    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
      H.R. 234; H.R. 854; H.R. 984; H.R. 1139; H.R. 1329; H.R. 1378; H.R.
                                1529; H.R. 1530

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2023
                                   __________

                                Serial No. 118-6
                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

                      [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        Available via http://govinfo.gov
                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    51-950                     WASHINGTON : 2023

                         COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                         MIKE BOST, Illinois, Chairman

    AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       MARK TAKANO, California, Ranking
        American Samoa, Vice-Chairwoman      Member
    JACK BERGMAN, Michigan               JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    NANCY MACE, South Carolina           MIKE LEVIN, California
    MATTHEW M. ROSENDALE, SR., Montana   CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
    MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
    GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina    SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK,
    C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida               Florida
    DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         CHRISTOPHER R. DELUZIO,
    MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas                   Pennsylvania
    JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona              MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
    ELIJAH CRANE, Arizona                DELIA C. RAMIREZ, Illinois
    KEITH SELF, Texas                    GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
    JENNIFER A. KIGGANS, Virginia        NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois

                           Jon Clark, Staff Director
                      Matt Reel, Democratic Staff Director

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS

                        MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas, Chairman

    C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida           CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire,
    JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona                  Ranking Member
    ELIJAH CRANE, Arizona                CHRISTOPHER R. DELUZIO,
    KEITH SELF, Texas                        Pennsylvania
                                         MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
                                         DELIA C. RAMIREZ, Illinois

    Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
    hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
    published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
    official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
    both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
    of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
    unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
    current publication process and should diminish as the process is
    further refined.

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2023

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Morgan Luttrell, Chairman..........................     1
    The Honorable Chris Pappas, Ranking Member.......................     2

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable Morgan Luttrell, U.S. House of Representatives,
      (TX-8).........................................................     3

    The Honorable Chris Pappas, U.S. House of Representatives, (NH-1)     3

    The Honorable Juan Ciscomani, U.S. House of Representatives, (AZ-
      6).............................................................     5

    The Honorable Mike Levin, U.S. House of Representatives, (CA-49).     6

    The Honorable Keith Self, U.S. House of Representatives, (TX-3)..     7

    The Honorable Jack Bergman, U.S. House of Representatives, (MI-1)     7

    Ms. Cheryl Rawls, Executive Director, Outreach, Transition and
      Economic Development, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S.
      Department of Veterans Affairs.................................     8

            Accompanied by:

        Mr. Kevin Friel, Deputy Director, Pension & Fiduciary
            Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S.
            Department of Veterans Affairs

        Ms. Christa Shriber, Deputy Chief Counsel, Benefits Law
            Group, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Department of
            Veterans Affairs

    Mr. Shane Liermann, Deputy National Legislative Director,
      Disabled American Veterans.....................................    21

    Mr. Lawrence Montreuil, Legislative Director, The American Legion    23

    Ms. Kristina Keenan, Deputy Director for National Legislative
      Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.........    24

    Lieutenant Colonel William Taylor (U.S.A.) Ret., Co-Founder &
      Chief Operating Officer, Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting,
      LLC............................................................    25

                                    APPENDIX
                        Prepared Statements Of Witnesses

    Ms. Cheryl Rawls Prepared Statement..............................    37
    Mr. Shane Liermann Prepared Statement............................    42
    Mr. Lawrence Montreuil Prepared Statement........................    46
    Ms. Kristina Keenan Prepared Statement...........................    57
    Lieutenant Colonel William Taylor (U.S.A.) Ret. Prepared
      Statement......................................................    60

                           Statements For The Record

    The Honorable Michael Waltz, U.S. House of Representatives, (FL-
      6).............................................................   133
    U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims........................   133
    Gold Star Wives of America.......................................   135
    National Organization of Veterans' Advocates.....................   143
    Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors.........................   145

                             LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
      H.R. 234; H.R. 854; H.R. 984; H.R. 1139; H.R. 1329; H.R. 1378; H.R.
                                1529; H.R. 1530

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2023

                  U.S. House of Representatives
    Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial
                                                Affairs
                                 Committee on Veterans' Affairs
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in
    room 390, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Morgan Luttrell
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Luttrell, Ciscomani, Crane, Self,
    Pappas, Levin, Bergman, Ramirez, and McGarvey.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF MORGAN LUTTRELL, CHAIRMAN

        Mr. Luttrell. Good morning, and it is absolutely great to
    see everyone here today. This legislative hearing is the
    Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs and
    it will now come to order. I want to first welcome all the new
    members of the subcommittee and all of those returning. I also
    ask unanimous consent that Congressman Bergman and Congressman
    Levin will be allowed to sit on the dais, make a statement, and
    ask questions.
        Hearing no objections, so ordered.
        The House Committee on Veterans Affairs has a reputation
    for operating in a bipartisan manner. I am looking forward to
    working with Ranking Member Pappas to ensure that this extends
    to our subcommittee. Turning to today's hearing, we are here to
    discuss the eight bills that are intended to benefit veterans
    and their families. These bills would remove barriers to
    survivors benefits for spouses after the loss of their loved
    one, improve outreach and access to VA services for rural and
    underserved veterans, impose penalties or predatory actors--on
    predatory actors attempting to take advantage of veterans and
    their benefits, and help address backlogs on the Board of
    Veterans Appeals and the Court of Appeals for Veterans claims.
        I am honored to have introduced two of these bills myself,
    H.R. 1529 and H.R. 1530, which I will speak about later. Again,
    thank you for being here today. I know my colleagues have
    worked hard on their proposals, and I welcome a healthy
    discussion about their merits. I now yield to Ranking Member
    Pappas for his opening remarks.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRIS PAPPAS, RANKING MEMBER

        Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Congratulations on taking the gavel. I want to join you in
    welcoming everyone to the first hearing of the Disability
    Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee for the 118th
    Congress. Before I get started, I want to recognize and thank
    all of our veterans, but today, especially our Vietnam veterans
    and their families, for their service and sacrifices. Today
    marks National Vietnam War Veterans Day. It is a stark reminder
    that there is still much more we need to do to help our
    veterans and their survivors.
        As the ranking member of this subcommittee, I look forward
    to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to advance the cause of
    supporting our veterans, their survivors, dependents, and
    families, and holding VA accountable to those that they serve.
    While I am sure we have policy disagreements from time to time,
    I am confident that those disagreements will never be personal.
    At the end of the day, I know we are both trying to achieve the
    same goal, which is to ensure that our veterans and their
    families have access to the benefits that they have earned
    through their service.
        To that end, I appreciate you holding this hearing today.
    We will have several important measures to help improve the
    experience of veterans, their survivors, and dependents when
    trying to access their well-earned benefits at VA, including my
    bipartisan GUARD VA Benefits Act, H.R. 1139, which I will
    address later.
        Congressman Levin has also offered a bipartisan bill on
    today's agenda to authorize grants to states to improve
    outreach to veterans, assist with VA claims, hire additional
    county veteran service officers, or CVSOs, and train them for
    VA accreditation. I want to thank Congressman Levin for
    inviting me to help introduce this important legislation.
        Chairman Luttrell, your Veterans Compensation Cost of
    Living Adjustment Act of 2023 will increase the rates of
    compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities
    and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for
    their survivors of certain disabled veterans. I appreciate the
    opportunity to co-lead this legislation and to support you in
    those efforts.
        There are, of course, many other bills on the agenda today,
    and I look forward to the testimony that we will hear on all of
    them. I hope it will provide this subcommittee with valuable
    information to approve upon the legislation before us and help
    us provide needed services to our Nation's veterans and their
    survivors. With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Pappas. We have a full agenda
    today, so I will ask that everyone holds their comments to 3
    minutes, including myself. This morning, we are joined by
    several of our colleagues both on and off the committee. We are
    going to be testifying about the bills that they have
    sponsored. Ranking Member Pappas, Representative Ciscomani from
    Arizona, Representative Levin from California, Representative
    Self from Texas, Representative Bergman from Michigan, and
    Representative Waltz, who will not be here today, but we will
    submit that for the record. I now recognize myself for 6
    minutes, even though I said three, but I have two bills, just
    to clarify that.

                      STATEMENT OF MORGAN LUTTRELL

        Mr. Luttrell. I am proud to have introduced H.R. 1529 and
    1530. I also want to thank Ranking Member Pappas for being a
    co-lead on those bills. H.R. 1529, the Veterans Compensation
    Cost of Living Adjustment Act, would give a cost-of-living
    adjustment to veterans and survivors receiving certain VA
    benefits. This increase would be the same as Social Security
    recipients receive and would help veterans keep up with
    inflation. This legislation is absolutely vital in the face of
    rampant inflation and a potential recession. We must ensure
    that our veterans are able to pay their bills and put food on
    the table for their families.
        The other bill, 1530, the Veterans Benefits Improvement
    Act, would help identify and remove barriers that prevent
    veterans from accessing the disability benefits they have
    earned. The bill would make several improvements to the
    disability exam process by ensuring that public facing
    disability benefits questionnaires, which are standard forms VA
    use to assess the veterans disability rating, are up to date on
    the VA's website, making travel payment reimbursements more
    accessible for overseas veterans that attend a disability exam,
    and enhancing communications on the scheduling of an exam
    between contract examiners, veterans, and the veterans'
    representatives to help prevent veterans from missing their
    appointments.
        Moreover, 1530 would mandate a VA report on the feasibility
    and technical limitations of providing governmental Veteran
    Service Organizations (VSOs) increased access to VA systems.
    Governmental VSOs, known as county or Tribal VSOs assist
    veterans with their claims locally. These VSOs have urged VA to
    provide them with enhanced access to VA's claims processing
    systems to better help veteran claims. This report would help
    us find a path forward on these issues.
        I look forward to working with Chairman Bost and my
    colleagues on this subcommittee to advance these bills. I also
    appreciate the feedback from VSOs who have joined us today. I
    yield back and now recognize Ranking Member Pappas for 3
    minutes for his testimony on H.R. 1139, the GUARD VA benefits
    act.

                       STATEMENT OF CHRIS PAPPAS

        Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
    look forward to sharing with everyone what this bill does and
    what it does not do. Mr. Chairman, you have heard me and others
    on the committee and the VSOs that testified in our joint
    hearings about the troubling increase of unaccredited claims
    consultants looking to profit from veterans disability claims.
    They peddle a for-profit model for services that veterans can
    receive free of charge from veteran service organizations like
    those testifying today. It is alarming because the more third
    parties that have a hand on a veteran's claim, the greater the
    potential for fraud and abuse, which I am sure you will agree
    we must prevent.
        To provide veterans with qualified and competent help and
    protect them from individuals who may be targeting their
    benefits, VA has long operated an accreditation, discipline,
    and fees program to provide oversight of those who assist with
    claims preparation. Critically, this program also dictates fee
    agreements between veterans and their representatives when a
    veteran can be charged and for how much to ensure that the
    veteran is being charged a fair price. Under current Federal
    law, VA accredited representatives are the only individuals
    authorized to prepare, present, or prosecute VA claims on a
    veteran's behalf. Unfortunately, in 2006, Congress decided to
    strip the VA of its ability to penalize those who violate the
    long-standing prohibitions on preparation, presentation, and
    prosecution of a claim before VA. Let me be clear, what
    Congress did in 2006 was to remove the penalty for violation of
    law. It did not remove the underlying criminal acts from
    statute, meaning it has always been and will be against the law
    to assist in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of
    a VA claim without accreditation.
        Since then, the claims consulting companies have exploited
    this dangerous loophole to rake in millions of dollars from
    veterans across the country. My bill, the GUARD VA Benefits
    Act, will simply reinstate criminal penalties for unaccredited
    claims representatives. It does not create new criminal acts,
    nor does it change the well-established definitions of
    preparation, presentation, and prosecution. To that point, I
    want to be absolutely clear on one thing. The gathering and or
    development of third-party medical evidence has long been
    excluded from the definitions of preparation, presentation,
    prosecution. The GUARD Act does not change that dynamic, nor
    would I propose to.
        I also want to address another argument that some have
    raised, and that is that the GUARD Act will somehow limit the
    choices that veterans have to help with their claim. Some
    companies have even hired expensive lobbyists and lawyers to
    argue that this bill would violate a veteran's First Amendment
    rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. This
    legislation does not ban a veteran from choosing whoever they
    want when seeking help with their VA claim. If veterans want
    options, they can talk to any number of professional, well
    trained veteran service officers. They can seek help from VSOs
    like the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), the American Legion,
    and others. If veterans want a paid option, they are free to
    turn to agents and attorneys for help. The difference is all of
    these individuals are accredited and subject to the oversight
    of VA and Office of General Counsel (OGC). It is exactly that
    oversight that for-profit claims consulting companies are
    trying to avoid.
        What these unaccredited claims consulting companies are
    doing is illegal and they know it, which is why they have spent
    tens of thousands of dollars lobbying against this bill. They
    also know that there is nothing stripping them from becoming
    accredited today except, as they will admit, they can not make
    any money. Regarding this legally dubious First Amendment
    argument, it has long been true in both statute and legal
    precedent that the government has a special responsibility to
    develop standards for licensed professions, and that
    enforcement of those standards of professional conduct is not
    an abridgement of free speech. For example, Federal and State
    governments provide attorneys with medical providers with
    accreditation. It is also true that the government can
    criminalize unauthorized professional conduct in order to
    ensure compliance and to protect the public. There is abundant
    case law to support both of those premises, which can be found
    easily.
        I am left to believe that those peddling this argument are
    simply either grasping at straws in order to distract from the
    real issue and soften the bipartisan support that this bill
    already enjoys. It demonstrates clearly the lengths these
    companies will go to and the money they will spend in an
    attempt to try to avoid accountability. The reality is, Mr.
    Chairman, they exist solely to exploit a loophole in the law
    and make money off of our veterans, and that is something we
    just should not support. I hope my colleagues agree and I yield
    back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ranking Member Pappas. The chair
    yields to Congressman Ciscomani, you are now recognized for 3
    minutes to speak on H.R. 1378, the Veterans Appeals Backlog
    Improvement Act.

                      STATEMENT OF JUAN CISCOMANI

        Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Chairman Luttrell, and our fellow
    members of the subcommittee. I am grateful that my bill, H.R.
    1378, the Veterans Appeals Backlog Improvement Act, is being
    considered today.
        This bipartisan effort, which I introduced with Congressman
    McGarvey, is aimed at reducing wait times for our veterans with
    claims in front of the Board of Veterans Appeals. In order to
    expedite claim times and serve our veterans more efficiently,
    the Veterans Appeals Backlog Improvement Act created an
    internship program for law students at the Board of Veterans
    Appeals. Additionally, this bill would create a 9-year pilot
    Honors Program at the VA for recruiting entry level attorneys
    to work at the Board of Veterans Appeals.
        The backlog and delays in claims have been one of the top
    issues I have heard from constituents and our men and women who
    served our country. While progress has been made to adjudicate
    older, legacy VA appeals from veterans, the backlog is only
    increasing with newer claims stemming from the Promise to
    Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act. Simply put, the Board
    of Veterans Appeals does not have enough staff to process the
    volume of the cases.
        The backlog of pending appeals has increased in recent
    years, topping 200,000 undecided cases, with the average
    veteran facing a wait time of 440 days before a decision.
    Sadly, there is a heartbreaking story of a veteran in need
    behind each of these numbers. Last year, there was a report of
    an army veteran in my home State of Arizona who waited 5 years
    to simply be heard in front of the Board of Veterans Appeals.
    He was described as beaten down by a broken system, saying, I
    hope I just go to sleep and do not wake up. I am tired of my
    life being this way and the way it is.
        Our veterans who were injured in the line of duty, who
    sacrificed their health and well-being for our country, should
    feel supported and uplifted by the country they gave so much
    for, not beaten down. By providing the VA and the Board of
    Veterans Appeals with tools to better recruit lawyers, we will
    expedite the process of these claims and eventually cut down on
    this tremendous backlog. For some of our veterans, that means
    quicker, easier access to life-changing care. For others, it
    simply means a better sense of being taken care of by a country
    that they sacrificed so much for. I am proud to have partnered
    with Congressman McGarvey on this commonsense legislation, and
    I look forward to working with my colleagues to develop
    solutions for these brave men and women. Mr. Chair, I yield
    back. Thank you.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Congressman Ciscomani. The chair
    recognizes Congressman Levin. You are now recognized for 3
    minutes to speak on H.R. 984----
        Mr. Levin. Thank you.
        Mr. Luttrell [continuing]. Commitment to the Veteran
    Support and Outreach Act.

                        STATEMENT OF MIKE LEVIN

        Mr. Levin. Thank you, Chairman Luttrell. Thank you, Ranking
    Member Pappas. Thanks so much for including H.R. 984, the
    Commitment to Veteran Support and Outreach Act, also known as
    the CVSO Act, in today's legislative hearing. I reintroduced
    this bipartisan bicameral bill last month with Ranking Member
    Pappas and Representatives McMorris, Rogers, and Finstad to
    improve veterans' ability to use their benefits by authorizing
    VA to award competitive grants to expand the work of county
    veteran service officers, also known as CVSOs.
        CVSOs are local county employees who are nationally
    accredited by VA to prepare, present, and prosecute VA claims.
    They work with veterans every day and are often the first to
    inform them about their eligibility for VA programs and
    services. They also help enroll veterans into the Veterans
    Health Administration and provide assistance on a range of
    benefits, including service-connected disability compensation,
    VA home loans, education benefits, and job placement
    assistance. CVSOs will be able to use this grant funding to
    improve outreach to veterans, enhance the development and
    submittal of claims on behalf of veterans, hire additional
    staff, and to obtain VA accreditation. In doing so, this
    program will strengthen economic supports, improve access to
    care, and enhance connectedness, key strategies that reduce
    risk and promote protective factors for suicide.
        We have a responsibility to ensure that veterans and their
    families can readily access the benefits and services that they
    have earned, and the CVSO Act does just that. That is why this
    bill has earned support from a wide variety of stakeholders.
    This is a long List, including the Department of Veterans
    Affairs, the National Association of County Veteran Service
    Officers, the National Association of Counties, National
    Association of State Departments of Veterans Affairs, Disabled
    American Veterans, the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign
    Wars, United Steel Workers, Wounded Warrior Project, Military
    Officers Association of America, the Association of Mature
    American Citizens, America's Warrior Partnership, Green Beret
    Foundation, Military Veterans Advocacy, Fleet Reserve
    Association, and I saved the best for last, the San Diego
    Military Advisory Council, the County of San Diego, and several
    other counties and State CVSO associations.
        The CVSO Act passed the House with overwhelming support in
    December but ran out of time to be considered in the Senate
    before the end of the 117th Congress. In the 118th Congress, we
    are moving the bill right out of the gate. The Senate Veterans
    Affairs Committee has already reported the bill favorably, and
    I want to thank Chairman Luttrell and Ranking Member Pappas
    again for including it in the subcommittee's first legislative
    hearing. I look forward to working with you to get this bill to
    the President's desk as soon as possible. Thank you, and I
    yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Congressman Levin. The chair
    recognizes Congressman Self for 3 minutes to speak on H.R.
    1329.

