Assembly Standing Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs

Good afternoon. We're calling the hearing of the military and veteran affairs to order. And before you begin, I wanna make a quick statement on providing testimony at this hearing. We seek to protect the rights of all who participate oh, thank you. And, well, we're in order if that wasn't heard.

And, we seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberations on critical issues facing California. All witnesses will be testifying in person.

All testimony comments are limited to the bill at hand. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public as possible within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence.

There are seven bills on the file today. Four are on consent, And AB 172 Johnson, AB 1765 Alanis, those are both on consent. AB 2054 Gipson. No. I know.

I'm just going down the list. Okay. Okay. AB 2203 Tangipa is on consent. AB 2219 by the Chair.

AB 2467 Education Committee is on consent. And AB 2531 Irwin. Since we do not have a quorum, we will begin the hearing as a subcommittee to allow for bill presentations. And if we don't have a quorum at the end of the presentation, the bill will be placed on call until we do.

And first up, why don't we have our own committee Member, Assemblymember Irwin, come up and present AB 2531.

Go ahead and get started when you're ready.

Alright. Well, good afternoon, chair and member. I'm pleased to present AB 2531 today. In, December, the Trump administration finalized a rule to prohibit veteran health the Veterans Health Administration, known as the VA, from providing abortion care. The potential effects of this decision are profound.

Veterans in California, those who have worn the uniform and put their lives on the line are now being denied basic reproductive health care from the VA because of Trump's of the Trump's administration discriminatory because of the Trump administration's discriminatory policies toward women,

throughout my tenure in the legislature, I have always maintained a steadfast commitment to our veterans, whether it was through my time as Chair of the military and veteran affairs committee or through the legislation I ran to place prop one on the 2024 ballot,

it has always been a priority of mine to ensure that we take care of the people who served our country.

And taking care of veterans is exactly what this bill does. AB 2531 puts our veterans first where the Federal Government has failed them. It narrowly expands access to our existing uncompensated care grant program.

So it will include veterans whose Federal Health Care Coverage does not include abortion services. This will ensure that veterans who cannot receive abortion care or abortion counseling through the VA health system are not left behind.

The bill also requires that the California Department of Veteran Affairs include a link abortion.ca.gov to their existing list of resources for veterans to ensure that our veterans know they have access to this critical health care coverage.

With me to testify in support of the bill today is Angela Pontes on behalf of the bill sponsor, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Angela Pontes on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California representing the seven Planned Parenthood Affiliates across the state serving patients from every county. We like to thank the author for introducing this bill. We are a proud sponsor.

As explained, AB 2531 responds to recent federal action that severely restricted access to abortion care through the veterans of our system.

Under this new policy, the VA can only provide abortion in life threatening circumstances, which we know is an intentionally ambiguous threshold that has dangerous and cruel consequences.

Despite California's constitutional protections for reproductive freedom, our state's veterans and VA providers cannot obtain or provide abortion care. To address this inequity, AB 2531 would narrowly expand eligibility in the existing uncompensated care grant program to include veterans.

Without this bill, veterans may only access abortion care by paying out of pocket at a non VA provider. Planned Parenthood health centers are proud to be amongst the providers in the uncompensated care grant program offering abortion and contraception. We ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you so much. Those in the room who are in support, you wanna come up for your #MeToos?

Thank you. Craig Pulsar from behalf of Equality California in support.

Martin Radosevich on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All California in support.

Thank you. And any principal opposition? Go ahead and start when you're ready.

Chair and Members, my name is Leander Wells with the California Family Council. I'm here today to respectfully oppose AB 2531, a bill that uses taxpayer dollars to promote abortion services to veterans without providing the full scope of support our veterans deserve.

Our veterans have already given so much in service to this country. The question before us is simple. Are we truly honoring them or are we offering them a narrow, incomplete answer in a moment of vulnerability?

State health websites carry authority. When the government speaks on medical care, people responsibly expect balance, comprehensive, accurate, and free from bias information.

