Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

All right, the Committee on Judiciary will come to order. Committee Assistant Porter, if you will call the roll for purposes of establishing a quorum.

[roll call]. You have a quorum?

We have a quorum. Fantastic. All right, we're holding this Committee hearing in room 1200, the O Street Building. I ask that all members present themselves in room 1200. We have one bill to be heard today and one bill only. We're going to hear SB 694 by Senator Archuleta. We're hearing this bill pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10.

We're going to proceed in the same fashion as we have all year long with respect to the process here. We'll have two witnesses, two primary witnesses in support. Each of them will have two minutes to speak, and then other supporters will appear at the microphone. They'll give us their name, their affiliation and their position on the bill.

And the opposition will have the same opportunity. Two minutes to speak in opposition, two witnesses. And then we'll hear from the MeToos on the opposition side. And then, of course, we'll bring it back to committee for questions and comments. All right, Senator Archuleta, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And ladies and gentlemen of the committee, forgive us for the time that we've taken to try to talk behind closed doors, trying to find a solution here. And just to let you know, the veterans want it presented. The veterans want it to be heard.

The veterans want to be heard because they feel very strongly, because that their voice is extremely important for the veterans that are in the room. Thank you for being here. For those who are supporting our veterans, thank you for being here as well. And I'd like to have my co chair or co author. Well, co chair. Yeah.

And if we can get her up here with me. Where are you and. Because she's going to speak as soon as I finish, Mr. Chair, if that's okay.

Yeah.

Okay. With that, with your permission, I'll begin. Sure. Thank you. Good morning, members of the committee. Senate Bill 694 that we're presented today has a lot of support, no doubt, across the State of California, in your hometowns, my hometowns and everyone's. 694 strengthens California's commitment to protecting veterans from exploitation in the federal claims process.

More importantly, it reaffirms our responsibility to ensure that veterans are not misled by, manipulated or taken advantage of when seeking the benefits they have earned through military service.

This federal law requiring accreditation is the foundation of this bill, the key principle that the military and the veterans community seek to uphold in California law that charging a fee for preparation or assistance with veterans benefits claims should appropriately be reserved for those authorized under federal law to do so, specifically those who are in the VA accredited system along with all the other veterans organizations that are accredited.

Since 2006, we have seen an exportation of a new industry, an explosion of a new industry of businesses that charge veterans for assistance with benefits and claims without being accredited or licensed or overseen of any way, shape or form.

It is the lack of institutional oversight over these for profit companies that is the crux of the problem that this bill seeks to address. The Chair of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommitee at the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, Representative Chris Pappas, explained it is this way in a recent Congressional hearing.

Some veterans may be willing to pay a fee if the services they receive are worthwhile and a company's business practice are also above board. But without adequate oversight to the accreditation process, we cannot be assured that this would be the case.

This bill would establish in state law the federal prohibition on preparing, presenting prosecuting claims for benefits unless accredited pursuant to federal law.

It should be noted that federal law does not allow for the charging of fees, even for accredited agents and lawyers for the preparation of initial claims for benefits, and this bill follows the federal law and in that respect.

The bill also strengthens state law by increasing penalties for persons that obtain unauthorized access to the veterans data on VA computer systems, which is a practice that some of these actors, as we refer to them, often engage in.

It would also prohibit the charging of fees that exceed what a VA accredited attorney or claims agent could legally charge to assist the veteran with the claims.

As a proud veteran myself, the Chair of the Senate Military and Veterans Committee, and the father of two active duty paratroopers, I am committed personally and professionally to protecting our military community from exploitation. During the first three months of this legislative session, I engaged deeply with the issue.

I spoke with the industry, veterans, service organizations and key stakeholders to explore whether the state could establish a pathway for accreditation or certification for nonprofit companies offering services to veterans. We took a hard look at whether such a system could be implemented here at the state level, and after countless conversations and careful evaluation, one thing came clear.

This is fundamentally a federal issue due to the state's current limitations and legal boundaries. The state simply does not at this point in time have the jurisdiction or the resources to create an effective accreditation framework. In the Assembly Judiciary Committee, the CEO and Veterans guardian who is with us here today stated, this is really a federal issue.

We all know it's a federal issue. I completely agree with Lt. Col. That this issue is best addressed at the federal level, which is why multiple bills in Congress are moving to stop for profit companies charging for veterans and charging its outrageous fees just to access the benefits they've earned.

But while we wait and wash it in Axe, our veterans can't wait. We must act now. This is important. This is the moment. This is the time to protect our veterans, to ensure that for profit companies are not making millions off the backs of those who have served.

We owe it to them, to our veterans, to stand with them and to protect them from being taken advantage of while navigating the benefits they've earned. This is not about politics. This is not about politics at all. It's bipartisan. This is about doing the right thing. Making millions of dollars off the backs of our veterans is wrong.

They've earned their benefits. They deserve their benefits. For profit companies have no formal training in the VA system and operate outside federal law and play by a different set of rules without any accountability or oversight. These companies charge a fee for their services equal to five times the increase of the veterans monthly benefit.

For the veterans going from 0 to 100% disability rating. That increase of benefits could be as much as $4,500 for a month. My own brother is at that level. That means for a profit consulting company, that company could walk away with over 22,000 for less than 10 hours of work.

My own brother received 65,000 in back pay and paid zero because it was done through an accredited VA or CSO.

In some cases, consultants can pocket as much as $30,000 through tactics such as holding onto the claims for months before filing so they can take their cut from a substantial back pay that the VA eventually awards to the veteran.

A whistleblower lawsuit from one of the Veterans Guardian's former employees claims that the company's business practices are filled with fraud and deceit and cheating the Federal Government out of millions of dollars.

Another lawsuit filed by veterans alleges that the company preys on disabled veterans by unfairly and deceptively taking tens of millions of dollars of their disability benefits in the violation of federal law.

According to the lawsuit, the former employee alleged the employees with no medical background interviewed veterans and quickly assessed which health issues should be listed on the forms. Employees charged scores or changed scores on depression self evaluation if they felt the score was too low, sometimes without the veterans knowledge.

Applicants were coached to look tired shady for appointments when they got to the appointment with the VA and the VA medical examiners. They were advised not to shave, told to use a cane or a wheelchair if they had one. Employees were instructed to tell prospective customers that VA could not be trusted to deal with veterans fairly.

Misrepresentations may have to be made and the reason for these tactics according to the former employee, was simple money for profit, money for gain for the company and putting the veteran in legal jeopardy.

And I have a letter from our Attorney General, Short paragraph by our Attorney General, Attorney General's Office quote Attorney General Bonta is pleased to support the bill Senate Bill 694 to strengthen oversight and consumer protection for veterans seeking assistance in filing claims for benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

California has a long tradition of providing free high quality disability claims filing assistance to veterans with the leadership that the veterans community has put forth and the support of the Association of County Veterans Service Officers, the American Legion Department of California and many others.

Senate Bill 69 firmly stands on the principles that all those who seek to charge our veterans for helping filing a VA benefits claim should be accredited by the VA and operate within the guardrails created by federal law per the Attorney General. And I close with this, in 2023

claim sharks, as they're called, companies charge approximately $477 million from the veterans, active duty military personnel and their families according to data collected from the Fair Trade Commission. And it goes on. So I will close that. I thank you for allowing Mr.

Chair to allow the committee members to vote freely and I will now turn it over with your permission to my colleague Pilar.

