Assembly Standing Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs

Test test. Okay.

Okay. Call the military and veteran affairs committee to order. And before we begin, I wanted to make a quick 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 that face California. All witnesses will be testifying in person, and all testimony comments are limited to the bills 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 proceeding proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. This hearing of military and veteran affairs is our first one of the year. Welcome. Welcome back everyone.

We have some returning folks that I'll talk about when they get here too. So we have four bills on the agenda today. Two that are on consent. AB 1616 Davies is on consent, and AB 1638 TA is on consent. And we'll be hearing AB 1775 Ward who's here ready to go as always, and AB 2022 by our vice chair, Gonzales.

So, we don't have a quorum, so we will open the hearing as a subcommittee to allow bill presentations. And, if we don't have a a quorum by the end of the bill presentation, then we'll be placed on call until we do. So why don't we invite our first author on up, mister Ward? And you can begin when you're ready.

14183, which effectually effectively created a modern day don't ask, don't tell by forcing transgender service members out of the military, not because of misconduct or performance, but just because of who they are. There's no credible evidence that transgender service members undermine readiness, cohesion, or effectiveness. They served honorably across every branch of the armed forces and have met the same standards as their peers.

The separation process under this order has been described by service members as chaotic and destabilizing with inconsistent guidance, administrative backlogs, and in some cases, as little as twenty four hours notice before pay and benefits are cut off. California is now absorbing the consequences of this action.

Many impacted service members already live here or are returning home with significant concentrations in communities across the state, particularly in the home region of San Diego. Without state intervention, these these veterans face real risks of unemployment, housing instability, and long term economic consequences. So AB 1775 ensures that California steps up when the federal government fails our service members.

First, this bill prioritizes veterans who experience trauma or discrimination for assistance under the Veterans Military Discharge Upgrade Grant Program, which would help them access discharge service upgrades when needed. Second, it funds service providers that offer no cost housing support to veterans facing sudden income and employment loss due to abrupt or delayed separations.

And third, AB seventeen seventy five expands eligibility for expedited state professional licensing to include veterans discharged solely because of executive order 14183, which will help them transition into civilian careers without unnecessary bureaucratic delay. California has long led the nation in protecting veterans and advancing equality, and this bill reinforces both commitments by helping prevent avoidable homelessness, unemployment, and instability among veteran veterans who served honorably.

AB 1775 is cosponsored by Equality California, Outon National Security, and Sparta Pride, organizations that work directly with LGBTQ service members and veterans. And while California cannot control federal executive actions, we can ensure that those who served our country are not pushed into unemployment, housing stability, or long term hardship just because of discriminatory policy.

At its core, AB 1775 is about dignity, fairness, and stability because when service members raise their right hand to defend our country, California must ensure that we do not abandon them when federal policy turns its back on them.

With me to speak in support of this bill on behalf of our bill sponsors are Kat, Cacomus, a board member at large for Sparta Sparta Pride, and Sunny Kim to read a statement on behalf of Transgender Military Hub.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. I am Catherine Comus.

I am a captain in the army assigned to the inactive ready reserves here in California.

I served eight years on active duty status in units such as the seventy fifth Ranger Regiment and the Joint Special Operations Command. Additionally, I deployed to Afghanistan in support of operations Freedom Sentinel. I received an honorable discharge into the army reserves and was awarded the joint meritorious service medal. Despite this, if the army received evidence that I was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and am transgender, they would pursue legal action to involuntarily discharge me.

Current Department of Defense policy provides no opportunity for me to challenge this discharge based on my service record, and I would receive a separation code indicating that I am a risk to national security.

This would directly harm my ability to hold a security clearance, and loss of my security clearance jeopardizes my current employment. The current ban on transgender service members serves only to inflict cruelty on those who volunteer to serve their country. It harms our readiness, it removes experienced leaders, it deprives units of institutional knowledge, and artificially shrinks the pool of potential recruits. Those who are separated are forced to abruptly lose their job and fight to reestablish themselves.

