Joint Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs

We're going to go ahead and get started. If you would out in the gallery take your seats if you're gonna speak for or against the bill, make sure you've signed up. I would just ask. If you're speaking for or against the bill that if you've had somebody and you've heard the same thing about 3 or 4 times. We've got a pretty good memory up here. We don't necessarily need to hear a 5th, 6th, or 7th time. And, and so there's a committee that's going to start meeting right after we're finished as well, so please be cognizant of that, otherwise, please come up and voice your concerns or your support or whatever it may be. Representative Painter. Are you ready? With the committee's permission, we're going to start out of order. This will give some people a little more time to come over and run some of their bills. The first bill that we have, Representative Painter is. HB 1498. Are you ready? Yes, Mr. Chair, you have permission to ring up whoever you want to bring up, uh, Paul Hart, Representative Stetson Painter Baxter County District and Fulton County District 3. Would you introduce yourself, sir? Retired Colonel Paul Harra, CEO of the Arkansas Post Exchange, you recognize your bill. So HB 1498 is uh bill regarding our military type canteen and exchanges and with that, I'm gonna let Mr. Paul, uh, kind of go into the details of what this bill actually does. Ladies gentlemen, fundamentally an effort to try to create the post exchange in a way that gives it parity to the Army Air Force exchange system. uh, they formerly operated out of Chaffee as an example, and when that facility turned over to the state, uh, they were no longer willing to support or able to support the Arkansas National Guard. So the Arkansas Post Exchange, the MWR at Camp Robinson, headquartered out of Camp Robinson has bridged that gap thanks to the legislators in this room who have created a law that allows us to create an AES-like organization under Arkansas state law. Um, and these are just cleanup efforts in the law to make sure that we have the same opportunity to serve our soldiers and airmen in the same way that AES does, uh, AES is not, like I said, willing to operate and exchange in for example the Jones uh Jonesboro Armory, uh, at Fort Jaffe at Ebbing as all the changes happened there, uh, and that's where we fall in, uh, in filling those gaps. So these are just cleanups in the law to make sure we have the ability to do the same kind of things AES does, uh, for our veteran community here in Arkansas. Now I also want to add to, uh, This is even a better bill because there is no fiscal impact. So, Mr. Chair, with that, I'll be glad to take any questions from the committee. Committee, do we have any questions? Yes, Carolyn. Just Hello, Colonel, um, Hara, um. So, so athes is not gonna be running the exchange on Camp Robinson. Uh, no, ma'am, not at all. We, we have a, I'm a CEO I'm a, I'm not a state employee, but I, I work for the organization, uh, that is a nonprofit that works on behalf of the adjutant general to operate that system for the Arkansas National Thank you. I read the bill earlier today and that was just a question that came to mind. Thank you. Committee, we have any other questions? Is there anybody signed up to speak for or against? We don't have anybody signed up to speak for guest, Representative Painter, you recognize the clothes for your bill. I'm close, Mr. Chair, and I would appreciate a good vote and as a privileged member of this committee, I'd like to make a motion to pass. We have a motion to pass. Is there any discussion? OK, we do need a second on that. Do we have a second? OK, we got a second. Any discussion. Seeing no discussion, all in favor say aye. Any opposed? Yeah I have it. Congratulations, you may continue with your next bill. Thank you, uh, with the chair's permission, I would like to uh have Colonel Wood up here. Yes. Colonel Wood, if you would introduce yourself, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. uh, Jeff Wood, Department of the military. a representative Stetson painter again, District 3, Baxter and Fulton Counties, um, with last time we heard this bill in committee, uh, some of you, uh, committee members had some concerns and so we took those down and and it did exactly what you wanted us to do. We took out the phrase organized militia and used Arkansas National Guard throughout the bill. Excuse me just a minute. This is HB 1515, correct? HB 1515. I apologize. Uh, we took out the word all and used the word part, so that doesn't see uh say the entire. National Guard may be called up. Uh, we took out vague, uh, any matter or without limitation from, uh, Senator Payton, I think raised that concern, uh, if I remember correctly, language as it's related to military justice inside of the code sections below and listed categories of individuals by roles that could be called up. We limited it further by stating that Title 32 orders must not be available, and the code sections are referenced are, um, and I can go into the details, but, uh, I will save that, uh, Colonel Wood, if you wanna add anything. Thank you. Yeah, I would definitely say that we addressed every concern from the last committee and did an amendment to address each one of them and happy to answer any questions. And, and with that too, uh, I think Representative Meeks wanted us to clarify to make sure it says paid status that is in that bill as well. We also limited, uh, the language related to critical shortages. We also took out the reference to commanding general as an individual who could call individuals to duty and it was unnecessary to list the commanding general and the adjutant general. I think one of the senators made a mention of that. be glad to take any questions. Committee, is there any questions? Seeing no questions, is there anybody signed up to speak for? We don't have anybody signed up to speak for or against. Represent Pater, you're recognized clothes for your bill? I'm closed and I would make a motion to pass. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion. Seeing those discussion, all in favor say aye. Any opposed? Congratulations, your bill passed. You may continue to HB 1526. Thank you, Representative Stetson Painter, District 3, Baxter and Fulton Counties, uh, Colonel Wood is right here with me. HB 1526, uh, again, it's another, uh, bill that we had in the committee last time, uh, some of the committee members raised concerns, so we removed anything that related to dust domestic operations and focused on recruiting and retention. We removed the Without limitations language, which Senator Peyton, uh, wanted. We remember the language related to gifts. We also added the language that mirrors language in Arkansas code 19-11-265 related to the reporting and review contracts, so partnership agreements with a value of 10,000 to under 50,000 will be reported to ALC and then agreements over 50,000 will be submitted for review by ALC and with uh Colonel Wood, be glad if you need, OK? If not, we'll be glad to take any questions. OK, Representative Peyton. Recognize Thank you, Mr. Chair. So is it review and approval by ALC or just review? Senator, on the, on the one is is set up just like for contracts, so anything over 50,000 will require review, just not reporting and anything under will just be, um, reported, uh, the value between 100 and 50,000 we reported in value over 50 will be required review before we can execute on it. OK, so that would be approval, review and approval, I would assume. Yes, reviewing, yes, senator. OK, well, for the record, we'll go with review and approval. Thank you. Committee, any other questions? Seeing none, represent painter, you're recognized clothes for your bill. I'm sorry, I'm closed and I'm making a motion to pass. We got a motion. And a second Any discussion All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Congratulations represent Painter, your bill is passed and you recognize present your next bill. Thank you. I promise, committee, this is my last bill. Uh, this HB 1638 is to add Space Force to our code, uh, so may the force be with you, um, yeah, I, I figured we might need that way it's uh the sessions going, uh, so this is going to be as comprehensive housekeeping measure designated designed to ensure that United States Space Force is treated equally. with our other military branches in Arkansas law to minimize disruptions and benefits and services to for eligible service members and dependents by clearly defining armed forces. This bill does not create new programs or benefits, but insures inclusion and eligibility for existing ones. Uh, again, the purpose of HB 1638 is to modernize the language in Arkansas law by formally including the United States Space Force and all references to the US armed forces and uniformed services across various states. statutes, it clarifies that this bill changes are intended to align with state and federal definitions as of January 1, 2025. It also introduces or updates definitions of the United States armed forces or uniformed services to to include Space Force. This bill seeks to insure members and veterans of the United States Space Force are eligible for the same state programs, benefits, and legal protections as other military branches amends over 50 Arkansas code sections, uh, to add the United States Space Force along the other branches like Army, Navy, Air Force, the Marine Corps and Coast Guard. And with that, I'd be, uh, Colonel Wood. Just, just one comment, I think we're only aware of 11 veteran from Space Force, I guess, moved here and tried to request a license plate, uh, Space Force is only about 4 or 5 years old, so most of the folks that they used to stand up Space Force were transferred for other branches and so DOD is wanting states to adopt this so that folks when they go to get benefits, they're, you know, that that, it makes it clear that Space Force is a recognized branch and they can get the same services. Happy to answer your questions. Ready for questions? OK, Representative Meeks you recognize. There we go. All right. Uh, I, I think I know the answer based upon what your testimony was, uh, as of right now, we don't have any active space force, uh, within the state. Is that correct? That is correct. And, uh, we passing this maybe help, uh, enticed Space Force to come to Arkansas potentially. This is one of the things that it's a DOD that's the one that's asking us to do this. So they kind of grade states on how military friendly they are and so I think having this already in the statute, if we were to, uh, you know, potentially go after a Space Force guard unit or with, uh, you know, military foreign sales like ebbing and things like that, the more, you know, uh, progressively well I'm putting this language in, the more attractive we'll be. All right. Thank you. Senator Dodson, you're recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just wondering, um, how does our Arkansas Air National Guard feel about potentially having somebody that might fly higher than they do in Arkansas. Being an army guy, I can tell you they probably don't like it because they don't like us much either, so, and, and, and the Marines, how do they feel about this? What is Space Force Ask and answered. Thank you. Any other questions committee? Sing Nan, represent a painter, you recognize close. I'm closed and I make a motion to pass. We have a motion to pass. We have a second. Any discussion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor say aye. Any opposed. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. All right, now committee, we're gonna roll back up to uh HB 1423, which is representative Cozart. And Senator Wallace, you're gonna come with him? All right. Yeah, Representative Cozart, if, uh, when you get ready, if you've introduced yourself, Senator Wallace, you also, and then you have permission to ask anybody you want to be with you to speak if they'll recognize themselves as well. And your ready to present your bill you recognize. All right, Mr. Chair, I'm, uh, Representative Bruce Cozart, District 91, Garland County. Or district, uh, 19 state center and it's been my experience with Marines that if you throw them a box of crayons, they stay pretty happy. Anyway, on that you've got to make sure at least half of them are red though. Don't, don't feed us that yellow stuff. Recognized. I'm Will Beams from Hot Springs, Arkansas. All right, thank you for being here. Go ahead, Representative Cozart. All right, Mr. Chair, we're here to, um, Try to protect our veterans is the best thing I could say. I Thought when uh Will and I talked about a year ago about this bill. I didn't realize it would be so complicated and, and it is, um. We, um Talked about it. We had uh some legislation last year, didn't get it filed. Uh, I went to a national conference of legislatures, legislators, and met a group there that also was pushing the same thing to guard vets and uh to guard our vets from the people that are taking their money when they're filing their, uh, benefits and the things that they have to do and I, I'm not a vet, so I couldn't tell you what all the things you have to file. I'm gonna let uh, Mr. names describe that here in a minute, but As I started doing this bill, which I started on the 2nd week of the session and I got with uh Senator Wallace, and we talked about it and he said he was willing to sponsor after we got some legislation we looked at it, he said he would sponsor it. It's been a continual fight ever since uh people trying to want us to mend this bill, change this bill, make it work, it was almost just not a, not a bill. Water it down so much and I mean it's that, that's, I'm not saying that's bad. I'm just saying. And that's not what I wanted. That's not what we wanted to do. We wanted to keep it pretty plain. There's a movement across the the states of trying to fix this, and that's what I've got Will here for. He's the one that knows that. He's the one that does that. He's the one that travels, so I'm gonna, I'm gonna kind of give you a brief of what he does or who he is. So Will Beams is a Desert Storm veteran and a 33 year legacy life member of the VFW and has earned a title of Triple C commander. He currently serves in the VFW National. Legislative committee and as a state legislative chairman for the VFW Department of Arkansas. His is two term past president of Arkansas Veterans Coalition and the 2000 and from 2018 to 2022 and a founding member of the coalition of Legislative Committee. So now let, uh, Will Beams really introduce himself. You recognize, sir? Uh, thank you very much for letting us be here today. Uh, chairpersons, esteemed legislators, and concerned veterans advocates. I come to you today to speak in support of HB 1423 co-sponsored by Representative Cozart and Senator Wallace. HB 1423 does one simple thing. It makes the federal laws regarding assisting veterans, family members and survivors with filing military service connected VA disability claims, Arkansas law. And makes violating this law punishable under the Arkansas Fair Trade Practices Act. The law is necessary for several reasons. Veterans were previously fully protected by federal law until 2006 when Congress severed the Title 18 penalties from 38 USC to facilitate more veterans utilizing the filing process. 38 USC chapter 59 requirements for individuals and organizations, accreditation requirements for assisting a veteran with filing a disability claim. These standards remain in effect today with no mechanism for protecting veterans from predatory practices. 38 USC is clear paragraph 5901 states no individual may act as an agent, attorney, or attorney in the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of any claim under laws administered by the secretary of the VA. Unless such individual has been recognized for such purposes by the secretary. Recognition is accreditation. And in 5902, No individual shall be recognized under this section unless the individual has certified to the secretary that no fee or compensation of any nature will be charged in the individual for services rendered in connection with any claims. And unless with respect to each claim such individual has filed with the secretary a power of attorney executed in such manner as for and form as the secretary may prescribe. 