Thank you sir. Good morning Mr. Chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to co present today on SB 694 as Chair of the Assembly Military and Veteran Affairs Committee.

I'm proud to be a principal co author of this bill authored by Senator Archuleta because of really the significance that this bill has for the veteran community in the state and nationally.

SB 694 is about aligning state law and federal law to protect disabled veterans from claimed predators who steal tens of thousands of dollars to benefit in benefits that veterans are owed.

This is the number one issue for all congressionally chartered veteran organizations in California and in the nation, including VFW, Amvets, Disabled Veterans of America, the National Association for Black Veterans and the National Veterans Foundation Vietnam Vets, CABSA and US Vets. In addition, unions are supporting this issue.

IBW 1245 and SEIU as well as businesses through the Cal Asian, African American and Hispanic Chamber of Commerce are all in support. Veterans are asking for our help. Labor and business is aligned. We have a chance today to protect them. In 2006, an unintentional federal change left a legal loophole that hamstrung federal enforcement.

Despite this, there have been 58 cease and desist letters sent by the VA to these for profit claims predators. Letters they just ignore because the VA is unable to enforce the law. And that's why we need to change that in California. And these aren't small sums of claims that predators charge. They're talking about.

You know, there's a lot of talk that we've had in this body, in the Legislature around affordability. Our constituents are being squeezed from every angle. And when you're talking about affordability, no one can afford $22,000 in fees because helped you fill out some forms. And that's exactly what's happening.

Just because they spend a few hours on forms, they are really stealing out of the pockets of disabled veterans. This is, you know, they're charging veterans more than $1,000 for each hour they spend.

And I don't know very many people helping people fill out forms that get paid that much compared to the VSOs who are held in strict ethical standards, evaluated on their performance and accuracy on each claim by the VA. And importantly, they never charge a veteran for any of their services.

That's not to say that veterans can't be charged at all. Federal law does allow for accredited entities and attorneys who are accredited to charge a maximum of 33% for for retroactive benefits for complex appeals. But these companies are not interested in complex appeals.

They're interested in the initial claims where they can get the most money out of veterans pockets. So if you go from 0 to 70% or 0 to 100%, that is where these companies really profit the most.

And it is projected that this is a $73 billion industry and those $73 billion are public dollars out of our VA system and out of the pockets of veterans going into private corporations and minting millionaires around the country.

This means that when the appeals are submitted by an attorney, they can charge for their work based on an increase in disability rating. But that's not when the claim sharks make it big. As I just explained, they will sometimes charge 100% of five or six months getting up to $22,000. As my colleague mentioned $30,000.

Really exorbitant costs that have emptied veterans savings accounts. They'll often charge them these amounts before they've even received the funds. So if you're being charged six months of benefits, they'll demand it in three months when you haven't even received six months of benefits yet. So it's leaving veterans in financial ruin.

And one of the reasons that they can prey on them is because they have so much money, they advertise like crazy. If you talk, I beg of you to talk to any veteran and ask them if they have received text messages, emails, phone calls, ads on, you know, digital media.

They are bombarded with these predatory ads by these companies and it makes veterans think this is the way you have to do it. If you want to go claim, get a claim for your VA benefits, then you have to go through these companies. If you Google it, those ads are the things that come up.

You may not even see a CVSO that does this for free on that whole page when you Google how do I get my VA benefits?

And so they have the money to funnel them into this for profit predatory system instead of people being informed that they actually have a free option where CVSOs are not only trained in how to do this work, they have direct access to the VA system, but they also help the whole veteran.

So if they need housing assistance or food assistance or mental health support, they can help them with those things as well. The opposition argues that they want a parallel secondary accredited system funded by California taxpayers so that these out of state companies can continue doing business in our state.

They want to build a framework that allows them to operate illegally, charging veterans for the initial claims, which again is illegal based on federal law to charge veterans if you are not accredited. So currently the VA accredits 13,670 individuals to represent veterans here in California. Over 8,000 are VSOs, over 5,000 are attorneys, 521 are claims agents.

If the attorneys can economically sustain their veteran benefit services, certainly these 100% for profit companies could survive as well doing it the right way. The opposition calls themselves good actors and admits that there are bad actors who submit false information and maximize claims.

Contract with doctors who veterans have never met, charge more fees than they do, trick veterans into giving them their VA login credentials, pretend to be veterans, log in and track their future benefits and take percentages of those even though they didn't help them get those additional benefits.

And after receiving cease and desist orders from the VA, VBG Claims Consulting opened a satellite office here in San Diego. And when testifying before Congress in 2022, Veterans Guardian claimed that they had never received a cease and desist letter.

But their lawyers were finally forced to admit they actually received one in 2019, only after being reminded that falsely testimony- false testimony before Congress is a criminal offense.

Until there's reform on the federal level, or until we can utilize millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars to come up with an established estate regulatory scheme for these companies, allowing them to continue doing business with some type of oversight, we see veterans.

We simply let veterans sort out for themselves which companies are good actors by the ads that promote them on Google and search engines.

Not only is the AG Attorney General Bonta ready to go after these claim sharks with SB 694, but members of our congressional delegation are looking to us to join nine other states that have created their own state laws to protect veterans, including Washington, Iowa, Michigan, New York, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Maine, Massachusetts.

Other states have introduced legislation like Florida and Mississippi to ban claim sharks. And Texas AG has sued claim sharks in their state for defrauding veterans.

Our AG- Our AG's hands are tied because none of these California corporations and they also do not feel like the federal law is strong enough for them to be able to hold up in court, especially in the current political context with our courts.

So are we going to stand with states like Louisiana or are we going to stand with states like New York and Illinois? And the thing that sticks in my mind most during these hard conversations is a veteran that I spoke to who's been advocating in this building for many, many years.

And he just silently said to me, I have never seen an issue where it is harder for veterans to be heard than this issue. And so today I ask that you will join me and make sure that he is heard, that every veteran is heard.

Who deserves this, who fought for this, who sacrificed and should get their full benefits without someone taking out of their pocket benefits that they need and they deserve. With that, I know we have witnesses here. David West, who's the President of California VSOs and also Medal of War- Medal of Honor awardee, Will Swenson.

We don't have him. Sit at the table or no. Okay. The microphone. Go ahead and approach the microphone. The floor is yours.

Chair and members of the committee. The opposition loves to talk about choice. Veterans already have choice today. Accredited claims representatives through county veteran services offices, veteran service organizations, and accredited attorneys and agents. And let's be clear, these companies could become accredited if they wanted to play by the rules. But make no mistake, this is not about choice.

This is about stripping away federal protections for veterans so that for profit companies can't exploit them. That's not choice. That's legalizing the exploitation of veterans. Their entire business model is based on charging thousands of dollars for a service that is free. Will engage in shady practices designed to maximize the fees they squeeze from vulnerable disabled veterans.

Let me give you some examples. John Ryan trajector told him he was expected to pay six times the amount of his monthly VA benefits with only three months to pay before interest kicked in. Christian Hamill. When he chose not to submit the claim form that Bill Taylor filled out for him.

Bill Taylor harassed him with daily calls and texts telling he was contractly obligated. The stress was so very suffered a stroke. He was 23 before he was even told about his award. Trajectora demanded 5,500 plus interest on any remaining balance. And it doesn't stop there.

Some of these claim sharks penalize their employees if their calls with veterans last longer than eight minutes. Every major veteran organization in this state supports SB 694 because we know accredited, accountable and free help already exist. The VA system may be complex, but is not adversarial. Veterans do not need to be preyed upon by unaccredited profiteers.

