June 30, 2026 · Military And Veterans Affairs · 7,519 words · 19 speakers · 85 segments
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. I am going to call this exciting meeting to order. Lots of energy in the room today. I love it. And so calling the Military and Veteran Affairs Committee to order. And before we begin, I want to make a quick statement on providing testimony in the hearing. We seek to protect the rights of all participants in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation on the critical issues facing California. All witnesses will be testifying in person and all testimony comments are limited to the bills at hand. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior and behavior that incites or threatens violence. And we have eight bills on file today. On consent, there are five. So on consent, we have HR 120, Alanis, SJR 14, Cabaldon, and SB 1188, Archuleta, and SJR 17, Choi. What did I miss? and SD892 Grove. And so we will start. I see an author here. Thank you for being here and on time.
Senator McNerney, SB1201, CalFresh Veterans Eligibility.
And just to clarify, because we don't have a quorum, we'll be moving forward as a subcommittee.
Begin when you ready Vice Chair Gonzalez and distinguished members of the committee I here to present SB 1201 the No Hungry Heroes Act. This is a feel-good bill. You all like it. HR1, back in Washington, created some cuts in food assistance. The federal cuts specifically impacted vulnerable veterans. Many veterans rely on CalFresh to feed their families. SB 1201 helps protect veterans from these cuts by directing the state to request waivers from HR1. SB 1201 also ensures that every veteran who applies for benefits is connected to a county veteran service officer. Today with me to testify is David West on behalf of the California Association of County Veteran Service Officers, and Josh Wright on behalf of the California Association of Food Banks. David?
Good afternoon, Chair, and members of the Assembly, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of Senate Bill 1201, the No Hungry Heroes Act. My name is David West, and I represent the California Association of County Veterans Services Officers. I'm also proud to serve those who serve our nation. Across California, County Veterans Services Officers work on the front lines with veterans and their families every day. We see firsthand the challenges many face as they transition from military to civilian life, especially when it comes to stable employment and access to basic needs like food. Recent federal changes to SNAP, known as CalFresh in California, have imposed strict work requirements and time limits do not reflect the realities that veterans face. These rules now apply to even veterans who are newly discharged, experiencing homelessness, awaiting disability determinations, or raising their children. As a result, many are at real risk of going hungry. SB1201 provides a thoughtful and a targeted solution. It directs the state to seek federal waivers to protect these vulnerable veterans, ensures that job search costs are not counted against them, and, critically, requires direct referrals to county veteran services officers when veterans apply for benefits. That connection is essential. Veteran services are often spread across multiple systems, making them difficult to navigate. CVSOs help bridge that gap, providing culturally competent, accredited assistance that connects veterans through the full range of benefits they have earned. Importantly, at the local level, most CVSOs are structurally housed within county departments of social services, and even in counties where they are not, they maintain strong, direct, collaborative relationships with those departments. This means that SB 1201 builds on existing infrastructure. It strengthens coordination rather than creating something new. Simply put, this bill meets veterans where they are, removes unnecessary barriers, and ensures that those who serve our country do not go without food while working to rebuild their civilian lives. We respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 1201. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair and members. Last year on July 4th, the federal government passed H.R. 1, which included the largest cuts to SNAP, known in California as CalFresh, in the program's history. It cannot be overstated how important the CalFresh program is. Over five million Californians rely on the food benefits they receive from CalFresh every month. And our food banks cannot make up the difference. For every meal that we provide, CalFresh provides nine. The federal cuts impact people who are particularly vulnerable to food insecurity, including abuse and trafficking survivors, families with children, former foster youth, and veterans. H.R. 1 added a time limit on veterans, which requires them to report 20 hours of work per week or lose benefits after three months. These requirements apply even if the veteran has children in their home, and there are no exemptions if the veteran is unhoused, has a less than 100% disability diagnosis, or is recently discharged. In California, an estimated 115,000 veteran families rely on the vital food benefits that CalFresh provides. Recognizing the unique challenges that veterans face after service, SB 1201 does three things. It requests a federal waiver to exempt veterans from the CalFresh time limits if they are homeless, newly discharged, awaiting a disability determination, or if they have children. Two, it requires counties to give veterans who apply for benefits a direct referral to county veteran service officers who are the best prepared to serve Americans who have served. And it ensures that the money that veterans spend on job searching does not count against them being able to receive food assistance. Taking away food never helps anyone find a job, keep a job, or get more hours at their job. And making veterans hungry will never make us a better country. The California Association of Food Banks has asked Congress to repeal HR1 cuts to veterans and their family. Until they do, the least that we can do is make sure that California is doing all it can to protect veterans most at risk of going hungry. And it's for these reasons that CFB is proud to support 1201, and we urge your aye vote.