Anyone who seeks to hide being transgender for their own personal safety risks losing their chance for an honorable discharge.

While my experience is personal, it reflects the voices of hundreds of new California transgender veterans who are deeply grateful for your support. Your leadership affirms that in times of crisis, our institutions stand for all who have served, not selectively, but with integrity and consistency for all veterans. As a board member of Sparta Pride and a Californian, I am proud to support Assembly Bill 1775 which provides critical employment and housing resources to discharge service members. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and committee members. My name is Sunny Kim. I am an e seven sergeant first class in the United States Army. My father and his father were US Army and Korean Army veterans respectively. I joined during the global war on terrorism when Iwas 17.

I have served honorably and faithfully since I was in the top 10% of my basic training class. I was the distinguished honor graduate of my advanced individual training and also in the top 10% of my advanced leadership course. I have served my country across three continents, forged partnerships with foreign allies, and been entrusted with the responsibility of coaching soldiers under my care, And also across the army through one of the most realistic, combat training exercise The United States has to offer.

Despite my abilities, achievements, and continued commitment, I'm being involuntarily separated from service due to a policy change that states that I'm in conflict with and I quote, a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle because I am transgender. While I have some level of financial recompense for my time in service, to aid in my sudden transition to civilian life, many of my fellow service members do not meet the requirements to receive this aid.

They are being ousted with less leadership experience, less expertise in their fields, less prospects for jobs, and no financial backstop to avoid the threat of homelessness as they attempt to restart their lives. Assembly bill 1775 would help affirm and guarantee that they do not experience another, another threat of homelessness while they are in this transitionary period. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there are there folks here in support? Please state your name, organization, and position.

Craig Pulsar on behalf of Equality California, proud cosponsor and strong support.

Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood affiliates of California in support.

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

Charles Wright on behalf of the California Association of Veterans Service Agencies in strong strong support.

Thank you. Is there any principal opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to the dais for any questions. Miss Davies?

Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Ward. I wanna start by saying I I completely support this bill. Thank you. I do have a concern about creating a loophole for service members dishonorably discharged for legitimate reasons. So I'm trying to see how the Department of Consumer Affairs can ensure that the service members considered under your bill would, were dishonorably discharged solely because of the executive order and not because of other factors.

It's a great question. Thank you for that, because we are trying to be narrowly responsive to, what we're seeing right now for for those that are coming back to California or who were Californians. The the veteran applicant needs to be able to submit their DD two fourteen alongside their In addition, the DCA would require that the applicant would submit any supplemental documentation as evidence that their discharge was solely related to the executive order.

You know, we know it's not uncommon for the DCA to require applicants to be able to file some of the supplemental documentation. For instance, when a spouse or a domestic partner of an active duty military personnel applies for an expedited license, the DCA would require that that, partner applicant supply evidence of their partnership or their legal union, as well as the current license or registration that the applicant would have in another state.

So some of the examples of the DCA could require the applicant could include any available service records, performance evaluations, awards, or a personal statement explaining the discharge was solely related to the EO and that their service was otherwise honorable. And if any misconduct was listed in addition to the EO, they would be able to address any of those circumstances directly.

Fantastic. Thank you. And then just one more. I'm just curious is there is a reason with the housing grant portion, which, again, I agree. It feels like they're two separate bills, and I was just wondering why you combine the two.

Just knowing that there's a range of services and needs that are out there, including housing support, employment, support, and, and and other attributes in here. So it is covering a range of, I think, you know, sort of basic needs for somebody's, stability and and, you know, the civilian civilian transition.

Very good. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And mister Gonzales?

Thank you, madam chair. Thank you so much for for being here today. I I have some questions to kind of clarify what we're what we're talking about here. You said you've already been discharged and you have an honorable discharge. Is that correct?

I received an honorable discharge from the from active duty service. I am still

your'e IRR right now?

Correct.

Yes. And you're still on active service or you're discharged?

Yes, sir. I am still on active duty.

Okay. You're still on active duty as of today?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Active duty, not reserve duty?

