operators have gone through the process to get certain agreements with HCD or TCAC, and in that process of it, they enter into agreements that may cause an issue if that income for that individual becomes outside of the eligibility bracket. So, for instance, in the City of Los Angeles, an AMI for a family of two is only $2,500 a month, approximately. If you hit a dollar over that, you are risking any program that you may have entered into for a 30% AMI unit, and that goes on a case by case, unit by unit basis.

So we have then worked with the good Senator from Los Angeles to create a statutory guideline to say, in the event a person experiencing homelessness comes indoors and they have an AMI that comes out to be above 30% but below 60%, they would be counted as a 30% for the period of time to allow them stay in that unit and then try to recure that issue over the coming 24 months, either maybe going into an alternative unit to higher AMI or getting further documentation that actually shows in reality that their aggregated income is actually below the 30% AMI threshold. With that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Let me ask you, if I may, before I turn it over to my Senators here on the Committee, we are talking about veterans that are finding themselves in this category and this problem that not. And I know the great mayor of Los Angeles is very pro-veteran, as our Senator before us right now is. So this was brought to your attention because of numerous complaints by the veterans community trying to obtain housing there in Los Angeles.

What it is actually is we looked at all the programs that are served under the HCDR Veterans Affairs instance. Some of their programs are in the Department of Veterans Affairs. We were trying to make sure that, when those operators build those units, that they are equally applied in the coverage to a veteran and not just a general person experiencing homelessness. Wanted to cover both populations with these programs.

Thank you. Let me open it up for questions for the Committee Members. Any questions? I have a motion to move the bill. All right.

Senate Bill 1500, do pass...

Just a second. For closing, Senator.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senate Bill 1500, the motion is do pass but first re-refer to Appropriations. [Roll Call] That bill does pass out.

We're gonna hold the roll open, and thank you for presenting it, and thank you for your visit from Los Angeles.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Okay, so we'll take a minute out until we get our last and final... Oh, we have two more. I'm sorry. Let's see. Okay. All right. Would you like us to call you if you can, can you break away? Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to open up the roll. Go ahead for the voting. Not yet?

We need the thumbs up.

Oh, I think we have it. We're having some camera difficulties here. Okay, we're good. We've got the technical problems worked out. Now let's go ahead and open the roll. So if you would go ahead. Let's go ahead and start with the very first one, which was Senate Bill 943.

Senate Bill 943. Senate Bill 943, do pass but first re-referred appropriations. [Roll Call] So that does pass out, sir.

She appeared. Yeah, she requested to take it off consent and to appear, and she did. Chair voted aye. Okay. Okay, next one.

Consent Calendar?

Okay, consent calendar.

Consent calendar. [Roll Call] That consent calendar passes out, sir.

Okay, then we had Senate Bill 1097.

Senate Bill 1097. The motion is do pass, but first refer to Judicial. Sorry, Judiciary. Grove. Menjivar. They've already voted on this one.

And they've already voted on this one, sir, so.

Okay.

All right. And then Senate Bill 1500. Durazo, we're good. They voted on this one. You were. Okay. All right, now we're all caught up. Thank you. Okay. Okay, we're going to pause right now till we continue waiting. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we've got our Senator in, so please, Senator Caballero, you've got SJR six, go right ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present SJR six, an important bill to denounce the historic discrimination against the LGBTQ community created under the US military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. SJR six calls upon the United States Congress and the President to create an effective remedy to address the other than honorable and the dishonorable discharges issued under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that have negatively impacted the LGBTQ members of the military and to restore the benefits they're entitled to.

Under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, if a member of the military identified as a member of the Lgbt community, it could lead to a dishonorable or an other-than-honorable discharge. Veterans that received these discharges lost access to their military benefits, such as Healthcare, college tuition assistance, employment opportunities, and retirement benefits. Between 1994 and 2011, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy under the Department of Defense led to the discharge of more than 14,000 service members.

Additionally, prior to that, the United States Department of Defense established policies that penalized military members and resulted in the discharge of gay, Lesbian, and bisexual members, regardless of service to the country and good military service. During the 1980s, more than 17,000 military members were dismissed from their duties due to the sexual orientation.

In 2010, the don't ask, don't tell policy was repealed by President Obama, which allowed members to serve openly without fear of discharge and created a process for discharge members to amend their status through the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The review process to grant benefits to a member who has been wrongfully discharged is made on a case-by-case basis. Veterans require an advocate to gather and submit documentation for the VA's review, including service records, incident details, supporting evidence, and performance evaluations.

The current process to upgrade the status of discharged veterans is unnecessarily burdensome, adding complexity to an already strained relationship. Forcing veterans to revisit a difficult time in their life can create an emotional barrier for many. In many cases, reengaging with the Department that discriminated against them could worsen veterans trauma and amplify feelings of shame, anxiety, and anger.

SJR six urges the President and Congress to establish a straightforward process, provide legal aid, and rectify the wrongful discharge or misclassification of veterans based on their sexual orientation to ensure they receive the benefits to which they are entitled due to their honorable service in the military. With me today to testify in support of this bill and help address any questions is Jonathan Willett, a United States Air Force veteran, and Stephanie Wade, United States Marine Corps veteran and board Member of Equality California.

Thank you, Senator. And just to remind our witnesses, you have three minutes, so please, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, Chair Archuleta, Senators, thank you for letting us speak today, and thank you to the Senator for bringing this bill. I'm a transgender woman, and unlike my friend Jonathan, who you'll hear from next, I was honorably discharged because I successfully hid who I am for the entirety of my eight and a half years of service. So I want to tell you why comprehensive discharge reform is critical to every single LGBTQ veteran, no matter what type of discharge they received.

Like every other queer person who served between 1949 and 2015, I hid while people just like me were hunted, persecuted, and kicked out. I saw this happen to more than a dozen sailors and marines that I served with, people I knew by name, some of them close friends. I want you to understand the shame and the trauma we suffered staying silent and sometimes becoming complicit. Here's just one of those stories.

In 1986, a marine in the barracks immediately adjacent to mine was caught in a homosexual act with another marine who claimed that he had been asleep and that the act was not consensual. It was my understanding then, and it seems even more likely now, that that sex was consensual, but when caught, one Marine quickly turned on his sex partner to save himself. But even if it was sexual assault, what happened next, nobody deserves.

For the next two weeks or so, while he was court martialed and processed, that marine was left in the same open squad bay where he received blanket parties, midnight beatings from his fellow marines. And every morning when we saw him show up for formation, my fellow marines would laugh at his bruised and swollen face, and I joined them. I laughed, too. He was beaten so badly, his own mother wouldn't have recognized him.

I'm sure he had serious concussions in the kind of injuries that affect a person for life. But he was never placed in protective custody. Those beatings were condoned. Vigilante justice. It turned my stomach, but I laughed. I laughed because it was safer to be among the hunters than the hunted. I knew that if I didn't, my fellow marines would suspect me, that if they discovered that I was Trans, that I'd get the same brutal treatment.