5904 is where the rubber meets the road. Individuals must show that an individual is of good moral character and in good repute and is qualified to render claimants valuable service and is otherwise competent to assist claimants in presenting claims. They must have such level of experience or specialized training as a secretary shall specify. They must certify to the secretary that the individual has satisfied any qualifications and standards prescribed by the secretary under this section. Thus ensuring accountability under the law for adherents to standards of conduct. It goes on to specify that no fees may be charged for initial claim filings and that a fee equal to 20% of unpaid benefits may be assessed for assistance with filing an appeal to an unfavorable decision with an initial claim. Claimed sharks are unaccredited agents operating outside of the purview of VA guidelines. Having turned an otherwise free service for helping veterans acquire their earned benefits into a for-profit industry. Which leaves veterans vulnerable and without recourse when victimized by predatory predatory practices. These unaccredited agents generate hundreds of millions of dollars in profits each year, enabling them to hire professional lobbyists to advocate for their interests. It falls to nonprofit VSOs like the VFW, American Legion, Purple Hearts, Marine Corps League and the DAV to advocate for needed protection and filings for veterans' disability benefits. Institution of HP 1423 will create accountability for any individual acting as an agent or attorney in the preparation presentation or prosecution of any claim for a veteran family, or their survivors. One must wonder why claim shark's avoid accreditation with VA. Accreditation is free. Available to any organization or individual. And grants the ability to act on behalf of a veteran directly with VA in claims and appeals. And gives agents direct access to all medical records for justifying a claim. Accredited agents are required to receive annual continual education to ensure the most up to-date policies and procedures are available to veterans. The only reason To not get accreditation. is to avoid accountability in the amount they charge veterans. In some cases claimed sharks will charge a veteran 5 to 10 months. Of disability payments for simply completing paperwork. Veterans must still do all the legwork and obtain necessary medical records on their own, file claims themselves with the VA and provide similar fees for future increases in benefits to their claim sharks in perpetuity, which is prohibited under 38 USC. You cut me short, OK, brevity. OK. Uh Now, let's see, where can I leave off here they're gonna ask you questions. All right let's just let them, let, let me hit this, this one thing because I want to bring it up. Opponents of 1423 are gonna claim that the bill will prevent veterans from having the freedom to choose whoever they want to help them file their claim. Thus limiting who they can go to. This is not true. There is no penalty for veterans in seeking who they want. They're free to use whoever they want. Veterans had the absolute right to choose whoever they want to help them file their claim, and they'll continue to. Arkansas requires builders and contractors to register and obtain a license with the state. This protects Arkansas from predatory and unfair practices and provides a recourse for customers when their provider acts unethically. Some will choose reputable contractors. But some will choose Chuck in a truck. As is their right. Veterans are still going to choose anyone they want to help them in filing except passing HB 143 will now allow a recourse for veterans to hold bad actors accountable under the law. I'm gonna wrap up there and just say that I urge you to pass this uh bill today with a vote of due pass, and I remain uh prepared to answer any questions or for any rebuttal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members This is a tough. Bill. I am convinced of one thing, there's not a Person in this room right now, all my fellow veterans. All of you That We all want only one thing and that's to take care of our veteran. The problem we have. I, there's a lot of good organizations out there. Uh, that are helping. Our veterans. American Legion VFW. And some others, uh, that, that church are helping as well. But There are predators out there that Take advantage of our veterans and they don't wear a sign that says I'm a predator. Um, some of our veterans come out with college degrees. Members, we have a lot of veterans. That might not even have a GED. And then the army or the, the military ranks people in 4 categories, category. One a To be, I think 3 and then category 4. We have a lot of kids that were good soldiers and good marines that were probably cat forts and they're not going to be the sharpest drawer. Knife in the drawer. And They are predators that are seeking them out. Now we've got to figure out. who the good guy is and who the bad guy is. And, and that's what you all are faced with and with that I'll, I'll be quiet. Mr. Chair, I just got a couple of other things to say. Most veterans checks are anywhere from $5000 to $4000 a month. So you imagine you've got somebody coming in and taking part of that check away from a veteran. Or are approved for 100% disability would receive about $3800 a month. A consultant of that might charge up to $19,000 to that veteran to get his benefits for him. That could happen. You could have, you could have also some of them that might hold that, uh. Registration that you're doing it for a few months to get that more back pay up so they could make more money so it's happened. I'm not saying that's what they do, but that has happened and is listed on all the stuff I've read, I've found all kinds of things that happen. All we're asking is for people that want to do this that want to help them is to get the certification and just that's all we got to do. I mean, there's no reason that they can't do it. They're gonna have a limit of, of a certain percentage that they can charge to do that, and that's fine. We're not trying to take away that they. Can, can't make money. I mean, I make money when I go out and contract. I mean, most of you guys make money when you work on your jobs. I think that's what you've got to do, so that's what we're, uh, trying to do, um. By not passing this, this could reflect a little bit negatively on the governor's operation home base, uh, I don't really know what that is, that's something that Will just handed me, so, uh. Uh, that's, I'm gonna leave it with that and we'll try to answer the questions that you have. Representative Meeks, you got a question? You recognized. Uh, so, uh, two quick questions. First off, I'm gonna try to summarize all this. So, uh, my dad's a veteran, and if I want to help him receive some of these benefits as long as I'm not getting compensation, I can help them or anybody else can, can help them as long as they're not getting compensation. But if I'm seeking to be paid because I'm an expert in this area. I can only do so under this if I have become accredited for it, and then the amount of payment is going to be based upon a a. set standard. Is that a correct summary of what we're doing here. That's correct opposite opposite. Well, I'm gonna let him answer that. I would think that was what we were summarizing you recognize the summary says that it, this law, the veteran can see whoever they want. Accredited agents are better at handling these because they have direct access. They are forbidden by federal law for charging for an initial claim and can only take 20% of any claim on a, um. Uh, appeal. Anybody else that operates outside of those standards if they're charging more. is violating the law. Anybody can help a veteran for free. OK, that, that, that's why I'm having. So if I'm helping my family member, I'm not going to be in violation of this. All right. OK. Uh, uh, the last question is, uh, assuming this gets passed, um, is there a, a website, a place where there's a list of these accredited agents. So if I've got a veteran who is interested in seeking help, we can go to this location and they can say, you know, it, it, it is this group or organization actually accredited or not? Kind of like uh, you know, better, better business bureau or whatnot. VA.gov, VA.gov. There you go. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Payton. You have a question? You recognized Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thought I heard one of y'all say that this creates a course of action. Are you saying that there's currently no course for civil action if a veteran's been defrauded by one of these. People helping him? Civilly, yes, Criminally, no. 34 Not really sure what we're saying there. With the defrauding and then guard in parentheses. VA Benefits Act, but I mean, if there's people out there defrauding veterans, it seems to me like there should be a course of action. And I, I'm, I'm trying to fan them while y'all think there's not a course of action. There used to be. It was it tied chapter 38 or yeah, 38 USC to, uh, 18 USC which is criminal penalties. They severed that in 2006, and there's a huge push both federally and in many other states to reattach that. States we're asking states to make this regulation part of their law. And here in Arkansas, we want people to be able to prosecute criminally. For what they do. If they do this, uh, Senator Payton, it's a class A misdemeanor as well, and when you say this, let's be clear, we're not saying somebody that defrauds a veteran. Is a class A misdemeanor we're saying somebody that charged for the service, whether they defrauded or not. Whether they charge it or not. No, this bill makes it illegal to charge for the service. Regardless of whether you're doing a good job or a bad job, you're gonna be. A Class A misdemeanor for charging for the service, not for doing a bad job, not for defrauding them. If you're not accredited. Right. Yes. But what I'm saying is to defraud somebody right now, there's a civil and criminal course of action, unfair trade practices law. And uh You know, breach of contract. I mean, there's a, there's a lot of laws that deal with contractual. Situations, I would assume that these people that are charging the veterans for their service have a contract. That's the veteran science. That's You're correct. According to the federal law now, which, which we're presuming we just follow here in Arkansas. It's illegal to enter into a contract for pay outside of what the VA and the federal law currently dictates. So You can't help anybody, you can't charge for your initial claim, and you can't claim more than 20% of what their benefits are. As long as you stay within those areas, you're free and clear. I actually know a veteran who was quite happy. He went to a claim shark and he paid $40,000 to that claim shark to get $160,000 settlement. He's happy as a clam. Then why do you call that shot? He's not gonna file a complaints. He's not gonna file a complaint. But your veterans who are suffering from PTSD and are having trouble working and getting by and making money, who don't know that these services are available to them who get taken taken advantage of by a claim shark are gonna suffer greatly, and they have no recourse except to take someone to civil court, which they're already not going to be inclined to do. Making this illegal under law allows them to make a criminal penalty, which can be prosecuted for them and protect that veteran. I appreciate your position. It seems to me like you wanna make them. War to the state and the state to watch out for them instead of them being adults that can enter into contractual relationships. Not at all. If that were the case, we wouldn't have an Arkansas Department of Veterans Affairs. Thank you. Senator Hammer, I believe you had a question. You recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm just kind of seeing it from my point of view based on the explanation, everything, um, what you're trying to do is block out the, uh, sharks, as you called them. From being able to take advantage of veterans by requiring that those that do help veterans have to be certified. Is that, is that correct? Ideally, yes. OK. So Without this legislation, If a veteran is taking advantage of, how many of them can actually afford to go and seek civil action against someone. Based on the limited income that they would have because it seems to me like you're trying to be preventive. So that that doesn't become the case, or am I That is, that is a completely accurate observation. That's exactly what I would say because, like I said, some of them make $500 a month. And if they're taken advantage of, they're not gonna have the money to go to court, so they're just gonna let it ride or just go away. Senator Walsh. Ask you a question. Mm Once again, Once again, The, the person we've really got to protect is that young veteran. Poorly educated. And he's gonna be the the victim for the most part. In Um I respect you as much as any veteran I know. Thank you. And And Is this OK? In your opinion, is this bill going to be OK? If it gets through to do what it's intended to do. I think this bill's a start. It's a start in the right direction or the wrong direction. I think it's a start in the right direction. And I say that because right now, our veterans are in the wilderness. There, there are, there are some people charging veterans that are really helping them. I don't, I don't deny that. And and and it's not the VFW. It's not the American Legion. But there are others that are pure predators, and we've got To build a box to start to identify the good guys from the bad guys. All right, and specifically. What does this bill do just in short terms because I've tried to listen to everything, but in short terms, What is this bill do then to build that box just in real short terms. I, I think, and I'm gonna ask for some help here, but I think the fact that we're going to have folks. Um, become accredited. It is a step in the right direction. OK. That's all I need to hear. Thank you. Senator Dodson, you got a question? Recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So This takes away. Any of the ability of the good actors to help veterans for compensation. Unless they are. Accredited Or through this process. Is that, I think I've listened back and forth, sir. It doesn't take away their ability to earn, but it does set limits on it based on the federal standard. Well, don't they already have those limits, limits are there that we did. The, the limits are there under federal law. However, federally, there's no criminal punishment. The only way that we can act to help veterans is to, to do this where Congress has failed and make it law here in Arkansas. That's why, that's why this bill was brought before you because Congress wasn't able to do it. We have the power to here in Arkansas. So If they are still within those limits. Whatever those federal limits are, the 20% or the uh Not charging for the initial but the appeal. Um In those instances, someone who is not accredited can still charge? Because I mean this This seems to me like it's, I, I understand we're trying to catch the bad actors, the, and that's, that's half the laws that get passed are to try to address the bad actors. The problem with it is, You catch all the good actors, and you never do catch the bad actors with some, some loss. So if someone is acting in good faith and they take care of the veterans similar to the person that I mentioned that got $160,000 claim. It's not gonna be a complaint. There's not gonna be any recourse. They're happy with what