But AB 2531 risks failing that standard if it promotes abortion without equally presenting alternatives like adoption services, pregnancy resource source resources, and safe surrender options, and community based support programs.

Women deserves full support, not filtered information. They deserve to know every pathway forward, not just one.

Because when women are given real support, real resources, and real options, they are more likely to give their baby a chance at life. And we cannot ignore the broader context.

Veterans already face some of the highest rates of PTSD, depression depression, and suicide risks in our nation. According to the US Department of Veterans Affairs, that reality demands caution, care, and responsibility in how we present sensitive medical information.

We must also acknowledge the research indicating mental health correlations associated with abortion, including findings by Dr. Priscilla Coleman reporting increased risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidal behaviors among some of women following abortions when they have an

abortion. AB 2531 does not expand choice. It narrows it, and it does not strengthen veterans. It risks failing them at a critical moment. And so for these reasons, I respectfully urge a no for vote for AB 2531.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other opposition in the room? Name and organization? Okay. Seeing none, bringing it back to the dais for any questions. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just got some clear need some clarification on some of the words that are used in here. As a veteran. I'm just trying to put it through my that lens. K?

When you talk about patients who self identify, what does that mean?

Self well, for the uncompensated care program, they already have to self attest that they have the for their income level. So it would be this there's no structure in place to self attest that you're a veteran. We could ask for the veteran medical cards, but we think that would be extra burden.

But they're already assessed they're already self attesting to their income level to qualify for this fund.

I just wanna kinda focus on the self identify as a veteran. That just that specific piece. Every 100% of veterans, 100% of them, leave with a DD 214, every single one of them.

And if they cannot if let's say they lose it, they can go get it from their VSO, and the VSO can help them. That's I mean, it's not a hard process.

So my my problem with the wording is self identify to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is I'm John Smith, and I show up and I say I'm a veteran. There's nothing to prove in that self identify that I'm a veteran.

So the the gap in that is the is the fact that we're saying that people could say that they're veterans and they possibly couldn't be veterans. Right? And we take that very seriously in the veteran community by people.

I'm not saying that everyone's gonna do it, but it leaves a gap. So that self identified word, I I think there's room to fix that in saying a identified veteran with a DD 214, that covers one hundred percent of everybody. What are your thoughts on that?

But if somebody is trying to use these financial services, they can already attest that they are low income. So that would they would still be able to get the services.

Well, again, somebody who is trying to I completely agree. Nobody should be identifying as a veteran if they are not.

But they do.

I do want to give you that.

They don't necessarily have to prove that they are low income. They can attest attest that they meet the the the limits that are required to be eligible for the fund, Rona.

So if they're attesting that they are low income, right, then they have access to abortion services. Correct?

Correct.

Here in California. That's there's nothing stopping that. Is am I I'm I'm trying to get a line here.

Yeah. In this program, if they don't otherwise qualify for coverage through employer coverage or Medi Cal or one of the eligibility programs in in Medicaid in Medi Cal programs, then this is a backstop program to access abortion, for an for the uninsured. So this is a narrow

So I'm just confused. Again, I gotta kinda paint it very, very, if you will, basic for me. Sally Smith shows up and she says, I need an abortion. Does she have access to an abortion and it's paid for?

If she attests that she is.

Not not under this. Just right right now in California. Can she get an abortion?

It depending on her coverage. If she has coverage, yes. But this program addresses the gap for the uninsured, and in this circumstance, proposing to narrowly expand for like, if your coverage doesn't include abortion, which is what this is addressing.

So are you saying that uninsured Californians cannot get abortions?

The sorry. I'm trying to answer your question. If you are uninsured and you cannot pay for an abortion, the uncompensated care program was created to cover the cost of that care.

Which that uncompensated care program is currently in place. Correct?

Yes.

Okay. So if Sally Smith goes in and says, I fit under this, the whatever the requirements are, can she get an abortion? Yes. If she has the coverage, number one. Or yes.

