Comité Veterans, Military, and Homeland Security del Senado, 24 de marzo de 2026

Transcripción

371 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.

1. 0:18:26

   Order. A little bit late, sorry. The other meeting I was in ran a little late. So, um, we have two bills today. We- I think we've heard both of these before. Is that right, Representative Bonner?

2. 0:18:37

   Uh, no, 632.

3. 0:18:39

   Okay, okay. Well, the, on one, House Bill 108, we're not gonna, uh, take testimony 'cause we have already heard this one. And so today we're just going to let you, you, I know you've got a, a substitute, and then we'll let you present the substitute, go over the substitute and w- and then we'll call the vote on that one, and then we'll move on to the House Bill 632. Um, just to let everybody know, right now on House Bill 108, it's LC461539S.

4. 0:19:15

   Is that correct, what you have?

5. 0:19:16

   That's correct, yes.

6. 0:19:17

   All right. Would you go ahead and present your bill?

7. 0:19:19

   Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, appreciate the opportunity to, to come back and offer this, uh, amendment. Uh, this amendment comes after talking with a number of members of the committee, um, and getting some feedback on some ways to make this stronger. And so this, uh, substitute contains three provisions that are, that are changes. The first, uh, you find on line 43, and what we did is to cap the amount that these companies can charge and limit them to a total of $12,500.

8. 0:19:50

   Uh, that matches the Florida law that was passed. Uh, the second thing we did, which is found on line 64, uh, and we increased the, the font size on the disclosure to 14. That just helped to, to s- to, for that to stand out even further and be more prevalent in the contract. And then the last thing we did, which is found on line 91, we increased the fines, um, to $10,000 per violation. Uh, this matches the, uh, the same penalty under the, under that code is i- if you commit a crime against someone 65 years or older.

9. 0:20:26

   So $10,000 per violation, which is, uh, I, I mean, I think it's a pretty stiff penalty. And so, uh, with the goal of punishing bad actors in this space, um, and allowing good actors to operate, I think this strikes a good balance with that, with these provisions. Uh, those are the changes, Mr. Chairman. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

10. 0:20:49

    Any questions, members of the committee?

11. 0:20:55

    Mr. Chairman.

12. 0:20:55

    Senator Still.

13. 0:20:58

    Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Bonner, thank you. Um, so real-life scenario here. My admin here at the Capitol, uh, is a, um, Marine, served for eight years. Um, and, and I'm speaking of this with his permission, to be clear. Uh, he, um, he had some rough tours. Uh, he came back with, um, a degree of PTSD. He worked through, um, a couple different VA hospitals, didn't feel like they understood his condition.

14. 0:21:39

    Um, went to his local VSO. Um, they weren't able to help get him any, um, more coverage than what he needed. Um, and this is before he started working here at the Capitol, uh, about a year and a half ago. He engaged the services of an attorney who is charging him, um, in their contract all of the gain from the time that he started working for him until the date that they achieve, uh, any sort of a higher result, with no cap, with no anything.

15. 0:22:20

    Um, would be well in excess of $25,000 that he would owe, um, at the time of collection, uh, and, and, uh, receipt of that back pay. Um, I feel like he did all the things that we would want one of our veterans to do. He, um, went through all the channels, jumped through all the hoops, hired an attorney who's not anyone that's, uh, anything other than an attorney that he found online.

16. 0:22:54

    Um, but there are no guardrails to prevent somebody from doing that. Can you walk me through the scenario of how this bill would have prevented Will from being in this very upside-down contract, and what guardrails this puts in place to prevent someone like him in the future from falling into this private lawyer trap that's, that's floating around out there?

17. 0:23:18

    So I do believe that this bill does establish those guardrails and, and, and specifically in those areas I just mentioned, uh, regarding the fees. I mean, this, you know, this is just fees on a, award of the gain. This doesn't, this doesn't in any way impact somebody's back pay. This is just the increase on the gain. Whereas, uh, as, as you rightly point out, uh, these attorneys that work on appeals, they, they can get anywhere from 20 to 33.3% of, of the, not just the gain, but all of the back pay as well with no limit.

18. 0:23:53

    And so this bill, had it been in place, it, it would protect in that way that, uh, cap, cap that, um, fee at 12.5 and require a written contract that spelled out all the provisions and only was awarded in the event that he actually was, uh, w- received that award and would not, would not touch his back pay. So in that circumstance, like many others, this would pro- have protected that Marine.

19. 0:24:19

    And if this bill does not pass, either through this committee or through the Senate Will those predatory practices continue unregulated and unchecked?

20. 0:24:29

    Yeah, absolutely. That's a good point. And, and that, that's the state of affairs today, is that, um, there are no guardrails whatsoever. There's nothing to prevent, um, bad actors from operating in the space and taking advantage of veterans, so.

21. 0:24:43

    Thank you.

22. 0:24:46

    What number are you?

23. 0:24:47

    Three.

24. 0:24:48

    Okay.

25. 0:24:49

    Good afternoon, Rep Varner. How are you doing today?

26. 0:24:51

    I'm good, thank you.

27. 0:24:53

    Um, so just to be clear, you and I have had several conversation over, um, this bill for the last year or so, correct?

28. 0:25:02

    Yes.

29. 0:25:03

    And, um, real life scenario, I, um, went through the same s- scenario, but it's true that the VFW and other organizations, also the v- the, um, Veterans Affairs offer these services for, for free, correct?

30. 0:25:22

    The, that is correct. And, and a- and i- in fact, it... We actually point the, the individual to that. In the, in the required contract, that, that disclosure essentially says, "You can get this very same service for free, and here's where you can go to, to get those."

31. 0:25:39

    Okay.

32. 0:25:39

    And, and, and a- and I would say a lot of people, as you, as you well know-

33. 0:25:42

    Mm-hmm

34. 0:25:42

    ... a lot of veterans take advantage of that service.

35. 0:25:45

    Right.

36. 0:25:45

    Um, and, and, and a lot of them have success in that.

37. 0:25:48

    Mm-hmm.

38. 0:25:48

    Some don't. And this simply gives those veterans a, an, some freedom of choice in that.

