[Senate Hearing 117-635]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                       S. Hrg. 117-635

                  HEARING TO CONSIDER PENDING LEGISLATION
=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 13, 2022

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
51-646 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023                   
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
      
                 SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                     Jon Tester, Montana, Chairman
Patty Murray, Washington             Jerry Moran, Kansas, Ranking 
Bernard Sanders, Vermont                 Member
Sherrod Brown, Ohio                  John Boozman, Arkansas
Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut      Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii              Mike Rounds, South Dakota
Joe Manchin III, West Virginia       Thom Tillis, North Carolina
Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona              Dan Sullivan, Alaska
Margaret Wood Hassan, New Hampshire  Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
                                     Kevin Cramer, North Dakota
                                     Tommy Tuberville, Alabama
                      Tony McClain, Staff Director
                 Jon Towers, Republican Staff Director
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                             July 13, 2022

                                SENATORS

                                                                   Page
Tester, Hon. Jon, Chairman, U.S. Senator from Montana............     1
Blackburn, Hon. Marsha, U.S. Senator from Tennessee..............     2
Rounds, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from South Dakota................     7
Hassan, Hon. Margaret Wood, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire......     9
Tuberville, Hon. Tommy, U.S. Senator from Alabama................    10
Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from Connecticut..........    11
Sullivan, Hon. Dan, U.S. Senator from Alaska.....................    19

                               WITNESSES
                                Panel I

Beth Murphy, Executive Director, Compensation Service, Veterans 
  Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs; 
  accompanied by Jocelyn Moses, Senior Principal Advisor, 
  Compensation Service; and James Ruhlman, Deputy Director for 
  Program Management, Education Service..........................     2

                                Panel II

Kristina Keenan, Associate Director, National Legislative 
  Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars..............................    13
Michael McLaughlin, Legislative Chairman, National Association of 
  County Veterans Service Officers...............................    15
Anne Meehan, Assistant Vice President, Government Relations, 
  American Council on Education..................................    16

                                APPENDIX
                             Hearing Agenda

List of Pending Bills............................................    27

                          Prepared Statements

Beth Murphy, Executive Director, Compensation Service, Veterans 
  Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs........    31
Kristina Keenan, Associate Director, National Legislative 
  Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars..............................    60
Michael McLaughlin, Legislative Chairman, National Association of 
  County Veterans Service Officers...............................    67
Anne Meehan, Assistant Vice President, Government Relations, 
  American Council on Education..................................    70

                        Questions for the Record

Department of Veterans Affairs response to questions asked during 
  the hearing by:

  Hon. Jon Tester................................................    75
  Hon. Tommy Tuberville..........................................    78
  Hon. Mike Rounds...............................................    81
    Attachment for Question 3 response--Ramseyer of Statutory 
      Amendments.................................................    87

  Hon. Marsha Blackburn..........................................    98
    Attachment for Question 1 response--Disability Rating 
      Inventory By Days Chart....................................    99

  Hon. Richard Blumenthal........................................   100

Department of Veterans Affairs response to questions submitted 
  by:
  Hon. Jon Tester................................................   102
  Hon. John Boozman..............................................   103
  Hon. Tommy Tuberville..........................................   105
  Hon. Kyrsten Sinema............................................   109

American Council on Education response to questions submitted by:
  Hon. Jon Tester................................................   114

                       Statements for the Record

Senator Mazie Hirono.............................................   119
Daniel Horowitz, Deputy Director for Legislation, American 
  Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), AFL-CIO.............   120
Shane L. Liermann, Deputy National Legislative Director, Disabled 
  American Veterans (DAV)........................................   124
Barbara K. Mistick, President, National Association of 
  Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU)..................   131
Diane Boyd Rauber, Esq., Executive Director, National 
  Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. (NOVA)...............   134
Student Veterans of America (SVA)................................   138
Veterans Education Success.......................................   141

 
                      HEARING TO CONSIDER PENDING.
                              LEGISLATION

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:03 p.m., via 
Webex and in Room SR-418, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. 
Jon Tester, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Tester, Brown, Blumenthal, Sinema, Hassan, Rounds, 
Sullivan, Blackburn, and Tuberville.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN TESTER

    Chairman Tester. I call this hearing to order. Good 
afternoon. I want to thank you for joining us to hear the views 
from the Veterans Affairs on 13 bills pending before this 
Committee. Four of those bills I am the lead on, to improve 
oversight of disability exams, streamline access to education 
benefits, veteran cemeteries, and help disabled veterans with 
rising costs of living.
    The VA's inspector general recently found that VA spent 
almost $7 billion on contract disability exams since 2017, even 
though contractors never met accuracy requirements. The No 
Bonuses for Bad Exams Act would prevent these contractors from 
getting bonuses for inaccurate exams and require the VA to 
expedite the rescheduling of new exams and processing of claims 
of affected veterans.
    The Ensuring the Best Schools for Veterans Act will 
streamline the 85/15 Rule for schools, ensuring the VA does not 
restrict access to legitimate programs of education for student 
veterans.
    We also have the National Cemeteries Preservation, 
Conservation, and Protection Act of 2022, to ensure tribal 
cemeteries get the resources they need to maintain national 
standards. That bill also closes a loophole to prevent sexual 
predators from being buried among our honored heroes, 
facilitates green burials, and authorizes land transfers to 
facilitate future expansions of our sacred national cemeteries.
    Finally, to help with inflation, the Veterans' Compensation 
Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act authorizes an increase for 
compensation that our disabled veterans and survivors receive 
from the VA.
    There are nine other bills on the agenda, covering issues 
from veteran home loans to location of rehab and education, so 
I want to thank the witnesses here for being here at this 
Committee here today and taking the time to discuss how we are 
going to improve services to our veterans.

    [The pending bills referred to by Chairman Tester appear on 
page 27 of the Appendix.]

    Now it is indeed my pleasure to turn it over to a much more 
competent Ranking Member, Senator Blackburn.
    Senator Blackburn. Let's not tell Senator Moran you said 
that.
    Chairman Tester. We have got to do it. I hate to waste 
comments.
    Senator Blackburn. There you go.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLACKBURN

    Senator Blackburn. I want to welcome our witnesses that are 
here today. We know that we have a little bit of a time crunch, 
and you all have been patient, and we are grateful for that.
    As Chairman Tester said, we have 13 different bills that we 
are going to discuss today, and these do affect the VBA, and 
they do affect those disability, education benefits, survivor 
benefits, the burial benefits. And one of our concerns deals 
with workload, the current workload, being able to meet the 
needs of the veterans. And we are going to look at how these 
bills would affect the workload and thereby have an impact on 
the veterans, their dependents, and the survivors.
    I will have a fuller statement for the record, but in the 
interest of time, Mr. Chairman, let us move forward.
    Chairman Tester. Thank you, Senator. I want to welcome our 
panel of VA witnesses to the hearing today. We have Beth 
Murphy, who is the Executive Director of Compensation Services 
at Veterans Benefits Administration. Thanks for being here, 
Beth. Beth is accompanied by Jocelyn Moses, Senior Principal 
Advisor at the Compensation Service, and James Ruhlman, Deputy 
Director for Program Management at Education Service.
    Ms. Murphy will provide the statement for the VA, and you 
are recognized for five minutes. And please know that your 
entire statement will be a part of the record.