Thank you. Is there any principal witnesses in opposition? Okay. Seeing none, do we have folks from the audience here in support? Your name, organization, and position.
David Kuda, I'm a retiree, representing VFW members of 90,000. I'm in support.
Good afternoon, Chair members. My name is Seth Reeve with Reeve Government Relations, representing here on behalf of the American Legion, Department of California, AMVETS, Department of California, the California State Commanders Veterans Council, Military Officers Association of America, and the Vietnam Veterans of America, all in support. Thank you.
Jeff Neal, representing the Board of Supervisors of San Diego County, also in support.
Great, thank you. And anyone in opposition from the audience? Seeing none, any questions from the dais? Vice chair. I want to be clear on something here. As the only veteran in the state assembly, there are things that people will tell me to go one way or the other. And usually it's a partisan thing, right? They want me to go far right or far left or whatever the case may be. And sometimes I have to watch my tongue because that's just how it is here. The reality of this bill is that the oath that I swore to defend was to protect my Marines. Period. My Marines means all service members, right? That's kind of how we roll. So as a leader sometimes we have to do the hard things and choose whether we want to be in a position of voting against something voting for something And that brings its own challenges So with this bill, there is no gap. There is no error in between. Take care of my Marines. Feed them. Hound them. Close them. That's my Marines, my Airmen, my Soldiers, my Sailors. Doesn't matter who's in charge. That is my top priority because I went to war with them. So I want to thank the author for this because it's absolutely something that we continue to keep on fighting for. On this committee is taking care of our veterans and our military families, no matter who's in charge. That's kind of one of the responsibilities. We are the sentinels of that on this diocese. And the great thing about it is a lot of times we don't make it about a partisan thing. It's just the right thing to do. So the right thing to do is take care of our service members and their families. So with that, I will be in full support of this when we vote.
Thank you, Vice Chair. I want to thank you for this bill. I think a lot of people don't realize that our veterans are on food stamps, that they're truly struggling with food insecurity. And after serving our country, it truly is, I think, the least we can do to make sure people have the food that they need. So, you know, grateful for you seeing a need and seeing how veterans could be slipping through the cracks and coming forward with a solution and grateful to the witnesses who are here today. With that, would you like to close?
Yes, I would. Thank you. Well, I want to thank Assemblymember and Vice Chair Gonzalez for your comments. The veterans' issues are really nonpartisan. and they're bipartisan, whatever you want to call it. And you're absolutely right, and I appreciate the committee and the chair for working on this to make sure that the veterans are taken care of. It's absolutely – my son is a veteran. My father and my father-in-law were both veterans from World War II, so I appreciate that and ask for an aye vote.
Thank you, and we're still a subcommittee, but when we have a quorum, we'll let you know.
Thank you.
Thank you so much. And I see Senator Cervantes here for SB 970.
