Assembly Standing Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs

Good afternoon. We call this Committee together today. And before I wanted to. Before we begin, I just wanted to make a statement on providing testimony at this hearing. We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have an effective deliberation on critical issues facing California.

All witnesses will be testifying in person, and all testimony comments are limited to the Bill at hand. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

We also will not accept disruptive behavior, behavior that incites or threatens violence. And so with that, we'll begin our Assembly Committee on Military and Veteran affairs. And as a Subcommitee, because we have an absence of a quorum at this time. So we're hearing six bills today. The first Bill, AB81, Ta on Veterans Mental Health.

Second Bill, AB 556. Carrillo Post Secondary. Sorry, what's that? Okay. AB correction, AB264. Patterson. No. Okay. Oh, that's Patterson. I got it. Okay. We're just correcting some notes here. We got it, we got it, we got it. Okay. And then this. Okay, round two. AB 556. Patterson on public post secondary education and AB 826. Gonzalez, AB 1508 and 1509, which are Committee bills.

And AB 264, Carrillo. And those last three are on consent. So since we do not have a quorum, we'll be opening as a Subcommitee to allow Bill presentations.

If we don't have a quorum by the end of the presentation, the Bill will be placed on call until we do have a quorum and are able to take motions and votes. So I would. First, we needed to adopt the rules, and so we'll wait for quorum to do that, too. And why don't we have Assemblymember Ta come on up and present on your Bill? AB81. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm here today to present Assembly Bill 81, which would elect the California Department of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study of mental health among women veterans in California. California women veterans face different challenges than their male counterpart.

Women veterans are significantly more likely to have experience military sexual trauma than men, and they are also more likely to experience PTSD and depression at higher rate. Tragically, women veterans also experience higher rate of suicide than civilian women. Despite this, women veterans are not receiving the mental health services they need.

Women veterans have been found to underutilize state benefit and participate in veteran events and organization at a lower rate than than men. By 2034, women veterans will compromise 15% of the veteran population in California. The state has an obligation to understand the unique challenge women veterans face and to identify the factor creating barrier to mental health care.

This legislation would complement the California Veterans Health Initiative and ensure women veterans are receiving the focus they deserve. AB 81 ensures that instead of only identifying concerning statistics, the state of California is researching and remedying the root cause trying mental health challenge facing women veterans. This legislation has no registered opposition.

I respectfully ask for your support and I'd like to introduce Yolanda Benson and Seth Reeb as witnesses in support on AB 81.

Good afternoon Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm pleased to support AB 81 today and it's actually quite appropriate during Women's History Month, so it's nice that a bill like this can be heard.

Female veterans are one of the fastest growing subpopulations within the veteran community and are projected to represent an increasing share of the veteran population in the years ahead. AB 81 requires CalVet to commission an academic study examining the mental health for women veterans in California.

They just actually appointed a new-- at Cal Vet, a new deputy secretary for women veterans in this position which is an appointment made by the governor. And so we're happy to know that there's someone on board ready to go and we feel that this is a great time.

AB 81 is a critical step forward to ensuring that mental health services and suicide prevention efforts are effectively tailored to meet the specific needs of veterans. With better information and understanding, CVSOs will be better equipped to advocate for and support female veterans at the local level. For these reasons, the California Association of County Veterans Service Officers supports.

Good afternoon Chair, Members. My name is Seth Reeb with Reeb Government Relations 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 of AB 81.

This bill is essential because women veteran are twice as likely to attempt suicide compared to male veterans and face disproportionately higher rates of PTSD and depression due to factors such as military sexual trauma. These challenges are compounded by barriers to accessing mental health care and underutilization of available services.

Women veterans are projected to make up 15% of California's veteran population by 2034. This study is not just timely, it's crucial. It will provide the foundation for targeted solutions that honor their service and address their unique needs.

I would also like to share that our AMVETS legislative chair who volunteers at veteran courts in Orange County and process of government clearances for the DoD has witnessed firsthand the profound effects untreated mental health issues have on women veterans.

In diversion court programs, for example, women often require more comprehensive support than their male counterparts to manage stressors effectively. On behalf of these organizations I represent and the many women veterans, we respectfully urge your support and aye vote for AB 81. Thank you.

Thank you. And any members of the public in support, please give your name and organization and support or oppose.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Katherine Squire on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, in support.

Good afternoon. Don Harper with American Legion. We have over 125,000 members in California. We strongly support this bill. It's needed. Thank you.

Steve Johnson, Placer County Veteran Services Officer and I support this bill.

Good afternoon. Jorge Cruz with the California Behavioral Health Association, in support.

Major General Rob Osborn, Association of the United States Army. We support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any members of the public in opposition? Okay, seeing none. Bringing it back to the dais.