39. 0:25:53

    And I absolutely... And that's why, you know, I had, um, instant conversation due to the fact that, uh, throughout my time, you know, trying to receive my claim, it took me up to a year to receive it. But that's why, you know, the VA tried to introduce the PACT Act, to try to come back and compensate and reevaluate some of the methods and, of how they implemented the strategy of trying to get the, a service member the benefits that they require. So, but I do understand, um, throughout our, our con- our conversation of how there are organizations that do try to take advantage of, um, of service members and their family, and that was the reason why, um, we came to, um, some agreement in reference to, uh, capping it out.

40. 0:26:42

    But, um, in ref- in reference to, I guess the, the, the accreditation part is a issue that the VFW and some other organizations do have. Um, but at least you've met... W- where we try to meet the rubber where the road is. And so I guess that the biggest hurdle is the, the unaccreditation part. Um, and that's not federally conducive with the federal funding. But still yet, moving forward, you know, to try to implement something, because there are a lot of bad actors out there.

41. 0:27:15

    Yeah, a- absolutely, Senator. I appreciate you bringing that up. I, I will say, you know, I, I, I do anticipate at some point that there would be, um, substansive, substantive changes to the accreditation process that would allow at some point, uh, entities to... that would, that would make it more a- enticing for individuals and companies to be accredited. But right now, that just doesn't exist under the current system.

42. 0:27:42

    Mm-hmm.

43. 0:27:42

    And there's a lot of debate as to, as to the relationship that accreditation causes, that a lot of these companies that operate don't, don't believe they fall under that category in terms of becoming a, uh, an, an agent of that individual. And so, um, but I, I will tell you, and I, and I w- have committed to you- ... and will commit to every member of the committee, we'll continue to, to work this issue with our federal partners to make sure that our, our veterans are protected in every way possible.

44. 0:28:12

    One la- one last thing, Mr. Chairman. So I n- understand that, um, Louisiana and some other, um, states have implemented stricter, uh, violations. Um, so just to, just to way forward, what do we have implemented just in case Louisiana comes... or, or, or a situation where Loui- something like Louisiana happens and the federal government comes back and overturns what, what has already been implemented?

45. 0:28:39

    So my understanding of the, of the Louisiana laws, it, it had a little bit different language. Our language more closely matches what, uh, what is, uh, found in Tennessee and Florida. Um, Tennessee, the only difference between us and Tennessee is that, um, Tennessee doesn't cap. They think they just have a five times multiple. Uh, whereas Florida does have the cap, but they o- their, their fee is, uh, their, uh, penalties are also, um, very much in this neighbor- They, they actually... Florida has actually a great law. They, they have a bit of a, a, an enhancement on a penalty if you com- basically commit a crime against a veteran.

46. 0:29:16

    So there's a bit of a kicker there that, that I, I would love for us to explore as well. But, uh, the fines are very much in keeping with some of these other, uh, very veteran-friendly states. I feel, I feel good about being in the same company as Tennessee and Florida when it comes to veterans' issues. They, they're, they're well ahead of us in a number of areas, and I think this will help us to catch up.

47. 0:29:36

    Thank you so much.

48. 0:29:37

    Yeah.

49. 0:29:39

    My vice chairman.

50. 0:29:41

    Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, Chairman, I'd just like to thank you for bringing this, uh, very important issue before us. I, I certainly appreciate it, and I want to explain my position very carefully. As you know, uh, over the years, uh, I've been staunchly against anything like this. I mean, just absolutely, totally, it's zero, no, don't do it. Uh, because, uh, you have very excellent VFW representative, DAV, which I'm a member of all of those thing, life members.

51. 0:30:12

    And, uh, w- was persuaded to s- stay in that vein of thought. However, uh, they are outliers in this, in this, uh, position a lot of the time. These folks have gone... I've had people come to me, and we went around the state, and they were telling us that we can't get... I, I can't get my benefits. But as soon as they went to this particular tactic- They got results. And I'm just telling you, they told us this over and over again, and I remember 10 or 15 people at one time.

52. 0:30:44

    So, I w- Myself and another chairman on your side of the aisle, we listened to it with almost disbelief that-

53. 0:30:52

    Mm

54. 0:30:52

    ... and I guess it may be in the context of the person who providing the free service do excellent work, but they're probably inundated. They got so many people that they're trying to help, and they help them.

55. 0:31:04

    Mm.

56. 0:31:04

    And I want to commend them 'cause I, like I said, I'm a life member of all of them, and they've helped me. So, but in the context of some outlier person who maybe lost his records, or just whatever the case may be, they can't get it or can't prove it-

57. 0:31:17

    Mm

58. 0:31:17

    ... or something like that, and they get it. They get it when they, you know, pursue this particular vein of action.

59. 0:31:24

    Right.

60. 0:31:24

    So, uh, that's what sort of pushed me over in that direction. And even now, I still got some consternation, just I- I, it's just really seems a little odd, you know, just that we have to do this in order-

61. 0:31:36

    Mm

62. 0:31:36

    ... to get those veterans who've been l- left out, uh, over in this, uh, p- posture in order to get some relief of their benefits that they served their country for, that they fought for, that they went to far off places to serve our country.

63. 0:31:51

    Mm.

64. 0:31:51

    They're having to do this. So, uh, reluctantly, I wanna be clear about that, I, I support this. And prayerfully, someday we can get to a point where it, it, we can go back to our former posture, where everybody's getting the benefits they deserve, and in a timely way so they won't be in a, a handcuff, uh, a desperate position to get their benefits that they're trying over and over again. I think it's just wrong. So-

65. 0:32:14

    Yes, sir

66. 0:32:15

    ... that- that's, that's my reasoning for this.

67. 0:32:17

    Thank you for that.

68. 0:32:17

    Thank you.

69. 0:32:17

    Senator Kirkpatrick.

70. 0:32:18

    Thank-

71. 0:32:18

    What number are you?

