[Senate Hearing 118-160]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-160
HEARING TO CONSIDER PENDING LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 26, 2023
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-981 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
Jon Tester, Montana, Chairman
Patty Murray, Washington Jerry Moran, Kansas, Ranking
Bernard Sanders, Vermont Member
Sherrod Brown, Ohio John Boozman, Arkansas
Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii Mike Rounds, South Dakota
Joe Manchin III, West Virginia Thom Tillis, North Carolina
Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona Dan Sullivan, Alaska
Margaret Wood Hassan, New Hampshire Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
Angus S. King, Jr., Maine Kevin Cramer, North Dakota
Tommy Tuberville, Alabama
Tony McClain, Staff Director
David Shearman, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
April 26, 2023
SENATORS
Page
Hon. Jon Tester, Chairman, U.S. Senator from Montana............. 1
Hon. Sherrod Brown, U.S. Senator from Ohio....................... 4
Hon. Richard Blumenthal, U.S. Senator from Connecticut........... 7
Hon. Thom Tillis, U.S. Senator from North Carolina............... 9
Hon. Margaret Wood Hassan, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire....... 12
Hon. Angus S. King, Jr., U.S. Senator from Maine................. 21
Hon. Dan Sullivan, U.S. Senator from Alaska...................... 22
WITNESSES
Panel I
Joseph Garcia, Executive Director, Education Service, Veterans
Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs;
accompanied by David Barrans, Chief Counsel, Benefits Law
Group, Office of General Counsel; Kevin Friel, Deputy Director,
Pension and Fiduciary Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration; and Nick Pamperin, Executive Director, Veteran
Readiness and Employment Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration................................................. 3
Panel II
Shane Liermann, Deputy National Legislative Director, Disabled
American Veterans.............................................. 14
Tammy Barlet, Vice President of Government Affairs, Student
Veterans of America............................................ 15
Ashlynne Haycock-Lohmann, Deputy Director, Government and
Legislative Affairs, Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors.. 17
Diane Boyd Rauber, Executive Director, National Organization of
Veterans' Advocates, Inc....................................... 19
APPENDIX
Hearing Agenda
List of Pending Bills............................................ 33
Prepared Statements
Joseph Garcia, Executive Director, Education Service, Veterans
Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs........ 37
Shane Liermann, Deputy National Legislative Director, Disabled
American Veterans.............................................. 56
Tammy Barlet, Vice President of Government Affairs, Student
Veterans of America............................................ 66
Ashlynne Haycock-Lohmann, Deputy Director, Government and
Legislative Affairs, Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors.. 72
Diane Boyd Rauber, Executive Director, National Organization of
Veterans' Advocates, Inc....................................... 86
Questions for the Record
Department of Veterans Affairs response to questions submitted
by:
Hon. Kyrsten Sinema............................................ 99
Hon. Thom Tillis............................................... 102
Statements for the Record
Hon. James Lankford, U.S. Senator from Oklahoma.................. 109
Hon. Kyrsten Sinema, U.S. Senator from Arizona................... 110
Paralyzed Veterans of America.................................... 111
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, The Honorable Margaret
Bartley, Chief Judge........................................... 115
VA Claims Insider, Brian T. Reese, Founder....................... 117
Veterans Education Success....................................... 123
Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC, William C. Taylor,
Co-founder and Chief Operating Officer......................... 136
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Kristina Keenan,
Deputy Director................................................ 209
HEARING TO CONSIDER PENDING
LEGISLATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2023
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:14 p.m., in
Room SR-418, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Jon Tester,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Tester, Brown, Blumenthal, Hassan, King,
Cassidy, Tillis, and Sullivan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JON TESTER
Chairman Tester. I want to call this hearing to order. You
guys can sit down. I do not think I am swearing in. I may. No,
I am not, so you can sit down. Thank you for being here.
This is an opportunity to hear views from the Department of
Veterans Affairs and advocates on 14 bills pending before this
Committee. Three of these bills are my bills, and it is to
increase support for surviving family members of veterans, to
expedite veterans' appeals, and to expand SkillBridge programs
for more men and women transitioning out of the military.
My Caring for Survivors Act would increase the amount of
dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving family
members of servicemembers and veterans who died in the line of
duty from a service-connected injury or illness. While we can
never fully convey our appreciation for their sacrifice, this
bill is a meaningful step and it reflects our commitment to
servicemembers, veterans, and their families.