I want to thank the author for this considerate legislation. As someone who served our nation with some amazing warriors, this is, I would say timely, but it's-- I'm thankful for it, but it should have been done a long time ago. To protect our warriors is imperative.

And notice I'm singularly saying our warriors, right, not women warriors, but our warriors because they are warriors just the same. I've served with them in combat on many occasions and this is a very timely bill. So as a proud co-author, I'm in support.

Thank you. I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward. I think it is such an important issue, especially as we're seeing the spike in suicides among women veterans. This is an important time for us to really get a handle of what the issues are, how we can best support and serve and care for women veterans.

And so appreciate you bringing this forward. Would you like to close? Oh, I'm sorry. Vice Chair, please.

So remember, I want to thank you as well for bringing this forth. I think we realized that when it comes to one size-- treatment isn't one size fits all. We definitely have different issues and agree with my colleague is definitely is long overdue. So it's a great start.

Thank you for bringing this forward and would like to be a co-author if I'm not already. Thank you.

Would you like to close?

I want to thank all the Committee staff for their support. I really really appreciate that. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. So we will place that on call until we establish a quorum. Thank you. And let's see who's here. Assemblymember Gonzalez, would you like to present when you're ready? Go ahead and proceed.

Making Yolanda earn her stripes today. Good afternoon Madam Chair and Members. As a proud veteran with over 20 years of service to our country, I'm grateful for the opportunity to present AB826 which would prohibit which would prohibit unaccredited individuals or businesses from charging veterans a fee to file or assist with filing a benefits claim with the U.S.

Department of Veterans Affairs. The bill establishes a $2,000 civil penalty per violation and directs half of that fine to the Veterans Service Office Fund and the other half to the filing District Attorney. This bill is necessary because federal enforcement tools were removed in 2006, meaning that there is no enforcement mechanism against bad actors.

These businesses and individuals have been operating freely and are unregulated, unlicensed and operate with no oversight or obligation to prioritize the veterans well being. Many bad actors delay the claims process by up to 12 months to increase their payout since they can earn a percentage of the veterans back pay, leaving veterans without critical support during that time.

Veterans have reported exorbitant fees sometimes reaching tens of thousands of dollars even when the company performed minimal or delayed work. If the VA amends a veteran's benefit after the fact, the veteran has to repay the VA for the overpayment.

These companies are not required to refund the veteran for their portion of the overpayment or take responsibility for their part in causing it. Some have been reported. Some have even reported that companies track veterans long after their initial claim and send bills for future benefit increases despite not assisting despite not assisting with those claims.

Veterans aren't filing claims to get rich. They need those benefits to survive. AB 826 ensures that they're protected from exploitation by unregulated and unlicensed entities. This Bill closes a long standing enforcement gap by establishing state level enforcement with real penalties and it protects veterans from predatory actors seeking to profit off of veterans benefits.

As in my past, I've seen where young Marines that I've served with have have just been taken advantage of and I get that there are some bad actors out there.

Luckily, I've had the opportunity to meet with a few folks recently and I'm committed to working with them to understanding their perspective so that way we could come up with a good option that benefits all.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to advocate for those who have sacrificed so much and to better protect veterans and their families. I respectfully request an aye vote. But first with me to testify and support today is Yolanda Benson on behalf of County Veterans Services Office.

Good afternoon Madam Chair Members. Again, it's a pleasure to support 826 Yolanda Benson representing the California Association of County Veterans Service Officers. This bill affirms California's long standing commitment to protect veterans by ensuring that only individuals accredited by the U.S.

Department of Veterans affairs may charge a fee to assist process prepare Present a Veterans Claim Veterans benefits are not favors. They are earned, secured through sacrifice and enshrined in law. The charge to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan first was declared by President Lincoln.

This remains the ethical and operational foundation of our nation's obligations to those who served. That sacred trust must extend beyond just delivering benefits. It must include protection from the exploitation and the very process of assisting them.

Cvsos are trained by the VA Calvet certified and held to high professional standards to ethically and competently guide veterans through the maze of layers of bureaucracy and frequently adversarial adjudication processes. We work as a county safety net. Not only our only incentive is to help the veteran.

Unfortunately, an unregulated and profit driven ecosystem has emerged to take advantage of the VA's complexity and the veterans desperation. These entities claim not to formally represent veterans and can skirt accreditation law, but their conduct tells a different story. They request, they offer personalized advice and guide veterans on filing, strategy and evidence gathering.

These are activities that are that clearly constitute De facto representation. And they do. They do it without oversight or legal accountability. Their marketing campaigns are not funded by philanthropic or private capital. They are paid by diverting the benefits that should be used for the veteran for their housing, medical care or family support.