Okay. Gotcha. Is there data to show that veterans discharged currently under this executive order are receiving any other discharges other than honorable?

No, sir.

Yes. So right now, there was a period of time that was widely, I think, publicized that individuals could select to depart from service right now and receive an honorable discharge. That time has passed, and so now they are in a period where they are at threat of receiving a general discharge. I think leaving that that status, and the benefits that come with an honorable discharge at risk.

The there's a a threat of that, but is there any data that says that anyone has received something that's not not a honorable discharge.

We'll be happy to pull together data for you, but there is, I think, sufficient anecdotal and individual testimony out there. You wanna speak to any of that?

I can speak on that somewhat. Currently, there have been no involuntary discharges yet as the process the executive branch has repeatedly sort of restarted the process and slowed it down. We anticipate that when those come out, it might be hotly contested if they are honorable or otherwise. And another very key part we're concerned about is that if anyone, you know, says that they're not transgender and they are forcibly outed, by their unit, they could receive an other than honorable discharge, for hiding that from the government.

So I'm I I had the opportunity thank you for that, by the way. So there's no no data that we know of right now that we can produce that says anyone's receiving something other than than a than an honorable discharge. Is that possible? Sure. We we just don't have that right now.

So, Mike, the the other piece is I looked at the executive order, and I also looked at the DSM in support of of what was going on, and DSM is that manual that you use for mental health professionals use and trying to understand how they are categorizing in all of this. Right? It's that the word, the gender dysphoria piece is the category that is being applied in the DSM five in order to utilize that as a as a discharge component. Right?

We're we're all in agreement with that.

Is that correct?

Right.

Okay. So the the from what the DSM says, the DSM talks about the different levels of of transgenderism. I guess.

I don't know how we can say that. Right? So some folks would get a social level if I'll I'll read from it just to to be there's social transitions, legal transitions, medical transitions, and surgical transitions as per the American Psychiatric Association and the DSM. Those are the different styles. Not all of those are categorized under gender dysphoria.

K? So the to be categorized under gender dysphoria according to the DSM, you have to meet two of the six pieces in in in this. Right? And it says DSM five defines gender dysphoria in adolescents and adults as a marked incongruence between one's experience or expressed gender and their assigned gender lasting at least six months as manifested by at least two of the following. And then it gives a series of of these different ones.

The the only the the two pieces that I I looked at in this and, again, this is a if you will, a conversation. Please don't take this as I'm trying to to to to be defensive. I'm trying to understand. I'm coming from a place of understanding. The only two pieces that I see as someone who's served overseas and served in combat, multiple times is the surgical piece.

Like, that could present some issues, especially in combat. You know, I had to get my my wisdom teeth pulled, and I was I was you you get grounded. You you don't get to do anything. Right? You're sick.

You have certain pills that you have to take. You don't get to do it's zero. Right? So if there's something along those lines, I can see why that piece because that goes for everyone across the board. It's equal across the board.

That's the first piece. If there's a mental health concern, whether it's suicide or some type of mental health piece, that goes for everyone across the board. So I could see those two as as as potentials to release somebody from active service because that's that's a standard across all boards. I've served with transgender. I've served with LGBTQ.

I've served when they when you weren't allowed to say it. I've served when you were allowed to say it across the board. As you very well know, as long as you can run high comp and do the job, like, that's what we care about. Right? Is will you have my side when the when it comes down?

That was the biggest thing. Nobody really honestly, I was in the Marine Corps the the day that it came out, and I was just like everyone's like, okay. You know, let let's keep working. Right? So those are the concerns that I have with respect to the loophole pieces is is how we would avoid those or not open up these loopholes moving forward because I think there's an opportunity there.

Like, if you wanna be transgender, be transgender. Right? That's your every right you serve. Right? That's what we when we protected this country, so you have a right to do what you wanna do.