Senators, that is the terror that kept us all in the closet. It's a moral injury that still haunts all of us. In the public's imagination, this problem has been solved. But as you're learning today, no meaningful provision has been made for the hundreds of thousands of veterans who suffered the worst kind of official bigotry. Until it's addressed, no LGBTQ veteran will feel valued by the nation they served. And those who serve openly today will not be fully equal.

Just a second, because I'd like to have him also testify. So let's go ahead and share the time that we have. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, and all the other Members of the Committee. My name is Jonathan Willette, and I'm a United States Air Force veteran. I was raised in a military family. Every male in my family has served in the military since the civil war. Served proudly. Served proudly. My father, retired chief master sergeant from the Air Force, has cried in front of me two times in his life.

The first time when I graduated top of my class in basic training, and the second time was when I got kicked out of the United States Air Force. I thought by sacrificing my identity and going back in the closet was the most honorable thing I could do for my country, and I was willing to do whatever it took to serve my country. I was an aircraft armored system specialist. I worked on the weapon systems of the jets.

I was very good at what I did, especially a little gay boy coming up, being an aircraft mechanic, and I was a star airman might shot. I won several awards for what I was doing, until one day I got sick, and I had to go to a civilian doctor. When my shop chief got my medical records, the word homosexual was written on it. I had no idea.

And then I got called into my first sergeant's office the next day, and they informed me they were going to give me an Article 15 for failure to report to duty that next day, that was the first piece of paperwork that I received. And from then on, I was getting in trouble for things that people would never get in trouble for. People like things you get an attaboy for. And it continued and continued and continued until they got enough stuff to kick me out.

I remember going to visit a friend of mine over at the dorms and I remember I got jumped by three of my fellow co-workers calling me all sorts of names, but those are type of things I can't take and report because it would put a big flag out that I'm a homosexual. And at the time I had no idea they knew. And so anyways, once I got kicked out, my father died shortly after that and my entire family blamed me for his death.

I struggled very difficult to get my life back on track. Eventually I learned to self-medicate through drugs. And then I was eventually homeless on the street for many years. It wasn't until about six and a half years ago that I decided to reach out to the VA. The VA was the last house on the block for me, right? So the last house on the block for me.

But I was able to come out to West LA and get the help that I needed and, you know, to get my life back on track somewhat. So one thing I want to do, I wanted to apply for an upgrade of my discharge and I got denied the first time. And then I sought legal representation and they said, you know what? A general discharge is as high as you're going to get, especially since you're in the Air Force.

They don't like to upgrade it to an honorable discharge. And so I gave up. You know, so many of my, so many of my fellow. So many of my fellow, my fellow troops, you know, they sacrificed so much for their country and their country turned their backs on them. I really support SGR six and I hope you do as well.

In the interest of the time allotted, I want to thank you both for your service. And it is high time that we brought this forward because the nation needs to know the service you've provided to all of us. And if we're talking about equality and fairness and to judge everyone on their performance, this is what it should be all about. So with that, I'd like to open it up to my Committee Members. If you have any questions or comments. You're correct.

Anyone here on support of the bill? SJR six, please. The microphone is open.

Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California and strong support.

Hello, my name is Joe Engel. I'm a service-connected disabled veteran. I've been in California residence since 2000 after serving six years of active duty in the US Navy. From 94 in 2009 there, was honorably discharged and awarded the Joint Service Achievement Medal for my outstanding work as a Navy linguist. The year prior, I just came out as a gay man at the age of 23, which was coincidentally year I signed my Navy contract.

As a veteran who helps other veterans in my professional and private lives, I have encouraged them to take advantage of all the veterans benefits they have earned. Unfortunately, due to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, my queer friends were separated due to their. Oh, I see. Okay. Thank you very much.

I'm gonna ask you to go ahead and close up so we can get others up. Thank you. Anyone else in support? SJR six, you're welcome to the microphone. Anyone else in? Anyone in opposition, please?

The microphone is open. I see no one else. Now we'll bring it over to our Committee Members. Comments or questions?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senator Caballero. Very important measure. Thank you for bringing it forward. Thanks to both of you. Thank you, Captain Wade, for your advocacy, because you advocate for equality in places that are more challenging even than Sacramento. So we appreciate that. With that appropriate time, I'll move the bill.

Thank you, Senator Menjivar.

I would love to move the bill.

You have any comments?

No. Thank you so much. You know, I can't even imagine if I would have done my entire tenure in the Marine Corps all under Don't Ask Don't Tell, I only did about two and a half years under Don't Ask Don't Tell. And I remember the moment that it got repealed and I went to the Marine Corps ball and I got a little bit of liquid courage to come out to my entire unit.

And I, like not a lot of my peers, had a positive response from my sergeant at that time, who forever will be engraved in my memory as someone who helped pave my experience. And the moment he was, the moment he responded the way he did, everyone else followed suit. But I remember how it was before Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed and how I was so scared of coming out because what I saw was happening to others that were outed and how they were being treated.

So I'm really thankful, Senator Caballero, for you bringing this such important legislation, because it means the world to so many individuals who decided to put on a uniform and defend a country that's not always there defending them. So thank you so much for your leadership on that. So if the Senator uumberg will allow me, I will move this bill.

Okay, Senator, the motion is yours. Anyone else? Questions and comments? Let me go ahead and add a little bit to mine. As you know, I have two sons, an active duty. One's a major and one's a lieutenant colonel. And as they growing through the ranks, I told them, fairness, equality across the board, no matter where you are, the person next to you. Let me emphasize, the person next to you might save your life. You had the responsibility to save their lives.

And as leaders, you have to emphasize that everyone has got to understand the spirit of our military is to serve our country equally and fairly. And I appreciate what you're doing, and you certainly have my aye vote. So let's go ahead and open it up for the votes.

SJR 6 motion is to be adopted. [Roll Call]

Okay, we'll hold it open for the other vote. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Okay, Senator Menjivar, I believe you're up. And you'll finish it up.

Welcome, Senator Menjivar. And I understand you're presenting Senate Bill 1124. And you have the floor. Welcome.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, fellow Committee Members. Yes. I'm here to present to you on SB 1124, a bill that is looking to ensure that veterans, after they commit their time in the service, who are seeking compensation, disability payments for the laundry list of things that we experience in the military, have access to that without having to get at sometimes have fraud done against them, lies against them when seeking compensation for disability rights.

The process right now is when you get out of the military, you can apply for veteran benefits, and you get rated, depending on what symptom, what injury, what illness you have. Then the VA, the federal government, makes a decision how you get rated on that. At times, at most times, this process can be very daunting and vulnerable because you have to present all the things that potentially are impacting you, both physically, mentally, and psychologically, and have proof.