Go ahead and get started when you're ready. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Today I'm presenting Senate Bill 970. In passing this bill, we would be honoring the legacy of our greatest generation who in World War II fought in theaters as far-flung as Saipan and Guam in the Pacific and in France and the rest of Western Europe, and nonetheless cast ballots in the 1944 presidential election. election. After the enactment of the Soldier Voting Act in 1944 and the introduction of a federal war ballot, nearly 2.5 million of U.S. Armed Service members deployed overseas cast their ballots. However, the logistical challenges in providing and returning ballots from service members deployed literally around the world amounted to only 25 percent voter participation rate This bill is personal to me as I had great uncles in the U Army who participated in the invasion of Normandy in June of 1944 In 1955 in response to the difficulties experienced during World War II, Congress created the Federal Voting Assistance Program to assist members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their families to vote when deployed overseas. In 1986, Congress followed up with the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986, which required states to allow military and overseas voters to vote by absentee ballot. During the Gulf War in 1990, FVAP initiated the Electronic Transmission Service, which permitted military voters to submit their ballots by fax to alleviate logistical issues posed by sending and returning ballots to and from the Middle East by mail. In 2009, Congress expanded the population of voters who could avail themselves of FVAP to include American citizens who are civilians living overseas through the enactment of the MOVE Act. In 2018, the Electronic Transmission Service was narrowed into the DOD Fax Service, which allowed military and overseas voters to submit their ballots using email to fax systems only if their home state did not accept documents by email. Unfortunately, in August of 2025, the federal government announced that FVAP would be discontinuing the DOD fax services. As we know now, in the 2024 presidential election and the last November statewide special election, many of these voters have logistical issues either receiving their mail ballots at all or submitting their ballots by mail in time to be counted. Indeed, just last several months, the Post Service announced that it would terminate mail service to several countries, including many where the U.S. military maintains bases. This means that Californians, expats, and members of the U.S. Armed Services and their families in these countries are literally unable to mail their ballots back. As of now, we have large numbers of American military personnel deployed overseas in the ongoing conflict with Iran. This is not a hypothetical problem. In 2024, the Brennan Center reported the story of a couple who are both members of the armed services deployed in Germany who mailed their ballots to the United States three weeks before Election Day. In the end, their voices were not heard because even though they sent their ballots back weeks in advance, they did not arrive in time to be processed and counted. This is not uncommon. The Department of Defense survey found that one in seven military voters did not receive a mail ballot in time to vote or did not receive a ballot at all. Just in the last couple months, the San Francisco Chronicle published a story about the obstacles military and overseas voters face in trying to cast their ballots. They spoke with civilian voters from San Mateo County living in Munich who had not received their ballots in time for the June primary. California must step up and ensure that military and overseas voters from our state retain the ability to exercise our sacred right to vote. This bill will accomplish that goal by requiring the Secretary of State to promulgate regulations allowing military and overseas voters to submit their ballots through a secure method. I do want to acknowledge that there are stakeholders, including the Secretary of State, who have expressed concerns about ensuring that the method of submission is secure. I do share everyone desire to ensure that military and overseas voters can cast their ballots in a way that maintains the essential integrity of our election systems and public faith in the results of our election So my team and I will continue having those conversations as we move forward with stakeholders and try to find a path forward that strikes a balance between security and improving our military members' lawfully registered right to access that ballot and to vote. I do want to acknowledge, though, that when I'm thinking of a soldier from California who might be serving in the green zone in Baghdad, where they may have taken fire from Iranian drones in the ongoing conflict, maybe they're a member from Riverside or a service member from San Diego. Unfortunately, because they are from California, it will be difficult for them to vote in the gubernatorial election come November. because the USPS has ended mail service to Iraq. On the other hand, if they have a friend in their platoon from Las Vegas who will still be able to vote because Nevada provides far more options for their military and overseas voters to cast their ballots. This is an equity issue, and I believe that we must do more to help provide military and overseas voters with the access to cast their ballot. With me to testify are the sponsors of our bill, which is the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. And actually, before your witnesses, if you don't mind, we'd love to get a quorum so we can actually vote. Madam Secretary, could you call the roll? Chiavo?
Here. Chiavo here.
Gonzalez? Here. Gonzalez here. Avila Farias? Carrillo? Davies?
Here. Davies here.
Irwin?
Here. Or one here.
Cork Silva?
Here. Cork Silva here.
And Malencia. Thank you. We have a quorum. And with that, your witnesses have two minutes. Go ahead when you're ready. Awesome. Thank you so much.