The two pieces that I'm concerned with in this, according to the DSM, the executive order, and the pattern of of military history is the the surgical piece or or the medicine associated with that and the mental health piece. Because not everyone on the if you will, on the transgender side according to the DSM meets those two. So if they don't meet those two, we're okay. But if they do meet those two, then they might be in the gender dysphoria piece.

So can we just kind of have that conversation and dialogue about that?

And what what are your thoughts?

First of all, my thoughts are thank you for recognizing those that you served alongside as well, and their capacity to be ready and able and, you know, equals in the the mission that that you seek out to to to provide. I think that a few things.

One, you know, as as you stated, you know, as a opportunity to sort of express and, like, have that dialogue and to be educated, I wanna make sure that we are, kinda clear that it's not a choice to be transgender, you just are transgender or you're not. And so for those who are, how are we gonna be able to, make sure that the, conditions are in place that they can continue to be, equal continue to be equal soldiers or airmen or or marines or or sailors.

Trying to go through all my branches here.

All of them.

All of them above that are, you know, equal to their their cisgender counterparts. For, I think, some of the kind of situations that you had mentioned too, whether somebody is sufficient or able to be able to participate in combat as opposed to noncombat operations, that's not something that is solely a situation of an individual who is transgender.

It could be any issue that's out there if someone who is transgender is may not whether they are pre or post surgery, even those that have had surgery procedures have recovered fully and are and are are fully able to be able to, I think, meet the demands that would be in a certain situation.

And for those that you'd had, you know, were sort of eluding or maybe referencing that there could be related concurrent mental health issues that are in play that, you know, two separate issues that are that that that that are here, you know, between somebody's identity and somebody, who might be experiencing a depression or something else that would put something at risk. The access to medication, I mean, that is not specific to this issue.

That could be for any individual that is out there as well. So I think that those issues are something that can be handled separately on an individual and separate from their identification as somebody who who is transgender. It could it could happen to you. It could happen to any service member that's out there right now that these questions could come into play. These so called loopholes are things that I think we have to evaluate on any individual's level.

If my witness wanted to elaborate anymore, happy to offer them the floor.

Thank you. It's a valid question. And I will say that prior to the recent executive order, the military medical establishments actually had very detailed and specific guidance on how to handle transgender related issues, mental health, surgical, and nonsurgical medical transition. And this was developed by the military medical establishment, you know, with the goal of meeting standards for readiness, ensuring that any transgender soldiers, could perform their job, or if they couldn't perform their job, then, you know, what the path was from there.

Just to name one specific example, a common situation occurred where somebody were to deploy abroad, you know, Afghanistan, for example, where they wouldn't have regular if they were in an austere environment, you know, if they were out in the FOB.

And if you were on injectable hormones, they would switch your injectable hormones to pills. You know, any of us who deploy can remember getting the, big jar of malaria pills, because that is shelf stable. You can put it in your rucksack, and you can keep going. And again, just as an example, that is how they handle it.

They had these systems in place to ensure that while you're being treated, you would be combat ready or eventually combat ready in a way that would not or in a way that would allow the unit to continue to accomplish its mission.

Yep. I agree with you. Right? The the for me, it's not about transgender or non transgender. Honestly, in in in the military service, you know, we have men, women if you can if you can as we like to say, if you can hump the pack, that's what matters.

Right? If you can do the job, that's that's what matters. What the the and I'm not debating the the the the issue of transgender or transgender is I'm not debating that whatsoever. What I'm what I'm trying to find out is is the post service component piece of this is once they are released, number one, what is their type of release? Right?

And right now right now, it's honorable. After a certain period, there's talk about it could be different. So that's where this bill comes into play is that is the different. Right? It if it's different, can we get them to have these other services, these other pieces?

That's accurate. Yes. And so we're being proactive here knowing that our bill would never become into effect until January 1 as it is. Right. But to proactively protect against that, you know, you know, unfortunate potential outcome.

I can say that, you know, we do have some data from records that show that we might have an estimated 2,900 to 3,000 individuals in here in California who could be affected for a general or less than honorable discharge.