                        STATEMENT OF KEITH SELF

        Mr. Self. Thank you, Chairman Luttrell. H.R. 1329 enacts
    legislation that will increase the number of permanent judges
    on the United States Court of Appeals for veterans claims from
    seven to nine and increase the total number of judges from nine
    to 11. For decades, the Board of Veterans Appeals has been
    criticized in providing timely decisions to veterans who appeal
    their cases. If a veteran disagrees with the Board's decision,
    they can expect to wait even longer for their case to be
    decided by the court. To make matters worse, we anticipate the
    caseload increasing because of the implementation of the PACT
    Act.
        Since the court's expansion from five to seven permanent
    judges in 2011, appeals that have been filed to the court have
    more than doubled, growing from 3,900-plus in Fiscal Year 2011
    to 8,900 in Fiscal Year 2020. Increasing the number of judges
    will provide the court with an opportunity to prevent a backlog
    and provide veterans with decisions in a timely manner. This
    legislation is endorsed by the court itself and Congress even
    recognized the need by appropriating last year and now we are
    authorizing.
        Because of their sacrifice and their service, America's
    veterans deserve to rest assured that when returning home from
    fighting battles overseas, they will not be stuck fighting
    battles with bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. You may be aware
    that Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has scored a spending
    increase for this. I assure you we will find the offset for it
    to try to corral the out-of-control spending. For our number
    two panel, I will be asking questions about the tremendous
    reversal, remanded, redacted, and dismissed rate from the Board
    itself and the role that the Board plays in this tremendous
    backlog. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Congressman Self. The chair now
    recognizes Congressman Bergman. You are now recognized for 3
    minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF JACK BERGMAN

        Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gerald Jerry Elliott
    was a U.S. Army veteran and a resident of Kingsford in the
    Upper Peninsula of Michigan in the middle of my district. A
    lifelong upper, Jerry was a member of American Legion Post 363
    and an active volunteer with the UP Honor Flight and at the
    Iron Mountain VA Hospital. After receiving a cancer diagnosis
    in 2019, he was admitted to the Iron Mountain VA for care. As
    the disease progressed and he was placed in hospice care, he
    decided to go home to live out his final days in some level of
    positivity with his family.
        Following his death, Jerry's family discovered that even
    though he received hospice care through the VA, the fact that
    he received these benefits at home meant his family did not
    qualify for burial benefits after his death. Under current law,
    VA hospice care provided at home does not qualify as a death
    under VA care and is therefore not covered under the
    nonservice-connected burial and plot benefit. As a result, if a
    veteran with a terminal illness wants the full burial benefit,
    they would be forced to die in a hospital or nursing home
    through VA instead of transferring to home hospice care to be
    with their loved ones.
        This injustice is unacceptable. No veteran or their family
    should have to worry about losing VA benefits for their family
    when choosing to spend their last days in the comfort of their
    loved ones in their own home. H.R. 234 will address this by
    extending VA burial allowance eligibility to veterans whose
    deaths occur at home while receiving VA hospice care if they
    were previously receiving VA hospital or nursing home care.
        I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on
    behalf of Gerald and his family, as well as the thousands of
    other veterans and their family members being denied benefits
    due to this legislative oversight. I am looking forward to
    working with the committee to advance Gerald's Law and ensure
    that this injustice is permanently corrected. Thank you and I
    yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Congressman Bergman. As is our
    practice, we will forego a round of questioning from the
    members. Any questions may be submitted for the record. You are
    now excused. Although I do understand many of you are staying
    to ask questions during the next panel, I now invite our second
    panel. Joining us today from the Department of Veterans Affairs
    is Miss Cheryl Rawls, Executive Director of Outreach,
    Transition and Economic Development with the Veterans Benefits
    Administration. Mr. Kevin Friel. Did I pronounce that
    correctly, sir?
        Mr. Friel. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you. Deputy Director of Pensions and
    Fiduciary Services with the Veterans Benefits Administration,
    and Ms. Christa Shriber, Deputy Chief Counsel for the Benefits
    Law Group with the Office of General Counsel. Will all
    witnesses please stand and raise your right hand?
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        You may be seated. Thank you. Let the record reflect that
    all witnesses answered in the affirmative. Ms. Rawls, you are
    now recognized for 5 minutes to present the Department's
    testimony.

                       STATEMENT OF CHERYL RAWLS

        Ms. Rawls. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman
    Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas, and other members of the
    subcommittee. Thank you for inviting us here today to testify
    on views of several bills that would affect the VA programs and
    services. Joining me today, as you have mentioned, is Christa
    Shriber, Deputy Chief Counsel for Veterans Affairs, Office of
    General Counsel, and Mr. Kevin Friel, Deputy Director for
    Pension and Fiduciary Service at the Veterans Benefits
    Administration.
        VA is grateful for your commitment to support our Nation's
    veterans, their families, caregivers, and survivors. While VA
    views on all bills are detailed in my written testimony, I
    would like to highlight a few areas related to the proposed
    legislation. VA supports H.R. 234, Gerald's Law, with an
    identified funding offset if amended. VA supports the section
    of the bill extending eligibility for VA burial allowance to a
    new demographic of veterans and the intent for the effective
    date. VA understands the effective date would be January 5,
    2023. However, we would recommend the effective date be 6
    months following the passage of the bill. This additional time
    would allow VA to update necessary forms and systems.
        While VA has no objection to H.R. 1530, the Veterans
    Benefits Improvement Act, we note potential ambiguity. In as it
    refers to outreach concerning contact information for
    contractors, it is unclear whether the bill is concerned with
    informing veterans of the contact information for the exam
    contractor or with informing veterans that VA may provide
    veterans contact information to the contractors. Clarification
    of the intent would be helpful.
        VA has concerns with H.R. 854, Gold Star Spouse Equity Act.
    We support the intended purpose of the bill in expanding
    benefits for surviving spouses of members of the armed forces
    who die in the line of duty subject to availability of
    appropriations. However, the language does not limit the
    expansion of dependent and indemnity compensation, DIC
    benefits, under 38 U.S.C. 1311 for surviving spouses who
    remarry to situations where the veteran died in the line of
    duty. The language as currently written would be more expansive
    than the intent of the bill. Additionally, there are two
    statutes that provide for the granting of DIC benefits, and as
    currently written, this proposed bill would only address one of
    those statutes creating disparity in the DIC benefits program.
    VA respectfully requests clarification on the intent of this
    bill. Additionally, we defer Section 2 of the bill to the
    Department of Defense as it would be responsible for
    implementation.
        VA does not support H.R. 1378, Veterans Appeal Backlog
    Improvement Act because the program as described in the bill
    are duplicative of existing and well-established entry-level
    attorney hiring initiatives and temporary law clerk appointment
    processes. If required, the competitive Honors Program may
    negatively impact participation in and outcomes of the Board's
    existing law clerk program.
        VA supports H.R. 1529, Veterans Compensation Cost of Living
    Act of 2023. Annual cost of living adjustments to compensation
    rates tangibly express this Nation's gratitude and respect for
    the sacrifices made by service-disabled veterans, their
    surviving spouses, and children. This bill would authorize VA
    to make cost of living adjustments in accordance with past
    legislatively authorized practice and in accordance with the
    established expectation of veterans and beneficiaries.
        VA supports H.R. 984, Commitment to Veteran Support and
    Outreach Act, providing the availability of appropriations. VA
    values the partnership it has with the veteran service
    organizations, including the county veteran service officers
    and the Tribal service officers who are affiliated with us, and
    we continue to look for ways and opportunities to further
    engage with them.
        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas, and members of
    the subcommittee, this concludes my statement, and we will be
    happy to answer any questions you or the subcommittee may have.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Cheryl Rawls Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ms. Rawls. Ms. Shriber, I was
    disappointed to see that the VA does not support H.R. 1378, the
    Veterans Appeals Backlog Improvement Act as currently drafted.
    I commonly hear from veterans as well as staff who are
    frustrated that the VA is taking years to decide their Board of
    Appeals. Why does the Board not support establishing a program
    to provide mentorship opportunities from seasoned attorneys to
    hire, which may help improve training and quality decisions?
        Ms. Shriber. Good morning. First I want to say, you know,
    we appreciate the interest in the number of claims that are
    with the Board of Veterans Appeals. Currently, we want to say
    thank you also for resourcing the Board of Veterans Appeals.
    Last year, there was a large focus on hiring veteran law
    judges, and this year there is focus on hiring attorneys to
    fill the drafting of those decisions.
        In a recent hiring, there was about 1,700 eligible
    applicants that are being looked at currently and there is
    expectation that the amount of attorneys at the Board will
    increase by 25 percent this year. We think that will go a long
    way in helping reduce the number of claims that are present.
        Mr. Luttrell. Yes, ma'am. Again, my question is why is the
    VA opposed to the bill?
        Ms. Shriber. The VA is opposed to the bill because we
    currently have a system in place for hiring entry-level
    attorneys, and this could go ahead and frustrate that purpose.
    We want to get people writing decisions as quickly as possible,
    and it is currently an effective process.
        Mr. Luttrell. I would disagree that it is an effective
    process giving the narrative of what is happening in the
    Appeals Board. My question again is, why is the VA opposed to
    an enhanced bill that would increase the capabilities of the
    Board in processing the appeals?
        Ms. Shriber. VA believes that a better use of the resources
    that we have now would be to hire attorneys into our attorney
    positions and train them as attorneys under the veteran law
    judges.
        Mr. Luttrell. That did not really answer my question. This
    is one of those questions that I need clarification on given
    the gravity of what is happening with the veteran community and
    the Appeals Board. Instead of me just continuing to dig in on
    this one, I am going to move into my second question. Just know
    that I will probably be requesting another meeting with you.
        Ms. Shriber. That is perfectly good. The Board I am
    representing, I am with the Office of General Counsel, and I am
    filling in for the Board right now. The Board did indicate that
    their leadership is more than willing to meet with Congress.
        Mr. Luttrell. Who would I normally be speaking with in
    front of this committee if it is not you? Do you have a name
    for me?
        Ms. Shriber. No, I do not have a name for you.
        Mr. Luttrell. My second question. The Social Security
    Administration supports allowing representation at the initial
    claim stage because SSA believes qualified representations on
    the front end may reduce the number of appeals. Would the VA
    support allowing accredited representations to charge a
    reasonable fee at the initial claim stage, similar to SSA?
        Ms. Shriber. That is a very interesting question. I can
    tell you in the past, VA has shaped its view on this issue
    based on Congress's intent to keep the system non-adversarial
    and ensuring that the money and the benefits that go to
    veterans is not unnecessarily reduced by the fees that would go
    to attorneys and agents. I can not really provide a definitive
    position from VA at this point on that because that has not
    been necessarily considered. I am happy to take that question
    back for an official position.
        Mr. Luttrell. Please do.
        Ms. Shriber. Will do.
        Mr. Luttrell. Ms. Rawls, please expand on the VA's
    suggestions to improve my bill, H.R. 1530, the Veterans
    Benefits Improvement Act.
        Ms. Rawls. Thank you very much for the question. We think
    that the way that it is written, we would need to work through
    the types of communications that we are going to put out to our
    veterans and the types of communication that will go out to the
    contractors so that way they will know what is expected of
    them. Based on this, we certainly will make ourselves available
    for any subsequent conversations to this, but we just need that
    language to be very clear, to cite those expectations, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay, thank you. I yield and recognize
    Ranking Member Pappas.
        Mr. Pappas. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Shriber, if I could
    ask you a few questions about the GUARD VA Benefits Act. One of
    the consistent and false rumors regarding the act is that
    somehow providers of third-party medical evidence might be
    swept into the net. I understand the concern of some medical
    evidence providers, but I feel it is unwarranted. Could you
    clarify for the subcommittee, has the provision of medical
    documentation to veterans ever been considered to be part of
    the definitions of preparation, presentation, and prosecution?
    Is there anything in the GUARD Act that you feel would change
    that dynamic?
        Ms. Shriber. We do not consider the submission of medical
    evidence to be part of preparation, presentation, and
    prosecution of a benefit claim. Medical evidence is created as
    part of, almost seen as expert testimony versus a claims
    preparer, or attorney, agent, or VSO representative is an
    advocate on the veteran's behalf. They are two separate roles,
    and they both play an important part in our VA system, but they
    are separate and distinct.
        Mr. Pappas. Okay. Nothing that you see in the bill would
    change that dynamic.
        Ms. Shriber. Nothing in the bill would change that dynamic.
        Mr. Pappas. Now, I have heard a criticism that the
    Accreditation, Discipline, and Fees program does not adequately
    define preparation, presentation, and prosecution, so that the
    activities that are prohibited under law are not clear. Can you
    explain to the subcommittee how you all define preparation,
    presentation, and prosecution for purposes of the ADF program,
    and how long have those definitions been in place?
        Ms. Shriber. We are currently considering adding a
    definition to our regulations on the practice before VA, which
    would include the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of
    a claim. It would include advising on a claim, preparing a
    claim, and filling out the documents necessary for a claim. It
    would also include submitting a claim to VA, presenting the
    claim, and representing on the claim, prosecuting the claim
    before the agency. We currently do not have an official
    definition, but we do have something on our website, and I am
    going to say, and if we do not, we will soon, that will clarify
    that in a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ).
        Mr. Pappas. Okay, well, we will look for that information
    and maybe we can stay in touch on that. It is the intent of the
    bill not to change those definitions themselves. I am just
    wondering, regarding the Accreditation, Discipline, and Fees
    program, one of the chief benefits of the system is the
    oversight of an insight into the activities of those who are
    helping veterans with their disability claims. That sort of
    transparency is sorely lacking with the for-profit claims
    consulting industry. I am wondering, how would the GUARD Act
    enable you all to better protect veterans through ensuring
    training of service providers in the oversight of fee
    agreements?
        Ms. Shriber. What the GUARD Act would allow, it would allow
    a penalty, a single standard, a national penalty that could be
    imposed on individuals who charge our veterans and who are not
    accredited and are not doing so within the VA system. It is
    important to know that within the accreditation system, there
    are safeguards in place that allow us to take action if a
    veteran is harmed or may potentially be harmed. A veteran is
    allowed to inform us of any misconduct or potential
    incompetence on a claim, and we can look into that matter.
        In addition, if a veteran believes that they have been
    charged an unreasonable fee, they can motion the Office of
    General Counsel. We can look at that fee, and we can go ahead
    and reduce the amount that is being paid to--or is being
    charged to the veteran, if necessary. Last year, we returned
    2.5 million to veterans in unreasonable fees.
        Mr. Pappas. Thanks for those comments. Just zeroing in a
    little bit on the training, one complaint that we have heard
    again and again from the for-profit companies is that ADF is
    meaningless because the training does not keep up with current
    law. Can you tell us what your office is doing to proactively
    update the ADF program to ensure that agents, attorneys, and
    service officers have the best training possible?
        Ms. Rawls. There are a few things that we are doing. One,
    we are looking at increasing our continuing legal education
    requirement. It is currently at 3 hours within the first 12
    months, and then 3 hours every other year. We are looking at
    increasing that number. In addition, all of our accredited
    individuals who have access to the VA Veterans Benefit online
    system, where they can access the claims files, also take a
    different type of training, known as trip training, that also
    gives information on the VA system.
        Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you for that background and for
    VA's support of this legislation. I yield back my time.
        Ms. Shriber. Thank you.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ranking Member Pappas. Congressman
    Crane, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Shriber, can you
    please give the committee an example of exactly what type of
    issues, or what type of issues veterans are being exploited in
    the legislation just described with the GUARD Act?
        Ms. Shriber. One of the things that the GUARD Act is
    looking to penalize is individuals who are assisting veterans
    outside of the VA realm and are not subjecting themselves to
    the VA safeguards of this system. This means that when a
    veteran has a complaint or has a disagreement with the
    individual who may have unlawfully helped them on their VA
    benefit claim, there is no one for them to report it to. Our
    recourse there has been to inform the individual that they are
    doing something contrary to law, and then work with our
    partners, either Federal enforcement agencies or State
    agencies, to see if there are State laws or consumer protection
    laws that they may have violated. There is no direct link
    between doing what our law says is wrong and a punishment.
        Mr. Crane. Okay, thank you. Ms. Rawls, how will VA ensure
    that grants authorized in the H.R. 984, Commitment to Veteran
    Support and Outreach Act are reaching Native American veterans
    who often are underutilized VA benefits and services?
        Ms. Rawls. Thank you very much for that question. As you
    know, we currently have over 500, actually close to 580
    recognized Tribes, 38 Tribal veteran service officers that are
    accredited. We continue to work with our county veteran service
    officers as well as National Association of State Directors of
    Veterans Affairs (NASDVA) and the National County of Veteran
    Service Officers Association. One of the items that we will
    certainly have to do is to one, implement appropriate comms
    around it. We will need to ensure that we are structuring to
    get that information out from our lowest levels to include our
    56 regional office directors that are located around. We will
    have to integrate this again with our leadership that is out
    there working with our other veteran service officers and our
    State Department of Veterans Affairs. Mostly, you know, because
    I am in outreach, it would have to be cyclic continuing to
    ensure that this information is provided on a continuum so
    people understand and we can reach them. There is also the new
    Tribal Service Committee that has just recently been stood up
    and I think they will be a great place for us to also work
    through getting that information out.
        Mr. Crane. Do you have direct communication with them,
    ma'am?
        Ms. Rawls. I frequently am asked to come and brief and talk
    about what VA is doing and so we do get invited to attend those
    meetings.
        Mr. Crane. Okay.
        Ms. Rawls. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Crane. Thank you.
        Ms. Rawls. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Crane. Mr. Friel for H.R. 234, Gerald's Law Act would
    support the survivors of veterans receiving VA hospice care at
    home by allowing them to remain eligible for burial allowance.
    How many survivors would this bill potentially impact?
        Mr. Friel. Thank you for the question, sir. We are
    currently working with our data people to try to extract that,
    because although Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has a
    number, one of the things that we have to make a clarification
    on is, you know, if they were in receipt of compensation or
    pension at the time of death, they would have been entitled to
    the benefit regardless of where they passed away at. We are
    trying, so we have to distinguish between those individuals and
    individuals who may not have been entitled at the time.
        Mr. Crane. Okay, so you do not have really even a ballpark
    at this point?
        Mr. Friel. The number that we saw from VHA was somewhere at
    about 60,000 per year.
        Mr. Crane. Sixty thousand.
        Mr. Friel. Maybe a little higher than that. As I said, we
    have to disseminate between those who would have gotten, been
    entitled to the benefit anyway, as opposed to those who were
    not.
        Mr. Crane. Thank you, sir. I yield back my time.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Crane. Congressman Ramirez,
    you are recognized for 5 minutes. Congresswoman, I apologize.
        Mrs. Ramirez. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Luttrell. Sorry.
        Mrs. Ramirez. That is Okay. Thank you, Chairman. Ms. Rawls,
    one of the chief marketing claims that for-profit claim
    consultants say is that somehow veterans will receive
    resolution on their claim faster by using their services.
    Looking at our info here, the average turnaround time between a
    fully developed claim and a non-fully developed claim differs
    by only about 9 days as of March 25 of this year. Coupled with
    the fact that the VA's duty to assist helps veterans ensure
    their application is complete and it contains the correct
    evidence. It seems to me that veterans are risking an awful lot
    by using unaccredited, unaccountable, for-profit organizations.
    Ms. Rawls, can you tell me, does the VA see any material
    difference in claims submitted with the assistance of a VSO
    versus those submitted with the assistance of a for profit
    company? I would say the second part of that, if you could
    answer as well, is what are the dangers to veterans using these
    claim consulting companies?
        Ms. Rawls. Thank you very much for that question, ma'am. I
    will tell you, I do not know that we see any difference because
    those not for profit companies are just as aware of our
    processing systems in what we use to adjudicate a claim. I will
    put this caveat out there. We have not studied that to see if
    there are differences between an accredited veteran service
    officer or an accredited for-profit individual. I just want to
    make that clear.
        As to why a veteran would work with an individual for their
    claims, it is just that this process of claims processing is
    very, very convoluted. The laws that are out there for everyone
    to comprehend is sometimes very difficult. I myself, as being a
    veteran and my father is a veteran, it was very difficult to
    help him understand a lot of the things that were going on. It
    dawned on me that he would probably rather hear that from
    someone else besides me. We continued to work to get him the
    assistance that he needed to file that claim. Christa, I do not
    know if you wanted to add anything to that.
        Ms. Shriber. Sure, I will just tag on a little bit there
    and wanted to let you know that there is really no way for us
    to track these unaccredited companies within our system. When
    we are talking about tracking accredited individuals, they each
    have a Power of Attorney (POA) code, and we associate that with
    the veteran. We can at any given time, we can go ahead and we
    could pull the entire client list for any of our veteran
    service organizations, our attorneys, our agents. We would not
    be able to have that same access to who they have helped. A lot
    of the times it is helping behind the scenes, and then they are
    trying to return the responsibility back over to the veteran
    themselves in order to file the claim and certify that it is
    all true and correct.
        Mrs. Ramirez. Let me just ask you, because just hearing
    you, I go back to being a case worker many, many years ago and
    thinking of the advocacy work on behalf of the veteran. How
    many claim consultants do we have now, for-profit claim
    consultants you would say at this point? Is there a way for you
    to have a number on that?
        Ms. Shriber. We do not have a number on that.
        Mrs. Ramirez. You are saying that as of right now, because
    of the way that the system is for those that are unaccredited,
    you have no way of being able to track if they are misleading
    or providing wrong information to a veteran as they are trying
    to file their claim because you have no direct connection with
    them, is that correct?
        Ms. Shriber. Correct. The only way for us to find out that
    information would be, for example, through the Federal Trade
    Commissions (FTC's) data base system, where they can submit
    complaints. It would be through complaints that come in
    directly to our office and through the Inspector Generals
    (IG's) office.
        Mrs. Ramirez. You have not seen complaints at this moment
    that have come in directly in the last few months?
        Ms. Shriber. We have, yes.
        Mrs. Ramirez. What would you say the rate of complaints is?
        Ms. Shriber. I do not have a rate for you, but I can tell
    you----
        Mrs. Ramirez. Number?
        Ms. Shriber [continuing]. in our office, well, actually,
    maybe I do. About 40 percent of the complaints that we received
    in our office this past year were about unaccredited
    individuals.
        Mrs. Ramirez. Yes. I figured the number would be up there.
    I am wrapping up on time. I just want to say it is really
    important for us to identify ways to ensure that our veterans
    are getting the service they need for their claims and they are
    not getting cheated on by consultants that they feel they have
    to bring onboard just to be able to process them. I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Congresswoman Ramirez. Congressman
    Self, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Self. Thank you, Chairman. First of all, as the county
    judge, county executive of a county of a million people, I want
    to just emphasize how important the county VSOs are. They are
    the people on the ground, and I recommend that you keep them as
    qualified and staffed as you can.
        Now, I want to discuss the Board versus the Court of
    Appeals. The Board is under VA. The Court of Appeals is U.S.
    judiciary. We have, when I look at the stats on your last
    report, 60 percent of the single judge cases, and this is for
    you, Ms. Shriber, were either reversed, vacated, remanded, or
    dismissed, which indicates to me that there is a problem with
    the Board that is causing me to have to file the bill to
    increase the number of judges at the Court of Appeals. Do you
    believe that there is an issue with the quality of the board
    members that are leading to this increase in cases that are
    reversed, vacated, remanded, or dismissed?
        Ms. Shriber. I am going to have to go ahead and take this
    question back to the Board. This is not something that we had
    discussed, but I am happy to get you an answer on that.
        Mr. Self. You cannot explain why so many of these are
    remanded or Joint Motion For Remand (JMR'd)?
        Ms. Shriber. No, I cannot.
        Mr. Self. Okay. Do you collect data on the errors that are
    in the Board's decisions?
        Ms. Shriber. Again, I can take this question back to the
    Board, that question as well, and make sure that you get an
    answer on that.
        Mr. Self. Okay. I would appreciate it, and I would
    recommend that when we have this discussion that involves the
    Board, I would ask for a board member or representative of the
    Board to accompany you to the board. Thank you. Chairman, I
    yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Congressman Self. Congressman
    McGarvey, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McGarvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    Thank you all very much for being here today. Ms. Rawls, I am
    going to ask you about H.R. 984, which is the Commitment to
    Veterans Support and Outreach Act introduced by my good
    colleague, Mr. Levin. As you know, this bill would authorize
    $50 million for competitive grants to expand outreach to our
    veterans, especially our underserved veterans, which I am sure
    is a goal that we can applaud and share.
        In the testimony, you guys stated that the Veterans
    Benefits Administration already maintains a robust outreach
    program. Of course, I think more can always be done,
    particularly in addressing disparities with our Black veterans,
    with women veterans, with other underserved groups. While
    proactive outreach is critical, we want to make sure that the
    funded outreach from the bill is working. Could you tell us a
    little bit about how the VA would measure success in outreach
    with these grants, what metrics you guys would use, what
    oversight you all would use to see that this is actually
    working?
        Ms. Rawls. Well, thank you very much for that question and
    wholeheartedly agree with you that we can never do too much
    outreach. I actually have oversight of about eight special
    emphasis programs in which we have regional office coordinators
    that connect with the CVSOs as well as the Tribal veteran
    service officers. We are continuing to strengthen that
    relationship to include the states in ensuring that we have
    connecting activities to meet those populations in their spaces
    and to meet those needs. One of the things that we will
    certainly need to do with establishing a grant program in this
    instance would be to develop those metrics that you are talking
    about and, you know, having an opportunity to be able to be a
    part of that. I would say we would certainly need to look at
    the track record of the VSO and them being able to get their
    training done and be accredited and certified and staying in
    good the graces.
        There will also need to be a look to see whether they are
    assisting individuals. We would have to develop some type of
    mechanism to be able to get some feedback from the individuals
    that they have helped, and we would have to stratify that out.
    I mean, we currently have, you know, a number of surveys that
    we do to collect engagement information as to whether people
    are trusting us. We would just have to adapt that. There will
    be a number of mechanisms that we would certainly need to put
    in place to include a robust site visit program, sir. Thank
    you.
        Mr. McGarvey. Thank you. I appreciate that, because it is
    not just being proper stewards of taxpayer dollars in this
    instance, it is making sure those taxpayer dollars actually go
    to helping our veterans and making sure that they are used,
    that outreach is happening, that our veterans are getting the
    services they need. That means that proper implementation, of
    course, as you all know, is key to making this happen. I look
    forward to continuing to work with the VA to ensure that any
    programs funded through this bill actually reach the veterans
    who most need that care.
        Last question, Ms. Rawls, what more can the VA do to
    improve the confidence of our underserved veteran communities
    that may struggle to trust the VA?
        Ms. Rawls. Thank you very much for that question. I kind of
    touched on it. I will tell you, I have always been miffed at my
    father preferring to get information from somebody else besides
    me who works at the VA. I think that is just a mindset that we
    have to come to terms with and to ensure that we are continuing
    to put information out there that is easily digestible.
        The time it takes to just review what is necessary to bring
    to the table sometimes, you know, is discouraging to our
    veterans. I frequently have opportunities to go out and talk
    to, particularly our Black veterans, in just trying to regain
    that trust because they have been or had a bad experience and
    just trying to get them to come back to us. I always tell them,
    in every outreach event, you have the right to disagree with
    the VA. If you disagree, then come in. You need to come in. You
    need to use our 1-800 numbers. We have to make sure people know
    we have created these avenues for them to reach us, sir.
        Mr. McGarvey. I appreciate that. Obviously, we all share
    that goal, and however we can help, here how we can build that
    trust, that transparency, that openness, that listening to our
    veterans what they need, I think, is really important. Mr.
    Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. McGarvey. Congressman Bergman,
    you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Rawls, Ms.
    Shriber, Mr. Friel, thank you for being here. Feel free, any of
    you, to chime in on answers that may not be specific to your
    particular position. As I have listened to the testimony and to
    the questions being asked, I am curious, if I was to give you
    the following three terms, do you see any correlation? Right or
    freedom to choose. Free market. For profit. Do they even have
    any correlation in your mind? That is okay, I do not want to
    wait too long on it. The point is, what I heard, and if you
    want to respond in writing afterwards, because of the fact is,
    I think a significant number of us up here on this dais swore
    an oath to support and defend the Constitution and to do the
    right thing. All of us are on this committee because of the
    fact we want to do the right thing for the veterans and enable
    their right to choose, their freedom to choose. The only way we
    are going to enable that is to have a free market that in some
    cases involves companies that work for a profit.
        Last time I checked, for a company to work for a profit, to
    enable it to provide jobs for its employees, to provide
    services for whatever market they are in, that is a good thing,
    not a negative thing. I want us to all keep in mind what that
    term really means.
        Ms. Shriber, does the current system allow for accredited
    agents to charge a fee for assisting with a veteran's initial
    filing?
        Ms. Shriber. The current system does not allow for----
        Mr. Bergman. Okay.
        Ms. Shriber [continuing]. charging on an initial claim, no.
        Mr. Bergman. With that said, does the current system, where
    agents and attorneys charge a percentage of a total amount of
    past due benefits, create a financial incentive to drag out the
    process as long as possible?
        Ms. Shriber. We do not believe it does. Generally, the
    attorneys and the agents get involved after the initial
    decision on the claim has been decided, and that is when they
    enter the process. Typically, before that, veterans often use
    veteran service organizations, or will look at----
        Mr. Bergman. I know that our answer could eat up a lot of
    time, just like the process does right now. Would it be better
    for everyone involved to include the people who work at the VA,
    the people who are providing the services, whether it is the
    VSOs, whatever company, the veterans especially, would it be
    better for everyone involved if these claims were filed
    correctly and resolved on the first go around? Would that be a
    better scenario?
        Ms. Shriber. I----
        Mr. Bergman. Yes or no? I mean, would it be better to get
    it right the first time? Again, I was an airline pilot, and I
    had to get the landing right the first time, okay. Otherwise,
    there was not an option there or other things were done. Would
    it be better for all, yes or no, if it was resolved the first
    time?
        Ms. Shriber. Yes.
        Mr. Bergman. Thank you. Okay.
        Ms. Shriber. We try to get it right the first time.
        Mr. Bergman. Okay. The point is, what we get into is a
    situation where we talk about efficiency versus effectiveness.
    I do not think anybody in this room, no matter who you are,
    would disagree with the following statement that we want to
    have effective outcomes for our veterans, positive outcomes.
    Sometimes the outcome is not necessarily a positive, it is a
    rejection. There are sometimes a no for logical reasons. What I
    see is that the efficiency is sometimes too often valued over
    the effectiveness. Now we get into a mix of both. In the end,
    the veteran goes, what is happening? Why can not I go to a
    reputable company to get an outcome that I want in an effective
    timeline? Any thoughts on how we become more effective?
        Ms. Shriber. I think within the VA system and with the
    accreditation system, that we are effective in that realm and
    that there are safeguards built in place.
        Mr. Bergman. Are we as effective as we could be?
        Ms. Shriber. There is always room for improvement.
        Mr. Bergman. Bingo. Well, with that case, there is always
    room for improvement, and we will talk about that later. Mr.
    Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Bergman. Congressman Deluzio,
    you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Deluzio. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Good morning. I think
    we are still morning. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for being
    here. I want to talk a bit about the PACT Act and some things
    that have happened and what you are seeing since the PACT Act
    was signed into law. We are now in this important phase of
    implementation for many generations of veterans, including the
    one I am a part of, post-9/11 veterans. We think we are at this
    critical moment where we have a chance to have more veterans
    who are now eligible come into the VA.
        I know there has been talk, and we will continue to have
    talk and work about the outreach efforts to do that. I want to
    focus on whether--and, Ms. Rawls, this question I will direct
    it to you, and if others want to chime in, please do. Since the
    PACT Act was signed into law, whether the VA has seen an uptick
    in veterans using nonaccredited representatives to file that
    benefits claim?
        Ms. Rawls. Thank you for that question, sir. I will start
    out with a few stats. We have seen an increase in receipts of
    about 28 percent since the PACT Act.
        Mr. Deluzio. That is total? Okay.
        Ms. Rawls. Total receipts, yes, sir. It is been about 28
    percent. Our output has increased, but it is only increased a
    little over 12 percent for the same time, year to date. With
    that said, I do not have any information on that. We will have
    to take that one back.
        We are continuing to put more employees, we are continuing
    to hire, and we are continuing to make sure our outreach
    program is integrated with the VSOs and the communities, as
    well as putting things out from I guess the tech world would
    call it, any outlet that you can use on the modern technology,
    your telephones. You can tell how old I am. We are continuing
    to do that.
        We know we are reaching more people. The information is
    getting out there. I do not know at this point, and we will
    have to take that one back, as to whether they are using more
    accredited VSOs versus no.
        Mr. Deluzio. I will look forward to finding out what you
    found there. Thank you. You started to talk about it, but I
    want to ask pretty directly, you know, what the VA has been
    doing to educate veterans on working with accredited rather
    than nonaccredited representatives?
        Ms. Rawls. Thank you very much for that question. We have
    been collaborating with our veteran service organizations from
    the beginning of the PACT Act, getting the information out
    there, seeking their guidance, and help in how to structure
    some of the communications that have been going out. Just
    recently, we make sure that we are looking in areas that we
    generally do not look to. We have hosted a number of
    nontraditional events. I think we were just at the Pentagon
    last week ensuring that any individuals knew about the PACT
    Act. We will continue to collaborate with our VSOs. We have
    events planned probably for the rest of the year and longer, as
    well as ensuring that our regional offices are working with
    their local structures. I think the unique thing here is you
    have this whole layer at the top. We have been really looking
    to push down the messaging and getting our regional office
    directors and medical center directors out there holding town
    halls and talking about the PACT Act, sir.
        Mr. Deluzio. Well, thank you. I look forward to finding out
    what you find on the accredited versus nonaccredited. Thank you
    for your time. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Deluzio. Mr. Pappas, do you
    have any follow on questions? Mr. Crane, Mr. Self, follow on
    questions? I yield to Mr. Crane.
        Mr. Crane. I would like to piggyback off what my colleague,
    Mr. General Bergman over here was talking about, and any one of
    you feel free to answer this. You guys know what hoops you must
    jump through to become accredited? We keep talking about
    accredited, accredited, accredited. Do you guys know what hoops
    a consulting firm must jump through to become accredited?
        Ms. Shriber. Yes. We do not accredit consulting firms. The
    only organization that can be recognized by VA is we are
    authorized to recognize organizations that serve veterans, but
    they must do so free of charge. There is no mechanism to
    recognize for-profit organizations. As far as individuals go,
    we recognize representatives of recognized veteran service
    organizations. For them to be recognized, they must submit an
    application. In that application, their certifying official at
    each organization certifies as to their good character and
    fitness. We review that in the Office of General Counsel, and
    we accredit the individual.
        With regard to attorneys, we also receive an application,
    and we heavily rely on their State bar license to establish
    their good character and reputation. Based on that information,
    we make a determination for accreditation.
        Mr. Crane. Hold on a second, ma'am. Do you realize that a
    lot of veterans, if given the choice, like Mr. Bergman was
    referring to, would often choose to go out in town or not use
    the VA or use a private, you know, a private business or
    consulting firm for care?
        Ms. Shriber. We do have a third mechanism for
    accreditation, and that is accreditation as a claims agent.
    This is a non-attorney practitioner, which kind of seems to fit
    with what you are talking about.
        Mr. Crane. Yes.
        Ms. Shriber. In order to be accredited as a claims agent,
    it would once again be the application process. Here, we do not
    have another entity to kind of assist us with that application
    process. We go ahead and we do our own character and reputation
    review. We review the business that you are in. We identify
    potential areas of concern. We do a background check. We check
    references. Then based on that collective information, we make
    a determination as to whether you can sit for an exam to test
    the fitness. To become accredited as a claims agent, you must
    achieve a 75 percent on that exam.
        Mr. Crane. Thank you.
        Mr. Luttrell. On behalf of the subcommittee, I would like
    to personally thank all the veterans and the veterans' spouses
    in the room with us today. Ms. Rawls, Mr. Friel, and Ms.
    Shriber, thank you for joining us. Thank you for your previous
    service and your continued service. Representing the Veterans
    Affairs Department has to be the largest weight that anyone can
    undergo. I know because I am a veteran and I am sure that we
    are not easy to deal with. that being said, since I consider
    the veterans of our country to be one of our most precious
    assets, it is our job on these subcommittees and committees to
    ask the hard questions. Make no mistake, it is.
        We do not intend to create a fence. We just want to make
    sure that our veterans are taken care of. Thank you so much for
    joining us today, and you are now excused.
        We welcome the third panel to the desk, and everyone else
    can stretch their legs. Good morning. Everyone, ready? Welcome
    for coming in today and thank you for being on our third panel.
        Today, we have Mr. Shane Liermann, the Deputy National
    Legislative Director with the Disabled American veterans. Mr.
    Lawrence Montreuil. Good enough. I get it? Close or?
        Mr. Liermann. That was right on target, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Liermann. First time.
        Mr. Luttrell. Worked hard on that one. Legislative Director
    with the American Legion. Ms. Kristina Keenan, Deputy Director
    for National Legislative Service with the Veterans of Foreign
    Wars of the United States. Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Bill
    Taylor, co-founder and Chief Operating Officer, Veterans
    Guardian VA Claims Consulting.
        Would you please rise? Please raise your right hand.
        [Witnesses sworn]
        Thank you. You may be seated. Thank you. Let the record
    reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        First, we will hear from Mr. Liermann. You are recognized
    for 5 minutes, sir.