She has the coverage. She can get it because of this program. Correct? So either way, Sally can get the abortion. Right?

Well, we're we're talking about veterans that probably have VA insurance, and now that VA insurance no longer covers. So there is narrowly the third option is that it that Sally attest to being a veteran.

I'm there. I'm just trying to first put the pieces together so I can understand it better and and make an informed decision on it.

The right now, anyone can get an abortion in in the state of California because that is law. So if it is currently law that anyone can get an abortion, are we saying that this

Just just a correction, though. If you can afford it or access some Un compensated care. And the point I think that's being made is that if your care is through the VA and that is no longer providing care for you, then this is an option to cover that abortion care. Correct? Yeah.

If you're a veteran. Correct. Well, yeah, if you have VA care, you're a veteran.

Right. That that's why I'm confused because right now we're saying that anyone can walk in and get an abortion because it's covered no matter what?

The program was created for those who cannot cover the cost. It's intended for low income individuals and those that don't have insurance and otherwise means to pay. So there is an an income threshold in the current program.

In this current program or the current program that The existing is already in existing?

The existing program.

There's an income cap. Yes. Okay.

So the veterans.

That's that's where I'm trying to kind of understand. There is a cap. So we're talking about anyone above the the income threshold That has that has insurance. Veteran. Gotcha.

Okay. We've we've arrived. Okay. Sorry. I just I wanna make sure I'm understand what you're what you're getting at because, obviously, you can see my confusion in that if it's already there, then why are we why are we creating another program that's already in place?

But you're saying this is above and beyond the cap. Okay. If it's above so the first point was DD214. I'm vehemently vehemently opposed to anyone that self identifies because there is a mechanism currently in place right now in all counties.

Every single we have VSOs right here representing VSOs in every single county where they can just go and it's easy.

We do that for homeless folks. We do that for all kinds of people. They do an amazing job. So the self identified piece, I think, would well, I know for me, it creates a problem. So I can only imagine other veterans.

It would create a very, very big problem. So I'd love to, you know if that's a way to correct that, that would be ideal. The second piece of of this this puzzle is if I'm sorry. I'm how much is is there an allocation for this budget request? Or there is, and what is that?

So this program was created in 2022 following the Dobbs decision with $40,000,000 in funding. The program is currently funded in its final round of funding. So we're working through the budget process this year to request additional funding to continue the program.

The DBS program.

The uncompensated care program.

The uncompensated program. And this would fall under the uncompensated program?

Yes.

So this is addition? This is not a separate program unto itself?

This is the uncompensated care program. Yeah.

Alright. Then we have to go backwards again because earlier you said the uncompensated program is already in effect. Right? Expanding access. Gotcha.

Okay. With this expansion of access, you're already asking for you're asking for dollars associated with this. It's a separate What is that ask?

That's a separate budget ask. That's not part of this bill.

Okay. What is that?

The request is for an additional $30,000,000 to continue the program for three more years.

Okay. I know that my colleague has some things to say. The VSO program is in dire straits and could use $14,000,000 on a regular basis.

So to me, the the primary focus when we're talking about our veterans and the care and the resources that they need, I look back to the VSOs and I say, what about their 14,000,000? What about their ability to to help those who need other resources?

And it it's it's because of that and the the additional pieces to this that I I will be voting no.

Assembly Member Davies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A lot of it was more clarified, but, with me again I really have a concern with the self identified as a veteran because there is easy access to getting that, DD 214 card if they don't have it. You can go online. As you said, you can go to, the the nearest, place to have it.

So and the reason why is right now, fraudability is huge. I mean, it's every day we're seeing where there's fraud, and we have to make sure that these are taxpayer dollars.

These are taxpayer dollars that would be going to cover this and that we have to make sure that that isn't an option. And that's really one of my biggest concerns because I was just reading an article, and it said that, the amount of veterans, you know, have gone down over the last four years.

However, the those the number that are actually getting health care has gone up by 34%.