72. 0:32:20

    Uh, 10. Yeah. So we had Doug Collins here-

73. 0:32:25

    Mm-hmm

74. 0:32:25

    ... a couple weeks ago, and, uh, he gave some impressive numbers about the progress that's been made on getting veterans their disability, uh, not only from a numbers standpoint of people, but the time-

75. 0:32:39

    Mm

76. 0:32:39

    ... that it's taking is down from 137 days to 77 days, and he wants to get it to zero, and I have confidence that he's gonna be able to do that over the next two years. That was, I think, the motivation for this bill, is frustration from people that were trying to get their claims taken care of through the normal channels, through the Department of Veteran Services or the American Legion or whatever, and were not able to do it, if I'm not mistaken. I think that was the biggest issue.

77. 0:33:09

    Um, so I'm a little confused, 'cause I guess the Louisiana law was thrown out based on constitutionality, and now Florida and Tennessee are also being, uh, m- the same lawyer's going after them.

78. 0:33:24

    Mm-hmm.

79. 0:33:25

    So I'm just concerned about creating a legal issue, and I think it boils down, you've fixed a lot of the things from the first version of the bill, but I think the accreditation issue is still hanging out there. And I've heard from a lot of people in my district, particularly the American Legion, the Warrior Alliance, people that I work with on a regular basis on veterans issues who are opposed to this bill. And so, uh, I can't support it, but I appreciate you making the changes that you made.

80. 0:33:57

    Thank you.

81. 0:33:58

    Anybody? Senator Setzler.

82. 0:34:02

    Hey, Mr. Chairman. Uh, to the sp- to the sponsor, thank you. Um, yeah, I think, uh, hearken, uh, back to, or I, I think about other settings in which we seek to take care of our veterans. You know, our, we, we've invested in a veterans health system. I'm proud of some of the steps we've made. It's, it's, it's had its ups and downs over the years and been under-invested in from a healthcare perspective. Um, and I'm proud that, uh, in, in recent years there's been a reinvestment in our, in our healthcare system f- for veterans.

83. 0:34:33

    Um, but just because we are committed to, uh, uh, veterans' hospitals, clinics, and healthcare systems doesn't mean that we shouldn't also give veterans choice, um, and oth- other choice options. I know there's been discussions about how we expand choice options outside of the, the delivery system of our veterans medical system so that veterans can have options in their community from private providers. I view this in a very similar way. Um, I'm thankful for our nonprofits that do this work. They, I think they do yeoman's work, and I, I salute them for that. Um, it's truly service when they're doing it kind of on their own, um, in a, in a either non-compensated or under-compensated way.

84. 0:35:09

    Uh, but by analogy, just because those exist, and those exist, uh, to serve veterans, it doesn't mean if a veteran believes that a private sector opport- uh, delivery system like this can serve them better, we should, should block them from this. I think this gives people an alternative. If they see it as in their best interest to be able to pursue this, this private sector alternative, why would we block veterans from being able to do that? Um, so I s- I sort of see these two sort of as an analogy, and I f- appreciate your, your, your bill. Um, I have tried to listen to both sides, and I just, s- I, I don't want my support for this to in any way undermine the yeoman's work that's being done by nonprofits in ch- trying to support veterans.

85. 0:35:46

    I don't, I, I think that's a misreading of this. But just as we try to, uh, support people and give veterans options, private sector options in a healthcare setting, um, I think likewise, we need to give them the opportunity. Why would we block them from something like this if we've put the guardrails in as you've very carefully s- put in place? And I, I salute you for it, and I think it's, again, if, if we're veteran centric, we're not system centric, if we're not focused on nonprofits, we're not focused on any organizations and, and we're not focused on state agencies that, that do th- that do similar things, if our focus is not on them but our focus is on what's best for the veteran, we have veterans asking us for this service, and if we stay veteran centric, we're gonna give them the opportunity that, uh, House Bill 108 gives them.

86. 0:36:28

    So I thank you for that.

87. 0:36:29

    Absolutely. Thank you.

88. 0:36:32

    Unless... N- Number 11.

89. 0:36:34

    Yes, sir.

90. 0:36:34

    Okay. Senator Dixon.

91. 0:36:35

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Chairman Bonner, thank you so much for kind of working on this. I know we've, uh, spoken offline, uh, on this several different times, kind of worked through the different processes on it. Um, you know, I kind of echo my suite mates, um- Uh, the dean of the Senate over there, uh, thoughts on this. It was, um, uh, always used to think that, um, a- and I, and I think about my dad from that standpoint, you know. He was a, a veteran of Vietnam War and kind of worked through that process. Never went to the VFW, didn't ever go to the American Legion.

92. 0:37:05

    Um, you know, so he never got his benefits for, for close to 35 or 40 years. And so, um, you know, if there would've been a service like this, may- maybe he would have, you know, maybe kind of worked through that process. So I'm, I, I'm trying to gauge, um, a little bit of, I, I see both sides of it, I really do. And so my question to you is, there's been a lot of conversation in regards to the accreditation. Um, a- a- and 'cause what we're hearing is in some aspects you have to have accreditation, in some aspects you don't have to have accreditation. Um, can you give us just maybe a two or three-minute summary of the difference of why, why some organizations have to be accredited and others do not?

93. 0:37:43

    Well, the, the accreditation in, in, just in this, my opinion, is, is, i- is a bit of an outdated, um, kind of methodology. But that accreditation piece creates agency, right? So, uh, as, if you become accredited individual, you actually have access to the VA system, so you can hand jam somebody's case in. You become an agent. Um, what, what the, the m- the companies that represent this view, and the guardrails we're putting in place for, are not the companies that become agents.

94. 0:38:15

    They are simply consulting veterans on how to best assemble their packet, get it Dress Right dress so that it, it, it has a better, uh, chance of getting a first-time approval than a packet, uh, going-

95. 0:38:28

    Other-

96. 0:38:28

    ... through otherwise. They, you know, get it in the, the, the proper verbiage, make sure that you, you know, tick all the right boxes, all your Is are dotted, Ts are crossed, all that, that type of thing. That is not an agency relationship. It's a con- it's a consultant, essentially-

97. 0:38:44

    Right

98. 0:38:44

    ... relationship. So, so their, the, their view is that they don't require and don't fall under the category that, uh, that requires accreditation. Um, I will also say, just at a much broader sense, and, uh, as a bit to, uh, Senator Kirkpatrick's point, is, you know, um, unfortunately with these benefits, these are, these are, you know, federal benefits. And, and while we can't directly impact the federal government, what we can do at the state level is to provide the proper guardrails to protect our veterans that reside in Georgia.