                      STATEMENT OF SHANE LIERMANN

        Mr. Liermann. Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas, and
    members of the subcommittee, Disabled American Veterans (DAV)
    is grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today. Our
    written testimony covers all of the bills being considered.
    However, my comments this morning will focus on just a few of
    these. Mr. Chairman, DAV was founded over 100 years ago by
    World War I veterans who banded together to assist each other
    in establishing their claims for earned benefits. Today, DAV is
    a congressionally chartered and VA accredited veteran service
    organization that provides free VA claims and appeals
    representation to veterans and their families. H.R. 1139, the
    GUARD VA Benefits Act would impose fines on individuals for
    soliciting, contracting for, charging, or receiving any
    unauthorized fee or compensation with respect to the
    preparation, presentation, or prosecution of any claim for VA
    benefits. DAV strongly supports the GUARD VA Benefits Act,
    which would reinstate these criminal penalties for those who
    charge veterans and their families fees for preparing a claim,
    all the while intentionally skirting around VA accreditation
    requirements.
        For many of our Nation's disabled veterans, VA disability
    compensation could be the difference between making ends meet
    and more severe outcomes, such as homelessness. DAV believes
    that no veteran should pay these entities to file a claim.
    Veterans have already paid with their service and sacrifice.
        DAV fully supports H.R. 234, the Gerald's Law Act. It would
    provide a burial allowance for certain veterans who die at home
    while in the receipt of hospice care furnished by VA, even
    though they are discharged from receiving care at a VA medical
    facility or a long-term care center. Burial benefits should be
    available to veterans who choose to pass comfortably at home
    under hospice care with dignity, in the comfort of their own
    homes, surrounded by their family and loved ones.
        For decades, DAV has called on Congress and VA to support
    significant and meaningful reforms aimed at addressing the
    growing backlog of VA claims and appeals processing. Mr.
    Chairman, I am a VA accredited DAV benefits advocate, and I
    have been assisting veterans and their families for 25 years.
    That includes over 5 years at DAV's National Appeals office at
    the Board of Veterans Appeals. Based on my experience, a key
    measure to improve the appeals process is to provide the Board
    with adequate resources to better support its judges by
    establishing an internship program and authorizing the hiring
    of entry-level attorneys. The Veterans Appeals Backlog
    Improvement Act, which DAV strongly supports, would vastly
    improve the Board's ability to hire and retain qualified
    attorneys to help address the backlog of appeals.
        Another avenue in improving the timeliness of the appeals
    process is to permanently increase the number of judges at the
    Court of Appeals for veterans claims. Currently, the court has
    authorized seven permanent judges and two additional judges as
    a part of a temporary expansion provision. The court's 2021
    annual report indicates that even with the seven permanent
    judges and two temporary judges, they had to recall four
    retired judges due to the strain of the caseload. Based on the
    court's own statement, seven permanent active judges are not
    adequate. Therefore, DAV does support H.R. 1329, and we agree
    that the court should continue to have two temporary judges
    along with nine permanent judges.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, we thank you and Ranking Member
    Pappas for the Veterans Compensation COLA Adjustment Act of
    2023. Many service-disabled veterans and their families depend
    on VA compensation benefits as their sole income. This Cost of
    Living Adjustment (COLA) will benefit them by helping to
    maintain the value of VA benefits. Without COLAs, many disabled
    veterans who sacrifice their own health and family life for the
    good of our Nation may not be able to maintain the quality of
    life they deserve. DAV firmly supports the Veterans
    Compensation COLA Adjustment Act. Again, we thank you both for
    introducing this important piece of legislation.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I look
    forward to any questions you and the subcommittee may have.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Shane Liermann Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you. Mr. Liermann. Mr. Montreuil, you
    are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE MONTREUIL

        Mr. Montreuil. Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas,
    and distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
    1.6 million veterans and service members of the American
    Legion, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I
    will be relatively brief because I understand we are the third
    panel, but I would be remiss if I did not mention in my opening
    remarks the vote that will take place in the Senate later today
    that will repeal both the 1991 and 2002 Iraq Authorization for
    Use of Military Force (AUMFs). Decisions of war and peace are
    among the most important decisions deliberated in the halls of
    Congress. Many of the bills that we are discussing today are a
    direct result of the decision to go to war 20 years ago.
        From caring for Goldstar families who lost their loved
    ones, to streamlining the claims and appeals process for
    millions of veterans exposed to burn pits, all are the direct
    result of decisions of war and peace. We are pleased to see the
    Senate is likely to repeal these AUMFs and give closure to
    millions of veterans and reaffirm to them that their war is
    over and are hopeful the House will move swiftly to do the
    same.
        Although wars end, the moral obligation to uphold our
    promise to those we sent into harm's way and ensure they
    receive the care and benefits they rightfully deserve has no
    expiration date. I would like to thank the members of this
    subcommittee for their leadership on the litany of issues we
    will discuss today and ensuring that we fulfill President
    Lincoln's promise to care for those who served in our Nation's
    military and for their families, caregivers and survivors.
        I would just like to highlight the American Legion's
    support for the GUARD VA Benefits Act and thank Chairman Pappas
    for his leadership on that bill and on this issue in particular
    and reiterate the need to reinstate criminal penalties for
    unaccredited individuals charging unauthorized fees. Many of
    these fees are, in our opinion, excessive. You know, they are
    400 to 600 percent of a monthly increase, and on average, by
    admission of these companies of their own, that is sometimes
    between $4,000 and $8,000 for service that is provided free of
    charge by veteran service organizations.
        In 2021, American Legion service officers insured and
    secured $14.8 billion in initial claims for veterans, with an
    average monthly payout of one $1,400. In 2022, that was $16
    billion. We must ensure that we give VA the tools to protect
    veterans from being defrauded.
        Thank you once again for inviting the American Legion to
    share our position on the bills before us today, and I look
    forward to the impending discussion.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Lawrence Montreuil Appears In
    The Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Montreuil. Ms. Keenan, you are
    now recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF KRISTINA KEENAN