And at times you may not have proof, because while in the military, all you were given was Motrin and a warm pair of socks to treat every single thing that was wrong with you. So you can imagine that the VA, at times when the VA comes back with your rating and it's way less than what you thought you should get, you could feel even more discouraged to continue in the process.

And when that happens, you have some companies that step forward who are the knight in shining armors, who say that they're going to get you the highest rating you can, maybe get you all the way up to 100%. And at times, not all the times, those companies are not fulfilling what they're telling the veterans.

And we have a lot of cases where even Congress is looking, is hearing on cases where veterans are falling into, again, fraud, where there are millions of dollars of fraud cases, payments that veterans have to come out out of pocket when these companies are at times not even helping them.

I want to make clear that not all companies are the same because I, myself, utilized a private company when I needed extra support, and I had a positive experience, and I was able to get to the rating that I felt was appropriate for myself, for me. And it was helpful to go through that path. I really want to make that clear because it is important that we have those kind of options for our veterans.

Now, in order to maintain that option, we need individuals, entities to be accredited under the VA accreditation system right now. And it's possible, it's possible to be accredited and then to be able to assist veterans with appeals should the first rating not work. Everything my bill is doing is aligning with federal law. It's been very difficult in the process leading up to this point to take any amendments because it would go against federal law. I want to make sure that our veterans are protected.

There are free services, but because of the additional things that are being add on as being eligible for benefits, sometimes our VSOs are at capacity. So we want to make sure that the other companies are available there to supplement that assistance or that availability, as long as they become accredited. We need them to be accredited, and I'll close with this is because we need oversight over them. We need to make sure that they're not such, they're not asking for a fee that is beyond astronomical And what compared to the benefits that they're gonna get.

We need to have oversight to ensure that the unaccredited agents are following through on their contracts and promises. And we need to make sure that the veterans have a smooth process to their rights of veteran benefits. So, Mr. Chair, with that, I'd like to turn to two gentlemen who are here to speak in support of this bill.

Go right ahead.

Chairman, esteemed Committee Members, my name's Rodger Meier. I represent approximately 55,000 VFW members of California. The VFW traces its roots back to 1899, when a group of veterans from the Spanish American War and the Philippine Insurrection banded together to advocate for veterans' medical and pension benefits. Today, the VFW in California represents approximately 70,000 veterans and their families. This free assistance has resulted in approximately $370 million in compensation in the first five months of this fiscal year.

Compensation that has remained with the veteran in California. Not a portion going to a business in North Carolina, Delaware, or some other state. But the VFW is not the only organization with accredited staff who provide free VA claims assistance. California is slightly unique in that, besides having other veteran service organizations like the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the state funds highly trained county Veterans Service Officers. California boasts 1019 accredited attorneys, claims agents, and VSO representatives to assist with claims.

You may hear allegations of a broken VA system. These claims representatives are not part of the VA system. Unaccredited claims consultants continue to operate outside the law because they do not want to become accredited. To be clear, there is nothing stopping them from having their employees accredited today. These companies make excuses that it would be too hard to get every individual accredited. Don't believe that. Attorneys are admitted to the Bar, not law firms. Doctors have a medical license, not the hospital.

The VFW is not accredited, but our service officers are. These unaccredited claims companies should be held to the same standard and not allowed a free pass simply because they believe it's too hard. It should to not matter whether their clients willingly choose to use those services. It should not matter that some of their clients are satisfied with results of these unaccredited companies. We do not legislate based on Yelp reviews. Companies operating outside the law must be reined in. It should be our responsibility to require anyone who handles a veteran's claim and all their personal medical information be accredited and follow federal rules and guidelines and laws.

I'm sorry, let me interrupt because you've got a second witness there. I'd like to hear from him in the interest of time.

Yes, sir.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and esteemed Members of the Committee. My name is Scott Holwell. I represent the California Association of County Veterans Service Officers. As the Legislative Chair, I am a past President of that organization, and I am also a 30 year Navy veteran. Thank you for the opportunity to share the story of a veteran who has been negatively affected by his involvement with an unaccredited claims agent. The veteran wishes to remain anonymous due to fear of retaliation.

The veteran was assisted by Rodolfo Pinero, an unaccredited claims agent also known as Pinero Family Consulting. Our client is a combat veteran who served honorably in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He filed a claim for service connected disability with the US Department of Veterans Affairs, utilizing the services of Rodolfo Pinero, an unaccredited claims agent who did, in fact, charge a substantial fee. This veteran served during four distinct enlistment periods, the first three under honorable conditions, with the final being characterized under other than honorable conditions.

When he filed the claim, it was for multiple conditions that are considered related to the first Gulf War. When the VA claims paperwork submitted, the VA claims work submitted by Mr. Pinero contained no mention of the dates when the veteran's conditions began or worsened. The characterization of discharges previously mentioned are vital, as the VA by law must make a characterization of discharge determination regarding the period of other than honorable service which they had previously done.

However, when Mr. Pinero helped file the claim, his failure to include the dates when the conditions arose triggered the VA to redetermine the veteran's discharge characterizations, causing him added stress and, additionally, added significant time to the claims adjudication process. Veterans seeking benefits should not be subjected to this kind of treatment. After filing the claim on behalf of the veteran, it was discovered by the veteran that Mr. Pinero had provided no specific details to the VA, or evidence regarding his conditions or periods of service. It was due to this egregious error during the filing process that the VA initiated the aforementioned redetermination of character or the characterization of the veteran's multiple discharges again, an evolution previously performed by the VA.

And, sir, in the interest of time, would you close?

I will. Thank you. During the journey of assisting this veteran to detangle his horribly convoluted situation, the veteran stated he was not previously aware of the inexcusable mistakes made by Mr. Pinero were now causing the VA to essentially reconsider whether his service periods entitled him to benefits. He came to our office in the Kings County Veterans Services Office. We helped this veteran to detangle this situation. And the California Association of County Veterans Service Officers strongly asks for your vote in favor of SB 1124.

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the room that is in support? The microphone is open. Please state your name and that you approve or that you approve. I'm sorry, go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Seth Reeb with Reeb Government Relations. Disabled veteran with the US Army representing American Legion Department of California, AMVETS Department of California, California State Commanders Veterans Council, Military Officers Association of America California Council of Chapters, and the Vietnam Veterans of America California State Council, all in support, and about roughly half a million veterans.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mark Isidro on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Anthony Lew with the Office of Attorney General Rob Bonta. We are the co-sponsor of this bill. We thank the author and our co-sponsors, VFW, and urge your support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Stanicia Boatner on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support of SB 1124. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Senate Committee Members. David Kuta, US Army veteran, disabled veteran, representing VFW as well, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Donita Stromgren, volunteer with California AARP, on behalf of the 3.2 million members in California in support of SB 1124.

Thank you.

David West, President of the California Association of County Veterans Service Officers and Nevada County Veterans Services Officer, in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Retired Command Sergeant Major MacAdams. I'm representing the VFW in Placerville and the Military Family Support. I strongly support this bill 1120.