Good afternoon, Chair members of the committee. Larissa Mercado on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, a proud sponsor of SB 970. I want to first start off in thanking the Senator for bringing this bill forward. It's very important for us, and it's important that we do what we need to do for Milos voters overseas. It's important to note that the prime driver for this bill is due to the federal government's end to the Department of Defense's fax service. The Department of Defense had an access portal that allowed military and overseas voters to fax or email their ballots to the DOD's portal, and the department would then forward those ballots over to counties as faxes, since that's currently the only other way that counties can receive ballots beyond general vote-by-mail services. This service for counties was the simplest and cleanest and most direct route for military and overseas voters to provide a quick return of their ballots and is no longer accessible. As far as current process, counties across California do still maintain a vote-by-mail process that overseas voters can access, and under federal law, registrars can send out those specific ballots 15 days earlier than we send local voters. However, this does not ensure that they are able to successfully and efficiently return their ballots on time. In addition, existing fax processes for counties are very limited. Various counties across California only have a couple fax lines and have reported issues of busy signals, among others. Beyond county limitations, we cannot assume that military and overseas voters have access to fax machines. Our goal with this bill is to provide a secure access route, one that the Secretary of State can work with all stakeholders to ensure that it remains secure and remains private for the overseas voters. Our association is committed to working with the Secretary of State and all stakeholders. I would like to note that any solution here will not directly link to the voting systems. So when it comes to email security issues and questions, all other systems are completely separate and not impacted, meaning that there is no way that this solution that we come to will impact our certified, secured voting systems in California. Just this morning, just one little tidbit that I heard back from one of our registrars is that in Fresno County, they had to reject for this past June primary four Milos ballots because they were not received before the seven-day postmarking window. This includes one voter who sent their ballot back via mail on May 20th from Canada, and Fresno didn't receive it until June 12th, having to reject the ballot. To conclude, as stated, we are committed to work with the Secretary of State's office and all other parties to ensure there is a secure and effective process for military and overseas voters to return their ballots. Thank you for your time today, and when the time is right, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.
Okay. Any witnesses in opposition, primary witnesses? You have two minutes, and you can go ahead and start when you're ready. Thank you.
Madam Chair, members, Tim Cromartie on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley and Weber. We are not opposed to this measure. We have a neutral position. However, we have lingering concerns, significant concerns that we would like to get on the record. First, there is no question that those who don the uniform of our armed forces and are willing to place their physical safety and their very lives at risk deserve to have their right and their ability to vote absolutely protected. Our position on this legislation has never been driven by opposition to that concept. It is concern for the integrity of our election system in an era that is rife with cybersecurity threats and no improvement in that situation on the horizon. Despite the recent amendments, there has still been talk of at some point evoking electronic transmission as a possible solution. And with valid reason, given the time and the distances involved with military and overseas voters. SB 970 does not define what qualifies as a, quote, secure ballot return method, unquote, nor does it establish any specific requirements or standards, and it provides SOS discretion without clear guidance. This supports the argument for our previously submitted amendments for a task force which would provide that guidance. Today, we have consensus on both the existence of a problem regarding military and overseas voters and the need to take action in light of the defunding of the DOD FACTS program. that facilitated return of their ballots for those stationed overseas. What we do not have today is a consensus on what specific action to take to address the problem. The current version of the bill provides direction that is vague at best in terms of what regulations would look like. What we need, we believe, is a path to developing consensus among policymakers on what specific option to pursue to ensure military and overseas voters are not disenfranchised, and our amendments would provide that. the mechanism we propose is a task force with a public process of evaluating and weighing options, looking at best practices nationwide, bringing in cybersecurity experts from the private sector, academia, and government, involving representatives from the counties who are familiar with election returns as well as representatives of military and veterans organizations the speaker and the pro tem would also have appointees as well as the Secretary of State appointees It is not an open process It would be required to make a report to the legislature by the end of December 2027. And the reality is there will likely have to be an electronic solution of some kind. We acknowledge that. But before we overturn a statute protecting California's vote system and our 54 votes in the Electoral College from electronic tampering, We urge caution. We believe a prudent approach is to take time, study the problem in a deliberate fashion, identify best practices, looking at what other states are doing in this process and their degree of success, and if possible, develop solid consensus among policymakers in and out of the legislature on a specific course of action. We urge action, but action that is deliberate and thoughtful rather than by regulatory fiat. The integrity of future elections in California is an issue, and the state could not be higher. Thank you.