        Ms. Keenan. Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas, and
    members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of
    the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its
    auxiliary, thank you for the opportunity to provide our remarks
    on legislation pending before the subcommittee. The VFW's views
    on all the bills can be found in my written testimony. I will
    take the opportunity to highlight three.
        The VFW supports H.R. 1530, the Veterans Benefits
    Improvement Act, which would require VA to publish all
    disability benefits questionnaires or DBQs on a publicly
    available VA website. The VFW also recommends that language be
    added to authorize the use of DBQs in private telehealth
    appointments. The use of telehealth has expanded significantly
    since the COVID-19 pandemic, both in the private sector and at
    VA, becoming a regular practice for modern healthcare.
        The VFW also supports making improvements to compensation
    and pension exams by providing more contact information for
    veterans and their accredited representatives regarding
    scheduling with VA contractors. It would also require a report
    on VA's efforts to provide travel reimbursements to veterans
    living abroad to attend their exams.
        The VFW supports H.R. 984, the Commitment to Veterans
    Support and Outreach Act, though we do have some concerns. The
    VFW supports efforts to expand outreach to provide benefits to
    underserved communities, including increasing the number of
    county and Tribal veteran service officers. However, offering
    more grant money is simply not enough to solve some of the
    longstanding trust issues specifically on Tribal lands, with
    outsiders providing claims assistance. The VFW suggests
    including veteran service organizations as eligible grant
    recipients to enable them to hire and train representatives
    specifically from Tribal communities to serve their Tribal
    communities, finally reaching this group of underserved
    veterans.
        Last, the VFW supports, continues to strongly support H.R.
    1139, the governing Unaccredited Representatives Defrauding VA
    Benefits Act, or the GUARD Act. This legislation would
    reinstate penalties for charging veterans and their survivors
    unauthorized fees related to claims for benefits for VA
    benefits. Individuals who assist in the preparation,
    presentation, or prosecution of VA claims must be accredited
    and adhere to certain standards of conduct, training, and the
    fee structures provided under the law.
        We believe that unaccredited claims consultants must be
    subject to penalties in the same manner as all accredited
    representatives in order to protect veterans from predatory
    practices. Some of these companies claim that they provide
    veterans with more choice and that veterans may not have access
    to available free services or may have been dissatisfied with
    the services they have used. To claim that there are not enough
    free claims representatives is completely untrue. There are VA
    accredited, State and county service officers, veteran service
    organizations like the VFW, and numerous State programs where
    there are a large concentration of veterans like the Texas
    Veterans Commission.
        These companies may also argue that the exorbitant fees
    they charge in some way make them more effective in assisting
    veterans. This is patently false. Last year alone, the VFW
    helped more than a half million veterans recoup $11.2 billion
    in benefits, and not a single dollar went to the VFW. None of
    these unaccredited companies even come close.
        There are also claims that the GUARD Act violates First
    Amendment rights. This is another false narrative. There are
    many examples in case law that dispute this. Consultants have
    free speech rights to provide advice. However, the government
    may, and in this instant does, as it should, require
    professional advice to ensure minimal competency and
    accountability. As soon as a consultant charges fees, their
    advice becomes professional conduct and should be regulated.
        Accreditation also means oversight by VA's office of
    General Counsel. Currently, these predatory companies have no
    accountability, no oversight, and no penalties. If they were
    genuine in providing veterans with more choice, they would
    choose accreditation and offer quality services that are
    transparent and legal. They refuse to become accredited because
    the law does not accommodate their business models. Meaning,
    they skirt the law because they are profiting from veterans
    disability benefits. Companies that prey upon veterans must be
    held accountable.
        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide my remarks. I look forward to answering
    any questions you may have.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Kristina Keenan Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ms. Keenan. Colonel Taylor, you
    are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF WILLIAM TAYLOR

        Mr. Taylor. Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas, and
    members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to be
    here today. My name is William Taylor and I am the co-founder
    of Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting and a veteran of the
    U.S. Army. I am a West Point graduate and retired in 2018 after
    23 years as a Lieutenant Colonel, including six operational
    deployments. I am proud to have served my country and am proud
    to have co-founded one of the largest veteran owned and veteran
    operated companies helping veterans navigate the VA claim
    process.
        As I was retiring, I struggled with my own claim.
    Information was difficult to find, as was assistance with
    limited capacity and hours for the large military community in
    and around Fort Bragg. Despite being a senior officer, it took
    significant support, advice, and research for me to
    successfully navigate the system. Unfortunately, I am the
    exception and not the norm. That is why we founded Veterans
    Guardian. The VA disability process is a difficult system to
    navigate, resulting in many veterans not receiving their earned
    benefits. I am proud of the work my company does to assist
    veterans with this process. My staff is over 85 percent
    veterans, spouses of veterans, and spouses of active duty. We
    have been recognized with numerous awards as a veteran owned
    and operated company, and most recently named the Military
    Family Brands Company of the Year.
        We support more than 60 national and local charities,
    including support to local chapters of many of the
    organizations that are here today. Our mission is to ensure
    veterans receive the benefits they are legally, ethically, and
    medically eligible for due to their service to the Nation. I am
    proud of the work we do to offer a transparent, effective, and
    efficient option. We are a complementary capability to the
    other services that are available. We inform every veteran that
    there are free options available and connect them directly to
    these services if they choose.
        We are transparent that we are not accredited, and our
    clients acknowledge this when they sign our Your Claim, Your
    Choice affidavit, which was included in my written submission.
    Our veterans are choosing to utilize our services from a
    position of knowledge. Seventy percent of our clients come to
    us after having used the free services available. Veterans are
    not unaware of the free services and are coming to Veterans
    Guardian because, in their words, these free services have
    failed to meet their needs. Contrary to common belief, the
    current system is not meeting the needs of veterans. Veterans
    need more options for assistance, not less. Veterans should be
    able to pursue their claims in the manner that best serves them
    with the full knowledge of their options.
        Veterans make an informed choice to use our services for
    many reasons: easy access and responsiveness; experience and
    knowledge; ability to help develop medical and lay evidence;
    and our competence in developing secondary conditions. I am
    proud that we have assisted over 50,000 veterans to date with
    over a 90 percent success rate.
        We are transparent about who we are and who we are not. We
    do not aggressively solicit the veteran. We do not have doctors
    on our payroll. We do not have automated or international call
    centers. Our one-time fee structure is wholly aligned with our
    veteran clients because we only collect a fee if the veteran
    receives an increase in their rating and compensation. We are
    veterans helping veterans. My clients tell all of us that my
    services are needed and one of the bills we are here to discuss
    today, the GUARD Act, would deny veterans access to my much-
    needed services. The GUARD Act would force my business to close
    our doors, lay off my veteran employees, and leave the veteran
    with no other option than the VSOs. We believe that the GUARD
    Act potentially raises constitutional issues as it limits the
    First Amendment rights of the veterans who wish to work with
    consultants, as well as the rights of the consultants
    themselves.
        By imposing penalties, including imprisonment, the GUARD
    Act would take away a veteran's right to choose how they pursue
    their claim. The fact that veterans are choosing to use our
    services from a position of knowledge is a proof that the other
    options are not completely meeting their needs. My veteran
    clients are telling you and me that the current system is
    failing them. The GUARD Act limits veterans choice and means
    that many veterans will not receive the benefits to which they
    are entitled. Our veterans deserve more.
        We continue to be strong supporters of accreditation
    reform. We support congressional oversight. We support
    reasonable fee caps. We support an enhanced accreditation
    process to ensure quality private companies can become
    accredited and provide veterans more options to navigate the
    system, not less. We support the intentions of the GUARD Act.
    However, we believe the execution is not meeting the needs of
    veterans. We encourage Congress to pass holistic reforms, such
    as legislation that General Bergman is leading, that allows
    companies like Veterans Guardian to become accredited. Such
    reforms provide veterans with the widest range of options to
    help them pursue their claim at any step of the process. This
    increases VA oversight of accredited agents provides for
    regular audits of claims agents, establishes more detailed
    standards of conduct, and provides VA with the enforcement
    tools necessary to pursue bad actors.
        Our goal should be to expand options for veterans, not
    restrict them. Veterans should have the freedom to make an
    informed decision on how they want to pursue their claims. In
    conclusion, I look forward to continuing to work with you and
    your staff to address the issues that veterans face and to
    responsibly serve veterans who have dedicated themselves to the
    service of our Nation. I look forward to your questions.

        [The Prepared Statement Of William Taylor Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Colonel. I now recognize myself
    for 5 minutes. Ms. Keenan, is it the VFW stance that no other
    corporation or company out assisting veterans in their claims
    are worthwhile?
        Ms. Keenan. Thank you for the question, Chairman. We
    believe that anyone who is assisting veterans with their claims
    should be accredited, that they should go through VA's rigorous
    process of background checks and training so that they are
    prepared to give veterans the best assistance possible.
        Mr. Luttrell. It seems like and we probably should not have
    sat you two next to each other, but it seems like the Colonel
    is agreeing with that wholeheartedly. I think my question is,
    and it is a veteran owned company.
        Now, in the absence of proper assistance for our veterans,
    organizations like the Colonel's has stood up. And in the
    absence of proper assistance through the VA, the VFW steps in.
    Now, given that we have just come out of a 20-year war, and the
    amount of individuals leaving the military will most likely
    scuttle the VA, as far as intake comes, if I had to guess, and
    as hard as the VA is trying, it seems feasible that
    organizations such as the Colonel's, such as the VFW, might
    make it easier for the VA to process all these claims and keep
    our veterans safe. Would you agree or disagree with that
    statement?
        Ms. Keenan. As long as a veteran is receiving accredited
    representation and that their claims are being presented in the
    most complete capacity initially from the get-go, VA will be
    able to process those claims in the quickest manner that they
    can. VA has their own processing time, and no matter of more
    claims or less claims is going to change that. The VFW and
    other organizations that have accredited representatives, we
    receive up to date training as the laws are changing in order
    to help veterans file their claims accurately as possible. We
    believe that is going to help VA process them as quickly as
    possible.
        Mr. Luttrell. If companies and organizations receive the
    accreditations by, with, and through the VA, the VFW would
    support that?
        Ms. Keenan. If a company is able to be accredited or their
    individuals are able to be accredited, then they are part of
    the VA oversights, and the VFW would support that.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay, thank you. Mr. Liermann, prior to your
    current position, you represented veterans before the Board of
    Veterans Appeals for many years. In your experience, what
    contributes to the delayed decisions at the Board? How would
    H.R. 1378, the Veterans Appeal Backlog Improvement Act, help
    address some of these issues?
        Mr. Liermann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In order to really
    effectively answer that, there are multiple reasons why an
    appeal may languish at the Board of Veterans Appeals. I think
    you could even look all the way back to how it is developed by
    a VA regional office before it even gets to the Board of
    Veterans Appeals. Also, during my time there, I saw a large
    amount of turnover between attorneys. An attorney I may have
    known and worked with last year has been gone for 2 years. They
    are losing institutional knowledge. They are going through a
    lot of different attorneys very quickly to where if we were
    able to provide a pilot program like this, where we are getting
    quality attorneys in soon, we are going to retain them at the
    Board of Veterans Appeals, and eventually get a better outcome
    and a quicker decision, hopefully.
        Again, the reason that some decisions languish have to do
    with VA regulatory provisions, law changes, and even the court
    that can delay anything pending at the Board of Veterans
    Appeals. Well trained, brought in attorneys can help alleviate
    a lot of that pressure on the judge.
        Mr. Luttrell. I do not know if anybody has ever asked this
    question before, but would it be advantageous for this
    committee to hear from the Board of Appeals exactly how to
    streamline that process?
        Mr. Liermann. Absolutely. I think to hear from those
    working at the Board, the judges, and the attorneys, or even
    the Director about some of the problems they are facing
    outlined directly would, yes, definitely would be a benefit to
    determine how to attack it in another direction as well.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. Thank you. Colonel, I believe we need
    to find a balance between protecting veterans from predatory
    actors while ensuring veterans have choice over their
    representation in the VA. Why does Veterans Guardian believe
    veterans should have the option of paid representation prior to
    the appeal stage?
        Mr. Taylor [continuing]. providing veterans with more
    options and freedom of choice while providing the guardrails
    and oversight to protect veterans from predatory actors and
    predatory practices. We believe that more options are better
    for veterans, not less. We believe that veterans should have
    the freedom to make that choice from a position of knowledge.
    That anything that we can do to increase the access to good
    advice for veterans is a positive.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir. Mr. Pappas.
        Mr. Pappas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Liermann, maybe I
    could start with you, because I know that sometimes we hear the
    argument that the VSO community does not have the capacity to
    meet the new claims work that has been brought on by the PACT
    Act and other changes to the law so that we are going to need
    to lean on for-profit companies to fill in the gap. I am
    wondering if you can detail what DAV and perhaps some of the
    other VSOs represented here are doing to bolster capacity and
    recruit new service officers to meet this demand.
        Mr. Liermann. Thank you, Ranking Member. DAV has a training
    program. We have professional members, and to this day, we
    probably have about 4,000 certified accredited service officers
    across the country to include our volunteers and county veteran
    service officers. DAV also helps to accredit them around the
    Nation as well. If you look at the General Counsel's number of
    accredited agents or advocates out there, there are thousands
    upon thousands of them that are currently available.
        While we continue to train and provide more opportunities
    and assist CVSOs, we also know that there are thousands of
    people available that are accredited that may not be utilized
    because they believe they that if you pay for something, that
    means you are going to get a guarantee.
        Mr. Pappas. Mr. Montreuil, many of the unaccredited private
    sector actors call themselves claims consultants offer, pre-
    filing consultation in order to rationalize their nonadherence
    to the law. That is they are arguing that because they do not
    actually hit the send button on the veterans application, they
    are not actually assisting in this preparation. In your
    opinion, is there any difference between so-called pre-filing
    consultations and claims preparation?
        Mr. Montreuil. No, sir, I think they are exactly the same
    thing. Quite frankly, it is more problematic when we look at
    some of the practices that claims consulting companies are
    engaging in because of a lack of access to VA systems because
    they are nonaccredited. There has been instances of individuals
    requesting a veteran's e-Benefits password, and access to
    confidential information that results in their medical
    information and other forms of information being unsecure
    because they do not have access to Veterans Benefits Management
    System (VBMS). I do not think there is any difference between
    the two things. The claims consultants, the structure
    incentivizes, you know, practices that are unsafe for veterans.
        Mr. Pappas. You mentioned 400 to 600 percent of a monthly
    increase, perhaps that a veteran would be on the hook for to
    pay to some of these claims agents. What does your organization
    charge a veteran?
        Mr. Montreuil. We charge $0.
        Mr. Pappas. That is consistent across the VSOs, correct?
        Mr. Montreuil. Yes.
        Mr. Pappas. Ms. Keenan, you talked a little bit about this
    just the process of your service officers, what they undertake
    to become accredited. You stressed the need for everyone to be
    under the umbrella of accreditation to provide for some
    standards and oversights, and I could not agree with you more.
    There is some vetting of the character of these service
    officers. Accreditation is not just some arbitrary designation
    where a volunteer is showing up at your door or you are hearing
    from an organization one day who wants to assist a veteran. Can
    you elaborate on this process a bit and whether or not this is
    a hurdle for more people to pursue to be able to assist our
    veterans?
        Ms. Keenan. Thank you for the question. I mean, we see
    accreditation as the critical aspect of protecting veterans
    when it comes to filing their claims. The VFW accredits nearly
    2,000 veteran service officers and so we have gone through that
    accreditation process. We find it necessary, it may seem
    burdensome, but it is accomplishable in a few months. We are
    happy to work with VA on understanding if they need more
    resources in order to process accreditation requests more
    quickly. The process is there to be rigorous and to really vet
    those who are going to be assisting veterans with their claims
    to provide the best information that they can possible.
        Mr. Pappas. Well, thanks for that response. I thank you all
    for your testimony here today. I think there are a number of
    critical issues that have come out of this conversation with
    respect to the GUARD VA Benefits Act and a number of other
    bills. We thank you for that commitment. Look forward to
    working with you all. I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ranking Member Pappas. Congressman
    Crane, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Thank
    you guys for coming today. My first question is for Colonel
    Taylor down there. Sir, how much do you guys typically charge,
    like, what percentage per initial claim do you guys typically
    charge?
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you for that question, Congressman. We
    believe, and we maintain a very simple upfront pricing model
    and fee structure. First of all, I would like to highlight that
    we work strictly on a contingent basis. If the veteran does not
    get an increase in both their rating and their compensation,
    there is no fee.
        Mr. Crane. All right.
        Mr. Taylor. We do not collect anything up front.
        Mr. Crane. What is the percentage, sir?
        Mr. Taylor. Our fee is 5 months of the increase. If a
    veteran were to come to us at a certain amount, the difference
    between where they are after having our assistance, their fee
    is five times that difference. We offer three payment plans.
    They can pay that in a lump sum with a 10 percent discount.
    They can pay it out over 5 months, 10 months. There is no
    interest or fees for payment plans. It is completely voluntary.
    We have no access to their bank accounts.
        Mr. Crane. Thank you, sir. You know, as a veteran myself,
    and also a small business owner, I, quite frankly, get
    frustrated with the VA and bureaucracy often. I often look for
    private companies to work with just because they do not have to
    deal with a lot of the bureaucratic red tape. I know a lot of
    other veterans feel the same way. Now, some do not. Some do not
    have the money to do that. You know, some have all the time in
    the world.
        I can tell you that there are issues with people dealing
    with the bureaucracy. It is frustrating at times. It takes a
    long time. My next question to you, Ms. Keenan, is why do you
    have such an issue with a veteran like myself who wants to go
    out there and utilize a consultant, even if I am willing to pay
    the extra money? I know you talk about accreditation and you do
    not want veterans to get harmed, and I understand that. That is
    inherent in the free market system. Why do you have a problem
    with a veteran like me who is willing to go pay a consultant to
    help me navigate the system and, you know, speed me through it
    so I can just get the outcome that I want?
        Ms. Keenan. Thank you for that question. There are paid
    options for veterans currently within the accreditation system.
    A veteran can pay an attorney or an agent that is accredited
    for their services. Those services are capped as to how much
    they can charge, but there are paid options available currently
    to veterans.
        Our main concern is how do you rein in the really predatory
    actors?
        Mr. Crane. Right.
        Ms. Keenan. If there are no penalties, there is really no
    way for VA to even track them or penalize them.
        Mr. Crane. No, I appreciate that. Thank you. Colonel, have
    you been able to get accredited?
        Mr. Taylor. Under the current accreditation rules--there
    currently is no pathway for a company to become accredited. The
    restrictions on what we can charge a fee for would not allow me
    to continue with my business model. When I look at a veteran, I
    want to look at them holistically, and I want to look at things
    that they should have claimed that they have not. I want to
    look at secondary conditions, and I want to look at things that
    they have claimed that we feel they are either underrated for
    or have been denied for. We believe that we should look at a
    veteran holistically and take care of all of that at the same
    time.
        If I become accredited, I can only assist with the third
    pillar for a fee, which is----
        Mr. Crane. Real quick, Colonel, do you tell the veterans
    that you are working with that there are other options and if
    they wanted--if they are willing to wait and deal with the VA,
    they can get this done for free?
        Mr. Taylor. That is absolutely true. One of the things that
    we believe in wholeheartedly is no veteran should use our
    services without understanding their options, and particularly
    the fact that there are free services available. Every one of
    my clients signs a single one-page affidavit called the Your
    Claim, Your Choice that has five simple, bullet statements on
    it that acknowledge that there are free services available and
    where to find them. That they can be successful using those
    free services, that they can be successful on their own, and
    that they are choosing to use me right now as an unaccredited
    agent, and that they understand my free structure. My dream is
    that we can change that, and I can become an accredited agent
    and operate within the system with the guardrails and with the
    protections to protect veterans from predatory actors and
    practices.
        Mr. Crane. Thank you. You know, it is one of these things I
    am always going to err on the side of free will, the free
    market system. I do appreciate what you guys are trying to do
    as far as protect, you know, veterans, but at the same time, I
    hope you acknowledge why the free market system is so cherished
    in this country. It is so integral to who we are. Yes,
    sometimes there are bad outcomes in the free market system, but
    a lot of Americans and citizens are tired of so much
    bureaucracy slowing everything down, not providing options for
    them. That is what this town does a lot of. Quite honestly, it
    develops so many levels of bureaucracy that it gets hard to get
    anything done. To the Colonel's point earlier, if the
    bureaucracy was doing such a great job, he would not be in
    business. I yield back my time, thank you.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Crane. Congressman McGarvey,
    you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
        Mr. McGarvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all very
    much for your testimony. I am proud to be a co-lead of a bill
    with my colleague, Mr. Ciscomani, the Veterans Appeals Backlog
    Improvement Act. This bill would create a new pipeline program
    for entry-level attorneys in addition to mandating a report on
    telehearings at the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA).
        We have seen staggering unacceptable backlogs during the
    appeals process in veterans trying to access their earned
    benefits. This bill is one step closer to helping mitigate
    those issues. Mr. Liermann, if you do not mind, just tell us a
    little bit about what this bill would mean for your members.
        Mr. Liermann. Well, I think most of it, and thank you for
    the question, is that it is going to add more resources to the
    judges. More resources and more attorneys. Within the last year
    or so, they have added additional veterans law judges at the
    board. I think the piece we often forget about is that does
    include their support mechanisms, which a lot of times that
    will include at least 10 additional employees to include new
    attorneys.
        When we are increasing that, we are increasing their
    support. I believe recently we were informed by the Board that
    right now there are around only five people that are currently
    available to the veterans law judge to where previously and
    most effectively would be 10 to include new attorneys. We think
    what this will do is give a viable option for new attorneys,
    support process to the judges, and quicker decisions.
        Mr. McGarvey. Thank you. I appreciate that. The backlog is
    unacceptable. We can do something about it. Again, this is to
    clear the backlog of veterans who are trying to access the
    benefits they have earned. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I
    yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. McGarvey. Mr. Bergman, you are
    now recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
        Mr. Bergman. Thank you. Let us get right to the meat of it.
    Lieutenant Colonel Taylor, what metrics or model is used to
    justify your company's fee for your service?
        Mr. Taylor. Congressman, that is a great question. As a
    private company operating in a free market, my clients are
    justifying my fees. We have a simple, straightforward,
    contingent fee model that is only charged if a veteran has a
    successful outcome. That fee model is clearly communicated to
    the veteran before they make a choice to use my services. The
    veteran can make the choice on whether or not my fee is
    justified. Some of the statistics, 50 percent of my clients are
    coming as referrals from former clients who saw value in the
    services and the fee that we are charging. We have a less than
    2 percent failure to pay rate. Every payment that I receive is
    voluntary from the veteran. My clients simply are justifying
    our fee model. This allows us as a business, to hire and train
    expert staff to maintain The Health Insurance Portability and
    Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) compliant secure IT servers
    because we are hearing with extremely sensitive information
    from these veterans, and maintain a dedicated client support
    team providing first class service to our veterans.
        Mr. Bergman. Okay, thank you. Would you support
    implementing safeguards that would allow businesses like yours
    that help veterans obtain positive results to continue to
    operate while preventing and punishing, I mean, really holding
    bad actors accountable in this space?
        Mr. Taylor. Absolutely, Congressman. We have maintained
    from the beginning that we are in full support of accreditation
    reform. We are in full support of any model that allows us into
    the tent and we invite the oversight. We would actually like to
    see accreditation strengthened even further beyond what it is
    right now. We would like to see increased audits of all of the
    accredited agents and how they are performing and the level of
    service that they are providing, increased oversight of their
    training programs. Really having those guardrails out there,
    because I am not going to sit here today and pretend that there
    are not bad actors. I am not going to sit here today and
    pretend that there are not bad practices. Let us put the
    guardrails in place to protect veterans from those bad actors
    and from those practices that we do not like and ensure that
    well intentioned honorable companies, VSOs, agents, and
    attorneys are providing the widest range of options to help
    veterans navigate this difficult process.
        Mr. Bergman. Thank you. Along those lines, and I know
    everybody in this room is here for the right reasons. Along
    those lines, last night I introduced H.R. 1822, the Preserving
    Lawful Utilization of Services or Plus for Veterans Act of
    2023, along with my colleague and fellow veteran representative
    Nancy Mace from South Carolina. This bill seeks to strike a
    balance by restoring penalties for nonaccredited agents and
    attorneys that assist veterans with their claims, improving the
    accreditation system to allow businesses like Veterans Guardian
    and others to continue to do their good work, and adding
    safeguards to prevent and punish bad actors that seek to take
    advantage of veterans and ultimately their families as well.
        I would just like, you know, in listening to the entire
    hearing today and I see that our folks from the last panel are
    still in the audience because this ties into the future,
    because what we are dealing with are current practices and
    policies. We are trying to implement new ones that enable us to
    move forward positively. I guarantee you there are some,
    probably a young person either here in the room or listening to
    this, who is probably going to say, I wonder if I could create
    an app for that? How would the VA, and this is just thinking
    about the future, how would the VA accredit such an app? With
    that, I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Bergman. Ranking Member
    Pappas, any closing remarks?
        Mr. Pappas. Sure. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you to our last panel, and I want to thank all the members for
    a productive conversation on the bills before us today. Our
    witnesses provided insight and we look forward to staying in
    touch as we move forward.
        Having heard once again today about the issue around
    unaccredited disability claims consultants who continue to
    target our veterans for financial gain, I could not be even
    more adamant that our bill, H.R. 1139 the GUARD VA benefits act
    is necessary. It is a meaningful step toward stopping these bad
    actors by reinstating criminal penalties for their actions. We
    heard today from VA that about 40 percent of complaints come
    from, are about nonaccredited actors, and there is little to
    nothing that is being done about it.
        We need some teeth in the law. I look forward to working
    with my colleagues on a solution that will help address this
    situation and ensure that our veterans can get their claims
    processed in a timely fashion and get an outcome that is
    positive and beneficial to them.
        I want to commend the continued support of VA and our VSOs
    in assisting the veterans community and their commitment to
    ensuring that veterans receive the care and benefits that they
    have earned without profit motive being a driving force behind
    those actions. Veterans and their families should have peace of
    mind when filing a claim for VA benefits. For those who have
    served our country, I commit to you that there is nothing
    more--there is still more that can and should and will be done
    to hold those individuals and businesses accountable.
        I want to thank our panelists again for their remarks and
    commend my colleagues for their thoughtful contributions to
    this conversation. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ranking Member Pappas. I look
    forward to working through the issues with my department and my
    colleagues on this subcommittee. As I have said before, the
    complete written statements of today's witnesses will be
    entered into the hearing record. I ask for unanimous consent
    that the statements for the record submitted from the following
    members and/or organizations be entered into the hearing
    record. Representative Michael Waltz from Florida. The Court of
    Appeals for Veterans claims Gold Star Wives, National
    Organizations of Veterans Advocates and Tragedy Assistance
    Program for Survivors.
        Hearing no objections. So, ordered.
        I ask unanimous consent that all members have 5 legislative
    days to revise and extend their remarks and exclude extraneous
    material.
        No objections.
        I thank the members and the witnesses for their attendance
    and participation today. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so
    much for taking your time. VA representation, God bless each
    and every one of you. We look forward to my colleagues on the
    right and the left with this, we look forward to figuring this
    out so our veterans are safe. God bless. Adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