Thank you, all the witnesses in support. Now I'd like to ask for a lead witness in opposition. Anyone? Okay. Why don't you hold those spots right there for now? You want to testify from there? Make it easier? Go right ahead.

Thank you, Chair. My name is Donato Clay. I'm the COO of Veteran Benefits Guide. I'm a California Army National Guard veteran and a disabled veteran, here to oppose unless amended, but will support if amended, because we believe that California can take the lead on creating protections for veterans without the unintended consequence of preventing veterans from being...

Of preventing veterans from being serviced by modern companies who apply innovative solutions, such as training providers to perform disability exams that are objective and lead to more veterans receiving the accurate ratings they deserve. I would like to say that VBG cannot become accredited and still perform the service that we do. And that's why we're seeking accreditation reform at the national level. So if that was available to us, every single employee at VBG would be accredited. So I just want to make that clear.

We have no opposition to the process of accreditation. We just cannot be accredited and perform our service. I do have some additional documentation that highlights some proposed amendments that I would like to share if there's a sergeant available that I think highlight that we are able to still provide, that California will be able to provide additional protections for veterans, as well as allow for profit companies that are innovative in this space to do what we need to do. And so I'd like to yield the rest of my time to veteran Kelsey Green. And I'm available for questions if needed.

Go right ahead.

Good afternoon. My name is Kelsey Green. I served in the United States Coast Guard for 10 years as an aircraft mechanic and a H-60 Crew Chief When I got out of the military, I applied for VA disability on my own. It was took two incredibly frustrating years, multiple four plus hour car rides to see doctors that really didn't seem to care about me to eventually get a 10% rating. It was a terrible experience. I've had other veteran friends say, hey, you should probably appeal this.

And I just remember that whole process, and I'm like, I'm never doing that again. Eventually, with the help of VBG, I was able to appeal my disability claim, and it went from 10% to 60%, which is a significant increase. And that took two months, and I got to deal with some doctors that were fantastic. I felt cared for, and I highly recommend the service.

Thank you. Let me bring up your third one.

Chairman Archuleta, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today in opposition of SB 1124 unless amended. My name is Lieutenant Colonel Retired Bill Taylor. I was in the Army for 23 years, and after I retired, I founded Veterans Guardian. We are veteran owned, veteran operated with over 200 employees who are veterans, spouses of veterans, and spouses of active duty. We are a transparent and ethical company, helping ensure veterans receive the benefits they are of entitled to based on their honorable service to the nation. We helped almost 25,000 veterans last year and to date have helped over 4000 veterans in California with an additional 800 or so that are pending a decision with an average of 85 days for a decision and a 90% success rate.

Go ahead and close because I gave you three of you.

Oh, I apologize. The only thing I'd like to close with is that we are not operating illegally. We are operating in compliance with federal law as it's currently written, not as some of our opponents wish it to be written, and as it's going to be if other legislations were passed. Thank you.

Thank you. And we'll consider those your lead witnesses, three of them. Anyone else in the room in opposition? I see no others. All right, let me go ahead and have any questions or comments from the Committee. Yes, Senator.

Thank you, Chair. Think my microphone's on. I have a couple questions. So I, on this Committee, I represent veteran families. Having an ex-husband that was veteran of the Army and being a primary caregiver to him through his very difficult disability, at the same time, having child that was two years old and having to not only be a caregiver but to help navigate through a very cumbersome VA benefits process. And not being a veteran, not knowing the intricacies, but having to both care for my child and for my ailing husband. At that time, I found the process very difficult.

And I was even told point blank that the system is set up to navigate through appeals, that it is not set up to help veterans make ends meet, feed their families, take care of their kids, pay their rent. And I became very sour towards the way that we treat our veterans here in the US, being that the sacrifices that they make, not only their personal sacrifices, but to their family and their children and their communities community, that the very least we can do is to ensure that those who are injured and ailing are cared for.

So when I looked at this bill, I see the intent of the bill of wanting to make sure that there are not bad actors, but without those organizations that are not directly tied to the federal machine of VA interventions and counseling, I am concerned that the good actors, those organizations and individuals that really helped, particularly my family, get over those hurdles.

And what I'm hearing from some of the opposition as well, that we are going to do away with those good actors and limit the ability of our veterans and their families to choose either a person or an organization that truly has their interests at heart. So can you speak a little bit to how this bill is going to help to protect that choice and freedom of our veterans rather than constrict them into a system that is already flawed?

Right. Thank you so much, Senator, for that question. And it's a concern that a lot of us have. Right. I mean, I can say that I think there's a lot of reform that needs to happen on the federal side that's not reform that we can do here in California. Because whether it's an accredited agent or an unaccredited agent, all the files or all the applications go through the same portal.

So whether you go to the VSO, whether your mom does it for you, whether you go to an unaccredited agent, no one gets priority on look at my application first or no one gets priority in any of that. It all gets funneled into the same state, into the same place, and then it's out of our hands because it's the VA, the federal approach. Right.

So if a veteran gets an appeal, I mean, if a veteran gets a low rating at 10% and they wish to appeal, an accredited agent, these agents that you heard from can be accredited and then they can help with the appeal. They can still exist as long as they help with the appeal. Right now, federal law states that no one can charge for an initial fee. No one can charge for the initial application. No one can do that. No credited or unaccredited, federally stated in statute right now.

What we're looking to do is match federal law. And if a veteran gets a low rating who's accredited, VBG can be accredited or have their individual employees accredited and then work on that appeal. So veteran can still go to them, work on that appeal to get a higher rating. So we still want these systems to exist as long as we have a way to have an oversight over them to ensure that they're working within federal and then potentially state law.

So this process of accreditation, what I'm hearing from the opposition is if it's not that they don't want to be accredited, but that the services that they are providing that are benefiting veterans, they would not be able to provide as an accredited agent. So can you walk me through the process of accreditation and how that would help?

One of the biggest things we're hearing for opposition is that because once you become accredited, you cannot charge an up fee front for the initial claim. All the services can still be done, except you cannot charge for the first initial veteran benefit application. So the opposition and with is their right is concerned that they can't charge when helping a veteran for the first time that that veteran applies for veteran benefits.

To be accredited, you do three steps. You complete a VA form, the 21a form. It's a veteran accreditation form. You attach any necessary documents to that and then you submit your form and any attachments. And it takes for an attorney 60-120 days. For anyone else looking to just be a claim agent applicant, it takes a year, about approximately a year to process. So essentially opposition could send every one of their claim agents to be accredited individually and it will take approximately a year.

Could start the process right now because my bill wouldn't take into effect until January, and by January could have everybody accredited. But again, they would lose the opportunity to charge an initial fee and can only charge when a veteran is doing an appeals process.

Thank you for walking me through that. So if somebody wants to engage in helping a veteran navigate through this disability process or other benefits, then they must be accredited in order to charge an upfront fee, is that correct?