My Veterans Border Patrol Training Act is a powerful tool
to help transitioning servicemembers maximize their military
training and skill sets while also strengthening our national
security. It establishes a pipeline for separating
servicemembers to work as Border Patrol agents for the
Department of Homeland Security after they leave the military.
It truly is a win-win for our veterans and it is a win-win for
our country.
My Expedited Veterans Appeals Act would permanently
increase the number of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for
veterans' claims. This increase will ensure that the court is
better structured to handle its increasing caseload and the
anticipated number of new claims that may result from the
passage of the PACT Act.
We also have the GUARD Act on the agenda today. This is
critical legislation to ensure veterans are not being taken
advantage of by people or organizations that charge veterans
for helping them to get VA benefits. Last week we heard about
bad actors preying on veterans for financial gain, and the
GUARD Act is a common-sense first step, giving the VA the tools
it needs to stop illegal benefits fraud by reinstating criminal
penalties for individuals who assist veterans with VA claims if
they are not accredited by the VA.
Other bills on today's agenda would add student veteran
centers to campuses across the country, improve VHA Comparison
Tool, and provide easier access for student veterans to attend
foreign institutions of higher education.
I want to thank you all for being here today, for talking
about these important bills on the agenda, and I look forward
to today's discussion.
While I am still waiting for the Ranking Member to come,
and he is on his way, I would just like to say there was an
interesting situation that happened on the floor. We had a bill
with five bills in it, a number of bills, to support home
health care, support mental health care in that home health
care, have money available for VSOs to help educate their
membership about what is going on in the VA, and another one
for research on marijuana. It is my understanding that in the
Republican Caucus they put up a fuss about that research.
I just want you to know I put that bill forward so that
veterans are going to know what they are putting in their body
and the effects of that. We know the effects of opioids when it
comes to pain killers. It is not good. And if there are other
options out there for our veterans, and the scientific
community can back that up, why are we not at least giving the
veteran the opportunity to use that and know what they are
putting in their body?
If this bill fails in cloture, which it may, this is an
incredible disservice that has been done to the veterans of
this country, not only for that bill but for the other four
bills that are a part of it too. But so be the United States
Senate at this moment in time. It is a little bit disserving.
These bills passed out of Committee unanimously, I think in the
month of February, out of this Committee. They are all
bipartisan.
They are all bills that, by the way, the veterans'
community asked for. And for the folks who represent VSOs in
this room, you understand that every time that the VSOs come to
talk to the Joint Session of House and Senate Veterans' Affairs
Committees, one of the things that I always say is that this
Committee and I take our cues from the veterans, from the VSOs.
So such is the way it is. And do you guys get robocalls
too? That is the way it is.
[The pending bills referred to by Chairman Tester appear on
page 33 of the Appendix.]
Anyway, with that I think--Is he close? We can proceed?--we
have a panel of VA witnesses here today. Joseph Garcia,
Executive Director of VBA's Education Service will serve as the
Department's lead witness. He is accompanied by David Barrans,
by Kevin Friel, by Nick Pamperin. David is the Chief Counsel
for Benefits Law Group in the Office of General Counsel, Kevin
is Deputy Director of Pension and Fiduciary Service, and Nick
Pamperin is the Executive Director of Veteran Readiness and
Employment Service.
So with that we will turn it over to you, Mr. Garcia, for
your opening statement, and know that your entire statement
will be a part of the record.
PANEL I
----------
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH GARCIA ACCOMPANIED BY
DAVID BARRANS, KEVIN FRIEL, AND NICK PAMPERIN
Mr. Garcia. Good afternoon, Chairman Tester. Thank you for
the opportunity to discuss pending legislation that would
affect VA programs and services. With me today are David
Barrans, Chief Counsel, Office of General Counsel; Nick
Pamperin, Executive Director of Veteran Readiness and
Employment Service; and Kevin Friel, Deputy Director of Pension
and Fiduciary Service.
Mr. Chairman, with 14 bills on the agenda I will highlight
several in my oral statement. We have provided detailed
comments in the full testimony to include areas of support and
concern.