    =======================================================================

                             A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X

    =======================================================================

                        Prepared Statement of Witnesses

                                  ----------

                       Prepared Statement of Cheryl Rawls

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas and other Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for inviting us here today to present our views
    on several bills that would affect VA programs and services. Joining me
    today is Kevin Friel, Deputy Director, Pension & Fiduciary Service and
    Christa Shriber, Deputy Chief Counsel for the Benefits Law Group.

    H.R. 234 Gerald's Law Act

        Section 2(a) of this bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.
    2303(a)(2)(A), as amended by section 2202 of the Johnny Isakson and
    David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of
    2020 (Public Law 116-315), to provide burial allowance to certain
    Veterans who die at home or other setting while in receipt of hospice
    care furnished by VA pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1717(a), as long as
    such care was directly preceded by the Veteran receiving hospital care
    or nursing home care furnished by the Secretary as referenced in 38
    U.S.C. Sec.  2303(a)(2)(A)(ii). Section 2(b) of the bill would assign
    an effective date for the amendments made by subsection (a) as if
    included in the enactment of Public Law 116-315.
        VA would support this bill with an identified funding offset, if
    amended. VA supports section 2(a) of the bill extending eligibility for
    VA burial allowance to a new demographic of Veterans. VA also supports
    the intent for the effective date as outlined in section 2(b). VA
    understands the effective date to subsection (a) would be January 5,
    2023. However, VA recommends that the effective date for the amendments
    made by the bill be 6 months following the passage of the bill. This
    would allow VA to update the necessary forms and to ensure systems are
    able to appropriately capture this newly eligible demographic.
        Significant mandatory and discretionary costs are anticipated to be
    associated with this bill. VA requires additional time to prepare a
    detailed cost estimate.

    H.R. 854 Gold Star Spouse Equity Act

        This bill would amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to
    expand certain benefits for surviving spouses of members of the Armed
    Forces who die in line of duty, and for other purposes.
        Section 2 of this bill would amend 10 U.S.C. Sec.  1450(b)(2) to
    continue eligibility for the survivor benefit annuity plan of a
    surviving spouse who is described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of 10
    U.S.C. Sec.  1448(d)(1), even if he or she remarries before reaching
    age 55 and before the date of the enactment of this bill. VA defers to
    the Department of Defense (DoD) regarding section 2 of the bill.
        Section 3 of this bill would result in removing remarriage as a bar
    to furnishing benefits under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1311 for surviving
    spouses. It would further provide for the resumption of dependency and
    indemnity compensation (DIC) under section 1311 for those who remarried
    before reaching age 57 and before the date of the enactment of the
    bill.
        VA supports, if amended, and seeks clarification regarding section
    3 of the bill. VA notes that the amendments as written would be more
    expansive than the stated purpose of the bill suggests.
        VA supports the intended purpose of the bill to expand benefits for
    surviving spouses of members of the Armed Forces who die in line of
    duty, subject to the availability of appropriations. However, the
    language of section 3 does not limit the expansion of DIC benefits
    under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1311 for surviving spouses who remarry to
    situations where the Veteran died in the line of duty. As a result, the
    language as currently written would be more expansive than the intent
    of the bill as stated by Congress. VA respectfully requests
    clarification on the intent of this bill.
        Furthermore, VA cites concerns that the proposed amendments as
    written under section 3 would result in the complete removal of
    remarriage considerations for DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1311.
    If the bill is not amended to limit its application specifically to a
    surviving spouse of a Veteran who died in the line of duty, then this
    bill would result in disparate treatment for survivor benefits granted
    under different sections of title 38, United States Code. The bill
    would only address DIC benefits granted under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1311;
    this would result in DIC benefits granted under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1318
    remaining subject to the age 55 remarriage limitation. VA further notes
    that beneficiaries of survivors pension, who tend to be in a more
    vulnerable demographic than DIC beneficiaries, would remain ineligible
    due to remarriage at any age.
        Finally, VA believes that section 3(b) is unclear regarding whether
    a surviving spouse would be required to file an application for
    resumption of DIC or if VA would be required to identify and conduct
    outreach for individuals who were in receipt of DIC under 38 U.S.C.
    Sec.  1311 but were terminated due to their age at the time of a
    remarriage. Relatedly, while we believe the requirement to ``resume''
    payments is intended to apply only to individuals who were in receipt
    of DIC prior to their remarriage, that limitation is not among the
    criteria stated in section 3(b)(1) and (2) and its absence could lead
    to confusion or unnecessary litigation.
        VA welcomes the opportunity to provide technical assistance to
    clarify the expansion of DIC benefits that would be granted under 38
    U.S.C. Sec.  1311.
        Significant mandatory and discretionary costs are anticipated to be
    associated with this bill. Additional time would be needed to prepare a
    detailed cost estimate. Also, VA is seeking clarification on the bill's
    intent which could greatly affect those estimates.

    H.R. 984 Commitment to Veteran Support and Outreach Act

        This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. chapter 63 to authorize VA to award
    grants to States and Indian Tribes to carry out programs that improve
    outreach and assistance to Veterans and their families, inform them
    about any benefits and programs for which they may be eligible, and
    facilitate opportunities for such Veterans to receive services in
    connection with their VA benefits claims.
        VA supports this bill, subject to the availability of
    appropriations. The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) already
    maintains a robust outreach program, reaching millions of Veterans and
    working with partners, such as County Veterans Service Officers (CVSOs)
    and Tribal Veterans Service Officers (TVSOs), each year through various
    forms of customer-focused outreach programs, communications, and
    activities. In addition, VBA hosts bi-annual National Association of
    County Veterans Service Officers Partnership meetings as part of VBA's
    effort to further expand collaborative outreach efforts with internal
    and external partners. State Departments of Veterans Affairs are also
    currently integrated within the VA regional office outreach framework.
    VBA values the partnerships it has with Veterans service organizations,
    to include the CVSOs and TVSOs who are affiliated with them and
    continues to look for opportunities to further engage with the
    organizations.
        There would be no mandatory costs associated with this bill, but
    additional time would be needed to estimate discretionary costs.

    H.R. 1139 Governing Unaccredited Representatives Defrauding VA Benefits
    Act (or the GUARD VA Benefits Act)

        This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5905 to reinstate a penalty
    for soliciting, contracting for, charging, or receiving, or attempting
    to solicit, contract for, charge, or receive, any fee or compensation
    with respect to the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of claims
    for VA benefits except as provided in 38 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  5904 and
    1984.
        VA supports this bill. H.R. 1139 would essentially reinstate
    language imposing criminal penalties that was removed from section 5905
    in 2006. This bill would address the absence of criminal penalties in
    the current statutes governing the conduct of individuals who provide
    assistance with claims for VA benefits. Under current law, VA's
    enforcement mechanisms are constrained to suspending or canceling the
    accreditation of an accredited individual or, for an unaccredited
    individual or organization, sending a warning letter requesting that
    they cease their illegal activities and then referring those matters to
    Federal or State enforcement entities for possible prosecution under
    other laws, such as consumer protection, elder protection, or deceptive
    advertising laws. This bill would create a single, national standard to
    serve as a general deterrent against bad actors and would allow for
    more meaningful enforcement against unaccredited individuals who are
    currently not subject to any Federal punishment for violations of VA
    law with respect to the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of
    claims before VA.
        VA notes that the bill is structured so that imprisonment, which
    may be a penalty or part of the penalty for wrongfully withholding
    benefits in current section 5905, would not be a possibility for
    charging unauthorized fees. Omitting the possibility of imprisonment as
    a penalty for charging unauthorized fees may reduce the deterrent
    effect of the amended statute.
        There are no costs associated with H.R. 1139.

    H.R. 1529 Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Act of 2023

        This bill would provide rates for VA disability compensation,
    additional compensation for dependents, clothing allowance for certain
    disabled Veterans, and DIC for surviving spouses and children will be
    increased effective December 1, 2023, by the same percentage as the
    percentage by which benefit amounts payable under title II of the
    Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sec.  401 et seq.) are increased
    effective December 1, 2023. In short, VA would adjust its compensation
    and payment rates in conformity with any necessary cost-of-living
    adjustment to Social Security benefits determined by the Social
    Security Administration. The bill would also allow VA to
    administratively adjust payments in the same manner to any person in
    receipt of or entitled to receive benefits on December 31, 1958, if the
    conditions warranting such payment under those laws continue. Finally,
    VA would be required to publish in the Federal Register the cost-of-
    living adjustment amounts no later than the date the Social Security
    Administration does. The earliest date the bill can have effect on
    payments to Veterans and VA beneficiaries would be January 1, 2024.
        VA strongly supports this bill. Annual cost-of-living adjustments
    to compensation rates tangibly express the Nation's gratitude and
    respect for the sacrifices made by service-disabled Veterans, their
    surviving spouses and children. This bill would authorize VA to make
    cost-of-living adjustments in accordance with past legislatively
    authorized practice and in accordance with the established expectations
    of Veterans and beneficiaries.
        VA estimates the cost of this bill to be $4.4 billion in FY 2024,
    $27.3 billion over 5 years, and $59.7 billion over 10 years. However,
    the cost of these increases is already included in VA's baseline budget
    because VA assumes Congress will enact a cost-of--living adjustment
    each year. Therefore, enactment of this bill would not result in
    additional costs, beyond what is included in VA's baseline budget.
        There are no additional FTE or administrative cost requirements
    associated with this legislation.

    H.R. 1530 Veterans Benefits Improvement Act

        This bill is aimed at improving Veterans benefits in the following
    ways:

        Section 2 of the bill would address improvements to the publication
    of Disability Benefits Questionnaires.

        Section 3 of the bill would require VA to submit a report, within
    one year after the date of enactment, on the efforts of the Secretary
    to provide reimbursement for a Veteran's travel to a VA facility or a
    facility of a VA-contracted provider, regardless of whether the
    facility is inside or outside the United States, when such travel is
    incident to a scheduled compensation and pension examination.

        Section 4 of the bill would establish a requirement that
    communications by contractors to claimants regarding the scheduling of
    a covered medical disability examination be contemporaneously
    transmitted to the person or organization appointed by a power of
    attorney for purposes of preparing, presenting, and prosecuting claims.

        Section 5 of the bill would require VA to establish an outreach
    program to provide information on contact information for contractors
    providing covered medical disability examinations and to communicate
    the requirement for Veterans to provide personally identifiable
    information when contacted by such contractors in order to verify their
    identity.

        Section 6 of the bill would require VA to submit a report, within
    one year after the date of enactment, on improving support by VA of
    governmental Veterans service officers, to include an assessment of the
    feasibility, advisability, and current technical limitations of
    providing them enhanced access to certain VA systems to better serve
    Veterans they may not have authorization to represent and an assessment
    as to whether VA would benefit from the establishment of an office to
    serve as an intergovernmental liaison between VA governmental Veterans
    service officers.

        VA has no objection to this bill. We note, however, a potential
    ambiguity in section 5 as it refers to outreach concerning ``[c]ontact
    information for contractors.'' It is unclear whether the bill is
    concerned with informing Veterans of the contractor's contact
    information (such as the contractors' telephone numbers) or,
    alternatively, with informing Veterans that VA may provide Veterans'
    contact information to the contractors. Clarification of the intent
    would be helpful.
        With regard to the aspect of the report in section 6 for improving
    support by VA of governmental Veterans service officers addressing
    ``the feasibility, advisability, and current technical limitations of
    providing [them] enhanced access to certain Department systems to
    better serve veterans [they] may not have authorization to represent,''
    note that VA is prohibited by law from providing governmental Veterans
    service officers with access to the files of Veterans that they do not
    represent. For the other report elements set for in subsection (b)(2)
    and (b)(3), VA maintains close coordination with all Veterans service
    organizations whose organizations include ``governmental veterans
    service officers,'' and has positions and programs in place to foster
    continued collaboration with these stakeholders. To reduce the
    possibility of duplication of efforts, additional clarifying
    information as to any perceived or identified deficiencies, or the
    expected outcome of any additional office or working group, may be
    helpful to ensure the desired analysis and results are achieved.
        There are no mandatory or discretionary costs associated with this
    proposed legislation. Any additional requirements could be funded under
    existing budget authority.

        H.R. 1378 Veterans' Appeals Backlog Improvement Act

        Sections 2 and 3 of this bill would require VA to: (1) establish an
    internship program for high-achieving students who attend accredited
    law schools to gain experience at the Board of Veterans' Appeals
    (Board); (2) establish a nine-year competitive honors pilot program to
    recruit eligible law school students, recent law school graduates, and
    entry-level attorneys for employment with VA; (3) enable student loan
    repayment benefits under 5 U.S.C. Sec.  5379 for eligible honors
    program students who agree to specific employment terms; (4) assign
    mentors and provide a rotational assignment within VA's Office of
    General Counsel for honors program participants; and (5) require the
    Board to submit specific reports. Additionally, the bill would
    establish priority consideration for honors program applicants who have
    successfully completed the new internship program.
        The Board remains focused on issuing timely appeal decisions to
    Veterans. To meet the increasing number of appeals being filed at the
    Board, VA is using various hiring authorities to hire a diverse and
    inclusive workforce composed of the best and brightest talent from a
    qualified applicant pool. Whether through direct hire, Schedule A, or
    other hiring authorities, the Board has been able to recruit and retain
    a highly competent workforce made up of Veterans Law Judges, attorneys,
    and professional staff. The Board currently is working toward
    recruiting eligible law student applicants from accredited law schools
    to serve as law clerks at the Board while they await bar admission
    results as this program proved very successful in years prior to the
    pandemic. Recent attorney hiring efforts have yielded more than 1,700
    eligible applicants for vacant positions. These applicants include a
    combination of entry-level and seasoned attorneys with various legal
    backgrounds and experience levels. Given the high caliber of many
    applicants already screened and interviewed during this very successful
    recruitment, the Board estimates it could increase the current number
    of Board attorneys by as much as 25 percent this year.
        VA does not support this bill. While VA supports efforts to recruit
    highly skilled attorneys, the programs as described in the bill would
    be duplicative of existing and well-established entry-level attorney
    hiring and temporary law clerk appointments processes. If required, the
    competitive honors program may negatively impact participation in and
    outcomes of the Board's existing law clerk program. It may also have
    the unintended effect of decreasing decisional output, as seasoned
    Board attorneys who would otherwise be drafting decisions would need to
    train and mentor interns and thus increase Veteran wait times for
    appeal decisions. Thus, VA does not recommend enactment of section 2 or
    section 3 in the bill. If section 3 is nonetheless included, VA
    recommends additional clarification for several provisions for the
    competitive honors program in order to achieve congressional intent of
    the program. VA welcomes the opportunity to provide technical
    assistance regarding clarification of bill language.
        Section 4 of the bill would require VA to submit a report to the
    Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the House Committee on
    Veterans' Affairs on improving access to Board hearings held by picture
    and voice transmission. This report would require VA to provide
    recommendations on the feasibility and advisability of reimbursing
    Veterans for expenses incurred for travel to the location where the
    Board hearing is held and also would request other recommendations,
    including those from stakeholder feedback, for using alternative
    methods that could improve Veteran access to Board hearings. The
    requirements in this section would be duplicative of existing tools and
    requirements already included in Congressionally Mandated Reports. The
    Board successfully implemented the VA Tele-Hearing Modernization Act of
    2020, which currently functions as a successful tool to improve access
    to hearings. At this time, the overwhelming majority of hearings
    (approximately 79 percent) have transitioned to virtual tele-hearings
    (held by picture and voice transmission), where Veterans are no longer
    required to travel to a specific hearing location. VA recommends
    against enactment of section 4 of the bill because it would be
    duplicative of existing Congressional reports, and a highly successful
    tool for improving hearing access already exists.