they got. And there'll still be illegal though. If this passes, it's illegal to go work on someone's house unless you're a licensed contractor too, but it happens every day. Well, what we want to do is make sure that there's recourse for those that were Preyed upon and that they do have a way to Uh Have somebody represent them when they are. Uh a victim. We have the responsibility not to make good actors criminals. This will not make good actors because they happen to. You know Make somebody happy while they're breaking the law. And there's no complaint. But they're still violating the law. I don't, I, what I think the good people are not gonna violate the law, and I think most people that are trying to do it right would get accredited. It's not, it's not hard to do. It's very simple to do. So if you get accredited, then you can do what you want to do, but I mean trying to do the right thing is what we're after is getting people, I think after we, if this bill passes and I'm just gonna say yes because I don't know, it's up to y'all whether it passes or not, um, if it passes, there's a lot of education that needs to be done to our veterans. There needs to be a, a flash out to To let them know what's happening, how it happens, and what could happen. Uh, it, it's, you know, it goes back to them, and that's going to be their job to get the message out. So people need to know anything, you know, we have, our laws don't always go to everybody. Nobody knows it's even happening sometimes, and they're still doing the bad things until they get caught, so I, we're not trying to kill out the good actors. We're just trying to make everybody knowledgeable of what it takes to do this, and, uh, well, in your example, I mean that. Sometimes That the, uh, The perception of a good actor or a bad actor is in the eye of the beholder. If somebody charged $40,000 and got 160, he was happy with that. That's, that's a good actor, that's a good deal, even though it might not fall within those parameters that, that you were talking about more than what the parameter would be, but if they're happy, that's yes, if they're happy with it though, I mean, that's called the free market you know we're both people are happy they come away with a a better result than that's probably a very one in a lifetime type deals. You're not a lot of them are gonna have that unless they've really been in a lot of back pay coming, so can I talk about the example. Real quick it's up to them. If they want to hear it. Go ahead. With your permission, I had someone who was gonna come today who fell victim to a claimed shark and he was unable to come. But in his experience, he paid an initial fee to a veteran to file, uh, to a claim shark to file his initial payment. Which, in his opinion, they purposely messed up. So now they've earned that money because they filed the payment. Now they have the ability to legally charge him. More money. The agreement that he made with them under contractual law was that they would get 6 months of any increase that they helped him get. They were savvy enough to pass to get him approved for a 10% uh disability under VA. And then came back and told them, you know what, we're gonna get 6 months of that, but we can get you more. We, we, we can take you higher, so they filed again for 30%. And Then again, for 50%. And then again for 70%. They got him up to 90%, for which he receives $2400 a month. In total, what that claim shark earned from him based on all increases in perpetuity with $70,000. That's what we're trying to prevent. Not good actors, but people who purposely are turning What they do into a for-profit industry off the backs of disabled veterans. Nobody's going to complain when they're helped, like you said, it is free market economy and veterans are free to choose whoever they want. It's only when someone acts in bad faith that a veteran's gonna want to report them, and they need to have a means of having somebody punished for being a bad actor. And in your example, you said, He went, they went back again and again and again. 12345 times. So he made 5 different agreements with them. He did, he didn't know there was anything else available. Mr. Chair, may I say something? Yeah, go ahead, Senator. Members understand. Some of your veterans come back. Perfectly normal. Some of your veterans never make it back all the way. And It is very easy to find a person like that in groomed them. For lack of a better word. And, and that's a great example. Representative Barry, you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You, you just mentioned this uh situation where the gentleman, the veteran, uh, ended up getting 10% disability. From what are what are several more examples of what that veteran would ask these people to. For services to him, to the veteran, I mean, uh, medical, uh, you mentioned disability. What are some other, uh, examples of what that veteran would go to these people and get them to help him with or. So I, I, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your question is, why would he go back 5 times? No, no. I'm, I'm asking, what are some examples that if I wanted somebody to help me and I'm a veteran. What are some of the things that I would go to these people and ask them for help. Uh So they're and I, I probably don't know what it's available to me. Actually, they go to agents to get help with their claims in order to receive disability benefits which would help make their life a little bit better in, in due to their uh disabilities from service-related. Uh, actions. Uh, an example where someone would get a 10% disability would be. Tinnitus. I've got a ring in my ears, and so they grant 10%. A 30% would be something like IBS and they'll take it to that. Sleep apnea will get you to 50%. Muscle and back pains will take you up to 70%. PTSD will take you to 8, 90 or 100%. And these claim sharks know how to introduce these things rather than all at once and take a veteran all the way. There are actors out there that will do this in increments in order to maximize on what they can get from the veterans money. And that's unscrupulous. And they, these, these people And we're calling them bad actors. These people, uh, know how to manipulate the, the system to To get what they can for that veteran and They're taking. Yeah, I don't want to label them all as, as flat out criminals, but yes, there are those out there, yeah, and, um, I don't wanna label them as criminals either. But, uh, I thank you, thank you. Senator Sullivan, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to ask a real short question, so you've talked a lot about there's a lot of people this and a lot of people that, a lot of criminals, a lot of people victims. How many victims of this are there that we come across that we can, we can say there have been this many people victimized through this. Poor behavior. I I can't give you that exact number, but I do know that in the committee that I was in in DC here recently, uh, Nancy Mace pointed out that there was one organization that was making over $100 million a year trying to represent veterans, so I'm sure that's a pretty high number. Well, I'm not asking that wasn't the question the question was how many victims had there been? How many people have been taken as victims. There, there's a high number, right, if you look on, if you look on the websites of this, you'll find examples, but they don't ever put out a total number of. how many people have been victims, but there's victims in every state. That's what I come up with. And I don't know what that number is. It, it could be so many here, it could be so many there. There are, um, you know, it's, it's a big, like he said, it's a big thing. There's a, there's a big lobby deal, they make enough money, they have a big lobby presence, uh, and I, I mean, I have nothing about that. We have lobbyists all over us here so bottom line, we, we just don't know. We, we don't know how many. I couldn't give you a number and you mentioned earlier that uh there's a big push. To get this bills like this passed who's doing the pushing on this side to push this through? Well, yeah, if you, uh, the gentleman made a statement at the very beginning. He said there's a big push to get this bill through state legislators, jurors, who's doing the pushing? They are actually that's references representing Coart Cozart said that. However, the answer is, uh, most of the large veteran service organizations in the United States. They are all pushing it. At the, at the federal level and not getting the results we need as a member of the National Legislative Committee. I came back to my state and said this is something we can solve here in Arkansas without waiting for Congress to act. OK, thank you. The, the biggest thing, that is a big thing, that's why I seen it at the National Legislative conference that they're after the state legislators to do this because the federal is not taking care of the job. Representative Brown, you're recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. um, Mr. Bains, uh, we've met, and you probably don't remember that, but, um, one of the things that's kind of uh a little confusing for me. I, I'm very familiar with filing those claims because I assisted my husband. Uh, with filing his claims. And, um, That was his power of attorney, um. But whenever you fill out that initial claim. Uh, then the veteran is, uh, has to go to the VA to be examined by the VA doctors, correct? And that Isn't that who determines the amount of disability that that veteran, uh, Is, is, is, um, scheduled for. At that time. So, uh, Representative Brown, I do remember you. We worked on tax exemption for military survivor benefits and, and, and military pay. So absolutely I remember you've been to Veterans coalitions. The, uh, The VA medical does not determine the amount of of disability. There's two separate agencies within VA. One is VBA Veterans Benefit Administration and Veterans Healthcare Administration. That would be the hospital. They diagnose. Uh, conditions which the veteran can then submit as part of their claim and VA will decide based on the diagnosis, what percentage they're eligible for. So. I'm Who is? Who are the people who are most vulnerable to these, um, bad actors. Are they people in the more rural areas who don't, may not know that they could go to their county service officer, service I answer that question? Yes, sir. It's gonna be your young, uneducated, and enlisted. Well, I used to make the comment to Larry, what are these people do who live in the rural areas, and they don't have a degree and you and I live right here in Pulaski County and we run back and forth to building 65 anytime we need to. And uh it was just a concern for me that people out In more remote areas didn't have access to service officers. I mean, what You get, uh, we have some very good veteran service officers in counties, but we also have some that are mediocre and some that are worse than that, uh, and so you get young veterans by my home county, uh, Mississippi County has a good, uh, VSO didn't always have a good VSO. And, and so you had groups of veterans needing help that, that weren't getting help, weren't getting advice, and I, I don't care who you are and how smart you are, the, the The Federal VA system is a maze to have to maneuver through. And, and try doing that with a GED. And, and that is where the problem comes in, and that's where the the national organizations like DAV and American Legion help a lot, but also you have other organizations that I'm, I will tell you you have organizations that charge. Uh, and, and make a profit, and they also help. The problem is identifying. The helpers from the Predators. And I have one other question when you said that they got um. A percentage of this 160 that was that veterans back, what, like they, like if you file a claim and you're denied, and then you, you, uh, you disagree with that denial. They go back and re-evaluate and if they do award you, then they pay you from the time you first filed the claim, so you're saying that this individual, this bad actor got a uh a percentage of that big chunk, correct? No, I'm saying that the, the, the person who got 160,000 dollars settlement entered into a separate contract outside of VA, uh, allotments, uh, and the, uh, the bad actor got much more than they were supposed to. Because they did not follow the 20%. So bottom line with this bill, you're saying that they, they, that anybody that helps should not be paid for the initial claim and then they're only limited if they are accredited, they are limited to receiving only a certain percentage of whatever that veteran receives now are they, are they eligible to receive that percentage intuity or just. What, what's that 20% of one time payment of whatever their back pay is, you're familiar with what the back pay is back from the data filing. And it can be paid directly to them from VA. Thank you. Representative Hudson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I see in the, um, In the bill, it talks about, um, The fact that any anyone who's helping a veteran with these types of claims has to follow similar rules to those that attorneys have to follow, um, when they're representing veterans, uh, for their claims for disability and for other things. And, and I think that there has been some confusion through here, so there is no way for, for people to be compensated under your bill, but I think that you would probably agree with me that attorneys are, are very frequently compensated for the work that they do. For veterans, um, after entering into contracts that are ethically allowed under the Arkansas, um, Bar association's model rules of ethics, it just says in here. So could you explain for the committee's benefit exactly how those relationships work and how people are compensated ethically and legally, um, and would still be able to ethically and legally be compensated under this legislation. So, The federal law dictates what someone can earn for representing a veteran. And quite commonly, uh, Attorneys will make an agreement with somebody under contract for I guess I think they call it treble rewards, 1/3 of whatever the, the benefit is. And that is standard for, uh, an unaccredited lawyer to want to do that. An accredited lawyer and there are many out there, uh, will only charge. The 20%. And Are they gonna make a great living off of that? No, but it's doing the right thing for a veteran and still allowing them to receive compensation for the time they're gonna have to put into it. All right, so you know other questions we do have several people signed up to speak for and against this bill. Chairman, we'll back off and let them have it for a while. OK, thank you. We'll get you back up here in a few minutes. All right, first to, uh, speak against the bill. I'm sorry, I'm gonna, I'm gonna murder your name, whoever you are. Wayne Ruthven. I'm sorry, sir, I, I don't know if I got that right or not. OK. Come on up and introduce yourself and you're recognized. And I, and again, I will just remind you that we only have a certain amount of time to finish this, so. Please Yes, sir, uh, Wayne Ruth and I'm the chief of staff at the Arkansas Department of Veterans Affairs. Uh, I'd like to start by saying that, uh, we don't disagree at all with the Representative Cozart's bill as far as the premise of the bill goes. Uh, like him, we at, uh, the Department of Veterans Affairs. Do not like and wish that there were no predatory. Individuals trying to get rich off the back of veterans. So claim sharks. Bad actors, whatever we want to call them, we are against him as much as all my friends behind me. However, we do have some reservations about the language in this bill. Uh, there's been a lot of discussions. Prior to this, about nuances about the bill. You had a lot of questions, you got a lot of good answers. But it shows nuances that concern us. We believe that the bill needs some critical review and some Analytics to the language in