I am not a slick lobbyist. I'm here because my job is to help veterans. I'm asking you to stand with California's veterans. Not with out of state companies looking to exploit them. And last year during this process, Senator Azevedo Gill. Point. Thank you. Point. Directly asked Bill Taylor, have you ever received a cease and desist letter?

And he stood in this room and said no. He's lied in this room before and he will do it again. Don't put tax deal- Don't put taxpayer dollars into an industry that profits from their sacrifice. Stand with that.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. West. All right, next witness, please.

Good morning, chair and members of this committee. My name is William Swenson and I'm a retired service member. I'm a retired lieutenant colonel from the United States army and a Medal of Honor recipient. I also represent private industry. I'm the chief strategy officer of Turbovets. And we as a company strongly support Senate Bill 694.

For decades, veterans like myself have relied on accredited representatives. Our county Veterans Service Officers and nationally chartered organizations like the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars help file claims at the Department of Veteran Affairs. These services are available to every veteran at no cost.

Yet predatory actors, often called claim sharks, exploit loopholes and charge veterans thousands of dollars for help that should be free. These companies are not accredited by the VA. They are not trained, they are not accountable, but they are persuasive. Many veterans, often the most vulnerable, fall prey to their false promises of faster processing and bigger lump sums.

Once the damage is done, the money is gone. There is little recourse. Federal enforcement has been weak, which is why SB 694 is so important.

This bill closes loopholes here in California, makes it a misdemeanor for unaccredited individuals to file or prepare claims, prohibits them from demanding veteran private login information, and empowers the Attorney General to prosecute these people. Some argue that SB 694 is too broad, but I respectfully disagree.

The real choice before this committee is whether California will stand with its veterans or for those who profit from them. Veterans earn their benefits through service and sacrifice. There should never be a treatment as a revenue stream.

On behalf of my fellow veterans, I urge you to pass SB 694 and send a clear message. California will not tolerate the exploitation of those who wore the uniform. Thank you.

Thank you, Colonel Swenson. Before we turn to others in support, if you'd cue up approach the microphone, let me just say a few words and we're going to have the committee ask questions and make comments in just a moment. But to you, Lieutenant Colonel Swenson, I'm in awe of few people I've been around for a long time.

I am not in awe of generals except my wife, of US Senators, even presidents. But Medal of Honor recipients like yourself are in a different category. What you did in East Kunar Province in 2009 is simply extraordinary.

And I coincidentally happened to have been in Afghanistan at the same time your exploits and the exploits of your teammates reverberated throughout the country. What's also amazing and also laudable is that you spoke truth to power. That after that event, after that battle, you commented on the lack of support, you basically criticized the command.

Now query whether you would receive the Medal of Honor during this Administration as you did previous Administration for criticizing the command. But you spoke truth to power. And for both those reasons, I commend you and thank you for being here among us today. So having said that, now let's turn to those who are in support.

Your name, your affiliation and your position.

Mr. Chair, before he begins, I'd like to acknowledge your words. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for doing that. Ladies and gentlemen, we are looking at an American hero who stood up for what he believes in, Congressional Medal of Honor. And I agree with the chair.

I'd rather shake his hand than any President we've ever had of any party. Anyone. A Congressional Medal of Honor recipient. Most give their lives. All served with honor. And to have him here today, what an honor for us here in California. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Senator. Go ahead.

Good morning. Mark Esidro on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in support.

Chair and members Jaelson Dantas on behalf of Commander Willie Rogers with National Association of Black Veterans in California State Chapter 109 and California for Veterans Equity in support.

Good morning. Yolanda Benson representing the African American Chamber of Commerce, Vets in Tech and RCRC, the Rural County Representatives of California.

Good morning, chair and members. Emma Jungwirth on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and Contra Costa County in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Josh Baker with the California Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States representing your hometown military force. We are in strong support.

Good morning. My name is Don Harper. I'm the Legislative Chair for the American Legion in California. I'm here to represent our Legionnaires, our auxiliary Members and our Sons of the American Legion. Total 150,000 Members I represent today. We strongly recommend support for this bill. Thank you.

Sarah Brennan with Weideman Group on behalf of AARP in support. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for the counties of Humboldt, Kern, Nevada, Placer, San Luis Obispo, Shasta, as well as the city and County of San Francisco, all in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support.

Good morning. Anthony Butler Torres, on behalf of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce and the Orange County Hispanic Chambers of Commerce and support. Thank you.

David Kuta. I'm the commander, State Commander for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I represent over 55,000 combat veterans and I strongly urge you to protect our veterans in support of this bill.

Good morning. Zach Delwich. I'm the commander of Sacramento's own Veterans of Foreign Wars, post 67, the oldest post in California, representing 350 Members here in the Sacramento region. In full support of the bill. Thank you, Chairman.

Hello, ladies and gentlemen. I am Lois Flint. I represent the American Legion. California has six areas and I am the Vice Commander for Area 6, Area 2 in California. I am a 41 year retired teacher in the Salinas area and I have. I can't tell you how many children joined the military in that community. Thank you.

And you support the bill?

I support the bill, sir.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Juanita Martinez, on behalf of Commander Gloria Baker from the National Association of Black Veterans, San Diego Chapter 72.

Good morning. Patrick Graham, Vietnam Veterans of America. Currently, we represent 97,000 California Vietnam veterans and we support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Charlie Peterson. I am a veteran of five veteran groups in the area and they're all supporting me to come down here to talk to you about getting this thing passed. Thank you very much.

Charles Wright, on behalf of CAVSA. California Association of Veterans Service Agencies. In strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Steve Johnson, Placer County Veterans Services Office and retired United States Air Force Veteran. And I emphatically support SB 694 to protect our veterans in Placer.

Good morning. Eloena Castillo, representing Placer County Veterans Services Office. In strong support.

Good morning. Richard Rice, Marine Corps Veteran, in strong support of this bill.

Thomas Oates, Marine Corps League, Detachment 885. We're in support of this group, this bill. Thank you.

Brian Galicia, Calaveras County Veterans Service officer in strong support.

Jonathan Brown, U.S. army veteran, El Dorado County VSO, strong support of this 694. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Ryan Barney. I'm a county veteran service rep. with the San Luis Obispo county and a Navy veteran and I strongly support SB 694.

Hi. Jim Zenner, Army veteran and on behalf of the National Association of County Veteran Service Officers as a National Policy Director, strong support.

Jessica Lanier, Nevada County Veterans Service Office and I strongly support Good morning.

Beth Malinowski with SEO California, in strong support.

Good morning. Anthony Simpson, Alameda County Veteran Service officer, proud Marine Corps veteran, retired, strongly support.

Good morning, Chair and Members, Seth Reeb with Reeb Government Relations representing American Legion Department of California, amvets Department of California, the California State Commanders Veterans Council, which is comprised of 22 veteran organizations recognized by Cal Vet, Military Officers Association of America, California Council of Chapters and the Vietnam Veterans of America California State Council representing nearly a million veterans, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Member Bob Reeb, son of two United States Navy veterans and proud father of the gentleman who just testified, a disabled United States army combat veteran in support.

Good morning folks. My name is Sean Stevens. I'm an army combat veteran of four tours in Afghanistan, army infantry, and I'm here to tell you right now as the VSO for Marin County and the Marin United Veterans Council President, we are in strong support of protecting our veterans. Please vote yes.