    H.R. 1329 CAVC Bill

        This bill would increase the maximum number of judges that may be
    appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims from seven
    judges to nine judges.
        VA has no comment on this legislation.

    H.R. 1226 Wounded Warrior Access Act

        This bill would require VA to establish and maintain a website or
    online tool, within one year of the date of enactment, through which a
    claimant or claimant's agent or representative could electronically
    request any VA records in the custody of VA. The bill also would
    require VA to confirm receipt of such requests within 10 days and
    provide the requested records within 120 days. The bill would further
    require that anytime a claimant logs into a VA website or online tool,
    such website or online tool would issue to the claimant: (1) a warning
    of potential predatory practices that violate 38 U.S.C. chapter 59; (2)
    a link to an online VA tool through which the claimant may report an
    individual who violates 38 U.S.C. chapter 59; (3) a link to an online
    VA tool through which the claimant may search for an agent, attorney,
    or entity that is recognized by VA for the preparation, presentation,
    or prosecution of VA claims; and (4) a link to a VA website or online
    tool that provides final disciplinary decisions for VA-recognized
    agents, attorneys, and entities. No additional funds would be
    appropriated to carry out the requirements of this bill.
        VA cites serious concerns. VA appreciates the Wounded Warrior
    Access Act's efforts to provide electronic access to certain records.
    This would reduce Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Privacy
    Act requests, and potentially appeals. However, VA has concerns
    regarding the protection of sensitive information on certain documents
    found in the Veteran's file and how those documents would be redacted.
    Certain records in a Veteran's file may contain sensitive or protected
    information for other Veterans. Additionally, certain statements or
    information provided on behalf of Veterans must remain protected.
        VA also has concerns about the scope of work that would be required
    to implement such a digital service. For example, VA anticipates that
    anyone performing a digital records request would need to have an
    identity-proofed login credential, and agents or representatives of
    claimants would need a mechanism to upload or otherwise provide proof
    of their authorization. Moreover, Privacy, Records Management and FOIA
    offices would need a system to collect, track, review, and respond to
    such requests, and usability research would be needed to ensure a
    proper workflow for claimants, agents, and agency staff.
        VA supports the warning and link provisions, which are consistent
    with VA's own efforts to warn Veterans and claimants about predatory
    practices and connect them with accredited individuals. VA agrees that
    it is important to warn Veterans and claimants that there are
    unaccredited individuals and entities engaging in predatory practices
    by targeting Veterans and claimants through advertising that they are
    qualified to assist in the preparation of Veterans benefits claims and
    that are illegally charging for such services. VA also agrees it is
    important to increase the public's awareness of VA's national
    ``Accredited Representatives Search Index,'' which provides names and
    contact information for VA-recognized Veterans service organizations
    and their representatives, as well as attorneys and agents.
        VA recommends revising the language of the bill to refer to acting
    in violation of ``subsection (a) [of section 5901] or sections 5902
    through 5905 of this title'' instead of referring to ``this chapter.''
    Section 5906 of 38 U.S.C. (Availability of legal assistance at
    Department facilities) should be excluded because it pertains to a VA
    program and VA conduct.
        Additional time would be needed to provide a detailed estimate of
    mandatory and discretionary costs associated with this bill. However,
    VA's Office of Information and Technology (OIT) roughly estimates a
    project of this magnitude to cost at least $1,000,000. If this
    legislation is passed and this project is not funded, then VA OIT would
    need to de-prioritize other Veteran-facing initiatives.

    Conclusion

        This concludes my statement. We would be happy to answer any
    questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
                                     ______

                      Prepared Statement of Shane Liermann

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas and Members of the
    Subcommittee:
        Thank you for inviting DAV (Disabled American Veterans) to testify
    at today's legislative hearing of the Subcommittee on Disability
    Assistance and Memorial Affairs.
        DAV is a congressionally chartered non-profit veterans service
    organization (VSO) comprised of more than one million wartime service-
    disabled veterans that is dedicated to a single purpose: empowering
    veterans to lead high-quality lives with respect and dignity. To
    fulfill our service mission, DAV directly employs a corps of benefits
    advisors, national service officers (NSOs), all of whom are themselves
    wartime service-connected disabled veterans, at every Department of
    Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (VARO) as well as other VA
    facilities throughout the Nation, including the Board of Veterans'
    Appeals (Board).
        We are pleased to offer our views on the bills impacting service-
    disabled veterans, their families and the programs administered by VA
    that are under consideration by the Subcommittee.

                         H.R. 234, the Gerald's Law Act

        This legislation would provide a burial allowance for certain
    veterans who die at home while in receipt of hospice care furnished by
    VA. Currently, the nonservice-connected burial and plot benefit from
    the VA covers burial and funeral expenses up to $800 for the surviving
    family of a veteran, but only if they are hospitalized at the VA at
    their time of death.
        Gerald's Law would expand the eligibility, applying the burial
    allowance to terminally ill veterans that are discharged from receiving
    care at a VA medical facility or long-term care center to pass
    comfortably at home under hospice care.
        In accord with DAV Resolution No. 095, DAV fully supports H.R. 234.
    No veteran should feel forced to give up this benefit if they wish to
    pass with dignity in the comfort of their own home, surrounded by their
    family and loved ones.

        H.R. 854, the Captain James C. Edge Gold Star Spouse Equity Act

        The Captain James C. Edge Gold Star Spouse Equity Act would allow a
    surviving spouse of a service member who lost their life while on
    active duty, to retain their Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) payments if
    they remarry prior to the age of 55.
        DAV supports the intention of section two of the bill; however, we
    recommend that it include the surviving spouses of seriously disabled
    veterans and those who have died due to their service-connected
    conditions. We believe this would provide parity for surviving spouses
    of veterans who pass while on active duty and those who succumb due to
    their service-connected disabilities.
        Additionally, H.R. 854 would amend title 38, United States Code,
    Section 103, Special provisions relating to marriages by noting that,
    ``[t]he remarriage of a surviving spouse shall not bar the furnishing
    of benefits under section 1311 of this title to the surviving spouse of
    a veteran.''
        DAV strongly supports eliminating the remarriage age for surviving
    spouses who are in receipt or eligible for Dependency and Indemnity
    Compensation (DIC). In conjunction with DAV Resolution No. 162, we
    support lowering/removing the remarriage age for DIC as surviving
    spouses should not lose entitlement to the benefits they have earned,
    regardless of remarriage.

          H.R. 984, the Commitment to Veteran Support and Outreach Act

        The Commitment to Veterans Support and Outreach Act would allow VA
    to provide grants to states to carry out programs to improve outreach
    and assistance to veterans and their families and ensure they are fully
    informed about veterans' benefits programs.
        Applicants would be required to submit to the VA an outline with
    the details for the use for the grant and provide a plan for how the
    grant funds will be distributed among its counties and meet the unique
    needs of American Indian or Alaska Native veterans, elderly veterans,
    women veterans, and veterans from other underserved communities.
        Additionally, VA would be required to prioritize the awarding of
    grants in the following manner: areas with a critical shortage of
    county or tribal service officers and areas with high rates of veteran
    suicide and referrals to the Veterans Crisis Line.
        DAV supports outreach, services, and enhanced resources for all
    service-disabled veterans, to include American Indian and Alaska Native
    veterans, elderly veterans, women veterans, and veterans from other
    underserved communities. In accord with DAV Resolution No. 059, we
    support H.R. 984, the Commitment to Veteran Support and Outreach Act.

                      H.R. 1139, the GUARD VA Benefits Act

        The GUARD VA Benefits Act would impose fines on individuals for
    soliciting, contracting for, charging, or receiving any unauthorized
    fee or compensation with respect to the preparation, presentation, or
    prosecution of any claim for VA benefits. Previously, statutes did
    impose fines on these individuals; however, the fines were repealed.
    H.R. 1139 would reinstate those criminal penalties.
        In recent years, several entities have emerged that claim to
    provide veteran resources to file disability claims for a fee. However,
    these entities are not accredited, as it is argued they do not provide
    representation and therefore, do not need to be accredited nor do any
    of the above-referenced requirements of VA accreditation apply to them.
    They charge veterans and their families fees for their resources and
    these fee agreements are not submitted to or reviewed by the VA Office
    of the General Counsel (OGC).
        As these groups operate outside of accreditation, they do not fall
    under the OGC's oversight. Additionally, these entities are not
    mandatorily required to have their individuals take VA training, follow
    VA's required code of conduct, nor undergo background checks. We are
    concerned that the OGC's purpose to protect veterans and their families
    is being intentionally circumnavigated, thus placing veterans and their
    families at risk.
        For many of our Nation's disabled veterans, VA disability
    compensation can be the difference between making ends meet and more
    severe outcomes such as homelessness. That's why it is so vitally
    important that veterans are properly represented by accredited
    individuals and institutions when applying for VA benefits.
        In recent months some groups/or individuals have stated that the
    GUARD VA Benefits Act violates a veteran's constitutional rights. We
    respectfully disagree that the legislation violates First Amendment
    rights of free speech or association. This legislation aligns with U.S.
    Supreme Court precedent recognizing the responsibility of government to
    regulate certain professional behavior. Reinstatement of penalties
    against those who charge a fee for unauthorized professional advice in
    violation of VA standards of competency and accountability is
    constitutional. See generally National Institute of Family and Life
    Advocates v. Becerra, _U.S._, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018); Ohralik v. Ohio
    State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447 (1978); Del Castillo v. Secretary
    of Florida Dept. of Health, 26 F.4th 1214 (11th Cir. 2022), cert.
    denied, Del Castillo v. Ladapa, 143 S. Ct. 486 (2022).
        In accordance with DAV Resolution No. 095, DAV strongly supports
    H.R. 1139, the GUARD VA Benefits Act, which will help ensure disabled
    veterans receive VA-accredited representation while deterring predatory
    practices that seek to bilk our nation's heroes of their earned
    benefits.

    H.R. 1329, to provide for an increase in the maximum number of judges
    who may be appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
    Claims

        The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has
    exclusive jurisdiction over decisions of the Board of Veterans'
    Appeals. The Court reviews Board decisions appealed by claimants who
    believe the Board erred in its decision. As a court of record, the
    Court is part of the United States judiciary and not part of the VA.
        The Court is authorized seven permanent, active judges, and two
    additional judges as part of a temporary expansion provision. Judges
    generally are appointed for 15-year terms, and each judge has the
    option upon retirement to agree to be available for further service as
    a recall-eligible Senior Judge. During any period of recall service, a
    Senior Judge has all of the judicial authority and powers of a judge in
    active service.
        In fiscal year (FY) 2019 the Court completed 13,607 dispositions
    and in FY 2020 the Court completed 15,729 dispositions. In FY 2021,
    four retired judges were recalled to service as Senior Judges and this
    coupled with the seven permanent judges and two temporary judges, the
    Court completed 17,002 dispositions.
        As noted in the Court's FY 2021 Annual Report, ``[b]y statute, the
    Court is permanently authorized seven active judges. Based on workload
    increase, Congress has temporarily authorized two additional judges,
    bringing the number of active judges currently in service to nine.
    Seven permanent active judges are not adequate, and the Court's
    sustained workload justifies making the nine-judge authorization
    permanent. Further, based on the Board of Veterans' Appeals' prediction
    that the number of final Board decisions issued will continue to grow
    in the near future, the Court has requested 2 additional temporary
    judgeships in addition to the 9, authorizing a total of 11 active
    judges when needed.''
        The Court's 2021 report indicates that even with the seven
    permanent judges and two temporary judges, they had to recall four
    retired judges due to the strain of the caseload. Based on DAV
    Resolution No. 178 and the Court's own statement, ``Seven permanent
    active judges are not adequate...,'' we support H.R. 1329. We agree
    with the Court's statement and are pleased that the number of permanent
    Judges would increase to 9 with two temporary Judges.

            H.R. 1378, the Veterans' Appeals Backlog Improvement Act

        The Veterans' Appeals Backlog Improvement Act would establish an
    internship program within the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board), with
    the goal of providing adequate resources to better support Veterans'
    Law Judges (VLJs).
        As an original collaborator with VA and other stakeholders, DAV
    supported the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), which became effective
    in February 2019. It has dramatically changed how veterans appeal
    decisions on claims for benefits from VA. At the Board, appeals are
    separated between legacy appeals, those pending prior to AMA, and AMA
    appeals.
        The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic mixed with the backlog, slowed
    efforts to expeditiously move decisions through the appeals process. In
    January 2022, over 200,000 appeals were pending at the Board with over
    84,000 awaiting hearings. In FY 2022, the Board scheduled over 56,000
    hearings, but held only a little over 30,000 hearings. At the beginning
    of FY 2023, over 206,000 appeals were pending with 74,000 awaiting
    hearings, 6,600 legacy appeals, and 67,000 AMA appeals. The Board needs
    to be fully staffed and provided adequate resources to increase
    timeliness and reduce appeals backlog.
        For decades, DAV has called on Congress and VA to support
    significant and meaningful reforms aimed at addressing the growing
    backlog of VA claims and appeal processing. A key measure in
    modernizing these processes is providing the Board with adequate
    resources to better support its judges. By establishing an internship
    program and authorizing the hiring of entry-level attorneys, the
    Veterans' Appeals Backlog Improvement Act would vastly improve the
    Board's ability to hire and retain qualified attorneys to help address
    the backlog of appeals.
        DAV strongly supports H.R. 1378, the Veterans' Appeals Backlog
    Improvement Act, in accord with DAV Resolution No. 178, which calls for
    adequate resources to resolve the backlog of appeals and hearings at
    the Board.

    H.R. 1529, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of
                                      2023

        The Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Act
    would increase compensation rates for VA benefits, including clothing
    allowance, and dependency and indemnity benefits paid to survivors and
    families of service members who died in the line of duty or suffer from
    a service-related injury or disease.
        Many service-disabled veterans and their families depend on VA
    compensation benefits just to make ends meet. This COLA will benefit
    wounded, injured and ill veterans, their families and survivors by
    helping to maintain the value of VA benefits. Without annual COLAs,
    many disabled veterans, who sacrificed their own health and family life
    for the good of our Nation, may not be able to maintain the quality of
    life they deserve.
        DAV firmly supports H.R. 1529 in accordance with DAV Resolution No.
    102, which calls for a realistic cost-of-living allowance for our
    Nation's disabled veterans, their dependents and survivors.

                H.R. 1530, the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act

        In 2020, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) decided to stop
    providing all disability benefit questionnaires (DBQs) online for
    veterans to access and have completed by non-VA and non-contract exam
    physicians. Subsequently, legislation was enacted to require VA to
    provide said forms. The Veterans Benefits Improvement Act would allow
    the Secretary to exclude DBQs from publication that could not
    reasonably be completed to a clinically acceptable standard by someone
    that is not an employee or contractor of the VA.
        Currently, VA provides travel pay reimbursement for veterans who
    attend approved health care appointments including VA compensation and
    pension examinations. However, this does not apply to veterans who live
    abroad and must travel to VA examinations. The Veterans Benefits
    Improvement Act would require VA to submit a report to the House and
    Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs on the efforts of the VA to
    provide reimbursement for a veteran's travel to a VA facility or a
    contracted provider, regardless of the location, when the travel is for
    a scheduled compensation and pension examination.
        Additionally, H.R. 1530 would mandate the VA to include a
    requirement that every communication from a contractor to a claimant
    regarding the scheduling of a covered medical disability examination be
    provided to the VA accredited representative of the claimant in accord
    with title 38 sections 5902, 5903, and 5904.
        Finally, the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act would require the VA
    to submit to the Senate and House Veterans' Affairs Committees a report
    on improving the support by the VA and governmental veterans service
    officers. This includes an employee of a State, county, municipal or
    tribal government, who is recognized by the VA as a representative of a
    VSO to serve as a veterans' service officer.
        Based on DAV Resolution No. 095, we support H.R. 1530, the Veterans
    Benefits Improvement Act, as it will address longstanding concerns of
    DAV such as veterans having access to DBQs for private providers,
    improvements to the travel pay reimbursement system, and that VA
    accredited representatives receive notice of a veteran's contract-VA
    compensation and pension examination.
        This concludes my testimony on behalf of DAV. I am happy to answer
    any questions you or members of the Subcommittee may have.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Lawrence Montreuil

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Kristina Keenan

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas, and members of the
    subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign
    Wars of the United States (VFW) and its Auxiliary, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide our remarks on legislation pending before this
    subcommittee.

    H.R. 234, Gerald's Law Act

        Currently, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) plot allowance
    benefit for veterans who die from non-service-connected injuries or
    illnesses is primarily available for eligible veterans who die at VA
    medical facilities. Veterans who choose to spend their final days at
    home do not receive this benefit. The VFW supports this bill that would
    allow terminally ill veterans who have been hospitalized at VA but then
    choose to spend their final days in hospice at home to receive the full
    VA burial allowance. This commonsense legislation would ensure that
    veterans under VA care can make the best choice for themselves during
    their last days without the fear of losing this important benefit.

    H.R. 854, Captain James C. Edge Gold Star Spouse Equity Act

        The VFW neither supports nor opposes this legislation that would
    continue Department of Defense Survivor Benefit Plan payments and VA
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for certain surviving spouses
    even if they choose to remarry. The VFW does not currently have a
    resolution from our membership regarding this suggested change,
    therefore, we do not have a position on this proposal. However, we have
    heard from various surviving spouses that removing remarriage
    restrictions would enable them to move forward after the death of their
    service member or veteran, and not experience a financial disadvantage.
    The pros and cons of this change should be weighed diligently, and we
    hope to continue to have discussions about the best way forward for
    Gold Star spouses and all survivors.

    H.R. 984, Commitment to Veteran Support and Outreach Act

        The VFW supports efforts to expand outreach to provide benefits to
    underserved communities. VA has been attempting to provide more
    services in rural areas and on tribal lands. The VFW has been and is
    willing to assist this effort by providing training to tribal veteran
    service officers to ensure that those serving Native American veterans
    are providing competent and reliable representation. The VFW supports
    this legislation to provide states and Indian tribes grants to enhance
    outreach activities regarding VA benefits, increase the number of
    county and tribal veteran service officers, and expand existing VA
    programs within states and tribal lands.
        The VFW is concerned that simply providing grant funding, as
    written in this proposal, would not overcome the cultural barriers that
    contribute to the disparity in benefits sought by Native Americans.
    Mistrust in the United States Government needs to be addressed by
    ensuring that veterans on tribal lands have accredited representatives
    from their tribes. The VFW suggests including Veterans Service
    Organizations as eligible grant recipients to enable them to hire and
    train more tribal veteran service officers to operate in underserved
    areas.
        In addition, the VFW supports the provision in this legislation to
    provide VA's Office of General Counsel (OGC) with additional staff to
    timely process new accreditations. Past efforts with grant programs of
    this nature have not proven effective, therefore, we do not expect a
    significant workload increase on OGC from this group of veterans. The
    VFW supports increasing full-time OGC employees to address the current
    workload of processing accreditations combined with enforcing
    accreditation standards and penalties.