No. Whether you're accredited, you can't charge an initial fee.

You cannot.

No one. Federal law says you cannot charge an initial and that's federal law. You can't charge.

An attorney that takes on a case would be taking on a case pro bono?

For the first application. So I want to make clear. Cause an attorney can take on a case and it's appeal case, and they can charge. Even, and if it's, and let me rephrase that. An attorney can charge a fee for seeing a veteran for the first time if the veteran is coming to them to help them with an appeal. Even though it's the first time they're coming to the attorney, they can still charge them because it's working on an appeal. They can't charge them if they're working on the first ever application that veteran submits to the VA.

So if a veteran, on their own, completes the application and submits it and gets unfavorable results, then the first application is already put in. So now if it's not in the appeal stage as of yet, it's in that limbo, dark hole stage.

And I'm saying this because this is where I felt I really struggled because I helped my spouse with the application, being an educated person and thinking that I could answer the questions and I had all the medical documentation because I had been taking him to his doctor's visits. My concern at that point was how am I going to feed this child, how am I going to keep a roof over our head?

Being that I was the single bread winner and understanding that because the disability from a medical perspective was related to his service, I needed to then navigate the system to be able to convince the decision makers. So it wasn't in, it was in that middle area. So what can one do in current law in that middle area? Must they go to someone who's accredited or can they choose to go to someone who's not accredited and still get a response or a service?

I want to make sure, hopefully my answer answers your question. Your question is asking if right now, if someone gets an unfavorable rating, what do they do? Right now, they can go back. If they did it themselves, they can go to a VSO, county VSO, and seek help with the appeal, or they can go seek right now to pay for anybody to help them with that. That's what I did.

With an appeal.

And when I first and I got denied even when I paid. When I paid, the VA denied the request put together by an unaccredited agent in my case. So we had appeal again. So regardless of who's applying, whether you pay or not, you could be getting the same exact decision whether you're paying for something or not. So right now, currently, even though federally there is a statute that says you cannot work as an unaccredited agent, federally it's difficult to have oversight over all that. Anyone can decide to go to an unaccredited, accredited individual to help with a second appeal with a first with an appeal.

With an appeal.

Okay, I think we're getting closer to me understanding this navigation. And I will say this. This application for veterans benefits is much more complicated than filing your taxes. I'm just going to say that right now. And if filing your taxes is rough for the average person, you know, I'm looking at a program or a process is already flawed. So how is this bill helping to make a process to streamline the process rather than to remove access points? I'm still unclear there.

Unfortunately, in the State of California, we don't have jurisdiction on how the approach for applications for veteran benefits are. I know there are a lot of efforts on the federal level to streamline that process, Senator. The only thing my bill is looking to do is to prevent veterans from being caught in situations that is no fault of their own, like the story you heard from the opposition.

Having to pay thousands of dollars for sometimes a service that isn't rendered to them or that is not comparable, is exorbitant compared to the benefits that they get from their veteran benefits. The only thing I'm looking to do is to prevent any veteran from falling into a fraud case. There are various litigation cases happening right now of veteran versus XYZ company, ABC company, because they were wronged by that company. So again, if anyone in this room ever gets to Congress on an elected official position and they wish to change that, that would be on that level. We wouldn't be able to do that here.

So currently there are remedies for any veteran who feels they've been wronged. So if there is a someone who is holds an active bar in California and they are unaccredited and charged for an appeal or whatever, there is a remedy to be able to seek damages or to grieve. For an organization, there's a remedy to be able to...

One of the main problems that we're seeing right now is that... I can't remember how many years ago. And Mr. Chair, I'd like to turn to my witness to help me on this question. But years ago the federal government took away the punitive part of the federal statute. So right now there is no incentive to be accredited cause there's no punitive portion to it. So there's no fees or penalties you can go after in federal statute. Here, with this bill, we're looking to do that in California. And Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'd like to turn to my witness to see... Okay.

Yes, please. Yes, but sorry, it does have to go through the Chair. I wasn't ignoring you.

No, no, that's all right. I just, I wanted...

I would like you to go ahead and answer because there's so many questions out there that it's important that the Committee feel comfortable. And the reason for your bill, Senator, that's so important. So please, with your witness.

So you were asking about processing times. And the update that I received this past weekend when I was in Kansas City is it's taking right now, the VA, about four to six months to do an initial claim. Now, that's not the appeal process, but the initial claim piece to get that first rating is about four to six months. So they have caught up from some of the backlog from the PACT Act. The other piece is, as you're talking about accredited versus non-accredited working on appeals.

The one piece that accredited gives you is access to the VA's medical records only on that veteran. Which means, when you're addressing that appeal, you can see the reason why the VA made the decision they did. If you're unaccredited, you don't have that access. The VA doesn't recognize you, and they will not give you access to that information. So it's hard to do an appeal without having all the information. And that's why it's important to have somebody accredited work on that for you.

Follow up question. So in this situation, and again, I'm going to use some of my lived experiences. My husband was being cared for through our private insurance that had not lapsed yet because of my employment. So he was being seen by specialists outside of the VA system, and he was redirected to see physicians in the VA system that disagreed with the medical records from the specialist that had been treating him. He was being treated for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma that was directly correlated with his service.

And so the problem that I had, and initially, I'm glad to see that the time periods have crunched, I was told originally one to two years before we even got an answer. And at that point, my child's future was in peril. So there's a desperation there as well. And I understand that when there's a desperation, particularly around basic needs, food, housing, you know, keeping the lights on for your family, that there can be predatory bad actors.

But I also know that there is to have an opportunity to choose an entity or a person or organization or a faith-based group or a nonprofit that is in it for the right reasons to care for veterans and their families. To take that away, I don't know where I would have been in that situation. So I'm looking at these lists of amendments, and I'm saying, yeah, that makes sense. That makes sense.

What I hear our author saying is that we are limited by federal law and that if we could, as Californians, the best state in the nation, to say, hey, we're going to fix this federal law and put some of these amendments, we can do that, but it doesn't mean that we would prevail at the national level.

So I'm torn here because I know that there are bad actors and I know that we can be leaders in this, but maybe this is part to hear from the opposition, like what is preventing the opposition from being accredited and serving our California veterans in the way that they need to be served.

I think that question can be answered if you step up to the mic, and Committee Members, we're going to keep this dialogue open, maybe a little out of norm, but I think it's so important that you're educated on it and that everyone has a fair opportunity on both sides. So if you can answer that question, go right ahead.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Senator Alvarado-Gil. So just very briefly, there is a third step, and that's, I think, the area that we operate in, which is you have initial claims as Senator Menjivar called out and you have the appeals process, which I know there are veterans in this room who went through 12 years for an appeal. So it's a lengthy process. Our process, on average, we help with both initial and increased claims, and our average length of time is nine months.