                            PANEL I

                              ----------                              


            STATEMENT OF BETH MURPHY ACCOMPANIED BY

                JOCELYN MOSES AND JAMES RUHLMAN

    Ms. Murphy. Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Chairman 
Tester, Ranking Member Blackburn, and members of the Committee. 
Thank you for the introduction and the invitation to discuss 
VA's views on pending legislation.
    VA offers support for much of the proposed legislation 
before us today. We have provided detailed comments in the full 
testimony to include areas of support and areas of concern, 
including availability of appropriations in some instances. We 
have also highlighted certain provisions that could be 
clarified or amended in the text of the bills.
    I will briefly highlight key points on these bills. First, 
VA supports S. 4223, the Veterans' compensation Cost-of-Living 
Adjustment Act, as well as S. 4308, the Veterans Marriage 
Recognition Act of 2022, which would codify VA's existing 
practice of administering spousal benefits to same-sex married 
couples. VA does suggest Congress consider amendments to 
address limitations in existing law regarding marriages outside 
of the U.S.
    VA generally supports S. 3606, to provide servicemembers 
more flexibility to decide the timeframe for a dependent to use 
transferred entitlement of education benefits, and also 
supports the draft bill on VA's education program, except for 
concerns with mandating the level of decision authority for 
determinations.
    Largely, consistent with current VA procedures, S. 3548 
would provide a presumption of service connection for hearing 
loss and tinnitus for certain veterans, and to establish a 
minimum disability rating for veterans who require a hearing 
aid because of service-connected disability. VA supports this 
bill subject to availability of appropriations and citing some 
concerns with the language.
    VA appreciates the aim of S. 4208 to improve veterans' 
access to home loans by requiring VA to clarify existing 
requirements in the appraisal process and consider new 
opportunities for improvements. VA supports this bill if 
amended.
    Regarding the draft bill to make improvements to the Native 
American Direct Loan Program, VA has demonstrated commitment to 
ongoing improvements for this program, and would support the 
bill if amended, as outlined in the full testimony.
    Moving to S. 3994, this bill would provide an order of 
preference and some limitations for VA's reissuance of funds 
misused by a fiduciary if the beneficiary is deceased. VA 
support this bill in principle since the hierarchy is based on 
current procedures VA follows, and we would offer further 
technical assistance for potential amendments.
    Regarding the draft bill for veteran cemeteries on trust 
land, VA generally supports the bill overall, but for Section 
1, where we would request amendments.
    Regarding the advisory committee under S. 4141 and the 
promotion of Chapter 31 programs under S. 4319, VA does not 
support these bills primarily on the basis that VA believes 
existing processes or structures, with some modifications, 
could satisfy the intents of the bills.
    The full testimony does reflect VA's views and multiple 
comments, and we would offer additional technical assistance. 
And please know we are actively working to clear the views 
letter on the No Bonuses for Bad Exams bill, which we 
anticipate providing before the August recess.
    Lastly, VA agrees with the purpose of S. 3372, to 
strengthen benefits for children of Vietnam veterans born with 
spina bifida or other covered birth defects. While we believe 
much of the legislation can be accomplished with VA's existing 
authorities, we have highlighted recommended changes that we 
believe will enhance the bill.
    In closing, thank you again for the opportunity to discuss 
this important legislation to improve benefits and services for 
veterans, servicemembers, and their families, and my colleagues 
and I are prepared to answer your questions. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Murphy appears on page 31 of 
the Appendix.]

    Chairman Tester. Yes, thank you, Ms. Murphy, and I 
appreciate you all being here.
    The VA's Office of Inspector General's recent report on 
contract disability exams is another example of a program that 
I believe is troubled. In the OIG report, dating back to 2008, 
several reoccurring issues have been flagged that need to be 
addressed with these exams. The most recent IG report found 
that the contractors could be inaccurate 1 out of every 3 
exams.
    How can VA know veterans are getting accurate ratings if 
there is a potential 1 out of 3 being bad?
    Ms. Murphy. Senator, I will say that the examination is 
certainly a key piece of evidence in many of the claims that we 
process. It is very important and it is an area where we 
continue to do a lot of work and continue on improvements. 
Regarding this bill, we are just not prepared to speak to it 
today ahead of the views letter that should be coming before 
the August recess.
    Chairman Tester. Okay. But what about the fact that 
assuming the IG report is correct, assuming that they could be 
inaccurate on 1 out of 3 exams, how do you know that the 
veterans are getting accurate ratings?
    Ms. Murphy. Senator, I can tell you that we have multiple 
layers of quality reviews processes within VA, at the local 
level, at the national level, both on the exam piece themselves 
and on the overall rating that is completed in the claim, just 
to make sure that the proper decision and outcome for the 
veteran is accomplished.
    Chairman Tester. And how often are you guys finding that 
the exams are inaccurate?
    Ms. Murphy. Sir, I do not have information on that with me 
today. We could take that back.

    [VA response to Chairman Tester appears on page 75 of the 
Appendix.]