Thank you. Any people from, anyone from the public who would like to speak in support? All right, name, organization, and position. No problem.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members, Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of verified voting, we're kind of a tweener position. We were opposed to the bill in original language, and it was the wording of electronic transmission was deleted, but there's still discussion as if electronic transmission or return of ballots will be part of the regulations that are mandated, so that's concerning for us. And we do support kind of an interim step of identifying what the problem is and then matching the regulations to that. We think that interim step seems to be skipped in this, but we're willing to continue to discuss with the author and Secretary of State's office. We think identifying the problem needs to be just a little bit more specific before we get to mandated regulation. I should mention verified voters as nonpartisan election technology experts who we work with administrations federally, state, and local level for decades. Okay, thank you.
We'll take that as the second opposition witness. So everyone else, name, organization, and position. Thanks.
Mark Ysidra with the County of Los Angeles in support.
Thank you.
Jean Hurst here today on behalf
of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in support.
Emma Jungworth on behalf of the California State
Association of Counties in support.
Seth Reed with Reed, Government Relations, representing American Legion, Department of California, AMVETS Department of California, California State Commanders Veterans Council, Military Officers Association of America, and the Vietnam Veterans of America, all in support.
Thank you. Any members of the public in opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the dais for questions. Assemblymember Erwin.
Thank you, Senator, and appreciate the problem that you're trying to solve. I do apologize. I walked in a little bit late, but you had mentioned that you were talking about two situations, a soldier from California and then somebody from Phoenix. And can you explain that again? And what is the difference between what's happening in Arizona and what's happening in California? That was causing the delay.
Absolutely. through the chair. So there are currently 24 other states, including the District of Columbia, who allow their military and overseas voters multiple options on how to submit their ballot when they are overseas. But California does not. And that is surprising because California has been trying to expand voting as much as possible. So with that So we are currently disenfranchising all those military voters With that I move the bill Thank you Vice Chair Thank you to the author.
Thank you to the author. I just want to clarify some things that were said for my own clarity. If you'll indulge me as I walk through this process. And I think he just said it, but let me just go through this in my own brain. So this is not a federal issue. This is a state issue that can be corrected at the state. Is that what I just said?
It was because of a federal overturning that we are addressing this at a state level. But, yes, it is a state-by-state solution. So we can solve this at the state issue and no problem? We could address the issue at a state level.
Okay, great. And by the way, I'll get back to the Secretary of State at the end of this with your office to add some thoughts to this piece. So what I know is that the DOD fax service ended.
Right. No email to fax assistance. No ballot interception. Those are the things that were discontinued as someone who's voted overseas. I just want to separate the two pieces because it's veteran or military and then overseas members. There's actually, I would say, three factions, if you will. There's the military members, there's the diplomatic corps, and then there's someone, an expat living overseas, so on and so forth. So I can see the availability of the DOD member on a base or wherever, and I can see the availability in the diplomatic corps. the challenge I think is on the overseas side or the expat side, trying to vote with this fact service that's been ended by the DOD. Are we on the same sheet of music right now?
Hopefully. Okay, because I'm trying to understand it. So in this specific piece, I'm also looking at the FVAP is still, the portal is still active for military members.
Installation voting assistance is done. That's something that I did both in combat and on there. But I can, I also see your, I see the nuance of this, right, of what you're trying to say. My question here with respect to California is, if this is, it sounds like an easy fix, right, but nothing's that easy here, right? What is your end goal of all of your specific bill? Like, if you could summarize what that end goal is with respect to procedure. Yes, through the chair again. We have worked through a series of amendments where we did remove the concerning element of electronic from the language of the bill, given the security concerns that have been brought up by the secretary of state and other stakeholders. So we have left it into the hands of the secretary of state to help guide us in a solution. And now they're giving some pushback on it. What's your response to that? Because they're like, you know, hey, December is right around the corner. Would you be willing to push it out? Or do you think that this is like something that needs to be done right now? Where do you stand on that We are having ongoing conversations on a path forward We do not believe a task force is the path forward as it is more costly And I believe that is a direction that we are not looking at given not trying to add additional cost to our state at this point in time But we also believe that inaction is not a solution.