Good morning. Tom D'Agostino, Marine veteran with Aaron Reed and Associates representing strong support from the Veteran Foundation, SDMAC, and the California Highway Patrolman Association. Thank you.

Good morning. Dorian Almaraz, on behalf of the Latino Caucus of California Counties, which has over 30 county supervisors from California, in support.

Colonel, I appreciate your service. Robert Johnson, Glenn County full support of this Bill.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Jack Murphy, retired Army lieutenant colonel, former paratrooper representing 17th District Veterans in Monterey and San Benito county. Strongly support this bill.

Good morning, Chair. Virginia Wimmer in strong support of this bill. I'm an Air Force veteran, retired. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Bob Smith, retired Army National Guard. We're in strongly support of this bill.

Good morning Mr. Chair, Members, Hunter Stern with IBEW 1245 on behalf of our membership and particularly on behalf pf our veterans group, in strong support.

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members. Robert Herrell, I'm the Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California, proud son of a 24 year master sergeant, army veteran as well in support of this bill, we have seen considerable harm in the space. Thank you.

All right. Seeing no one else testifying in support of SB 694. If there's opposition, please approach the microphone. Same rules, two minutes each witness.

Good morning. Thank you for the time to testify this morning. My name is William Taylor. I'm a West Point graduate, 23 year army veteran with six combat tours. I am also the founder of Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting. We are a veteran owned and veteran employed company. I have 200 employees.

Almost everyone that works for me is a veteran, spouse of veteran, or spouse of active duty. We are proud of the service that we're providing to veterans both across the nation and here in California. We are running a 90% success rate. Our average veteran is getting a decision in 85 days, which is about half the national average.

And 70% of our clients are coming to us after having utilized the free services. Why is that the case? Why are they coming to us? Why are we being so successful? And the answer is, I'm not just spending a few hours filling out forms. We do nothing but what's called fully developed claims.

We work with, for 10s, 20, 30, 40 hours. Depending on the complexity of the claim with our clients, we may have 10 or 15 different people touch that claim. We're using AI to do medical records review. We're helping to develop theories of disability with journal articles. We are doing a boatload of work for our veterans.

And we ensure that every claim that goes before the VA has every piece of evidence that's necessary to approve it when it is submitted. We're not relying on the VA's duty to assist to further develop that claim. And that's why we're being so successful.

I would like to share, I share the concerns of Senator Archuleta, of everyone that spoke here. There are predators out there. There are predatory actions. For the last, since I have been engaged in California, we have proposed a set of amendments that would create a consumer protection bill that would address every concern that's been raised by all the parties here.

And we continue to support that. We continue to believe we need to protect veterans. The last thing I'd like to finish with is there were a lot of personal statements made against me and my company. I take exception to many of them. Many of them were misleading and unfactual. And I would enjoy the opportunity to respond to many of them. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, other witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Joshua Prado. I'm here in respectful opposition to SB 94. I'm a United States Navy veteran and former recipient of the San Diego County Veteran of the Year for my collaborative efforts on a local, state and federal level to support education and employment opportunities

I marketed and work as a military transition expert in that space, I've dedicated a substantial amount of time advocating for veterans, especially post 911 veterans like me who often feel overlooked in these conversations.

I speak on behalf and two veterans and serve in several nonprofit mentorship roles and high level positions across the nation. If you're in San Diego, you know who I am, so make no mistake about it. Pause, this Bill is about abandonment and not reform. As we learned on the battlefield, we never leave a soldier behind.

This bill leaves thousands behind. For example, this bill will harm veterans by limiting access to trusted, effective help. There are more than 5,000 veterans with claims in process, with ethical advisors, with VBG and Vet Guardian alone. What will happen to them if this bill becomes law? I support strong enforcement against bad actors in the benefits space.

Some do great harm and should be held accountable. SB 694 restricts access to legitimate ethical assistance and in the process it will hurt the very people it's trying to 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 from a reputable private partner.

VSOs and the VA do important work and many of you here do. But the reality is that thousands of veterans fall through the cracks. That's the reality. I'm not against regulation. In fact, I welcome it. 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, especially the younger and more diverse veterans for whom I advocate, represent, and who are not often in rooms like this. Came all the way from San Diego to speak with you today. Please negotiate a compromise that preserves choice and prosecutes bad actors.

Senator Achuleta said recently in the speech this morning he spoke very heavily in the community to hear the voice of us, but I find it concerning that he's never spoken to me or some of the VFW commanders in San Diego.

Thank you very much. All right, thank you. All right, others in opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing okay, if you're in opposition, please approach the microphone.

Good morning. California Native, Service Disabled Coast Guard veteran in opposition unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition seeing no one else approaches the microphone. Oh, your name? I'm sorry, you didn't provide us your name.

That's also important, Ryan Scalmanini.

Thank you. All right, I'll bring it back to Committee. Questions, comments by Committee Members. Senator Wahab.

Thank you. I really just want to.

Senator Weber Pierson.

Thank you. I just really want to appreciate the work that you guys have done. I know that there are some concerns about this particular bill. I just wanted either of you guys to be able to address any of the concerns that were mentioned.

Let me begin. Committee Member and Senator, thank you so much. If you saw the number of people who got up to speak on behalf of the veterans, and of course, a couple that didn't, that's basically what's happening. We find that, yes, there are a couple of people that are doing the job right. In any field theres always a couple.

In this room, it's filled, this dais with people that are doing the job right. But that doesn't mean that the multitude of the people that are out there in California are doing it right or doing it wrong. But we represent those that are trying to do it right.

And that's what this bill is all about. Trying to write. And again, I did read a letter earlier by the Attorney General. Every single military organization has spoken. It's the same thing. They're not accredited. There is no oversight, and there is no one that can say you did it wrong. Get out of the business. There isn't anyone.

Thank you. And with that, I do just want to highlight that seniors and veterans and immigrant community members are largely targeted for scams. And you know, I understand the concerns about different options, but they are largely being gouged for additional fees, additional increased costs, and much more.

With that, and especially thank you for your service to this country, I will move the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Weber Pierson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Want to, both thank both of the authors that are here for this Bill and thank everyone who is here who came to speak in support or in opposition and for everyone who has served this great country of ours.

I guess I'm, you know, I am definitely one that in most circumstances believes in giving people choice, but I am also one that believes that bad actors should not be allowed to continue. And I guess I'm having a challenging time understanding the accreditation process and why you would have an organization that's not accredited.

Are there some, some extreme obstacles that prevent some of these organizations that would be targeted in this bill from being accredited? Can you give me a little bit of background on that?

Is that a question to the author or to the opposition?

Well, it's actually to. Well, let me actually, let me have the opposition because I'm under the assumption, and I could be wrong, that you're not accredited. Are you not accredited?

That is correct. I'm not accredited.

So can you explain the process and why?

Yeah, I would be happy to. So under the current accreditation rules, the only entities that are allowed to charge a fee as an accredited agent or attorney are the attorneys and agents, and they can charge a fee to help on appeals. There is still a limitation on accredited agents charging a fee to help on initial claims.

There is not a restriction against unaccredited entities. The way the law is written right now, if we operate as an unaccredited entity, there are no restrictions against us charging fees. We want to be accredited. I am working at the federal level to change the accreditation rules.

There is a bill that is just passed out of the House Veteran Affairs Committee called the Choice act, which does create a path to accreditation force, but that path does not exist right now.

We are better serving our veterans as unaccredited entities because it allows me to look at them holistically and help them across the breadth of what they're eligible for, rather than being limited to just a small piece of what they're eligible for. And so that's why we're operating as unaccredited entities.