    Chairman Tester. And what is the solution if you do find an 
inaccurate exam?
    Ms. Murphy. In cases where we have an inadequate or 
incomplete exam, there is a process to return that to the 
provider to add additional information, to cure that exam, so 
to speak, and make sure that it is usable for VA rating 
purposes.
    Chairman Tester. Okay. Does that add additional time as far 
as the claim process goes, for the veteran?
    Ms. Murphy. I would say a short amount of time, but that is 
a quick turnaround in most cases.
    Chairman Tester. Okay. We have heard from schools in 
Montana and around the country that recent changes in VA 
implementation of the 85/15 Rule have caused some confusion for 
schools and for veterans. In fact, in Montana, five schools 
have had programs suspended over the last year due to the 85/15 
Rule, including our two major universities, Montana State and 
the University of Montana.
    The bill on today's agenda, that I happen to be sponsoring, 
will clarify the 85/15 requirement and make it easier for 
student veterans to enroll in legitimate education programs.
    So this is from me to Mr. Ruhlman. Why did the VA choose to 
reset the 85/15 Rule and rescind 35 percent exemptions for 
schools nationwide?
    Mr. Ruhlman. Thank you for that question, Senator. VA's 
primary purpose in putting out the new guidance in the reset 
was to reset the 35 percent exemption. There were a number of 
schools that did have 35 percent exemptions, and we had not 
verified and double-checked that information in quite a while. 
We also put out additional guidance to make sure that schools 
were familiar with the 85/15 requirements and making sure that 
they were reporting that correctly. We did provide additional 
training as well as new forms that were available for that 
reporting. But the biggest part of the reset was the 35 percent 
exemption.
    Chairman Tester. Have you had the opportunity to look at 
the bill that I am talking about, the Ensuring the Best Schools 
for Veterans Act?
    Mr. Ruhlman. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Tester. Okay. And assuming it passes, would the VA 
have the capacity to implement the provisions quickly so the 
student veterans would not be turned away from programs this 
fall, assuming it passes?
    Mr. Ruhlman. Yes, we would. The streamlining measures are 
very clear, and it clarifies the effect of the 35 percent 
exemption as well as exempting those programs with less than 10 
supported students. We feel comfortable that we could implement 
that within the 90 days after the date of signature by the 
President, and we could implement that within that timeframe.
    We do have concerns, however, with the review process that 
is mandated because there would still be potentially hundreds 
of reports of 85/15 computations, and consequently there could 
be some number of suspensions as well, and requiring reviews at 
the USB and then the Secretary level could add a severe 
administrative burden, depending upon how many programs were 
still in violation.
    Chairman Tester. Okay. Thank you. Ranking Member Blackburn.
    Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Murphy, I 
want to talk about workforce. This is something that the 
Secretary and I have talked about, and about the length of time 
that it takes to process a claim.
    Now VBA, you are taking about 100 days to process a claim. 
Correct?
    Ms. Murphy. Senator Blackburn, I have not looked at the 
numbers recently, but yes, we always aim to complete a case 
under 125 days, which keeps it out of the backlog.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. So how many cases are in that 125-
day window that have not made it onto the backlog, which I 
understand now is 176,884? So you have got 176,000 cases.
    Ms. Murphy. Ma'am, I do not have those numbers with me.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. Why don't you do this. Why don't 
you get all of that information on the number of days and the 
number of claims that are in that 125-day window so that we 
have a better feel for where you all are with addressing the 
backlog. I do think it is a good thing that you are in a pilot 
project trying to speed up the claims processing. We are 
hopeful that that automated benefit delivery is going to bring 
some relief to our veterans. So we are watching that very 
closely.

    [VA response to Senator Blackburn appears on page 98 of the 
Appendix.]

    Let me ask you this. How much of the claims process can be 
automated to increase your ability to process these in a more 
efficient manner?
    Ms. Murphy. Senator, I would say that we are going slow to 
eventually go fast. So we are doing it in a smart way. We are 
looking first at some of the provisions that would potentially 
be, and conditions that would be involved in the Honoring Our 
PACT legislation, so that we can target some of those areas 
where we expect a number of claims coming in, going with that 
volume.
    Even pieces of the claims process, it does not have to be 
end-to-end but pieces of the process, it all adds up, and those 
incremental efficiencies help to keep the workload flowing and 
benefits going to veterans.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. What percentage or what number of 
your claims processors are working in person, and how many are 
still working remote?
    Ms. Murphy. Senator Blackburn, we have been working through 
return to the workplace. I would not say ``return to work'' 
because folks have been working full-time at home. Returning to 
the workplace, working through that with our labor partners in 
regional offices across the country, I can tell in headquarters 
my team, my staff has been back since about April timeframe, 
April-May timeframe. In the regional offices, coming back 
incrementally, and I think some of the big volume now----
    Senator Blackburn. So has productivity decreased or 
increased?
    Ms. Murphy. Overall, I will tell you that when we first 
went home because of the national emergency our productivity 
really increased. I mean, when we had the work available, when 
we were able to do the exams in person and things like that, it 
is just the supply chain of the evidence getting to us was 
slowing us down.
    Senator Blackburn. When we talk about productivity, have 
you hired more claims processors and are you more productive 
because of that, or is it because individuals are actually 
completing some of these claims?
    Ms. Murphy. Ma'am, I would say it is multifaceted. Yes, we 
have hired and trained additional.
    Senator Blackburn. Let me ask you one more thing then. I 
want to talk about this hearing benefits Act. I am very 
hesitant to vote for things that make false promises, and I 
have been very concerned about the PACT Act and the 
implementation of that, because the VA has said they cannot 
implement this. So when you look at this benefit, which would 
provide a presumption of service connection, and it is 
something that is not time limited, I have serious concerns 
about that. And I would like to get your take, very quickly, on 
that bill and what we should do to fix that so that we are 
certain that it is service related.
    Ms. Murphy. Indeed, and those concerns would be shared by 
VA, that without the time-limited piece we could be overlooking 
other intervening factors, science, medicine, the National 
Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report from 2006, 
which was not making that connection in all cases. It is an 
individualized, person-by-person situation.
    I will say, though, that we already do have some amount of 
presumption of service connection for hearing loss, 
particularly in that one-year window following service, 
discharge from service. And we also instruct our claims 
processors to really lean in to acknowledge acoustic trauma in 
combat situations and also in certain military occupation 
specialties, which we have listed.
    So we are leaning in now. Hearing loss and tinnitus are in 
two of the top three most prevalent service-connected 
disabilities, so we already are paying a number of folks for 
those conditions.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. Thank you for your time.
    Ms. Murphy. Certainly.
    Chairman Tester. Senator Rounds.

