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

                             LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
                H.R. 1083; H.R. 2911; H.R. 3651; H.R. 7100; H.R.
                  7150;  H.R. 7777;  H.R. 7793;  H.R. 7816; H.R.
                  XXXX;  H.R. XXXX;  H.R. XXXX;  AND  H.R. XXXX,

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

                                    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

                                 SECOND SESSION
                                   __________

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2024
                                   __________

                               Serial No. 118-60
                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

                   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        Available via http://govinfo.gov

                                    ------

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    55-604                    WASHINGTON : 2025

                         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, APRIL 10, 2024

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

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

                                   WITNESSES

                                    Panel 1

    The Honorable John Duarte, U.S. House of Representatives, (CA-13)     3
    The Honorable Keith Self, U.S. House of Representatives, (TX-3)).     4
    The Honorable Mike Bost, U.S. House of Representatives, (IL-12)..     5
    The Honorable Jahana Hayes, U.S. House of Representatives, (CT-5)     6

                                    Panel 2

    The Honorable Jaime Areizaga-Soto, Chairman, Board of Veterans'
      Appeals, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs...................     8

            Accompanied by:

        Ms. Brianne Ogilvie, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary, Office
            of Policy and Oversight, Veterans Benefits
            Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

        Ms. Jessica Pierce, Assistant Director, Compensation Service
            Policy Staff, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

    Colonel Tiffany M. Wagner, Clerk of the Court, U.S. Court of
      Appeals for Veterans Claims....................................     9

    Mr. Daniel T. Shedd, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division,
      Congressional Research Service.................................    10

                                    Panel 3

    Ms. Candace Wheeler, Director, Government and Legislative
      Affairs, Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS).......    19

    Mr. Christopher Macinkowicz, Deputy Director, National Veterans
      Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW)...    21

    Mr. Andrew Tangen, First Vice President, National Association of
      County Veterans Service Officers (NACVSO)......................    22

    Ms. Renee Burbank, Director of Litigation, National Veterans
      Legal Services Program (NVLSP).................................    24

                                    APPENDIX

                        Prepared Statements Of Witnesses

    The Honorable Jaime Areizaga-Soto Prepared Statement.............    33
    Colonel Tiffany M. Wagner Prepared Statement.....................    75

                              APPENDIX--continued

    Mr. Daniel T. Shedd Prepared Statement...........................    78
    Ms. Candace Wheeler Prepared Statement...........................    97
    Mr. Christopher Macinkowicz Prepared Statement...................   107
    Mr. Andrew Tangen Prepared Statement.............................   111
    Ms. Renee Burbank Prepared Statement.............................   114

                           Statements For The Record

    Disabled American Veterans Prepared Statement....................   133
    National Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. Prepared
      Statement......................................................   138
    Administrative Conference of the United States Prepared Statement   145
    The American Legion Prepared Statement...........................   150
    Paralyzed Veterans of America Prepared Statement.................   162
    The Honorable Dean Phillips, U.S. House of Representatives, (MN-
      3) Prepared Statement..........................................   165
    The Honorable Marilyn Strickland, U.S. House of Representatives,
      (WA-10) Prepared Statement.....................................   165
    Professor Michael J. Wishnie Prepared Statement..................   167

                             LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
                H.R. 1083; H.R. 2911; H.R. 3651; H.R. 7100; H.R.
                  7150;  H.R. 7777;  H.R. 7793;  H.R. 7816; H.R.
                  XXXX;  H.R. XXXX;  H.R. XXXX;  AND  H.R. XXXX,

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2024

       Subcommittee on Disability Assistance &
                              Memorial Affairs,
                        Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
                                U. S. House of Representatives,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in
    room 360, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Morgan Luttrell
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Luttrell, Self, Pappas, and
    McGarvey.
        Also present: Representatives Bost, and Duarte.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF MORGAN LUTTRELL, CHAIRMAN

        Mr. Luttrell. This subcommittee will come to order. Good
    afternoon. Good afternoon, everybody. Not very responsive,
    right?
        We are here today to discuss 12 bills that would benefit
    veterans and their survivors. These bill would ensure that
    veterans receive faster, more accurate decisions on their
    claims for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits from VA
    Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) and the Veterans Benefits
    Administration (VBA), provide veterans with more choices to
    control how and when their claims are processed by VA, thus
    building on the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization
    Act of 2017, make the VA claims and appeals process more
    understandable for our veterans and their survivors by
    providing them with clear updates and instructions.
        It will decrease the number of unnecessary disability
    compensation examinations that are causing delays in claims
    processing, improve access to VA benefits for veterans, spouses
    after their loss--after the loss of their loved one and
    increase their compensation that survivors are eligible for and
    ensure the VA gives equal attention to the needs of our
    Nation's veterans as well as their survivors.
        I am proud to introduce two bills today. My bill H.R. 7777,
    the Veterans Compensation Cost of Living Adjustment Act of 2024
    would give a cost-of-living adjustment to veterans and
    survivors receiving certain VA benefits. This increase would be
    the same as what Social Security recipients gets. In the face
    of rampant inflation, these bills--this bill is vital for
    ensuring that our veterans are able to pay their bills and put
    food on their tables for their families. I appreciate Ranking
    Member Pappas for co-leading this important bill. Thank you,
    air.
        H.R. 7919, Veterans Claims Quality Improvement Act of 2024
    would ensure that veterans receive accurate and fair decisions
    on their claims from the VA Board of Veterans' Appeals. The
    Board claims to have quality rates of over 90 percent however
    in November 2023 the subcommittee on oversight hearing revealed
    that those rates are slightly inflated or inflated and the
    Board's quality control and training programs are ineffective.
        As a result, each year thousands of veterans receive Board
    decisions that are filled with legal error. To correct these
    errors veterans must appeal those Board's decisions to the U.S.
    Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) which adds more
    months or even years of waiting for an accurate final decision
    on their claims. We have heard that the Board often
    unnecessarily sends veterans cases back to VBA instead of
    actually deciding their claims.
        This bill will ensure that the Board leadership and low
    performing Board judges are held accountable for the errors
    that the Board makes over and over again. Further robust
    quality control and adequate training are crucial for ensure
    that if the Board does its job of issuing accurate decisions
    this bill would ensure that the Board implements effective
    quality control and training programs.
        Veterans wait years for a final decision from the Board and
    each veteran deserves a high-quality decision when they finally
    get one. I would like to thank Representatives Stefanik and
    Bilirakis for signing on as cosponsors to this bill.
        I look forward to working with Chairman Bost and my
    colleagues on the subcommittee to advance these important
    proposals today. Chairman Bost and I have gone through the
    disabilities claims process ourselves and it is the top
    priority for us to ensure that the process works for ever
    single veteran. I know my colleagues have worked hard on each
    of these bills to improve the claims process and to increase
    access to VA benefits for veterans and their survivors. I look
    forward to discussing these bills on our agenda and hearing
    from the witnesses who have joined us today.
        I now yield to the ranking member for his opening remarks.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRIS PAPPAS, RANKING MEMBER

        Mr. Pappas. Thank you very much, Chairman Luttrell, and I
    appreciate you holding this hearing today on pending
    legislation as we can all tell there is a lot of pent-up
    legislating to do in this place so let us get to it. I want to
    say, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you including so many
    priorities from our side on the aisle on the agenda today. It
    is terrific.
        I want to thank all of our witnesses both governmental and
    non, who are attending today. We take your testimony incredibly
    seriously and it helps inform the important work that is left
    ahead of us. With that said, Mr. Chairman, there is a great
    deal of policy contained in the bills today and I think we can
    find common ground on a host of issues.
        For example, I think it is clear that the Appeals
    Modernization Act (AMA) has not moved the needle as far and as
    fast as the Board of Veterans' Appeals and Congress had hoped.
    I think we also agree that the Veterans Benefits Administration
    is ordering too many Compensation and Pension (C&P) exams which
    can have the effect of slowing down claims processing.
        Mr. Chairman, I think where we lack consensus both in
    Congress and with stakeholders is on the scope of those
    problems and any potential fixes to them. There are a lot of
    proposals on the agenda today to address these issues but as we
    can see from the testimony there is very little agreement on
    which solutions are needed, which are not and which could
    actually make things even worse.
        I worry that because of the aggressive timeline we will be
    on between this hearing, next week's subcommittee markup, and
    the full committee markup in May, we may not be able to arrive
    at the kind of consensus that also passes muster with
    stakeholders on these key issues. I urge thoughtfulness and
    caution as we move ahead, and I humbly suggest that it may be
    more important to take our time to get the policy right rather
    than to be fast and risk any unintended consequences.
        I thank you for holding this hearing. Look forward to
    testimony from our witnesses. I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. We have got a very full agenda today, so I
    will be holding everyone to 3 minutes per bill so we can get
    through this all this morning. We are joined by several of our
    colleagues both on and off the committee. We are going to, and
    are going to, be testifying on their bills that they have
    cosponsored to provide testimony for the--let us see.
        Chairman Bost, is he present?
        Mr. Duarte, you are recognized, sir.

                        STATEMENT OF JOHN DUARTE

        Mr. Duarte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee, it is an
    honor to be before you. Recently in preparation for this
    hearing I had a meeting in my district with veterans' groups
    from all over the Central Valley of California to learn more
    about the realities of being a veteran help veterans helping
    veterans around the valley and what some of their interests and
    frustrations were.
        This bill, the Clear Communication for Veterans Act is H.R.
    7186 as the veterans claims process is broken. Veterans are
    getting letters from the VA pertaining to their claims, they
    are lengthy letters, they are confusing letters, they are very
    hard to decipher and very difficult for the veteran to move
    forward and know what the course of action to remedy the claims
    disputes or get the services they deserve, and they very
    desperately need in many cases. The veterans deserve a smooth
    claims process for VA benefits that they have always fully
    earned.
        Right now, the guidance I receive from the VA is so
    comprehensible they often abandon pursuing the benefits they
    deserve and, you know, that is not acceptable. VA notice
    letters are critical to ensuring veterans understand to how
    they pursue their claims for VA benefits that they have earned,
    and the veterans should not be subjected to letters that are
    overly complex and confusing.
        This is a bipartisan bill. The Clear Communication for
    Veterans Act is simply access to bring in an outside,
    nonpartisan professional research and development corporation
    to look through the entire Veterans Claims Processing Act, the
    veterans letters and how these communications go forward and
    bring us a professional outside opinion on how these can be
    better handled.
        There is no partisan element to this bill. It is very
    commonsense. Takes it out of the VA where they have failed to
    improve these letters over years. We have charged them for that
    as I understand from your committee. Now it is time to move it
    to the professionals and see if an outside group can help
    improve these veterans claims letters. It is really that
    simple.
        I thank you for that and I am open to any questions.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir. Mr. Duarte, give me 1 second
    please. We are going to do a round robin, Mr. Duarte. We will
    come back to you.
        Mr. Self, you are recognized, sir.

                        STATEMENT OF KEITH SELF

        Mr. Self. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Luttrell,
    Ranking Member Pappas, I am pleased to sponsor the Toxic
    Exposures Examination Improvement Act, which aims to address a
    significant flaw in the disability compensation claims process.
        We have been told repeatedly that VA is scheduling too
    many, unnecessary toxic exposure related disability
    examinations. These so-called Toxic Exposure Risk Activity
    (TERA) exams are intended to determine whether a veteran's
    claimed disability is related to toxic exposure. TERA exams are
    more complicated than regular disability compensation exams.
        My bill would cut down on unnecessary TERA exams that waste
    time and resources for both the veterans and VA. It does this
    in two keyways. First, it proposes that the VA should only
    obtain a TERA exam when the evidence is insufficient to make a
    decision on the claim of compensations. Veterans whose
    disabilities are objectively unrelated to any toxic exposures
    should not have to attend unnecessary TERA exams.
        I must emphasize however that even if a TERA exam is
    unnecessary to support a veteran's claim, VA must still get a
    regular, less complicated, disability compensation exam when a
    veteran's disability might be related to any in-service event
    other than toxic exposure.
        Second, the bill provides VA clarity by defining injury
    into the Department of Defense (DOD) Individual Longitudinal
    Exposure Record (ILER) system as any injury indicating toxic
    exposure. By removing ambiguity stemming from the current lack
    of definition, which is the problem.
        We enable the VA to accurately identify veterans who may
    have been exposed to harmful agents during their service. By
    saving time and resources for both veterans and the VA my bill
    would allow VA to prioritize the needs of those who have served
    our Nation while maintaining the integrity and efficiency of
    our veteran's benefits system.
        I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
    important piece of legislation and I yield back the balance of
    my time. Thank you.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Self.
        Chairman Bost, sir, you are recognized for 3 minutes.

                         STATEMENT OF MIKE BOST

        Mr. Bost. Thank you, Chairman. Before I would start, if I
    could, I want to give a shout out to Andrew Tangen, who flew in
    from my home State of Illinois to testify today, and I wanted
    to give that shout out.
        I want to let you know that I am proud to have introduced
    two bills on the agenda today. Both bills continue my personal
    goal to provide veterans with more choices and faster decisions
    when it comes to their disability compensation benefits. Just
    like the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of
    2017 has done.
        First, H.R. 7793, the Veterans Appeals Options Expansion
    Act of 2024, would lock in the date of an incorrect claim form
    for the purpose of veterans being eligible to receive back
    payments. Right now, VA does not pay veterans all the way back
    to the date of their incorrect claim form. Veterans should not
    have to be punished because it is hard to figure out which VA
    claim form to use and how to navigate the VA appeals process.
        My bill would also allow a veteran more time to switch one
    VA Board of Veterans' Appeals docket to another. This is a key
    fix to improve the appeals process that we have heard firsthand
    from veterans. My bill would also lock in the date of the
    veteran's original appeal.
        The Board sends back to the VBA 50 percent of the veterans'
    appeals. When a veteran's appeal ends up back at the Board that
    veteran gets kicked back to the end of the Board line. All of
    this bureaucracy adds years of waiting. Veterans should not be
    punished because the Board could not or would not make a
    decision on their claim the first go around.
        My bill would also guarantee that the Board judge who held
    a hearing will decide a veteran's claim. The judge who best
    knows a veteran should be the one to issue the decision.
    Finally, when Congress enacted the AMA we stated that we
    intended and expected that the VA would develop robust policies
    for addressing untimely evidence. Six years later, VA has not
    done that.
        My bill would rightfully force VA to ensure that the Board
    is promptly telling veterans when they a have submitted
    untimely evidence so that they can act on that information. Now
    my second bill, H.R. 7917, the Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act
    of 2024 would ensure that the VA Board of Veterans' Appeals
    issues faster decisions.
        Right now, even the massive investment that Congress has
    made in the Board, veterans are still waiting 2 to 5 years for
    a Board's decision on their AMA appeals, and there are
    currently over 200,000 pending appeals before the Board. We
    cannot keep giving millions of dollars to the Board to simply
    hire more staff when the Board realizes that it will take years
    to deplete its inventory at today's rate.
        We must authorize additional tools and processes for the
    Board to modernize, whether they want to or not, and so that it
    can be issued faster decisions in the veterans' claims. We know
    that class actions can be powerful tools for processing claims
    and case effectively. The real world does it every day. Even
    the veterans court recently rose to the challenge and began
    doing class actions.
        My bill would authorize the Board to decide large groups of
    veteran appeals all with similar evidence and themes at the
    same time. We must ensure that this process would work for
    veterans and for the VA. This is why my bill would require VA
    to obtain recommendations on how class actions could work at
    the VA.
        My bill would also authorize veterans' courts to include
    far more veterans cases in class action before the court. Under
    current law the veteran court can allow only veterans who have
    received a Board decision to join a class action. Not a lot of
    veterans have received a Board decision the Board's current
    class action authority is currently not effective.
        Also, the Board often overlooks key evidence. When that
    happens, the Court send the entire case back to the Board. The
    court should be requiring the Board to quickly address the
    specific things the Board overlooked. Instead, the Board is
    issuing an entirely new decision on the whole case. That is
    government bureaucracy at its worst.
        Now, I know from the personal experience how complicated
    and slow VA claims appeals process can be. My bill would ensure
    that the process works for, not against, veterans and their
    families. I look forward to discussions on both of these
    proposals and I would like to thank Representative Stefanik and
    Bilirakis for co-leading on both of my bills.
        With that I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Chairman Bost. Mrs. Hayes, thank
    you for joining us. You are now recognized.

                       STATEMENT OF JAHANA HAYES

        Ms. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While I do not serve on
    the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I thank you for allowing
    me to speak here today. I am committed to honoring the men and
    women who serve our country by ensuring veterans and their
    families can access the benefits they have earned.
        My district office in Waterbury, Connecticut, is the only
    congressional office in New England to be recognized as a
    Purple Heart Office of Distinction by the Military Order of the
    Purple Heart and to be listed on the Purple Heart Trail because
    of our work support veterans. My legislation to support
    veterans has been signed into law by both Democrat and
    Republican administrations, so I appreciate your consideration
    today.
        Today I am here to speak in support of my bill, the Caring
    for Survivors Act, which would support thousands of military
    and veteran survivors who feel their current benefits are less
    than they have earned and have not been adjusted over time.
        When a service member dies in the line of duty or a veteran
    dies from service-related injuries their surviving family
    members receive a monthly cash payment known as dependency and
    indemnity compensation, or DIC. The United States has
    compensated surviving families for the death of their loved
    ones since the Revolutionary War.
        Unfortunately, the DIC rate has been minimally adjusted
    since 1993 and is nearly 12 percent lower than the rate of
    other Federal survivor programs like the Federal Employees
    Retirement Systems or FERS. DIC beneficiaries receive 43
    percent of the current rate given to a totally disabled
    veteran. Beneficiaries for Federal civilian employees can
    receive up to 55 percent of the insurance annuity for their
    deceased loved ones.
        Also, if a veteran dies because a nonservice-connected
    injury left him totally disabled for less than 10 years,
    current DIC law limits the number of survivors who can qualify
    for these benefits. This provision ignores the years of
    sacrifice by families who have cared for their disabled
    veterans often putting their own lives on hold.
        My legislation does two things to correct these problems.
    First my bill raises DIC to 55 percent of the rate given to a
    totally disabled veteran instead of the current rate of 43
    percent. By bringing DIC to a level consistent with other
    Federal survivor programs, survivors will receive an average
    increase of about $400 per month.
        Second, my bill reduces the 10-year disability rule to 5
    years and allows more survivors to quality for DIC benefits.
    This provision expedites DIC support for beneficiaries. This
    legislation is supported by Tragedy Assistance Program for
    Survivors (TAPS), Gold Star Wives of America, the Military
    Officers Association of American, Paralyzed Veterans of
    America, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Disabled American
    Veterans, and the National Military Family Association.
        I want to thank Chairman Tester and Senator Boozman for
    their support of this legislation in the Senate. I also want to
    thank Chairman Luttrell and Ranking Member Pappas for allowing
    me to speak here today in support of my legislation. I want to
    take a moment also to recognize the thousands of surviving
    spouses around the country for their advocacy to make these
    important and necessary changes.
        The Caring for Survivors Act recognizes the importances of
    timely and substantial benefits for survivors ensuring their
    families receive the benefits they have earned through their
    service. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this
    legislation and move it not only through committee, but to the
    floor for consideration and a vote. We must honor the promise
    we made to our servicemembers, veterans, and survivors that
    have been left behind.
        Again, I thank you for allowing me to be here and ask you
    again to consider this legislation and the impact on the
    families who are left behind.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mrs. Hayes.
        We will forgo a round of questioning for the members. Any
    questions may be submitted for the record.
        In accordance with committee rules I ask unanimous consent
    to Representative Duarte of California be permitted to
    participate in today's subcommittee.
        Mrs. Hayes, you are welcome to join us as well if you wish.
    You are now excused.
        I invite our second panel to the table. Are you guys ready?
    It was not a loaded question. Are you guys ready? Okay. Joining
    us today from the Department of Veterans Affairs, The Honorable
    Jaime Areizaga-Soto? Did I nail it?
        Mr. Areizaga-Soto. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. Outstanding, thank you. Chairman of the VA
    Board of Veterans' Appeals. He is accompanied by Ms. Brianne
    Ogilvie, Assistant Deputy Undersecretary for the Office of
    Policy and Oversight at the Veterans Benefits Administration;
    Ms. Jessica Pierce, assistant director for Compensation Service
    Policy staff at the VBA.
        Also joining us from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans
    Claims is Colonel Tiffany Wagner, Clerk of the Court. I now
    recognize the--who did I forget? Mr. Daniel Shedd, I apologize.
    I did not leave you out because you are on the end, I promise.
        Will all the witnesses please stand and raise your right
    hand.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, and let the record reflect that
    all witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        Mr. Chairman, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to
    present the Department's testimony.