Okay, so if you are accredited, then you can only charge a fee for a very limited portion of the service. Is that what you're saying?

We can only charge a fee to help on appeals, and that's pretty much the domain mainly of attorneys.

Okay. And so that would be for someone who's already applied and gotten denied something. So if you were accredited, you could not be that first option for.

And 90% of what we do is in that is helping veterans either with things that they should have claimed that they didn't, or working on secondary conditions. And that's the bulk of the work we do. And that's really the service that we're providing to veterans.

Okay. And so for those areas. So where do veterans go for that first initial claim if they did not go to an entity like you?

So they could either go to a VSO, whether that's with a veteran service organization or a state or county employee, or they can do it on their own. Those are the only other two options that they have.

And some of the issues. What would you, in your, you know, all of your expertise, what would you say some of the issues are with those other options? Like a VSO county.

Well, listen, I believe that the VSOs are an integral part of this process. I believe that the county and veteran counties and state veteran service officers are doing outstanding work out there. One of the biggest issues is the numbers. You know, when we look here in California, the ratio of veteran to VSO is about 1 to 3400.

One VSO for every 3400 veterans in this state. Across the country, that average is closer to 1 to 4,000. Sometimes there's availability issues, sometimes there's workload issues. Doesn't mean that they're not doing good work. Sometimes the complexity gets higher. But veterans are looking for another option.

70% of my clients are coming to me after having tried one of the free services. It doesn't mean that the free services aren't providing good service to veterans. I believe they are. But veterans in certain cases are looking for other options and we are that option for them.

Okay, just one more question, Chair. I'm sorry. Now, in your statement you had mentioned that you had provided some amendments that would have essentially dealt with the bad actors but allowed for those who are out in the community, really serving vets as they should to continue.

Correct. I actually believe that just defeating. While yes, I don't want this Bbll to move forward, I don't think that's the right answer. The right answer is that we need to put a robust consumer protection bill in place that addresses every single one of the predatory concerns. We heard concerns about charging up front non refundable fees.

My recommendation is to ban that and require fees to be contingent on a successful outcome. We heard complaints about excessive fees. We have proposed a significant fee cap that would address those excessive fees. There were concerns about veterans being charged before that they had gotten their money.

We have proposed amendments that would outlaw that practice and require us to provide payment plans that were in line with when the veterans getting their money. There's concerns about veterans not knowing their choices. We have recommended amendments that require us to notify the veteran in writing, one page, single, 12.0 font, that there are free services available.

I could keep running down this list. We've even proposed a private right of action for veterans that if we violate any one of those, they could come after us individually.

We believe that we can deal with the predatory practices, every single one of them that's been identified here today, and outlaw those here in California, while still allowing veterans to make the choice to use companies.

I will tell you that the vast majority of the companies in this space are comfortable with the amendments because that's really the, while yes, there are bad practices, many and most of the companies practicing here are in line with the restrictions that we've proposed.

Thank you.

Madam Senator. May I also add a little bit? We did hear that no doubt there are few that are doing a good job.

And I've said to this individual and we've talked and I said, once we stop and we start over again and once we acknowledge the fact that there are predators, we acknowledge the fact this is against the law. The Attorney General said the same thing, if you heard my message. But it is a federal issue.

They have to get accredited by federal law. You as a physician, you have various steps for your accreditation, that you have to take. Whether it's federal, if you're working for the federal or state, if you're working with the state, you can't do it outside.

So consequently, all we're trying to do here is to make sure that the veterans that are serving our country and have served our country are met with people who are accredited, educated, and know the rule of law under the Federal Government.

And that's why the VSOs, thousands that they represent, and the American Legion representing thousands, and the Veterans Administration money goes out every single day across this nation and in here in California because of the VA. And I'm standing here as a veteran to tell you that we will help these individuals down the road, but not now, not today, because they're breaking the law.

And that's what we're trying to do. Stop it. And then in turn, there'll be another pathway. And he said it as well. He's trying to come up with a pathway, but Congress is not ready for that yet. They're trying to ascertain what's needed. Until then, we shouldn't be violating the law either.

So I guess I if the accreditation is only for at this point, it's only for people who are appealing something not for their initial claim.

Accreditation covers both entities that are charging a fee for appeals and also for entities that are not charging a fee on initial claims. So it runs the full gamut. But there is a limitation on accredited agents being able to charge a fee for initial claims. But there is not a restriction on unaccredited agents charging a fee.

That is not the way the law is written. It was rewritten in 2006. It is a, if the language still read the way it did Prior to 2006 I would agree wholeheartedly. But that is not the way the federal law reads right now. There is not a restriction on unaccredited entities charging a fee.

If we could have Mr. West speak in answer to your question further.

So in addition to my normal duties being a Nevada County Veteran Services Officer and I'm President of the State Association of County Veteran Services Officers, I'm also elected to the National Association of County Veteran Services Officer Z board, and there I'm the assistant National Service Director.

One of my things that I have to do is verify our accreditation. The way Mr. Taylor's company and these other companies can get accredited is they apply, they talk, they tell them, they submit their training package, let them know what they're going to be training their staff on, make sure they're covering morals and values. Right?

They got to cover morals and values in this training and teach their staff how to properly train veterans. Once that training package is approved, they then have to come up and submit their test. What are they going to be testing their employees on? What are they going to do? How are they going to grade?

What is the pass fail rate? Once that test is approved, then they can apply and become an accredited become an accredited agency. But once again it's going to limit what they can charge for. And Mr. Taylor brought up the Choice Act on the federal level. Previously Senator Congressman Lou Correa was a co author of that bill.

We had a chance for our delegates to go meet him in D.C. we had a chance to talk to him. We told them how the Choice Act was bad for veterans. And he looked at us and told us, you know what, I'm gonna have to rethink my position.

Subsequently dropped his name off of the support of that legislation because he knows it is bad for California's veterans.

Alrighty. Thank you. Senator Reyes. Then Senator Durazo.

Thank you. First, I do want to thank the authors for bringing this forward. I also want to thank our Chair. We're talking to veterans here, people who have served our country and may have different views but have both honorably served and opinions of both are extremely important to me.

One of the comments that was made, or maybe it was in the analysis about personal login and pins being requested, is this true and where has this happened?

So sometimes they'll ask for them because they say they need them to be able to submit for them. They'll actually keep pin and login information. And we've heard many reports of these companies actually going in after they've completed their application and tracking if they ever apply for additional benefits.

And they will come back after them and say, you owe us a percentage of these additional benefits that you applied for, even if they used a CVSO for free, even if their company didn't help them with it.

So not only do they illegally log in as the veteran, but they also will use it to track future awards and be able to profit off of that as well.

Thank you.

Can I comment on that as well? We as.

Through the Chair.

Through the Chair,

We do not follow that practice. VBG does not follow that practice. The vast majority of companies in this industry do not follow that practice. We're not doing it. There are a few bad actors that are and we would like to legislate against their ability to do that.

Briefly.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. I will tell you, and I know there was a representative here from San Bernardino. I'm so proud of the work that our San Bernardino County Veterans Service Officers do. We have 92,000 veterans in San Bernardino. County. Last year alone, they were able to file 55, over 55,000 claims and brought to our veterans over $58,000.

This is really important. And this is just one year, the amount of money that has been brought to San Bernardino. County. And the list shows Los Angeles and a number of other counties. This is important work. I will share, if I may, that my tio Hoel, my uncle who served in Vietnam, hadn't received any benefits.