                      SENATOR MIKE ROUNDS

    Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
holding this hearing. I would like to thank all of you for 
being here with us today. My questions will be on the Native 
American Direct Loan Program, which does not have a number yet 
but is in draft form, and I received and I appreciate the input 
from the VA. And I most certainly appreciate Senator 
Blackburn's comments about making promises that we do not keep, 
and I do not want this to happen again.
    In 1992, Congress required the VA to establish the Native 
American Direct Loan Program to increase home ownership for 
Native American veterans living on reservations, since trust 
lands are subject to legal restrictions that can make 
traditional mortgage lending difficult and prevent Native 
American veterans from using the home loan benefit that they 
have earned through their service.
    Despite the availability of these loans, various Native 
American advocacy groups have identified the Native American 
Direct Loan, the NADL, as an underperforming program that has a 
long, complex application process and makes very few loans to 
qualified borrowers. Just as an example, between fiscal years 
2012 and 2021, the NADL originated--and this is not a mistake--
just 89 loans to veterans in the contiguous United States, and 
only 91 loans in Hawaii, and none in Alaska, indicating that 
the VA made loans to less than 1 percent--less than 1 percent--
of the estimated 64,000 to 70,000 eligible veterans in these 
reservation areas.
    Now I have been working on this issue with my constituents 
in South Dakota for years, and I have had meetings, listening 
sessions, and site visits with veterans, Native community 
development and financial institutions, and other Native home 
ownership providers.
    In coordination with Chairman Tester, Ranking Member Moran, 
and other members of the Committee, I asked the GAO to review 
the NADL program in 2020, and identify areas of improvement. 
What we have learned, and what the GAO confirmed in its recent 
analysis of the NADL loan program, is that the program has not 
met its full potential to improve home ownership opportunities 
for very deserving and qualified Native American veterans. We 
are not living up to our promises. In fact, one of my 
constituents died before his NADL loan was closed, after 
working with the VA for over seven years. We have to do better.
    For this reason, in partnership with Chairman Tester, I 
have introduced the Native American Direct Loan Improvement Act 
to make the NADL program more accessible and increase home 
ownership opportunities for Native American veterans, as the 
program was originally intended. I really do see a meaningful 
opportunity to work together to make bipartisan, meaningful 
reforms to this loan program, and I look forward to working 
with you.
    I have received your comments, and I know that you have 
suggested in the comments that you think that rather than doing 
a pilot program we should move directly into a program of 
record, basically. But you have also suggested that rather than 
providing grants to local third parties that do this on the 
reservations right now, that we do a partnership program.
    My question for you is you have the opportunity to do those 
partnerships in the Midwest and you have not done that. You 
have done some in the Pacific region, but you have done none at 
this point. What would change that would require you to 
participate and actually make the program move forward unless 
we separate this out as a direct grant program?
    Ms. Murphy. Thank you for your review of the bill, Senator, 
and we share your energy in this space, that this is a 
population and a type of benefit that we really want to embrace 
even more in VA. We have started to demonstrate that.
    Just a couple quick comments about things we have done. We 
recently hired a dedicated team of seven employees. Before this 
was kind of an ``other duties as assigned'' among many folks. 
They are focusing already on strategic virtual events, 
outreach, in person events. They a have a dedicated phone 
number and an email address. As a dedicated team, they are also 
able to start building those relationships.
    Senator Rounds. With the third-party entities?
    Ms. Murphy. Across the board in this space, sir, yes.
    Senator Rounds. It appears to me that you would be 
supportive of this approach with some modifications.
    Ms. Murphy. Yes, sir.
    Senator Rounds. One was suggesting perhaps doing it as a 
permanent program rather than a pilot project, which I have no 
objections to. The other one would be--I would really want 
clear evidence in a partnership that it would proceed, and if 
we could have that assurance we would most certainly consider 
that.

    [VA response to Senator Rounds appears on page 81 of the 
Appendix.]

    The only other thing that I would be concerned with is the 
amount of paperwork which right now has really caused a lot of 
these systems to not work, and that is, is that there is, in 
particular, a required OMB form, such as the VA Form 26-1852, 
for a description of materials which places an unfair burden 
and an unnecessary cost on Native American veterans applying to 
build or to renovate a home. And it sounds like these forms may 
be a real significant barrier to NADL's success in Indian 
Country.
    Would it be feasible to either remove or to streamline this 
paperwork requirement or, at the very least, dedicate more of 
this staff that you are talking about right now to handle the 
construction underwriting to assist with completing these 
rather complicated forms for these veterans?
    Ms. Murphy. Senator, I think there is a lot of opportunity 
here to work together with your staff on this bill and to help 
the veterans that are affected and could take better advantage 
of the NADL program. We are committed to doing that and to 
working with you on this bill.
    Senator Rounds. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Tester. Senator Hassan.

                  SENATOR MARGARET WOOD HASSAN

    Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our 
witnesses for your work and for being here.
    As you know, veterans of all backgrounds, races, genders, 
and sexualities have given their lives and service to our 
country, and we are forever indebted to them. Unfortunately, in 
the past, VA denied survivor benefits to same-sex surviving 
spouses and left them without the support that they deserve. VA 
has rightfully fixed its regulations to honor the service of 
all of our veterans, and current regulations extend survivor 
benefits to all surviving spouses, including those within same-
sex couples.
    In May, I joined Senator Peters and a bipartisan group of 
my colleagues in introducing the Veterans Marriage Recognition 
Act to codify those regulations and ensure that no future 
administration can roll back benefits for surviving military 
spouses due to sexual orientation. I understand earlier in the 
hearing that you indicated the VA's support for the 
legislation.
    Can you speak to what the VA is already doing here and how 
this legislation would help?
    Ms. Murphy. Thank you for that. I am going to ask my 
colleague, Ms. Moses, to speak to that.
    Senator Hassan. Sure. Thank you.
    Ms. Moses. Thank you, Senator, for that question. As you 
have already indicated, the bill does provide a clear statutory 
basis for the practices that VA has already adopted. So 
following the court cases of Obergefell and Windsor, we have 
taken action to ensure that same-sex marriages are both counted 
and identified as we are providing disability compensation or 
additional benefits for those veterans.
    I think one thing that is important to note is that--and 
the bill does not apply to the laws of foreign nations, 
specifically those that prohibit or do not recognize those 
same-sex marriages. So I think as we are working together, that 
would be the only additional comment or concern that we would 
have, just to make sure that the entire veteran population is 
taken care of, regardless of where they reside.
    Senator Hassan. Absolutely. Thank you so much and thank you 
for your work on this, and thanks, Mr. Chair. That is all I 
had.
    Senator Tester. Senator Tuberville.

                    SENATOR TOMMY TUBERVILLE

    Senator Tuberville. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for 
being here today, both panels.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to first thank my Committee 
colleagues, Senators Blackburn, Blumenthal, and Boozman for co-
sponsoring my bill, 3606, which streamlines the information a 
servicemember of veteran must include when transferring G.I. 
Bill benefits to a dependent. This simple fix will reduce any 
unnecessary confusion and prevent situations where a 
servicemember of veteran passes away and the dependent is then 
unable to complete the benefit transfer for their educational 
opportunity. It should never be the case that a veteran or a 
family member is unable to access a VA benefit for which they 
are entitled, due to a clerical error.
    Second, I would like to bring up S. 3994 bill to reinstate 
defrauded funds to a veteran's estate, if the veteran passes 
away before the VA has concluded its investigation. I thank my 
colleague, Senator Manchin, for introducing this bill with me. 
This bill, along with 3606, while affecting a small minority of 
veterans, will create a lasting, permanent impact on veterans 
and their families, and I am grateful to my colleagues for 
supporting this effort, and I also thank you for supporting it 
as well.
    So just a couple of questions here. Ms. Murphy, in the case 
of a veteran who has been defrauded of compensation by a 
fiduciary representative, is there more that can be done to 
screen or conduct a periodic assessment on the named fiduciary 
representatives to prevent any issues or fraud? Anything else?
    Ms. Murphy. Senator, I do not have anything in mind right 
now but our teams would be happy to work with your staff.
    Senator Tuberville. How often does the VA conclude a 
fiduciary's mishandling of a veteran's financial compensation?
    Ms. Murphy. I do not have those number with me today but we 
could take that back.

    [VA response to Senator Tuberville appears on page 78 of 
the Appendix.]