99. 0:39:15

    And so that's all this seeks to do. Uh, we'll continue to work with the federal government and, as best we can, and w- I have great expectations for, uh, uh, Secretary Collins and what he's doing. Um, uh, but again, you know, I'm often just reminded of that, that phrase wh- you know, we're for the, w- I, "I'm from the government, I'm here to help," right? And, and the fact that it takes so long with our federal government to make change, that, uh, I think this, I, I, I'd love to see a day where it, where these companies go out of business 'cause there's no business to be had, and I think that's, uh, what I, I would like to work towards in the future, so.

100. 0:39:54

     Any other questions from the committee?

101. 0:39:58

     All right. I, I've got one follow-up, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind. Yes. Um, so I know there's been a lot of talk with the, this maybe potentially creating an environment for, um, say, claim sharks in that general area, and I know that you've, uh, increased the, the, the penalty here up to $10,000 per violation. Um, how concerned are you of that? I mean, I, I'm sure that we probably currently have some now, but then does this potentially open the floodgates to those type of situations, to really kind of our veterans being preyed upon, um, for the potential claims?

102. 0:40:30

     Well, so to be clear, right now there are no protections, right? There, um, there are no penalties. I mean, you, you, I certainly you could probably pursue somebody in magistrate or, or other type of court, but, but there are no, there are no guardrails. There is nothing defined in statute that regulates this industry. And so what we will be creating is, um, is that penalty. Uh, and I, I mean, I think the $10,000 per violation is a-

103. 0:40:58

     Mm-hmm

104. 0:40:59

     ... is a, is a pretty stiff deterrent. Um, it, it certainly was enough of a deterrent that the legislature determined that if you commit a crime against someone 65 years or older, that that was, th- that that would be a deterrent. And so we're simply matching that. And so I, I think that, you know, what we're doing is actually, uh, pro- protecting veterans in a space where there is currently no protection.

105. 0:41:25

     Senator Anderson.

106. 0:41:26

     Thank you, um, Mr. Chair. Um, as you know, there are percentages to, um, and ratings, uh, when it comes to, uh, benefits. H- when a, um, veteran comes for, I guess this is a consultation 'cause it, the services, I'll say services, um, once they get a rating of 10%, then they go back for 20 or go back and they get 30, what, uh, does this agency each time get some type of compensation?

107. 0:42:01

     Or what happens?

108. 0:42:03

     Well, so that, and, and I go back to the, the contractual nature of the, of the, the bill starting, I think it's on line 38. So w- they actually enter, enter into a contract, an agreement, and they get compensated based on fulfilling the terms of that agreement. So if they fulfill that agreement, that agreement is over and done with. If they wanna come back later on and enter into another agreement or use a different company and enter into a different agreement, then that's a completely separate, right?

109. 0:42:33

     Mm-hmm.

110. 0:42:33

     But, but they're only getting, they're only getting charged on, on the gain each time. So it is c- you know, but typically these gains are fairly incremental, right? It's, it's rare for someone to go from zero-

111. 0:42:46

     Yeah

112. 0:42:46

     ... to 100%, right?

113. 0:42:47

     It goes on, flicking away.

114. 0:42:49

     R- right. But i- but everything is based on that agreement, and again, the contingency fee. But as long as the terms of that agreement are fulfilled, it doesn't preclude you from entering into another agreement down the road.

115. 0:43:00

     Okay, so I go from 10 to 30.

116. 0:43:03

     Sorry.

117. 0:43:03

     I g- I, I, um, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the follow-up.

118. 0:43:05

     Go ahead.

119. 0:43:08

     So I, I go from 10 to 30. So I get 10%, you get your cut there. I go to 30%, you don't get 30. I only, I only, i- it was only a 20% increment.

120. 0:43:20

     Yes, yes. The increments come through you, right. That's what-

121. 0:43:23

     Oh, I know I'm right. I'm just trying to make it clear. Is that what you're saying?

122. 0:43:26

     Yeah. Yes. Yeah.

123. 0:43:27

     I'm just saying, is that what you're saying? You saying you're only gonna get from the 20% and not the 30. That's what you're saying.

124. 0:43:32

     I'm saying you're gonna enter into a c- a contract.

125. 0:43:34

     Uh-huh.

126. 0:43:35

     And whatever that contract says on the gain-

127. 0:43:37

     Mm-hmm

128. 0:43:37

     ... that's what you're gonna get. And once that threshold is met, that, the contract's over.

129. 0:43:41

     Right. But you're not asking for a 30%, you're not asking for payment from the 30%. You-

130. 0:43:46

     No, you're only f- only for whatever the gain is.

131. 0:43:49

     Okay. That's what I'm just-

132. 0:43:50

     Yes

133. 0:43:50

     ... being clear about.

134. 0:43:50

     Yeah.

135. 0:43:50

     Thank you.

136. 0:43:51

     That's correct.

137. 0:43:51

     Thank you.

138. 0:43:52

     Yeah. Yeah, so I mean, so you're not gonna enter a contract that says, "I guarantee you 30%."

139. 0:43:57

     No, no, no, no, no, no.

140. 0:43:57

     Yeah, right.

141. 0:43:58

     The contract says, "I need, I need an- that my rating, I need, I have another illness or I have a illness or, uh, or, uh, uh, another claim for something and it takes me from 10% to 30%." So you only can gain off of the 20%, not the 30% if I get rated-

142. 0:44:17

     Right

143. 0:44:17

     ... at 30. Okay. I'm just being clear.

144. 0:44:21

     All right.

145. 0:44:21

     That's what it, uh, that's what it, Council, is that what it says?

146. 0:44:23

     That's what it says.

147. 0:44:24

     Okay. Thank you.

148. 0:44:28

     All right, any other questions?

149. 0:44:29

     That's what it says.