                    STATEMENT OF JAMIE AREIZAGA-SOTO

        Mr. Areizaga-Soto. Good afternoon, Chairman Luttrell,
    Ranking Member Pappas, Congressman Self, and other members of
    the subcommittee, Congressman Duarte. Thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today. With me today are
    Brianne Ogilvie and Jessica Pierce, both from VBA. Secretary
    McDonough's mission is to provide more care and more benefits
    to more veterans.
        As the son of a Korean War veteran and as a veteran and
    National Guard officer who has been wearing the uniform for
    over 36 years, I view my role in the VA as a sacred duty. My
    philosophy at the Board is to be veteran-centric in everything
    we do whether our work, improvements, or new initiatives.
        It is an honor to work with so many dedicated veteran law
    judges, decision writing attorneys and administrative
    professionals who all share the same objective, to swiftly and
    fully resolve appeals for veterans and their families to the
    fullest extent of the law with fair and final decisions by a
    judge.
        I want to thank the committee and Congress for adopting the
    Appeals Modernization Act and providing subsequent budget
    support. It has enabled us at the Board to build capacity
    during the past 2 years and through this year. It is paying
    huge dividends for veterans. Last year was the first time in 5
    years since AMA implementation that the Board's pending case
    load dropped. With Congress's support we plussed-up our judges'
    corps by over 30 percent are on pace to do the same with our
    attorneys.
        A year ago, the Board's pending workload was almost 216,000
    appeals. Today it is under 206,000 appeals. A year ago, we were
    averaging 1,900 cases per week. During the past few months, we
    have averaged over 2,300 decisions per week and that will
    continue to grow over the next year as we reach full capacity.
        It takes time to hire right and train right, to ensure high
    quality and we are doing it. Quality assurance (QA) rates have
    never been higher consistently around 95 percent each month.
    That is veteran-centric. AMA adjudication it is also growing
    exponentially. Last year at this time only a little over 25
    percent of the Board's output was AMA adjudications.
        Today, it is consistently over 60 percent each week and
    growing. This is significant because AMA cases have 20 percent
    lower remand rates and 10 percent higher grant rates compared
    to legacy cases. In short, we are able to fully resolve AMA
    cases 3 to 4 years faster than legacy cases. That gap is
    growing.
        We set a record last year with 103,245 decisions and we
    will set another record this year with at least 111,000
    decisions. That is veteran-centric. The Board is concerned with
    any legislation that stifles this veteran-centric progress.
    Some of these proposals return to legacy type rules while
    others add unnecessary administrative burdens that will only
    make us go slower with no discernible benefits for veterans.
        I am concerned that some of today's witnesses appear to
    support recreating legacy type rules in the AMA. This will have
    a dramatic and adverse impact on wait times for veterans with
    pending appeals. Incentives matter and slowing down the line
    does not help veterans.
        VA supports H.R. 3651, the Love Lies Lives On Act, if
    amended. VA all supports--well, VA supports the removal of
    remarriage restriction requirements for surviving spouses. VA
    also supports H.R. 1083, the Caring for Survivors Act, if
    amended. VA has provided suggested edits for clarity in our
    testimony. This concludes my testimony. My colleagues and I
    stand ready to respond to any questions you may have.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Jamie Areizaga-Soto Appears In
    The Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Colonel Wagner, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF TIFFANY WAGNER

        Ms. Wagner. Good afternoon, Chairman Luttrell, Ranking
    Member Pappas, members of the committee. The Court limits its
    testimony to two of the bills under consideration, specifically
    three sections within those bills that directly impact the
    Court.
        Respectfully, the Court does not support passage of these
    provisions for the following reasons. First, proposed section
    5(d)(2) of the Medical Disability Examination Improvement Act
    of 2024 would add an additional element to the Court's annual
    workload report directing the Court to summarize recurring
    issues it believes could be resolved by better VA training or
    by increased oversight or clarification from the Department or
    Congress.
        Respectfully such an executive function rests with the
    Secretary. As a judicial body with exclusive jurisdiction to
    review individual Board decisions the Court is not in a
    position to opine generally on internal VA process or suggest
    how the agency could or should better manage resources or train
    personnel. Like all courts the veterans' courts must speak
    through it is individual juridical decisions and does not issue
    advisory opinions.
        Respectfully, as a recipient of every decision that is
    reversed or remanded by the Court the Board is responsible for
    and is in the best position to evaluate error trends in its
    decisions, allocate resources, and develop corrected strategies
    and training.
        The second bill I will address is the Veterans Appeals
    Efficiency Act of 2024 and two specific provisions within it.
    The first would give the Court supplemental jurisdiction to
    review eligible claims that are pending a final agency
    decision. The Court is concerned that as written the proposed
    statutory language lacks clarity and could result in unintended
    broad construction that could significantly grow the Court's
    caseload and in turn require reevaluation of the Court
    processes and resource needs.
        Finally, the second provision of the Veterans Appeals
    Efficiency Act would statutorily authorize the Court to order a
    limited remand to the Board while retaining jurisdiction of the
    remanded matter.
        Respectfully, the Court already has the authority to take
    the actions contemplated in this proposal and indeed the
    proposal may inadvertently limit the Court's current authority.
    In conclusion, the Court takes seriously its mission to afford
    veterans and their families and survivors full, fair, and
    prompt judicial review of final Board decisions.
        We are open to ways to improve the Court's functioning and
    sincerely appreciate the subcommittee's continued interest and
    effort in this shared goal. I am happy to answer any questions.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Tiffany Wagner Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Colonel.
        Mr. Shedd, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.

                       STATEMENT OF DANIEL SHEDD

        Mr. Shedd. Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas, and
    members of the subcommittee, my name is Daniel Shedd and I am
    an legislative attorney in the American Law Division with the
    congressional Research Service.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the proposed
    legislation entitled the Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act of
    2024. My oral testimony will focus on the proposal to authorize
    the Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals or BVA to
    aggregate appeals pending before the Board.
        Aggregation involves grouping together claims or appeals
    that have similar questions of law or fact for collective
    resolution or processing. Aggregation can take different forms.
    One of the most well-known devices for aggregation is the class
    action lawsuit. It provides a good example of what claim
    aggregation seeks to achieve.
        A class action allows a large group of similar situated
    claimants known as a class to challenge a defendant's unlawful
    conduct in a single lawsuit rather than through numerous suits
    initiated by individual plaintiffs. A single plaintiff can file
    a claim not only for himself but on behalf of the class as a
    whole. The outcome of the case binds the defendant and the
    entire class even if the other class members do not participate
    in the proceeding.
        The Supreme Court has explained that one of the principal
    purposes for allowing class actions is to promote judicial
    efficiency. For example, if you have 1,000 people that have
    been wronged in essentially the same way the thinking is that
    it is more efficient use of adjudicatory resources for one
    judge to determine the answer once for all 1,000 people instead
    of multiple judges hearing the same factual and legal arguments
    1,000 times over.
        Achieving this adjudicatory efficiency is one of the
    purported goals of all forms of aggregate procedures. They also
    provide for consistent outcomes for similarly situated parties
    because all parties are bound by the same decision. On the
    other hand, aggregate procedures may also have potential
    drawbacks.
        Although aggregation may provide for some judicial
    efficiencies from a big picture perspective, some commentators
    suggest that aggregation also adds increased complexity to
    individual cases subject to those proceedings.
        Courts and agencies that have used class action proceedings
    note that these aggregate adjudications can occupy significant
    adjudicatory resources and time. As a consequence, individuals
    involved in a class action may be delayed in obtaining justice.
        Further legal commentators note that there may be fairness
    concerns with regards to aggregate procedures. From the
    perspective of a person that can be bound by a judicial
    proceeding that they never took part in it might seem
    antithetical to one of the quintessential American
    understandings of justice, that is everyone gets their day in
    court.
        Currently the BVA has no procedures in statute regulation
    or practice that provide for the aggregation of appeals. The
    Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act of 2024 would permit but not
    require the chairman of the Board to aggregate similar claims.
    This broad permissive authority in the bill appears to comport
    with congressional delegation of broad powers to agencies in
    order to allow them to develop policies and practices that best
    fit their adjudicatory model.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I look
    forward to your questions.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Daniel Shedd Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Shedd.
        We will move to questioning. Colonel Wagner, in your
    opening statement you said that some of the legislation--you
    disagree with some of the legislation that this body has put
    forward and that the Court itself has the ability to act on the
    issues without this legislation being pushed forward. Yes?
        Ms. Wagner. That is correct, for limited remains. The Court
    already has the authority to take limited remands.
        Mr. Luttrell. My issue is this legislation was created for
    the Court's inability to act on those issues. We have presented
    this to you. With you all saying that you have the ability to
    do so, but our constituents are the ones saying that this is an
    issue, now we are in, we are in conflict.
        I am going to need you to explain to me when that is-
    because if the Court itself would actually, would have, could
    acted on this without it being raised up to the congressional
    level here at this committee today we would not be having this
    conversation but here we are. I cannot really sit here and say
    I agree with what you are saying because it is not holding
    water.
        Ms. Wagner. Understood, Chairman Luttrell. The Court does
    currently have the authority to issue limited remands. However,
    it has not been used--it has been used sparingly by the Court.
        Mr. Luttrell. Why?
        Ms. Wagner. That is an issue of judicial discretion. Each
    judge may look at an issue as the cases, as they come up on an
    individual basis looking at the veteran's claims and they make
    the decision whether or not to do a limited remand.
        One of the reasons that judges may choose not to order a
    limited remand is a concern that it is going to disrupt the
    claims already in queue at the Board. When a court issues a
    limited remand, they send it back for readjudication. If it is
    limited, they are going to retain the jurisdiction. If they
    send it back the veterans claim at the queue, that will be
    disrupted because there are parameters put on that limited
    remand, time constraints if they would take priority over the
    other traditional remands. That may just be one of the reasons.
        I cannot talk for all of the judges. I am just giving an
    example of what maybe a thought process that the judges have on
    that. It is really comes down to judicial discretion and the
    tools that they use in their toolbox.
        Mr. Luttrell. Imagine us having to explain that to our
    base. Okay. Mr. Chairman, do you believe that the Board's
    quality rate should reflect all errored data coming from the
    veterans' courts including data on joint motions for remand?
    Yes.
        Mr. Areizaga-Soto. Let me go ahead and--we take quality
    very serious, Mr. Chairman, and the data that is done now, it
    is basically we do a sample of cases before we even assign
    them. We say we are going to take all these cases and follow
    them and review them when they come out. That is the pool that
    we review.
        It is not being--it is being done generally. Remember we
    have been doing more legacy cases than AMA cases. We are now
    focusing on AMA cases. Going forward we are reviewing more AMA
    cases not only because it is a majority of the cases we are
    doing now but also because we want to ensure the AMA quality.
    That is how the quality process works now, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Luttrell. In your opening statement you said there is
    going to be folks in the crowd that are going to try to defend
    the legacy process? Is that how you put it?
        Mr. Areizaga-Soto. What I said is--what I said is a number
    of the provisions in the options act in that bill open and
    bring back in a number of concepts that were existing under
    legacy. All the stakeholders got together, Mr. Chairman, and
    came with what we believe is a much better process which AMA.
    For example, one concept is following that the judge that does
    the hearing is the judge that gives you the decision.
        Mr. Luttrell. Yes.
        Mr. Areizaga-Soto. As you know, I have been in this
    position for 2 years. I came in and that sounded very
    reasonable to me. I have instructed for that to be done
    whenever possible. To make it a requirement like it was under
    legacy could have very negative effects. You have a judge that
    goes on extended leave. I am going to have to hold that case
    because that judge was the one that did the hearing and then
    the judge-we need to wait for that judge to do the decision.
        That is the commonsense changes and veteran-centric. It is
    all about the veteran experience.
        I understand if we can match it, we will match it, Mr.
    Chairman. We do not want to have it a requirement as in the
    case of legacy. A number of--to ensure the line moves if you
    get a case and the case goes through the court and the case has
    to be remanded back----
        Mr. Luttrell. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Areizaga-Soto [continuing]. you get back in the line.
    Under legacy you would keep your place in line so that is what
    would generate a lot of churn and remember, cases that come
    back from the Court, the veteran does not necessarily get, does
    get a change in benefits but many of those Joint Motion for
    Remands (JMR) are, they just go back in the system without a
    decision by the Court.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. Thank you, sir. Ranking Member. You may
    be recognized, sir.
        Mr. Pappas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do think there is
    consensus among members and stakeholders as well that the full
    benefits of the Appeals Modernization Act have not yet been
    realized and I think one of the reasons is these legacy appeals
    which the Board has not cleared out as quickly as you had
    initially projected you would.
        I think there is also this feedback look between VBA and
    BVA regarding quality that is not working as well as it could,
    and I think that has slowed things down as well. Claims have
    gotten stuck in a feedback loop with multiple remands. Mr.
    Chairman, you were talking about the success story here over
    the last few years. You talked about building capacity, pending
    caseloads dropping, QA rates improving.
        I am really concerned about the challenges, the areas that
    are not going well. We are not just on this glide path that is
    going to continue. Where do you see the challenges ahead? Very
    importantly, what kind of feedback are you getting from
    attorneys, from Veterans Service Organizations (VSO), from
    stakeholders about challenges and progress and where things
    need to go as we look out into the future?
        Mr. Areizaga-Soto. Thank you for--thank you for your
    question, Ranking Member Pappas. It is definitely a half full
    glass story, and I am an optimist so I recognize that. I do
    think that the AMA, it is now finally coming into full
    implementation because as you know over these 5 years, we have
    had to operate under two systems.
        We had a majority inventory of legacy cases that continue
    to operate under the legacy rules and then we had a new AMA so
    we have been managing those two. Fortunately, we are at the end
    of legacy and for the first time we are full, we are in a
    majority AMA world and that is showing the benefits of AMA.
    Challenges, one of the challenges has been raised by the
    committee and we take it very seriously is to ensure training.
        One of the questions that has been raised by the committee
    is what we are doing on the training side. I can tell you that
    we are head on with training. Just last week we had all the
    judges for a week of training here together for only the second
    time in the history of the Board. The reality is that we are
    scheduling and hosting over 300 trainings per year for our team
    members whether judges or attorneys. That is one challenge.
        The other challenge, Mr. Ranking Member, has been the
    remands. I recognize that the remands are a challenge because
    you get in line, you get for a decision, and you do not get a
    decision in a high number of cases. We have been laser focused
    in identifying why are we having remands? I have been telling
    the judges, I cannot force you to make a decision, military,
    undue command influence.
        I can tell them, hey, you are not doing any good for our
    veterans. Veterans want finality. We are--we are doing training
    and we are doing a whole system to ensure that we reduce
    remands. Just last week out of those 24 hours of training we
    gave the judges, 8 hours were dedicated to implement the
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommendations. We have
    already implemented the first two, that is recommendation
    number 3, to ensure consistency and a reduction of remands.
    That is what we are doing, Ranking Member Pappas to deal with
    that challenge.
        Mr. Pappas. Thanks for those comments. I want to move on to
    a different issue and, Ms. Pierce, maybe I can direct this to
    you. We are considering a couple of bills to address issues
    communicated to us directly from VA's frontline employees
    regarding over utilization of toxic exposure risk activity
    exams specifically for claims that are seemingly unrelated to
    toxic exposure.
        The exams and subsequent memos Veterans Service
    Representatives (VSR) must create as a result of them have the
    effect of slowing down the processing of a claim. According to
    your testimony VA is largely rejecting both of those proposals.
        In your opinion, Ms. Pierce, what can Congress do to
    alleviate the increased workload extraneous toxic exposure
    exams have imposed on employees? Is it possible to preserve VA
    duty to assist while also narrowing the scope of TERA exams?
        Ms. Pierce. Thank you for the question. There are a large
    variety of different things that could be done to impact the
    mandatory requirements for the TERA exams. Both of these bills
    take different approaches to doing so.
        We have identified some operational challenges ourselves
    with claims related to TERA taking approximately 33 days longer
    than other types of claims and the large volume of TERA exams
    that are being requested, resulting in a relatively low grant
    rate related to all other claims.
        We have identified that there are some limitations in our
    data, how we are collecting data on TERA and we have heard
    perspectives from our employees, from VSO and other
    stakeholders. We have set up a TERA data workgroup to analyze
    the data, look at potential policy and procedural changes or
    system updates that could enhance how we are providing benefits
    to this population. We want to make sure we are taking a
    deliberate approach, so I do not have any concrete
    recommendations on what could be specifically done.
        I would draw attention to the provision in the toxic
    exposure examination improvement Act that would amend the
    definition of TERA in 38 USC 1710, specifically adding a
    qualifier that a TERA would be established for an entry in an
    exposure record tracking system that specifically indicates the
    veteran was subjected to toxic exposure.
        We do not support that because it limits both health care
    and eligibility for examinations because that is a health care
    statute. Amendments to potentially make changes to the
    mandatory requirements for TERA exams should consider any
    unintended consequence on also limiting health care
    eligibility.
        Mr. Pappas. Thanks for those comments. I am way over my
    time but I hope we can continue talking about this. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Self, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, before I
    get to my questions how many legacy cases are remaining?
        Mr. Areizaga-Soto. Sir, some of the--some of the inventory
    is at the--at the BVA and some of it is at the Court. At the
    Board we have 12,000, sir.
        Mr. Self. Twelve thousand, okay, thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, accountability is often an issue in our
    hearings with VA in every area. If I understood your testimony
    correctly for decades the Board has held the VA, the VBA
    accountable for failing to comply with the Board's orders. Did
    I understand your testimony correct, that the Board should stop
    doing that?
        Mr. Areizaga-Soto. Thank you for your question, Congressman
    Self. The Board does not hold accountable. What the Board does
    it reviews, so under the AMA, under, you know, between legacy
    and AMA, in legacy the veteran only had one option if they did
    not accept the decision of VBA and it was to appeal to the
    Board.
        Under AMA as it is veteran centric and it looks for veteran
    choices, the veteran has an option to a higher-level review
    appeal at VBA. That is working very well. Many veterans are
    taking that choice. VBA has grown exponentially their number of
    decisions, up to 2.4 million a year. We are still seeing the
    same number of appeals, Mr. Congressman.
        When it comes to us the judge reviews it, he can grant it,
    he can deny it, or he can say there is the information is not
    enough or there is another issue that needs to be reviewed----
        Mr. Self. Okay.
        Mr. Areizaga-Soto [continuing]. and it remands it back to,
    back to VBA, sir.
        Mr. Self. Okay. That is the process. I am talking about
    accountability. Who is holding VBA accountable for Board
    orders, is the bottom line?
        Mr. Areizaga-Soto. Sir, that is--that is the system. We
    are. That is the system because by going back it goes back to
    their inventory and they need, and they act upon it and we
    would expect that, you know, in this----
        Mr. Self. It is a self-policing process?
        Mr. Areizaga-Soto. It is but let me go and turn it over to
    Ms. Ogilvie because we have created a Tiger Team to coordinate
    issues and work through interfacing.
        Mr. Self. Okay. Ms. Ogilvie.
        Ms. Ogilvie. Yes.
        Mr. Self. You have been very patient.
        Ms. Ogilvie. As to remand and VBA's adherence to the remand
    instructions that are sent from the Board, that is overseen by
    VBA, yes. It is self-policing. It is through our quality
    system, so we have in progress reviews and we have reviews that
    happen after the fact quality reviews.
        We also, as the chairman mentioned, we have a Tiger Team
    within VBA and at the Board that looks at the instructions
    themselves as well as the adherence to those instructions. We
    have a feedback between BVA and VBA to discuss any problematic
    instructions that need--cause concerns or if VBA is not
    adhering to those instructions.
        Mr. Self. Who ultimately holds the authority to hold VBA
    accountable? Is it within VBA?
        Ms. Ogilvie. Yes. It is within VBA.
        Mr. Self. I thought that might be the answer. Okay. Ms.
    Ogilvie, for you again, does DOD consistently classify entries
    in ILER as toxic even though they may or may not be toxic?
        Ms. Ogilvie. I am going to actually defer that to Ms.
    Pierce.
        Mr. Self. Okay.
        Ms. Pierce. Thank you. The ILER system collects a lot of
    different information. There is a lot of surveillance of
    exposure events that takes place. Typically----
        Mr. Self. Okay. My question is very narrow. Let us narrow
    to the question. Do you over classify--my question is, do you
    over classify toxic versus nontoxic? I am trying to get to the
    number of TERA exams that we have.
        Ms. Pierce. Yes, there are definitely entries in ILER that
    are not related to toxic exposures, related to just routine and
    monitoring of substances at locations as well as just health
    assessments that are totally unrelated.
        Mr. Self. As the The Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson
    Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act
    requires a TERA exam if they see an entry that is toxic, is
    that correct?
        Ms. Pierce. As we have interpreted essentially any entry in
    ILER would trigger both eligibility to health care and an exam
    under Section 1168 based on TERA.
        Mr. Self. Any entry, is that what you said?
        Ms. Pierce. Yes.
        Mr. Self. I think we have identified the problem. Mr.
    Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Self.
        Mr. Duarte, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Duarte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to be here
    with the committee today. I appreciate your time, appreciate
    the panel.
        Colonel Wagner described the veterans' courts and remands
    and some judges do it some way and some judges do not do it as
    much and it seems like--is that based in a vagary of the law
    itself or a vagary of the understanding of the law or judge's
    preference?
        Ms. Wagner. Congressman Duarte, I believe it is really a
    judicial discretion issue. When a case comes in front of a
    judge, the judge has a decision when they review the decision
    of the Board--the final decision of the Board whether or not
    they are going to affirm, reverse, or remand.
        One of the reasons there is a high remand issue of case is
    that there are two ways that Board decisions are remanded back
    to the Board. One is by judges remanding it back where they
    find an error, or they find that the Board is not clearly
    laying out the facts or developing the facts.
        The Court does not have the authority to fact-find in the
    first instance. If there is a fact that needs to be resolved,
    it must be sent back. There is no other alternative but to send
    it back for readjudication to develop those facts.
        Mr. Duarte. Sure.
        Ms. Wagner. Then also when a case comes to the Court on
    appeal, the first process is that the veterans counsel as well
    as the Secretary's counsel attend the conference where they are
    mediated by a court's staff, and they discuss the summary of
    the issues before the Court. The parties agree that there are
    errors in the Board's decisions.
        In 76 percent of the cases that are conferenced are
    remanded back where the attorneys agree that there is an error
    by the Board and that is big chunk.
        Mr. Duarte. Okay. Thank you. That is--Mr. Shedd, you have
    done a lot of research on this type of stuff. I have seen a
    couple of your documents. In your opinion, is the caselaw
    crystal clear as to whether veterans court can issue limited
    remands?
        Mr. Shedd. Thank you for the question. Most recently the
    Court in Kisor v. Wilkie issued a limited remand where it sent
    the case back to the BVA with instructions to hear additional
    evidence with a strict timeline as this bill would clarify that
    it can do.
        The dissenting and concurring opinions made it difficult to
    determine whether or not when limited remands should be used.
    The majority opinion did not--although it indicated that it is
    appropriate in certain circumstances, it did not indicate when
    those circumstances or what those circumstances are.
        Mr. Duarte. Okay. Well, thank you. That is enough, sir. Ms.
    Pierce, so I have a Clear Communication for Veterans Claims Act
    and I understand the Veterans Administration has some concerns
    about the bill.
        If Congress compelled a third party to collaborate with the
    VA, would that alleviate the VA's concern that the entity's
    recommendation for improving notice letters might be
    noncompliant with the law? Is the law clear enough to where
    even the VA itself can give clear direction as to what is
    certain in terms of clarity and consistency with the law?
        Ms. Pierce. I will defer that question to Ms. Ogilvie.
        Ms. Ogilvie. Thank you for the question. Yes, so VA
    believes that legislative action here is not required for a
    comprehensive letter review. VBA's business line already engage
    in continuous improvement of notification letters. There is an
    existing governance process in place. There is--the concerns
    that we have with this bill specifically are about the legal
    issues that you mentioned.
        Mr. Duarte. Well I think that is the essence of our problem
    with not having the bill, with not having a reformed Clear
    Communication for Veterans Act because these letters are so
    full of legal concerns and self-protections of the agency that
    they can get up to 20 pages long and, I mean, I, as a layman,
    not familiar with veterans' affairs, I am lost in your jargon
    and lingo to some degree today. That is my problem. I jumped in
    on the committee.
        These veterans have serious life issues hanging on their
    end. I do not think they need more legalese. I think these
    veterans need clear communications that is focused around
    themselves, their cases, their needs, and the resources
    available from the Veterans Administration to get it to them.
        I have a feeling if I left every legal issue to be
    clarified by the VA itself, these letters would go from 20 to
    30 pages, not from 20 to 2 pages.
        Ms. Ogilvie. Our concern with the bill is that it leaves no
    room for VA to clarify or refine some of the language that the
    Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) would
    recommend. We have no issue with an FFRDC looking at letters
    and suggesting improvements. The language as written makes it
    mandatory for VA to accept that language and there are legal
    issues that must--the law does lay out things that we must tell
    the veteran in every letter especially notice letters.
        We do not want that to be something that will be a risk for
    veterans as well because they do need to be aware of their
    rights.
        Mr. Duarte. Do these letters have an executive summary at
    the front that tells them what their issue is and what they can
    do and then all the boilerplate and legal mumbo jumbo, as we
    generally call it when we are buying a car or a house, an
    insurance policy, or whatever can be at the back?
        My understanding is these letters are coming to the veteran
    where this stuff is more front and center and comingled with
    the useful information than it is put as a disclosure as is the
    case in most transactions.
        Ms. Ogilvie. Yes. In some--in some letters, like
    notification letters, there is kind of a bottom-line up front
    about whether there has been a grant or denial of the claim and
    what kind of payment that the veteran can expect and the
    appellate rights and other rights are at the back.
        Mr. Duarte. That is in some letters?
        Ms. Ogilvie. In some letters. Yes.
        Mr. Duarte. We do not--we are not confident that that is--
    that is consistent, that every veteran is going to have that
    luxury of having a clear set of information up front versus
    comingling it and hiding it to some perspectives within the
    body of long legalese and confusing letter?
        Ms. Ogilvie. Yes, that is correct, sir.
        Mr. Duarte. If you have involvement to make sure all of
    your legal disclaimers are there somewhere I think a company
    that has skills in bureaucratic engineering and informing for
    customer satisfaction, because that is ultimately what we are
    trying to do is going to know what to put up front and what to
    put in back.
        I do not think they will limit your legalese. I think they
    will just get it out of the way and kind of where everybody
    else puts it.
        Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Duarte. Mr. Duarte, do you
    have another question, sir, for a second round?
        Mr. Duarte. Not for this panel, no. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. Ms. Ogilvie, just to piggyback off of
    from what Mr. Duarte was saying, is there a specific regulation
    or reason why every member does not receive, as you said, the
    bottom-line up front on the front page of every letter that is
    sent to them? That just seems like that would work so much
    better than the letters that do not have that. Is there
    something in place that is preventing that from happening?
        Ms. Ogilvie. No, there is not. And----
        Mr. Luttrell. Outstanding.
        Ms. Ogilvie [continuing]. I would just note that also we,
    after the recent hearing on letters, we have also been working
    very closely with VSOs and other attorney representatives to
    get their feedback about letters that are----
        Mr. Luttrell. Great. I am pretty sure I asked you guys to
    do that.
        Ms. Ogilvie. Yes. And----
        Mr. Luttrell. Outstanding.
        Ms. Ogilvie [continuing]. we are looking forward to the May
    roundtable to discuss this further.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. Perfect. All right. On behalf of the
    subcommittee, I thank you for your testimony and joining us for
    today. You are now excused.
        Third panel, you may approach. Good afternoon. I am
    assuming Ms. Pierce is not joining us with this panel, is that
    correct? Just so I do not mess--Okay.
        Our third panel includes Ms. Candace Wheeler, director of
    government and legislative affairs for the Tragedy Assistance
    Program for Survivors; Christopher Macinkowicz, deputy director
    for the National Veterans Service at Veterans of Foreign Wars
    of the United States; and Mr. Andrew Tangen, first vice
    president of the National Association of County Veteran Service
    Officers; and Ms. Renee Burbank, director of Litigation of the
    National Veterans Legal Service Programs.
        Would the witnesses please stand and raise your right hand?
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Luttrell. Please be seated. Thank you and let the
    reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        Ms. Wheeler, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to
    present the testimony of the Tragedy Assistance Program for
    Survivors.