He was a permanent resident and assumed that because he was not a U.S. citizen that he could not receive any benefits. And we went to our county office and they went through every benefit that he could receive, not just the disability benefits.

And that is what is so important about our county Veterans Service Officers is that they do look at every potential benefit that can be provided to our veterans. I appreciate the comments. To make sure that every veteran is heard, that is extremely important. The oversight that is needed, extremely important.

I've heard since receiving the information that this bill was going to be heard, I've heard from many of our associations back home, our veterans advocates.

And the last text message I received was from Congressman Mark Takano, who very recently was the chair of the Veterans Committee in Washington, D.C. and his comment to me was that this is such an important bill and he says not Only do I want you to vote for it, but I want you to speak on it.

And I will not speak on something unless I have done my homework. And I do want to thank the Chair and the Committee for the Analysis that was prepared. I thank my colleague for asking the questions on accreditation because if there was no way to be accredited, that's a problem. But that's not what we have here.

There is a process for being accredited and it's a choice that is made and that would assist with the oversight. I am very concerned about companies that are not accredited, even if they're doing a good job. I am very concerned about that. This particular bill, I believe, is an important first step.

I do think that, as has been commented on before in nature negotiations, there should be a working group. Because if we have 5,000 veterans who have a claim outside of our county veterans service offices, there has to be a way to transition them once their representative is cut off. Is that something that is being considered?

So that would be something that they could then take their cases to a CVSO and get support for free. Right. And so if for some reason you have a contract and oh, sorry, go, oh, please continue.

If you go through the process with the company, you can, and I know the CVSOS and probably Mr. West will mention this, they see a lot of these cases. They have to come behind these companies and clean up after them.

I mean, honestly, you know, they can come up here and say all kinds of rosy statistics for us. There's no transparency. We have no way to check that. We have no way to verify what kind of money they get for veterans, how successful they are in their claims, any of that.

Because they can just come say whatever numbers they want to. They can say they do things or don't do things. How do we verify any of that? Because there's no accreditation, no standards that they're held to. And I just want to respond to saying that this is not illegal for them to charge in the analysis.

Number four, under existing federal law, it says, prohibits a free fee from being charged, allowed or paid for services of agents and attorneys with respect to services provided before a date in which the claimant is provided notice of agency or original jurisdiction's initial decision. So it very clearly says that you cannot be charged for initial claims.

But I know our VSO has more information on that as well. Through the Chair.

Through the Chair, briefly. I just, I warned everybody about some misstatements that could possibly happen this morning. In Warhorse article dated April 2025, Mr. Taylor is directly quoted as saying he does use VA due to the Warhorse article in April of 2025.

Mr. Bill Taylor is directly quoted as saying that he does use veterans information to access their information online. So I just wanted to clear that up. And we will be sharing that Warhorse article with everybody after the hearing.

Thank you. Okay.

Senator Reyes, anything further?

I just want to thank everybody, especially our veterans who are here. I want to thank you for your service, but I also want to thank our chair and our author for their service as well. I know that they have the best interest of our veterans in all of that. They do. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Senator Durazo.

Yeah. I want to start with thanking my family, all my family Members who are veterans, starting with my father, three siblings, one who was in Vietnam and then from there, thank everybody else here, from the Chair to the authors. Everybody was who came here today. I supported this pretty much identical bill last year.

I haven't heard anything that would change my mind about supporting it. So I support, I'll support the bill today. And I urge. Can we, Mr. Chair, call the question?

There's others that want to ask questions and comments, so. Sure. I think Senator Wahab has already asked to make the motion, so yes. Other questions, Comments. Yes. Senator Allen.

Well, my question's for the Chair. I voted for previous legislation as well. Clearly there's a real need for greater accountability in this space. Also, it seems like there's a market here because our veteran service providers are underfunded and not always making it easy enough for veterans to access services.

And I've spoken to several people who, veteran friends of mine who were really dissatisfied with their direct contact with the VSO system. But, you know, but that being said, we cannot, you know, whatever we do, we have to.

There's too much, there's clearly too many, too many bad actors and too much bad work happening here for us to not act in some substantive form or another. So I know the Chair cares a great deal about this. I know you guys were off in the side room talking about this right before the hearing.

I'd like to get a better understanding as to the Chair's thoughts and where this fits in with this particular bill.

Well, thank you, Senator Allen. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. So through question and answer, I think we'll elicit some other information. But here I can tell you what my concerns are. This bill does not limit anyone's access to a VSO.

VSOs, including my sister in law, I think largely do an excellent job, much like public defenders do an excellent job when they represent their clients. The question is, should veterans be limited to those who provide free services? Certainly those free services, I think in large part are excellent.

But should a veteran be able to avail themselves of paid service if they believe that, for example, the VSO is not providing the kind of service that they wish, and then they wish to go to some other location, some other entity, some other entity they think can do a better job?

Now, are there bad actors in this space? There are absolutely bad actors in this space.

And the question before us, I think, is how to make sure that in my mind, how do we provide veterans a choice to be able to seek others with expertise and experience and eliminate those, or at least sanction those who are acting not in the best interest of the veterans?

And I think that there are a whole host of ways. One of the things that we've talked about, and I know my colleague from San Bernardino has explained experience in this space, and that's workers compensation.

That when a veteran, a service member, is injured in the workplace, much like a Senate employee is injured in the workplace, they can avail themselves of filing a workers comp claim or filing a disability claim with the VA.

When you file a workers comp claim, you can go out and you can hire a lawyer or you can hire a representative if you wish. But worker's comp claims are then circumscribed by percentage as to what you might recover.

They're circumscribed by whether or not you pay a fee in advance, whether you're entitled to a refund of that fee, all those things. That is true in this space. That's not required. We should require that. We should require that.

I think what we also should do is we should be mindful of the fact that there are those who have availed themselves of the companies that provide these services. I'm told by testimony there's more than 5,000. And so should this bill be enacted and signed by the Governor, those 5,000 people will be without representation.

This is not an easy process. Those of you who've gone through the process, it is akin to workers comp. You don't just file a form and then wait for your check to come. You file a form and then you are directed to go to a physician. Then you're required to respond more questions.

Then you're directed to provide more tests. If you're filing a claim for some sort of mental illness, you're required to actually have a mental evaluation. All those things take time and take some expertise, I think to have Someone guide you through that process. And so I do think that we should require all those things.

I think at the very least, we should have some sort of delayed implementation, at least so those 5,000 people who currently have representation can seek other representation so that they're not left sort of hanging, sort of abandoned at that point. So if you're asking me, I have some other thoughts as well.

One of the concerns I have is that the Veterans Administration has already scaled back. They've already basically attributed or fired 30,000 employees. The goal is even more than that. What does that do to veterans in the last year? In 2024, th rejection rate, and this demonstrates this is an adversarial process.

The rejection rate in 2024, the denial rate was 35.8%. In 25, it's 38.2%. That's only 3%. But 3% represents tens of thousands. So if we're concerned about veterans, and these statistics also illustrate the adversarial nature of.

Of the process, if we're concerned about these veterans and we want them to be able to make a choice because of what's going on in Washington, D.C. then we should at least spend a little more time working on this issue. So I am very concerned. I share the author's concerns about the bad actors in this space.

I share the author's concerns about making sure that veterans are fully compensated. And I mean fully compensated. It is. It is absurd that a veteran who's 100% disabled, a single veteran who's 100% disabled gets $3,900 a month. That is woefully inadequate.