So there's fraud pretty much everywhere. I mean, we can go right down the line. And that's where my my concern is. We are here to protect taxpayer dollars and make sure they go where they need to go.

But there's a door that's open very easy for me to just walk in and say, I'm a veteran and go ahead and take and get that. And, especially, I think, honestly, we look at our veterans.

They have given their life. They have earned this. They have worked for this. And for someone just to say, I'm a veteran and go ahead and get the same sorry. It just it get it upsets me because it just I just think we need to shut we have to close that hole.

We really need to take that up, that word self identifying because this is, something that isn't just a social thing of I self identify this. This is something that decision and that being said would be taking tax dollars.

And it's opening the door for fraud. And every penny should be going to our veterans. And this is a place where it's I'll guarantee you within a year, you would see fraud.

I will just say we all are are very concerned about fraud. If there is a fraudster, they could already access the fund by saying they are low income. So, we do not want people to say they're they're veterans if they're not veterans for any of these services.

And let's remember, this is money being requested by planned parenthood. This is not money that is going to veterans. This is a fund that is now going to, just slightly expand to serve veterans.

But I don't see that this opens the door to fraud because it is already a possibility to you utilize that fund if you say you're low income. So that would be a

So that would just open up another door that we do have. There's a fraud going there. Can't we just at least not give them another opportunity to to have fraud in this position? Listen this I know every single person here believe veterans deserve so much more than they're getting.

Absolutely.

I think it's a disservice to be able to let someone identify themself as a veteran, especially when our veterans have given their life or their limbs and their families to barely just say, yes. I'm a veteran. And so that's where I'm really having the problem with.

And it I think it could easily be amended by not using that word, that term, self identify, and just show. I mean, we have to show our card.

They have to show that if they're gonna get, any other treatment, health care, they have to show the card. Isn't that correct, Chair, Vice Chair? So that hasn't been a problem. I just I can't use that as a reason. I don't think it's a valid reason.

I and, you know, if you could make an amendment with that, I could see that going. But I just can't.

And we will the the main thing we did not want to make is a huge impediment for veterans. So if we are certainly happy to look at something that is very easy to obtain for veterans to prove their veterans.

We had again talked about using the, the insurance card, the veterans insurance card as identifying, but I the numbers we saw were that only half of the veterans actually had the insurance card.

So, we are we're happy to look at if there's some easy way to do that. But, again, a fraudster can access this fund in other ways.

Well and I and I'm glad that you brought that up because I think that's another place and that we need to audit and look for if that's what's happening as well.

I mean, if that there's verifications that have to happen in documentation and all that kind of stuff to be able to to do that. But it I mean, just to clarify, the fraud that you're talking about that could potentially happen in this scenario is so narrow.

It is someone who needs they're not getting money out of this. No one's going and cashing a check out of this. They're getting an abortion.

So we're talking about people who need abortion care getting abortion care that they need. And this is particularly going to, you know, veterans where this has been cut off from them by the VA. The VA has completely cut this off as a service anymore.

Then why don't we if you have a program like this, why don't you just tell veterans that they're allowed to go to that program and get it covered.

Instead of having a program that you're saying that you have to be a veteran to go ahead and have have everything covered if you're making if you're earning more money.

I don't understand what you're saying.

I just I feel like I feel like we're starting we're doing another program that if we could just basically bring the veterans into the same program you have here and just say, you're you know what? You can be in here, but if your income exceeds this, we're still going to cover it. Go ahead.

That's exactly what it's doing.

But you still have to have proof.

Right. Okay. Yeah. I understand your point about that. It sounds like the author will we will.

Look into this further. Let's see. Yeah? Okay. I just wanna make a couple comments.

Thank you for your presentation today and for the discussion. You know, as as I just mentioned, the VA has stopped providing abortion care and counseling even in the instances of rape and incest and health emergencies.

These are more restrictive than the Bureau of Prisons policy, which allows for federal funds to be used for abortions under these circumstances. So they're actually treating veterans worse than people who are in prison.