This is not a handful of bad actors. It is a thriving, unregulated industry that profits from veterans while evading all ethical and professional standards. To be absolutely clear, the absence of assigned of a signed power of attorney does not negate the influence these actors have on a claim.

Reviewing a veteran's confidential records, advising on how to present a case, or assessing likelihood of approval or not Casual are not casual acts. They are core and deliberate functions of representation under Long standing federal law, only accredited individuals may perform these functions. California is not alone in recognizing the urgency of this issue.

This Bill is a responsible, necessary response to a growing threat to the veterans for all veterans. Well, welfare veterans have sacrificed too much to be left vulnerable to profiteers operating under the guise of assistance. Thank you. And I ask for your support of AB826.

Thank you. And before we move forward, I want to establish a quorum while we have it here. Madam Secretary, can you read the role here?

[Roll call]

Okay. And are there any Members of the public who would like to speak in support, please. Your name, organization and position, Madam.

I would have done that, Madam Chair. Members, Randy Perry, on behalf of Porak, apologize. We didn't get a letter in in time in full support of the bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Steve Johnson. I'm from the Placer County Veteran Services Office and I want to offer our support for this bill. And I just want to point out that our small county alone has helped just since 2018, over 118 or 108,000 veterans and filed 15,000 claims resulting in $58 million for veterans benefits.

And I bring that up, not to be braggatory or anything like that, but just. Just to point out that we don't have hundreds of employees. We did that with eight employees. And we have counties across this state that are doing that same great work. And we stand ready to continue to serve veterans. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. We'll take that as your second witness. But just a reminder to everyone else, name, organization and position.

Thank you. Chair Members, my name is Seth Reeb with Reeb Government Relations representing AMVETS Department of California. And support our other clients supported legislation similar to this last year. And we'll be getting their letters in shortly. Thank you.

Good afternoon again, Don Harper of the American Legion. We strongly support this bill. It's about time. Please lean into this bill and support it. We got to get this done for our veterans. Thank you.

Thank you for what you do here, number one. Number two is the Association of the United States army with over 1 million Members, does support this bill and thanks you very much for what you're doing.

Thank you. Are there primary witnesses in opposition? You have two minutes each.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. This is Joshua Prado here in respectful opposition to Assembly Bill 826. I myself am a proud U.S. navy veteran and I have previously earned the title and distinction as the youngest ever recipient of the San Diego County Veteran of the Year Award.

This award was based on leading collaborative initiatives for veteran success at a local, regional and national level, with San Diego being the most highly engaged military and veteran community in the State of California.

I've also dedicated a substantial amount of time advocating on behalf of veterans, especially post 911 veterans like me who are often overlooked when deciding on these issues.

I'm often asked to speak on behalf of and to veterans, and I'm also on the board of several Veterans Serving Nonprofit organizations and continue to support the community and mentorship roles for transitioning veterans. I appreciate the Assemblymember Gonzalez's intent with AB826 to protect veterans.

However, I am concerned the Bill as currently written could unintentionally harm veterans by limiting access to trusted and effective help. I support strong enforcement against bad actors. As mentioned in the benefits space, there are individuals and companies out there that do real harm and they should be held accountable.

But AB26 risks going too far by restricting legitimate ethical assistance and in the process it may hurt the very people trying to protect protect Veterans should have the freedom to decide how they pursue their earned benefits, whether that's through a VSO on their own or with the help of a reputable private partner.

AB26A26, while well meaning, could limit that choice and create barriers for veterans already struggling with the system. VSOs and the VA do important work, but the reality is that many veterans fall through the cracks. I'm not against regulation. In fact, I welcome it if it's smart, fair, and designed with inputs and advocates like veterans like myself.

We should be talking about transparency, ethical standards and clear disclosures, not blanket restrictions that may limit access to help. The choice between safety and access is a false one. We can and should do both. I'm urging lawmakers to work with the veteran community and find a balanced solution that targets exploitation without limiting freedom.

Let's work together to amend this Bill in a way that truly protects veterans while preserving the autonomy. I'm ready to be part of that conversation. I also have letters on behalf of those as well.

Thank you. My understanding is two people are splitting testimony, so there's two and a half minutes left for the remaining My name.

Is Lisa Kaukus and I'm the VP of Public affairs for Veteran Benefits Guide. I'm also an army veteran, a Member of the VFW, the American Legion, and the IAVA. I would like to thank the Committee chair for allowing me to share VBG's perspective.

BBG is aligned with this author and Committee in seeking aggressive regulation of bad actors, exploiting veterans and providing no value. We also are aligned with the author's statements about protecting veterans and ensuring there are strict regulations in place when veterans are seeking assistance obtaining their rightfully earned benefits.