What's even worse if that veteran, who should be 100% rated at 100% disability, is rated at 10% and then is stuck at 10% when they should be at 100%. So for all those reasons. To answer your question, Senator Allen, yes, I have concerns, and I would.

I would hope that we continue to work on this process so that we could have a law in California. I mean, ideally, I heard what the authors have said. I do think that we should be able to have a credentialing process that is paid for by those who wish to apply.

Paid for by those who wish to apply, just like we do for barbers and cosmetologists and lawyers and doctors so that they can demonstrate to us they have some sort of skill level. Now, query whether we can do that. I think we can. California often stands in opposition to the Federal Government.

I think we can do that here, and I think we can protect veterans. But I do think that I need more time to work on this. So if you're asking the question, that's my answer. Yes. Senator Wahab, thank you.

I'd like to adjust my motion to. Ensure that this bill goes to Rules. And is fully worked on and vetted. And I do trust both of the authors to work on this just for accountability measures. All right.

And I will keep my answers shorter. Thank you, Senator Wahab. Senator Allen, does that respond to your question?

It does. I mean, I guess if that's the move, we just. I think it would be really good for us to get some. And I think, you know, your statement just did a good job of breaking out some of the parameters.

But I would only feel comfortable doing that if we made some strong commitments right now to addressing the core issues that have been raised through this bill, through the work that would be happening at Rules, and maybe even get some sort of outline to the extent that it's possible. I agree with you.

Clearly, there's more work that needs to happen. But I am. I am also aware of commitments made, vague commitments made. And I'm not saying you're doing this that never come to fruition. I've been, unfortunately, doing this job too long.

So I would just want to make sure that we take the urgency of this particular moment where this Committee is considering this bill and clearly feels the need to do something on this with all these folks here.

Senator Allen, I trust that you will hold us all accountable.

Well, if I only had that power.

Right? No. Okay, let me go ahead and conclude, then I'll turn to Senator.

That's the problem. Right. I have failed in holding folks accountable in the past on other totally different topics. So that's just the fear I throw out there. But, you know, if we can together. I don't think we can actually write the bill right now.

Agreed. Agreed. Agree. So agree. So let's. Okay, so there's a motion on the. Table, Senator Wiener, and the motion is. What Motion is to re.

Refer the bill to Rules. Yeah. So I just want to sort of comment on this. This has been a rough one. I'll be honest. I'm sympathetic to this bill for a variety of reasons. I think that there are issues with this industry. There are also issues with the VA.

This is one of those debates where everyone is right to one degree or other. But I am sympathetic to the bill, and I also think it is meaningful that this is, as I understand it, illegal under federal law. But Congress, I don't know if they accidentally repealed the crime or Whatever.

Having been in this body for nine years, I know that sometimes things accidentally get repealed. Most people don't know that. And so that federal law, it's illegal, but it's toothless. And so that is something that's also meaningful to me. I also have enormous respect for, for the Chair.

And the Chair does not frequently ask strongly for a certain action. And so one thing that, and I wish we could amend the bill now to perhaps pass it with delayed implementation. So there was time in that interim for everyone to adjust and maybe even to create. But I don't know.

And so if I'm just curious in terms of how I know you said we can't, we're not going to like negotiate with if it does go back to Rules. I also want to make sure this bill would be able to move if it goes back to Rules, because I think this actually is a really important issue.

We'll see. Whatever they will.

I'm conferring with the experts here, Senator Wiener, so you don't get an off the cuff answer. Yeah. Okay. So I am informed that sending it back to rules gives us an opportunity to continue to work on this bill.

It would go back to the Assembly where it would be amended and the Assembly then come back over to us.

But not this year.

Not this year. Correct. Right.

Well, we're only, right obviously, we're only. Here Friday, not this year. And I just like in sending it back to Rules, I just want to, I have a lot, I trust he Chair a lot. And I want to make if it goes back to Rules, I just think, like I said, I'm very sympathetic to this bill.

And you know, I want to make sure that this bill, whether it's this year or next year, is going to be able to move and not get like destroyed. Not that I know that's not your intention. You want to do right by veterans and that's, that's the lens you bring to this.

And so I know we can't, we're not going to be like, if it goes back to Rules, figure that out now. But I want to make sure this bill is protected even if it's not an identical form to the way it is now, but that it's still a strong bill because this is an important issue.

I think it is an important issue.

And I suppose we all view our jobs through the prism of our own personal experience. My own personal experiences, Yes. I am a veteran. I'm married to a veteran. My daughter's a veteran. My father in law is a veteran of World War II, Korea and Vietnam. I associate with veterans.

I have a text message string from the folks I serve with in Korea and another text message string from the folks I serve with in Afghanistan that we respond to on a at least a weekly basis.

So if not by my colleagues in the Senate, then by my former comrades in arms, I am held accountable and by my spouse. So that's the most important one. Yes. Yes.

This is maybe more of a procedural question, but I know we've held bills in this Committee previously. Is there a reason why we can't do that now? So it's worked on here.

I am informed that because that we are. This year's session ends Friday or maybe early Saturday morning, that we, to keep this bill alive, we have to send it back to Rules. That's what I'm informed, so.

Mr. Chair, may I comment?

Sure. Senator Archuleta, there's no other questions.

I appreciate the time you've given especially to answer Senator Allen's question. But the question still remains. We are not adhering to the federal law. And today the vote you've taken will be registered in front of every single veteran here in the State of California.

Every single veteran will get wind of this because of the fact that each and every one of you feel that we should postpone it, sweep it under the rug, or to stand up and say, what are we going to do with it?

I was hoping that it would leave the Committee and go onto the Senate Floor for open debate for a vote. But the Committee's wishes is what we will adhere to. But the Attorney General has advised us there is no pathway or language. The opposition has, that they have offered consistent with federal law. And that is the problem.

They are operating outside the law. No accreditation, no license, no oversight. And that's the bottom line. So it doesn't matter. The number of people are still waiting to catch the bus. So many people on the bus. The point is it's an illegal bus. In this situation, it is not to move because it's not legal.

That's the premise of the bill. And so whether we're hurting 5,000 or 2,000 or 150,000 has been represented here today. We find that all of us as legislators have got to think hard. What are we going to do with these veterans who've called time and time again? You honor us at Veterans Day.

You honor us on Memorial Day. Well, honor us today by letting us do the right thing. Represent these veterans with all the organizations they hear, the county veterans, service officers that we've heard who've done such a great job all over this state, counties all over the state. They're doing a great job.

Our American Legion, VFW, AMVETS, every one of them are serving and working with our veterans. We need to let them continue doing it through accreditation, through the law, as it should be. And that's what I'm trying to say.

However your vote is. Thank you. Let me explain. Let me explain what I believe the motion to be. The motion by Senator Wahab is to refer the bill back to Senate Rules. That does not mean that the bill is dead. That does not mean that the work is done.

It means that the work can continue on this piece of legislation. And so unlike a bill which is moved and then, for example, not passed out of this Committee, that would mean the bill is dead. A vote to move the bill to Senate Rules, just to reiterate, does not kill the bill.

And when would it go before Senate Rules?

I suppose today. So that's. Yes.

And then would we be able to get it to the Senate Floor? If the Rules this week releases it.

If it releases it, Rules can do whatever it wants. Turn to someone who sits on Senate rules. Senator Laird.