And tragically, there are high rates of sexual assault in the military with one in three veterans, women veterans reporting military sexual trauma or MST.

More than 1.3 million outpatient visits took place at the VA for MST related care in 2017 according to the latest available data. And this ban represents a significant betrayal of the commitment to providing quality health care for those who have bravely served our country.

This is deeply hypocritical to celebrate veterans for defending our freedom and then strip them of their bodily freedom. Self determination and dignity by refusing basic health care. It's a policy that should spark outrage. I would hope amongst all of us.

President Trump promised to leave decisions about abortions to individual states. Yet he continues to seek out new ways to impose restrictions on a national level that impact people in our local communities, including veterans.

In 2022, California voters decisively passed Prop one safeguarding reproductive feed freedom in our state's constitution. Yet for many veterans relying on federally regulated VA systems, accessing abortion care remains challenging. And in almost all cases, impossible.

So I think that's why this bill is so important. I appreciate you being creative with solutions to ensure that veterans still have access to abortion care when they need it. And with that, would you like to close?

Just, when you have a quorum, respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. We hope we will have a quorum at some point. I see Assembly Member Gipson is here. You wanna come on and get started whenever you're ready on AB 2054?

Madam Chair, and committee, thank you very much, and good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2054. Assembly Bill 2054 ensures equitable access to paid family leave for eligible relatives of military service members.

In California, we recognize that when service members is called to duty, their entire family is called to service outside outside, along with them. State law provides unemployment insurance benefits to military families to help them manage real life impact of deployment.

Despite the similarities in sacrifice, the disruption, not all of these assignments are treated equal under existing law. As a result, families can face confusion, inconsistencies, ineligibilities, and in some cases, a lack of access to the benefits designated to support them.

Things like arranging childcare, handling financial, legal matters, and preparing for a long period of separation from their families. This support exists because we understand military service create a sudden and significant, disruption at the home.

However, the current statue does not reflect the full range of modern day military service as we know it. Today's service members, may be deployed overseas, active fate activate here at home in response to natural disasters or emergencies or assigned to extensive training in preparation

for future deployment. That means a service member responding to a wildfire, flood, or other, emergencies, here in California may be protecting our community while worrying about whether their own family is supporting is supported at home.

That is why that is not equitable, and it is not consistent with the values we hold for those who serve us here in uniform that protect us in in the military.

Assembly Bill 2054 addresses the gap by updating and clarifying the definition of covering of covered active duty to reflect the reality of modern military service.

I am proud to introduce someone who will speak in support of 2054, and that is Kelli Douglas with the United States Department of Defense.

Thank you. And good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair and Member. Yes. Again, my name is Kelli May Douglas, and I work within the office of the deputy assistant secretary of defense for military community and family policy.

We work with state policy makers on a variety of issues that, hopefully improve quality of life for service members and their families, where states really have that, purview to, address those issues.

I wanna thank Assemblymember Gipson for for bringing this for leading on this this initiative and bringing it forward. We're happy to sponsor AB 2054, which if enacted will facilitate greater stability and economics security of our military families in California.

Military readiness, a cornerstone of our national security, depends on service members who can focus on their mission with full confidence that their families are supported at home.

The Federal Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, and California's existing paid family leave program have provided a valuable foundation of support for military families in the state.

These programs were designed with a focus on overseas deployments, however, offering leave for families of service members on federal title 10 orders, in foreign countries.

AB 2054 builds on this strong foundation by modernizing our state's program to reflect the evolving nature of military service. Today, service members are often called emissions that take them away from home, but keep them stateside.

This is especially true for our national guard and reserve members who are frequently activated for state level emergencies, disaster response, and other critical issues. These stateside assignments present the same challenges as overseas deployments.

AB 2054 ensures that all California's military families have access to the support they need when a service member is called away for whatever reason.

This provides peace of mind to our troops, allowing them to remain focused on their mission. Passing AB 2054 will enhance military readiness, strengthen our military families, and honor the service and sacrifice of the men and women, in serving in uniform in California.