    Senator Tuberville. Can you--you cannot guess that?
    Ms. Murphy. I----
    Senator Tuberville. Okay.
    Ms. Murphy [continuing]. I would be out of my league to do 
so, sir.
    Senator Tuberville. Okay. Thank you. In your testimony, the 
VA requests tweaks to the language----
    Ms. Murphy. Yes.
    Senator Tuberville [continuing]. Of S. 3994 to rather than 
preclude a fiduciary who has misused benefits from receiving 
payment of reissued funds instead have the funds offset by the 
amount mis-issued. The VA also requests changes to the language 
to allow an executor to receive and hold funds until the 
inheritor has been identified. Can you please talk a little bit 
more in depth about these concerns?
    Ms. Murphy. Certainly, Senator. I think as far as the 
misuse we recognize the need to not encourage this behavior or 
reward it in any way but also to recognize the precedential 
estate standards that exist. So if somebody is inheriting money 
from somebody, that is important, but it is also important to 
make sure that the misuse is taken care of. So offsetting, 
making sure that we recoup that money rather than say you are 
not getting anything at all. So just reconciling that language.
    Senator Tuberville. Does the VA need statutory authority to 
do what this bill requires or can it be done through policy?
    Ms. Murphy. I think there is some room to do it within 
existing authority, but I think it would be best handled for 
additional technical assistance to make sure we do not miss 
anything.
    Senator Tuberville. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for what you 
do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Tester. Next Senator Blumenthal via Webex.

                   SENATOR RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, 
Senator Tester and the Ranking Member for having this hearing, 
and thank you, Ms. Murphy and your colleagues, for being here.
    I want to begin by asking a couple of questions about the 
bill that was the topic for Senator Blackburn, the Veterans 
hearing Benefits Act, S. 3548. Let me be clear. What is the 
VA's position on this bill, because I think it is so important 
to provide as much hearing benefits as possible. Although often 
ignored, the ability to hear is critical to so many other 
physical and emotional aspects of life, the sense of physical 
balance that prevents falls, the sense of connection to the 
world that prevents depression and anxiety. And so whatever the 
condition that prevents adequate hearing I think the VA should 
address it and presume that it is service-connected if there is 
any possibility that it results from a combat injury, invisible 
wounds as well as physical ones.
    So perhaps, Ms. Murphy, you can tell me what the VA's 
position is on this bill.
    Ms. Murphy. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. We do support 
this. Much of it is in line with existing policies and 
procedures that we are already following. As I mentioned 
earlier, hearing loss and tinnitus are in the top three. They 
are numbers one and number three of the service-connected 
conditions among all of our veterans. I think it is a 
demonstration that within the authorities we have, we have 
definitely leaned in to utilize the presumption that is on part 
of 38 CFR 3.309(a), within that one-year window after discharge 
from service, and also to recognize the acoustic trauma, even 
in combat, with certain military occupations, and particularly 
with combat. Even if we do not have that link to service in the 
service records, the lay statement or veteran statement is 
enough for us to be able to concede that acoustic trauma 
occurred in service. So it allows us to move the claim forward 
and evaluate the degree of disability.
    Senator Blumenthal. And what can the VA do to expand access 
to hearing care among all veterans?
    Ms. Murphy. As far as VHA, they do have some authorities 
based on the priority groups and the level of service 
connection. I know a number of veterans do take advantage of 
getting hearing aids through VA when they have service-
connected disabilities. So I think just continued discussion, 
more technical assistance if we can provide it. But I just want 
to re-emphasize that we do embrace this and agree with you, 
sir, that hearing impairment is critical and does affect 
employability.
    Senator Blumenthal. And I would like to suggest or request 
that perhaps if you or someone from VHA could report back to us 
about legislative steps, additional legislative steps that 
perhaps we could take, or administrative steps that the VA can 
take to expand access to care for hearing impairment. If you 
could give us a report on that issue I would really appreciate 
it.
    Ms. Murphy. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator.

    [VA response to Senator Blumenthal appears on page 100 of 
the Appendix.]

    Senator Blumenthal. Let me also touch on S. 4319, the 
Veterans Readiness and Employment Act. Actually, the VETS Act, 
which promotes information about the Veterans Readiness and 
Employment Act. The bill that I have co-sponsored with Senator 
Cassidy is known as the Veterans on Education for Transition 
Servicemen's Act. Its acronym is VETS Act. But promoting 
education about the provisions of that measure, because 
apparently so few veterans are aware of the programs that may 
be available.
    Do you agree that more education, more outreach are 
desirable?
    Ms. Murphy. Senator, I would ask my colleague, Ms. Moses, 
to speak to that. I think that we do agree that there is always 
more that can be done. We certainly embrace outreach and 
education in this space. So I will ask Ms. Moses to elaborate.
    Ms. Moses. Thank you, Ms. Murphy, and thank you, Senator. 
VA does agree with the bill's intent to ensure--and, as a 
matter of fact, the Department has an objective to ensure that 
veterans are fully informed of their benefits. So we are 
definitely on the same page in making sure that we are 
informing and educating our veterans.
    One of the reasons why we are not supportive of this bill, 
in particular, is because we feel that there is much redundancy 
here. For example, when it comes specifically to Chapter 31 and 
Chapter 33, and the comparison, and ensuring that our veterans 
and servicemembers know the differences between the benefits 
that are available to them, we have notification within the 
Disability Compensation Notice letter. Also, when veterans 
apply and are deemed eligible for VR&E services, they have an 
initial evaluation with a counselor where they can receive one-
on-one guidance.
    Additionally, we have an existing online presence which is 
a side-by-side comparison tool. That website is also 508-
compliant and it provides those veterans and those 
servicemembers who are potentially veterans with information of 
what kind of services they can get. And for that transitioning 
servicemember who had not yet come out of the service, there is 
information that is provided within our Transition Assistance 
Program, or TAP, and they also have the opportunity to meet 
one-on-one with a benefits advisor. And the key here is making 
sure that veterans are getting the information that is 
particular or specific to them for their scenario.
    And then finally, for those individuals who are discharging 
through the medical separation process, through IDES, they too 
have opportunity to meet with a counselor to have one-on-one 
advice provided to them.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you for your response, Ms. Moses. 
My time has expired so I am not in a position to go back with a 
response to you, but I would like my staff to work with you. I 
think there may be less redundancy than perhaps is indicated. 
But one
way or the other, if we can move forward without redundancy, so 
much the better.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA Response: This was a request for a call. Call completed on August 10,
 2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the staff for accommodating 
my absence through this Webex connection. I really do 
appreciate it, both you and the staff. And if I am not a co-
sponsor of 3548, I ask to be added, without objection.
    Chairman Tester. Without objection, so ordered, and we 
always appreciate your input. Senator Blumenthal adds a lot to 
this Committee.
    As we set up for the second panel I just want to thank all 
three of you for being here. I want to thank all three of you 
for the work that you do every day. We can do the best work in 
the world, but if it is not implemented in the best way it does 
not do what we want it to do. And so thank all three of you for 
your great work that you do for the veterans of this Nation.
    And with that you can be excused and we will get the second 
panel up. Thank you.
    The second panel consists of Kristina Keenan, who is 
Associate Director of National Legislative Service at the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars, it consists of Michael McLaughlin, 
who is Legislative Chairman of the National Association of 
Count Veterans Service Offices, and it consists of Anne Meehan, 
who is Assistant Vice President of Government Relations from 
the American Council on Education.
    I want to welcome all three of you here today. We 
appreciate your perspectives on these bills. And Ms. Keenan, we 
will start with you. You may proceed.