In terms of helping a veteran, Mr. Green, he waited two years for his initial claim and then he was underrated from 2013 until he worked with us. And it took us two months to get him the accurate rating on an increased claim that he deserved and how we did that. Again, the process is not objective with the VA currently. So I used to work at Cedar Sinai for five years. I manage doctors.

If you manage the doctors, that this process is not for another provider, it's for an administrative person, the rater, who makes the determination. A nonmedical person is looking at what a Doctor has written and making the determination based on their training. So if you train the doctors on how to conduct the exam, then you can get the better results that we usually see.

And over 90% of the veterans that use our service receive a favorable outcome, and we do not get paid unless there is a favorable outcome. So the veteran is not paying any money out of pocket. Our incentive is to be successful and then all of those processes take profit.

Senator, wasn't your question is what service can you provide which they can't provide, whether they're being accredited or not accredited? Your answer to that, please.

So for example, the increased claim is a prime example. So right now, if any veteran was to come and have an either a 10% rating like Mister Green had before, or a denial, then the only other alternative is an appeal. And the average appeal is what, three to five years or in sometimes 12 years. However, an increase is another opportunity that allows that veteran to get a second bite of the apple. But again, it's not currently, we can't get accredited to do that, and that's what we're fighting to do at the national level.

The questions are open to you if you wish.

So you can do everything but recover a fee to get a more favorable outcome. And working outside of the VA system of doctors, is that what I hear?

So that's our approach at VBG. I would say that again, the traditional, the status quo is just what we've heard. The initial or the appeal. Right.

Okay. One thing that we do need to make clear here is that when we talk about an initial claim, that is judged by the individual claim. So it's not. I went in and submitted my first attempt and I put in for four things. My initial's done now everything else I do forward is an appeal. That's not the way it works. Every individual condition is treated separately.

So if I did my initial appeal and I put in for five things, my initial claim, and then I come back later and I want to claim PTSD, which I didn't do before, that's now considered an initial claim. Number one. So that's number one. That has to be understood here. Number two, when we look at a veteran coming in, I'm looking at three pillars.

The first thing I'm looking for is things that a veteran should have claimed that they didn't based on an extensive medical records review. The second, I'm looking at secondary conditions. So if you're rated for your back and now that I'm getting radiculopathy in my leg, you can claim that as a secondary condition. Both of those are considered initial claims. 80% of the work I do to help veterans is in those two spaces.

The third pillar we look at is things that you've either been denied for in the past or that we feel that you're underrated for, that would be an appeal. That is the only one of the three pillars I can assist with and we believe that that is not serving veterans.

Senator, we're not getting your answer. If the question is about accreditation, I believe.

So by not being accredited, what could you not do being accredited?

So by not being accredited, I can help on all three of those pillars I just discussed. If I become accredited I can only help with that last pillar. I can only help with things that you've been denied for in the past or that we believe you're underrated for. And most of my work is done in the first two pillars, which I would not be able to do as an accredited agent.

Can I add on to that also.

Senator, I would believe, I think one of your earlier questions was it about money in charge?

Correct, correct. About the fee.

So I'm being able to distinguish the initial claim or initial application and a fee. And then there are these other pieces. So we're talking about each identified disability or injury or impact being a new claim and that if you are accredited you can only help with the initial, not anything that was discovered after the initial.

Yes.

No. Mr. Chair, I'd love to say a little bit.

And Senator, I want you to have a dialogue. So please Senator, go ahead and.

I'll first answer this. Anyone accredited or unaccredited can help with the initial fee. Anyone. Initial claim. No one under federal law is allowed to charge for an initial fee.

Anyone can help.

Right?

Anyone?

Anyone. For 500 initial claims, as long as they're different, anyone can help. No veteran is prevented right now from seeking any help. Whether it's from a nonprofit, you said, whether it's from a faith base you mentioned whether it's from the VSO, whether it's from an uncredited. They're under federal statute prevented from having to pay for that initial fee. Now, regarding the time it takes. No one has control of how long it takes for an application to be approved, denied, or low rated.

Doesn't matter if you pay thousands of dollars for it or you get it for free. Does not. That means nothing because no one has the ability to go to the VA. Unless maybe that's your cousin over there. Or you can ask someone. No one has the ability to jump the line. Now, in terms of some. The opposition said that they only charge if they get a rate increase. Not all are operating under that umbrella.

My case, I had to pay upfront and I was told you might not get a rate increase, but you have to pay us upfront and you may not get your money back. You will not get your money back if you get no rate increase. It's the service. It's the risk that you take. But I took that risk. You're hearing from two different companies. There are hundreds and hundreds of companies that exist of this nature and a lot don't operate in California.

My company operates in Texas. One of the companies you hear from operates in New York. So it's even harder to have an oversight over companies that are headquartered outside of our state. And lastly, right now, regardless, as an accredited agent, you can send your veteran that you're working on to any doctor you want to send them to. One of my witnesses here from the VFW works directly with UC Davis. That is not a VA-accredited hospital. That's just a UC Davis medical center.

They have no connections to the VA. They just treat the patient as they see the patient.

Thank you. I'm going to ponder and allow other Members of the Committee to ask

Senator Umberg.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senator Menjivar. Senator Menjivar, thank you for your passion, your advocacy on behalf of veterans. You've not been here all that long, but you've established yourself as a leader in this space and I'm grateful for it. So thank you very much. Number one.

Number two is that in terms of accreditation, in your bill, I am 100% on board, that everyone who assists a veteran in the application process and the appeal process should have some expertise, and that expertise should be verified by some governmental entity. So I'm in 100% accord with that. There are some other challenges, though, I think, and this is not our first rodeo, is it, Mr. Myers, the VA disability system. And I'm going to ask Mr. Meyer again.

When we were in judiciary, you agreed with me that it is an adversarial system. In other words, that you, as an applicant, your adversary, not termed as such, but the way the system is set up is the VA, because the VA pushes back on you, and then it's your responsibility to push back on them. Do you still agree that it's an adversarial system?

I don't know if I would say actually adversarial. It is a complicated system. So, for instance, we just had a veteran that we were. We started helping about a week ago, submitted his claim, used the company, submitted his claim, had to pay $10,500, roughly, got a 90% rating. Well, the VA came back and reevaluated his medical and changed him from 90% down to 20%, and now he's got to pay all of that back.

So the system's not set up to automatically give you the highest rating possible. They look at it, but they need to scrutinize it also, because there are people that don't tell the truth all the time on some of the medical stuff. So it is a very difficult system, and it's not meant always to be. You don't feel like it's friendly? You don't feel like it's friendly.

Thank you Senator Alvarado-Gil, for sharing your lived experience with us, which was quite illustrious. And so in California, if you get injured on the work site, in the line of duty, so to speak, and you apply to seek compensation through the workers' compensation system, you can have an attorney, right? If you don't, I'll answer my own.