Okay. Thank you for that. And to the Secretary of State's office, your response to those?
Well, we don't believe that a task force necessarily has to be costly. The work of the task force, to a degree, can and should be done administratively. And we're willing to roll up our sleeves and try to figure that out to make it as cost effective as possible. The other thing that I would note is that the FVAP, before it was shut down, was actually criticized for focusing too much on civilians living overseas and not directing enough attention to the military voters because they were the ones who needed the assistance and the outreach. And part of the problem, one of the justifications was that the program was not doing enough to penetrate the military overseas community. And so they, in part, justified defunding it based on that because it seemed that the program was catering, doing two things, catering to the civilian overseas population and emphasizing something that in California is out now illegal, which is Internet voting. So I understand that, you know, it takes a lot to move this ship. But I also understand the author's intent here of trying to, let's just fix the problem. And it's because of that. I want to thank the author for your leadership in this. Honestly, one of the issues that we see is sometimes we don't have action. Sometimes it takes too long. So I appreciate your action and wanting to get this done, and I'm sure you'll work together to do all of that. And especially, this is a nuance. This is not something that people would be paying attention to. So I appreciate the fact that you're looking at these nuances. So it's because of that that I will fully be in support of you. And any help that you need on that, please feel free.
Thank you. Any other questions? You know, I want to thank you for bringing this forward. I know that we're having to try to invent new things, as some of the supports at the federal level just disappear before us. and, you know, appreciate the concerns brought by the Secretary of State, who is tasked with making sure we have secure and safe elections, and that we, you know, and so California, I think, is often in a situation of having to find that balance, or we endeavor to find that balance of making sure that we are balancing access and people's ability to vote with safety and security. And that's one of the reasons that it takes a while to count votes in California because we want to make sure as many votes are counted and that everyone has a chance to vote by 8 p.m. on election night and that we count all of those votes. And so, you know, so I think, you know, from the comments you heard, we want to find a solution here. I appreciate that the Secretary of State's office is trying to be, you know, creative with some solutions. You know, hopefully, and I think, you know, as you mentioned, mentioned, the task force could be administrative. It's something that with this bill passing, the Secretary of State's office could just choose to do. And, you know, looking at what other states are doing and other models makes a lot of sense to me too, but I don't think it has to be. I think that the, it seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, it seems like the author is really endeavoring to defer to the expertise and knowledge of the Secretary of State's office to guide this process and leaving a lot of openness and flexibility for that to happen. So I know a lot of conversations are still happening and we're hoping that you guys get to a kumbaya moment. But, you know, today I'll be recommending that it move forward with an I vote in the hopes that those conversations can continue as well. Would you like to close?
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the dialogue today with the committee membership. Again, this bill will help correct this inequity that we currently see and help provide military and overseas members, voters with more options to cast their ballot. And with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
And we have a motion. Motion. And a second. Okay. Okay. Moved by Irwin, second by the chair. No. Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. Got it figured out. Secretary, can you please call the roll? Senate Bill 970 by Senator Cervantes. Motion is due, passed, and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Chiavo? Aye. Chiavo, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Avila-Farias? Aye. Avila-Farias, aye. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Davies? Davies not voting. Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Corksilla? Aye. Corksilla, aye. Valencia? That's out with six votes, and we'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you. And last but not least, Senator Jones. Welcome. Please go ahead and get started. SB 1224. You can begin when you're ready. There we go. Thanks a lot. Appreciate that.