                            PANEL II

                              ----------                              


                  STATEMENT OF KRISTINA KEENAN

    Ms. Keenan. Chairman Tester, Ranking Member Moran, and 
members of the Committee, on behalf of the men and women of the 
Veterans of Foreign wars and its Auxiliary, thank you for the 
opportunity to provide our remarks on legislation pending 
before this Committee. The VFW's view on all 13 bills can be 
found in my written testimony. I will take the opportunity to 
highlight a few of them.
    The VRW supports the No Bonuses for Bad Exams Act, which 
aims to resolve issues identified in a June 2022 VA OIG report. 
The OIG found deficiencies in VA's governance and oversight of 
its contract medical exam program, specifically that VA did not 
hold vendors accountable for correcting exams, nor did vendors 
meet the 92 percent exam accuracy requirements. This is very 
concerning for the VFW and the veterans that we represent, 
primarily because exams were not corrected prior to final 
rating decisions.
    The VFW appreciates that this legislation would establish 
transparent annual training requirements, it would create 
incentives for vendors to reach or exceed a 95 percent exam 
accuracy rate, it would require monthly reporting on exam 
quality, and would provide priority processing of exams of 
claims when exams are found to have errors.
    Also something to note, since VA eliminated the 48-hour 
review, VSOs have lost the ability to intervene when errors and 
claims are discovered. The VFW recommends restoring a pre-
decisional review period so that VSOs can assist in catching 
errors before final rating decisions are made, reducing the 
need for veterans to appeal.
    The VFW supports S. 4458, the Ensuring the Best Schools for 
Veterans Act of 2022, to improve the process by which the VA 
determines whether an educational institution meets certain 
requirements for enrollment. VA's 85/15 Rule was not meant to 
prevent veterans from using their education benefits. However, 
due to recent changes that had unintended consequences, certain 
schools were unsure if they could enroll veterans in courses. 
This proposal takes input from schools and veteran advocates to 
make sure veterans can use the benefits they have earned while 
schools can maintain quality standards.
    The VFW supports S. 4319, the Informing VETS Act of 2022, 
to better inform veterans about the opportunities offered 
through the Veteran Readiness and Employment, or VR&E, program. 
The Bureau of Labor Statistics found the unemployment rate for 
veterans in June of this year was 2.7 percent, and while this 
is good news, the VFW understands that this situation can be 
cyclical. If we do not put proper tools in place, we could see 
these numbers rise again in the future. VR&E offers a proven 
system that enables veterans to train for their next career, 
allowing them to thrive and prosper in their communities.
    The VFW supports S. 3548, the Veterans Hearing Benefits Act 
of 2022, which would require VA to recognize tinnitus and 
hearing loss as presumptive conditions for service in combat or 
military occupational specialties with exposures to acoustic 
trauma. Service in the military is often accompanied by 
activities during training, deployments, and everyday options 
that can put servicemembers' hearing at risk. The VA also 
acknowledges that hearing problems, including tinnitus, are the 
most prevalent service-connected disabilities among veterans. 
VFW members feel strongly about this, and through a VFW 
resolution urge Congress to pass this legislation.
    And lastly, the VFW supports S. 4308, the Veterans Marriage 
Recognition Act of 2022, which would update the definition of 
surviving spouse within Title 38 USC to include same-sex 
marriages. The VFW also recommends an update within the same 
section of law, striking the language that a surviving spouse 
may not live with another person or hold themselves out to be 
married. This is outdated language and should be removed to 
reflect the marriage requirements of the current area.
    Chairman Tester, Ranking Member Moran, thank you for the 
opportunity to provide my remarks. I look forward to answering 
any questions you may have.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Keenan appears on page 60 of 
the Appendix.]

    Chairman Tester. Ms. Keenan, I appreciate your remarks, and 
there will be questions.
    You are up next, Mr. McLaughlin.

                STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN

    Mr. McLaughlin. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Tester, 
Ranking Member Moran, and members of this Committee. My name is 
Michael McLaughlin and I serve as County Veterans Service 
Officer in Blue Earth County, Minnesota, and I am the 
Legislative Chairman for the National Association of County 
Veterans Service Officers, or NACVSO. It is my honor to testify 
before this Committee about pending legislation, and in 
particular the draft bill known as No Bonuses for Bad Exams.
    For those who are unfamiliar, NACVSO has over 1,700 veteran 
service officer members and represents the interests of over 
5,000 county, city, tribal, and State governmental employees 
who work tirelessly to ensure veterans in their local 
communities receive the benefits they have earned. State and 
local county-employed veteran service officers account for over 
two-thirds of all veteran service officers accredited by VA, 
and often are the first point of contact veterans have with VA. 
We assist veterans by guiding them through the long and 
sometimes stressful benefits process.
    Through our work, we understand veterans' needs and the 
daily challenges they encounter. Our policy platform is largely 
based on these experiences. I hope my testimony will give the 
Committee a frontline perspective so that the pending 
legislation you are considering today can move forward.
    NACVSO fully supports the No Bonuses for Bad Exams 
legislation. CVSOs work hard with our VSO partners to catch 
some of the issues that stem from unnecessary or inadequate 
exams performed by examiners who are not up-to-date on the 
latest standards. In many cases, these issues are not 
identified until an initial claim is denied and a supplemental 
or a higher-level review must be submitted. In one example 
identified by one of our members, a veteran's disability claim 
was denied based on an inadequate exam performed by an 
experienced contracted examiner. A higher-level review was 
submitted for the denied claim, and a VA Decision Review 
Officer, or DRO, found multiple errors and that this exam was 
so inadequate the DRO felt it necessary to define what an 
adequate medical opinion was in their instructions back to the 
examiner.
    NACVSO is grateful for the efforts that this individual DRO 
took to educate the examiner, but this sort of education should 
happen before any examiner performs an exam. This is just one 
example, but if a seasoned examiner like this can be so far 
from the standard, we know that this is more commonplace than 
we would hope.
    NACVSO has also long advocated for improving transparency 
of medical disability examinations. Requiring the VA to provide 
the examiner's credentials to the veteran and their 
representative as part of this proposed legislation is a step 
toward that greater transparency. In many instances, the 
veteran is under the incorrect impression that the assigned 
examiner is a specialist in the relevant medical field. For 
example, a veteran may think that their heart condition will be 
examined by a cardiologist, but in all actuality they may 
receive their examination from a general practitioner. Knowing 
this information in advance prepares the veteran to articulate 
their symptoms in specific detail to document their full health 
picture.
    Additionally, NACVSO fully supports the requirement to 
remove inadequate or unnecessary examinations from a veteran's 
VA file. Our CVSOs have seen instances where the inadequate 
exams are cited by future examiners and the bad exams are not 
purged from the file.
    I am here today because NACVSO sees this legislation as a 
good start toward addressing some of the shortcomings of the 
disability examination process. We encourage VA to consider 
implementing a policy that gives veterans greater flexibility 
when scheduling their contracted exams, because currently the 
VA gives a veteran no expectation about when a contracted 
company will reach out to schedule that exam. When that crucial 
call finally comes, the veteran is offered only a short window 
in which they can schedule their exam.
    One recent example of this case is when a young National 
Guard soldier, returning home from a deployment to a full-time 
job and his family, submitted a claim and was contacted by a 
VA-contracted company to set up his exams but with only an 
eight-day window to do so. However, this veteran was leaving 
the next day on a family vacation. The veteran provided the 
dates he would be available but was told by this contractor 
that he would have to contact the VA. That very same day, the 
veteran's entire exam scheduling request was canceled and the 
veteran was deemed unavailable by the contractor. A month 
later, the veteran received a letter from VA stating that he 
had expressed desire to withdraw his claim. What should have 
been a simple accommodation for the scheduling conflicts has 
now turned into a lengthy and unnecessary clarification process 
for the veteran.
    Chairman Tester, Ranking Member Moran, and members of the 
Committee, NACVSO and its members deeply appreciate the 
important work you are doing to ensure America's veterans 
receive the respect and benefits they have earned, and working 
together with VA and all of its stakeholders we can make this 
process better. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. McLaughlin appears on page 
67 of the Appendix.]