    H.R. 1139, Governing Unaccredited Representatives Defrauding (GUARD) VA
    Benefits Act

        The VFW strongly supports this legislation that would reinstate
    penalties for charging veterans and survivors unauthorized fees related
    to claims for VA benefits. We believe that unaccredited claims
    consultants should be subject to penalties in the same manner as
    accredited representatives.
        With the passage of the PACT Act, the VFW has observed an increase
    in online advertisements from predatory claims consultants we call
    ``Claim Sharks'' that target veterans' earned VA benefits. These groups
    promise to increase veterans' VA disability ratings. They argue that
    the high fees they charge in some way make them more effective in
    assisting veterans than the free services offered by VA-accredited
    Veterans Service Organizations. Under VA regulations, fees charged for
    claims assistance are capped and usually apply only to a percentage of
    retroactive benefits. However, many of these unaccredited consultants
    use contracts that include a commitment by the veteran to pay the Claim
    Shark all or a significant portion of their increased benefits. If a
    veteran receives a disability percentage increase years later, these
    companies often return seeking more money.
        Several of these predatory companies have made statements that
    there is no avenue for them to seek VA accreditation, but this is
    completely untrue. There are no restrictions for these consultants to
    be accredited by VA, but they refuse to do so because they would no
    longer be able to charge exorbitant fees. They would also be subject to
    oversight by VA's OGC. Currently, these predatory companies have no
    accountability, no oversight, and no penalties. Companies that prey
    upon veterans and flagrantly disregard congressional oversight
    authority should be held accountable.

    H.R. 1329, To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for an
    increase in the maximum number of judges who may be appointed to the
    United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

        Veterans are filing VA claims at higher numbers than ever before,
    in part due to having information regarding benefits and services
    easily accessible online. VA has also experienced a surge in filed
    claims following last year's passage of the PACT Act. As such, there
    will continue to be an increased workload at VA's Board of Veterans
    Appeals (BVA), and predictably some cases will be taken to the United
    States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. BVA has hired more judges
    in order to address the increased volume of cases.
        The VFW supports this proposal to increase the number of judges
    from seven to nine in order to ensure timely decisionmaking at the
    Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This would be a positive step for
    veterans appealing cases before the court and would help streamline
    operations. An additional point to consider when adding judges is the
    need to hire additional support staff, law clerks, and administrative
    support. The VFW suggests adding language to this proposal that
    includes appropriate support staff for these judges and necessary staff
    for the overall operations of the court.

    H.R. 1378, Veterans' Appeals Backlog Improvement Act

        The VFW supports this legislation to incentivize high performing
    law students to seek internships and employment within the Department
    of Veterans Affairs. Interns would specifically be assigned to work at
    BVA to assist with reducing the current appeals backlog. The employment
    program would offer student loan forgiveness for those who agree to a
    three-year employment duration. It would also include a mandatory
    period of four to six months working for VA's OGC. Although the three-
    year employment requirement would ensure that these new attorneys stay
    at VA for this duration, we recommend the employment tenure to be
    commensurate with the cost of student loan forgiveness.
        The VFW is also in favor of VA providing veterans the ability to
    attend hearings virtually from the comfort of their homes or from a
    location with the necessary technology. During the COVID-19 pandemic
    lockdowns, VA initiated the use of video teleconferencing in lieu of
    in-person hearings, which previously required claimants to travel to VA
    Regional Offices. VFW employees at BVA have witnessed almost twice the
    number of hearings scheduled largely due to the addition of virtual
    options. This efficient use of technology is helping BVA more quickly
    address the appeals backlog. The VFW supports directing VA to report on
    the feasibility and advisability of improving veterans' access to
    virtual hearings in their homes, and to consider travel reimbursements
    for veterans to access the appropriate technology at other locations.

    H.R. 1529, Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2023

        The VFW supports this legislation that would provide a cost-of-
    living increase for wartime disability compensation, additional
    compensation for dependents, clothing allowances, and Dependency and
    Indemnity Compensation for surviving spouses and children. These
    benefits would receive the same percentage increase as is granted for
    Social Security benefits. The VFW would like to see cost-of-living
    increases for these benefits every year so that veterans, dependents,
    and survivors are able to maintain financial stability.

    H.R. 1530, Veterans Benefits Improvement Act

        This legislation would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
    publish all disability benefits questionnaires (DBQs) on a publicly
    available VA website. The VFW supports this legislation and has a
    recommendation to improve it.
        DBQs were introduced in 2010 to facilitate the collection of
    evidence for veterans' disability benefits claims. For more than a
    decade, DBQs were used internally by VA physicians and private medical
    providers to supplement evidence in support of disability claims. VA
    removed public-facing DBQs from its website, thereby preventing private
    medical providers and veterans from accessing these forms. VA providers
    still maintain access to DBQs on an internal agency server.
        Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telehealth appointments has
    expanded significantly both at VA and in the private sector, becoming a
    regular practice for modern health care. The VFW recommends that
    language be added to this legislation that expressly authorizes the use
    of DBQs in private telehealth appointments.
        The VFW also supports the portions of this proposal to improve
    matters for veterans seeking disability examinations outside the
    boarders of the United States, and to update permissions for contract
    examiners. VA is shifting many of its disability examinations to non-VA
    providers, and it may eventually move one hundred percent of them to
    outside examiners. The VFW believes it is imperative to ensure contract
    examiners are provided the same permissions and are held to the same
    standards as their VA counterparts.
        We have minor concerns about section six of this proposal. We
    believe the intent of this section is to ultimately provide more
    information and transparency to veterans who have VA claims. The VFW
    supports changes to ensure veterans have more information about their
    claims, and adding the permission for read-only access to accredited
    representatives would accomplish that mission. We support adding read-
    only access to individuals in the VA OGC accreditation data base in
    order to allow any accredited representative to share the status of
    claims with individuals, even if those individuals are not represented
    by the accredited representative. However, safeguards need to be
    established to ensure that sensitive information is not accessible by
    unauthorized individuals and that privacy is maintained. If these
    concerns are addressed more clearly, the VFW believes this could be a
    positive step to help veterans be more knowledgeable about their
    claims. We look forward to working with the committee to address our
    concerns.
        Chairman Luttrell, this concludes my testimony. Again, the VFW
    would like to thank you and Ranking Member Pappas for the opportunity
    to testify on these important issues before this subcommittee. I am
    prepared to take any questions you or the subcommittee members may
    have.

    Information Required by Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives

        Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the VFW
    has not received any federal grants in Fiscal Year 2023, nor has it
    received any federal grants in the two previous Fiscal Years.

        The VFW has not received payments or contracts from any foreign
    governments in the current year or preceding two calendar years.
                                     ______

                      Prepared Statement of William Taylor

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Statements for the Record

                                  ----------

                      Prepared Statement of Michael Waltz

        Thank you Chairman Bost and Ranking Member Takano for providing me
    this opportunity to speak on H.R. 854, the Captain James C. Edge Gold
    Star Spouse Equity Act, which I introduced with my colleagues,
    Representatives Seth Moulton, Don Bacon, and Jason Crow.
        The legislation is named in memory of Marine Captain James Edge, a
    classmate of mine at the Virginia Military Institute who was killed on
    April 14, 2005, from enemy small-arms fire while conducting combat
    operations in Ramadi, Iraq.
        But more importantly, this legislation is for the survivors of our
    fallen heroes, like James's widow Krissy, and his daughters Helena and
    Rachel. While nothing we do can ever fill the loss of their loved one,
    this bill is designed to help ease the transition to the next chapter
    of their lives.
        As the Committee is aware, the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) is a
    death benefit provided by the Department of Defense. A survivor of a
    servicemember who died on active duty is paid a benefit equal to 55
    percent of their retirement pay if they had been retired at 100 percent
    disability at the time of death. The amount of pay is dependent on the
    pay grade at the time of the servicemember's death.
        The Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC), which is under
    this Committee's jurisdiction, is a VA benefit paid to eligible
    survivors of active-duty service members and survivors of veterans
    whose deaths are determined to be service-related. It is a flat monthly
    payment, currently at $1,562.74.
        These benefits are payable for life to the spouse unless they
    remarry. If they remarry, they lose these benefits. These benefits are
    reinstated should that marriage end by death or divorce. However, if
    that remarriage occurs at the age of 55 or older, the benefits continue
    uninterrupted.
        Up until 2020, the DIC benefit was cutoff if a surviving spouse
    remarried prior to turning 57 and I'd like to thank then-Chairman
    Takano and then-Ranking Member Phil Roe, and this committee for helping
    ease this burden.
        However, the time has come to completely eliminate the remarriage
    penalty and that's what the bill before the Committee does. H.R. 854
    would allow Gold Star spouses to move forward with their lives,
    allowing them to remarry, free of fear of losing their benefits owed to
    them for their family's noble sacrifice.
        As a Green Beret combat veteran, this is not only personal to me,
    but a strategic issue for our volunteer military. If the family support
    structure starts cracking, the entire foundation of our modern military
    is in trouble.
        I humbly ask the Committee to favorably report this legislation.
    Thank you.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

        CHAIRMAN LUTTRELL, RANKING MEMBER PAPPAS, AND DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS
    OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:

        Thank you for the invitation to submit a statement of the Court's
    views on legislation pending before the Committee. The Court's comments
    address H.R. 1329, a bill that would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  7253(a) to
    increase by 2 (from 7 to 9) the number of permanent judges on the
    United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Court
    wholeheartedly supports this legislation.
        The Court currently has 9 active judges - the 7 permanent
    appointments authorized under subsection 7253(a), and 2 additional
    judges appointed under the temporary expansion authority of subsection
    7253(i). Case trends/predictions and VA staffing growth show that, to
    continue to provide veterans, their family members, and their survivors
    with timely judicial review, the Court needs the legislative change
    proposed in H.R. 1329 - increasing permanent authorizations from 7 to 9
    active judges while maintaining the authority to temporarily expand by
    an additional 2 judges. As a result, the Court would have the much-
    needed authority to temporarily expand from 9 to 11 active judges.
        In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023,\1\ Congress
    recognized that the growth in claims processing projected by VA would
    require expansion of the Court to 11 judges, and our FY 2023
    appropriation gave us the requested necessary funding for that number
    of judges. Passage of H.R. 1329 would provide the Court with an
    authorization that would match our FY 2023 appropriation and would
    hopefully lead to the expeditious appointment of judicial candidates to
    fill the 2 new judgeships.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Pub. L. No. 117-328, 136 Stat. 4459, 4971 (Dec. 29, 2022).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        By way of background, the Court, as an independent judicial body,
    has exclusive jurisdiction to review appeals from decisions of VA's
    Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board). Caseload trends over the years have
    shown that for every 10,000 Board decisions, the Court generally
    receives between 800 and 1,000 appeals. In FY 2012, when the temporary
    authorization for 9 judges was fairly new, the Board issued 44,300
    final decisions and the Court received 3,649 appeals.\2\ By comparison,
    in FY 2020, the Board issued 102,663 final decisions and the Court
    received an all-time high 8,954 appeals.\3\ Although the number of
    Board decisions has dipped slightly over the past 2 years, all
    indicators point to sustained growth in the anticipated number of Board
    decisions. The Board has received a significant influx of full-time
    employee positions and resources with a goal of increasing its capacity
    to decide cases, and the Board Chairman expects to produce more
    decisions in FY 2023 than in any prior year.\4\ Similarly, the VA
    General Counsel law group responsible for representing the VA Secretary
    in every case appealed from the Board to the Court is anticipating a
    growing workload, and VA has requested additional funding and staffing
    for that law group to keep up with an anticipated surge in appeals.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ 2012 U.S. DEP'T. OF VETERANS AFFS., BD. OF VETERANS APPEALS
    REP. CHAIRMAN at 22 https://www.bva.va.gov/Chairman_Annual_Rpts.asp
    (last updated Dec. 15, 2021); 2012 U.S. CT. OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS
    CLAIMS ANN. REP. at 1, http://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/
    FY2012AnnualReport.pdf.
        \3\ 2020 U.S. DEP'T. OF VETERANS AFFS., BD. OF VETERANS APPEALS
    REP. CHAIRMAN at 40 https://www.bva.va.gov/Chairman_Annual_Rpts.asp;
    2020 U.S. CT. OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS ANN. REP. at 1, http://
    www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/FY2020AnnualReport.pdf.
        \4\ U.S. DEP'T OF VETERANS AFFS., FY 2024 Budget Submission at 268,
    272 (2023), https://www.va.gov/budget/docs/summary/fy2024-va-budget-
    volume-iii-burial-and-benefits-programs-and-departmental-
    administration.pdf.
        \5\ Id. at 308, 330.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These indicators suggest that the Court will receive an
    unprecedented number of appeals in the near future. That, combined with
    the expected swell of toxic exposure cases stemming from the PACT
    Act,\6\ and the complexity in our cases due to class-actions, make it
    clear that we need the authorization provided by H.R. 1329 now if we
    are to sustain our ability to provide full and prompt judicial review
    to veterans, their families, and their survivors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ HONORING OUR PACT ACT OF 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-678, 136 Stat.
    1759, 1782; https://www.va.gov/resources/the-pact-act-and-your-va-
    benefits/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For the above reasons, the Court strongly supports passage of H.R.
    1329. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement, and on
    behalf of the Court, thank you for your past and continued support.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of Gold Star Wives of America

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of National Organization of Veterans' Advocates

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas, and members of the
    Subcommittee, the National Organization of Veterans' Advocates (NOVA)
    thanks you for the opportunity to offer our views on pending
    legislation. Our statement will focus on the following bills: (1) H.R.
    1139, GUARD VA Benefits Act; (2) H.R. 1329, to amend title 38, United
    States Code, to provide for an increase in the maximum number of judges
    who may be appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
    Claims; (3) H.R. 1378, Veterans' Appeals Backlog Improvement Act; and
    (4) H.R. 1530, Veterans Benefits Improvement Act.
        NOVA is a not-for-profit 501(c)(6) educational membership
    organization incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1993. NOVA
    represents more than 800 attorneys, agents, and other qualified members
    nationwide, who are assisting tens of thousands of our Nation's
    military veterans, their surviving spouses, and their families seeking
    to obtain their earned benefits from VA. NOVA works to develop and
    encourage high standards of service and representation for all persons
    seeking benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
        NOVA members represent veterans before all levels of VA's
    disability claims process, and handle appeals before the United States
    Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), United States Court of
    Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and Supreme Court of the United
    States. As an organization, NOVA advances important cases and files
    amicus briefs in others. See, e.g., Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428
    (2011) (amicus); NOVA v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 710 F.3d 1328
    (Fed. Cir. 2013) (addressing VA's failure to honor its commitment to
    stop applying an invalid rule); Procopio v. Wilkie, 913 F.3d 1371 (Fed.
    Cir. 2019) (amicus); NOVA v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 981 F.3d
    1360 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (M21-1 rule was interpretive rule of general
    applicability and agency action subject to judicial review); Buffington
    v. McDonough, No. 21-972 (February 7, 2022) (amicus in support of
    petition for writ of certiorari).
        The most important facet of NOVA's mission is the education of
    accredited advocates. NOVA currently conducts two conferences per year,
    each of which provide approximately 15 hours of continuing legal
    education (CLE) credit for attendees. NOVA sustaining members must
    participate in at least one conference every 24 months to maintain
    eligibility to appear in our public-facing advocate directory. Experts
    from within and outside the membership present and train on the latest
    developments and best practices in veterans law and policy. In addition
    to conferences, NOVA offers webinars, online support, and other
    guidance to its members to enhance their skills.

                        H.R. 1139, GUARD VA Benefits Act

        NOVA supports H.R. 1139. NOVA testified in April 2022 at a joint
    hearing before this Subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations as to the need for this legislation. National
    Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Statement Before the House
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance
    and Memorial Affairs and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
    Joint Oversight Hearing, ``At What Cost? - Ensuring Quality
    Representation in the Veteran Benefit Claims Process'' (April 27,
    2022), https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR09/20220427/114660/HHRG-
    117-VR09-Wstate-RauberD-20220427-U1.pdf. We incorporate this testimony
    by reference, and we thank Reps. Pappas and Radewagen for reintroducing
    this important bill.
        Over the past several years, there has been a proliferation of
    predatory companies offering ``consulting'' services for veterans
    seeking VA disability benefits. These ``claims consultants'' are
    unaccredited by VA and unlawfully charge veterans fees to prepare
    initial claims - a service that has long been available for free from
    accredited veterans service organizations throughout the country. In
    addition to charging veterans thousands of dollars for a service they
    can get for free, these consultants provide incorrect and harmful
    advice that often results in the veteran's forfeiture of months' or
    years' worth of benefits.
        For example, while the consulting company prepares and reviews the
    claim, the veteran submits it on their own or, in some circumstances,
    the claim is submitted by an employee using the eBenefits log-in
    information of the veteran. If the veteran's claim is granted, the
    company charges a fee based on five to six times the amount that the
    veteran's monthly payment increases. Thus, their fee relies on
    increasing the veteran's future benefits, and once this increase has
    been achieved, their work is complete. This practice leaves no
    incentive for ensuring that the veteran's award has been assigned a
    proper effective date. Pursuing a proper effective date would require
    filing a decision review request, e.g., a higher-level review or appeal
    to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA), which entails work for which
    they would not be compensated. While this practice benefits these
    unaccredited companies, their failure to ensure that the veteran has
    been awarded the earliest effective date means that the veteran is
    forfeiting retroactive compensation that could, depending on the
    circumstances of the case, be substantial.
        VA has issued ``cease and desist letters'' to these unaccredited
    consulting firms, but VA states it has no ability to stop their
    unlawful activity. H.R. 1139 reinstates penalties for those who violate
    the law and protects veterans and their families from predatory
    practices. We urge this Committee to advance it.

    H.R. 1329, to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for an
    increase in the maximum number of judges who may be appointed to the
    United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

        NOVA supports H.R. 1329. Many NOVA members represent veterans
    before the CAVC, and serve or have served on CAVC committees or as part
    of the CAVC Bar Association leadership. When Congress passed the
    Veterans Judicial Review Act in 1988, veterans finally gained the long-
    denied right to judicial review of final BVA decisions. It is important
    that Congress continue to ensure the court has the necessary resources
    to timely administer justice for our Nation's veterans.
        Between FY 2017 and FY 2020, BVA nearly doubled the number of
    issued decisions, from 52,661 to 102,663. Department of Veterans
    Affairs, Board of Veterans' Appeals, Annual Report 40 (2020), https://
    www.bva.va.gov/docs/Chairmans--Annual--Rpts/BVA2020AR.pdf. In 2020, the
    CAVC received 8,954 appeals, an all-time high. United States Court of
    Appeals for Veterans Claims, Annual Report 1 (2020), http://
    www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/FY2020AnnualReport.pdf. While BVA
    production has slipped and the corresponding number of CAVC appeals has
    slightly dropped since FY 2020, the August 2022 passage of the PACT Act
    is resulting in increased claims and an expectation of increased
    appeals to BVA and, in turn, the CAVC. The PACT Act also created
    funding for more positions within the Veterans Benefits Administration,
    BVA, and VA's Office of General Counsel, which is anticipated to result
    in increased productivity and, ultimately, more appeals to the CAVC.
        Congress has already appropriated the funds necessary to expand the
    CAVC to 11 judges, i.e., expanding by two permanent positions and
    retaining two temporary ones. Pub. L. No. 117-328, 136 Stat. 4459, 4971
    (Dec. 29, 2022). With these funds in place, Congress should move
    quickly to authorize additional judges and ensure veterans continue to
    have prompt access to justice as decisions and appeals increase in the
    years ahead.

              H.R. 1378, Veterans' Appeals Backlog Improvement Act

        NOVA supports H.R. 1378, which would establish an internship
    program within BVA and require a report on improving access to BVA
    telehearings. In the recently released VA FY 2024 budget, VA stated:
    ``Initial projections after passage of the PACT Act show the Board
    could receive as many as 78,000 AMA appeals in 2023 and nearly 86,000
    in 2024.'' U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, FY 2024 Budget
    Submission, Burial and Benefits Programs and Departmental
    Administration, Vol. 3, 274 (March 2023), https://www.va.gov/budget/
    docs/summary/fy2024-va-budget-volume-iii-burial-and-benefits-programs-
    and-departmental-administration.pdf. However, the budget further
    indicated that BVA only anticipates issuing 26,000 AMA appeal decisions
    in 2023 and ``anticipates 2024 to be the first year in which the number
    of AMA decisions will be roughly equal to the number of legacy
    decisions.'' Id.
        According to reports from NOVA members, many veterans are waiting
    over two years for a decision in the AMA direct review lane, far more
    than the 365-day goal to which BVA committed in negotiations with its
    stakeholders and a foundation of the system passed by Congress in 2017.
    NOVA supports efforts such as these to provide resources for BVA to
    fulfill its mission of producing timely, accurate decisions for
    veterans and their families. NOVA also encourages this Committee to
    conduct oversight on ongoing delays.
        Furthermore, BVA continues to run a significant hearing backlog.
    Veterans are choosing the hearing lane at a 41 percent rate. AMA
    Appeals Lane Choices FY 2019 - FY 2023, https://www.bva.va.gov/images/
    appeals/ama-appeal-lane-choices-large.jpg. At the end of FY 2022 there
    were 74,411 hearings pending with 30,089 completed. Legacy and AMA
    Hearings Held and Pending (FY 2019 - FY 2022), https://www.bva.va.gov/
    images/appeals/legacy-and-ama-hearings-held-and-pending-large.jpg.
    These statistics, combined with projections for increased appeals,
    indicate the backlog will continue to grow. NOVA supports efforts to
    explore how hearings can be better and more efficient, and reduce the
    long waits veterans endure to be heard.