                      STATEMENT OF CANDACE WHEELER

        Ms. Wheeler. Chairman Luttrell and Ranking Member Pappas,
    and distinguished committee members, the Tragedy Assistance
    Program for Survivors is grateful for the opportunity to
    testify today on behalf of over 120,000 surviving families,
    TAPS is honored to service.
        A top legislative priority for TAPS is ensuring surviving
    spouses are allowed to remarry at any age and retain their
    benefits. Current law penalizes them if they remarry before age
    55. Given that many post 9-11 surviving spouses are widowed in
    their 20's or 30's, we are asking them to wait 20-plus years to
    remarry and retain benefits.
        Surviving spouses should not have to choose between
    remarrying and financial security. Regardless of their marital
    status, they will always be the widow or widower of someone who
    served and sacrificed and our country. TAPS is proud to work
    with Representatives Phillips and Hudson on the Love Lives On
    Act to address this important issue and we urge its swift
    passage.
        We also request that Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
    reconsider its scoring of this bill based on VA's much lower
    cost projection and the fact that surviving spouses who remarry
    do not retain their TRICARE or CHAMPVA insurance, which is a
    major cost savings to the government.
        Another priority for TAPS and the survivor community is
    strengthening Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. Stringent
    limitations on DIC payments to surviving families have
    financial and widespread impacts. As surviving spouse Katie
    Hubbard states, ``Increasing DIC would allow me to be able to
    afford groceries and childcare, medical expenses and home and
    car maintenance while just trying to survive.''
        We strongly support the Caring for Survivors Act and thank
    Representatives Hayes and Fitzpatrick for reintroducing this
    important bill. Raising DIC from 43 to 55 percent of the
    compensation rate paid to 100 percent disabled veterans will
    provide parity with other Federal survivor programs.
        In addition, we thank Chairman Luttrell and Ranking Member
    Pappas for introducing the Veterans Compensation and Cost of
    Living Adjustment Act which will help increase DIC. TAPS
    appreciates Congressman Ciscomani and Chairman Bost for
    introducing the Prioritizing Veterans Survivors Act which would
    return the Office of Survivor Assistance (OSA) to its previous
    location within the Office of the VA Secretary.
        OSA was established by law in 2008 to serve as a principal
    advisor to the secretary and as a resource for surviving
    families regarding benefits, care, and memorial services. In
    its current placement within Pension and Fiduciary Services,
    survivors lack daily representation before the secretary
    depriving critical insights and perspectives.
        With more than 505,000 survivors eligible for DIC, OSA
    staffing should be significantly increased to better serve
    surviving families. OSA should be the official entry point into
    VA for survivors with the authority, bandwidth, expertise, and
    access needed to address any challenges that survivors face
    regarding all VA benefits and services.
        TAPS also recommends creating a dedicated survivor help
    line within the veterans call center to provide access to
    trained agents with the cultural competency and compassion to
    address survivor issues enterprise wide. We appreciate VA
    recently holding a survivor summit to gain valuable insight and
    input from survivors and key stakeholder organizations to
    ensure survivors receive the highest quality of services and
    support they deserve.
        TAPS thanks Ranking Member Takano for introducing the
    Survivor Benefits Delivery Improvement Act to improve access to
    VA survivor benefits through the collection of demographic data
    and to ensure necessary resources for survivors. TAPS
    recommends adding cause of death as a tracked demographic.
        This data would be incredibly important to understand the
    different types of losses survivors face as well as creating
    programming and resources that are relevant for all survivors.
    In closing TAPS thanks Congresswoman Strickland for introducing
    the Fairness for Service Members and Their Families Act.
        We appreciate the importance of reviewing the automatic
    maximum coverage of the service members and veterans group life
    insurance programs and would ideally like to see both the
    Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) and Veterans' Group
    Life Insurance program (VGLI) fully tied to cost of living
    adjustments and inflation to ensure it maintains the intended
    rate long term. On behalf of our Nation's surviving families,
    we thank this committee and I look forward to your questions.
    Thank you.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Candace Wheeler Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ms. Wheeler.
        Mr. Macinkowicz, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to
    present the testimony of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
    United States.

                  STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER MACINKOWICZ

        Mr. Macinkowicz. 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 testimony
    with regard to this pending legislation.
        As the former VFW training and quality assurance director,
    I am keenly aware of how quickly and often VA regulations
    change as well as the need to ensure that updated regulations
    are understood by those who use them. Recently I was
    representing a veteran from Maryland who had a claim for a
    mental health condition denied by VA. The veteran had claimed
    Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the initial
    application for benefits, however during the C&P examination
    the examiner diagnosed a different mental health condition and
    provided a medical opinion linking the condition to active
    military service.
        Though there is a 2009 Court of Appeals case that directly
    references this type of situation and VA's own regulation
    states that raters are required to consider all the mental
    diagnoses in the record, a VA rating officer denied the claim
    because the veteran did not have PTSD. Though the referenced
    court case and the regulation both state that the rater was
    supposed to consider all mental health diagnoses of record
    without proper training in plain language this regulation is
    often confused, thus causing an unnecessary appeal.
        The VFW supports the Veterans Claims Quality Improvement
    Act of 2024 which would provide much needed training and
    oversight for those deciding VA claims. However, addition of
    more oversight often comes with delays and timeliness if the
    program is not properly funded. This bill instructs the general
    counsel to review each updated VA regulation and develop a
    training program to ensure that those writing the regulations
    are properly trained.
        It also instructs the Board of Veterans' Appeals to create
    a training quality insurance program. While training and
    oversight is essential, without proper funding for these
    programs the development and execution could be severely
    impacted thus limiting the effectiveness of these programs.
        Since the creation of the VA National Work Queue in 2016,
    VFW accredited representatives have seen numerous instances of
    claims and appeals that have been sent to the National Work
    Queue where they sit unassigned and unworked by VA staff. In a
    recent VA meeting, VSOs were briefed that once a claim is in
    the National Work Queue it is not uncommon to be untouched
    still at the 6-month mark.
        The VFW can definitely corroborate this. In fact, one of
    our service officers submitted a claim for an increased rating
    more than 10 months ago, but it is still sitting the National
    Work Queue untouched. This is one of many examples of claims in
    remanded appeals that are waiting in this queue.
        The Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act of 2024 would require
    the secretary to track claims in the National Work Queue,
    submit an annual report, and provide notice to veterans of the
    reasons why their claim is still waiting in the National Work
    Queue.
        The VFW supports this intent but feels that there needs to
    be more guidance regarding the delivery and language of the
    notifications to veterans. During the claims process veterans
    are often inundated with different notifications from VA which
    can be confusing, overwhelming, and repetitive. Simply sending
    another notification to the veteran that their claim is pending
    in the National Work Queue will not answer the question as to
    why their claim is waiting in the National Work Queue.
        Therefore, we recommend that accredited VSOs be included in
    the development process to ensure that the messaging and
    notifications is clear and effective. The VFW also supports
    H.R. 7816, the Clear Communication for Veterans Claims Act. One
    of the primary challenges veterans encounter when reviewing
    their disability notification letters is the intricate language
    and terminology used.
        Far too often accredited representatives spend a great deal
    of time explaining the letters that make sense to the trained
    eye but not to anyone else. The VA disability system involves a
    multitude of regulations, policies, and procedures.
    Unfortunately, these guidelines can be subject to
    interpretation resulting in inconsistencies and notification
    letters and frustration on the part of the veteran.
        Understanding the full spectrum of benefits associated with
    the disability rating is another hurdle for veterans. Most
    notification letters include information on additional benefits
    but veterans may struggle to connect these pieces of
    information to effectively assess the services to which they
    are entitled. This lack of clarity can impede veterans' ability
    to make informed decisions about their health care and overall
    well-being.
        The VFW supports effective notification and believes that
    veterans should not be penalized for not understanding the
    complex laws of the VA process.
        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas, this concludes
    our testimony and I am happy to answer any questions that you
    may have.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Christopher Macinkowicz Appears
    In The Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Macinkowicz.
        Mr. Tangen, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir, to
    present the testimony of the National Associations of County
    Veterans Service Officers (NACVSO).

                       STATEMENT OF ANDREW TANGEN

        Mr. Tangen. Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, the National
    Associations of County Veterans Service Officers would like to
    thank you for the opportunity to submit our views on pending
    legislation impacting the Department of Veterans Affairs before
    the subcommittee.
        My name is Andrew Tangen and as a first vice president of
    NACVSO, I am honored to speak to you--before you today. Due to
    the highly complex and technical nature of these pending bills
    I would like to focus my oral testimony on the importance of
    Congress's continued efforts to improve the appeals process for
    veterans and survivors specifically surrounding the Board of
    Veterans' Appeals.
        Many times, veterans and survivors are trapped in a cycle
    of repeated denials for benefits owed to them. It starts with a
    decision at the VA regional office (RO), it is sent to review
    by the Board, then returned to the regional office for a
    denial. It is appealed and then reviewed again by the Board and
    then sent back to the regional office for another denial. Then
    another appeal, another denial, another appeal, and denial,
    becoming an endless loop that can take years to complete.
        I can spend days describing individual cases where we as
    Government Veterans Service Officers (GVSO) have seen this
    exact scenario play out. In the interest of time, I will speak
    on one of the most egregious cases I have personally witnessed.
        My office represented the widowed spouse of a Vietnam era
    veteran through multiple appeals and readjudication of a
    veteran who died of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
    (MRSA) without ever being diagnosed with it. The veteran was
    experiencing left side weakness and loss of balance, so he went
    to his primary care physician in November 2007.
        A Computed Tomography (CT) scan found an abnormal finding,
    so he was admitted to Edward Hines VA Medical Center (VAMC) for
    a brain biopsy, chemotherapy, and radiation to reduce the size
    of a tumor he had and needed surgery on. However, this veteran
    was found unresponsive 1 month later. He looked incredibly sick
    and was running a high-grade fever. The veteran also
    immediately began to lose the ability to speak and could not
    open his eyes and passed away a week later.
        The widow began attempting to uncover what happened to her
    husband and reached for help from former Congressman and
    Senator Mark Kirk. Congressman Kirk sent two requests for lab
    results to the VAMC regarding the veteran's death. The results
    showed the veteran had been diagnosed with MRSA but that was
    never recorded in his medical records in Hines VAMC.
        Following the diagnosis the Hines employees gave the widow
    a pamphlet explaining the contamination procedures the widow
    needed to know because the veteran had tested positive for
    MRSA. Unfortunately, the veteran was already dead. You would
    think that would be enough but it is not.
        The spouse was denied benefits twice under a 1151 claim
    based on VA negligence. Upon appeal the widow and her daughter
    testified about the lack of care provided to the veteran to
    such an extent that the daughter specifically testified that
    she had to wear a gown and protective equipment when she went
    to see the veteran 2 days before he passed and that her
    father's tongue and mouth were blackened like a hotdog that had
    been left far too long on a grill. The Board still denied the
    case, stating it remained an unestablished fact that the
    medical evidence existed that the VA hospitalization medical or
    surgical treatment resulted in the veteran's death.
        My office stepped in to represent the widow in 2020 at the
    Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, where we pointed out
    medical treatment was not provided correctly. We also retained
    an internist with 40 years of medical experience and 35 years
    of medical malpractice expertise who determined VA providers
    negligently treated this veteran's MRSA infection.
        The case once again went to the Board, was remanded to the
    regional office for a new forensic examination where the
    testimony of our expert witness was completely ignored, and the
    claim denied again. We again appealed the case, correctly
    pointing out the failure to consider our expert witness 5 more
    times.
        On the 6th remand the VA finally ordered an examination,
    this time by a high-level VA provider who immediately
    determined the VA failed to treat the veteran's MRSA infection,
    failed to follow VA procedures as well as failed to follow
    guidelines from the Infectious Disease Society of America and
    the American Thoracic Society.
        It took 15 years, 15 long, unnecessary years of constant
    back-and-forth between the regional office and the Board before
    the widow was finally awarded benefits for the death of her
    husband. Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon occurrence.
    This happens repeatedly and consistently, whether in the legacy
    appeals or the Appeals Modernization Act.
        Ultimately, it should never take 15 years for a widow to
    receive benefits she rightly deserves.
        Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee,
    on behalf of NACVSO, thank you for the opportunity to submit
    our views on some of these bills pending before--being
    considered today and we look forward to working with you on the
    legislation and would be happy to take any questions for the
    record.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Andrew Tangen Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Burbank, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to
    present the testimony of the National Veterans Legal Services
    Program (NVLSP).

