[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 [email protected].
                                 ______
                                 

     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]