    Chairman Tester. Yes, once again I want to say thank you 
for your testimony, and I look forward to my questions.
    Ms. Meehan, you are up.

                    STATEMENT OF ANNE MEEHAN

    Ms. Meehan. Chairman Tester and members of the Committee, 
thank you for inviting me to speak at this hearing. My name is 
Anne Meehan, and I am the Assistant Vice President of 
Government Relations at the American Council on Education. ACE 
represents approximately 1,800 public and private two-year and 
four-year colleges and universities.
    I have been asked to speak about S. 4458, the Ensuring the 
Best Schools of Veterans Act of 2022. This bill would clarify 
the 35 percent exemption to the 85/15 Rule and restore it to 
its original intent. In so doing, it will also ensure that 
veterans can continue to enroll in the quality programs of 
their choosing. We strongly support this bipartisan legislation 
and thank Chairman Tester and Ranking Member Moran for its 
introduction.
    The 85/15 Rule provides important safeguards for veterans 
and their G.I. Bill benefits against waste, fraud, and abuse. 
At its core, the law seeks to ensure that at least 15 percent 
of students in any education program are not using G.I. Bill 
benefits to pay for the program. The rationale for this rule 
was that the enrollment of at least some non-veteran students 
provided important evidence of program value and quality 
because the non-veterans were willing to pay out of their own 
pockets to attend.
    While, in general, the rule requires institutions to report 
85/15 ratios for each of their programs, the statute also 
includes an important exception. Institutions with a low 
percentage of enrolled veterans, less than 35 percent, are 
exempt from providing these ratios. As the legislative history 
makes clear, requiring 85/15 ratios from institutions with a 
low percentage of enrolled veterans would ``result in 
burdensome and costly recordkeeping requirements with little 
tangible demonstration that accountability had been ensured or 
abuse has been curbed.''
    Unfortunately, as part of the 85/15 policy reset, the VA 
has required institutions to reapply for their 35 percent 
exemption and to submit 85/15 ratios for every program, which 
is contrary to the letter of the law and its legislative 
history. This interpretation has placed institutions in a 
Catch-22, unable to receive the exemption without first 
completing the ratios.
    As a result, campuses spent multiple days computing 85/15 
ratios for hundreds of programs, most of which did not have any 
veterans enrolled. Compounding these challenges, as a result of 
VA's changes to the definition of a supported student, campuses 
also found that they had many programs that now exceeded 85/15, 
even though there was not a single veteran enrolled in the 
program.
    At almost all public and nonprofit institutions the total 
veteran enrollment is below 35 percent, and at most it is in 
the low single digits, but because of VA's changes a growing 
number of campuses have been informed that their programs are 
no longer eligible for G.I. Bill benefits. This includes 
programs popular with veterans, such as programs in computer 
science, cybersecurity, health care, nursing, and business 
administration, to name a few.
    By clarifying the 35 percent exemption, S. 4458 would undo 
the negative impacts of this policy change on institutions with 
low total veterans and the veterans they serve. It will also 
ensure that veterans who attend these institutions can enroll 
in the program of their choice. Because registration for the 
fall term typically begins in August, we hope S. 4458 will be 
passed quickly by Congress to help minimize disruptions for 
veterans this fall. Without this critical fix institutions will 
be forced to deny veterans from enrolling in certain programs 
or may have to turn them away entirely.
    We thank Chairman Tester and Ranking Member Moran for 
crafting legislation that addresses these unintended 
consequences and restores the original intent of the law. The 
legislation has our full support and we look forward to working 
with you to help ensure a swift passage.
    I would be pleased to answer any questions.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Meehan appears on page 70 of 
the Appendix.]