                       STATEMENT OF RENEE BURBANK

        Ms. Burbank. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Luttrell,
    Ranking Member Pappas, and the esteemed members of the
    Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee.
        On behalf of the National Veterans Legal Services Program,
    thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on
    ways to improve the claims adjudication and in particularly the
    appeals process at the Department of Veterans Affairs and the
    Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
        NVLSP is a nonprofit veterans services organization founded
    in 1981 and we are dedicated to ensuring that our Nation's 18
    million veterans and their families receive the benefits that
    they need and deserve for disabilities resulting from their
    military service to our country.
        For the sake of time, I would like to focus, though, on
    just a couple of issues and particularly the Veterans Appeals
    Efficiency Act of 2024 and the provisions relating to the Court
    of Appeals of Veterans Claims. This is not a one fix, one piece
    of legislation is not going to fix everything about the delays,
    the inefficiency, the inconsistency of decisions. These tweaks
    will make a difference and NVLSP supports taking a multifaceted
    approach as reflected in the legislation you are considering
    today.
        The Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act will provide to the
    CAVC several tools for its toolbox that will make sure that the
    Veterans Court has the same kind of authorities as other
    Federal courts do when they review other Federal agencies'
    actions. The Veterans Court should not be hampered in its
    ability to act efficiently and craft effective and timely
    relief for veterans.
        In particular NVLSP strongly supports codifying the Court's
    authority to issue limited remands to the Board. Basically this
    means that the Court can, when it thinks it is appropriate,
    send a case back to the Board to answer a narrow question that
    the Court needs answered before making its decision. Limited
    remands can help reduce the churn that occurs when a case go
    back to the Board and then back to the RO and then back to the
    Board and then back to the Court.
        Instead with a limited remand the Board can get--the Court,
    excuse me, the Court can get the Board to act narrowly and
    quickly and then the case comes right back to the Court to
    resolve the case, hopefully for the last time. Other courts
    routinely do this when they are reviewing agency actions. They
    do not use it all the time but where the Court is particularly
    skeptical of the agency getting it right on remand or is
    concerned about undue delay this is a useful tool to have.
        The Veterans Court should have and we believe does have
    this authority but it should be clear and it should be clear
    that this is an appropriate tool for the Court to use. NVLSP
    also supports the CAVC's ability to use its class action
    authority for aggregating claims in the way that other courts
    do. Right now, the CAVC's ability to use its class action
    authority is narrower than any other Federal Court's class
    action authority because of the way the Federal Circuit, the
    court that reviews CAVC decisions recently interpreted the
    CAVC's limited jurisdiction to prevent considering common
    questions of law on claims that do not yet have final Board
    decisions.
        Giving CAVC the power to issue class action decisions that
    affect all veterans with the same issue is vital to make
    decisions fair, consistent, and improve efficiency by deciding
    a common legal issue for everyone at the same time.
        With that I will restrain myself from talking about all of
    the other provisions and therefore just thank you for time,
    thank you for the opportunity to testify, and we welcome any
    questions.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Renee Burbank Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Yes, ma'am. Keep going.
        Ms. Burbank. All right. I will keep going. In particular
    the discussion from the previous panel, there was a discussion
    about whether the Veterans Court has this limited remand
    authority. The clerk of the Veterans Court stated in written
    testimony that this provision could inject uncertainty into the
    law and restrict the authority that they already have.
        With all due respect, NVLSP position is that this bill will
    inject certainty. There is some lack of clarity between a
    couple of cases. Mr. Shedd discussed Cleary and for----
        Mr. Luttrell. We can appreciate the argument from the other
    side, I Am sure.
        Ms. Burbank. Excuse me?
        Mr. Luttrell. You can appreciate the argument from the
    other side?
        Ms. Burbank. I think the key is that the provision as
    written does not require using limited remands in a way
    different from how the Court already sees its authority. The
    problem is that several of the judges on the Court have said
    explicitly in decisions, we are not sure how this works with
    our other caselaw that says we do not have the ability to just
    keep jurisdiction on certain cases and send them back. The
    ability to----
        Mr. Luttrell. They do not say that. From what I understand
    from the previous panel is that they have absolute
    understanding that that belongs to them.
        Ms. Burbank. They have not used that authority that they
    are now saying they have. Right? We agree that they have the
    authority. They do not use it very often. And----
        Mr. Luttrell. You can appreciate that I have to take what
    you are saying, what the previous panel said, because I am
    looking at you as the subject matter expert and the previous
    panel, they are subject matter experts, but I was not there. I
    did not witness this.
        Now here we are once again in conflict. Is this a
    widespread, wide casted net problem? Are these singularities
    that we are dealing with because the legislation that we are
    pushing across is exactly what you are--is why--what you are
    saying is why we are doing it.
        Ms. Burbank. Right. For example, there are two cases and
    they are called Best and Mahl, M-a-h-l, and it is--they are
    often referred to together, Best and Mahl. What happens with
    the veterans court now is that when there are say five issues
    that come in one case and there is one issue that should be
    remanded to the Board. It is very clear that it should be
    remanded.
        There is some issue maybe the Board has not decided--has
    not explained it is reasons for its decision. Under the case
    law that exists right now that case has to go back. You take
    the low-hanging fruit. The Court takes the low-hanging fruit
    and sends the whole case back.
        This would provide an opportunity and clarity that what the
    Court could do instead is say if there is just one issue that
    needs, the Board needs to just cleanup part of its decision, it
    can come straight back to the Court to decide an important
    issue--to decide an important legal question that otherwise may
    never come back to the Court or may take years to come back to
    the Court.
        Mr. Luttrell. Mr. Tangen, do you got anything for that?
        Mr. Tangen. I would say, Chairman, I agree with NVLSP. We
    also agree with NVLSP on what they were saying as well. I will
    also point out that there are many cases that come from the
    Court of Appeals to veterans' claims back down to the Board
    that the Board is not tracking the data on why they were sent
    back to them through remands, through joint motions for
    remands.
        Mr. Luttrell. Like an individual or like the entire Court
    itself?
        Mr. Tangen. The Board itself is not tracking what the
    reasons that their decisions were sent back through a joint
    motion for remand on those.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. Hang on for a second. I do not think
    anybody likes to beat up the VA more than I do. I also can
    appreciate what they are and everything that they are trying to
    accomplish. I do appreciate the struggles that we all--that you
    all are experiencing with the veterans that you are helping.
    Right?
        I am a veteran myself. I get it. I am not going to blame
    the entire Board. I am not going to--the Court system, I would
    not do that. I find that really hard to believe and I am not--I
    am not getting on to you about this, but what I am saying is I
    find it hard to believe that the entire Court itself would not
    know that or cannot--would not understand exactly what came
    back down to you all. That does not make any sense to me on how
    that would happen.
        You tell me it went up into the system. Nobody took a look
    at it and they sent it right back down to you and you went up
    there and said, hey, what is the problem? They are like, we do
    not have any idea. We have never seen it?
        Mr. Tangen. No, Chairman, what I am specifically
    referencing is that we had the AMA summit at the beginning of
    February and the question was specifically asked to the Board
    there out of the 9,000 joint motions for remands or returns
    from the Court to the Board does the Board track those reasons
    for remand from the Court and do they provide any training? The
    Board said, no.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. It is just a documentation thing?
        Mr. Tangen. Correct.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. Mr. Duarte, sir, you are recognized.
        Mr. Duarte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the panel
    for being here today. Ms. Wheeler, thank you for being here.
    Can you elaborate on why TAPS supports the clear communication
    for veterans Act?
        Ms. Wheeler. Yes, I would be happy to. First of all, thank
    you so much for introducing this piece of legislation. We have
    seen that survivors often struggle as well with clear
    communication. Oftentimes these letters, as we have all been
    discussing today, are down in the weeds and very hard for the
    layman to understand. Especially add a surviving spouse that is
    grieving on top of that and trying to be able to understand
    what is being said to them, it would be very helpful to have it
    in very clear, layman's terms up front as we were all
    discussing earlier.
        What we also find with the whole letter type of back-and-
    forth between our survivors is that often it is asking them to
    prove that they have done something or to respond back. In the
    case of remarriage, a letter is sent to them that says, have
    you remarried? If they have not remarried they are still
    supposed to send the letter back, which is wasting time for
    both the VA and the survivor.
        We would like that communication not only to be clear but
    also thoughtful in the sense of what you are asking. You may
    not need to have that reply. If they indeed need to respond
    back to the VA, then they can do so at that time. That is one
    of the things that we hear repeatedly from survivors in terms
    of communication.
        We also believe it is important for our veterans as well,
    making sure that it is in laymen's terms up front,
    understanding that the VA does need to put different types of
    legalese toward the back but it would be very helpful, so thank
    you so much.
        Mr. Duarte. Thank you. Thank you very much for that answer.
        Ms. Burbank, do you think that the veterans would receive
    faster decision if we authorized class actions at the VA Board
    of Veterans' Appeals?
        Ms. Burbank. I am sorry, at the--I am sorry, at the BVA or
    at the Court?
        Mr. Duarte. At the VA Board of Veterans' Appeals. Do you
    think the class action lawsuit is going to help veterans access
    their outcomes and their benefits faster by allowing class
    action?
        Ms. Burbank. Class actions as a rule whether it is a courts
    or a board, they are a tool of efficiency. They are designed to
    make claims go faster because you are dealing with issues once
    rather than dozens, hundreds, thousands of times. It relieves
    not just the one--it makes one case more complex certainly, but
    it means that you are not having 100 cases, 1,000 cases.
        Mr. Duarte. Sure, the class action as you understand, as we
    understand them in business, you have a giant business that is
    going to be sued with a number of, a myriad of small claims
    from similar from similar plaintiffs. You assume an adversarial
    position.
        You assume they need to unite through a big law firm who is
    going to take a very large percentage of the outcome of the
    award. In the case of veterans where they have us here
    providing oversight, where they have veterans advocacy groups
    on the ground, do class actions make the same sense when the
    defendant often times is the government represented by this
    committee and the Congress itself.
        Ms. Burbank. Class actions against the government in other
    circumstances also exists. The whole idea is, yes, they are a
    tool that again not every case is one that is amenable to class
    actions. Right?
        Mr. Duarte. Sure.
        Ms. Burbank. You have to have a common question of law and
    fact that is going to make it faster and more efficient to deal
    with all at once rather than every single time.
        Mr. Duarte. Thank you. Great. Mr. Tangen, I will take your
    comments on either the Communication for Veterans Claims Act.
    Do you see these letters as frequently and are they more
    obstructive than they have to be to the veterans getting access
    to their benefits without services from someone like yourself?
        Mr. Tangen. I will give a real quick story to answer your
    question. My office represented a veteran, a Vietnam veteran
    diagnosed with Parkinson's. He was an elected official in our
    county. He wanted to give up because of the amount of paperwork
    that he got from the VA. And came into my office with a box of
    paperwork and said I do not want to do this anymore, keep
    reading this stuff. I looked at him and I said, stop reading
    the letters. That is why you have me.
        Mr. Duarte. It was virtually impossible for him to get his
    services and benefits that he deserved without an attorney as
    yourself?
        Mr. Tangen. That is correct.
        Mr. Duarte. Does that need to be that way?
        Mr. Tangen. I do not think so. No.
        Mr. Duarte. It has not corrected itself as of yet through
    the Veterans Administration directly?
        Mr. Tangen. That is correct.
        Mr. Duarte. You have given them some input over the years?
        Mr. Tangen. That is correct, I have.
        Mr. Duarte. I assume veteran groups have given them some
    input over the years and it has not been fixed yet?
        Mr. Tangen. That is correct.
        Mr. Duarte. Thank you. Appreciate it.
        Yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Wheeler, I have a follow-on question for you about the
    spouses and the letters that they receive asking if they had
    been remarried because current law states that if you are
    remarried before 55 you lose your benefits by law until this
    current legislation that we are trying to push through if that
    is enacted and passed.
        Now, the VA sitting in this room with us their job is to
    reach out to those spouses and ask those questions. I get it.
    Every time I get a letter from the VA, I am not going to say
    what happens to it, but I am a nonresponsive guy. If they do
    not ask those questions and they do not have those answers when
    they come to sit before us with a full committee, we are going
    to hold them accountable.
        My question is how do we fix that problem? Do not say pass
    the law because we are not there yet. The way we engage with
    the spouses is by mail, snail mail, email. I dare not say the
    VA's launching out folks to go knock on doors. I do not know
    that for certain. I do not think that would be the case. Here
    is the problem.
        When talking with the spouses have you in your engagements
    have they responded in a way that said I would prefer this to
    happen? Or are they just okay with like, I am not responding?
    There is two sides to this coin.
        Ms. Wheeler. That is true. We do understand that the VA is
    contractually obligated to ask that question and we understand
    that, and we agree with that. The problem is it is not
    consistent. These letters come but not every year. Oftentimes a
    survivor may get one every year. They may have a lapse in time
    between that so they do not always know that they are coming
    and to expect them. If they had remarried, we encourage
    survivors to proactively reach out to the VA.
        Mr. Luttrell. Is there a timeframe that is more--and I do
    not mean for this to sound in anyway disrespectful, but is
    there a timeframe that they would appreciate, like is the VA,
    they reach out every 5 years or VA reach out every year? Is
    there a--I am trying to solve a problem where it lives right
    now.
        Ms. Wheeler. It would be helpful if it was consistent. If
    they are going to do it every year in a particular timeframe
    then the spouse knows to expect it. We also encourage surviving
    spouses to reach out to the VA to inform them that they have
    remarried. I think that is a very important part of this as
    well.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Tangen, I have a
    question Mr. Self asked me to address to you. Do you agree that
    VA is obtaining too many unnecessary toxic exposure related
    disability compensation exams?
        Mr. Tangen. Chairman, I do absolutely believe that. What we
    have seen is, and this is part of our written testimony that
    was submitted, it appears to us that it is almost become a
    sixth theory of entitlement, namely being the five ones that
    under law are direct aggravated secondary presumptive and VA
    negligence.
        In some situations, it feels like the VA is using TERA as a
    method of proving by a theory of service connection and we have
    seen C&P exams where veterans who have not even filed for TERA
    go through a TERA exam and the box is checked, no, this is not
    a TERA and none of the other five theories of entitlement are
    checked off.
        It goes to the RO and is then denied and then we have to
    take the claim through supplemental or a higher-level review or
    up to the Board in order to get another C&P examination, a
    forensic examination to have it be done the right way.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. Thank you. Ranking Member had to step
    away. I look forward to working with these issues with the
    Department and the rest of my colleagues on this subcommittee.
    These bills discussed today would provide important
    improvements for veterans and survivors navigating the VA
    claims and appeals process. They would also improve access to
    benefits for veterans and their surviving loved ones.
        The written statement of our witnesses will entered into
    the hearing record. I ask unanimous consent that statements for
    the record, for the record we have received be entered into the
    hearing record. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        I ask unanimous consent that all members have 5 legislative
    days to revised extended remarks including extraneous material.
    Hearing no objections, so ordered. Thank you all for attending
    today.
        [Whereupon, at 4:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

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

                             A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X

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

                        Prepared Statements of Witnesses

                                  ----------

                   Prepared Statement of Jaime Areizaga-Soto

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Prepared Statement of Tiffany Wagner

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

        Thank you for inviting the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans
    Claims (Court) to participate in the April 10, 2024, legislative
    hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Veterans'
    Affairs, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs
    (Subcommittee). I'm Tiffany Wagner, the Court's Executive Officer and
    Clerk of Court, and I'm pleased to appear as the designee of Chief
    Judge Margaret Bartley on behalf of the Court. The Subcommittee is
    considering several bills, but we limit our testimony to the Medical
    Disability Examination Improvement Act of 2024 and the Veterans Appeals
    Efficiency Act of 2024, and specifically, to the sections within those
    bills that directly impact the Court. Those provisions pertain to the
    Court's Annual Report and to proposed supplemental jurisdiction and
    limited remand authority for the Court. While we are appreciative of
    the Committee's efforts on our behalf, for the reasons outlined below
    the Court does not support adoption of the proposals.

            I. Proposed Section 5(d)(2) of the Medical Disability
            Examination Improvement Act of 2024

        Section 5(d)(2) of the Medical Disability Examination Improvement
    Act of 2024 would add an additional annual reporting requirement under
    38 U.S.C. Sec.  7288(b). Currently, the Court is required to summarize
    our annual workload as to 15 specific elements. Proposed Section
    5(d)(2) would add a 16th element, requiring a ``summary of recurring
    issues that the chief judge of the Court believes could be resolved by
    better training for employees of the Department, increased oversight,
    or clarification from either the Department or Congress.''
    Respectfully, the Court opposes this proposal.
        The Court was established by Congress 35 years ago as an
    independent Federal court with ``exclusive jurisdiction to review
    decisions of the Board of Veterans' Appeals'' (Board) (38 U.S.C. Sec.
    7252). The Board is the entity within the Department of Veterans
    Affairs (VA) that provides final executive agency decisions as to
    veterans benefits entitlement (38 U.S.C. Sec.  7104). Administration of
    the Board is the ultimate responsibility of the Secretary of VA (38
    U.S.C. Sec.  7101).
        There are two primary reasons for the Court's opposition to the
    Section 5(d)(2) proposal. First, the Court, as a judicial entity, has
    no authority or responsibility to oversee VA or to resolve VA training
    issues. The VA Secretary is tasked by the President to lead the
    Department and, of course, this Committee maintains oversight as to VA
    operations. Thus, it is the Secretary's responsibility to manage
    Department employees, to include establishing internal operations and
    directing necessary training or supervision based on his knowledge of
    any VA deficiencies. The Court and its judges have no role in that
    executive function, and no role in the legislative oversight function.
    Court judges are not privy to internal VA operations, including as to
    current training or oversight. The Court reviews issues and arguments
    presented in appeals; decides all relevant questions of law; holds
    unlawful and sets aside Board decisions and findings that are, among
    other things, arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
    otherwise not in accordance with law; and affirms, reverses, or remands
    as appropriate. When the Court finds Board error requiring reversal or
    remand, the Court identifies the error and explains the reasons for its
    decision. Once the Court's action becomes final, the matter returns to
    the Board and the Court has no further involvement. Therefore, even
    were it appropriate, the Court's judges have no means to evaluate what
    is or is not working successfully within VA or to suggest changes or
    enhancements to VA internal operations.
        A second reason for the Court's opposition to the Section 5(d)(2)
    proposal is that, as with all judicial tribunals, the Veterans Court
    speaks through its judicial decisions and does not issue advisory
    opinions or generalize or summarize the errors of one of the parties
    outside of the context of a case. VA is charged to readjudicate claims
    that are returned to it for error correction. By statute, 38 U.S.C.
    Sec.  7112, the Board is the recipient of every reversed or remanded
    Court decision, and is likely in the best position to assess and
    evaluate trends; to develop strategies and training to address errors;
    to allocate resources toward such initiatives; and to limit error
    recurrence. In this vein, the Court notes that proposed subsection
    5(d)(1) of the Medical Disability Examination Improvement Act of 2024
    places on the Chairman of the Board a reporting requirement identical
    to that of proposed Section 5(d)(2). The Court believes that the burden
    of identifying, reporting, and remedying errors should rest with the
    Board. Indeed, in November 2023 testimony to this Subcommittee, the
    U.S. Government Accountability Office made similar recommendations to
    improve Board quality assurance, to include: ``The [Board] Chairman...
    should develop and implement an evidence-based decision-making process
    that includes a plan outlining how it will build evidence to assess the
    underlying causes for the most common errors identified by the case
    review process and the most common reasons for [Court] remands. The
    Board should use this evidence to better target its interventions and
    assess their results.'' (https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106156).
    Thus, as others with knowledge of this area have prescribed, the Board
    is in the best position and has the authority and responsibility to
    collect and provide the information outlined in proposed Section
    5(d)(2).
        For these reasons, the Court respectfully opposes Section 5(d)(2)
    of the Medical Disability Examination Improvement Act of 2024.

            II. Proposed Section 2(d) of the Veterans Appeals Efficiency
            Act of 2024

        Section 2(d) of the Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act of 2024, titled
    ``Expansion of Jurisdiction of [the Court],'' would modify 38 U.S.C
    Sec.  7252 to add two additional subsections-the first pertaining to
    supplemental jurisdiction and the second to limited remand authority.

              A. Supplemental Jurisdiction

        Section 7252 of title 38 U.S. Code establishes the Court's
    jurisdiction, stating that the Court has ``exclusive jurisdiction to
    review decisions of the Board.'' Proposed subsection 7252(b)(1) would
    add that the Court ``shall have supplemental jurisdiction to review an
    eligible claim pending a final decision of the [Board] with respect to
    such eligible claim''; proposed subsection 7252(b)(2) would address how
    the period for administrative review of such claims would be tolled
    pending a Court decision; and proposed subsection 7252(b)(3) would
    define an ``eligible claim'' for purposes of supplemental jurisdiction.
        This proposal appears to be directed toward that part of the U.S.
    Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Skaar v.
    McDonough, 48 F.4th 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2022), that held that the Veterans
    Court exceeded its jurisdiction when it included in a certified class
    veterans who had not yet received final Board decisions as to their
    individual claims. The Federal Circuit held: ``While district courts
    may indeed exercise jurisdiction over future claimants, that is because
    Congress explicitly conferred the district courts with supplemental
    jurisdiction encompassing such claims. Critically, Congress has not
    enacted any comparable jurisdictional statute for the Veterans Court.''
    Skaar, 48 F.4th at 1333-34 (internal citations omitted).
        Congressional modification or expansion of the Veterans Court's
    jurisdiction is a legislative policy determination that the Court will
    not comment on. However, the Court offers the following observations
    with regard to the specific language in proposed subsections
    7252(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3).
        First, the term ``supplemental jurisdiction'' is not defined in new
    proposed subsection 7252(b)(1), and therefore is susceptible to broad
    construction. The statutory basis for supplemental jurisdiction in
    United States district courts is found in 28 U.S.C. Sec.  1367(a). That
    statute defines a claim over which a district court has supplemental
    jurisdiction as one that is ``so related to claims in the action within
    such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
    controversy.'' Stated differently, if a district court has jurisdiction
    over claim #1, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claim #2
    (over which it would not have original jurisdiction) so long as the two
    claims ``form part of the same case or controversy.'' The absence of a
    definition of ``supplemental jurisdiction'' in proposed section 7252(b)
    may invite a wave of requests citing this proposed provision and
    arguing for a wider interpretation of the expansion of the Court's
    jurisdiction than Congress may have contemplated.
        Second, new proposed subsection 7252(b)(2) may be intended to
    permit a claimant who is included in a certified or proposed class
    pending at the Court and who has not yet received a final Board
    decision to temporarily stop the clock on agency review deadlines that
    follow an initial VA decision on a claim. But it is unclear whether the
    subsection intends to use the word ``claimant'' to refer to different
    actors. The first use of ``claimant'' may be referencing an individual
    needing tolling of the period in which to submit a request for agency
    administrative review when that individual is included in a class
    action pending before the Court. In other words, the first ``claimant''
    may refer to a person whose claim remains before the agency. However,
    the second use of ``claimant'' refers to an individual who ``submits to
    the Court a motion for class action review.'' It is unclear whether
    this second use intended to include someone who has appealed a final
    Board decision to this Court and has submitted a request for class
    certification. Because the intent is unclear and because the Court may
    be called upon in the future to interpret whatever language Congress
    enacts, the Court finds it difficult to provide thoughtful feedback as
    to this proposed subsection.
        Third, new proposed subsection 7252(b)(3) defines the term
    ``eligible claim'' used in subsection 7252(b)(1) concerning
    supplemental jurisdiction as a claim pending a final Board decision
    ``for which relief may be granted on a class-wide basis'' pursuant to
    the Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules). If Congress's sole
    intent is to permit the Court to include in an existing class a VA
    claimant who lacks a final Board decision, the Court suggests that
    Congress seriously consider whether the definition goes beyond what
    Congress has contemplated. Because the Court's Rules contain no
    restriction as to appeals that may be subject to relief on a class-wide
    basis, this leaves unsettled whether as written the Court might have
    supplemental jurisdiction over any claim pending before VA, regardless
    of whether a request for class certification and class action has been
    filed. This could result in a flood of claimants seeking Court review
    of myriad non-final agency actions. It may be possible to read
    ``eligible claim'' in the context of supplemental jurisdiction as
    fundamentally changing the Court's current statutory jurisdictional
    requirement that there be a final Board decision prior to Court review.
    Unfettered jurisdiction could significantly grow the Court's caseload,
    which in turn would require reevaluation of Court processes and
    resource needs.
        For the above reasons, the Court has serious concerns about Section
    2(d) of the Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act of 2024.