the bill. To ensure that one, The bill itself. And the readers of the bill, particularly veterans, understand all of their rights. When it comes to receiving VA benefits. And working with. Veterans service officers, etc. We have what we believe is a robust multi-layered veteran service officer program in Arkansas. We have veteran service officers in Virtually every county, at least 72 as of today. And over 90 veteran service officers in those counties. We have another 12 district veteran services office, officers working for our department. The ones in the counties, of course, work for the county judges, but they worked together in partnership to ensure that all veterans know that they can come to any of those individuals and receive claims help, or any other assistance related to veterans' benefits free of charge. And we try to reiterate that at every step of our process in every place and by all of our people and by all the county BSOs. However Because regardless of how much of that we do. There are going to be veterans who look for other alternatives for whatever reason, and there's a myriad of them. But they do. And as was mentioned earlier by the people at the table. We only want to ensure that number one, the veteran knows that those other options do exist. There are legal options that do exist. And if they want to go that route, that's their choice. If they think they can get a higher disability rating, uh, it can be done quicker. It can be done with less paperwork. That's up to them. And We just want to ensure that when they do do that, that one, the, the bill indicates that that's an option they have. And it lays out The federal law and the limitations as far as how much can be charged in that, so they are aware of that going forward. Those particular details, you don't find in the bill today. So we believe that some more specific information in the bill would make it much stronger, would make it much more easy for the veteran to understand it and what his or her options are. And particularly the option of looking for other sources other than veteran service officers and free. If they want to pay some money. Um, and they want to do that through A reputable firm with certified individuals. That should be their choice. So that leads my discussion you willing to take some questions. Committee, any questions? Representative Meeks, push a button for me. You. Thank you and thank you for your service. Uh, just a little confused on your testimony because it, it sounds like you're saying that veterans need to know that they should have a choice to be able to go to a reputable firm that's gonna be able to take care of them. And that's what the bill is trying to do is to make sure that when they go to somebody that it's a reputable person who's, who's taking care of them. Um, so it sounds like the bill is doing what you want it to do, uh, you, you'd also mention your testimony that maybe some other specific data, what, what are the specific data would you like in there? As, uh, as we read the bill, it specifically states, You know, who a bad actor is and what makes a bad actor and that we're gonna make that. Uh, a violation of state law. It doesn't say what a good actor is and how you can use a good actor for those services should you choose to do so. So it's that type of delineation that we think ought to be in the law. OK, uh, I'm not sure how you do that, but, uh, all right, thank you, sir. Seeing no other questions. Thank you, sir. For your testimony, got Dallas Erdman. Thank you, sir. And then we have to speak. Again, for Zach Bumgarten. Come on up, identify yourself and you're recognized Mr. Chairman. My name is Zach Baumgarten. I'm an attorney here in Little Rock. Um, I am the pro bono program director for the Veterans Legal Services clinic at the Bowen School of Law. I'm also chair of the veterans section of the Arkansas Bar Association. I'm here today though to express my own personal opinions, not those of my employer or any of those I'm affiliated with, um, the points I wanted to bring, uh, to try to shore up some answers. So in my work, I serve veterans exclusively, low income veterans. Um, is who we serve at our clinic at the law school. Um, so we get calls, I would say almost daily. I know Senator Sullivan was asking for a number, I would say in the two years that I've been in this position, we've had at least 100 calls about folks who have fallen prey to this, or called to say they're getting uh targeted by these groups for this. So 100 that just found us, I would at least double that, that'll probably getting these claims, um, how these claims operators operate. I'm also a disabled veteran, forgot. to say that, um, and so, if you Google, I need help with veterans benefits. You Google that, you will start getting emails, you'll start getting phone calls, uh, mail in there if you try to get like questions answered. These are aggressive people. They're not just saying, hey, uh, here's explaining the contract, this is what happens, you know, we're gonna help you out. They're being aggressive. They are lying to veterans about what they can do. They are hiring doctors to make false claims about things. So they are costing the VA. millions of dollars when they're doing this also. They are operating in gray areas of the law that are not that, that are hard to pinpoint everything down. And so they are stealing money, honestly, from the VA by making false claims in names of veterans as part of what's happened. Sometimes these veterans don't even know these claims were made. They're just being told, oh, hey, we got you this money, so you're good to go. Um, they are taking the money over and over and over again. That's what I want to stress is that as an attorney, it's all free that our services, so I don't charge, but it's usually between 20 and 33 1/3 is what we're allowed to under the rules charge and most attorneys who do this, it's contingency based, so they're not charging upfront, they only get paid when the veteran gets paid. That is not how these claim charts work. It is billing you oftentimes upfront, they have to sign contracts that they're going to pay them thousands of dollars no matter what happens. And I have veterans calling me crying because they're being sent. collections because they didn't get anything and these bad actors are sitting there sending them to collection saying, well, you gotta pay me no matter what. We have a contract. They are scaring them into, um, these things. And so as Senator Walt was saying, I would love to think everybody would read their entire contracts, do everything, but I think me and the other attorneys in the room, we wouldn't have jobs if everybody did that. And so, they are being preyed upon. They are being lied to by these companies and being tricked into these things. These bad actors are doing that and I think, um, the concerns that about the bill are valid, but I think it is more important that we get this legislation passed now because we can't wait. These firms are getting bigger and bigger. They're worth millions and millions of dollars, and they are pushing to try to stop these bills. So even if for some reason there are concerns about the bill and the holes in them. I think it's more important and the benefits of this bill way outweigh anything else that there is. Um, I also wanted to highlight that 9 other states have passed this legislation, so it's not like Arkansas would be the first. This is ongoing across the nation. Um, the National Organization of Veteran Advocates, which I'm also a member of, which is a nationwide advocate group of attorneys and VSOs who do this work have encouraged the uh congressional bill, the GARD Act bill that's being trying to be passed on the national level, and I talked to them about this bill and they said this was one of the better ones that they've seen. This is good. There's no loopholes, because some of these bad actors are also coming in getting line items put in the bill that this one company can operate in the state or there's one thing. And so I think this is very important because our veterans, we should, we don't have to be the ward for these people, but we should protect veterans at every chance we get, and that's what this bill does is protect our veterans. Thank you. Are you willing to take questions? Yes sir. Senator Payton, you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So how many of those cases have you taken and represented. Uh, have you been successful in in in the deceptive trade practices or breach of contract or anything like that. So what we do is I work, it's all pro bono attorneys, so we've had some sent out the biggest luck we've had is we send it to the AG's office and have them, uh, talk to them and so they get on the case and sometimes when it goes away, I don't hear what the outcome is, um, because I don't directly represent a lot of these veterans, but, uh, we try to get them, uh, either with those other attorneys or the AG's office has worked to. try to go after these, but again, they're limited on what they can do. So are you saying the answer would be 0 that I've Represented. Yes. OK, but you do think that the AG's office has taken up the case on some of these I know they have taken a few to try to help them out. I don't know what the outcome of that was because once I passed that case off in my role, I don't always get what the outcome is. How would we describe these cases if we were going to ask the AG's office for a report on, on any of those cases that they've taken up for the outcome. My understanding is they go through their consumer protection because it is a contract-based, so it's someone being taken advantage of through a. Well, Mr. Chair, I would request that we, uh, seek that information from the Attorney General's office. Alright, well, we'll go ahead and ask more questions, then we'll consider that. Thank you. Representative Nazarenko. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for, uh, being here, all of you, uh, Representative Cozart and, uh, Senator Wallace and I appreciate that, uh, your passion. I'm passionate as well, retiree, uh, I retired about 5 years ago from Fort Campbell, so I know around Fort Campbell area we've got like a lot of predatory everything predatory lenders, vehicle, uh, predatory, uh, you know, preying on the soldiers as they're uh getting out or even whether they're in. Uh, you mentioned 9 other states have enacted legislature. Do you know which of those states? I, I, I did not bring the list with me. I should have, um, but I just, you can easily Google a lot of them are framed as veterans consumer protection bills because that's where it's going. So if you look up, um, there's been several that have passed here recently in the last few years. Thank you for that. I appreciate it because that was one line of my question. I was kind of curious if we've reached out to other states. I know when I retired, I was working with our, uh, local, uh, chamber of commerce because I saw a a great opportunity to help out veterans bringing them to our. State we've got what what veterans want. This is we're in a great spot here, um, I know, uh, you had talked about like home base, you know, right here, uh, Arkansas, and I think that's a great initiative, um, and I'm anxious to see that continue to flourish. And I think this is a great opportunity. Have we reached out to any states, uh, with this legislature, have we reached out to other states. Something that I'm thinking of that aren't very far from us it'd be like Fort Campbell, Kentucky, uh, 101st, you've got, uh, Fort Hood, you know, Texas. These are some that are real close by that have a huge number of veterans getting out and so I feel like they're gonna have a great experience on this. I'm curious, have we reached out to any VAs in those local areas where we can make sure that what we've got is, uh, the great bill that we're wanting to do cause to Senator Wallace's, I think this was a good, you know, good start, uh, but I'm wondering if we've reached out to make sure that we've got a great bill to really help out. Sure, so, um, like I said, the nationalization of Veteran Af. that I'm part of, they're trying to track all the bills that have either been passed or going through state legislatures currently and their legislative director told me that in her opinion, our bill was one of the better ones that they saw. OK. I'd, I'd be really interested, and I'll have to Google, but I'm really interested in what other states, especially around those large military installations, so. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are dots in your Thank you, Mr. Chair. um, so I, I'm just curious, you, how many veterans? Do you help each year? So last year we had a record of over 250 veterans reach out to us asking for assistance. And then, um, and you say you do all this pro bono so you don't get paid anything at all for don't get anything at all. OK. That's why I thought it was important to say like I'm not trying to get up here and talk because I'm an attorney who wants to make sure other people aren't getting a piece of the pie. I don't charge anything, so it's doesn't matter, you know, it doesn't matter to me, yeah, so. Thank you. Mhm. Seeing no other questions. Thank you for your testimony, sir. Thank you. Speak against the bill. We've got looks like Mark Christensen. Come on up, sir, identify yourself. And you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thanks for allowing me, uh, To provide testimony today. My name's Mark Christensen. I'm a 25 year Army veteran and chief of staff at Veteran's Guardian. Uh, we are a veteran owned and operated company with over 200 employees. Who are veteran spouse of veterans or spouse of active duty service members. We've been awarded the BBB Torch Award for Marketplace ethics for multiple years. We're Department of Labor hire vets platinum award recipient for multiple years running, you know, and we have many clients who are members of and we hang plaques of gratitude on our walls from every VSO represented here. We achieve about a 90% success rate with an average of 85 days for a decision, I'm ask you to go ahead and get to the point. As one of the claim sharks, I want to, uh, so-called la sharks. I want to dispel some rumors and some myths that may have been presented up here today. Private companies cannot become accredited. They cannot. There's no pathway for private companies like ours to become accredited. Accreditation model is accreditation is modeled on failure. Attorneys get 20 to 33% of back pay that's awarded to a veteran for claims. We think the right process is to do it upfront and get it right the first time. We charge a 5 times increase for a monthly, uh, increase in disability benefits one time contingent based. We let veterans know about the free services available to them and help guide them to them and contact them if they so desire. Over 70% of our clients have tried the free services before. The clients here in Arkansas are telling you the thousands of clients that we've had are telling you that they want free market options, not fewer options. This bill effectively shuts down the, the free market in, uh, In Arkansas, that is not what the veteran population here is asking for. That's not what we're asking for. The intent of the law is admirable. We support getting bad actors out of the space, but there's some common sense consumer protections that can be in place without removing the entire free market choice from veterans. And with that, sir, things have gone on. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, sir. David Ray, Senator, uh Representative Ray, you recognized? Mr. Chairman, I'm over here to your right. So thank you for your testimony. Um, you, you mentioned that it's impossible for a private, um, a private entity to become certified. Can you just explain the, the certification process and if a, a private entity can't even be eligible. Who? What is the pool of potential. Providers in this, in this space. Chairman Sir The pool of providers is limited to attorneys that want to do this work, they can become accredited, they fill out a form in a couple of weeks, they're accredited. The Veterans Administration has chartered veteran service organizations. To provide that accredited representation. They internally credit their own people. They recommend and certify their own people, but not everybody in those organizations is accredited. Make no mistake that there are unaccredited representatives in those organizations working on disability claims. The other are private individuals. If you wanted to become accredited, you could apply for accreditation, uh, get accepted by the VA and have to take a test and then you can become accredited. But all those entities represent veterans before the board of Veteran Appeals. Independent companies like ours, consultants do not. We're simply consultants. We don't represent the, the veteran before the agency, which requires accreditation. The continuing education requirements also, by the way, is about 3 hours every 2 years, uh, for those accredited entities. Do you have a follow up there, Representative Ray? Let me get, let me get you back in. There you go. All right. Uh, could you just Help me differentiate the, the consulting services that you provide versus the accreditation services. How are they different or how are they the same? In some ways they're, they're similar, so the service officers sitting behind me would say they do initial claims. Uh, for veterans either immediately after they got out or years later, um, uh, and we would do the same. We would help with those initial claims once somebody's out. Um, attorneys generally work on appeals. So something that's been unfavorably decided by the VA, uh, and the VA appeals process takes many, many years. On average, it's about 3 years. So if I get denied for a claim, that attorney is perversely incentivized to have this thing last longer. What we believe in is a holistic approach to getting it right done upfront. So we can look at a veteran's, uh, Entire service record, entire military, uh, medical records, post duty medical records, we can figure out what they should have been rated for that they weren't when they got out of service, uh, things that they're already rated for that should be increased, uh, and secondary conditions, the things that they are rated for. That holistic approach done upfront prevents veterans from getting into this lengthy appeals process, and it gets the veteran the benefit faster. And so I would say we're similar in the fact that we do some of these upfront. The difference, I would argue that it's not simply filling out paperwork because it's not that simple. If it were that simple, we wouldn't have to exist. These claims are incredibly complicated, especially the longer that a veteran gets out of their service. So, um, you know, we, we have the benefit of having medical experts on our staff to review things that that others don't and and you bless the, the service organizations for trying to get through that, but they just certainly don't have the capacity or the expertise to do it well. Representative Meek she recognized. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. Uh, so, uh, you, you testify that your organization can't be, become accredited, um, and, and I'm gonna give you just an example from my, my own life. I used to work for a technology company, and the, the company could not get network certified, but they hired me and I as an individual within that company was network certified. And, you know, they hired other individuals who were network certified. So then as a company, they were able to, to, to do networks. Uh, you know, in a, in a doctor's office. The, the doctor's office itself is not medically certified. It's the doctors within, and obviously, those doctors don't do everything. They have people help them with claims and, and so forth. So, um, within your organization, you could have people become accredited. Uh, so I guess my, my question is, is, do you have anybody, and, and it sounds like you're one of the good guys, so I'm not trying to be, be accusatory by any means. Um, but it would seem to me if you're somebody who's doing the job and doing it right that by being able to say, hey, we've got people within our organizations that, that are accredited, that that would be assigned to the veteran that, hey, this is somebody I can trust versus being an organization that, you know, we've been doing this for years, we've got great experience, but we've never taken the time to get accredited. You kind of see what I'm saying there. So I'm just kind of curious what you're kind of your, your responses on that. Uh, I would argue one, yes, we are a good actor in the space. We're the biggest company in the country that does this, uh, the, the, the problem that you run into is that if we have an accredited representative inside our organization. Immediately then you must only deal with claims after they've been adjudicated. Everything else you have to do for free. So it goes back to the failure model. Lawyers do all that stuff pro bono upfront hoping that there's something that they can do later on and get 33.3% of the back pay because that's where it comes from, right? That's how they get paid. Uh, we believe in getting it right up front. It's holistic upfront, and so, uh, we just can't because when you have those accredited representatives in there, then you must change your entire business model to go back into what already exists, which we don't think is efficient. Uh, and also we've been the advocates on the federal level to change accreditation, uh, for the last 4 years, we've been fighting to get Congress to act to change accreditation to allow private companies into that tent of recognized accredited actors, um, and we're hopeful that, uh, Senator or, uh, Congressman Jack Bergman who introduced the Save Act at the, the federal level is going to be successful this year pushing that bill forward. Um, but until that ation model changes, private companies cannot get accredited. OK. All right. Thank you. Senator Dodson recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so, If you could be accredited under this. How would that change your model under the existing, like your, your fee structure didn't sound like it fell and I, and I forgot I didn't follow it exactly your contingency fees and everything. But it didn't seem like it fell in line with what was explained before is the allowable 20% and nothing charged on the front end or anything like that, um. How would that change your model? Could you still operate within that or? Or you're not able to do that. So, so to be clear, The unaccredited companies and I can't speak for every unaccredited, uh, entity for sure. Uh, the National Association of Veteran Rights is sort of the trade organization that over that, you know, is, is trying to make sure that Consultants in this space adhere to certain standards. What they've determined to be a fair standard is a fee model that is contingent based 5 times the monthly increase that a veteran might achieve. So if you're getting $100 today, we help with the claim, you get $200 tomorrow. Our fee is one time $500 right? OK, that makes sense. The 20% that everybody talks about is based on the accredited fee structure that exists in the 38 CFR for attorneys and agents. It is based wholly on back pay. So I can do a claim today. It gets denied. I can go hire an attorney. And that attorney is going to put in the appeal, and those appeals on average last 36 months. So That attorney, when I get a favorable decision back from the VA collects all the way back to the date that I submitted the claim or filed my intent to file to the decision date it could take anywhere between 20 and 33.3%. So depending on the claim, it could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. So in a similar type of situation. If you went, if they went from a $100 to $200 that $100 over 36 months would be $3600 and they could charge 20% to 33% of that. $3600 difference. That they, that's. That's fair, uh, to say, but they would. They would, you know, base it on 36 months of the actual rate that they would get paid at. So if they're gonna get paid $100 over that 36 months, um, $3600 times, you know, 20 or 30% or $1200 or a little less, but you're still far cheaper in that sort of scenario because, but you're a one time fee 5 times what the monthly increase is and the veteran doesn't have to wait for failure, right? And so, And you, you said you average 85 days. So they're, it's crack, they're getting something a whole lot faster. That's correct. That's The free market. They were making that decision if they go with you versus Something else where they might have to wait for failure. The first thing we do when we talk to veterans that Ask to to work with us. Uh, the first thing we do is have them fill out a one page disclosure sign and acknowledge a one page disclosure that says that there's free services available. Uh, what our fees are, uh, and how to get to those free services if they desire. About 50% of our, our Our clients every month are referrals. Thank you. Senator Sullivan, you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So do you have veterans who have paid money upfront, but never received their disability services. Mr. Chairman, Senator, uh, I don't know if any client that we've ever had. We don't charge upfront fees at all. Do you know of veterans who are outside of your That you, that maybe have come to you for services that previously had worked with one of these bad actors and paid money upfront and not received services. I, Senator, I can't say that I've Run across anybody that's paid something like that. We have had people come to us from other companies that didn't necessarily like their contract structure of the other company, things like that, thank you. Representative Meeks recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry about jumping back in here, but I'm, I'm, I'm trying to think through this because the, you know, the, the bill sponsors are trying to stop the, the bad actors, uh, which I think all of us here on the committee want that to happen, but at the same time, we don't want to hurt the good actors as, as, I mean, it seems like you are one of the good actors. Um, if we were to try to restructure this bill in a way to maybe allow State to accredit your business, give this, uh, I, I don't know how that would work, but I'm just throwing it out there. What could we do to, to modify this bill or, uh, to, to stop the bad actors from preying on our, on our veterans, while still making sure that, you know, you can continue to provide the services that you're providing. So thank you for that question. Uh, Louisiana, North Dakota, and South Dakota have passed laws that are really consumer protection based. They put in some really common sense, um, uh, measures, fee caps, um, you can't have doctors working on your payroll, things like that. Uh, one of the things that the state of Louisiana did is they in they put in their provisions for private companies who assist veterans in Louisiana to report back to the state Department of Veteran Affairs year, how many veterans from Louisiana we've seen or, or helped, uh, and whether they were successful or not. And so we think those are incredibly fair, uh, reporting requirements and you'll find out who's acting and who's not acting in the state. All right, all right, thank you. Seeing no other questions. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. We've got one other person to speak against it. uh, it's either Ray or Roy Callis, please come up, identify yourself and who you're with and you're recognized. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Ray Collis, and I'm here today on behalf of Veteran Benefits guide and opposition to House Bill 1423 as currently written. Now veteran benefits guide provides veterans with a private, legal, and federally compliant service outside of the Veteran Affairs to assist veterans to make sure that. They received the benefits that they have earned. Now we strongly support Representative Cozart's bill and the intent of his bill, however, This bill prohibits the services of some of the good actors who operate in the space who are honorable companies who help to serve the veterans. Unfortunately, the proponents of the bill have inaccurately insinuated that organizations such as ours are operating in violation of federal law. And that we choose not to be accredited. Federal law states and as recited by the VFW gentleman who sat here. Which I support and 100% agree with everything he said when he recited federal law. The key that you may have missed is that it is as you are acting as an agent or attorney. Federal law states no individual may act as an agent or attorney. In the preparation presentation or persecution of a claim under laws administered by the secretary without first being accredited. We support that. I would like to state for the record that we do not act as a veteran's agent. We do not provide the veteran with legal services, and we do not represent the veteran before the VA. So it's very unfortunate that the very individuals who have pledged to assisting veterans. We're sitting here misrepresenting federal law and portraying us as the bad actors. Not only to the veterans, but to the public. As members of the committee, you depend on fair and accurate information in order to make an informed decision, especially when it comes to protecting veterans. Now, House Bill 1423 would roll back Arkansas's free market principles. Some of those principles support freedom of choice, freedom of representation and access to veteran services. The bill also creates a disservice. To our fellow veterans in the state. Because it fail it it favors a failed government system that Where, where there's an option for similar services that were created for veterans by veterans. So we would be more than happy to partner with members of the legislature to improve the protection for veterans while also allowing a path for honorable for-profit organizations such as ours. Are there bad actors in the space? Sure there are But we should separate the good from the bad and not eliminate an entire industry. Now Representative Meeks, you asked a great question. You gave an example if you were to assist a family member. And the response you receive is 100% inaccurate. If you were to assist as an accredited agent or attorney, if you were to assist your family member by preparing the paperwork for he he or she to submit. And you will receive compensation, you would be in violation of not only Federal law, but also the state law as it's currently written, because Federal law prohibits you from receiving a C for a fee for initial claims. Uh, we also have a question I was asking unfortunately, there was the post was in the way, but an example um uh VFW, the question was asked, where's this coming from? Where are these bills coming from? It is coming from the VFW. There's a national effort against our services and we've proved this. This is not a bill that, that's meant to simply protect veterans because I think we can all agree we're on the same page when it comes to protecting veterans. However, this bill goes beyond federal. law by attacking our industry, and we've proven this by providing an amendment to this bill, which would uh essentially a, a, uh, it copies federal law word for word to be replaced by Section A1 and if you do not see it before you, that means it was rejected. So exactly what are we trying to accomplish here? So we are here, hopefully, in order to accomplish the same thing by making sure that we're able to protect our veterans and separating the good from the bad. And as the bill is currently written, we would ask for you to vote no on House bill. Would you take any questions, sir? Absolutely. Representative Meek you recognized. Yeah, thank, thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. Now I was actually talking about free services to family, not, not paid service, just clarification on that. So, uh, uh, you know, while we've been sitting here discussing this, I've actually gone to, uh, some AI here and, and talking about, you know, looking into this, um, and in, you know, 2023, there was like $477 million worth of, uh, scams against veterans in 2024. It's over. $400 million 167,000 fraud cases against, uh, veterans, uh, some of the data says that, uh, veterans are 40% more likely to be targeted by scams in the general public. So, uh, definitely, definitely we have a, have an issue here and what I'm, what I'm struggling with, with the, the bill here is, uh, like you said, we all want to stop the bad guys and, and it seems almost like the choice that we're looking at is we can, we can put a dent in stopping the. bad guys, but we're going to hurt some of the good guys in, in the process. Um, so the question that I asked the last gentleman, I'll throw it out to you. What, what, what changes could we do to achieve the aims of stopping the bad guys, while protecting the good guys. Um, the first most immediate and most important change because again you have consensus here, everybody thinks that we're operating in violation of federal law. Federal law was recited. Let's put it in this bill, replace a One with the section that was recited in federal law. We would absolutely be supportive of the bill, and I will tell you if you do do that, they will either reject the amendment or abandon the bill altogether. OK. Um, all right, thank you. Seeing no other questions. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. Senator Wallace, representative Cozart, you guys ready to close for your, uh, bill? Yes, sir. You ready? You're recognized. uh, thank you for being patient with us today. I know this along with it seemed like every time at the end of session, we get longer and longer on some of these bills. Well, thank you, um, the last gentleman was sat here, yes, they did offer an amendment. I, uh, showed it to my bill drafter, and he says, well, um, basically, that got your bill. So he takes it right back to where we were. So I, that's why I rejected his amendment. I'm sure there was. Something we could have done and and represent Meeks I'm sure there is something we can do. I think we have to do something now to start, uh, as far as for, um, Senator, uh, Payton, we'd be waiting till, uh, special session for the attorney general to make a decision and get us an answer on what you were asking about, so, uh, I hate to say that, but that's usually how it goes. But, uh, I don't, I don't know what to tell you. I think it's a good bill. It's a good start. We come back every session and refix and do things again. I think it's a good start to get us going if we don't do this bill today, we're still in the same position. We're still having people that are getting scammed. I'm not saying they're bad actors. I'm just thinking that we're we're having a lot of problems that we need to fix the problems that we've got. And I'll turn to Senator Wallace. Senator Wallace, you recognized? Thank you, sir. Every day we do nothing. Veterans are being harmed. Is this a perfect bill? No I would like to sit at the table. And I'd like to have our Arkansas Regional VA. I like to have these gentlemen behind us who gave very good testimony at that table. I'd like to have VFW there. American Legion Marine Corps All sit around. And I think with that group, we could come up with a Better plan may be a perfect plan. General Patton. Said in World War II that he would rather have a good plan now than a perfect plan two weeks from now. And I think that we are in a similar Situation. We need to protect our veterans. We need to protect our uninformed. Veterans This bill is a start. It's not the finish. It is the start. And thank you for allowing me to be here. Thank you for your testimony, uh, do you have something else representing Cozart. OK, yeah. Senator Payton, we're gonna ask staff to query the attorney general, see if we can get that information, get it distributed to us. On this, uh, in the meantime, uh. Represent a painter. You recognize we have a motion to pass. Do we have a second? Got a 2nd. Any discussion? Go ahead. Will this be, uh, Well, the threshold is whoever says it louder is, is, is going to win this particular vote now if we want to divide the chamber or something like that, then. We'll need to uh Make, make a motion to do so. Go 2. All right, I do believe Representative Brown, you want a discussion of the motion. Concerned that this bill will actually put some good actors out of business and, uh, I know how difficult it is to process those claims. It's tedious, it's time consuming, and it's mind boggling, and it's, you know, it's my understanding that they only do the initial claim, they don't do, um, um, Uh, what do you call it when you dispute a claim, appeals, and I'm just really concerned that this is going to put good actors out of business. I wish we could amend this bill. That's my discussion. Representatives, I'm gonna let you speak, but we already have a motion on the floor, which we're going to have to vote, then we may have to come back and do a roll call. In order to make a decision on this because we have a motion in the 2nd. Do pass And because of that. Then Probably have to roll call it if that's what you want to do if it's close enough or whatever. Makes still in. OK Again, you understand what we're doing. We've got, we have a motion on the floor. the Yes. We have discussion. Was that not the appropriate time to move. OK, I see what you mean. OK, OK, I see. Does everybody understand where we are on this? OK, we're gonna vote and then we'll roll call it. If necessary. Well, are we good? All right, thank you. All right, we have a motion in a second. All in favor say aye. Those opposed. The eyes have it. Yeah Rocco. OK, roll call but division of the chamber. We'll start with the Senate. Yes. Senator Clark. Senator Clark Senator Hammer, Senator Hammer. Senator Sullivan, Senator Sullivan, no. Senator Tucker? Senator Tucker, Senator King, Senator King, Senator Dodson, Senator Dodson, no. Senator Payton, Senator Payton, no. It's, I'm sorry, but the, uh, the bill has failed. Thank you committee for staying so late, and I appreciate you staying. Sorry, we didn't have a perfect bill for you. Representative Hudson, are you ready to present your amendment in your bill I thought we had the amendment a new amendment. All right, well then let's uh represent Springer, are you ready to present your bill? Say it again. OK. So the problem was we didn't have any discussion. Oh yeah, I got that we didn't have any discussion with them. We didn't have a promotion. She was like about. Representative Springer, are you ready to present your bill? Yes, sir. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you members. I know it's late in the evening and hopefully we can um Uh, proceed with this bill. It's my understanding that um I did make uh contact with members of the committee. I shared the bill with you, and I did hear from one member of the committee who uh had some concerns about um the bill and made some suggestions as to the bill. I wanna make sure that uh I have a good bill so here willing and able to accept any type of amendments that you all propose. Let me just share with you what one of the members said, and I just wanted to want To see whether or not you agree with those. One member indicated that there needed to be additional verification as to the status of the of the veteran in question, so they gave me a list of additional documents that the employer could utilize in order to confirm whether or not, uh, they were in fact a veteran and also the representative also indicated that they thought that once the employer made a decision that it was not necessary for uh them to uh prove anything, so I, with that being said, I would just like to open it up to uh members here to ask questions or let me know whether or not you have any additional concerns. I think I told each one of you that previously you should be familiar with this pill because I attempted to uh run this uh in our previous session and based upon the previous session, members had indicated that they were concerned about the economic impact this bill would possibly have. And I've indicated that there is no academic economic impact, and I also indicated that um there was concern about whether or not it would um uh be some abuse utilized and uh basically in response to that, the bill clearly states that the person requesting the Lee would give at least one month's notice to the employer with respect to the leave that's being requested. So with that, I'm available to Attempt to answer any questions that you may have about the bill. Senator Dodson, you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Representative Springer, it is looking through here and. Are you at all concerned that private employers may discriminate against veterans, uh, in hiring practices if, if a veteran they're required to give this time off, but A non-veteran, they're not required to give this time unpaid leave off. I don't think that that's the case here. I think they're totally different that, uh, because everybody would have that opportunity to do that, to make a request for it. So this is not limited, you know, the opportunity for other persons to make that request. So would be allowed to request unpaid leave off for Veterans Day? Yes. I don't think it, I don't think it's saying that they cannot I didn't read that correctly in here then. Thank you. Representative Meeks, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'm all full of questions tonight. Um, so I, I, I, I. I like I'm trying to phrase this like, uh, I, I like the intent of what you're trying to do here. I don't know if I can support the support the bill, which I'll get into just to in, in all, but my, my question is, is the, the, uh, the definition where you have cost significant economic or operational disruption to the employer as determined by the Department of Labor and Licensing. So does the department have like guidelines or policies laid out as to what defines a significant economic or operational disruption. Do you know? I don't know the answer to that, and that's the part of the bill that uh one of the representatives indicated that once they make a decision that, you know, that that, you know, they, they would have considered those sort of things so basically that's something that I would like to hear more, have more contact with you. all about to see whether or not you believe that that's a uh a hindrance to you uh accepting this bill. I mean, I mean, I, I, I, I like the, the thought that, you know, that that is in there. But, you know, if, if, uh, you know, the employer says that it is a disruption and the employee says, no, I don't think it is, then do they call someone at the Department of Labor to, you know, you, you kind of see what I'm saying. There, there's, there's, there's no It it's not very well defined as to what that, that means, because I could say that, you know, it's a busy time for us. We're getting ready for the Christmas rush or whatever, and I can't afford to have anybody gone, right? And then, uh, but, uh, you know, uh, cause I, I know there's things like this for like religious so I, I, there's some question marks on that part. Well, that's why I say that um in a in a month's notice for the request, then the employer should have sufficient time to make. Uh, you know, to adjust the schedules and make sure that they have the necessary employee employees there are available, so I think that that's why the month in advance with uh cover that, that particular concern. Senator Peyton, you recognized? Thank you Mr. Chair. Do we have any other holidays and situations where where employers are compelled to grant. Unpaid leave for Christmas or 4th of July or Memorial Day or Easter or anything like that? I'm not I'm not aware of that. I don't have any information on that. I thought that this would be a good deal and that we were trying to, you know, make uh Uh, for lack of a better word, consideration for veterans for all the service that they had done, so this was the way I believe that we could, you know, do that sort of thing to kind of uh allow them to be able to uh take off in, in on days of such as this. I think that's admirable. And I think for an employer to do that for his employees. would be admirable until the state says you have to, and then the employer has to do it. They don't get any goodwill or credit for doing it. There's no difference between them and any other employer because the state compelled them to do it and then you have jealousy between the employees because the employees that are not veterans have to work an extra shift because the veterans took off, so I mean I, I agree with you that It, it's a great gesture of gratitude for an employer to recognize a veteran and arrange for them to have time off. I think it's terrible for the state to compel that, you know, I, that I'm back to the same responses I gave before. The, the state would, you know, make accommodations based upon the request. The bill clearly says that this particular person has to notify the employee at least a month in advance. I'm back to that same position that by doing so, that would give the employee an opportunity to make arrangements such as the concern that you have voiced. right man. So when you say in form. The employer a month in advance. I mean that's not a request, that's a demand because the law is going to compel the employer to grant that request. Well, not necessarily if you look at the bill on on the page on the first page lines 35 and 36 that employee has to give written notice submitted one month in advance, so it's not like that they're just I'm just saying that's not written notice, it's written demand no, no, I mean it says written note, OK. I mean, to me that means I interpret that to mean that they have to make a written request to their employer. It has to be in writing in order for them to address the employer has to grant it. I'm sorry. The state says that the employer has to grant it. Uh, well, no, it says that they have to give, give proof that they're there, and then they decide, they make a decision based upon the requests. It does, it doesn't say that they have to. It clearly says that they, uh, looking at the subtitle says to require employers. To provide unpaid leave is that not accurate? That's what that's what it says, but if you read down further in the bill, there are some parameters that must be followed by the state in order for that to take place. I think it clearly protects the state of about concerns that they may have with respect to, as you've indicated, that they may not have available employees, so that's why the notices a month in advance and have given sufficient time in order to address those type of. OK, thank you. Representative Springer, I have a question in that. I, I just listened to what you say, but I'm looking at line 31 to 34, says a private employer that does not otherwise provide for paid holiday leave for Veterans Day, shall shall allow an employee who is also a veteran to have the entirety of Veterans Day as unpaid leave. That, that sounds directive to me. That does not sound like it's permissive on to say that there and I guess that's where we're missing it, written notice submitted At least one month in advance of the date, for his or her intent to have the entirety of Veterans Day then goes on to say that they must submit proof of their status and then the employer, uh, uh, shall not reject the request of an employee who's a ventured unless the employer can demonstrate different things and I guess that's what we get down to the point that uh one of the representatives brought to my attention. Once they make that decision, then they may not need to um communicate what's here in, in lines 9 through 16. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't read it that way. But anyway, represented me you're recognized. Thank, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back, back up, uh, kind of something on what Senator Payton said that, uh, you know, as a veteran, I, I love the heart of what you're trying to, trying to, to do here. Uh, but at the same time, I didn't, you know, wear the uniform because I wanted a special treatment later. I it's definitely nice. Uh, my, my hope is that every employer across the state would, would, would do this. Um, so the question I'm gonna, I'm gonna ask and then kind of again going back to what Senator Payton was saying is, um, we in the general assembly, we're basically like the board of directors for our state employees. I think I could get comfortable supporting this if we said that the state that we will do this for our own employees. Does that make sense? So that the state of Arkansas, we've got, I don't know, 40,000 state employees out there. And if we were to do something along the lines that said, hey, we're gonna make it a policy of the state that if it doesn't create a hardship for the agency that we want the agency to allow the veteran to take the day off. Um, I think I could get there where I could support it because it's Saying we're going to do that. We as a state, we're going to set the example in this regard. Uh, my concern is, it's kind of like Senator Peyton is, is I'm afraid we, we, we may be cheapen it by forcing the, the, the veterans. So, I, I guess my question is that I'm ultimately trying to get to. Would you be amenable to amending this so that it was, you know, we're we're we're saying that we as a state government are employees, we're gonna do this and not force the private sector to do that. And, and I don't know how my, how my other colleagues here feel about that idea, but I'll just throw that out there for whatever is exactly what I stated when I made my initial presentation is I wanna make I wanna make sure that the bill is a good bill and you all feel comfortable in, in, uh, you know, giving me a due pass on it, so I'm willing to sit down and try to make some amendments, so I'm willing to do that. No problem, do you want to pull your bill down and do some more work on it? Yes, I do. I, I would like to do that and, and, and make sure that person and that's why sent it to members of the committee in advance because I wanted to make sure, based upon what my experience of the last time that you all would give me this type of feedback so that we can make it be good meal. And that's what I said when I initially sat here and opened up and said that I would like to have feedback from each and every one of you so that we can make this a bill that you all can, you know, support. Alright, Spring, go ahead and pull your bill down and do some more work on it. No guarantee that you're gonna get an opportunity with this committee again, but I think that the bill as it's written right now will not pass. So I think that's probably a good idea. I, uh, so can I get the names of Representative Meeks and Reed and Senator Payton for you all for us to get together on this then. All right, thank you very much. All right, thank you. Committee, we're doing a little work on an amendment here for the last bill. Uh, as soon as we get that done, it'll be handed out and Representative Hudson will present her bill and amendment. You ready? All right, here we go. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. With your permission, I've got a couple of people from AOC that I'd like to have come down. Go ahead. Representative Hudson, if you'll recognize yourself and if you'll have the, the members joining you, the individuals joining you also if you would recognize if you would identify yourselves as well. Ashley Hudson, uh, House District 75. Uh, I'm Nathan McCarroll, um, the staff attorney at the administrative office of the courts responsible for specialty courts and in that role I'm also the statewide specialty courts coordinator. And I'm Steven Tabor. I'm a circuit judge in Sebastian County. Representative Hudson, you are recognized to present your amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're just having a few technical difficulties, um, colleagues, this, this bill originally came to me from the Arkansas Veteran Coalition, um, when they got together this summer for their annual conference, they had recognized that there was a, there was an issue that they wanted to fix. And so they came to me and asked for some assistance with it. Basically what's happening is when there is a veteran who is incarcerated, um, there, there are certain issues that arise with. regard to the administration of their of their benefits through the VA and also their ability to access certain other benefits that may help them while they're incarcerated to get access to services that may benefit them, um, and, and help them, you know, perhaps get into a diversion program, get into veterans courts, things like that, um, so with that issue in mind, I started working with the Veterans Coalition to try to come up with a way to identify these veterans when they come in to um these ab il ities because as you'll hear, there are certain situations where we, we aren't getting that information through and so veterans are ending up either unable to access services that they need, um, or in some cases continuing to get, say, their disability benefits while incarcerated and then receiving a bill at the end of their incarceration from the VA when they want to recoup those benefits. I think we can all agree that when you're trying to get back on your feet after being released from prison is not the best time to be given. a giant bill, um, and so what we're trying to do is to fix some of these issues on the front end work with our federal partners and ensure that veterans are not stuck with these types of problems as they're coming back out and trying to reintegrate into society. The other thing that we're trying to do is to make sure that we're connecting these veterans who are incarcerated to both state and federal services that they may be entitled to and they may not know they're entitled to. So for example, if we can divert a veteran who has been charged in circuit court but can be diverted into a veterans court which connects them with different services and programs rather than just leaving them um to be incarcerated for a period of time. We certainly want to give that veteran an opportunity for rehabilitation, um, sometimes there's also access to different services through the VA system for healthcare, um, specialized mental health treatment, even diversion into residential treatments um to get them out of the prison system entirely. All things that we'd like to do for our veterans. So what this does. Are we still talking about the amendment? Let me get to that real quick too. The amendment, yes, so what the amendment does is we clarified some of those issues because in the first draft of this bill, we did not have clarity on the best way to do that, and so we added some language regarding the uh VRSS system, which we'll talk a little bit more about with the um AOC representatives, um, and also clarified some of the language on how these notifications will occur. We also added the additional house sponsors and a Senate sponsor. Members, do we have any questions on the amendment? Just a minute. Push your button. You recognized is the amendment the new bill, or is there stuff that we need to be paying attention in both. So the amendment is the amendment that you received right now is very similar to the one that I sent last night. The only differences from the ones that I sent last night or this morning whenever, um, was that we clarified that the, um, the before you go down that trail. So is the amendment the bill in its entirety? Yes, more or less, yes. OK, that's what I was after. OK, thank you. OK. Yes, question. I've heard, yeah, I've heard several references to information that was sent last night. I don't get any of that. OK, I had that, uh, I sent it, um, I believe I sent it through Ms Cooper this morning, actually, um, I'm just making a statement. You've been, you've referenced several times I've sent it. I don't get that information. This is the first time I've seen this. I don't think I missed anything, did I? Ms. Cooper says they sent it out this morning in the email, so. I know I, I received it and I know some other members did. I don't know Dan why, why it didn't happen. And we've got a motion to adopt the amendment. Do we have a second? We got a second in discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? I have it. Congratulations, you can present your bill as amended. Thank you. What? That's what I said. He said the amendment wake up. I've been here too long. You're, you're messing up my flow, senator. Go ahead. Yeah, um, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, and, and I apologize for jumping the gun. I was anxious to try to get us all out of here. And I know that y'all are anxious for me to stop talking. What we're trying to do with this bill is make sure that we connect these veterans with the benefits that they have, have a right to and make sure that they can access them. We want to divert them where we can. We want to shore them up where we can and we want to do it in a way that, um, is, is fair and applied evenly across the state and also primarily ut il ize s resources that we already have, um, I've got, um, I've got people up here to talk specifically about these veteran diversion programs and why it's important to get um access to these veterans early so that we can get them diverted and also how this VRSS system that is referenced several times in the bill is also um through a system that is already accessible, it will not cost anything to implement. It is a website, um, that is accessible and that some of our programs are already using. So with that happy to answer any questions and also see if Judge Tabor, or any of his colleagues have any comments on that. And do you guys have anything to add? You're recognized. Thank you very, very quickly tell you our experience with this VRSS program and Tim has some facts and figures, but, uh, I founded the Sebastian County Veterans Treatment Court program in 2015 to honor my father, who was a World War II veteran. He was shot in Okinawa. Uh, my brothers served, as you can imagine, the military flows deeply to, to my family. And so I started this program to help our veterans, um. Initially, we came up with a an idea to identify veterans because it's a treatment program we treat people with substance abuse issues. We treat people with PTSD. We treat people with, um, Uh, other mental health issues other than PTSD that are justice involved. And we, we know that if you're, it's a treatment court, not only for, for their benefit, uh, to, if they need treatment to get treatment as soon as possible, but for the benefit of the jail to get them out of jail as soon as possible so they don't become a problem and a burden and a cost every day there. Uh, we wanted to identify them more quickly. Our sheriff agreed to include a um a question on the booking form about whether or not they had been, uh, served in the armed forces. That helps some. On an indigency form and arraignment, we asked them the same question that helped a little bit. But we knit, we still knew through practical experience and through, uh, research that that was not effective in identifying all the veterans. Many veterans, uh, don't. Self-identify some because of shame they feel like they brought dishonor to their service. Others for fear of retribution. Others because of confusion, uh, they think if they didn't serve overseas in a combat area, maybe they don't qualify as a veteran. So, Tim, when he came on board, he heard about this VRSS problem, uh, program, and he signed us up for it and so. What we found, and I don't want to steal too much of your thunder, Tim, but, but, uh, he He did research over what period of time? Last. Well, I got statistics on 3 months. But what we found is that 45% of the veterans booked in the Sebastian County Jail, who were veterans were not identifying as veterans, but the VRS VRSS system identified them for us. So that we could target them because here's what happens if we get that information from VRSS. If, if, um, somebody, the the VJL veteran Justice outreach officer will go to that person in jail, if they have a treatable issue, then they are considered and more often than not admitted into veterans treatment court and released from jail quickly. Into treatment. As opposed to incarceration. Uh, we also have a grant for non-VA healthcare, uh, eligible veterans, which Tim and uh he is a fellow he works with, they go into the jail and work with those people. All that is possible, that early identification, getting them out of jail, getting them treatment is because of the VRSS system and so nobody slips through the cracks now. Even if they are not eligible. For our Court for one reason or another. That doesn't mean they don't get help because of our utilization of the system. Because very often what the VJO will do is say, well, they're not eligible for our court, but you know what, we can help this person with housing. We can help this person with treatment. And so they are helped even though they might not come to our court, they are helped and, uh, as, as we've discussed this, we, we talked about the issues about, yeah, it saves us money. By getting them out of jail quicker, it helps them by getting them treatment quicker, but it also helps in, uh, Avoiding recidivism because they're being treated. Uh, almost everybody that comes in veterans treatment changes their life. I can tell you the most satisfying part of my job. But What they, they, they also get help with housing. What are the problems we see in criminal court every day. I do criminal court when I'm not doing specialty courts. What causes the problem? Drugs Alcohol, mental health. Homelessness. Those are the things addressed, uh, more quickly because of this system, and that's why, uh, we're such, uh, Big fans of it. Uh, it's a, it's a savings, it's a monetary savings, but it's what we see that you don't is. The non-tangible savings, the, the saving of families, the putting of families back together, the saving of lives, turning taxpayer burdens and the taxpayers. That's, that's what we're in the business of in VRSS is a huge tool in our arsenal. So thank you for hearing us today. Do either one of your other gentlemen have something to add that is substantially. Different than what we just heard. Well, I can add some you recognize. Um, the VRSS system is more or less what we call the gold standard. The Veterans Administration has this huge database that contains all the names of all these, everybody who's who's a veteran. Now, as Judge Tabor said we use like many veterans treatment courts around the country used a questionnaire, and that was the First approach, but the, uh, the collaboration among all the veterans treatment courts around the nations, we all recognize that that that was a problem trying to rely on the uh questionnaires, self-identification judge went through all the reasons or many of the reasons why veterans may not self-identify. And we found out over this 3 month period, we had, uh, 2500, approximately 2500 bookings in Sebastian County, uh, of those 174 were identified as by VRSS as actual veterans, but when we went back and computed, looked at how many of those people actually self-identified only 55% had 45% of these people failed to self-identify for whatever reason. So the use of this really has helped us pick up a lot of people. Um, Uh it's, it's hard to say that, you know, direct 1 to 1 relationship, but, uh, the time we started using VRSS to the time, um, when we did the most recent survey, uh, we increased our numbers of vets in our census, like 30%. You know, I cannot say guaranteed that this is the only reason why, but, uh, we just, we feel