The Fry Scholarship Enhancement Act would expand the
eligibility for the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry
Scholarship to a child or spouse of an individual who died from
a service-connected disability during the 120-day period
beginning on the first day of release from military duty. VA
supports, subject to appropriation, but recommends revising the
bill language to apply either to deaths that occur on or after
the date of enactment or to deaths that occur on or after
September 11, 2001.
VA would also support, if amended, the Better Examiner
Standards and Transparency for Veterans Act. This legislation
would ensure that only licensed health care professionals
furnish contract medical examinations for VA disability
benefits. VA would also support, if amended, the Caring for
Survivors Act, that would improve and expand eligibility for
dependency and indemnity compensation to service survivors.
VA supports the Love Lives On Act, but cites certain
concerns. VA recommends deleting the proposed language that
states the resumption of dependency and indemnity compensation
payments for the surviving spouse of a veteran would be
restricted to remarriages that occurred prior to the surviving
spouse reaching age 55. That requirement would create disparate
treatment for certain surviving spouses.
The Student Veterans Transparency and Protection Act would
improve how VA discloses risks associated with using education
assistance at particular institutions. This bill would also
expand restoration of entitlement to include protection when an
individual is unable to complete a course or program due to a
federal or state civil enforcement action against an
educational institution.
Subject to the availability of appropriations, VA supports
the section that would codify the GI Bill Comparison Tool. VA
has no objection to Section 2(d)(1)(A), as contracted benefit
advisors are trained to provide a demonstration of the GI Bill
Comparison Tool during the VA Benefits and Services course.
VA does cite concern with the section that would require
contracted employees to provide educational counseling
services. VA benefit advisors do not provide educational
counseling beyond the curriculum that directs transitioning
servicemembers, veterans, and family to VA resources.
VA does not support the proposed bill to establish a new
Veterans Economic Opportunity and Transition Administration. VA
appreciates the Committee's focus on improving services and
resources. However, we do not support the bill as adding a
fourth administration and executive leadership would limit
efficiencies by creating redundant structures. Further, the
existing one-on-one relationship with the Veterans Health
Administration, which is critical to the PACT Act
implementation, would become more complicated with an
additional administration.
Finally, VA supports the Veteran Improvement Commercial
Driver License Act. This bill would modify the rules for
approval of commercial driver education programs, thus
providing more training opportunities for veterans and boost
employment in this occupational area.
VA also fully supports the Governing Unaccredited
Representatives Defrauding VA Benefits Act. This bill would
address the absence of criminal penalties in the current
statutes governing the conduct of individuals who provide
assistance with benefit claims.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy
to answer any questions you or other members of the Committee
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garcia appears on page 37 of
the Appendix.]
Chairman Tester. Well, thank you, Mr. Garcia, for your
statement. We have a great Democratic member of this Committee,
Senator Sherrod Brown, who also serves as Chairman of the
Banking Committee, that I know that if I call him to ask his
questions first he will do the same for me on the Banking
Committee.
So Senator Brown, you are up.
SENATOR SHERROD BROWN
Senator Brown. But you have never called to ask that. Thank
you, Chair Tester, and I appreciate the work that--we have a
package of issues on the Senate floor and I appreciate the work
Jon is doing on that, so I know he is just there for that.
Thanks for holding this hearing first. Before turning to
the witnesses I just want to make a statement about something
that I think the VA has made a right decision, to thank you for
taking the right steps in stopping the electronic health record
rollout at additional sites until patient safety concerns are
addressed. I spent a good bit of time either in Columbus there
or talking to people there, and Secretary McDonough was
helpful. I thank the staff at Chalmers Wylie VA Center in
Columbus for their hard work as they continue to meet veterans
needs while including those concerns. So thank you for stepping
up the way you did there. Thank you.
I have a question for Mr. Barrans, if I could, regarding
veteran complaints about unaccredited representatives. I cannot
stay for the second panel so I wanted to highlight a few lines
from Mr. Liermann's testimony that I found troubling. The
direct quote is, ``At the March 29, 2023, hearing of the House
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee, Christa Shriber testified that
veterans who have been charged an unreasonable fee can motion
to the OGC to have those fees changed. She reported that in
2022, VA returned $2.5 million in unreasonable fees back to
veterans. She stated that 40 percent of all claims they
received were specifically about unaccredited
representatives.''