Yeah, Thanks a lot. I think that maybe there's some misinterpretation here because it goes to Rules so you can work on it. It doesn't go to Rules to like immediately move it out. And I think the message is, is that you keep it alive because we're committed to this. And then the negotiations happen.

And when there's some kind of agreement or idea that it is together, then Rules votes it out. I think that's the procedural issue that's here.

And I think that the Senate has now been in session for some time. And so the motion currently pending is a motion by Senator Wahab to move the bill, SB694, to Senate Rules Committee. So unless there's further comment on, I'm going to go ahead.

Yes, Senator Allen, my only question is something that the Senator said. Senator Niello, sweep this under the rug. I mean, I just don't. It's not my understanding that that's your intention here. It's exactly the issue I was trying to address with my earlier comments.

And I just want to make sure that, you know, I'm prepared to support the motion, but I really do. I've struggled a lot with this.

I've spoken extensively to both of the authors, and I just want to, I really do want the, to make sure that there's a very serious commitment from this Chair and this Committee that these Core issues that have been raised today are going to be addressed through the Committee's work with the authors on this bill moving forward.

If I didn't answer that question before, let me answer it now. Yes. Yeah. Okay. I appreciate it. Senator Reyes. Yes. Senator Reyes.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, just a question. There had been discussion about putting together a work group during the interim and bringing this back in January to vote on it. Is that still something that can be done?

Yes. All right, let me turn to Senator, does that answer your question? Senator Reyes.

Yes. And then my second question is to the authors. Is this something that you would accept at this point?

I will accept the verdict. And if it's the move to rules because of the policy and procedure, I will accept that. But I will not accept us turning our backs on veterans.

We've got to give them the opportunity, the voice, to have every veteran understand that this is one of the most important issues that we face in years upon years. And we need to support our veterans and whatever policy and procedure we follow, so be it. But let's keep an open mind. And Mr.

Chair, if you can keep an open mind, then let's go forward if that's the issue. But if you can't keep an open mind, then let's fight on the floor.

Alrighty. Thank you, Senator Niello.

I think our Chair always has an open mind. I've known him for a while and.

I agree with that.

Yes, I've known him for several years. The premise of this bill is protecting veterans and getting rid of the bad actors in this space. And I wholeheartedly agree with both of those things. Now, you've talked a lot about veterans and honoring veterans and absolutely, we all do. My office received several calls from veterans.

Specifically, every single veteran was opposed to this bill. And the reason why is because they see value in the choice. So in protecting veterans, are we over protecting them by eliminating a choice that can benefit them? Cleaning up the abuses of the bad actors?

And I think you're a little bit unfair in some of your rhetoric where you sort of equate all the bad actors to for profit organizations. And you used the predator word in connection with for profit, and I think that's a little unfair.

Well, in answer to that, I did say some are doing a great job. I did say that.

Let Senator Niello finish and then you can respond.

So I just wanted to clear that up. Putting regulations in place to weed out the bad actors makes much more sense than just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So as I said, I completely support the premise of the bill, the premises of the bill.

And for that reason, I think Senator Wahab's motion makes perfect sense, that we continue to work on this bill to make it beneficial for everybody to still provide a choice that's a good choice, but also a protected choice, and honor the veterans, particularly those that called into my office, that are concerned about this choice being taken away from them.

So that's. I just wanted to make those points quickly. I could say a lot more, but the time is getting late. Senator Durazo.

Yeah. What about going back to the original motion, which was to move forward with this bill? It seems to me that we're either going to face there's going to be those veterans who are already signed up with a particular company to do their claim, or there's going to be veterans who are getting scammed by the bad actors.

This is not, you know, it doesn't matter if it's right now or in three months or in six months or a year. It's either one or the other because the system is not working the way that it is. I'd rather have start out saying, this is what we stand for.

We don't agree with the way that our veterans are getting scammed. Start with that and fix that in this next year rather than allow the scamming to continue to go on and on and on until we come up with whatever guardrails we want. Why can't we do the other way? Why can't we do the other way around?

All right, we have a motion before us. Yes. Senator Weber Pierson, thank you.

I know we have to vote on that motion and then you can't entertain any other motions until that when it's done. I just want to clear up a few things, as some other people have tried to clear up, just based on some of the remarks from our dear Senator Archuleta.

And I know that there is a lot of passion that you have right now and a lot of fire around this issue, and that is the foundation of some of the comments that you've made, which may have been a little unfair in deeming what we're feeling and what we're saying and that we don't necessarily care about veterans, because that is extremely untrue.

And I have not heard that sentiment from anyone who has spoken on this on this Committee. We are all deeply caring about our veterans and we want to do the right thing. And one of the things that I always. That always gets to me with gut and amends, and that's what this bill is.

It's a gut and amend. A lot of the issues that we're hearing, some of the solutions, some of the potential consequences of passing something like this could have been dealt with had it been introduced at the beginning of session, gone through the entire Committee process instead of it being a gut and amend.

And we're dealing with it from the Senate side on the last week of session. We all want veterans to be able to get all of their benefits seamlessly because they deserve it and so much more. But in doing that, we do not want to create a system that can harm some veterans as well.

In the medical profession, we say do no harm. Right. And when you rush to do something and you haven't dealt with all of the potential consequences, what about those veterans that are currently working with some of those outside organizations and we passed this, where do they go?

They have to stand back in the beginning of the line, and they may be with a just organization right now. What are we doing? Saying that you have served the country, but your only option is to go to someplace where you have it for free.

And we all know that this current Administration is doing some very interesting things to our Federal Government and our veterans services. I'm just concerned about the rush and I'm concerned about the harm that we may be unduly causing the very veterans that we all up here care about. And so I just wanted to clear that up.

Not sure which way things will go, but there were some comments that you made that were very unsettling to me about how we should be viewed if we vote a certain way. Thank you.

I apologize for that thought. If I may, please. Sure. I apologize for that. I know that every one of us in this room loves our veterans. No doubt some of us have family Members. I do right now have my two sons who have five deployments under their belt and three bronze stars and they've given so much.

So by all means, I appreciate every one of us who stand up for our veterans. And I think that's what we're. We're doing. And that's why the debate, the discussion is going on as long as it has. But I will tell you this. I will adhere to whatever the vote is, whichever it goes.

But I would like to know that there's a pathway. But, Senator, you gave me an idea with your presentation. Wouldn't that be a great way to, if we had a moratorium to say that those are in the system, continue. But you don't have any more right now until we come back. Think about that for just a second.

Senator Archuleta, I think that that's an excellent idea. Unfortunately, we cannot and we're not going to amend the bill. We can't procedurally even do that. So. So I think that you've just illustrated something that should be discussed. So let me do this. I think that the Senators have completed and concluded their comments and questions.

The motion on the table is a motion to refer the bill to Senate Rules Committee.

Would you like to close? I appreciate each and every one of you and I appreciate the interaction we've had. And I too feel your passion. God bless you for that. Because it tells me you love our veterans and. And every one of the veterans in this room, we're with you. Honestly, we appreciate the work you do.

We appreciate you standing up for us. And I know you will continue to do that. So let's let the process and procedure begin and the vote or the motion is on the floor. So, Mr. Chair, let's go forward.

All right. Just to be clear, this is the motion.

Senate Rules does not kill the bill. All right. Committee assistant porter, please call the roll.

The motion is that the bill be re referred to the Senate Rules Committee. [Roll Call] 12 to 0.

12 to 0. The motion carries. We're adjourned. Thank you, Senator Archuleta. Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member Schiavo. And thank you to all the veterans.