              B. Limited Remand Authority

        Section 2(c) of the Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act of 2024
    proposes to add new 38 U.S.C Sec.  7252(c), addressing the Court's
    remand authority.
        Proposed new subsection 7252(c)(1) would authorize the Court to
    remand a matter to the Board ``for the limited purpose of ordering the
    Board to address a question of law or fact'' that the Court determines
    the Board failed to either (1) address after it was explicitly or
    reasonably raised, or (2) adequately explain the reasons or bases for
    the Board's decision as to such question. Proposed new subsection
    7252(c)(2) would permit the Court, when issuing such a limited remand,
    to direct the Board to issue a decision by a date certain. Proposed new
    subsection 7252(c)(3) would require the Court to retain jurisdiction
    over such remanded matters and to stay Court proceedings until the
    Board satisfies the remand instructions and issues a decision.
        Proposed subsection 7252(c) could inject uncertainty into the law
    given that the Court already has the authority to take the actions
    contemplated in this proposed new section. Currently, 38 U.S.C. Sec.
    7252(a) permits the Court to remand matters as appropriate. Issuing
    limited remands, retaining jurisdiction, and setting out a timetable
    within which the Board must act are all actions that the Court at the
    current time may take or has taken. Most recently, the en banc Court in
    Skaar v. Wilkie, 31 Vet.App. 16 (2019) (per curiam order), did just
    that. There, the Court clarified its authority in this regard and noted
    that the unique circumstances of that case made using a limited remand
    appropriate. The Court retained jurisdiction of the matter and directed
    the Board to address specific issues on a detailed timeline. Although
    later holdings in Skaar were overturned by the Federal Circuit, this
    holding was not disturbed.
        The fact that the Court has current authority to engage in limited
    remands is the primary reason that the Court raises questions about the
    proposed changes regarding limited remand authority. But in addition,
    by articulating when the Court may order a limited remand, new
    subsection 7252(c)(1) may in fact limit the Court's current authority
    to engage limited remands. And proposed new subsection 7252(c)(3) could
    impose a potentially unclear and unnecessarily rigid framework on Court
    actions. How and when to act in handling cases before the Court is a
    judicial determination and the Court, for example, should not be
    prevented from acting in cases where the Board fails to comply with the
    remand instructions.
        Without a doubt, retaining jurisdiction and directing a limited
    remand with specific adjudication instructions to the agency could be a
    powerful tool. But this tool is already in the Court's toolbox--and we
    suggest that Congress consider whether increased use may disturb the
    normal process for veterans waiting in the traditional appeal queue. In
    short, under our current authority the Court may undertake case-by-case
    judicial determinations as to when and to what extent to remand, and it
    is unclear to the Court why Congress may believe this to be
    insufficient.

            III. Conclusion

        The Court takes seriously its mission to afford veterans and their
    families and survivors full, fair, and prompt judicial review of final
    Board decisions. The Court is open to ways to improve its functioning
    and appreciates the Subcommittee's continued interest and effort in
    this shared goal. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this
    statement.
                                     ______

                       Prepared Statement of Daniel Shedd

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     Prepared Statement of Candace Wheeler

        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 or veteran 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 or geography 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
    delivered at no cost to military survivors. TAPS offers additional
    programs including, but not limited to, the following: the 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 peer 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 120,000 bereaved military survivors.
        In 2023 alone, 9,611 newly bereaved military and veteran survivors
    connected with TAPS for care and services, the most in our 30-year
    history. This is an average of 26 new survivors coming to TAPS each and
    every day. Of the survivors seeking our care in 2023, 34 percent were
    grieving the death of a military loved one to illness, including as a
    result of exposure to toxins; 30 percent were grieving the death of a
    military loved one to suicide; and only 3 percent were grieving the
    death of a military loved one to hostile action.
        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 and Ranking Member Pappas, and distinguished
    members of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Disability and
    Memorial Affairs Subcommittee, 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 120,000-plus surviving
    family members of all ages, representing all services, and with losses
    from all causes who we are 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 or location 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 crucial survivor
    services. In 2023, TAPS and the VA renewed and expanded their formal
    partnership to better serve our survivor community. TAPS works with
    military and veteran 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 its programs
    and services as well as fulfills any referrals to support all those
    grieving the death of a military and veteran loved one.
        TAPS President and Founder Bonnie Carroll served on the Department
    of Veterans Affairs Federal Advisory Committee on Veterans' Families,
    Caregivers, and Survivors, where she chaired 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.

    LOVE LIVES ON ACT OF 2023 (H.R. 3651)

    (TAPS Strongly Supports)

        TAPS is honored to work with members of this committee to pass one
    of our top legislative priorities, the Love Lives On Act of 2023 (H.R.
    3651). This comprehensive legislation will allow surviving spouses to
    retain their benefits following remarriage before the age of 55. TAPS
    is grateful to Representatives Dean Phillips (D-MN-3) and Richard
    Hudson (R-NC-9), and Senators Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Raphael Warnock
    (D-GA) for introducing this important legislation in the 118th
    Congress.
        We ask Congress to:

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

          Allow surviving spouses to retain both the Survivor
    Benefit Plan (SBP) and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) upon
    remarriage at any age.

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

          Allow remarried surviving spouses to retain Commissary
    and Exchange benefits
        (Passed in Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act).

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

          Remove 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
    with the financial security given as a result of their loved ones'
    service and sacrifice. They often have children who 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 their family, especially those with children. Many
    choose to cohabitate instead of legally remarrying.
        The long-term goal for TAPS is to secure the right for surviving
    spouses to remarry at any age and retain their benefits. TAPS is
    leading efforts to pass the Love Lives On Act of 2023, which is
    supported by over 40 veteran and military organizations. TAPS
    spearheaded a letter of support from these partner organizations that
    has been shared with every member of this committee.
        Military spouses are among the most unemployed and underemployed
    population in the United States. Due to frequent military moves,
    absence due to frequent deployments 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 treated as the household's
    retirement pay. These barriers to employment continue when a military
    spouse becomes a surviving spouse. Many surviving spouses have to put
    their lives on hold to raise bereaved children. They are reliant on
    their survivor benefits to help offset the loss of pay from their late
    spouse and their own lost income as a result of military life.
        If a surviving spouse's subsequent marriage ends due to death,
    divorce, or annulment, while most benefits can be restored, TRICARE
    benefits are not restored. If a surviving spouse was previously
    eligible for 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 restrictions appear to be punitive, as they are only imposed
    on military surviving families, 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
    may legally remarry 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, their divorced 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.
        Additionally, when a surviving spouse remarries before the age of
    55, they are legally required to notify the Department of Veterans
    Affairs (VA) to discontinue Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
    (DIC). The VA states that the processing time for these claims is
    typically eight to 12 weeks, but unfortunately, this is most often not
    the case. Numerous surviving spouses experience delays ranging from six
    to 18 months, with some cases taking up to 42 months of constant effort
    to terminate their benefits. They often encounter the need to make
    multiple calls and resend paperwork repeatedly.
        As these survivors continue to receive payments, they subsequently
    receive debt letters demanding the immediate repayment of benefits,
    often with added interest. This places an undue burden and emotional
    distress on surviving spouses who followed the required procedures. The
    challenge is exacerbated by the fact that many surviving spouses, often
    with minor children, are unaware of the specific portions of the
    payments they are supposed to retain and which portions should cease.
    Additionally, they may lack the financial resources to repay the VA
    promptly. This is a waste of VA resources, and allowing our surviving
    spouses to maintain benefits upon remarriage would eliminate these
    unnecessary challenges.
        According to the VA, there are approximately 505,000 DIC
    recipients. Less than 30,000 of those surviving spouses are under the
    age of 55 and could potentially benefit from this legislation.
    Currently, less than 5 percent of surviving spouses under the age of 55
    have chosen to remarry due to these penalties.
        The Federal Government has allowed surviving spouses to maintain
    benefits upon remarriage over the age of 55 or 57 for decades. There is
    no specific reason for the age of 55, it is just the age Congress
    decided they could live with, but it sets the precedent that surviving
    spouses can and should be able to remarry and retain survivor benefits
    without waiting 20-plus years. Most choose to cohabitate until age 55,
    so all this law does is discourage legal marriages and prevent our
    young surviving children from having a mother or father figure legally
    in their lives.
        Additionally, not only can a surviving spouse not legally remarry
    without losing survivor benefits, but there is also a clause in statute
    that states surviving spouses cannot ``hold oneself out to be married''
    ( 38 U.S. Code Sec.  101 Paragraph 3). Originally, this referred to
    common law marriages, but in practice, it means that if anyone could
    view your new significant other as your ``spouse,'' you could lose your
    benefits. If someone addresses a Christmas card to ``Mr. & Mrs. Smith''
    as opposed to ``Mr. Smith and Mrs. Johnson,'' that is holding oneself
    out. If a survivor refers to their new partner as their spouse to
    simplify explaining the relationship, that is holding oneself out. If
    your neighbors presume you are married, that is holding oneself out.
    Anyone can turn in a survivor for holding oneself out, just because
    they do not like them. The VA is legally required to investigate them
    and suspend their benefits during the investigation. While the VA does
    not actively go out and search for these cases, they have to
    investigate when someone submits a tip. This leads to our surviving
    spouses constantly living in fear of being turned in, even when they
    have not remarried.
        With recruiting and retention at an all-time low in the military,
    every time we do not keep our promises to our military, veterans, and
    their families, we are discouraging our younger generations from
    serving. When an 18-year-old enlists in the military, they sign a check
    for up to and including their life. They also know that if something
    happens to them, our government will take care of their family. Period.
    There are no conditions, they are promised that their family will be
    taken care of for the rest of their lives. The current law breaks that
    promise. Our military, Members of Congress, and administration
    frequently remind survivors that the death of their loved one ``is a
    debt that can never be repaid,'' but ending survivor benefits upon
    remarriage is saying, ``that debt is paid in full.'' Just because a
    surviving spouse remarries does not mean they stop grieving. A piece of
    paper will never change that they are a widow or widower; it just means
    they are also someone else's spouse.
        Remarriage should not impact a surviving spouse's ability to pay
    bills. They should not have to choose between another chance at love, a
    stable home life for their children, 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, surviving spouses should not be penalized for
    finding love in the future. All they are asking for is to choose how
    they move forward to pick up the broken pieces of their lives.

        TAPS appreciates the House and Senate Armed Services Committee
    including section V in the Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense
    Authorization Act, and we are optimistic this committee will pass
    sections II and VII in The Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans
    Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act soon.

        The following personal testimonials from surviving spouses help
    highlight these important issues.

    Gina Kincaide Piland, Surviving Spouse of Lt Col John Kincade U.S. Air
    Force

        ``On November 21, 2019, my husband of 20 years, Lt Col John (Matt)
    Kincade, lost his life in a military aviation training mishap at Vance
    Air Force Base. Through his (our) 20 years of service, I followed him
    from base to base--Texas to California to Nevada back to California,
    then Iowa, and finally `home' to Oklahoma--raising our two amazing
    sons, keeping the home fires burning, and praying he would come home
    safely. The day after my Matt died, I sat down with a representative
    from Vance AFB and received my benefits briefing. That day I learned
    about the benefits I would collect due to Matt's death. I also learned
    that most of the benefits would never expire--assuming I remained
    unmarried until the age of 55. I remember thinking that wouldn't be a
    problem. I couldn't see past the grief and despair of the fresh loss to
    consider that someday in the future I might meet someone who could make
    my life--and my sons' lives--beautiful again. And yet, that's exactly
    where I find myself today.

        ``In March 2022, I met Cally, a man who helped me see the beauty of
    life again. He allowed space for the legacy of my late husband. Cally
    and I struggled with how to move forward together, knowing the severe
    financial repercussions we would face upon marrying. Because we are
    both Christians who are dedicated to having God at the center of our
    relationship, and because we believe marriage is a holy covenant that
    we want to model for our combined six children, Cally and I made the
    choice to accept the financial penalty and were married on December 31,
    2023. I am no longer eligible to receive DIC or the SBP that my late
    husband invested in to provide for our needs.

        ``For the 20 years my late husband served, our sons have been my
    priority. Matt and I always had the belief that one parent should be
    wholly available to our kids at all times. In the years of deployments,
    work-ups, and training, I sacrificed my career goals to support him and
    to raise our two amazing sons. And now, as a result of his death, I
    find myself at 50 years old starting over again--not just in a
    relationship, but also in a career.

        ``In spite of our tremendous loss, under current law, the U.S.
    Government, the Department of Defense, and Veterans Affairs will be
    free and clear of any responsibility to the family of the late Lt Col
    John (Matt) Kincade when our youngest son turns 22.''

    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. 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 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
    that if I didn't marry him or kick him out of my home, I would lose my
    ability 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 of this, he is willing to wait until we are in our
    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, the spouse will
    receive as much as half of the soldier's retirement. That same spouse
    can remarry and maintain their share of 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 has 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 earned 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.''

    Kellie Hazlett, Surviving Spouse of Capt Mark Nickles U.S. Marine Corps

        ``My husband, a United States Marine Corps F-18 pilot, died in a
    training accident while deployed to Japan in 1997 on my 30th birthday.
    He is still considered Missing in Action because they were never able
    to recover his remains. I had to move out of our home in San Diego
    within 6 weeks of his death because I could not afford to maintain the
    payments on our rental without his paycheck, so I moved back home to be
    a caregiver to my mother. I could no longer continue my career in the
    medical field due to the trauma of losing my husband and had to start
    over.

        ``Eventually I met my now husband, Steve, but I hesitated to
    remarry as I was dependent on the financial benefits that helped offset
    my own lost income as a military and surviving spouse. Mark and I never
    had the chance to start a family, and it was important to me that when
    Steve and I did, we were legally married. We now have three beautiful
    children.

        ``I was recently diagnosed with a long-term illness, and my
    treatments are not covered by insurance as they are viewed as
    experimental. Restoring my survivor benefits, that Mark and I paid
    into, would go a long way in helping offset the very expensive costs of
    my treatments. As I am 57 years old, I could divorce Steve, reinstate
    my benefits, and remarry him the next day because of the arbitrary
    remarriage age of 55. This is something that I have seriously
    considered, due to the unfair penalty.''

        Linda Ambard Rickard, Surviving Spouse of MAJ Phil Ambard, U.S.
    Army

        ``I became a widow just before my 50th birthday when my husband of
    23 years, Major Phil Ambard, was killed in Kabul, Afghanistan, in a
    mass shooting that left eight airmen and one civilian dead. For over
    two decades, we had moved every 2 to 4 years. While I had multiple
    master's degrees and a teaching license, I never progressed beyond
    probation/provisional status at my jobs because we were never in any
    one place long enough. I never got too attached to a home, people, or a
    job because everything was so temporary.

        ``When I became a widow, I didn't know where to move. I hadn't
    lived back home in Idaho since 1979. I was too old to go live with my
    mom and dad, and too young to live with my children, four of whom were
    in the military. It took me years to get my feet on the ground.

        ``I didn't date for many years because I just couldn't. At 57, I
    met the man who would become my husband. I married him just after my
    60th birthday. While I maintain my survivor benefits and survivor
    social security, due to my age, I had to give up TRICARE even though I
    now qualify for CHAMPVA. It is ridiculous that younger widows and
    widowers lose everything with remarriage; there is a big difference
    with the magic age of 55.''

    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 6 months later.
    After multiple moves, he 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 exposure to the burn pits while deployed. 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.''

    CARING FOR SURVIVORS ACT OF 2023 (H.R. 1083)

    (TAPS Strongly Supports)

        TAPS and the survivor community have supported increasing
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) for many years. We are
    grateful to Congresswoman Jahana Hayes (D-CT-5) and Congressman Brian
    Fitzpatrick (R-PA-1), and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman
    Jon Tester (D-MT) and Senator John Boozman (R-AR) for reintroducing the
    Caring for Survivors Act of 2023 (H.R. 1083).
        Passing this important legislation is a top priority for The
    Military Coalition (TMC) Survivor Committee, co-chaired by TAPS. TMC
    consists of 35 organizations representing more than 5.5 million members
    of the uniformed services--active, reserve, retired, survivors,
    veterans, and their families.
        TAPS remains committed to improving DIC and providing equity with
    other Federal benefits. We continue to work with Congress to:

          Pass the Caring for Survivors Act of 2023.

          Increase DIC from 43 percent to 55 percent of the
    compensation rate paid to a 100 percent disabled veteran.

          Reduce the timeframe a veteran needs to be rated totally
    disabled from 10 to 5 years, allowing more survivors to become eligible
    for DIC benefits.

        More than 505,000 survivors receive DIC from the Department of
    Veterans Affairs (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.
        The current monthly DIC rate for eligible surviving spouses is
    $1,612.75 (Dec. 1, 2023), which has only increased due to Cost-of-
    Living Adjustments (COLA). TAPS is working to raise DIC from 43 percent
    to 55 percent of the compensation rate paid to a 100 percent disabled
    veteran; ensure the DIC base rate is increased equally; and protect
    added monthly amounts, like the 8-year provision and Aid and
    Attendance.
        The following statements from survivors demonstrate that stringent
    limitations on DIC payments have financial and widespread impacts on
    housing, transportation, utilities, clothing, food, medical care,
    recreation, and employment for surviving families:

    Katie Hubbard, Surviving Spouse of CSM James Hubbard Jr., U.S. Army

        ``Due to his status at the time of my husband's death, the only
    financial benefit we are eligible for is DIC. CSM James W. Hubbard Jr.
    died May 21, 2009, while in treatment for leukemia caused by the burn
    pits in Iraq. Having your income cut by more than 60 percent while
    trying to navigate funeral costs, bills that aren't stopping, and
    unexpected ambulance and ER charges nearly took me out too.

        ``My mental health was not conducive to returning to the workplace
    quickly after being his caregiver and dealing with the unexpected loss,
    yet I had to figure out something to make up the income or lose our
    home too. My future, my best friend, and my normal were gone. While a
    12 percent increase doesn't seem like much, any widow living paycheck
    to paycheck can tell you it is.

        ``The military is a Federal entity, yet their survivors are treated
    less than. Passing the Caring for Survivors Act would show military
    widows that their spouse and themselves are cared for and not
    forgotten.''

    MaryAnne Kerr, Surviving Spouse of GySgt Cory Kerr, U.S. Marine Corps

        ``The money that I receive from DIC has allowed me to stay at home
    to care for my children full-time. However, an increase will be very
    beneficial due to my new role as the sole provider for my children. The
    loss of my husband and children's father has been very hard on our
    family and especially hard on my daughter. She is not only dealing with
    the loss of her father but the trauma she endured while he was battling
    with the effects of combat trauma. There have been incidents at school
    where she had to be picked up and could not return until cleared by her
    therapist. An increase in DIC will be greatly appreciated and allow us
    to continue to heal from the trauma and death of our loved one, free
    from financial burden.''

    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 past few years have been financially
    draining with supply chain issues, inflation, and the loss of a vehicle
    due to an uninsured driver.

        ``It is time to increase DIC in 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 for my children with carefree abandon.
    Moreover, putting us level with other survivor groups is the right
    thing to do.''

    Jackie Ferguson, Surviving Spouse of SGT James Ferguson, U.S. Army

        ``I completed my degree before my husband joined the Army. It was a
    blessing I finished. We moved several times before he passed, but I
    found it very difficult to obtain a position using my degree. It seemed
    no one was interested in hiring me because we would be moving
    constantly. In order to work in my field, I drove every day from Fort
    Sill, Oklahoma, to Oklahoma City, which is over an hour each way. I
    think that raising the DIC to 55 percent would help me offset the
    earning potential I have lost due to unemployment and underemployment
    during my husband's service.''

    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.''

    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.''

    PRIORITIZING VETERANS' SURVIVORS ACT (H.R. 7100)

    (TAPS Strongly Supports)

        TAPS appreciates Congressman Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ-06) and House
    Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Bost's (R-IL-12) many
    expressions of strong support for the community of military and veteran
    survivors, the most recent being their introduction of the Prioritizing
    Veterans' Survivors Act (H.R. 7100), which would return the Office of
    Survivor Assistance organizationally to its previous location within
    the Office of the VA Secretary. Additionally, we are grateful to the
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for recently holding a Survivor
    Summit to gain valuable insight and input from survivors and survivor-
    focused organizations to enhance VA services for survivors enterprise-
    wide.
        The Office of Survivor Assistance (OSA) was established in 2008 in
    recognition of the sacred obligation the Nation has to the survivors of
    military service members and veterans. Its director was to serve as a
    principal advisor to the VA Secretary on policies impacting military
    service members' and veterans' survivors, and to serve as a resource
    for surviving family members regarding the benefits, care, and memorial
    services provided across the entire department.
        Unfortunately, this office has been relocated several times over
    the past 15 years--moved from within the Office of the Secretary under
    the Chief of Staff to the Veteran Experience Office; then to the
    Veterans Benefits Administration, where it was placed in the Office of
    Outreach, Transition and Economic Development; and then recently moved
    under the Pension and Fiduciary Service in June 2023. These moves have
    made it very difficult for survivors to understand its role, find
    needed information on resources, and access all the department's
    support with reliable consistency.
        While the Department of Defense (DOD) is able to use existing
    contact information to reach out to grieving families in the event of
    the death of an active-duty service member to ensure that they have
    access to the comprehensive support provided by both the DOD and the
    VA, the VA lacks a similar proactive capability. Prior to the death of
    their veteran, family members are generally not known to the VA because
    they are not receiving benefits or services. Thus, following a
    veteran's death, the burden falls on grieving families to identify,
    interpret, apply for, and comply with the complex eligibility
    requirements and siloed administration of benefits, care, and memorial
    services across one of the largest agencies in the government.
        Despite the best intentions of Congress and the VA leadership and
    employees, the multiple ongoing navigation challenges survivors must
    manage across their survivor journey too often become confusing,
    frustrating, and unmanageable, and many fail to even access the much-
    needed assistance available to them.
        For example, surviving spouses are expected to find and use the
    same entry points for information as veterans. Regrettably, survivors
    tell us that calls to the general helpline can result in inaccurate
    information, and some have even been told that they are ineligible for
    benefits during their initial call. Survivors share this experience
    with one another, and the unfortunate result is that they become less
    willing to turn to the VA for assistance. This is harmful to the
    survivor, and it undermines trust in the VA among the community it
    serves. Although survivors represent only 1 percent of those receiving
    VA services, it is essential that all VA staff they may come in contact
    with have the same willing spirit of customer service that the
    department's motto expresses so clearly.
        From the perspective of the community, OSA would be the logical
    entry point or ``front door'' to access VA assistance, but far too many
    survivors don't even know it exists. It falls on organizations like
    TAPS to inform them of all the VA resources they may be eligible for
    and to reach out to OSA on their behalf.
        The frequent moves of OSA and its minimal staffing appear to the
    survivor community to reflect a less than full understanding of the
    comprehensive nature of their needs and willingness to support their
    access to the full range of care, benefits, and memorial services that
    they so desperately need at a most difficult time in their lives.
        In its current placement within Pension and Fiduciary Services, the
    department is operating OSA as if the only benefits survivors receive
    are related to compensation. Currently, OSA staff only have access to
    DIC and Pension records, therefore they are unable to assist with many
    issues survivors face, to include burial benefits, education benefits,
    CHAMPVA, Survivors Group Life Insurance, home loans, or additional
    programs and benefits survivors are eligible to receive enterprise-
    wide, to include the new VHA Survivors Assistance and Memorial Support
    (SAMS) program. OSA appears not to have the authority and full range of
    case management coordination processes in place to ensure that they can
    help survivors access all of the care and memorial services available
    in other administrations within the VA.
        With more than 505,000 survivors currently eligible for DIC, OSA
    staffing should be significantly increased to better serve surviving
    families. OSA should be the official entry point into VA for survivors,
    with the authority, bandwidth, expertise, and access needed to answer
    any and all challenges that survivors face regarding VA benefits and
    services. There should also be a dedicated survivor helpline within the
    Veterans Call Center to provide access to trained agents with the
    knowledge to address survivor issues. We applaud VA for implementing an
    education-specific helpline for survivors in 2019, which has been a
    huge success.
        The limited awareness among survivors regarding OSA highlights the
    need for VA to more effectively communicate and promote this essential
    survivor program. TAPS strongly believes that OSA should be elevated to
    the Office of the Secretary or the Office of the Under Secretary for
    Benefits and granted the necessary authority and access to all programs
    and services survivors are eligible to receive.
        TAPS is committed to working with Congress and the VA to ensure
    that the organizational placement, staffing, and department-wide
    connectivity are in place to enable OSA to serve as the ``front door''
    for the department and the advocate for the increasing number of
    surviving veteran families seeking access to all VA benefits, care, and
    memorial services.