Thank you for your consideration, and I stand by for any questions.

Thank you. Any #MeToos who would like to give support? Name and organization?

Good afternoon, ma'am, Vice Chair. Veronica Padilla representing Navy Region Southwest here on behalf of the military services in California in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone in principal opposition? Seeing none. Any #MeToos in opposition? Seeing none.

I'll bring it back to the diocese. Any questions? Yes?

I'd like to thank the author for always finding ways to make things happen and considering the veteran community in everything, and I appreciate you for that.

We've had many conversations, and I your your heart is always in front, and I really appreciate that. With that, I kindly request to be coauthor on your bill.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Basically, I'm just going to, echo my colleague over here and just say thank you for always, again, putting the veterans first, and I would be honored to be a coauthor. Thank you.

Make that three. I I wanna thank you for bringing forward the bill. I think that this is you know, it's it's really a gap that needed to be addressed. We know that there were 3,000 national guard who deployed to Southern California for the fires. None of those families were eligible.

We also know that with the current administration talking about deploying the military domestically, which is very concerning. It hopefully, knock on wood, does not become more common, but could.

And certainly, service members are being trained here domestically now and and abroad for wars that are being started at this moment.

So I think that it's very timely and I think important for us to be able to move forward and really appreciate your leadership and the support that you're getting on this. Thank you. So with that, would you like to close?

Yes. One, I would certainly use your comments as my close to thank the committee, for indulging me and appreciate the Aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Wonderful. And what else do we have? Me. That's me.

I'm up. Okay. A little too excited about that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And you are up next with AB 2219. Let me get begin when you're ready.

Okay.

And it was important for me to understand what we're doing what we're doing well in connecting veterans and their families to benefits and services that they've earned and identify areas that we can make meaningful improvements on.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I am and members, I am very happy to present AB 2219, the Faster Service for Veterans Act. Last year, while working on SB 694, which we all remember, I made a priority to engage with colleagues and stakeholders and veterans.

County veteran service officers or CVSOs are accredited local professionals who help veterans, advocate for benefits that they've earned and play a vital role in connecting veterans to opportunities in employment, education, health care, and family support.

But we could do better and and more to equip our CVSOs to support veterans, in broader ways. And so that's where AB 2219 comes in. Specifically in this bill, it requires a CVSO vacancy to be filled within 12 months.

It requires CVSOs to be accredited by CalVet within 9 months, and it requires CalVet to expand on its accreditation training to address and improve disparities, expand public awareness of free CVSO services, and enhance data collection.

It requires CalVet to develop a statewide work queue like the current model used nationally by the VA. And if there's a vacancy or a delay for assistance in one county, then a veteran can opt to go into the work queue and be assisted virtually by another county.

It requires CalVet to evaluate each county's office to identify and implement the best setup for supporting veterans in the area and submit a report in on this progress to the legislature every three years.

And finally, it requires CalVet and CVSO's to institute a unified survey to measure veteran satisfaction with CVSO services and promptly identify areas for improvement to make real time adjustments.

When our brave veterans reach out for help and support, CVSO spring into action. And AB 2219 is our promise to equip them with all the tools that they need to ensure that every veteran gets the support they need, they've earned, and they deserved, and in a timely manner.

And today with me is David West from cal California Association of Veterans Service Officers to testify as well.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the committee. Good afternoon. Name's David West, Nevada County Veterans Services Officer, and I'm here today as past president of the California Associations of County Veterans Services Officers in support of AB 2219, the Faster Services for Veterans Act.

County veteran services officers are on the front line every day helping veterans and their families access the benefits they've earned. This bill gives us the tools to do that more efficiently and effectively.

First, AB 2219 established a statewide work queue. Today, we have no way to measure how many veterans are waiting for x how many veterans are waiting for assistance across California.

The only measurable backlog exists is at the is at the federal level. And we and as we all as in and as and as we all recently learned, that does not reflect the true needs of veterans here in California.