I'm testifying today in an opposed and less amended position on Assembly Bill 826. While well intended, Assembly Bill 826 would limit choices veterans have in seeking assistance with their VA disability claims. Instead of only targeting bad actors, it would make it illegal for veterans to receive assistance from any private service that collects a fee.

The VA benefits claims process is adversarial. Veterans must have access under strict conditions to obtaining as much help as possible. VBG fully supports legislation that would establish strict guardrails to protect veterans. We would be eager to work with the Committee on Legislation that establishes such guardrails while allowing veterans to continue using private services.

BBG has an office in San Diego and employs over 20 California residents, some of them veterans themselves. Some of these employees are here today to express concerns about the Bill. They hear stories from veterans every day about the struggles with the system and the gratitude for our services when vets finally get the rating that they've earned.

I urge the Committee to reject AB826 is currently written and protect the right of California veterans to get the help that they need. Thank you.

The My name is William Taylor. I'm a 23 year army veteran, six combat tours to Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans and I'm the CEO of Veterans Guardian VA Claims Consulting. I represent over 200 employees who are predominantly veterans, spouses of veterans and spouses of active duty. We're proud of the service we provide to our veterans.

We have a 90% success rate. We are getting our average veteran 900 to $1,000 more a month and our average decision timeline is 80% 85 days as opposed to the national average of over 150 days.

I would like to note that here in California and across the country over 70% of my clients come to me after having utilized one of the free services. Veterans are looking for another option. We should have those options available to them, but we do recognize that there are bad actors and bad practices.

We believe that a consumer protection type bill that goes after those bad practices while still maintaining choice for veterans is the best solution not only for California but for California's veterans. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any public tester, Members of the public who would like to state their position? And just a reminder, Name organization if you're affiliated and support or oppose.

My name is Adam Syen I was a United States Marine and I oppose this bill as written. And I think there needs to be. Much, much more discussion about it.

Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon, my name is Brian Gonzalez, United States Marine Corps, combat veteran, several tours overseas, currently employed with the Department of Veteran Affairs. I'm opposed unless amended to bill 826, please preserve the choice to protect veterans. I had a choice to protect the Constitution of the United States. Thank you, sir. So I need to have the choice.

I know there's a lot of people in line, I'm sorry. Thank you.

My name is John Reynolds, Commander, United States Naval Reserve, retired from the 71st District, Henrietta, California. I'm in opposition to bill Assembly Bill 826 as written and feel that there's a better way to write that to preserve veterans rights.

My name is Joseph Golik, I'm a 25 year army veteran. I'm opposed to this bill in its current form. However, I'm not opposed to regulation.

Hello, my name is Melissa Sandoval from San Diego, California. I'm an army veteran and I oppose the current bill as it is unless amended. Please preserve choice and protect our veterans.

Thank you again. Just one more, maybe more and more reminders. Name, organization and position.

Yes, my name is Rayshawn Parks, I'm with Veteran Benefits Guide and I oppose of this bill.

My name is Antonio Pena, US Navy, combat veteran and with Veterans Benefits Guide and I oppose this Bill.

My name is Will Pearson, I live in San Diego, California. I am opposed to AB 826 unless it's amended to protect veteran choice. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Benny Braddock, I'm from San Diego, California. I'm with Veteran Benefits Guide and I oppose the Bill AB826 unless amended.

Hello, my name is Michelle Caudo, I am a opposed unless amendment to AB826.

Hello, my name is Marisa Cuevas, I'm from San Diego, I'm a military family Member and I oppose AB826 as is unless amended.

Hello, my name is Shree Hampton, I. Am from San Diego, California. I am with Veteran Benefits Guide and I am opposed unless amended to AB826. Please preserve choice and protect our veterans.

Hello, my name is Shannon Shanks, I'm. From San Diego, California and I am opposed unless amended to AB826.

Michael Cordova, Imperial Beach, California with Veteran Benefits Guide. We oppose unless amended AB826 preserve the choice, protect veterans.

Hello, my name is Katia Hernandez, I'm from San Diego, California. I Work for Veteran Benefits Guide and I oppose AB 826 unless amended. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Adrian Talamante, San Diego. Native, Marine Corps veteran, client and employee of VBG. I strongly oppose AB826 as written.

Oscar Chavez from San Diego. Marine Corps Infantry Veteran. I oppose unless amended AB826. Please preserve choice to protect veterans.

Hello, my name is Sal Hernandez with the Capital Region Veteran Chamber of Commerce and I'm a United States Navy Veteran and I'm currently opposed the bill as it is written. Hopefully it can get amended and help our veterans give us a choice.

Thank you Chair thank you Committee. My name is Ryan Scalmaniti. I'm from San Diego, California and I oppose unless amended AB826. I'm also a client and now form an employee of VPG. Thank you.