Good afternoon, Chairwoman, members. It's an honor to be back with the Assembly. I'm here today to present Senate Bill 1224, the California Emerging Therapies Research Partnership Act. I want to thank principal co-authors, Senator Wiener and Becker, and Assemblymember Lowenthal for their work on this issue. SB 1224 is a narrow research infrastructure bill intended to position California to compete for available federal research funding through the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health. Earlier this year, the federal government directed HARPA to make available at least $50 million in funding to states with qualifying emerging therapies and research programs. California is uniquely positioned to compete for those funds. The University of California system already has federally registered clinical trials underway at campuses including UCSF, UC San Diego, UCLA, UC Berkeley, and UC Davis. What California currently lacks is the statutory framework needed to apply for and receive the federal partnership funding. SB 1224 addresses that gap and will allow California research universities to continue their work in an important area with this new funding Importantly this bill does not spend general fund dollars The fund established would hold zero dollars unless and until the federal awards or other eligible non-general fund monies are received. Joining me today to speak in support of the bill is David Kuda, the state commander
for the VFW of California. Good afternoon, Chairperson Chiavo, committee members. I'm David Kuda. I'm a disabled Army retiree and a commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars for California. I thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of over 90,000 members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, its auxiliary, and the 1.6 million California veterans we serve. Today, I'm asking for your support for Senate Bill 1224 as the California Emerging Therapies Partnership Act enables funding for veterans suffering from PTSD, depression, opioid addiction, and other invisible wounds of war. This bill will enable funding that increases access to alternative and complementary treatment options and is critical importance as it affects people's lives. The reality is sobering. On average, more than 21 veterans die by suicide every day in America. Thousands more struggle silently with PTSD, depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and social isolation. While traditional treatments, such as counseling and medication, help many veterans, they do not work for everyone. This one-pill-fits-all approach has left a fatal legacy in its wake for these men and women who have borne the battle for this country and its citizens. Our veterans deserve access to every tool available to support their recovery. This is not asking to replace evidence-based medical treatment. We're asking for the mechanism for funding that will allow the California Medical Research Hospitals and their partners to expand access to alternative therapies that have shown promise in improving mental health outcomes and reducing suicide risk. When a veteran reaches a point of crisis, we owe them more than one path to healing. We owe them options. We owe them hope. The cost of inaction is simply too high. Every veteran lost to suicide is a son, daughter, husband, wife, parent, friend, or battle buddy whose life mattered. As an Army veteran, I've lost too many friends that fought a war, yet decided the mental health battle was too great and took their life to escape that reality. As leaders, we have an opportunity to support innovative solutions and provide veterans with the resources they need to heal, investing in alternative PTSD treatments and investment in saving lives to help veterans reconnect with their families, communities, and a sense of purpose. I respectfully ask for your support in Senate Bill 1224 to enable access to funding for the continued research of therapies that can help us save our veterans who have sacrificed so much for our nation. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. Any principal witnesses in opposition? and members of the public in support. Thank you.
Cody Boyles on behalf of Vet Fund Foundation. I'm also was asked to register support for the California Association of County Veteran Service Officers. Thank you.
Madam Chair and members, Anthony Molina, on behalf of Heroic Hearts Project and Healing Breakthrough in support. Thank you.
Seth Reeve with Reeve Government Relations, representing American Legion, Department of California, AMVETS Department of California, the California State Commanders Veterans Council, Military Officers Association of America, and the Vietnam Veterans of America, all in support. Thank you.
Thank you. Any members of the public in opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions? Vice Chair?
Senator, thank you for this bill. I worked on a similar bill with Assemblyman Ollenthal about this and I asked your office to be a co They said, you know, I had to wait my turn because so many people wanted to join. But, yes, you're absolutely correct. A lot of people don't understand when it comes to therapies, modalities for veterans specifically. I went through what was known as Wounded Warrior Battalion, and at Wounded Warrior Battalion, you know, you start off with pills and then they try to give you 10 different routes. And, you know, at first it's kind of funny. Like, why would I want to go through this? But honestly, you know, woodturning, therapy with gardening and a whole bunch of other different things, honestly, those are some of the things that saved my life outside of the traditional let me just give you a pill. As the potential 11th member of my 10 Marines who died by suicide, I was looking for that way out. How do you figure it out? So I have specifically had members that I have served with that have done this outside of this country and it has saved their life, saved their life. So whatever we have to do to save the lives of our veterans, I think we're all on board for something like that. So I wanna thank you for your leadership. Thank you for your leadership and you'll find my full support.