150. 0:44:29

     I drove to verify.

151. 0:44:30

     As I said, we've already had public input on this, so I'm not gonna, uh, entertain public input today, so.

152. 0:44:36

     Oh, you're not?

153. 0:44:37

     We've done this bill multiple times-

154. 0:44:39

     Okay

155. 0:44:39

     ... in the House and Senate, so.

156. 0:44:41

     It may have new tested moments.

157. 0:44:44

     We've got 25 minutes and another bill too.

158. 0:44:47

     Oh, Lord. You want us to take five minutes.

159. 0:44:49

     I want the-

160. 0:44:51

     Two minutes, three minutes. Two minutes, three minutes. Come on, Mr. Chairman.

161. 0:44:54

     Do what?

162. 0:44:54

     Two minutes, three minutes.

163. 0:44:55

     Okay, I'll give each one two minutes each.

164. 0:44:57

     It's all good. Come, you can go over there. Stand, stand.

165. 0:45:01

     And we'll start with Dwayne Kil- Kilbourne.

166. 0:45:04

     Mr. Chairman, where would, where would you like me at?

167. 0:45:06

     Just the podium would be fine.

168. 0:45:08

     Podium.

169. 0:45:09

     And, and, and Mr. Chairman, you gotta speak to the real time.

170. 0:45:12

     Thank you for the advice.

171. 0:45:14

     Yeah.

172. 0:45:14

     I got it. I got it. Go ahead, sir.

173. 0:45:18

     Thank you.

174. 0:45:18

     Go ahead.

175. 0:45:19

     Mr. Chairman, um, appreciate your time, and I'll keep it brief. Uh, you're correct, we have had public comment before. My name is Dwayne Kilbourne. I'm the Chief of Staff, VFW, and also on other members of, uh, or- organizations. Individuals can be accredited. There's a form right here, four pages. I fill it out, take a test, I'm accredited, and I can be hired by any company. We are for choice. However, accreditation is federally required. The Supremacy Clause, that's why it got overturned, not anything else. The federal law, 38 CFR, uh, 14.629, the second section doesn't talk about organizations, the individual.

176. 0:45:57

     Other industries do that, too. I applaud the committee and Chairman Bonner for adding penalties in here, but Tennessee and Florida will most likely be overturned because it goes against federal law. So let's stand with veterans, give them choice, and please look at the data. I have the whole, the whole hearing here as well. Add, just add the accreditation, and we take care of veterans. We give them all the choice they want, and we'll take care of business.

177. 0:46:30

     I yield to any questions for the committee.

178. 0:46:34

     I'm seeing none.

179. 0:46:36

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

180. 0:46:42

     Cowsert, representative.

181. 0:46:43

     Yes.

182. 0:46:44

     How about you go forward first since you're, uh...

183. 0:46:49

     Ladies first.

184. 0:46:50

     Huh?

185. 0:46:50

     If she wants to.

186. 0:46:51

     Okay, we'll go in that order.

187. 0:46:52

     Yeah.

188. 0:46:52

     Okay.

189. 0:46:53

     Miss, Miss Stevens.

190. 0:46:55

     Amy Stevens.

191. 0:46:55

     It's Dr. Stevens, but thank you.

192. 0:46:57

     I'm sorry. I couldn't make, make, I got first name.

193. 0:47:00

     That's okay. Amy.

194. 0:47:02

     Um, hi, I'm Dr. Amy Stevens. I'm the founder of Georgia Military Women, sometimes known as the godmother of all military women in Georgia. Um, my organization has almost 6,000 women veterans, and I talk to them every single day. The issue of claim sharks is something that is very real. These, um, consultants, a lot, they are the, in it for the money. You may call them a nonprofit, but they are in it for the money, and constantly they work with people, but they are not actually helping you file it.

195. 0:47:34

     As you said, they're helping you maybe gather something. And sometimes they're gonna refer you to an agency that might help you, uh, get a medical of opinion. It still falls on the veteran to submit the things. And constantly I talk about women who are filing for themselves or filing for someone else that have run into rough times trying to get that all together, having it take a long time to get it together so that they're still waiting for their benefits. And sometimes it almost seems like they're delaying the process so that the companies can make more money. This is why I am happy to see that there would be some guardrails on how much money they could a- actually make.

196. 0:48:09

     One of the things to consider m- is that when the Department of Veteran Services or any of the VSO organizations help a veteran, it's because they're family. We, we are sister and, and brother veterans, I'm a Navy veteran myself, is that it makes a difference to have somebody who really cares about you and also will refer you to many other benefits that you need to have. It's not just about getting disability. It's about making sure that their healthcare is taken care of, make sure that they're getting their education benefits, so many things, mental health, all of those types of things.

197. 0:48:40

     And so that's why I think that although this does offer guardrails, some other things have been brought up as well, but, uh, that's how come I urge you to con- to vote no for this bill. Thank you. I yield to any questions.

198. 0:48:55

     Mr. Still.

199. 0:48:56

     Thank you, Chairman. There's, ma'am, respectfully, there's no part of this bill that prohibits anybody from still working with their local VFW or the VA to do these things. This just puts guardrails on an alternative-

200. 0:49:11

     source to find someone to help consult on this. Can you, can you point to anywhere in the bill that, that-

201. 0:49:17

     No, it does not-

202. 0:49:17

     ... says that it prohibits them from doing that?

203. 0:49:19

     No, sir. It, it does not set something against that, but what happens is that they end up working with that organization rather than reaching out to the VSOs and spending time with other assets that would provide the more comprehensive services. It all becomes about working towards the disability. Being a veteran and transitioning successfully from military to civilian life is much more than just getting compensation. It's also about the rest of your life.

204. 0:49:44

     I don't, I don't think anybody would disagree that we would want to encourage veterans, either immediately out of service or decades down the road, from seeking out their VFW, but wouldn't we want guardrails on those third-party services that are out there? Because without this bill, the example I gave of my admin, right outside this door is my office, and my admin sits right there. And he has been significantly taken advantage of by a predatory attorney on this, but he's in a legal contract with him.

205. 0:50:17

     This bill would prevent that. So you would want to deny him that opportunity to do that?