Without real data, we rely on anecdotal evidence, which limits our ability to justify staffing and resources.

The statewide queue would both improve timeliness and provide the data needed for informed decisions. Second, this bill strengthens data collection at intake. In a state as as diverse as California, this is essential.

Better data helps us understand who we are serving, identify gaps, and ensure equitable access to services, trim demonstrating that we are reaching and respecting veterans from all backgrounds.

Finally, AB 2219 requires Calvet and CACVSO to develop a service capacity and performance framework and report on it every three years.

This is critical. For the first time, we would have a consistent statewide way to measure workload, staffing levels, and outcomes across all county veteran services office.

This that framework will allow us to identify where offices are under resourced relative to their veteran population and where additional support is needed. It also creates accountability, ensuring counties in Calvet have the data needed to make informed investments. Right now, staffing is based on budgets.

This framework allows it to be based on need. In short, it moves us from assumptions to evidence and from reactive decisions to pro pro to proactive planning. On behalf of CVAC, if you so, I respectfully urge your support of AB 2219.

You, are there any witnesses in support? K. Seeing none. Any other witnesses, in, opposition? Seeing none. No witnesses. K. Would you like to close? Oh, commit I'm sorry. Back to committee. Just assume where we're going. Back to the committee.

Any, anyone like to make comment? K. I have one. What is the the my concern is that when VSOs are doing their job really well in one area, and then in another area, maybe there's some bottlenecks and they don't know about the bottlenecks. How do we who fixes that?

Who identifies that? I think it says Calvet. Who identifies that and how do you how do you fix that system? So it's not always, you know, LA getting the brunt of it or San Diego, so on and so forth.

Yeah. I mean, I'll just say Calvet has a lot of levers in which they pull around oversight, and I think that both the work queue and the survey will be illuminating to be able to shed light on any issues if there are certain issue areas or bottlenecks that are not getting fixed.

I think that will really be helpful information to be able to resolve those issues, but I'll let my witness talk more specifically.

So the idea behind the study is the getting the framework is understanding where we're structured. We're not all structured under the same offices. Right?

So I found under I found under Department of Social Services, and I was like, tell everybody in Nevada County I'm a spoiled brat. I get all the resources, all the tools needed, to effectively do my job.

However, in other counties, they might fall under probation, and you wouldn't be surprised if their offices are run more like a jail cell than than accepting to all veterans. We also have other offices such in LA where they're stand alone. Right? And they operate on their own.

And the idea being we can get as much data with with with the feedback, with the data we're collecting, and and seeing how many claims are being and how much the return on investment for claims being submitted to the VA.

We can then make informed decisions and go to that county, like, maybe you might have the right structure. Maybe you're not providing the right resources. And these are examples of how count of how successful counties that are structured your way are doing that.

Thank you.

Ms. if you'd like to close.

Yeah. Thank you so much. And, you know, as the Chair of military and veteran affairs, daughter of a veteran, sister of a veteran, I've seen you know, I've as I've said many times, my dad's life has been saved more times than I can count.

By the VA, I know how important it is to have access to CVSOs to be able to connect up to the VA.

And we really wanna make sure that every veteran who has made sacrifices, you know, bravely earned these benefits, that they are without barrier and that people get them really as swiftly as possible.

So we're very hopeful that AB 2219 is an important big step in that in that direction. And respectfully request an aye vote when we get a quorum. We might get one now.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah. Okay.

We'll take that up when we get a quorum.

Thank you.

Just one more.

So, yeah, we're gonna search for Members who are not here. If the sergeant can please call absent Members. We may text absent Members. Oh, it sounds like someone's on his way, so that would help. No one leave.

Good news. Like to start all my conversations with good news. Good news. We are having enough folks for a quorum. Secretary, will you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

The consent calendar is adopted eight to zero. Alright. All of the bills have passed and are moving out of this committee and that will end our veterans military and Veterans Affairs Committee.