My name is John Henry Parker, Marine. Corps Veteran and I oppose this Bill. Thanks.

Thank you and want to bring it back to the dais. If there's any questions or comments here. Assemblymember Rodriguez.

I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. It's always good to do stuff to protect our veterans. I'm going to go ahead and give this vote an aye today but I would like you to continue working with opposition to make this a better bill. So we can support our veterans.

Thank you Madam Chair. I want to thank everyone for coming and thank you for all of your sacrifice.

Just a couple questions in regards to this of one is I know that say you have a claim and you're working with a veteran and then they have another claim but they decide to do the claim on their own because they kind of saw the process.

Is there something where you get a percentage still or is it just a one time contract that they sign with you for that claim and then they can go on their own to do any other claims.

If I'm understanding your question correctly, it's a one time upfront fee only if we get the veteran a positive decision. Decision. Okay.

And with Veterans guardian we are the same and we only charge a fee for claims that we specifically assisted with.

Anything else is also if they receive a claim and then is it possible that it could go to the VA and they could actually say that you know what that claim's too much, this is what we're going to give you and then they have to go ahead and pay the rest of it back.

How does that work out?

We personally as a company have never encountered that that scenario. Everything that we do is strongly evidence based and we have yet to experience a scenario where a claim was taken back. And if it was taken back, that would be based on fraudulent information that at most points would have been provided by the veteran to us.

Does the support any response?

Madam Chair, go ahead and respond. Yeah, please. Well, we actually have heard, and many of my VSOs do see many people that come from going to claim sharks. Usually they've had a problem. I'll give you one instance that's a fairly new story.

In Orange County, this person received information from the VA that part of their claim had fraudulent documents and therefore, whatever. I don't know how much the entire amount was, but 56,000 needed to be paid back to the VA. That had to be paid back by the veteran. He did not have that money.

And so in desperation, he then went. Then went to a VSO and said, help me. I need help. And that VSO at least put the VA at bay to say, you know, hold on, they had this claim done by someone. We'll. We'll work this out, that sort of thing.

And then the IRS came in and then put a lien on their home. About two years that happened. And unfortunately, this veteran died, leaving the spouse with all of the problems. The spouse lost their home. Lost her home and now lives with her children. So we have heard of that.

And I think just in Placer County alone, just having conversation today, since he's here, he's probably seen three or four just this month that have gone to a claim shark to do work for them, and they've come back to a bso.

And then just one last question, and this is, I know the federal law states that no individual may act in the preparation or presentation or prosecution of claims for VA benefits unless he or she has been accredited by the VA for such purposes. There has been talk about violating federal law. Can you expand on that a bit?

And how do these companies avoid violating federal laws? I think that's to the author. Yeah. Or you can send it over to. To the witness.

Well, they could be accredited. I think the problem with the accreditation is that the VA says you cannot charge if you're going to be accredited. You cannot charge for that initial claim. And. But they could be accredited to help with appeals or disputes after the fact. They could do that.

Accreditation would be available by attorneys or consultants, and so they would qualify to be accredited to do appeals. So. But the original claim cannot be. There cannot be a charge for the original claim.

Thank you. Then I just. Here is. With the opposition you were talking about. You know, we understand the press. And you know what, there are bad actors everywhere, and I understand that. And you were talking about, you know, if there were different amendments, we could probably support this. What would those amendments be?

Some of the things that we have noticed. Basically, we take the list of complaints against our industry and we believe we should legislate against them. So for an example, charging up front non refundable fees and not doing work. We could legislate against upfront non refundable fees and require any fee to be contingent on a successful outcome.

We could put fee caps in place. We, we can define what a reasonable fee is. We hear complaints about tricking veterans into using our services and them not understanding their options. Require us to provide written and acknowledged consent that they understand there's free services available, having overseas call centers and processing claims in foreign countries.

We could legislate against that misleading advertising, promising that we can get 100%. There's a host of things that we can legislate against and we are more than happy to provide some recommendations on what that language would look like.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, Ms. Evely Spars.

First of all, I want to thank everybody for coming out today. This is really important testimony, especially for the author. I appreciate the spirit and the intent, but, you know, we can't all acknowledge the fact that, you know, this is not how we should be conducting business for our veterans.

There should always be a streamlined process and people to receive their benefits and our government needs to do better. So I appreciate the testimony of how to improve it and to work with the author.

I'm inclined to support it, but I'm really concerned of the opposition and I feel that, you know, the author can definitely amend and work in some spaces.

I think some of the reasonable comments that are brought up, but I think the elephant in the room is that we all need to work together to do better by our veterans and that we shouldn't be caught up in bureaucracy. It should be a streamline using technology to submit applications to review and have an expedited process.