I will answer my own question. Yes, you certainly can have an attorney. And the reason you can have an attorney is because it is a system that is adversarial, or quasi-adversarial, so that you as the applicant, you as the injured worker, can put your best foot forward and seek fair compensation.

And in the VA system, by comparison, in the VA system, when you're injured at work, which is on duty, except your injuries in the military sometimes can be much more catastrophic than they are on the work site. If you're injured in the line of duty in the military, you may not pay someone to help you with your application. That's right.

No, you can have somebody help you.

You may not pay someone.

You may not pay someone the current federal loan.

So if someone has expertise, and in our system, typically people that provide service, they charge for that service if they have particularly unique expertise. I'm a lawyer, and lawyers charge all over the place in terms of their expertise. So are there other systems that we have that you're familiar with? And maybe I'll ask the opposition, too, where we require the applicant to be prohibited from seeking the best expertise they can find. Is there any other system where we do that, so far as you know?

Well, I believe that the systems we have that require licensing is just that. You might have somebody who understands the law totally and may make a great lawyer, but if they haven't passed the bar, that may be the best person to present your case, but they can't present your case.

And I accept that. I accept that. In fact, I accept that the fact that people should be accredited. But if you are accredited, right. You may not charge for your service. So in any event, I find this to be anomalous, and Senator Menjivar and I have had extensive conversations. I find this to be anomalous, and I find it to be unfair. I find it to be unfair, and I find that the Federal Government has created a system that is inherently unfair.

And so I find, looking at the analysis and number one says this bill prohibits persons from directly or indirectly soliciting, contracting for or charging basically for their services.

And the initial application, as you just illustrated, I think Senator Menjivar and certainly Senator Alvarado-Gil just illustrated the initial application is a really important part of the process, because if you are, for example, you are blown up by an IED in Afghanistan, you may have lost a leg, and you may apply for that, but you may not apply. You may forget that you also had a concussion or you have traumatic brain injury, rather.

And so if you don't apply initially, if you don't cover all those bases, you're harming yourself. Do you agree with that?

I agree with that. But if you come, like, for instance, the service officers who work for me, they go through all of that with, when they sit down with the veteran, they go through and they talk about their time and service. Just, you know, a prime example is what you stated in the Judiciary Committee, or it could have been on our call that we had about the job that your sister-in-law did. She went through piece by piece through your career and listed everything out.

If you have good quality, and we know that there's not always good quality, it doesn't matter if you're accredited or not accredited, but if you have good quality, accredited people working for you, they will go through and they will make sure. For Senator Alvarado-Gil, we would have sat down and went through everything that she needed, aided attendance all.

But I want to make sure that everyone understands I am not in any way disparaging the services performed by VSOs. We have some of the best VSOs probably in the country. As you illustrated, my sister-in-law was a VSO, and indeed she went through every year of service in every assignment, every injury, and every possible permutation, which is wonderful, but every VSO is not that way.

And as to the veteran herself, that she, in my view, should have the ability, and I get that we're contrary to federal law. I 100% get that. I get that the California is different. California is the only state in the union that doesn't provide any sort of tax protection for retirees. California is one of the very few states in the union, very few handful of states that doesn't allow employers to provide a preference for veterans. We're outliers.

And in this case, it would be my hope that we would actually be the champion, the advocate to say to veterans, look it, we've got great VSOs, the VFW, the American Legion, the Disabled Veterans of America do wonderful work, but we're not going to limit you to that. We're not going to limit you to that. And we're going to push the envelope. And we're going to push the envelope.

So you, Federal Government can have to come back and say, you know what, California, you're out of line. You're out of line. You should adhere to our position that veterans are. I suppose, too, that veterans can't make that decision on their own, for whatever reason. So anyway, having said that, I realize that I put a lot out there. I'm happy for you to respond, but I have a grave concern about that and I would love to see California step in place of being a veterans champion.

So thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. If I may weigh in now, I think we have from the Attorney General's Office. Mr. Liu, are you here? Yeah. Would you step forward, please? Because we're talking about, is this legal within the State of California? Our witnesses on the negative are from out of state. We're talking about California. We need an opinion. If all of us can hear what the Attorney General says about this type of operation operating here in California. Mr. Lew, if you can answer that.

I should have mentioned when I was at the mic the first time that I'm available to answer questions.

Okay, well, thank you.

I didn't mention that the first time. So thank you. I think we just have to go back to the analysis, and the analysis lays out what the federal law is here on page 2 and 3. I believe it's 2 and 3. Page 1 and 2, sorry, existing federal law section. So the same law, the federal law under the VA says that you have to be accredited, essentially, in order to assist with the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of an initial, initial claim.

And the same law says that no one can charge for that service, including the folks sitting at this table. No one. So those are two slightly different things that are kind of getting conflated here. My boss, when we were considering moving this bill, you know, reached out to the military and veterans community, and what we heard was a very strong preference for the bill you see before you, which is oversight.

We agree with the federal law, how we read the federal law to require accreditation in this area. We agree with the policy of the Federal Government, which is that members should not be paying their own money out of their own entitlement, the benefits that they've earned to file an initial application. That's why it's set up this way. That is the policy that we've had for many, many years, decades here, and we are simply here to uphold that policy.

In California, the members should not be paying for this, even if there are some folks who are willing to pay an accredited company to do that. But we are trying to uphold that policy. Now, we've been working with opposition. I think a lot of this good apples versus bad apples analysis is sort of overlooking a very main point of the bill here, which is that we need oversight over all actors in this space. And I agree with the Senator who said everyone should be accredited.

That is the underlying principle of this bill. It's not whether you're a good driver or a bad driver, it's whether you have a license from the DMV to drive on the roads of the state. Because if you're unlicensed driver, there is no oversight over you. And it doesn't matter if you are a good driver or a bad driver.

If you don't have a license, we can't pull your license or get you off the road or ensure that you are following the same rules of the road as everyone else. So we understand that there are companies who are unaccredited, and they may be honorable and doing good work, but they don't have accreditation. They are unaccredited. And we are trying to establish this very basic principle.

Everyone should be accredited, follow the same rules on the road, be accountable to the VA, be under the same system of oversight, not parallel systems where some folks are following a different set of rules in California, and the rest of the folks are following a different set of rules under the VA, everyone under the same rules. That's basically what this bill is about.

Thank you. I would like to comment further what we're understanding here. There is a violation of law. How you feel personally, emotionally, it's not the issue. The issue is this bill within the law, and we're very blessed to have an attorney. I've given you all the time to speak. I'd like to go ahead and continue. So the fact is that we heard that initially they cannot charge. I'm going to ask the VFW representative, do you charge money at all at any point in the process?

No, sir.

Do you charge money when the process begins? Let me say it again.

No.

Do you charge the veteran money when he's awarded back pay, the lump sum money? Do you have your hands out there to receive any compensation for that service?

No.

Well, let me ask the county Veterans Service Officers representing the County of Los Angeles, when the claim is first made by your office, do you charge?