    Melissa Alex, Surviving Spouse of SSGT Eugene Alex, U.S. Army

        ``The Office of Survivor Assistance was established in 2008 to
    serve as an outreach regarding benefits and services for our families.
    I didn't know for years that they existed. I found out only because I
    am a service provider with the Michigan National Guard, not because
    they reached out to me and my children personally!''

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

        ``My husband passed in 2017 and I had never heard of OSA until
    learning about them from TAPS. I had to Google the Office of Survivor
    Assistance to find out about their services. Without that search, I
    would not be able to tell you anything about OSA, not even who they're
    affiliated with. I'm still a little hazy as to what role they may be
    able to play in supporting me and my children.''

    SURVIVOR BENEFITS DELIVERY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2024 (H.R. 7150)

    (TAPS Strongly Supports with Further Recommendation)

        TAPS appreciates House Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member
    Mark Takano (D-CA-39) for introducing the Survivor Benefits Delivery
    Improvement Act of 2024 (H.R. 7170), which would improve equitable
    access to certain benefits of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
    for survivors of veterans, through the collection of demographic data,
    and would improve outreach services to individuals who served in the
    uniformed services, their dependents, and survivors.
        In addition to collecting demographic data, TAPS recommends adding
    ``Cause of Death'' as a tracked demographic. This data would be
    incredibly important to understand the different types of losses
    survivors face as well as creating programming and resources that are
    relevant for all survivors.
        The lack of data collection based on the cause of death has also
    led to issues with the implementation of the PACT Act. For example, the
    VA estimates there are 382,000 potential survivors who may be eligible
    for PACT-related benefits, but this number includes all manners of
    death, including those who died of old age, by suicide, or in car
    accidents, not just those filing claims related to toxic exposure. This
    helps explain why after extensive outreach by the VA and organizations
    like TAPS, more survivors have not applied for PACT-related benefits.
    Unfortunately, the potential survivor numbers have also informed the
    Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) scoring of current survivor
    legislation, such as the Love Lives On Act and Caring for Survivors
    Act, almost doubling the cost and creating exorbitant scores, making it
    difficult to find funding.
        The Survivor Benefits Delivery Improvement Act of 2024, would also
    require an assessment of the resources of the VA Office of Survivors
    Assistance (OSA) and the development of a strategy to ensure the
    availability of these necessary resources. TAPS strongly supports the
    development of such a strategy, and will continue to work in
    partnership with the VA to ensure that survivor needs are included in
    this discussion.

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

    (TAPS Strongly Supports)

        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 Dependency and Indemnity
    Compensation (DIC). The current monthly DIC rate for eligible surviving
    spouses is $1,612.75 (Dec. 1, 2023), which has only increased due to
    Cost-of-Living-Adjustments (COLA).
        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,
    providing parity with other Federal survivor programs.
        More than 505,000 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.

    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.''

    FAIRNESS FOR SERVICEMEMBERS AND THEIR FAMILIES ACT OF 2023 (H.R. 2911)

        (TAPS Supports With Further Recommendation)

        TAPS thanks Congresswoman Marilyn Strickland (D-WA-10) for
    introducing the Fairness for Servicemembers and their Families Act of
    2023 (H.R. 2911), which would require the Department of Veterans
    Affairs to periodically review the automatic maximum coverage under the
    Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) program and the Veterans'
    Group Life Insurance program (VGLI).
        While TAPS appreciates the importance of periodically reviewing the
    automatic maximum coverage, TAPS would ideally like to see both the
    SGLI and VGLI fully tied to Cost-of-Living-Adjustments (COLA) and
    inflation to ensure it stays at the intended rate long term. This would
    prevent it from continuing to fall behind the intended rates without
    Congress having to repeatedly increase the maximum amount. While it was
    increased from $400,000 to $500,000 in 2023, it has already fallen
    behind due to inflation.

    MEDICAL DISABILITY EXAMINATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2024 (Discussion
    Draft)

    (TAPS Supports)

        TAPS thanks House Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member Takano
    for introducing the Medical Disability Examination Improvement Act of
    2024. This important legislation would improve medical nexus
    examinations for claims associated with toxic exposure risk activities
    (TERA) for covered veterans and seek to improve Department of Veterans
    Affairs (VA) medical disability examinations for rural veterans. It
    would also require additional training for VA employees who process or
    review medical disability examinations.
        This legislation would also allow the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
    to provide each claimant with another examination and priority
    processing for the impacted claim if the Secretary finds any covered
    medical disability examination to be not adequate for adjudicating a
    claim.
        By improving the medical nexus examination claims process for TERA,
    more veterans will be able to access critical VA benefits, positively
    impacting their lives, and improving the financial well-being of their
    families, caregivers, and survivors.

    TOXIC EXPOSURES EXAMINATION IMPROVEMENT ACT (Discussion Draft)

    (TAPS Supports)

        TAPS thanks the committee for introducing the Toxic Exposures
    Examination Improvement Act, which would provide a veteran with a
    medical examination in connection with certain claims for disability
    compensation under the laws administered by the Department of Veterans
    Affairs (VA).
        By amending the current language from ``such evidence is not
    sufficient to establish a service-connection for the disability'' and
    inserting ``such evidence does not contain sufficient medical evidence
    for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim,'' would provide a
    toxic-exposed veteran the opportunity for a medical examination in the
    claims process for disability compensation.
        This important legislation would allow more veterans to potentially
    establish a service connection for disability, and secure disability
    compensation for themselves and their families, and Dependency and
    Indemnity Compensation (DIC) for their survivors.

    CLEAR COMMUNICATION FOR VETERANS CLAIMS ACT (Discussion Draft)

        (TAPS Supports)

        TAPS expresses gratitude to the committee for introducing the Clear
    Communication for Veterans Claims Act, which proposes that the
    Secretary of Veterans Affairs collaborate with a federally funded
    research and development center to evaluate notice letters sent to
    claimants for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary, among
    other purposes. The primary objectives of this evaluation are as
    follows.

            1. Assess whether modifications to the letters could decrease
            paper usage and costs incurred by the Federal Government.

            2. Enhance the clarity, organization, and conciseness of
            notices and letters to claimants in accordance with the laws
            administered by the Secretary.

        TAPS is of the opinion that veterans, their families, caregivers,
    and survivors would derive significant benefits from receiving clearer
    communication from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), with legal
    disclaimers positioned at the conclusion of all notices. It is believed
    that this approach would contribute to a reduction in appeals and an
    increase in the accurate processing of claims for all veterans,
    caregivers, and survivors.
        Should the involvement of a third-party entity be deemed beneficial
    in simplifying language while ensuring compliance with all relevant
    laws, TAPS fully supports this notion. Ensuring that our veterans,
    families, caregivers, and survivors comprehend the requests made by the
    VA, and more importantly, providing accurate information to survivors,
    while ensuring they understand what the letters mean for them in a
    practical sense.

    CONCLUSION

        TAPS thanks the leadership of the House Committee on Veterans'
    Affairs, Disability and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee, distinguished
    members, and professional staff for convening this important hearing to
    address key veteran and survivor legislation introduced in the 118th
    Congress. TAPS is honored to testify on behalf of the thousands of
    veteran and military surviving families we serve.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of Christopher Macinkowicz

        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 testimony with regard to this pending
    legislation.

    H.R. 1083, Caring for Survivors Act of 2023

        The VFW has been advocating for many components of this legislation
    for several years and strongly supports its swift passage. The rate of
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) paid to the survivors of
    service members who died in the line of duty or to veterans who died
    from service-related injuries or illnesses has only minimally increased
    since the benefit was created in 1993. Currently, DIC is paid at 43
    percent of 100 percent permanent and total disability while all other
    Federal survivor programs are paid at 55 percent. This legislation
    would increase DIC to 55 percent, finally reaching parity with other
    Federal agencies.

    H.R. 2911, Fairness for Servicemembers and their Families Act of 2023

        In 2021, the VFW advocated for the Servicemembers' Group Life
    Insurance (SGLI) and Veterans' Group Life Insurance (VGLI) maximum
    payouts to be increased from $400,000 to $500,000 to reflect inflation
    and the cost of living. This change was passed as part of the
    Supporting Families of the Fallen Act in October 2022 and came into
    effect on March 1, 2023. Before this increase, the maximum had not been
    increased since 2005. The VFW supports the Fairness for Servicemembers
    and their Families Act of 2023 to require VA to review the maximum
    coverage for both SGLI and VGLI every 3 years. Service members and
    their families should have peace of mind when selecting either of these
    insurance policies and anticipating what their needs might be in the
    event of the individual's passing while considering overall rising
    costs over time due to inflation.

    H.R. 3651, Love Lives On Act of 2023

        As a resolutions-based Veterans Service Organization (VSO), the VFW
    does not have a position on whether survivors should retain their
    benefits upon remarriage. There are, however, provisions within this
    legislation that the VFW supports.
        We support updating the definition of surviving spouse within title
    38 of the United States Code. The last time the definition was updated
    was in 1962 and much has changed in the last sixty years. The change
    would remove the currently restrictive language that describes a
    surviving spouse as a person of the opposite sex to be more in line
    with current law that allows for same-sex marriages. The change also
    strikes the wording that states a surviving spouse may not live with
    another person or hold themselves out to be married. Survivors should
    not fear that living with another person could cause them to lose their
    benefits. This is outdated language that should be updated to reflect
    the marriage requirements of the current era.
        The VFW supports eliminating the time limit for surviving spouses
    to use the Fry Scholarship. Following the death of their service
    members, surviving spouses may not be in the position to use this
    important education benefit for several years since they may suddenly
    be faced with finding stable employment, housing, child care or other
    critical needs. Survivors should be able to use this benefit without
    time limits.
        The VFW also supports a surviving spouse regaining TRICARE benefits
    if the individual remarries and that marriage later ends. A survivor
    who remarries but that marriage later ends can regain DIC and Survivor
    Benefit Plan payments. TRICARE benefits to which unmarried survivors
    are entitled should be reinstated if their future marriages end in
    order to have parity with other survivor benefits.

    H.R. 7100, Prioritizing Veterans' Survivors Act

        The VFW supports this legislation that relocates the Office of
    Survivors Assistance (OSA) from its current placement in the Veterans
    Benefits Administration to the Office of the Secretary of the
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). As the large cohorts of Vietnam
    and then Gulf War veterans age and die, demand for OSA services will
    significantly rise. Survivors who may not be familiar with the military
    or VA will have to successfully navigate a bureaucratic process to
    access benefits while simultaneously coping with grief, significant
    upheaval, and loss of income. In this context, VA must robustly
    resource and optimally locate OSA to ensure maximum beneficial effect.

    H.R. 7150, Survivor Benefits Delivery Improvement Act of 2024

        The VFW supports this bill that would establish a data-informed
    survivors education and outreach program. Focused outreach using
    demographic data to confirm survivors most in need is a smart and
    efficient practice that would enable VA to best use its limited
    resources to accurately disseminate critical information, particularly
    in regard to immediately needed burial benefits. Also, the VFW
    wholeheartedly endorses Section 3's proactive, personal, and multi--
    media ``Survivor Solid Start Act of 2024'' in which VA would maintain a
    quarterly outreach to each eligible dependent until that person files a
    claim for a benefit. A particularly attractive feature is VA assisting
    survivors with accessing accredited representatives to file claims.
    This action would aid survivors coping with the loss of loved ones to
    fulfill basic needs as soon as possible, and hopefully debunk common
    misconceptions about VA benefits. For example, based on previous
    testimony, VFW Service Officers report that some survivors do not
    realize their deceased loved ones' VA benefits are not transferrable,
    resulting in a loss of income when the survivors start receiving lower
    DIC amounts. Last, the VFW supports the explicit mention of call center
    manning levels to facilitate this outreach and education plan, implying
    VA would ensure the program has adequate resources.

    H.R. 7777, Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2024

        Every year Congress introduces legislation to make cost-of-living
    adjustments to the rates of disability compensation for veterans with
    service-connected disabilities, and to the rates for DIC for survivors.
    These increases are the same percentage as that for Social Security
    benefits. The VFW supports this legislation that would provide
    automatic increases in the rates for these benefits when increases are
    made for Social Security each year. This would provide a guarantee to
    veterans and survivors that their payments would always be aligned to
    counteract inflation. We are grateful for the bipartisan and bicameral
    commitment to making sure cost of living is addressed each year, but we
    recommend this process be automatic to eliminate the need for
    subsequent legislation.

    H.R. 7793, Veterans Appeals Options Expansion Act of 2024

        The VFW supports this bill, with a few recommendations, to expand
    claimants' options during the appeals process and to research the most
    common reasons for appeals at the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA).
    While working as a VFW Appeals Consultant, I often worked with veterans
    who would have directly benefited from this legislation. When reviewing
    records in preparation for a hearing or informal presentation, it was
    not uncommon to find that the veteran had other appeals pending that
    were not allowed to be discussed during the upcoming hearing because
    they were not part of the original appeal. This resulted in unnecessary
    delays and frustration for everyone involved. This legislation would
    allow BVA to combine appeals and honor the original appeal's docket
    date, which would create a more efficient appeals process overall.
        The VFW also supports the intent behind authorizing appellants to
    switch dockets or withdraw an issue within a claim as long as the claim
    has not been assigned to whomever is writing the decision at BVA.
    However, we feel this is a little unclear because the deadline can be
    moved based on workload at BVA or the speed of the individual working
    the claim. We recommend setting a more definitive deadline for
    switching BVA dockets.
        Finally, the VFW supports effective notification and also believes
    that veterans should not be penalized for not understanding the complex
    laws of the VA claims process. This law provides authorization for VA
    to treat claims filed on the wrong form as an Intent to File, and
    requires BVA to notify claimants if their evidence was received after
    the submission deadline. Both of these provisions would offer veterans
    a second chance if they make mistakes while trying to navigate the
    appeals process.

    H.R. 7816, Clear Communication for Veterans Claims Act

        The VFW supports this proposal to streamline communication and
    messaging from VA. One of the primary challenges veterans encounter
    when reviewing their disability notification letters is the intricate
    language and terminology used. Legal jargon and medical terms can be
    overwhelming, especially for those without a background in law or
    medicine. This complexity often leads to confusion and frustration,
    hindering veterans from grasping the full scope of their benefits and
    entitlements.
        Far too often, accredited representatives spend a great deal of
    time explaining letters that make sense to the trained eye, but not to
    anyone else. The VA disability system involves a multitude of
    regulations, policies, and procedures. Unfortunately, these guidelines
    can be subject to interpretation, resulting in inconsistencies in
    notification letters. Veterans often find it challenging to reconcile
    the information presented with their own experiences, leading to
    uncertainty about the accuracy of the provided details.
        Understanding the full spectrum of benefits associated with a
    disability rating is another hurdle for veterans. The notification
    letter may mention various forms of compensation, health care coverage,
    and vocational rehabilitation, but veterans may struggle to connect
    these pieces of information and effectively access the services to
    which they are entitled. This lack of clarity can impede veterans'
    ability to make informed decisions about their health care and overall
    well--being.

    Discussion Draft, Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act of 2024

        Since the creation of the VA National Work Queue (NWQ) in 2016, VFW
    accredited representatives have seen numerous instances of claims and
    appeals that have been sent to the NWQ where they stagnate unassigned
    and unworked by VA staff. In a recent VA meeting with VSOs, it was
    stated that it is not uncommon for a claim to still be untouched in the
    NWQ 6 months after submission. Unfortunately, it is also a common
    occurrence with remanded BVA claims. With this proposed legislation,
    the VA Secretary would be required to track claims electronically,
    submit an annual report, and provide notice to veterans of the reasons
    why their claims are still waiting in the NWQ.
        The VFW supports this intent, but feels there needs to be more
    guidance in regard to the actual method and delivery of the
    notifications to veterans. During the claims process, veterans are
    often inundated with different notifications from VA that can be
    confusing, overwhelming, and repetitive. Simply adding another
    notification to the veteran that the claim is pending will not solve
    the underlying issue of why the claim is waiting in the NWQ. Therefore,
    we recommend that any notifications created as a result of this
    legislation be reviewed and offered for comment by accredited VSOs to
    ensure that the messaging is clear and effective.
        The VFW also supports improvements to BVA and the United States
    Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). This bill expands the
    ability of BVA and CAVC to decide appeals in a few ways. First, it
    allows BVA to bypass the remand process if additional evidence is
    received after a BVA decision has been made if that evidence would
    satisfy the appeal. This idea is beneficial as it would prevent
    unnecessary remands, but there is no indication as to the timeframe in
    which the evidence would need to be received before BVA would remand
    the appeal. We recommend that the bill be amended to include a
    timeframe for BVA to receive new evidence before remanding the claim.
        Additionally, the bill allows BVA to submit a request to the VA
    Office of General Council for an opinion if there is a question of law
    during an appeal. The VFW supports this as it would allow legal
    questions to be addressed without the need for an appeal to CAVC. Also
    included in this bill are provisions to allow BVA to aggregate appeals
    if they involve similar laws. While this may be beneficial in some
    cases, we must ensure that BVA does not sacrifice the accuracy of the
    decision in order to combine claims for efficiency.
        Finally, this bill also authorizes CAVC to perform an
    administrative review of eligible claims upon request of the claimant.
    The VFW supports this as well, provided that it does not create an
    unnecessary backlog of appeals.
        The VFW supports transparency and research and believes that a
    study to identify commonly appealed issues would help identify
    potential inefficiencies in the appeals process. The VFW also agrees
    with the requirement for VA to meet with a federally funded research
    and development center (FFRDC) to determine if BVA can issue
    precedential decisions and aggregate claims. However, when this
    assessment takes place, we ask that VA and the FFRDC be cognizant of
    the time it takes to render decisions and ensure that offering
    precedential decisions would not unduly slow down the appeals process.

    Discussion Draft, Medical Disability Examination Improvement Act of
    2024

        The VFW appreciates the intent of this bill to help streamline
    Toxic Exposure Risk Activity (TERA) examinations, but we believe
    Section 2 of this proposed legislation could lead to fewer
    examinations, which would potentially result in missed opportunities to
    identify exposures.
        We are concerned about the proposed language that would limit TERA
    examinations of veterans as identified in Section 1119(c) of title 38,
    United States Code, or anyone else who self-reports. Section 1119
    basically covers veterans who deployed to areas in the Middle East.
    This would exclude countless veterans who had exposures in other areas
    where they served. Additionally, asking veterans who are not on the
    list of areas described in Section 1119 to self-report possible
    exposures could lead to missed identifications.
        The critical component of the TERA examinations was for VA
    providers to probe patients about their possible exposures and try to
    identify areas where there might be risk. We believe this proactive
    approach is more beneficial to veterans because it may draw out
    information regarding risks that were unknown to the veterans.
        However, there are portions of this proposal that we do support,
    such as identifying issues facing rural veterans and improving the
    training for processing medical examinations. We would recommend
    combining the two TERA proposals and taking the best parts of each bill
    to craft comprehensive legislation that would streamline efficiency
    without reducing necessary examinations.

    Discussion Draft, Toxic Exposures Examination Improvement Act

        The VFW believes we should help improve and streamline toxic
    exposure examinations, but we are concerned this proposal would also
    reduce the number of examinations for veterans. The PACT Act
    intentionally set a lower standard for exposure examinations to
    identify as many exposed veterans as possible. This process seeks to
    help identify a nexus through direct service connection and secondary
    service connection. We are concerned that this language change would
    limit veterans seeking service connections by raising the standard for
    examinations.
        We have heard of veterans claiming toxic exposure illnesses due to
    seemingly non-connected issues. However, we believe an examination
    should still be conducted because of VA's duty to assist in order to
    determine possible connection. As unusual as it seems, disabilities
    like tinnitus could be affected by certain exposures to toxins.
    Tinnitus is a neurological condition as well as a hearing condition,
    and toxins can affect our neurological systems. At face value there
    might not be an obvious connection with issues like tinnitus and toxic
    exposure, which is why examinations can be beneficial. An examiner may
    not grant an examination if this language were passed into law.
        The VFW is encouraged by both proposals that seek to strengthen the
    TERA examination process. We look forward to working together in a
    bipartisan manner to hopefully produce a comprehensive TERA reform bill
    that would benefit all veterans and reduce inefficiencies.