Can you explain what an ``unreasonable''--Mr. Barrans, and
again, I apologize for not asking the second panel--can you
explain that to me, what an ``unreasonable'' fee is and why a
veteran could motion to have the fee changed?
Mr. Barrans. Yes, I would be happy to address that. We have
presumptions in our statute regarding what is a presumed
reasonable fee and a presumed unreasonable fee. So a fee of 20
percent is presumed reasonable, and a fee above 33 percent is
presumed unreasonable. But we make reasonableness
determinations on a case-by-case basis. There is specific
authority in Section 5904 of Title 38 for VA to do that.
And one of the reasons is because what is reasonable is
dependent upon the facts of each individual case. If an
attorney is able to convince a veteran to sign a fee agreement
and then VA turns around and grants the claim the next day,
without the attorney having done any significant work on the
case, the attorney might be entitled to a fee of 20 or 30
percent of the benefits under that agreement, but he would have
done no work, he or she would have done no work, and in that
case the veteran would be entirely justified in seeking review,
or VA conducting its own review, to determine whether the fee
should be reduced.
Senator Brown. Thank you. I just wanted to restate my
support for the GUARD Act. We should reinstate the guardrails
to protect from unaccredited organizations. If these
organizations want to help veterans they need to get
accredited, period, as I believe you think. So thank you.
Mr. Friel, I was glad to see that VA supports the Love
Lives On Act with some amendments. Like my colleagues, I have
heard directly from constituents whose lives have been put on
hold because of the remarriage restrictions. It really is
unconscionable. I look forward to working with my colleagues on
this bill as it moves forward.
So thank you. Mr. Chairman, thanks.
Chairman Tester. Thank you, Senator Brown.
I have got a few questions myself. The Caring for Survivors
Act increases the dependency and indemnity compensation,
expands access to the benefit by reducing the number of years a
veteran must be rated totally disabled for their spouse to
qualify. DIC has not kept up with the cost of living, and this
bill aims to bring it in line with other federal survivor
programs, giving veterans' surviving families a much needed
increase to the benefits. The PACT Act has also expanded access
to survivor benefit programs, making more surviving families
eligible to apply for benefits.
So the question is, how many additional survivors does VA
anticipate will qualify for benefits under Caring for
Survivors? Whoever would like to go.
Mr. Friel. Thank you for the question. Based off of what we
did with our analysis on the costing we anticipate in the
initial year there will be about 4,000 beneficiaries that will
be brought into the program, and then subsequent out years
there will be the projection of 2,000 per year.
Chairman Tester. And that will go on, the 2,000 per year
will go on----
Mr. Friel. Indefinitely.
Chairman Tester.--Indefinitely. Okay. How many survivors
have already qualified for benefits under the PACT Act, and how
many does VA anticipate are eligible to apply under the PACT
Act?
Mr. Friel. So as of yesterday we had approximately 4,600
claims that had been received from survivors related to the
PACT Act. We have granted about 2,600 of those, and we are
granting at about just over a 62 percent rate. So our
anticipation when we did the initial analysis was we
anticipated seeing 70,000 new beneficiaries being added to the
rolls based off the PACT Act as it relates to survivors.
Chairman Tester. Interestingly enough, I was at an MOA
meeting last night and visited with those folks for a bit, and
I had several folks come up to me, and one of them said that
after the passage of the PACT Act he had gotten three or four
emails saying, ``Here is what you have got. Here is the
benefits now.'' If you guys had anything to do with that, thank
you, because it is good to see aggressive outreach, and I would
include it in that.
On the GUARD Act, VA-accredited organizations' individuals
are held to specific standards when they assess veterans with
their claims. These accredited individuals are prevented from
charging any fees for preparation, presentation, or prosecution
of initial claims. However, there is a growing market preying
on veterans, claiming to be consultants or coaches, and they
are charging veterans fees for the same services veterans can
get free from accredited individuals. Sometimes these fees are
upwards of $1,200, which means either a veteran gives up months
of their disability or they end up being hounded by third-party
debt collectors.
The GUARD Act reinstates criminal penalties for anyone who
is charging veterans to assist with preparation of the claims
without being accredited.
Can you explain VA's position that we should maintain the
current law of not allowing fees to be charged by those
assisting with the initial appeal?
