A House–Senate conference committee on bill 11-69 met to reconcile a Senate amendment on compensation and accreditation for private companies that assist veterans with Department of Veterans Affairs claims. The committee closed the hearing without taking a formal vote.

The dispute centered on a Senate amendment added to section 7 that, according to senators, distinguishes private entities that provide preparatory services from federally accredited agents or attorneys who represent veterans before the VA. Senator Bridal said the amendment "clearly distinguishes the provisions of this bill from those that apply to federally accredited agents and attorneys," and described the language as a guardrail to keep the two groups separate.

Supporters from the Senate argued the bill preserves veterans' freedom to hire private assistance while placing limits intended to prevent abuse. Senator Bridal said the Senate passed the bill overwhelmingly and that the amendment was intended to "clarify who can do what and how." Opponents in the House said they were concerned the amendment, and other language in section 7, would either strip protections or improperly regulate private market actors.

Officials and witnesses debated how compensation should be limited. Jacqueline Hall, testifying for the North Dakota Association for Justice, described federal regulation she said governs compensation for accredited agents and attorneys before the VA: "agents that were accredited were able to receive pay... 20% of the back pay and 33 and a third percent of the increase." She said language in the bill that would allow "5 times" the monthly increase conflicted with those federal rules and could remove money veterans rely on to support dependents.

Amy Cleary, a lobbyist with the GA Group representing Veteran Benefits Guide, said the companies covered by the bill do not represent veterans in appeals before the VA and described the contract arrangement these firms use. "That award, say I'm awarded $500 a month or it's an increase because I tried before, I'm gonna repackage it and try again. That's $2,500 tops paid through that contract to the person that assisted them," Cleary said, explaining the bill's cap would apply to compensation tied to the increase for the specific claim the private company helped develop. Cleary also said one company reported that "70% of their clientele are veterans that have already tried through the VSO process" and that in North Dakota "87 of a hundred veterans" had already tried the VSO process before seeking the private service.

House members raised concerns about accountability and consumer protection if private firms operate without the oversight that applies to federally accredited agents. Representative Satrim said he had "real heartburn" with the bill and plainly stated, "I don't like the bill at all." Other House members asked how consumers would seek redress if a private company took upfront fees and did not complete follow-up work, and whether state law would conflict with federal rules on accreditation and compensation.

Committee members also discussed procedural concerns about committee membership and whether the committee composition reflected the chambers' majorities and oppositions. There was no motion or vote recorded in the transcript. The chair closed the hearing on bill 11-69 for lack of time.