And we know that when it comes to general discharge, general discharge for any general discharge practically, those all can be upgraded after a certain amount of time, sometimes six months, sometimes twelve months, whatever that that type of general is. And same thing with the other than honorable. It could be up upgraded one step. When it comes to this specifically, because we're again, we're not even debating the the the the type of discharge, right, is the service component of this. I don't wanna see any veteran homeless.

None of us do. Right. I don't wanna see any veteran without without food or resources or anything. Period. You signed your name on the dotted line, doesn't matter.

You you you deserve the the the right to to services, so on and so forth. I'm I'm looking at a slim a a sliver. Right? The the sliver that I'm looking at is the is the loophole sliver, and that's that's my concern, is just the loophole sliver. Not transgender, not anything else.

It's just that loophole. So I I would I'm gonna I'm supporting this bill. Thank you. I think it's important that we have these type of open conversations, and we can talk about it like adults Yeah. In the room, I would love to continue this conversation so we can be good advocates because there's a lack of understanding out there.

And, you know, every everyone wants to divide us, And I I don't like division. Yeah. I like unity. So I I I'm offering to how can we how can I help? How can I understand?

How can I be a good advocate? I think that goes for for all of us, as we continue to move forward. But I think it's important that we also look at all of these pieces, what it means, and what's happening today. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the dias? Okay. Well, thank you for being proactive. I have certainly heard a lot of reporting about some of these discharges, and it's heartbreaking to hear what people are going through. So I'm grateful that you're helping make sure that California steps up.

I wanna thank you for coming and testifying, both being brave in service and brave in speaking here today. So we are grateful for your voices. And with that, would you like to close?

No. Thank you. I appreciate all the dialogue and always it will continue. You know, I did wanna reflect and and note that, you know, because we talked about the housing portion of the bill here too that that is something that could actually apply to everyone right now. Like, that's something that is also, regardless of type of discharge, something that I think would be a broad broader benefit, you know, through the enactment of this bill.

But, you know, I'd I'd, you know, be remiss if not reflecting that, you know, while, yes, we can think about status changes in the future, they shouldn't have had to gone through that status change to begin with.

That is a decision certainly above our state's level, but it also would be a decision for a status change that would be the responsibility of the federal government, and I would not be hopeful that we would see a status change honored in the near future given, I think, the sort of underlying context of what they are ordering in the first place. So, you know, we you know, nobody should have had that, you know, brief period of hardship, but I doubt that hardship would even be corrected.

And all this is to say, in the meantime, we would love to have the stop gap here to be able to support those who are here in our state who are gonna need that extra assistance to be transitioned successfully into civilian life and really reflect and honor and and respect the service they've given for that country. And with that, I would respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you so much. And I wanna recognize we have a quorum now. So we wanna establish a quorum, and I wanna especially give a a welcome to assembly member Erwin and Quirk Silva who've joined our committee, former chairs of the committee themselves. So, very excited to have their expertise here on the committee as well. And our clerk is out sick, unfortunately.

So Patty is doing double duty here. And if you could call the roll, please.

Here.

Schaivo?

Jeff Gonzales?

Avila Farias?

And she has a backup pen too.

Davies?

Irwin?

Carrillo?

Here.

Valencia?

Yeah.

Porcello?

Here.

Thank you. And do we have a motion and a second? Second.

Thank you.

Moved by Valencia and second by Davies. Can you call the roll, please?

Thank you.

Aye.

Shavo, aye. Jeff Gonzales?

The motion is do passed and referred to committee on business and professions. Schiavo.

Aye.

Jeff Gonzales, aye. Avila Farias? Carrillo? Davies? Davies, aye.

Aye.

Irwin? Aye. Erwin, aye. Quirk Silva?

Quirk Silva, aye. Valencia?

Yes.

. Avila Farias, aye.

Aye

Valencia, aye. Avila Fadias?