206. 0:50:23

     I don't think it's a good bill the way it's written. And I think-

207. 0:50:26

     What would you change about it?

208. 0:50:29

     I d- I don't... I would really prefer not anyone to have to pay to get their benefits.

209. 0:50:35

     Fair enough.

210. 0:50:38

     Sir?

211. 0:50:40

     I, uh...

212. 0:50:42

     You, you characterized, um... Is it fair to say you said they're in it for the money?

213. 0:50:49

     They're not nonpr- they, they may call themselves nonprofits. I don't have the exact numbers. I know my good friends with VFW know how much money that they've actually made. This is big business.

214. 0:50:59

     I, I understand. But, uh, uh, y- they're in it for the money. The people who built my home-

215. 0:51:04

     Yes, sir

216. 0:51:04

     ... the contractor that built my home is a for-profit business. They furnished a home for my family that we've raised our kids in and have lived in for 25 year, it'll be 25 years next month. To characterize home builders as in it for the money, and therefore they're an unsavory... It ca- casts sort of a shadow on what they do, it's just false. I mean, these people are private sector entity. They're, they're private sector entities, just like a home builder is, and they provide service to veterans. To couch that as in it for the money, therefore colored and somehow less honorable, is just, it's, I just think it's, it's, it's disingenuous and false.

217. 0:51:41

     And I, I, I... it doesn't bother me that they do it for a living. The, the, the worker's worth their wage as a home builder that builds homes. A person that bu- gets benefits for veterans gets benefits for veterans. I, I'm just, I'm, I'm just just concerned you colored it so clearly-

218. 0:51:56

     Mm-hmm

219. 0:51:56

     ... because they're not doing it as a volunteer.

220. 0:51:58

     Well, realistically, Senator, I think you're comparing apples and oranges. If my home builder makes a profit on building my home, and my, my brother runs a construction company, that's fine. But when you work with people who care about you, you become part of the family. It's not just... A- and we all know builders, that once they leave, and all the problems that happen-

221. 0:52:18

     Yeah

222. 0:52:18

     ... afterwards. So I, I think it's better to be with the VSOs and with the Department of Georgia.

223. 0:52:23

     Habitat Hum- for Humanity builds homes. We celebrate them for it. It's a volunteer thing. They do great work. We celebrate it.

224. 0:52:29

     Absolutely. Yes, sir.

225. 0:52:30

     Good for them. But it doesn't mean that people who do it for a living are somehow less honorable. That's all.

226. 0:52:35

     No, I didn't say that. Thank you, sir.

227. 0:52:38

     All right.

228. 0:52:39

     Senator.

229. 0:52:39

     Item three. Thank you for coming to give your testimony. So, um, just to go back and just lay the foundation, um, these unaccredited organizations are only the middle person, correct? They're the administrative person, and they just-

230. 0:52:55

     That's correct

231. 0:52:56

     ... file the paperwork. At the end of the day, the service member has to take the paperwork back to the, um, the VSO and the Veterans Affairs to actually have it, uh, start the process, correct?

232. 0:53:10

     Well, it's kind of complicated, because they can't just take it to a regular VSO, because there's a power of attorney that's involved with the claim sharks, is that they've got that relationship.

233. 0:53:18

     No, no, no. No, I'm talking about the service member. Once-

234. 0:53:20

     The s- the service member is the one that has to file.

235. 0:53:22

     Correct.

236. 0:53:23

     Because they are not accredited, so somebody else has to file. And this is part of what creates that barrier. Because they're already working-

237. 0:53:29

     Mm-hmm

238. 0:53:29

     ... with this one entity. To bring that to someone else means if, if, if it's a VSO and they tr- start, they're gonna-

239. 0:53:36

     Mm-hmm

240. 0:53:36

     ... have to go all the way back through it-

241. 0:53:38

     Mm-hmm

242. 0:53:38

     ... to make sure that it meets our requirements and that fidelity that we're expecting. Plus, we're gonna be offering all of those other services that these outside agencies will not.

243. 0:53:48

     Thank you.

244. 0:53:52

     Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Wayne Collins.

245. 0:53:59

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

246. 0:54:01

     Yeah.

247. 0:54:01

     I'm Wayne Collins. I'm the state legislative chair for the Veteran of Foreign Wars. And, uh, I'm not gonna labor this. Uh, we've had multiple discussions on this. But, uh, there seems to be some confusion when it comes to accreditation. Uh, it was stated last year and, and, and, and in recent meetings that the VA secretary was not in favor of accreditation. We found that not to be true. Uh, in fact, we were in DC at the legislative conference, uh, just a couple of weeks ago, and he specifically stated that he was pro-accreditation.

248. 0:54:39

     It's also, I think Senator Kirkpatrick spoke about the timeliness of getting these claims resolved in a timely manner. Uh, the VA secretary's doing an excellent job. He has it down to about 70 days. I think we're still in that old Vietnam-era concept where it was taking veterans four or five years to get their claims resolved. That's no longer the case. Uh, we feel that, uh, if we do not put these accreditations in pra- in place, uh, it would afford those organizations or individuals to take advantage of our most vulnerable veterans.

249. 0:55:16

     That's what we have to focus on, because our most vulnerable veterans, in most cases, they're destitute. And they're in need of immediate financial relief, and that's what we're trying to prevent, and we hope that you'll support us in this endeavor. Thank you for your time.

250. 0:55:33

     Thank you, sir.

251. 0:55:37

     All right.

252. 0:55:42

     Representative Jackson.

253. 0:55:44

     Representative Jackson, I'm sorry. Saw you sitting back there. I didn't mean to cut you.

254. 0:55:46

     Well, you know, I, listen-

255. 0:55:47

     Go ahead

256. 0:55:48

     ... I'm always going to yield to women going first. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. State Representative Derek Jackson. Uh, you all know I served 22 years in the United States Navy. Um, much has already been stated, but I just wanna put an exclamation mark. Uh, not much I agree with Senator Collins, but this I do. He said they're working on it, and you already heard the stats. They, they're down to s- uh, um, to 70. Uh, our... This is a opportunity for this august body to assist our state agency at the Veterans Affair, where we can add more resources and staffing.