    Chairman Tester. Thank you for your testimony. We 
appreciate all three of you.
    I just want to tell you that the fact that everybody is not 
here is for a number of reasons, and it is not because you are 
not important. Let us just put it that way. It is because there 
is a lot of stuff going on right now.
    I am going to start with you, Mr. McLaughlin, and that is 
that you have got to educate me a little bit. When we are 
talking about exams, I am assuming they do not all go to 
contracted folks, that there are some done by VA employees. But 
could you tell me if they are all contracted?
    Mr. McLaughlin. There is still a small amount that are done 
by VA employees. What we see, and what our members see, is that 
tends to be more audiology along those lines, tinnitus and 
hearing. But most of the general exams we are seeing are being 
done by contracted examiners.
    Chairman Tester. Okay. And you saw the statistics of 
potentially 1 out of 3. I would assume that that may be a 
worst-case scenario, but maybe it is not. What do you think?
    Mr. McLaughlin. As far as the full volume of those 
contracted claims of being 1 out of 3, it is hard for me to 
speak to that. But what I can say, the claims that we are 
seeing go to a higher-level review or a supplemental review, a 
higher portion of those and the most common reason for those 
getting sent back to be reworked is because of a duty to assist 
or exam issues that are found.
    Chairman Tester. You talked about a seasoned, experienced 
examiner that you dealt with. What is your definition of 
``seasoned''?
    Mr. McLaughlin. Several hundred exams.
    Chairman Tester. Okay. And the last question is, even 
though it is a very small percentage that VA employees are 
doing of these exams, are you seeing the same kind of problems 
with VA exams as you are with the contracted one, or are they 
even too few to even make that analysis?
    Mr. McLaughlin. I would say what we hear from our CVSOs out 
in the field is that more often on the hearing claims we are 
seeing less of these issues, but also that is usually less of a 
technical claim and exam that you are looking at too, in a lot 
of those scenarios. So it is kind of an unfair comparison, I 
would say.
    Chairman Tester. Apples and oranges.
    Ms. Keenan, I asked this question of the previous panel, 
but with bad exams, is it resulting in--are you hearing from 
your members, the VFW membership, that this is resulting in 
claims being extended out and not getting the timely benefits 
they need?
    Ms. Keenan. Thank you for the question. Yes, and the VFW 
has advocated for priority processing for these claims because 
veterans should not have to experience delays in their claims 
because of a VA or contract exam error.
    Chairman Tester. That is a fact. From your membership, is 
this a high-priority item, Ms. Keenan?
    Ms. Keenan. This is a high-priority item. It is very 
concerning, the data from the OIG report. We have requested 
from VA data on their exam quality, which we have not received. 
So this bill would help provide some additional oversight to 
the quality of the exams, and to provide that monthly reporting 
would be extremely helpful.
    Chairman Tester. Okay. Ms. Meehan, on the 85/15 bill, you 
had said that if this bill does not pass and if it does not get 
implemented appropriately before the beginning of the school 
year it could have an effect on veterans who want to go to 
school. I am always looking for numbers. What kind of numbers 
are we talking about--a third? A half? All that could be kept 
from furthering their education if we do not do something on 
this ASAP?
    Ms. Meehan. One data point I have is that a recent survey, 
20 percent of the institutions had already heard back from VA 
that they had at least some programs that were denied. I have 
heard of one institution where virtually every program on the 
campus had exceeded the ratios. So it is going to be a range.
    One other challenge to getting you that number is that 
right now the VA is still processing 35 percent exemptions. So 
until they come through we will not know for sure which 
programs will be denied.
    Chairman Tester. In Ms. Murphy's testimony, if my notes are 
correct, she said that, in the case of this bill--you can shake 
your head ``no'' if I did not read this right, by the way--that 
in the case of this bill that the VA had the capacity to fix 
this without legislation. Do you see it the same way?
    Ms. Meehan. I would hope so. I will tell you they do have 
the 35 percent number. They know the percentage of veterans 
because every school that submitted their application would 
have given them the total number of veterans on campus out of 
their population. So that data should already be in their 
hands.
    Chairman Tester. Okay. Senator Sullivan.

                      SENATOR DAN SULLIVAN

    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
witnesses here.
    Ms. Keenan, I want to just make a quick statement. You can 
just take it back to your leadership. I am a proud member of 
the VFW myself. I worked hard with this Committee on the PACT 
Act. I was voting on some procedural things to make it 
stronger. VFW official went up to my State, to the VFW 
convention, clueless, and talked to my veterans--my veterans--
about how I was not being supportive of priority. It really 
pissed me off, Okay?
    So send that back to the VFW, whoever that guy was, talking 
to my veterans. I probably do more to support veterans, care 
about veterans, am a veteran, am a member of the VFW. So I just 
do not appreciate people going up to Alaska and not knowing 
what they are talking about, from your organization. Let them 
know that. Let them know that.
    Anyways, my legislation on the home loan issues, Improving 
Access to the VA Home Loan Act of 2022, as you know, the home 
loan is one of the most important and useful of all military 
benefits. It ensures our military members are able to afford 
housing, regardless of their ability to save up for a down 
payment, and it is a well-earned benefit.
    One of the big issues that you see, particularly in rural 
States like Alaska or Montana, is that the appraisal process 
often takes much longer in rural communities because the VA 
does not have enough VA appraisal officials. So what my bill 
does is it focuses on making sure that veterans in rural areas 
and the VA have the ability to do those appraisals in a much 
more timely way, like they would in more urban or suburban 
areas. The average wait time for a VA appraisal nationally is 
10 days. In Alaska it is over 30 days, and you can lose out on 
getting a house during that time.
    So, Ms. Keenan, I appreciate the VFW's support for S. 4208, 
which is my bill, Improving Access to the VA Home Loan Act. It 
is meant to address this challenge. It is also meant to address 
some of the housing shortages that you see in rural States like 
Alaska. I just want to thank you for the support, and I want to 
see if there are other panelists, Mr. McLaughlin, you as well, 
have views on this. And in particular, are rural members of the 
VFW, or your other organizations, are you hearing from rural 
members who also have had difficulties with these appraisal 
issues that are impacting their ability actually get VA home 
loans?
    Ms. Keenan. Thank you for the question. Yes, we have heard 
feedback that the appraisals can take longer, and sometimes the 
VA-approved appraisers are not as well-informed about the 
housing costs and comparing rates within certain rural areas. 
So this would take a look at that process and even potentially 
add desktop appraisers to try to facilitate additional options 
for veterans in rural areas, which we support.
    Senator Sullivan. Just to be clear, and I know you have 
already stated but I want you to state it again in the hearing, 
the VA has some issues with the bill. We are still trying to 
get their support. But the VFW does support S. 4208. Correct?
    Ms. Keenan. Correct.
    Senator Sullivan. Mr. McLaughlin, do you have any views on 
that?
    Mr. McLaughlin. Yes. I would say we do see veterans in 
rural settings have issues with getting homes through the VA 
home loan process. When things were in a seller's market and it 
was a quick turnaround time, when bids were coming in, a lot of 
times veterans were not utilizing the VA home loan as an 
option, and were trying to self-finance or find other ways.
    Senator Sullivan. For that reason, right?
    Mr. McLaughlin. Correct.
    Senator Sullivan. That is what we saw.
    Mr. McLaughlin. I run a CVSO office in a small, rural 
county in southern Minnesota, and even talking to some of the 
realtors in that area, I mean, they were not even bringing up 
the issue of VA home loans with those veterans when they were 
talking with them, just because of the way the market was, and 
it was so noncompetitive to the private site.
    Senator Sullivan. So have you taken a view on this 
legislation, or if you have, I would like to have you kind of 
submit for the record taking a look at S. 4208.
    Mr. McLaughlin. Yes. Any NACVSO would be glad to take a 
look at that and look at it for our support.
    Senator Sullivan. Great. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NACVSO Response: Yes, NACVSO supports Senator Sullivan's legislation S.
 4208.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Chairman Tester. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
    I want to thank both panels. I want to thank the VA for 
being here. Thanks to you guys, to the VFW, to NACVSO and to 
ACE for being here. In my memory I do not ever remember NACVSO 
being in front of this Committee or ACE. So I just want to 
thank you guys for being here. And if you have and I have 
forgotten about it, shame on me, okay?
    I think both panels gave us valuable insight as we move 
forward with these bills.
    The record will be kept open for a week, and with that this 
hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

                             Hearing Agenda
     
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                          Prepared Statements
                          
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        Questions for the Record

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       Statements for the Record

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  [all]