That has seven votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent members.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. And next, assembly member Gonzales, AB 2022 and I'm gonna turn the gavel over. While we're transitioning, we'll just do a quick vote on the consent calendar as well. Okay. Is there a motion and a second for consent? Quirk Silva motions and Davies seconds.

[Roll Call]

Alrighty. Assemblymember Gonzales, ab 2023. No. 2. Boy, that vision's bad. 2022 was a good year.

Thank you, madam chair. I'm honored to present AB 2022. Before I begin, I wanna share that I I come before you not only as a legislator, but as a 100% disabled combat veteran who served 21 years in The United States Marine Corps. This bill is not abstract for me. It reflects the lived reality of many veterans I served alongside and continue to represent.

California is home to more than 1,200,000 veterans, roughly 8% of the nation's total veteran population. Of those, approximately 380,000 live with service connected disabilities, conditions that were caused or made worse by their time in uniform, and nearly half of those veterans, about a hundred and seventy four thousand, have disability ratings of seventy percent or higher.

These men and women who answered the call to serve often at great personal cost, Many returned home with injuries that fundamentally changed their lives, their ability to work, and their financial stability. At the same time, we all know that California has one of the highest cost of living in the country. Housing costs in particular continue to rise.

For disabled veterans, many of whom are living on fixed incomes or are unable to maintain full time employment due to their disabilities, these pressures are even more severe. Property taxes can become an overwhelming burden. For some, it's the difference between staying in their home or being forced out. And for a veteran who has already sacrificed so much, losing their home is not just a financial hardship. It's a failure of our commitment to them.

This is what AB 2022 seeks to address. This bill provides a full property tax exemption for the primary residents of veterans who are 100% disabled as a result of their service. It also extends that same protection to unmarried surviving spouses, ensuring that families are not displaced after the loss of a loved one. The bill accounts for the realities faced by severely disabled veterans. At its core, AB 2022 is about stability.

It's about preventing homelessness among our most vulnerable veterans, and it's about recognizing that when a veteran can no longer work in the same way they once did, we must step in to ensure they are not left behind. We ask a great deal of those who serve. We ask them to put everything on the line, sometimes their health, sometimes their future earning capacity, and sometimes their lives. In return, we make a promise.

A promise that when they come home, especially when they come home injured, we will stand by them.

Standing by our veterans means more than words. It means making sure they can afford to stay in their homes. It means providing stability in the face of rising costs, and it means honoring their sacrifice with meaningful action. AB 2022 is a step toward fulfilling that promise. This measure is also time limited and includes reporting requirements, so we can evaluate its effectiveness and ensure accountability.

Members, this is about doing the right thing by those who have already given so much. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Seth.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Seth Reeb with Reeb government relations. I'm a combat veteran myself. I'm representing American Legion, Department of California, AMVETS, Department of California, the California State Commanders Veterans Council, the Military Officers Association of America, California Council of Chapters, and the Vietnam Veterans of America, California State Council, all in support of AB 2022. This bill creates a temporary full property tax exemption for qualified disabled veteran homeowners and their eligible unmarried surviving spouses.

For veterans with the most service connected disabilities, most severe service connected disabilities, a property tax bill should not be the thing that pushes them out of their home. This bill is targeted. It sets clear eligibility standards, requires documentation through the county assessor, and includes reporting requirements so the legislature can evaluate its impact. Our clients respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And with that being said, I missed one piece of the the puzzle, and I I I thank the committee for all of their hard work and working with my team, and we accept the committee amendments.

You just crossed this off. Thank you. Alright. Thank you very much. Do we have me too public comment and support?

She's not here. Yolanda Benson representing the California Association of County Veterans Service Officers. And I just wanna make one little sentence if that's okay. I know it's supposed to be a me too only. But families actually suffer the whole time that that that the service member is in active duty.

So they deserve to be rewarded, and we strongly support AB 2022.

Good afternoon. Amy Garrett with California Association of Realtors in strong support of this measure to help keep disabled veterans and their families in their homes. Thank you.