like we have the gold standard here. Now, on a somewhat technical basis. Uh, what we have in Sebastian County is that the jail simply gives sent emails to me, we do it on a daily basis. Emails to me simply a list of the people they booked about rocket science, it's their names, date of birth, Social Security number, and a, and a unique identifier which is like their booking number. The jail sends that list to me. And then I upload it to VRSS in our example, that we're a little unique in our example, once the jail emails that list to me, they're out of it. They have no more work to do. There's a lot of work that we do within the veterans treatment court in using that data. But I'm, I'm, uh. I'm telling you one that the VRS is system really works in helping to identify the vets. That's the first step we have. And second that. For the most part, the use of VRSS is easy. Uh, once I get that. Once I get that, uh, it's a simple spreadsheet like an Excel spreadsheet. It takes me a minute. To upload it to the VRSS website, a couple hours later they send back another uh spreadsheet that says, well, these are the vets of those that, that's what I have to contribute here that it's really helpful to us and for the most part for the jails, it's not that hard. It doesn't seem like in our example. Thank you, sir. You have some go ahead you recognize. Very, very quickly, uh, I would just say that judicial council supports this bill, uh, that's why I'm here. I'm here to share the thoughts of the specialty court judges across the state because they realize the impact this would have on our specialty courts and in particular the veterans treatment courts. Um, we just want to clear up one thing, um, there was an acronym that was used the BJOs. The VJOs are veterans Affair, you know, Veterans Administration, federal employees, and they're key to all of this working. What happens when Tim. Submits that list to the VRSS website is not only does he get data back on which of those people are veterans, but it alerts the federal VA that there are people who are veterans sitting in a county jail. They then dispatched that VJO veterans judicial outreach officer to go and meet at the jail with the veteran. And it's there that, you know, that that connection is forged so that that BJO can start connecting them with services offered by the VA substance use treatment. health treatment, but also with housing needs and other needs like that. And so what happens is whether they end up on a track into a veterans treatment court or not. What happens is that person, um, usually ends up getting out of jail a little bit quicker because they have somewhere to go and treatment waiting for them, um, and they also received services that hopefully end up keeping them out of jail in the future, keep them from being a returning customer. So thank you. Thank you. You got everybody, uh, you ready for questions? You guys Question as well, very well, Senator Dodson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. um, just. I, I think you may have answered this to a certain extent, but These are all services that. are already things that veterans qualify for and are, um, Uh, they just don't know that they're aware, they're, they're not aware of them potentially and the, uh, facilities might not be aware that the veterans qualify for the services that, that they could treat. Yeah, that's, that's correct. I mean, you know, I guess if we're being technical, I mean the, the veterans court obviously is something new that they may not have previously qualified for and would have been qualified for by virtue of, of, you know, the incarceration. But yeah, these are all services that they may not have even known that they were eligible for, um, whether they weren't re er ed with the VA or didn't know that these benefits were available to them. And if I, if I read the bill correctly, these are basically primarily for those that are being incarcerated 6 months or more. We're trying, yes, we try to limit this to either class A misdemeanors or felonies, and those are the people who are in, rather than having people who are just in and out, um, you know, there for a few weeks or whatever. So yes, these are class A misdemeanors. Everybody gets screened like 100% of all into it's a regular part of the intake process for anyone who is going to be incarcerated 6 months or more. It It triggers that intake process that they get that er survey and then if they qualify for services, then they connect them with those services. Everyone's screened correct, but then only the ones that qualify for services through the VA because VRSS, which is run by the Veterans Administration, we'll spit back out the names of those people who are veterans who are eligible for services. OK, thank you. Senator Payton, you're recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And probably for the judge more than anybody else, um. I've heard I've heard it said, I think by you and that your colleague that left. That half of these and, and the statement that was made for whatever reason have not self-identified. I realized they're under criminal charges or whatever. Uh Do they have the right to any privacy there? If they're not wanting to identify as a veteran or if they don't want the services they're being offered, uh, do we? You know Constitutionally have a right to force that on them or not? Well, I, I would tell you there, there is no requirement that anybody comes to veterans treatment court. That's strictly a voluntary thing. Uh, there is no, there are no repercussions if they don't identify on either the booking slip or the indigency form. Now, the, the VRSS is a, is a federal database, uh, you know, I'm, I'm assuming that they have researched and signed off on this, uh, as far as the, the database. The only information that, that Tim would get back in our instance is these are the individuals who are veterans. If we go talk to them, the VJ who goes talked to them and they said, they say, go pound sand, we don't want your court, we don't want your help with housing. That's, that's that. We walk out and leave him alone. Nobody else knows that, that, uh, any of their information. Well, And, and when that statement was made a couple of times for whatever reason, I started trying to imagine what reasons that a veteran would not want to self-identify. I'm not sure that I can imagine every scenario, but. I mean, they might not want the other inmates to know that they are a veteran and, and that's one of the, the reasons cited in the research and in my practical experience is fear of repercussions from uh other inmates from the inmates. Other inmates have no idea about any of this because those other inmates, they're, their information is going up too. The only thing is their names aren't coming back because they're not veterans and they're never told that the VGO is not going back to their cell block to talk to them. And when somebody goes up because they have a visitor, they don't know who it is. So the other inmates won't know about it. But uh what about the personnel in the jail? I, I don't, uh, I don't know why they would know because, well, all they do is give, they sent Tim the booking list every day. I'm not sure they even know what he does with it. But and then he uploads it in 3 keystrokes up to this federal database, a couple hours later, like you said, he gets the list of, hey, we submitted these 20 names here's 3 veterans and um So I, I doubt that the, the jail even knows that. And, and one other thing, uh, senator. It's not just people who refuse to identify. There's a lot of these guys who don't realize that they should be considered vets. They may be guys who'd been in the reserve, never were, uh, uh, did active duty weren't to deployed. And they've never applied for VA benefits, so they think, are you asking me am I a VA person rather than are you a vet so that they're, they're not identifying not because they were, and I totally understand that. I think my dad was in his 60s before he realized he had any veteran had a brother the same benefits, uh. But still, I mean, I understand. On somebody's convicted of a crime that, you know, they lose some rights, but during the adjudication process, you know, if, if for some reason they, they want to be incognito. I don't, I don't want to. Take that right away from them. Right. Well, that, that information is, is in the database, period, and it's not getting spread out. They're not interested, that information is not getting spread out. I, I can tell you, I, I don't remember anyone that's ever come up in the, since 2015. That is said, no, get away from here. The, the most common response I get is either. I'm, I'm, I have dishonored the uniform, so I don't want to identify or I didn't serve in combat, so I didn't think, I don't think of myself as a veteran. Those are the two most common in my experience that I hear, but we've never had anyone to my knowledge, say, we're not interested in help. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Representative Brown, you're recognized. Brought up in your introduction is that veterans, uh, who are receiving VA benefits. When they are incarcerated during that period of time while they're incarcerated, they're not eligible to receive their BEA benefits. Is that correct? They're not they're not eligible to receive the full amount of their benefits. It's reduced down to a percentage while they're incarcerated. So then this. Um, for those who don't realize or don't. Uh, think to inform the VA that they are incarcerated. This would prevent them from accumulating that backlog of payments that they would then have to reimburse that Representative Brown, that's exactly right. And so that way we're not leaving these veterans with a big bill when they get out. I mean, when you're talking in terms of concerns about recidivism or, you know, reintegration into society, um, getting back home and then getting a letter in the mail that says you owe the VA. 1020 30 $40,000 is, is no way to start. Correct. Thank you. If I could add just one thing, Representative Brown. There will still be people who slip through. The, uh, connecting them with the BJO alerting the VJO at the VA that this person is in custody, so that the BJO can go and meet with them, can help on the back end when something doesn't work right, where their benefits, where the BJO can often step in and work out a payment plan. Or even work to get the, the overpayment repayment. You know, withdrawn from the VA. I really like this pill and I especially like that, uh, you're working through the VRSS to get those veterans directly connected to the VA, which can actually do something. Thank you. We have a motion. Wait a minute. Hold on. Oh, I'm closed and make a motion to pass. There you go. All right, we, we got to go through this. Yeah, unfortunately we do have some people signed up to speak against the bill and for the bill. And uh Mr. Ruthven, do you want to speak against this bill? Come on up. Identify yourself and you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, Wayne Ruthven, chief of staff, Arkansas Department of Veterans Affairs. Uh, just like the last time I was here, uh, we don't have real concerns with the bill and the purpose of the bill. Um, we do have some concerns with the language, for example, uh, multiple times in the bill, it indicates that, uh, the Department of Corrections or correctional facility personnel will provide. Notification of the incarceration of the veteran and later the the planned release of the veteran. And that notification will come to the Arkansas Department of Veterans Affairs. Well We don't have any way to act on that notification. If that notification was in, is intended to get to the US Department of Veterans Affairs, then we suggest it go directly to the US Department of Veterans Affairs, all we're going to do is slow it down. And we're, we're, we don't need to be in that process. On the other hand, I'm not sure why a notification is even necessary, as was given in the earlier testimony, correctional facilities. could in fact have that information to VR VBSS and use that way to notify the US Department of Veterans Affairs. And if I may to Senator Peyton's comment earlier about, is there any reason to Not self-identify. There absolutely is a reason not to self-identify. Once incarcerated, depending on the status of their crime and what category of their felony, for example, there VA benefits are stopped. They're supposed to stop. And be turned back on prior to release so they can start receiving those benefits again immediately as they walk out. That was our thought when we looked at this bill at the whole time that all the notification process was to ensure that Benefits which should be stopped are stopped and benefits should, should be turned back on or turned back on. I didn't hear any of that in the previous discussion, but that's the reason that they would not self-identify. Can I interrupt you for just one second, Representative Meeks, you have a point. Concerns, some of the concerns you've addressed have been addressed in the new amendment. So I, I don't know if you've been given this copy to know. I, I don't think I do based on what you're holding up, uh, at one point, I know that there was a consideration to take our name out and put the US Department of Veterans Affairs, but the last thing I had access to was our agency was listed multiple times in the bill. Yeah, because on, on the, the amended version, it looks like it is the US Department of Veterans Affairs. So I think that concern may have been, been taken care of how we wanted it to read. OK, and, and she's provided you with the copy, so maybe you can look through there real quick and see if you're concerns have been properly Properly addressed and if you're still opposed to what we're trying to do. Mm Well, I'm looking at it and The term I'm looking at repeatedly is Department of Veterans Affairs. Uh Without the United States or Arkansas. One or the other. Who is it? Our request in talking to some of the People who did the drafting from the coalition was that, that the, the US Department of Veterans Affairs. They need to know so they can stop and start benefits. We don't need to know there's nothing we can do with that information. Are you ready for questions sir? Yes, sir. Senator Dodson, you're recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just a kind of a process question on that as far as someone you said who would not want to self-identify. Um, or notify. Even if they didn't want to be there. If they're incarcerated, their, their benefits turn off, correct? So. If or they should turn off if, if they don't turn off, then they would be in violation and potentially liable to a clawback or some sort of penalty because they're being overpaid for benefits they're not eligible for at that time, right? Yes, sir, you're correct, but, but again, the way that you find out is Through some process typically self-identification or whether they want to notify or they don't want to notify, they don't, they're by virtue of being incarcerated, they're ineligible for those benefits at that time depending on their status of incarceration. That's correct, sir. And if, if their status of incarceration, they're still qualified for benefits, then those would continue even if it was notified correct. All right, so thank you. Representative Painter. You recognized have a motion. Let's hear your motion. Motion and public debate. We have a motion and a 2nd. Do we have any discussion? No. Nope, not debatable, very well. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. And we will end debate, Representative Hudson, would you please come back up again? Thank you, Mr. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am closed to make a motion to pass. We have a motion and a 2nd. As amended as amended. Any discussion Seeing no discussion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The eyes have it. Congratulations. Committee, we are adjourned.