We didn't have a bureaucratic process when everyone signed up to serve our country. We. We shouldn't have a bureaucratic process for people to receive their benefits. So thank you.

So I, you know, I very much appreciate you bringing this bill forward. I know last year there was an effort to do a bill in a similar vein.

You know, at the end of the day, I have incredible respect and appreciation for CVSOs and the work that they do for our veterans and appreciate everyone here at the end of the day having a similar goal. Right, to make sure that our veterans get the services and support and benefits that they deserve.

I fought very hard to get a dedicated CVSO in our community. I know how hard it is when we don't have dedicated CVSOs and that it's a critical lifeline for folks. But, you know, at the end of the day, veterans should be able to get the services from the CVSOs for free, which is what happens right now.

It is a free service to connect people with the benefits they deserve. They should not be charged for that. It's why it's illegal at the federal level. We have witnesses here who are operating an illegal business basically at this time. And, and so, you know, I think it's critical.

Unfortunately, they removed the really enforcement measures at the federal level and the while it's illegal at the federal level, it's meaningless unless there's some level of real enforcement.

But, you know, we've all heard a lot of nightmare stories where they'll go to these agencies and then be put in financial danger because of that and have to come back to the CVSO.

So you know, too often their veterans are actually being put through the ringer and having to do work on their claims multiple times with multiple folks, you know, trying to help or not really being helpful.

And you know, and I think that this bill puts us in good company with nine other states who have taken actions to prohibit charging fees that are not allowed by federal law.

We know Washington, Iowa, Michigan, New York, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Maine and Massachusetts have already taken actions in this space and that there's, you know, there's been clear directives from the federal government saying that this is illegal activity, a cease and desist that I know you know, VBG has been, has received, received last year.

And so you know, this is while complicated and I would say more than complicated, controversial. I don't think it's actually that complicated. At the end of the day, it's clearly illegal. We should be enforcing that. But I think, you know, it's important to move this issue forward. I know that you've taken some amendments from our committee.

Committee, correct. Yes. Okay. And I do support the bill. I have an I recommendation on this bill today. And I appreciate you continuing to work with our staff, our committee staff. I know you are double referred so you're going to be going to another committee and there may be amendments happening there.

And I think it's important to fine tune. We always want to make sure that our bills are the best that they they can be and don't have unintended consequences. But as such, you know, I think this is a really important issue that we continue to move forward.

I would like to be added as a co author if you'll have me, would appreciate that. And with that, if you have any comments you'd like to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And absolutely as a co author. One thing I can say that we all agree on here in this room today is that we all want to protect the veterans. Absolutely. You know, as the only veteran in the assembly, I take it as my charge, if you will.

But I also understand that there are bad actors and there are good actors and how do we find that middle ground? So I appreciate the opposition and look forward to working together as we keep on moving this down as my, as my colleagues said. So I respectfully ask for an I vote.

Thank you very much. And with that we'll go ahead and call the roll. Secretary. Yeah. The motion is do pass and be re referred to appropriations or no judiciary committee. Thank you. Thank you. Chair moves. Thank you. Assembly Member Carillo seconds.

Okay. AB 826 by Assembly Member Jeff Gonzalez. That motion is do pass and re refer to the committee on judiciary.

[roll call]

That's 8 to 0 and the Bill is out. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. So. So before we move on, while Mr. Patterson is coming on up, we're going to go back to vote on the rules, Madam Secretary.

All right, that motion is rules are to be adopted for the Committee rules. Do we have a motion or a second?

Can we get a motion and a second for the adopting the rules? Moved by Assembly Member Rodriguez, second by Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Okay, those are six. We'll leave the roll open for people to add on. And we're going to go ahead and also vote on Assemblymember TA's Bill AB81 and then we'll vote on the consent calendar after that as well. Is there a motion and a second for Assembly Member Ta, Rodriguez and Davies. Okay. Sharpe, Collins.

[Roll Call]

That also 6-0. We'll leave that roll open for Members to add on and finally. And then we'll get to Mr. Patterson. The consent calendar. Is there a motion and a second. Rodriguez and okay, Sharp Collins. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

And that is out 6-0. And we'll leave that open. The roll open as well. Mr. Patterson, thank you so much for being patient and your. Your witness. Please proceed.

Great. Well, thank you so much, Madam Chair. It's great to be here today. You run a first time I've been in front in a committee in front of you and you run tight ship, you know, keeping keeping it orderly in here. Thank you, chair and members. You know, many years ago, California made a promise to its veterans.

And that was many promises actually. But one of them was that it's their dependence of mostly disabled veterans, also those lost in the line of duty serving their country, and also Medal of Honor winners, that their dependents would be eligible for a CalVet fee waiver at our public institutions here in California.