How you doing? Nick Bussey. I serve as head of military relations and talents. I'm a veteran champion of the year in corporate America, combat veteran, and founder of Veterans of Greater Sacramento. And on the behalf of a lot of veterans who want to place and plant their roots in California and not leave to states that sponsor them best, I support this bill. And thank you so much for bringing this forward.

Alright. Do we have, any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, public comment, anyone in opposition? Seeing none. Alright. We're going to bring it over to members and we'll go with Assembly member Quirk-Silva.

And thank you. I have a question. What is your estimate of how many disabled veterans we have in California? And then the follow-up question is, what would be the average if you wanna say tax benefit to them, just if you combine that there?

Thank you for that. As far as total disabled, so in the disability ratings of veterans, it goes from 0% disabled, which means, yes, we count you as disabled, but you're 0% all the way to a 100%. What we looked at was anyone 70% or higher, and that was a hundred and 74,000 that were that have a disability rating of 70% higher. So approximately 380,000 live with service connected disability. So that's that's where we're we're getting our our number.

So about a hundred and 75,000 vets could partake in this if it passes? And what would that benefit in tax an average? I mean, I'm just trying to do the math Yeah. On on the cost as, of course, you can't place a cost on service and all these. But as we go through the next steps and I know this isn't appropriations, but I'm just trying to do the math here.

Yeah. Just for clarity, the 174,000 are those with 70% or higher. What we're looking at is those that are a 100%. So it's a much much smaller group of that. But I can get that information. I don't have it with me right now. But again, it's a it's a much smaller group.

And just to clarify, I I am gonna support this bill. I think it's important for us to, of course, recognize the service, but also the impact. 60 And we have returning veterans. And in this space, we are trying to keep veterans here in California under multiple fronts. Last year, we made a little step with veterans being able to, in essence, write off, I think, 20,000. But we have to do more to keep them here. So I do and I'd move the bill.

I second.

Members, any other questions, comments? I just like to say thank you for bringing this. And I know that I I speak for everyone up here is it's never enough. And we were able to do the 20,000 last year, but there's a time where we have to find the money. And a promise made, a promise kept, and yet we've not in the state kept that promise. We watched a lot of our taxes go to places that are not being accountable. And if if not now, when? And are we ever going to see, you know, our budget not be in a deficit? So I think that's a time that we stand up, and I I appreciate you bringing this. And I'm hoping that that's not gonna be an argument in regards to we don't have enough money because we don't have a problem with revenue in the state. We have a problem with managing our revenue. So thank you very much. Okay. You'd like to go ahead and close?

Thank you, madam chair. To to me, this is the right thing to do. This is the right thing to do for our veterans who are 100% disabled and their families. It is it is a challenge being a 100% disabled, and I'm one of the fortunate ones that can can still work, but there are a lot of them most of them that cannot. If we talk about supporting our veterans, if we talk about taking care of our veterans and their families, then we need to put our money where our mouth is and and really do that. This is a small portion of the veteran community, but this would be a good start to say California wants you, California loves you, and California will take care of you. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And secretary, please call roll.

The motion is do passed as amended, and we refer to committee on revenue and taxation. Schiavo? Jeff Gonzales?

Jeff Gonzales, aye. Avila Fadias?

Aye.

Aye.

Avila Fadias, aye. Carrillo?

Carrillo, aye. Davies?

Aye.

Davies, aye. Erwin?

Aye.

Quirk Silva, aye. Valencia?

Erwin, aye. Quirk Silva?

Aye.

Aye.

Alright. Motion passes. We'll leave it open, and then we'll go ahead and go ahead and deal with the those bills that are still needed to be voted on.

Just 801775. Correct.

Well, actually, hers is too because she's not here. Yep. And you can All

the absent members, Carrillo?

Aye.

Carrillo, aye. That now has eight to zero.

You may leave. Yes.

Okay. We'll call missing members for ab 2022. Java. I.

Java, I. Eight.

That one is out. Eight to zero. Zero. And all of the bills were out eight to zero in the end. And with that, we conclude the assembly military and veteran affairs committee.