Thank you. Any other questions from the dais? Yes. Assemblyman.
I just want to say thank you as well, and I'd be honored to be a co-author. Thank you. I don't know if I've waited my time.
We'll reopen the list. We're glad to have you on as co-authors. Thank you very much. So thank you so much. I know there's been different iterations of this bill, and appreciate the creativity in really trying to address a critical and dire need in our veteran community. I just want to make sure we get on the record. My understanding is that you have agreed to take amendments before you reach the Senate, deleting the Department of Health Care Services, ensuring clinicians or researchers on the Cal Vet Advisory Council have no conflicts of interest, a requirement that CalVet must use current resources for administration of the Advisory Council and that work with CalVet and other departments to ensure the timelines are within their ability.
Yes, absolutely. Okay, thank you.
Thank you. You know, certainly we've heard from a number of veterans who have had to go outside of the country for this kind of treatment. And we know that, you know, being able to ensure that this is something we can do safely is a critical path forward for our veterans. And with that, do we have a motion? By the chair or vice chair and second?
Davies, thank you.
And would you like to close?
I'll just close by saying thank you. I want to thank both this committee and the Assembly Health Committee for taking a leadership role on this issue. Both committees have been very helpful in taking care of this. And I appreciate the comments also in support of the research. And I just want to share with all of us that this is a beginning step, a very elementary step. We have a lot of work to do legislatively, policy-wise, after this research is completed. but I am very encouraged by the comments saying, Madam Chair, thank you very much for your help.
Appreciate you and your support Thank you Thank you And with that Madam Secretary will we call the roll Senate Bill 1224 by Senator Jones
The motion is due passed and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Chiavo? Aye. Chiavo, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Davies? Davies, aye. Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Quirk Silva? Aye. Quirk Silva, aye. Valencia? Valencia, yes.
That has eight votes. That's out. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. And we will do a round of votes, starting with... Oh. So first for the consent calendar,
HR 120 Alanese, HR 892 Grove, or sorry, SB 892 Grove, SB 1188 Archuleta, SJR 14, Kabaldon, and SJR 17, Choi. Madam Secretary, could you please call the roll?
Do we have a motion? Sorry, motion and a second.
Davies, motion by second.
And Vice Chair, with a second. Got it. Call the roll, please.
On consent, we have H.R. 120. Motion is to be adopted to consent calendar. Senate Bill 892 by Senator Grove. Motion is due passed and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Senate Bill 1188 by Senator Archuleta. Motion is due passed and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. at SJR 14 by Senator Cobaldon. Motion is to be adopted to consent calendar. SJR 17 by Senator Choi. Motion is to be adopted to consent calendar. Chiavo? Aye. Chiavo, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Davies? Davies, aye. Irwin? Irwin, aye. Quirk Silva? Aye. Quirk Silva, aye. Valencia? Yes. Valencia, yes.
That's out with eight votes. And one more vote, Assemblymember. We still needed to vote on Senator McNerney's SB1201. Is there a motion?
A motion. Okay. Motion by Quirk-Silva, second by Carrillo,
and Madam Secretary, would you please call the roll?
Senate Bill 1201 by Senator McNerney. Motion is due pass and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Chavo? Aye. Chavo, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Avila-Farias? Aye. Avila-Farias, aye. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Quirk-Silva? Aye. Quirk-Silva, aye. Valencia? Yes. Valencia, yes. No.
That's out with eight votes. And we are going to do add-ons now for SB 970 Cervantes. Madam Secretary.
Senate Bill 970 by Senator Cervantes. The motion is due passed and we're referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Valencia? Valencia, yes.
Okay, so that one is now out with seven votes. And with that, we will conclude our committee. Thank you. Thank you.