And as you know, those fees can be several thousands of dollars actually on campus level basis. And sometimes the best ideas come directly from your constituents and have some persistence and very engaged constituents that brought this idea to me and it was a very good idea.

But essentially what my bill would do is that promise, which was to waive tuition and fees for those children of people who served our nation would be fulfilled and not charge those thousands of dollars in fees on the campus level.

One of the things I did, by the way, after I got this idea was I called, called some of the campus presidents. So I didn't just do this blindly and to see what kind of impact it would have.

And I think, you know, the impact it would have is nominal compared to the sacrifice made for these by these individuals for our country. And so what my bill would do is waive those campus level fees. And I have with me here 1 of 2 a tag team here, Andy and Rachel Sheehy, constituents.

Andy's a marine combat veteran and he brought, they brought this idea to me and I'd like to introduce him and he has some testimony to share.

Thank you. And thank you, Madam Chair and the members of the committee. As the assemblyman said, my name is Andy Sheehy.

I'm a veteran of the United States Marine Corps and I'm here today to support the assemblyman's proposed changes that reiterates the intent of the bill previously signed into law that wave tuition and and all mandatory fees for the dependents of veterans that were killed in action or ones like me, that suffer from service connected disabilities.

It gives me great pride to be from a state like California that not only acknowledges the unique hardships of veterans, but also have the wherewithal to do something about it.

My wife and I read over all the details of this program when we first learned about it, which made it quite clear that tuition as well as all mandatory fees would be waived.

In fact, it says explicitly that the burden of the financial contribution for education would be for housing as well as a room and board, as well as books and supplies. So it was very explicit in that regard and so we plan accordingly for that.

So when our oldest son Eddie was accepted into San Diego State back in 2023, we were taken aback by the number of mandatory fees that were excluded from the tuition and fee waiver program. When we escalated this, we were met with the response that these other types of what they called campus fees were excluded. But how?

There's nowhere in the law that stipulates that college campuses that establish their own mandatory fees can be excluded.

And so for me, it's not about my son Eddie or my youngest son Jack, who is completing his junior year of high school, it is about the other veterans in the state with far less means than me and have sacrificed so much more.

The ones that are living on a fixed income and are really struggling, but they know that higher education is the best chance for their child to achieve the American Dream.

This program is truly a remarkable promise that the people of California has made to our veterans, but it's absolutely frustrating that campuses have invented a way to break it.

Please support these proposed changes and protect the will of those that came before you in the seats in which you now hold so that their promise to us can be fully realized. It's truly needed by more than you know. And based on the sacrifices that we have made for our country, I think we've earned it. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak in support? Please say your name, organization and position. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Yolanda Benson, California Association of County Veterans Service Officers, in support of this bill.

John Thomas Patton, US Army Veteran, in support of this bill.

Nick Bussey, CEO of the Changing Canes Foundation. I proudly support this bill.

Steve Johnson, Placer County VSO, proud US Air Force veteran, and I happily support this bill.

Seth Reeb, Reeb Government Relations, representing AMVETS Department of California, California State Commanders Veterans Council, Military Officers Association of America, California Council of Chapters in support.

Major General Rob Ostenberg, veteran for 38 years, serving between 1969 and 2008. And I am very much in favor of this bill. Thank you.

George Marsh, Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Veterans Association. We support this bill.

Don Harper, American Legion. We support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any principal witness in opposition, seeing none. Any members of the public who wish to speak in opposition? None of that either. Bring it back to the dais. Mr. Gonzalez.

I'm very thankful for this. This bill as absolutely is a positive impact for veteran families.

I, I would love to be on the same side and and also vote in favor because I'm in support of it, but because this directly benefits me with my son in college right now, know that I'm cheering you on, but I will be abstaining.

Ms. Avilis Farias.

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the author and the spirit and everyone that came and spoke in regards to this. But I do have some questions in regards to the fiscal impact. You know, again, we're in a committee where we have to discuss, you know, veterans benefits, which should not even be for discussion.

It should be an automatic, in my viewpoint. But we're not there, you know, nationally in that dialogue and we, we have to do better. And our education system is also a place that, you know, we have under invested.

And I'm concerned on the budgetary impacts, especially to the CSU campuses because it's going to be in over $20 million. And what do we plan? I mean, have you thought where we're going to find the money to support supplement this? Because it has to come from somewhere.

And as you all may know, our higher education, they're all going through budget deficits right now, mainly through facilities that they don't have enough resources not only to. Enrollment is down post the pandemic. Cal Maritime, which is in my district, you know, There are about 700 students where they were prior to the pandemic, over 1,200.

So it's all a numbers thing of students being able to cash flow the university expenses and we add another item to them, reducing their budgets. And, you know, 20 million is a lot to figure out an already struggling, you know, higher education systems. What's the thought process around where we can help our university friends?