257. 0:56:22

     We can become the middle man, um, for, uh, our, uh, service members, especially those who are E5s and E6, uh, the most vulnerable that gets caught up in predatory lending. Uh, yes, uh, it sounds like we're going in the right direction, but even $12,000 is too much. Uh, much of you all know that my first wife, her and I both are retired Navy commanders, but when she, uh, had to go through this process, because she had a cesarean, um, her bill, hers, uh, amount was 4,000 a month.

258. 0:56:56

     4,000 a month. So even if that was 5X, that would've been $20,000. Yes, 205s could afford it, but that doesn't equate the same for a E5 and a E6, so $12,000 is still too much. If we're going to be pro-military in Georgia, let us be pro-military. Let's add these guardrails without the added expense. If we're gonna go after predatory lending, this august body, we have done that before with used cars, and Title Max, and all these other things that typically, um, go after military service members.

259. 0:57:32

     We can go after them with a, a, a strong bill to let them know, lawyers or anyone else that's gonna do business with military, um, that they will have hell to pay. And then last but not least, Mr. Chairman, um, no middle man or middle person should not get not one penny to check I's, make sure the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed when we got ChatGPT.

260. 0:58:02

     Thank you. All right, now I will go ahead and call it. What is the will of the committee?

261. 0:58:07

     Move to pass, Mr. Chairman.

262. 0:58:08

     I have a motion to pass.

263. 0:58:10

     Second.

264. 0:58:11

     I have a second.

265. 0:58:11

     I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman.

266. 0:58:13

     You have an amendment?

267. 0:58:14

     Yeah.

268. 0:58:14

     All right.

269. 0:58:15

     The proposed amendment, you know, in keeping with the testimony we've heard about accreditation and the preference of Secretary Collins with regard to accreditation, I would add... You're supporting Secretary, uh, Secretary Collins?

270. 0:58:28

     No, the, the state hand.

271. 0:58:30

     Okay, okay. I just, just checking.

272. 0:58:33

     Well-

273. 0:58:33

     I'll tell you what, I mean, it, the, we have on the record the VA secretary saying that he would prefer organizations be accredited. I think the committee should have the opportunity to vote on that. Line 79, I would add the words, after the word "shall," "be accredited," so the amendment is "be accredited by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs for that purpose, and," so I'll say the amendment one more time. After the word "shall" on line 79, "be accredited by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs for that purpose, and," and then that would preserve the syntax of the rest of subsection I.

274. 0:59:16

     And, uh, respectfully, Mr. Chairman, that's the amendment that I propose.

275. 0:59:19

     I'll second it.

276. 0:59:20

     Okay, I have a motion and a second on the... All right, first we gotta, um, vote on the underlying bill, and then we'll-

277. 0:59:28

     Uh, no, no-

278. 0:59:29

     No, no vote on the amendment. I'm sorry

279. 0:59:29

     ... no sir. Respectfully, vote on the amendment first. That's right.

280. 0:59:31

     All right. We have a motion and a second on amendment.

281. 0:59:35

     I have questions.

282. 0:59:37

     What's your question?

283. 0:59:38

     Mr. Chairman, the, I, th- this isn't a... With all respect, I would ask the chair, I don't perceive this to be a in stride amendment that we can just take up. This to me, I, I wanna understand, I wanna sh- understand the thrust of this. I, I need to understand the scope. This is, this is not a thing I really understand. I'd like to ask the author. I mean, uh, and I, and I don't, I don't begrudge the question. It's a fair question, but, uh, we need to understand this, this has potential to swallow the bill.

284. 1:00:08

     So I, I, I, could, could we hear the author speak on this, Mr. Chairman? Because I, at, at this point, I've-

285. 1:00:13

     At, at this point, I've-

286. 1:00:13

     He's not on the committee, no

287. 1:00:14

     ... I, he's not on the committee. I think we just need to keep moving forward.

288. 1:00:17

     No, need to vote on it.

289. 1:00:18

     I'll speak to it.

290. 1:00:20

     He made a motion.

291. 1:00:22

     Right.

292. 1:00:22

     Mm-hmm.

293. 1:00:22

     So it's business.

294. 1:00:23

     N- n- n- now we're, we're, now we're discussing the amendment.

295. 1:00:25

     Discussion.

296. 1:00:26

     Did you get a first-

297. 1:00:26

     Okay. Right now we got discussion on the amendment.

298. 1:00:29

     I did. Thank you.

299. 1:00:32

     Senator Still.

300. 1:00:34

     Through the study committee that many of us were on, um, about this, the, the conversation of accreditation came up frequently. Um, and through testimony today, through last year, there's two types of people who are advocates on this matter, those who are VSOs that do this on a voluntary basis, and those that do it to help work in a consultative role.

301. 1:01:06

     This bill is to put guardrails on consultants, not those that are directly filing the bill. The amendment, while well-intentioned, would number one, kill the, the, the work that these companies do. It would.

302. 1:01:26

     It guts the bill.

303. 1:01:27

     It guts the bill, number one. Number two- While we wanna celebrate what Secretary Collins is doing and that the number has dropped, that number will go up again one day. It will go down again one day.

304. 1:01:45

     Mm.

305. 1:01:46

     And we will go... And we cannot sit here and celebrate that, you know, we went from 139 days down to a couple of weeks. They're clearing the docket, but clearing the docket on claims does not mean that veterans are still getting the benefit level that they want.

306. 1:02:01

     Mm.

307. 1:02:01

     The consultants that do this work are some of the absolute top people in the country. They are veterans themselves, for the most part, that work and do this as an advocate. And as Chairman Setzler said, if they, if they do this and they want to charge, then they are limited. But what I know after case after case after case is that a no vote on this underlying bill takes away the guardrails and lets people like Will Spencer, my admin right down the hall, and thousands of others like him, who don't get the work that they need, the justice they need, the quality of package that they need from a VSO, try as they might, they may not be able to get it just right.