                  H.R. 1530, Veterans Benefits Improvement Act

        NOVA supports H.R. 1530. In particular, it is critically important
    that every correspondence regarding the scheduling of a disability
    examination be communicated to the veteran's accredited representative.
    NOVA members report confusion and a lack of clear communication about
    scheduling to veterans that causes them to miss examinations. When a
    veteran misses an examination, it needs to be properly and timely
    rescheduled or there is a strong likelihood VA will deny the claim.
    Representatives can assist their clients with navigating this process
    but timely notice is necessary.
        Likewise, ensuring veterans have accurate contact information for
    contractors and can identify who is calling them allows veterans to
    have more control over this important - and often stressful - part of
    the disability claims and appeals process.
        Finally, while NOVA understands that there may be some Disability
    Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs) that cannot be published, the language
    of Section 5105(d)(4)(B) is excessively and unnecessarily broad, as it
    would essentially allow VA to exclude any DBQ created after January 1,
    2022, that has not been previously published. NOVA recommends removing
    subsection (d)(4)(B). Alternatively, Congress should ensure through
    oversight that this provision is not overly restrictive in limiting
    publication of DBQs.

                                   Conclusion

        NOVA is committed to working with Congress, VA, and fellow
    accredited stakeholders to advance this important legislation for our
    Nation's veterans and their families. Thank you again for allowing NOVA
    to provide our views.

    For more information:

        NOVA staff would be happy to assist you with any further inquiries
    you may have regarding our views on this important legislation. For
    questions regarding this testimony or if you would like to request
    additional information, please feel free to contact Diane Boyd Rauber
    by calling NOVA's office at (202) 587-5708 or by emailing Diane
    directly at drauber@vetadvocates.org.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors

        The Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS) is the national
    provider of comfort, care, and resources to all those grieving the
    death of a military loved one. TAPS was founded in 1994 as a 501(c)(3)
    nonprofit organization to provide 24/7 care to all military survivors,
    regardless of a service member's duty status at the time of death, a
    survivor's relationship to the deceased service member, or the
    circumstances of a service member's death.
        TAPS provides comprehensive support through services and programs
    that include peer-based emotional support, casework, assistance with
    education benefits, and community-based grief and trauma resources, all
    at no cost to military survivors. TAPS offers additional programs
    including, but not limited to: a 24/7 National Military Survivor
    Helpline; national, regional, and community programs to facilitate a
    healthy grief journey for survivors of all ages; and information and
    resources provided through the TAPS Institute for Hope and Healing.
    TAPS extends a significant service to military survivors by
    facilitating meaningful connections to other survivors with shared loss
    experiences.
        In 1994, Bonnie Carroll founded TAPS after the death of her
    husband, Brigadier General Tom Carroll, who was killed along with seven
    other soldiers in 1992 when their Army National Guard plane crashed in
    the mountains of Alaska. Since its founding, TAPS has provided care and
    support to more than 100,000 bereaved military survivors.
        In 2022 alone, 8,849 newly bereaved military survivors came to TAPS
    for care. This is an average of 24 new survivors coming to TAPS each
    and every day. Of the survivors seeking our care in 2022, 30 percent
    were grieving the death of a loved one to illness, including toxic
    exposures, and 29 percent were grieving the death of a military loved
    one to suicide.
        As the leading nonprofit organization offering military grief
    support, TAPS builds a community of survivors helping survivors heal.
    TAPS provides connections to a network of peer-based emotional support
    and critical casework assistance, empowering survivors to grow with
    their grief. Engaging with TAPS programs and services has inspired many
    survivors to care for other more newly bereaved survivors by working
    and volunteering for TAPS.
        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas, and distinguished members
    of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the Tragedy Assistance
    Program for Survivors (TAPS) is grateful for the opportunity to provide
    a statement for the record on issues of importance to the 100,000-plus
    surviving family members of all ages, representing all services, and
    with losses from all causes that we have been honored to serve.
        The mission of TAPS is to provide comfort, care, and resources for
    all those grieving the death of a military loved one, regardless of the
    manner of death, the duty status at the time of death, the survivor's
    relationship to the deceased, or the survivor's phase in their grief
    journey. Part of that commitment includes advocating for improvements
    in programs and services provided by the U.S. Federal Government--the
    Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
    Department of Education (DoED), Department of Labor (DOL), and
    Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)--and State and local
    governments.
        TAPS and the VA have mutually benefited from a long-standing,
    collaborative working relationship. In 2014, TAPS and the VA entered
    into a Memorandum of Agreement that formalized their partnership with
    the goal of providing earlier and expedited access to needed survivor
    services. In 2023, TAPS and the VA renewed and expanded their formal
    partnership to better serve our survivor community. TAPS works with
    military survivors to identify, refer, and apply for resources
    available within the VA, including education, burial, benefits and
    entitlements, grief counseling, and survivor assistance.
        TAPS also works collaboratively with the VA and DOD Survivors
    Forum, which serves as a clearinghouse for information on government
    and private-sector programs and policies affecting surviving families.
    Through its quarterly meetings, TAPS shares information on, and
    supports referrals to, its programs and services that support all those
    grieving the death of a military loved one.
        TAPS President and Founder, Bonnie Carroll serves on the Secretary
    of Defense Roundtable for Military Service Organizations and the
    Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Advisory Committee on Veterans'
    Families, Caregivers, and Survivors, where she chairs the Subcommittee
    on Survivors. The committee advises the Secretary of the VA on matters
    related to veterans' families, caregivers, and survivors across all
    generations, relationships, and veteran statuses. Ms. Carroll is also a
    distinguished recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the
    Nation's highest civilian honor.

    Captain James C. Edge Gold Star Spouse Equity Act (H.R. 854)

    (TAPS Does Not Support As Written)

        A top legislative priority for TAPS is to secure the right for
    surviving spouses to remarry at any age and retain their benefits. Many
    surviving spouses choose not to remarry after the death of their
    service member because the loss of financial benefits would negatively
    impact them, especially those with young children. To retain their
    benefits, many choose to cohabitate instead of legally remarrying. If a
    surviving spouse waits until age 55 to remarry, they retain benefits.
        We appreciate Representatives Waltz, Moulton, Bacon and Crow for
    introducing the Captain James C. Edge Gold Star Spouse Equity Act (H.R.
    854), which would expand benefits for certain surviving spouses who
    choose to remarry, but TAPS does not support the bill as it is
    currently written.
        The bill policy language is neither inclusive nor comprehensive.
    The use of the term ``in the line of duty'' excludes surviving spouses
    of veterans and retirees whose spouses died from a service-connected
    injury or illness. TAPS feels strongly that we should not create
    different categories of survivors and that any expansion of benefits
    should benefit all survivors, not just survivors of certain duty
    statuses, causes of death, or locations of death.
        The current language also addresses only two of the benefits
    surviving spouses receive, the Surviving Benefit Plan (SBP) and
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC). It does not address
    education benefits, base access, health care, and commissary and
    exchange benefits that surviving spouses lose if they remarry before
    the age of 55.
        From the technical side, H.R. 854 refers to surviving spouses of a
    veteran who remarry before the age of 57. The Johnny Isakson and David
    P. Roe Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020,
    Section 2010, lowered the remarriage age from 57 to 55. The law went
    into effect on January 5, 2021.
        Furthermore, Section 2 of the bill does not address the concerns of
    the ``Child Only Option'' Survivor Benefit Plan recipients. The SBP-DIC
    Offset, better known as the ``Widow's Tax'', was repealed in December
    2019 through the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act
    (NDAA). The repeal of the authority for the Optional Annuity for
    Dependent Children, and the ability for surviving spouses to reselect
    the benefits in their name, went into effect on February 1, 2023. As
    written, H.R. 854, does not allow remarried surviving spouses to
    reselect the SBP in their names.
        Remarriage legislation that is both inclusive and comprehensive is
    the Love Lives On Act of 2023, which is endorsed by TAPS and 30 other
    Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs). TAPS encourages the committee to
    consider the Love Lives On Act of 2023, as this bill is strongly
    supported by the veteran and survivor community.

        The Love Lives On Act of 2023:

          Removes the arbitrary age of 55 as a requirement for
    surviving spouses to retain benefits after remarrying.

          Allows surviving spouses to retain both the Survivor
    Benefit Plan (SBP) and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) upon
    remarriage at any age, and reselect if they were a child option
    surviving spouse.

          Allows remarried surviving spouses to maintain access to
    education benefits under the Fry Scholarship and Dependents Education
    Assistance (DEA).

          Allows remarried surviving spouses to retain Commissary/
    Exchange benefits.

          Allows remarried surviving spouses to regain their
    TRICARE benefits if their remarriage ends due to death, divorce, or
    annulment.

          Removes the ``Hold Themselves Out to Be Married'' clause
    from 38 USC, Section 101, paragraph 3.

        Current law significantly penalizes surviving spouses if they
    choose to remarry before the age of 55. Given that most surviving
    spouses from the post-9/11 era are widowed in their 20's or 30's, we
    are asking them to wait 20-plus years to move forward in their lives.
    They often have children that they must raise alone. Many surviving
    spouses choose not to remarry after the death of their service member
    because the loss of financial benefits would negatively impact them,
    especially those with children. Many choose to cohabitate instead of
    legally remarrying. A long-term goal for TAPS is to secure the right
    for surviving spouses to remarry at any age and retain a majority of
    their benefits. TAPS is a strong supporter of the Love Lives on Act of
    2023.
        Military spouses are among the most unemployed and underemployed
    populations in the United States. Due to frequent military moves,
    absence of the service member, and expensive child care, military
    spouses face high barriers to employment and are unable to fully invest
    in their own careers and retirement. For many families, military
    retirement pay is the household's retirement pay. These employment
    barriers continue when a military spouse becomes a surviving spouse.
    Many surviving spouses put their lives on hold to raise bereaved
    children. They are reliant on their survivor benefits to offset the
    loss of pay for their late spouse and their own lost income as a result
    of military life.
        If a surviving spouse's subsequent marriage ends in death, divorce,
    or annulment, while most benefits can be restored, TRICARE cannot. If a
    surviving spouse was previously eligible for insurance through CHAMPVA,
    that benefit can be restored. TAPS is not asking for surviving spouses
    to maintain TRICARE upon remarriage, only that we provide parity with
    other federal programs and allow it to be restored if the subsequent
    marriage ends.
        These are punitive restrictions that are imposed on the military
    surviving family, but not others who put their lives on the line to
    protect and defend. For example, in 30 states, including Texas\1\,
    Virginia\2\, and Louisiana\3\, first responders' survivors are allowed
    to legally remarry in the U.S. and maintain all or partial pensions and
    benefits.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.firehero.org/resources/family resources/benefits/
    local/tx/
        \2\ https://www.firehero.org/resources/family resources/benefits/
    local/va/
        \3\ https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/ac5c0731/files/uploaded/
    Louisiana.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In certain circumstances, divorcees are granted more respect than
    surviving spouses. If a service member was married for at least 20
    years and served 20 years, that spouse is entitled to a portion of that
    retirement benefit regardless of whether they remarry or not. Surviving
    spouses should not be penalized for remarrying when we grant the right
    to retain benefits to certain divorced spouses.
        Choosing to remarry should not impact a surviving spouse's ability
    to pay bills. They should not have to choose between another chance at
    love and financial security. They are still the surviving spouse of a
    fallen service member or veteran, who earned these benefits through
    their service and sacrifice, regardless of their marital status. Being
    widowed should not penalize them from finding love in the future.
        The following personal testimonials from surviving spouses help
    highlight these important issues.

    Tonya Syers, Surviving Spouse of W4 Lowell Syers II, U.S. Army

        ``My husband, Lowell, enlisted in high school via the delayed entry
    program. We met at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and married six months
    later. After multiple moves, he eventually decided to join the National
    Guard, and we moved to California. He retired after 20.5 years. In May
    2019, we watched my son graduate from UGA and be commissioned into the
    USAR. My husband gave him his first official salute. It was a very
    exciting moment, but the next day Lowell asked me to take him to the
    emergency room. Instead of celebrating Jake's graduation, we found out
    Lowell had stage 4 glioblastoma from the burn pits. By the end of July,
    it took his life.

        Eventually, I met a gentleman named James ``Jay'' Matheson. He also
    retired from the Reserves. We got engaged. I was shocked to learn that
    remarrying before the age of 55 would cause me to lose my military
    benefits. Jay's ex-wife was granted half of his Navy retirement. She is
    free to remarry without any financial loss. Why does the government
    allow divorcees to keep military pensions but punish military widows? I
    am not in any way telling the government to rescind ex-wives' court-
    appointed portions of military pensions. I am only saying that it is
    morally wrong not to offer military widows the same option to remarry
    without financial penalty.

        The most pro-family and pro-military decision Congress could make
    is to change this law! Lowell served over 20 years and never collected
    one cent in retirement. He died, like most, too early due to military
    service. We would gladly trade our benefits to have our spouse back.
    Unfortunately, we do not have that option.''

    Marcie Robertson, Surviving Spouse of SFC Forrest Robertson, U.S. Army

        ``I lost my husband in November 2013 when he was killed in action
    in Afghanistan. At the time, I was 34 years old, and our daughters were
    14, 10, and 6 years old. One day I had a partner and the next day I was
    the only one to make decisions, discipline, and raise three daughters.

        My husband deployed four times during our marriage, so we both
    understood his job meant there was a real possibility that he might not
    come home each time he deployed. Early on, we had a discussion about
    what would happen if he were to lose his life. He told me where he
    wanted to be buried and what to do with the insurance money. He also
    told me that when I felt ready, he wanted me to move forward with
    someone new. It was very important to him that I not spend the rest of
    my life alone. I remember him telling me I would be too young to never
    marry again. He said this, not realizing that his wish for me would
    mean the end of the benefits he provided for me. He went to war for his
    country knowing that if he sacrificed his life, his family would be
    taken care of. He did not know that meant his widow would have to stay
    unmarried until she was practically a senior citizen to maintain her
    benefits.

        I have met a wonderful man who has become a partner to me and a
    ``bonus dad'' to my daughters. He was also a soldier and spent over 20
    years serving his country. He is exactly what my husband would want for
    the four of us. I dream of the day when I can marry him. I am a
    Christian and believe that God provided this amazing man to be my
    husband. I was pulled aside several times by my church leader and told
    if I didn't marry him or kick him out of my house, I would lose my vote
    in church decisions and my opportunity to volunteer in the church. This
    ultimately pushed me away from my church and severed important
    friendships in my support system. I am being forced to make a choice to
    put aside my religious beliefs to maintain my income.

        Even after all this, he is willing to wait until we are in our late
    50's to marry me. I should never have been put in a position to have to
    ask that of him. Especially, when a soldier can get divorced, and if
    the couple was married for a certain length of time and that soldier's
    retirement is named as marital property in the divorce decree, the
    spouse will receive as much as half of the soldier's retirement. That
    same spouse can remarry and receive their share of the retirement. It
    is unbelievable that this is not the same for me.

        It appalls me that my country would ask me to give up my financial
    independence to get married. We are talking about a small portion of
    the population of the United States that have sacrificed so much. If
    you are willing to vote ``yes'' on a bill to send people to war, you
    should also hold responsibility for the catastrophic effects of war and
    serving. It should be a reminder of the cost of war. Continuing to pay
    these benefits after remarriage is a small price to pay to take care of
    the families of our fallen. If you are concerned about the cost of
    supporting survivors, stop asking men and women to give their lives.''

    VETERANS COMPENSATION AND COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2023 (H.R.
        1529)

    (TAPS Strongly Supports)

        More than 450,000 survivors receive Dependency and Indemnity
    Compensation (DIC) from the VA. DIC is a tax-free monetary benefit paid
    to eligible surviving spouses, children, or parents of service members
    whose death was in the line of duty or resulted from a service-related
    injury or illness. TAPS is committed to strengthening DIC and providing
    equity with other federal benefits.
        The current monthly DIC rate for eligible surviving spouses is
    $1,562.74, which has only increased due to Cost-of-Living-Adjustments
    (COLA). TAPS thanks Chairman Luttrell and Ranking Member Pappas for
    introducing the Veterans Compensation and Cost of Living Adjustment Act
    of 2023 (H.R. 1529) to help improve DIC. TAPS also encourages the
    committee to pass the Caring for Survivors Act of 2023 (H.R. 1083) to
    increase DIC from 43 percent to 55 percent of the compensation rate
    paid to a 100 percent disabled veteran, to provide parity with all
    other Federal survivor programs.
        TAPS and the survivor community have supported increasing DIC for
    many years. The following statements from veteran survivors demonstrate
    that stringent limitations on DIC payments to survivors have financial
    and widespread impacts on housing, transportation, utilities, clothing,
    food, medical care, recreation, and employment for surviving families.

    Sadie Clardy, Surviving Spouse of TSgt Michael Clardy, U.S. Air Force

        ``Five years ago, my husband died suddenly, leaving me to raise
    four children--ages 11 and under--on my own. My earning potential is
    severely limited, due to the years I dedicated to supporting my
    husband's career, and also the logistics of maintaining a job as a
    single mother of four. These last few years, especially, have been
    financially draining with supply chain issues, inflation, and, more
    personally, the loss of a vehicle due to an uninsured driver.

        It is time to increase DIC, to come to parity with federal death
    benefits. It is time to give families of the fallen some breathing
    room. A DIC increase for our family would mean paying back savings,
    music lessons, school supplies, and cooking omelets for my children
    with carefree abandon. Moreover, putting us more on the level with
    other survivor groups is the right thing to do.''

    Harry McNally, Surviving Spouse of SGT Shanna Golden, U.S. Army

        ``Increasing the amount of DIC to levels identical to other federal
    survivor benefits should have been done decades ago. As it stands, the
    implication is that the death of a veteran or service member is worth
    less than the death of other federal employees.''

    Barclay Murphy, Surviving Spouse of MAJ Edward Murphy, U.S. Army

        ``When my son turned 18 and went to college, a significant amount
    of income was lost while expenses remained constant--if not higher--due
    to inflation. I had planned for the income loss; I even sold my house
    and downsized. I raised two kids solo for almost 18 years. As an empty
    nester, I thought I'd have enough money for just me, but it has been
    tough even after the Widow's Tax repeal and cutting out so much.''

    Melissa Evinger, Surviving Spouse of Sgt Barry Evinger, U.S. Marine
        Corps

        ``As a widow and mother of three children, the weight I carry on my
    shoulders is substantial and often paralyzing as I strategize how to
    take care of my children. As a Texas public school teacher, my income
    will never be substantial. I do receive DIC, however, this does not
    come close to what my husband received in disability compensation.
    Because of this, I have to supplement my income by working as a tutor
    before and after school. This all amounts to time I have to be away
    from my children just to ensure we can afford a basic lifestyle.

        My husband, children, and I have paid a huge price for our country.
    As the Nation asked my husband to help defend its interests, I now ask
    for your help in return. I respectfully ask you to consider the
    possibility of increasing the amount of DIC for the widows and children
    of the fallen.''

    GERALD'S LAW (H.R. 234)

    (TAPS Strongly Supports)

        The average cost of a funeral in the United States in 2022 is
    upwards of $7,000. The current VA rates for reimbursement for a veteran
    are miniscule in comparison. The burial allowance for a non-service-
    connected death is $300, and $2,000 for a death connected to military
    service. VA will pay up to $796 toward burial and funeral expenses for
    deaths on or after October 1, 2019--if hospitalized by VA at time of
    death, or $300 toward burial and funeral expenses--if not hospitalized
    by VA at time of death.
        TAPS supports Gerald's Law (H.R. 234) to raise the burial allowance
    for veterans who die in hospice care at home instead of a VA facility.
    Veterans should not have to choose where they would prefer to pass due
    to red tape and cost; and their families should not be forced to say
    goodbye to a dying loved one in a hospital as opposed to comfortably at
    home.

    CONCLUSION

        TAPS thanks the leadership of the House Committee on Veterans'
    Affairs, their distinguished members, and professional staff for
    holding this hearing. TAPS is honored to share our views on behalf of
    the thousands of surviving families we serve.

                                     [all]