Absolutely not.

And when you find that the veteran who is eligible for back pay, and the reason I keep saying back pay, because my own brother received $65,000 clear when he finished, and he didn't have to give up any money to anybody else. And I believe he went straight through the VFW or the American Legion. I forget what it was. Do you, as a county representative, charge at the lump sum when money is paid to the veteran? Okay.

And these are the things that I think we have to look at. You know, with all due respect to your personal situation, to anyone's personal situation, it is trying to adhere to the law. And the fact is that whether the Veterans Administration has a backlog or doesn't have a backlog, or they can do it faster, they need to clean their ways or they're being punitive, that's not the issue. The issue is that people are doing something that is outside the law.

And according to the Attorney General, that's the issue. And that is why I'm supporting this bill and asking the Committee to go forward with it. When we have 55,000 claims, a year or whatever it might be. But the fact is that the VFW, the American legions, every organization out there is not asking for pay in any way, shape, or form. And I'm sorry, here in California, that's exactly what we should do. How they do it outside the State of California, that's not our preview.

That is not our responsibility. It is here. And in reference to the analysis that the Attorney General had pointed out, that the State of California and the hundreds of service officers and both employees and state and VA, they're doing their job within the law, in addition to accreditation process, anyone can apply, and we're not holding that back. So the California Department of Veterans Affairs and the oversight, the county, and so on, do you have an issue with any company going through the process of accreditation? VFW? County of Los Angeles?

No, sir.

You have no opposition to anyone applying for accreditation? Correct. To our Attorney General's Office. Do you have anyone preventing any individual for applying for accreditation?

Absolutely not.

Good. Well, then it's in essence unethical to coerce a veteran, get him to pay either upfront or at the end. Let me ask you this one last question. Do you ask the veteran for his checking account, savings account and access to that account at the end.

As part of the process? We do get their account information and give it to the VA so they can make the deposit. That's part of the, what they do with the forms that they're completing that they upload to the VA system.

But none of those monies are geared to your organization, whether it be for any services rendered before, after, or during.

We do not collect any money for initial supplemental or appeals.

Okay. And Committee Members, the reason I asked that last one is because the companies that do this sort of work outside the law, they actually ask for access to their financial wherewithal and their statements and everything else so they can, and I'll use the term grab the monies before it's given to the veteran, so they can grab their share before it goes to the veteran. That's what we're talking about. And as I had mentioned earlier, my two sons were both combat veterans.

If they find themselves in this situation, I hope that they turn to the VA. I hope they turn to the county Veterans Service Officers. And I will tell you this, Senator, before you arrived, and Senator, you remember we asked, we were asked for the State of California to help the county Veteran Service Officers, and we provided that first initial $5 million. We're providing millions of dollars to hire more Veterans Service Officers in the counties throughout the state.

So we are trying to do what we can here in the state to open those doors so all veterans can receive the care that they need. So with that, I am voting to move this bill forward, and I would like to ask, if we have the quorum, we can go forward.

No, I'm sorry. I'm asking for a motion right now.

Permission just to close off on the comment. I've been pondering.

Okay, go ahead.

I appreciate this discussion. I knew that this discussion was going to be passionate and meaningful. Being the family member representative on this Committee, one of the things that I do when I determine my decisions is not only my own lived experiences, but I honor the service of the veterans that are on this Committee. And I will tell you, I would go down a dark alley with Senator Menjivar any day of the week. So, you know. Right, right.

So having this bill before us from Senator Menjivar is extremely meaningful. And I'll tell you, the Attorney General Bonta, knew what he was doing, doing by having this spokesperson, Senator Menjivar here. I appreciate the ability to speak frankly on this bill and to hear the opposition. I did confer with my advisors within district, who are decorated veterans, Purple Heart, and I esteem them very much, and they are urging me to support this bill.

So this is not me responding through a motion or through anything other than testimony and determination and trust. And I want to also, you know, communicate the trust that we in California must put in our state-elected officers. We rely on our Attorney General to guide us in what is legal and what is right for California.

So I will move to support this bill and make the motion with that caveat that I am putting my trust into this bill, moving through for the right reasons, with those legal parameters that will care for our veterans, and on the advice of both my district and my conscience.

So, thank you.

I move the bill.

We have a motion. Do you want to make a comment?

Did you make the motion? She made the motion. So, just a final point. And we talked about this adversarial process. I analogized it to workers' compensation. Let me give the Attorney General another analogy that you all can wrestle with some time, is that if you're charged with a crime, you're in an adversarial process. And to be represented, if you are the accused, you need to be represented by a member of the bar. And we provide public defenders all over the state.

They're excellent. We have VSO's, and we have American Legion, who are by and large. Excellent. But I can't imagine that the Attorney General would ever support a bill that says, you know what? Once you're charged with a crime, you must use a public defender. You must not be able to pay someone who can represent you. You must not be able to choose that person. I can't imagine that. So I will leave it at that. So, unfortunately, I won't be able to support the bill today.

But I look forward, I'm hoping that there'll be some amendments where California can lean forward, require accreditation, but not succumb to what I think is a sort of weird situation where we limit veterans and their opportunity to choose their best representatives.

So I just would like to close once again that it's not that the veteran cannot get legal representation. He has to submit that first initial. After it's denied, he can get representation. Let me make that clear. Am I clear, Senator? The veteran can go to the VFW. He can go to the county. If he's not happy with that initial process, that beginning, and he's denied, then by all means, he can pick up the phone, find an attorney, and go back at it.

And am I correct on that?

The only thing I would change is he, she, female veterans, and all that.

All right, so we have a motion on the floor, and let's call for the vote.

SB 1124. The motion is do pass, but first re refer to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

And that with the three votes, that bill will pass. Congratulations, Senator. Your guests. Opposed, positive, negative, whatever. Please tell the Attorney General we appreciate your time here as well. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And we're going to hold the roll open, and we'll wait and get the others back.

Oh, yeah. I need a vote.

Sir. May I call the vote. Senator?

I'm opening the roll and calling the votes, I believe. Go right ahead, Madam Secretary.

Senate Bill 943: do pass, but first re-refer to Appropriations. [Roll Call]. That passes out. The consent calendar. [Roll Call]. That's five/zero. Senate Bill 1097: do pass, but first re-refer to Judiciary.' [Roll Call]. That's four/zero. It passes out.

Okay, we got them all?

No, not yet. Senate Bill 1500: do pass, but first re-refer to Appropriations. [Roll Call]. That passes out. Last one, I think. Now you voted on that one. Let me make sure--and then 1124. We got it. So we're good. Thank you, ma'am.

Congratulations.

No, she's not coming back. So, sir, you can announce that we're closing the--

Are we done?

We're all good.

What about Grove?

She's not coming back.

She's not coming back?

She's not coming back.

Okay. Ladies and gentlemen--ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attendance. The meeting for the Military and Veterans Affairs is now closed. Thank you.