    Discussion Draft, Veterans Claims Quality Improvement Act of 2024

        The VFW supports this legislation that would provide much needed
    training and oversight for those deciding VA claims. However, the
    addition of more oversight often comes with delays in timeliness if the
    program is not properly funded. This bill instructs the General Council
    to review each updated VA regulation, and to develop and administer a
    training program to ensure that those writing the regulations are
    properly trained. It also instructs BVA to create a training and
    quality assurance program. While training and oversight is essential,
    without proper funding for these programs, the development and
    execution could be severely impacted thus limiting the effectiveness of
    these programs.
        As the former director for training and quality assurance in VFW
    National Veterans Service, I am keenly aware of how quickly and often
    VA regulations change as well as the need to ensure that updated
    regulations are understood by those who use them. Recently, I was
    representing a veteran who had a claim for service connection for a
    mental health condition denied by VA. The veteran had claimed post-
    traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on the initial application for
    benefits. However, during his compensation and pension examination the
    examiner diagnosed him with a different mental health condition and
    provided a medical opinion linking the condition to his active military
    service. A VA rating officer denied the claim because the veteran did
    not have PTSD.
        According to VA's M21-1 Manual, ``It is impermissible to limit the
    scope of the claim for SC to the claimant's lay hypothesis about the
    nature of a specific mental disorder disability. Because the Veteran is
    reasonably requesting benefits for symptoms of a mental disorder but is
    not competent to medically identify such symptoms, it is insufficient
    for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to simply deny benefits for
    the claimed diagnosis and not address evidence in the record of other
    mental disorder diagnoses, as indicated in Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet.
    App. 1 (2009).'' Though the referenced CAVC case and the regulation
    both state that the rater was supposed to consider all mental health
    diagnoses of record, without proper training and plain language this
    regulation can easily confuse a VA Rating Veterans Service
    Representative and result in an unnecessary appeal.
        Chairman Luttrell and Ranking Member Pappas, this concludes my
    testimony. I am happy to answer any questions you 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 2024, 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 Andrew Tangen

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas, and distinguished members
    of the Subcommittee, the National Association of County Veteran Service
    Officers, commonly referred to as NACVSO, would like to thank you for
    the opportunity to submit our views on pending legislation impacting
    the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that is before the
    Subcommittee.
        NACVSO is a unique organization in that all our elected or
    appointed leaders and most of our members are currently serving as VA
    accredited representatives--working as Government Veteran Service
    Officers (GVSOs) in the field every day to help America's Veterans and
    their dependents access the benefits they earned with their service.
    Once again, it is our honor to share with you the issues that are
    important to NACVSO.

    Veterans Appeals Options Expansion Act of 2024

        NACVSO supports the proposed legislation's goal of removing
    barriers for Veterans that were inadvertently created under AMA.
        Although Public Law 115-55, Veterans Appeals Improvement and
    Modernization Act of 2017 (hereinafter AMA) greatly improved Veterans'
    and advocates' ability to challenge initial benefit eligibility
    determinations, a number of issues became apparent during the
    implementation of the AMA.
        A primary challenge with the AMA is how supplemental claims are
    processed when there is an unintentional or clerical error in form
    filing. Take for example, a Veteran from the Vietnam era, who filed an
    initial claim for hearing loss in 1972 with the Veterans Benefits
    Administration (hereinafter VBA), which the VBA denied in 1972. Decades
    later, that same Veteran has progressive hearing loss and inadvertently
    submits another initial claim form for hearing loss instead of a
    supplemental claim form, as historical evidence of the first claim from
    1972 is unavailable to the Veteran or their advocate at the time of
    submission. When VA receives the new claim submission, it correctly
    identifies that the Veteran previously filed a claim for hearing loss
    and informs the Veteran by mail that he or she used the wrong form. The
    Veteran then correctly submits a supplemental claim form to VBA, and
    the effective date for the Veteran, in many instances, becomes the date
    that VBA receives the correct form, not the date when the Veteran
    actually notified VA of his intent to file, but inadvertently used the
    wrong form. Since it takes several months or, in some cases, even years
    for VA to notify Veterans of clerical errors in form filing, many
    Veterans lose out on benefits they should have been entitled to simply
    because of a clerical error. This also increases the number of appeals
    to the Board of Veterans Appeals (hereinafter Board).
        AMA made other changes to the VBA claims adjudication process that
    have slowed benefits delivery to eligible Veterans. Under AMA, when a
    claim is remanded and returned by the Board to the VA Regional Office
    for additional follow-up, it can be denied at the Regional Office and
    ultimately end up back at the Board. When this happens, Veterans' cases
    are placed in a ``queue'' in which any judge on the Board may be
    assigned to review the decision. Under the prior system, the same judge
    who initially remanded the case would review and render a decision on
    the case when it is returned to the Board. Under the AMA, the judge who
    conducted the initial hearing, and who likely has the best
    understanding of the case, is now unlikely to be the same judge to
    review the new determination of the Regional Office. Further, Veterans
    who find themselves returning to the Board do not receive priority for
    new decisions; some Veterans have waited over 2 years for a decision on
    the return of their case to the Board under AMA.

    Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act of 2024 and the Veterans Claims Quality
    Improvement Act of 2024

        NACVSO supports the proposed legislation's overall goals of
    improving Board decisions and VBA compliance with those decisions,
    expanding the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims,
    and requiring notice for reasons for deferrals and assigned suspense
    dates for further actions on claims pending adjudication. However,
    NACVSO does not believe that allowing the Board to issue precedential
    decisions is in keeping with the non-adversarial nature of initial
    appeals before the Board. NACVSO believes that each appeal at the Board
    should be evaluated on its own merit and set of facts and conditions.
        An AMA Summit hosted by The Board and VBA on 6-7 February 2024,
    brought to light many of the current challenges with Board decisions
    and VBA compliance. At this summit, the Board informed participants
    that between 1 October 2023 and 6 February 2024, there were 20,381
    reasons for remands from the Board to VBA. Fifty-two percent (52
    percent) of these remands (10,607) dealt with errors, omissions, or
    inadequacy in the required forensic examinations that Veterans must
    complete in order to receive a decision on their claim for benefits.
        As an example, GVSOs have seen situations where a Veteran with an
    established history of receiving treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress
    (PTS) at a VA medical center was denied benefits because the VBA
    forensic examiner determined, despite having the treatment records,
    that the Veteran not only does not have PTS, but also no mental health
    diagnosis. Upon appeal to the Board, these cases are currently remanded
    to the VBA for a new examination to determine whether the Veteran has
    PTS again, rather than the Board relying on medical evidence of a
    diagnosis, granting PTS, and remanding to the VBA solely to determine
    severity of the Veteran's PTS. Currently, Veterans who find themselves
    in the appeals repeat loop who have PTS have sometimes had to go
    through multiple forensic examinations, which leaves Veterans feeling
    helpless, unwanted, and untrusted.

    Toxic Exposures Examination Improvement Act and Medical Disability
    Examination Act of 2024

        NACVSO supports both of these proposed pieces of legislation but
    recommends combining the bills and striking Section 2 from the Medical
    Disability Examinations Act of 2024. The Sergeant First Class (SFC)
    Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics
    (PACT) Act of 2022 (Pub. L. 117-168) (hereinafter PACT Act) was a
    lifechanging piece of legislation for so many Veterans who now receive
    services and benefits that were previously not available to them.
    However, its implementation has revealed issues that we believe must be
    urgently addressed. For example, a massive amount of Veterans who have
    filed a claim for benefits since the PACT Act was signed into law are
    having their claims processed under a toxic exposure risk activity
    claim (hereinafter TERA), even if the Veteran did not allege or claim
    TERA when filing for a condition, they believe they are eligible for
    but is not related to toxic exposure. Under the US Code, Veterans
    filing a disability claim must have: 1) an in-service injury or
    disease; 2) a current diagnosis; and 3) a medical nexus connecting the
    two. Further, a Veteran may be awarded benefits under any of the five
    theories of entitlement: 1) direct service connection; 2) aggravation
    of a pre-existing condition; 3) a presumptive condition relating to the
    nature of the Veterans service; 4) a condition deemed secondary, or
    caused by, an already established service connected injury or disease;
    or, 5) due to injuries sustained by the VA (38 U.S.C. Sec.  1151).
        Since passage of the PACT Act, GVSOs have seen situations where
    forensic examiners and VA ratings specialists rely solely on TERA
    claims, and not on the aforementioned entitlement theories in US Code
    for granting benefits. Without official action on the part of Congress
    or the Secretary, overreliance on TERA has created a situation in which
    some VBA employees have, in essence, created a sixth criteria of
    entitlement (e.g., toxic exposure) rather than utilizing TERA as part
    of determining eligibility under the five established theories of
    entitlement.
        Both of the proposed bills are designed to remedy this situation;
    however, under Section 2 of the Medical Disability Examinations Act of
    2024, the change to what constitutes a ``covered Veteran'' to only
    those Veterans who fall under section 1119(c) carries with it an
    unintended consequence. As an example, consider a Veteran who served as
    a heavy equipment operator in Germany during the Vietnam War and who
    was routinely exposed to toxins. Medical studies indicate these
    Veterans carry an increased risk of developing Non-Hodgkins
    Lymphoma.\1\, \2\, \3\ The changes proposed under
    Section 2 of the Medical Disability Examinations Act of 2024 would, in
    essence, preclude this Veteran from being able to prove service
    connection for benefits, even though medical literature shows an
    extremely high likelihood of Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma due to that
    Veteran's military service.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See e.g. Schenk M, Purdue MP, Colt JS, Hartge P, Blair A,
    Stewart P, Cerhan JR, De Roos AJ, Cozen W, Severson RK. Occupation/
    industry and risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the United States. Occup
    Environ Med. 2009 Jan;66(1):23-31. doi: 10.1136/oem.2007.036723. Epub
    2008 Sep 19. PMID: 18805886; PMCID: PMC3051169.
        \2\ See e.g. Mester B, Nieters A, Deeg E, Elsner G, Becker N,
    Seidler A. Occupation and malignant lymphoma: a population based case
    control study in Germany. Occup Environ Med. 2006 Jan;63(1):17-26. doi:
    10.1136/oem.2005.020453. PMID: 16361401; PMCID: PMC2078033.
        \3\ See e.g. Francisco LFV, da Silva RN, Oliveira MA, Dos Santos
    Neto MF, Goncalves IZ, Marques MMC, Silveira HCS. Occupational
    Exposures and Risks of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Meta-Analysis. Cancers
    (Basel). 2023 May 4;15(9):2600. doi: 10.3390/cancers15092600. PMID:
    37174074; PMCID: PMC10177442.

    HR 2911 - Fairness for Servicemembers and their Families Act of 2023
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    and the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2024

        NACVSO supports both H.R. 2911 and the proposed Veterans'
    Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2024.
        Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee, on
    behalf of NACVSO thank you for the opportunity to submit our views on
    some of the bills being considered today. We look forward to working
    with you on this legislation and would be happy to take any questions
    for the record.
                                     ______

                      Prepared Statement of Renee Burbank

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Statements for the Record

                                  ----------

                Prepared Statement of Disabled American Veterans

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas and Members of the
    Subcommittee:

        DAV (Disabled American Veterans) is grateful to provide testimony
    for the record for this legislative hearing concerning 12 different
    pieces of legislation. DAV is a congressionally chartered and
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) accredited veterans service
    organization (VSO). We provide meaningful claims support free of charge
    to more than 1 million veterans, family members, caregivers and
    survivors.
        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 VA
    regional office (VARO) as well as other VA facilities throughout the
    Nation, including the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board).
        We are pleased to provide our views on the bills impacting service-
    disabled veterans, their families and the programs administered by the
    VA that are under consideration by the Subcommittee.

                    H.R. 1083, the Caring for Survivors Act

        Created in 1993, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) is a
    benefit paid to surviving spouses of service members who die in the
    line of duty or veterans who die from service-related injuries or
    diseases. DIC provides surviving families with the means to maintain
    some semblance of economic stability after losing their veteran.

    Increase DIC Rates

        When a veteran receiving compensation passes away, not only does
    the surviving spouse have to deal with the loss of the veteran, they
    also have to contend with the loss of annual income. This loss can be
    devastating, especially if the spouse was also the veteran's caregiver
    and reliant on that compensation as their sole income source.
        Survivors who rely solely on DIC benefits face significant
    financial hardships after the death of their loved one. For example, a
    veteran who is married and receiving compensation at the 100 percent
    rate would be paid $3,946 a month. Once that veteran passes away, the
    survivor would only be eligible to receive $1,612.75 a month, a loss of
    nearly $28,000 a year.
        In contrast, monthly benefits for survivors of Federal civil
    service retirees are calculated as a percentage of the civil service
    retiree's Federal Employees Retirement (FERS) or Civil Service
    Retirement System (CSRS) benefits, up to 55 percent. This difference
    presents an inequity for survivors of our Nation's heroes compared to
    survivors of Federal employees. The death benefit is about $33,000
    annually for Federal employees compared to DIC at $19,353 in 2024.
        The Caring for Survivors Act would increase the rate of
    compensation for DIC to 55 percent of a totally disabled veteran's
    compensation to correspond with what Federal employee survivors
    receive, thus providing parity for veterans' survivors and families.

    Reduce the 10-Year Rule for DIC

        If a veteran is 100 percent disabled, to include unemployable, for
    10 consecutive years before their death, their surviving spouse and
    minor children are eligible for DIC benefits even if the death is not
    considered service connected.
        Conversely, if that veteran dies due to a nonservice-connected
    condition before they reach 10 consecutive years of being totally
    disabled, their dependents are not eligible to receive the DIC benefit.
    This happens even though many surviving spouses put their careers on
    hold to act as primary caregivers for the veteran, and now with the
    loss of their loved one, they could potentially be left destitute. DAV
    believes the requirement of 10 years is arbitrary.
        The Caring for Survivors Act would modify the DIC program and
    institute a partial DIC benefit starting at 5 years after a veteran is
    rated totally disabled and reaching full entitlement at 10 years. This
    would mean if a veteran is rated as totally disabled for 5 years and
    dies, a survivor would be eligible for 50 percent of the total DIC
    benefit, increasing until the 10-year threshold and the maximum DIC
    amount is awarded.
        DAV strongly supports the Caring for Survivors Act, consistent with
    DAV Resolution Nos. 039 and 241. We urge Congress to provide parity for
    DIC compensation in comparison to Federal programs and establish equity
    concerning the current 10-year rule.

       H.R. 2911, the Fairness for Servicemembers and their Families Act

        The Fairness for Servicemembers and their Families Act would
    require the VA to periodically review and report on the maximum
    coverage available under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
    (SGLI) and Veterans' Group Life Insurance (VGLI) programs.
        From 2006 to 2023, the maximum insurance value available for
    servicemembers and veterans remained static, diminishing its value for
    military families affected. H.R. 2911 would improve the financial
    safety net for veterans, servicemembers, and their families by helping
    to ensure coverage amounts for the SGLI and the VGLI account for
    changes in economic trends. Specifically, it would help ensure the
    maximum group insurance available to servicemembers and veterans
    account for rising costs by requiring the Secretary to submit a report
    to Congress indicating the buying power of the current maximum coverage
    against Fiscal Year 2005 dollars using data from the Bureau of Labor
    and Statistics.
        DAV supports the Fairness for Servicemembers and their Families Act
    based on DAV Resolution No. 530, calling for reform to life insurance
    benefits for veterans.

    H.R. 3651, the Love Lives On Act

        The Love Lives On Act would restore payment of dependency and
    indemnity compensation (DIC) to surviving spouses who remarry before
    the age of 55. This legislation would also not allow the termination of
    annuity payments to surviving spouses solely on the basis of them
    remarrying. In the case of a spouse that has remarried prior to the age
    of 55 and before this act becomes law, payments would be resumed. This
    legislation would also entitle a surviving spouse the opportunity to
    use the commissary and exchange stores. H.R. 3651, also expands the
    definition of a surviving spouse and dependent for entitlement to
    certain benefits, to include veterans benefits and Tricare.
        DAV strongly supports the Love Lives On Act in accordance with DAV
    Resolution No. 241. Removing the remarriage age for surviving spouses
    has been a long-standing issue for DAV. Surviving spouses who are
    currently in receipt of DIC benefits should not have to worry about
    losing their benefits if they remarry before age 55.

    H.R. 7100, the Prioritizing Veterans' Survivors Act

        The Office of Survivors Assistance (OSA) was established by Public
    Law 110-389, in October 2008, to serve as a resource regarding all
    benefits and services furnished by VA to survivors and dependents of
    deceased veterans and members of the Armed Forces. Additionally, it
    serves as a principal advisor to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
    working to promote the use of VA benefits, programs, and services to
    survivors while ensuring that they are properly supported as stated in
    VA's mission.
        On January 30, 2024, Josh Jacobs, VA Under Secretary for Benefits,
    testified before the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. In his written
    testimony he noted, ``In February 2021, OSA was moved under the
    Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) to better align OSA's work with
    survivors, outreach, and survivors' monetary benefits under the program
    office that has oversight of several benefit programs available to
    survivors.''
        The Prioritizing Veterans' Survivors Act would require the removal
    of the OSA from VBA and place it directly within the office of the VA
    Secretary. DAV does not have a specific resolution or a position on
    this legislation. Our concern lies directly with survivors and
    dependents receiving the appropriate resources and maximum benefits
    available.

    H.R. 7150, Survivor Benefits Delivery Improvement Act of 2024

        Following the passage of P.L. 117-168, the Sergeant First Class
    Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act
    of 2022, known as the PACT Act, VA extended outreach to 385,000
    potential survivors who may be impacted. Since then, as of January 1,
    2024, VA has received 13,768 DIC claims related to presumptive
    conditions. A total of $116 million has been awarded in retroactive
    benefits to survivors. However, we question if VA reached out to all of
    the impacted survivors in all locations?
        The Survivor Benefits Delivery Improvement Act would require VA to
    collect demographic data on the survivor population. This could assist
    VA with outreach to very specific populations. Additionally, this
    legislation directs VA to develop an outreach program for survivors to
    make sure that every survivor knows what benefits are available to
    them.
        DAV supports H.R. 7150 in accordance with DAV Resolution No. 241.
    The onus should not be on survivors to reach out to VA during a
    difficult time. VA should make every effort to inform all survivors of
    the resources and benefits available to them.

    H.R. 7777, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act

        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.
        DAV strongly supports H.R. 7777, in accordance with DAV Resolution
    No. 226. To avoid any potential delays in applying the increase, we
    urge swift passage of the Veterans' COLA Act. 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 and their families deserve.

               H.R. 7793: Veterans Appeals Options Expansion Act

        The Veterans Appeals Options Expansion Act would address several
    areas of concern DAV has raised regarding the VA's rejection of claims
    based on submittal of the wrong form and the increasing backlog of
    appeals at the Board of Veterans Appeals.
        Effective March 24, 2015, VA amended its adjudication regulations
    adding the Standard Claims and Appeals Forms Regulation, which requires
    all claims to be on the appropriate VA form. If the veteran uses the
    wrong form, VA sends a letter to acknowledge they received a claim but
    noting it was on the wrong form. Further, VA will not accept the
    submission of the wrong form as an informal claim or as an Intent to
    File (ITF), thus not establishing the veteran's potential effective
    date for a grant of benefits.
        H.R. 7793, provides, ``If an individual with a claim for benefits
    under the laws administered by the Secretary submits to the Secretary a
    form under paragraph (1) that is not the correct form prescribed by the
    Secretary for such claim, the Secretary shall treat such form as an
    intent to file a claim under section 3.155 of title 38, Code of Federal
    Regulations, or successor regulation.''
        This is consistent with recommendations DAV made in our testimony
    before the Subcommittee on March 20, 2024. We stated, ``DAV believes
    there should never be a wrong door at VA and we recommend that VA
    reconsider the standardized forms requirement or take an approach that
    will either accept the wrong form as an Intent to File or if all of the
    needed information is provided VA should process and decide the
    claim.''
        DAV strongly supports this proposed change; however, VA regulations
    only allow a veteran to have one pending ITF at a time. Therefore, this
    change could have a negative impact on effective dates as the most
    recent ITF would negate an already established ITF. We recommend that
    the language be amended to consider this potential complication and
    ensure that a veteran's effective date, already established by an ITF,
    is not impacted.
        Additionally, the Veterans Appeals Option Expansion Act would allow
    veterans to switch Board dockets at any time before their appeal has
    been assigned to a Board decision-maker. Further, it would require the
    Board to promptly notify veterans when they have submitted untimely
    evidence and the consequences of doing so, and would prevent veterans
    from being moved to the back of the Board's line after the Board sends
    those veterans' claims back to VBA.
        The Board noted in its final Fiscal Year 2023 quarterly report,
    published on its website, that 103,245 appeals were decided while
    receiving over 101,000 new appeals. There were 24,145 legacy appeals
    pending and over 180,000 pending AMA cases totaling 208,155 appeals
    pending on October 1, 2023. Of the appeals pending, it noted that AMA
    appeals on a direct route were pending an average of 577 days, AMA
    appeals with evidence were pending an average of 682 days and AMA
    appeals requesting a hearing were pending an average of 700 days. Given
    the backlog of appeals and those that have been pending for years,
    there should be an alternative option for veterans.
        DAV supports the Veterans Appeals Option Expansion Act in
    accordance with DAV Resolution No. 220. We believe any appeals reform
    must preserve or enhance veterans' due process rights and ensure that
    adjudications are fair, accurate, timely and of acceptable quality.