308. 1:02:49

     But for people who do this professionally, we are capping their fees, we have put penalties in place, and if we don't vote this bill the way it is, then predatory practices will continue. If we put Senator McLaurin's amendment on here, it will kill the underlying bill, and we're gonna go another year of predatory practices and another year of this not being done right. So I encourage y'all to please respectfully reject the, um, amendment as described.

309. 1:03:23

     Mr. Chair, I have one, one last thing. Um, we've heard that other states have, the bill has, um, o- been overturned because there were not, there were not, um, uh, this policy wasn't in place. So that will, this, not having the amendment will gut the bill eventually-

310. 1:03:47

     Y-

311. 1:03:47

     Whether it takes a year or two.

312. 1:03:48

     Well, the state that you're referencing in Louisiana, that suit was brought by, the plaintiff was an attorney named John B. Wells, a retired naval officer turned lawyer who represents military veterans trying to obtain benefits.

313. 1:04:03

     Okay.

314. 1:04:03

     He sued the bill because it cut into his ability to make a living. So w- we, we have to look at who the plaintiff is when these cases happen.

315. 1:04:15

     All right. Accreditation is needed, so we need to vote, Mr. Chair, so we can get out of here.

316. 1:04:19

     All right. We'll call, I'm gonna call the question on the amendment. Um- For those who are in favor of the amendment, raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six. Those opposed. One, two, three-

317. 1:04:41

     Four

318. 1:04:42

     ... four. I can count.

319. 1:04:44

     I'm helping you out, advancing the, fix the board.

320. 1:04:47

     Okay. So the amendment passes, so now we have a- an amended bill.

321. 1:04:51

     Mr. Chairman, do you have any more committee meetings scheduled?

322. 1:04:54

     No. No.

323. 1:04:54

     Do I have any more committee meetings scheduled? No. So I'd like to table this thing so we can-

324. 1:04:59

     Do you have anything?

325. 1:05:00

     This thing's going down to after the Senate journals.

326. 1:05:02

     Bill is fine. The bill is fine.

327. 1:05:02

     Do we have a vote? That's it. We, we, we, we will sign it tonight and we're out.

328. 1:05:06

     Now we're gonna go yes on it.

329. 1:05:07

     All right. Now the bill as amended, committee substitute, all those in favor raise your hand.

330. 1:05:15

     With the necessary changes?

331. 1:05:16

     Yes.

332. 1:05:17

     Yeah, we're gonna vote-

333. 1:05:17

     As a committee substitute. One, two, three, four, five, six. Wait. One, two, three, four-

334. 1:05:29

     Just keep, keep it left

335. 1:05:29

     ... five, six, seven, eight.

336. 1:05:30

     Keep it left.

337. 1:05:31

     All those opposed? One.

338. 1:05:35

     Okay.

339. 1:05:35

     Keep it left.

340. 1:05:35

     All right.

341. 1:05:36

     All right. Your bill passes as amended.

342. 1:05:39

     Yeah.

343. 1:05:39

     Now quickly, if you could run through-

344. 1:05:44

     Keep it left.

345. 1:05:46

     Keep it left

346. 1:05:46

     ... 632.

347. 1:05:50

     Yes.

348. 1:05:52

     And I mean, like, quickly.

349. 1:05:55

     You mean quickly, quickly. Okay. All right. All right. Thank you. Uh, House Bill 632, uh, simply clarifies an existing benefit. Uh, currently disabled veterans are exempt from certain occupational taxes, administrative, uh, regulatory fees associated with conducting a business. The ambiguity, however, in the current code has caused different interpretations across the state, resulting in some veterans missing out on this benefit. The bill makes, uh, the bill more clearly defines periods of war or armed conflict, and will make it easier for eligibility to be determined and exemptions processed more efficiently.

350. 1:06:35

     Uh, that's really the substance of the bill, Mr. Chairman, and we're happy to answer any questions. I've got, uh, Commissioner Patricia Ross here with Department of Veteran Services to, uh, speak to any specifics of the bill.

351. 1:06:46

     Well, since she is there, why don't you go ahead and speak to the specifics of the bill?

352. 1:06:50

     Yes, sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, and Chairman Bonner was exactly right. This does make it easier for our veterans to get that occupational tax exemption. The big, the big change is on line 30 to line 35. There was confusion when going to our probate, probate court judges to get this occupational tax waived because it said that you could only get it waived if you had, if you paid state income tax. That was never the intent of the bill.

353. 1:07:21

     The intent of the bill is that occupational tax exemption. So, uh, to Chairman Bonner's point, you know, we actually referred back to US Code for a definition of a veteran as well as wartime. Um, and so that is the big change as well as defining the process- Uh, which is coming through our department after that probate court judge to get us to sign a form to then get it filed with their tax commissioner, 'cause it was a confusing process, and different judges were interpreting this law differently, which is why we asked for the clarification.

354. 1:07:58

     So it is agency-sponsored legislation.

355. 1:08:00

     All right. Thank you. Any questions from the committee?

356. 1:08:04

     Motion to approve.

357. 1:08:06

     Uh- Second ... think it's the mo- appropriate time. Second.

358. 1:08:10

     Move to pass.

359. 1:08:10

     Second. Have a motion, and I have a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, si- signify by saying aye.

360. 1:08:17

     Aye.

361. 1:08:18

     All those opposed. It passes.

362. 1:08:21

     Yay.

363. 1:08:21

     Thank you.

364. 1:08:23

     Thank you.

365. 1:08:23

     And having no other business before this committee, we will call this committee adjourned. And, uh, before I adjourn, I just want to say thank you for the work on this committee. This is our last committee before the session ends. For the last two years, it's been a joy to work with y'all, each of y'all. And I love this committee because, um, I brag on this committee because- We're fun ... it's, it's, it, it, we're, we're passionate- We're fun ... but, but, but the focus is always there. Yep.

366. 1:08:49

     That's right.

367. 1:08:50

     Yes.

368. 1:08:50

     That's right.

369. 1:08:50

     It's not on us. It's on- Nothing ... it's there where it needs to be. And so I appreciate that going forward. Thank you, and we are adjourned.

370. 1:08:57

     Thank you.

371. 1:08:57

     Committee is adjourned.