Sure, I have a lot of thoughts on that. But first I just want to say, and I know you don't dispute this, but you know, like a lot of programs we offer in California is, you know, we've made commitments, right. You know, certain things that we ought to do.

And I think this sort of fits in there that I believe this was the intent of the law when it was passed. And I think that that's really important to recognize, you know, but like you, you know those concerns, I share them. And so that's why I reached out to some of the campus presidents myself.

I do dispute the number from CSUs, just to be completely honest with you. I also don't believe that's the position of the CSU Board of Trustees. It says from the chancellor's office.

And not to say he was from the board of trustees, but I feel like calling them and asking them, by the way, what their position is on the bill. But. But I believe that the number that they put in there is inflated because many of these individuals will qualify for things like Federal Pell Grants.

And you know, I can't really quantify that, but we will personally I will personally be more or less demanding that that number become more precise as we get into the fiscal committee so we actually can understand the impact of what it would actually be on a campus level.

And so I will be asking at least one campus president to provide me what the fiscal impact would be on that, on that campus.

And I hope the CSUs who opposed it for fiscal reasons and policy committee will also provide that number going into appropriations committee, because I agree that that's a very important, you know, at least to consider. I mean, you're right. It has to be considered at the appropriate time.

And I really appreciate that. And I didn't think anything different, that you wouldn't be as thoughtful and thorough as you are as a great fiscal steward. I just caution that we. I'm very supportive of the spirit of the bill.

I think that we just need to be thoughtful of cause and effect and how we are going to invest in, you know, higher education if we allow this, that we supplement it in another space with our budget so that they're made whole as well, because it does cost money to run these universities and taking something that they're dependent on.

And maybe, you know, we just have to rethink and reimagine how we are going to finance our higher education. And taking away is not the way. But also I see the value of this. It's is important and we should honor those commitments. And I'm supportive of that.

But I know that as you shepherd this through the process, that you will make sure that we are also being good financial stewards of protecting higher education funding.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. I think it's an important discussion. Obviously, I know there's going to be further discussion around the budgetary impacts in appropriations. And, you know, and I appreciate that the numbers that we get presented don't always seem like the most accurate numbers that there can be.

And so hopefully, you know, we'd love to hear updates on what that number becomes over time if it changes. You know, as a daughter of a disabled veteran, this is how I went to college. I went to college with this fee waiver.

And those, you know, those college fees did really add up when you're scraping by and trying to figure out how to pay rent and food and surviving on chips and salsa for dinner and all of the things. Well, I know I wasn't a ramen person. I was a chips and salsa person.

But, you know, this is, it is indeed a commitment that we've made and we should. We have to figure out how to make good on our commitment when you know, so much has been sacrificed by veterans and those who have served. So I do have an I recommendation on it today and would you like to close?

Great. Well, thank you and appreciate. I did not know that about you. So it's, it was really good to learn that and appreciate the, the concern and the questions raised by my colleague. You know, as mentioned, I think what's, what's really great about this is it's, it's not a, one of the things that's great.

It's not a need based. It's an earned based credit. And I was taught that by the champions here who brought it to me. But I think what's really important, irrespective of the fate in the next committee which I'm sure will be considered at that point, is that this conversation should be had.

And so I appreciate the opportunity for this committee and also the Higher Education Committee having the discussion around the policy and the commitments that we made as a state. So hopefully whether it's this year, I'm optimistic. But if, if you know, things go sideways in the future, we can fulfill the commitment that we've made to our veterans.

And also I'm thankful to my friend and constituent here and, and his wife for bringing it to, to my attention and thankful for the service of all the veterans in this room. I ask for an I vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, will you call the roll? Is there a motion in the second? Assembly Member Rodriguez and Chuck Collins with the second.

AB 556 by Assemblymember Patterson. That motion is do pass and re referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

[roll call]

So that has six. And we'll leave the roll open for a little while longer for absent Members to add on. Thank you so much.

[Background]

So we're going to lift the roll on consent calendar from absent Members to add on. Secretary, will you call the roll? .

[Roll Call]

Oh my goodness. So on the we have 7-0 and we're leaving that roll open for five more minutes for Mr. Carillo. If you're nearby. Maybe 81 is also 7-0.

[Background]

Okay. And consent is 7-0. And that is out.

Okay, so for Assembly Military and Veteran affairs, the rules of the Committee are adopted 7 to 0. AB81 is re referred to appropriations. That's out 7-0. AB 556 is re referred. 2 appropriations and that's out 6-0. AB 826 is re referred to Committee on Judiciary. And the consent calendar is also out to 7-0. And with that we will adjourn the Committee on Military and Veteran Affairs.