           H.R. 7816, the Clear Communication for Veterans Claims Act

        The Clear Communications for Veterans Claims Act would require the
    VA Secretary to enter into an agreement with a federally funded
    research and development center, (FFRDC), which are owned by the
    Federal Government, but operated by contractors, including
    universities, nonprofit organizations, and industrial firms.
        The subject for the FFRDC is the notices and letters issued by the
    VA to veterans and other claimants. As we highlighted in our testimony
    before this Subcommittee on March 20, 2024, ``it is evident that these
    letters speak a language that veterans cannot always translate.''
        Additionally, we recommended that VA take a new look at its letters
    by concentrating on the language for the reader and not the legal
    requirements. We suggested the use of focus groups populated with
    veterans and veterans service organizations to assist in developing
    language that is understood and clearly conveys information and the
    intent of the letter.
        VA letters should not be structured in a way that induces
    confusion, anxiety or frustration for veterans. DAV fully supports the
    Clear Communications for Veterans Claims Act in accord with DAV
    Resolution No. 220, which calls for meaningful claims and appeals
    reform.

             Discussion Draft--The Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act

        This proposed bill, the Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act, would
    require several reporting and tracking requirements for VBA and the
    Board to include tracking and maintaining information on Higher Levels
    Reviews, Supplemental Claims and Notices of Disagreement. Further, it
    would require tracking on claims pending in the National Work Queue not
    assigned to an adjudicator, cases remanded by the Board, AMA cases
    pending a hearing and when a decision-maker did not comply with the
    Board's decision.
        The draft legislation contains other noteworthy requirements such
    as improvements to the Board, a study and report on common questions of
    law or fact before the Board and an independent assessment of potential
    modifications to the authority of the Board.
        In principle, DAV would support tracking and reporting information
    on claims and appeals in order to help resolve the current lengthy
    timeline for pending appeals. Based on DAV Resolution No. 220, DAV
    could support this proposed legislation. However, we have concerns over
    any potential changes to the authority of the Board. The independent
    review has the ability to provide insights to the process, but before
    any changes to the Board's authority are contemplated, the VSO and
    stakeholder community must be engaged in thoughtful and deliberate
    conversations over any such changes.

       Medical Nexus Examinations for Toxic Exposure Risk Activities as
                                  Addressed in

       Discussion Draft--Medical Disability Examination Improvement Act &

         Discussion Draft--Toxic Exposures Examination Improvement Act

        For more than 100 years, our servicemembers have been exposed to
    hazardous environments and toxins, often resulting in negative health
    impacts, which require future health care and benefits. Historically,
    it takes VA and Congress decades to establish recognized toxic
    exposures and related diseases.
        Our sense of duty to them must be heightened as many of the
    illnesses and diseases due to these toxic exposures may not be
    identifiable for years, even decades, after they have completed their
    service. When VA and Congress do not recognize toxic exposures or
    presumptive diseases, toxic exposed veterans are placed at a severe
    disadvantage in trying to establish direct service connection for
    diseases. The PACT Act included in Title 38, United States Code,
    section 1168, which requires VA to provide a medical nexus examination
    for toxic exposed veterans if the evidence is not sufficient to
    establish direct service connection. This removed a barrier for toxic
    exposed veterans, without this, many claims will be denied without VA
    requiring an examination or a medical opinion.
        Currently, the statute states that if a veteran submits a claim for
    a condition due to toxic exposures, the VA will provide the veteran an
    examination as indicated. However, provisions in the Discussion Draft--
    Medical Disability Examination Improvement Act, would change this
    statute by redefining who is eligible for the medical nexus opinion.
    The proposal would change veteran to covered veteran. The statute
    defines a covered veteran as only those noted directly in the PACT Act.
        DAV would not support this proposed change in the Discussion
    Draft--Medical Disability Examination Improvement Act, as it is
    defining a toxic exposed veteran with restrictions and limitations for
    the purpose of a medical nexus examination. Thus, not every toxic
    exposed veteran would fit in this definition, including those exposed
    toxins at Ft. McClellan, veterans exposed to PFAS or other toxins. We
    argue that the congressional intent of the law was to cover all toxic
    exposed veterans not just a smaller group of veterans.
        The Discussion Draft--Toxic Exposures Examination Improvement Act,
    would also make changes to section 1168 of Public Law 117-168, that
    does not honor the heightened sense of duty to toxic exposed veterans.
    This proposal would remove the current requirement, ``if the evidence
    is not sufficient to establish direct service connection.'' It would
    change it to ``such evidence does not contain sufficient medical
    evidence for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim''. While
    this would reduce the number of examinations VA would be required to
    conduct, it creates a barrier for toxic exposed veterans trying to
    establish direct service connection for a toxin-related disease.
        DAV would not support this proposed change in the Discussion
    Draft--Toxic Exposures Examination Improvement Act. It takes VA and
    Congress decades to establish toxic exposure related diseases and this
    proposed change would remove an advantage toxic exposed veterans were
    guaranteed by the PACT Act.

         Discussion Draft--The Veterans Claims Quality Improvement Act

        The proposed bill, the Veterans Claims Quality Improvement Act,
    would provide for certain revisions to the manual of the Veterans
    Benefits Administration and aims to improve the quality of the
    adjudication of claims for benefits.
        Specifically, it would require the VA General Counsel to review and
    comment on any revisions to VBA manuals addressing the adjudication of
    claims. Additionally, it would require the VA General Counsel to
    develop a training program and provide training for any employees
    responsible for drafting rules, guidance, or any other types of
    issuances.
        The proposed bill would also require the Chairman of the Board to
    establish a program to ensure the quality of Board decisions with a
    requirement to report to the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs
    Committee annually.
        In accordance with DAV Resolution No. 220, we support the
    discussion draft as currently written to strengthen VBA adjudication
    manuals, Office of General Counsel opinions, and training programs,
    which could result in an overall improvement of decisions within VBA
    and the Board.
        In closing, Mr. Chairman, we thank you for the opportunity to
    submit a statement for the record addressing our concerns on the 12
    bills being considered by the Subcommittee.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of National Organization of Veterans' Advocates,
                                      Inc.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      Prepared Statement of Administrative Conference of the United States

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Prepared Statement of The American Legion

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Prepared Statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas, and members of the
    subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), would like to thank
    you for the opportunity to submit our views on pending legislation
    impacting the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that is before the
    subcommittee. No group of veterans understand the full scope of
    benefits and care provided by VA better than PVA members--veterans who
    have incurred a spinal cord injury or disorder (SCI/D). Several of
    these bills will help to ensure veterans and their survivors receive
    earned benefits and support. PVA provides comment on the following
    bills included in today's hearing.

    H.R. 1083, the Caring for Survivors Act of 2023

        Losing a spouse is never easy, but knowing that financial help will
    be available following the death of a loved one can ease this burden.
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) is intended to protect
    against survivor impoverishment after the death of a service-disabled
    veteran. In 2024, this compensation starts at $1,612.75 per month and
    increases if the surviving spouse has eligible children who are under
    age 18. DIC benefits last the entire life of the surviving spouse
    except in the case of remarriage before a certain age. For surviving
    children, DIC benefits last until the age of 18. If the child is still
    in school, these benefits might go until age 23.
        The rate of compensation paid to survivors of servicemembers who
    die in the line of duty or veterans who die from service-related
    injuries or diseases was established in 1993 and has been minimally
    adjusted since then. In contrast, monthly benefits for survivors of
    Federal civil service retirees are calculated as a percentage of the
    civil service retiree's Federal Employees Retirement System or Civil
    Service Retirement System benefits, up to 55 percent. This difference
    presents an inequity for survivors of our Nation's heroes compared to
    survivors of Federal employees. DIC payments were intended to provide
    surviving spouses with the means to maintain some semblance of economic
    stability after the loss of their loved one.
        PVA supports the Caring for Survivors Act of 2023, which raises DIC
    rates to meet the 55 percent threshold. Additionally, current law
    restricts the DIC benefit for survivors if the veteran was disabled for
    less than 10 years before his or her death. This bill reduces the
    timeframe a veteran needed to be rated totally disabled from 10 to 5
    years which would allow greater numbers of survivors to benefit from
    this important program.

    H.R. 2911, the Fairness for Servicemembers and their Families Act of
    2023

        PVA supports this legislation which requires the VA to periodically
    review and report on the maximum coverage available under the
    Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance and Veterans' Group Life Insurance
    programs. It would help ensure the relevancy of this pair of financial
    safety nets by ensuring their coverage amounts account for changes in
    economic trends.

    H.R. 3651, the Love Lives On Act of 2023

        When a military member or veteran dies, their spouse is eligible to
    receive a number of survivor benefits, but current law strips many of
    them if the spouse remarries again before age 55. This arbitrary age
    limit often prevents many surviving spouses from remarrying out of
    concern for the financial stability of their surviving children. These
    surviving spouses should be freed from the fear of losing the benefits
    owed to them through their late spouse's military sacrifice. PVA
    supports the Love Lives On Act, which would ensure they retain many
    benefits from both the VA and the Department of Defense, regardless of
    their age at the time of remarriage.

    H.R. 7100, the Prioritizing Veterans' Survivors Act

        VA's Office of Survivors Assistance (OSA) was established in 2008
    (P.L. 110-389) to serve as a resource regarding all benefits and
    services furnished by the department to the survivors and dependents of
    deceased veterans and members of the Armed Forces. Congress also
    intended that OSA would serve as a principal advisor to the VA
    Secretary, and promote the use of VA benefits, programs, and services
    to survivors. In February 2021, the OSA was moved from the Office of
    the VA Secretary to the Veterans Benefits Administration's (VBA),
    Pension and Fiduciary Service, changing the span of control and
    altering a key role that Congress intended for the office. PVA has no
    objection to this bill which seeks to realign the OSA back under the
    Office of the VA Secretary.

    H.R. 7150, the Survivor Benefits Delivery Improvement Act of 2024

        PVA supports this bill which directs the VA to collect demographic
    data on the survivor population. We believe the change would help the
    department and Congress better understand the utilization of survivor-
    related benefits and services. It also directs the VA to develop an
    outreach program for survivors, similar to the Solid Start program, to
    make sure that every survivor knows what benefits are available to
    them.

    H.R. 7777, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of
    2024

        PVA supports this legislation which directs VA to increase amounts
    payable for disability compensation, additional compensation for
    dependents, the clothing allowance for certain disabled veterans, and
    DIC for surviving spouses and children. VA would be required to raise
    compensation amounts by the same percentage as the cost-of-living
    increase in benefits for Social Security recipients that is effective
    on December 1, 2024. It also requires the VA to publish the amounts
    payable, as increased, in the Federal Register.

    H.R. 7793, the Veterans Appeals Options Expansion Act of 2024

        Veterans often find the claims process extremely confusing so it is
    not too surprising whenever mistakes are made. Currently, if a veteran
    filed an initial claim for VA benefits on the wrong form, then later
    submits the correct one, VA does not backdate payments to the date of
    the wrong form when that claim is eventually granted. This bill would
    ensure that veterans are not penalized for making small errors when
    filling out forms by requiring the department to treat the original
    submission as an intent to file a claim according to 38 C.F.R. Sec.
    3.155. PVA agrees with this change but feels strongly that this section
    of the bill could be strengthened and confusion over which form to use
    be fully eliminated if Congress would direct the VA to create a single
    form that can be used for any kind of claim.
        Another provision in the bill requires the Board of Veterans'
    Appeals to promptly notify veterans when they have submitted untimely
    evidence and the consequences of doing so, and would prevent veterans
    from being moved to the back of the Board's line once the veteran's
    claim is returned to VBA. PVA supports telling veterans when they have
    filed something that the agency won't look at, but don't think that
    should be limited to the Board. If we are going to address that
    problem, it should apply to the whole agency. Finally, the current
    timeframe to resolve appeals remains unacceptably long and this would
    allow veterans to switch Board dockets at any time before their appeal
    has been assigned to a Board decision-maker.

    H.R. 7816, the Clear Communication for Veterans Claims Act

        Testimony received by this subcommittee on March 20, 2024, revealed
    many problems with the language the VA uses in its letters to veterans
    regarding the status of their disability claims and appeals. In recent
    years, these letters have become lengthy tomes that require veterans to
    obtain help to interpret them. The Clear Communication for Veterans
    Claims Act directs the VA to enter into an agreement with a federally
    funded research and development center for an assessment of notice
    letters that the department sends to claimants. PVA believes the VA
    should place greater emphasis on successfully communicating with the
    veteran, and focus less on legalese. Therefore, we appreciate and
    strongly support efforts like this to help demystify the VA claims
    process.

    Discussion Draft, the Medical Disability Examination Improvement Act

        When a veteran files a claim for disability compensation, the VA
    often requires a medical disability exam to determine if a medical
    connection can be established between a condition being claimed and a
    veteran's military service. Between August 10, 2022, and February 24,
    2024, the VA added 264,548 veterans to its healthcare rolls and 1.4
    million claims for benefits had been filed. This draft bill seeks to
    ensure the VA can handle its increasing workload which is largely
    caused by the PACT Act (P.L. 117-168). Specifically, it would bolster
    the department's ability to hire more medical disability examiners and
    improve training for VA claims processing staff to determine if a
    medical disability exam is necessary or if there's already sufficient
    existing evidence to grant a claim. Other language in the bill requires
    the VA to study and develop a plan to improve rural veterans' access to
    quality and timely medical disability examinations and to develop a
    mechanism for contract examiners to transmit evidence introduced by
    veterans during their exam for their claim--a move PVA strongly
    supports.
        Our lone concern with this draft measure rests with the language in
    section two seeking to change ``veteran'' to ``covered veteran.'' This
    differs from current law which states, that if a veteran submits a
    claim for a condition stemming from toxic exposures, the VA will
    provide the veteran an examination as indicated. Without additional
    information on why such a change is necessary, we could not support its
    inclusion in the bill.

    Discussion Draft, the Toxic Exposures Examination Improvement Act

        This draft bill proposes to change the definition of evidence as it
    pertains to toxic exposure-related claims. Specifically, it would
    remove the language in 38 C.F.R. Sec. 1168 (a) that currently reads,
    ``if the evidence is not sufficient to establish direct service
    connection,'' and replace it with ``such evidence does not contain
    sufficient medical evidence for the Secretary to make a decision on the
    claim.'' PVA cannot support this bill at this time because we believe
    the change may create an unnecessary barrier for veterans seeking to
    establish a direct service connection for their toxin-related
    conditions.

    Discussion Draft, the Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act of 2024

        This draft bill creates additional reporting and tracking
    requirements for VBA and the Board, such as information on Higher Level
    Reviews, Supplemental Claims, and Notices of Disagreement. It also
    requires the tracking of claims pending in the National Work Queue, not
    assigned to an adjudicator; cases that are remanded by the Board;
    Veteran Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act cases pending a
    hearing; and when a decision-maker did not comply with the Board's
    decision. We recognize the value of and support efforts to track
    meaningful data to improve the effectiveness and accuracy of the claims
    process. However, the data sought by this legislation will be
    meaningless until the VA first fixes their problems with obtaining
    medical opinions, since the lack of them are constantly creating
    remandable errors.
        We also have concerns with language regarding potential changes to
    the authority of the Board, and oppose the provision about seeking an
    opinion from VA's Office of General Counsel (OGC) with respect to a
    question of law arising in an appeal under review by the Board. Under
    38 U.S.C. Sec.  7104 (c), the Board is already bound by the opinions of
    the chief legal officer (i.e., the General Counsel) and they already do
    seek opinions from time to time. For example, PVA had a case where we
    challenged the legal finding of the opinion sought in that specific
    case and we prevailed on the legal interpretation.
        This legislation would open the option to seek an opinion to
    claimants as well. But, we already have an appeals structure that
    includes court review, which would be the ``final'' say on the
    interpretive question. And, since the VA OGC's authority is unclear as
    to any interpretive or regulatory authority for the department in
    individual claims, it would actually be less efficient to seek an OGC
    opinion, since if the veteran loses, it will certainly be litigated and
    there is not a time limit on when the OGC produces the opinion. Thus,
    it delays the veteran's case. While we see the facial appeal of
    allowing both claimants and the Board to seek an OGC opinion, we don't
    want the OGC's intervention to be used more than it is now or to be
    seen as a short cut of some sort. We view this as a Pandora's box that
    likely would not aid efficiency.

    Discussion Draft, the Veterans Claims Quality Improvement Act

        This draft legislation requires the VA General Counsel to review
    and comment on any revisions to the VBA manuals addressing the
    adjudication of claims. It also requires them to develop a training
    program and provide training for any employees responsible for drafting
    rules, guidance, or any other types of issuances.
        Aside from potentially slowing the claims process down, we have no
    concerns with the first two provisions. After the Veterans Auto and
    Education Improvement Act (P.L. 117-333) was signed authorizing an
    additional Auto Grant for certain veterans, it took about 10 months for
    VA Manual M-21 to be updated. Our service officers who are assisting
    veterans in filing these claims found many VA Regional Offices didn't
    even know about this benefit until they told them. In effect, it was
    our personnel who had to teach them about the statutory change, VA's
    interim procedures, and subsequent changes to the M-21, because it
    appears the VA does not have an effective, standardized method of
    updating the field on changes to the manual. We highly recommend
    language be added to the bill directing the VA to establish such a
    process.
        A third provision in the bill directs the Chairman of the Board to
    establish a program to ensure the quality of Board decisions with a
    requirement to report to the Veterans' Affairs Committees annually.
    This section would impose many requirements related to items that are
    already the Board's responsibility. Instead of a new law, the Board
    should be held accountable for these existing requirements.
        PVA would once again like to thank the subcommittee for the
    opportunity to submit our views on some of the bills being considered
    today. We look forward to working with you on this legislation and
    would be happy to take any questions for the record.

      Information Required by Rule XI 2(g) of the House of Representatives

    Pursuant to Rule XI 2(g) of the House of Representatives, the following
    information is provided regarding Federal grants and contracts.

                                Fiscal Year 2023

    Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of National Veterans Sports
    Programs & Special Events--Grant to support rehabilitation sports
    activities--$479,000.

                                Fiscal Year 2022

    Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of National Veterans Sports
    Programs & Special Events--Grant to support rehabilitation sports
    activities--$ 437,745.

                         Disclosure of Foreign Payments

    Paralyzed Veterans of America is largely supported by donations from
    the general public. However, in some very rare cases we receive direct
    donations from foreign nationals. In addition, we receive funding from
    corporations and foundations which in some cases are U.S. subsidiaries
    of non-U.S. companies.
                                     ______

                      Prepared Statement of Dean Phillips

        Thank you, M. Chair. I would like to begin by thanking the
    leadership of the House Veterans Affairs Committee - Chairman Bost and
    Ranking Member Takano - and the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance
    and Memorial Affairs - Chairman Luttrell and Ranking Member Pappas. I
    am grateful for all you do to advocate for our Nation's veterans.
        I am delighted to testify before the Subcommittee on behalf of my
    legislation, the Love Lives On Act. I thank the Subcommittee for
    considering this important bill and my esteemed colleague from North
    Carolina - Mr. Hudson - for his partnership in introducing this
    measure.
        As a Gold Star Son, my gratitude to our servicemembers and their
    families is immeasurable. Spouses of those who die in service to our
    Nation make unimaginable sacrifices and deserve unending respect and
    support in return. Unfortunately, surviving spouses of Federal
    personnel risk losing survivor benefits if they remarry under the age
    of 55. My legislation, the Love Lives On Act, would ensure military
    spouses are allowed to retain benefits upon remarriage no matter their
    age. The bill's protections extend to surviving spouses of active-duty,
    veteran, and retired military personnel.
        I was thrilled to help pass a portion of this legislation in the
    Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act. That provision
    granted all remarried surviving spouses access to Commissary and
    Exchange benefits. This is a great start, but I will continue to push
    the remaining components of this legislation until we eliminate all
    remarriage benefit reductions for anyone whose spouse dies in service
    to our country.
        The Love Lives On Act would extend other critical benefits to
    remarried surviving spouses, such as Survivor Benefit Plan and
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, certain electronic medical
    services, and education benefits under the Fry Scholarship program.
    These survivor benefits help us honor Gold Star families - we must
    ensure they receive every single benefit they are owed for their
    sacrifice.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to advocate for the Love
    Lives on Act and I look forward to our continued collaboration.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Marilyn Strickland

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas, and members of this
    distinguished Committee, thank you for allowing me to submit a
    statement supporting critical legislation that benefits our active duty
    servicemembers, Veterans, and their families.
        I write today in support of my bill, H.R. 2911, the Fairness for
    Servicemembers and their Families Act of 2023, which will help ensure
    that life insurance packages for servicemembers and veterans account
    for changes in the economy. This legislation will require the
    Department of Veterans Affairs to periodically review and report on the
    maximum coverage available under the Servicemembers' Group Life
    Insurance and Veterans' Group Life Insurance.
        Our servicemembers courageously put their lives on the line for
    their country, and it is our duty to reciprocate. This means ensuring
    the well-being of their families and loved ones in the event of a
    tragedy. The importance of servicemembers' life insurance plans keeping
    pace with economic demands cannot be overstated. A robust life
    insurance policy will provide grieving families the security they need
    to navigate the loss of their loved ones with pride and dignity.
        The brave men and women who sacrifice their lives deserve peace of
    mind in knowing that their families are able to take care of final
    expenses and carry on their legacy. As a daughter of a veteran, I
    understand the many challenges veterans experience. It is imperative
    that we ensure those who serve can provide a sense of security for
    their families.
        For nearly two decades, the maximum coverage of the Servicemembers
    Group Life Insurance and Veterans' Group Life Insurance programs
    remained stagnant, even as the cost of housing, goods, and services
    rose. This bill, H.R. 2911, will ensure that these programs are
    reviewed periodically to verify that their value sufficiently reflects
    contemporary consumer price index.
        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas, and esteemed members of
    this distinguished Committee, thank you for your unwavering commitment
    to supporting veterans and their families and for prioritizing their
    care.

                     Prepared Statement of Michael Wishnie

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]