Mr. Barrans. Yes. So the current law is that no one may
charge a fee for assistance with initial appeal. We would be
happy to provide views on any legislative proposals along those
lines. But that limitation was put in place and has been in
place for decades, for a logical and noble reason, which is
that veterans benefits should be going into veterans' pockets
to the largest extent possible.
The VA adjudication system is designed to be weighted very
heavily in favor of veterans and in favor of granting claims
wherever possible, and in that environment the thought is if a
veteran's claim is granted by the VA on the first pass, the
veteran should be entitled to enjoy the full measure of those
earned benefits without having to divert any of it
unnecessarily to an attorney. And, of course, that is balanced
by allowing attorneys in after the first denial.
Chairman Tester. Thank you for that explanation. Can you
tell me what will happen if we fail to reinstate criminal
penalties for violating VA's accreditation?
Mr. Barrans. Yes. We would expect the market of actors who
are charging illegal fees to grow. We are aware that there are
many actors out there right now charging unlawful fees. We
believe this has proven to be a potentially lucrative area of
law, particularly because the system is weighted in favor of
maximizing grants. A number of, just percentage wise, a large
number of these claims are going to be granted by VA, with or
without the assistance of counsel. It may, therefore, be
relatively easy to make money by signing up claimants and
letting the system operate the way it normally would.
Chairman Tester. So the period of transition from military
to civilian workforce is a critical window for veterans. We
have had many a hearing on this. One tool Congress can use to
help with this transition is to establish employment pipelines
from military to specific areas of civilian or government work
force. That is the idea behind the Border Patrol Training Act,
that establishes a program for veterans to fill critical
national security functions, leveraging what they learned in
the military.
So can you talk about how important it is to support
transitioning servicemembers from military to civilian life,
particularly when it comes to training and employment programs?
Mr. Pamperin. Thank you, Senator, for the question. Within
VA, obviously veteran employment is a critical aspect of what
we look to do. You know, while this piece of legislation we
defer to DHS and DoD, we have shown, through our 15 different
SkillBridge programs with DoD that there is true value.
Take one, for example, which is the WARTAC program, where
transitioning servicemembers learn how to become claims
adjudicators. Since 2014, we have had over 2,300 transitioning
members go through that program, and 1,900 graduate, and over
1,700 got positions within VBA, and to this day, 76 percent of
them still maintain employment.
So there is real value in capturing these folks as they are
transitioning out, and within the VBA WARTAC program we have
seen great benefits by soldiers transitioning right in to be
able to help their fellow transitioning soldiers in the
compensation rating process.
Chairman Tester. Thank you.
Senator Tillis, if you are not ready I will go to Senator
Blumenthal. Okay, Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Tillis. As long as I get the next one.
Chairman Tester. You will get the next one, unless Senator
Hassan jumps in. I am just kidding. Go ahead.
SENATOR RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks for holding this hearing. I think we all can agree that
bad actors, con artists that exploit veterans are predators
that ought to be addressed with strong action. That is why I
have introduced the GUARD VA Benefits Act, along with Senators
Boozman, Graham, and thankfully, Chairman Tester.
Mr. Barrans, welcome back. I think we talked about the
GUARD Act the last time you were here. And I want to ask you a
question that we did not address then, which is whether this
problem of exploitation of veterans by individuals who may not
be certified, the abuses of their rights and their pocketbooks
is a growing problem that you think should be addressed.
Mr. Barrans. Yes. Thank you. We do think it is a growing
problem. We have supported the GUARD Act and similar proposals
because we have seen growing action by bad actors in this area,
meaning growing reports of individuals or organizations who are
charging unlawful fees. It diverts veterans' benefits
unnecessarily. Also, you know, these individuals are acting
without VA accreditation, meaning they have no oversight. So
even to the extent that they are providing services, we have no
indication on whether they are quality services, and we have no
basis for holding them accountable to the extent they provided
this service to our veterans.
Senator Blumenthal. You know, the changing demographics
indicate to me that our veteran population is aging. Seniors
are more vulnerable to these kinds of practices. Have you found
that to be true?
Mr. Barrans. Yes. We have seen, anecdotally or through
observational reports, that a number of these scams target
older populations, so pension poaching is an obvious example,
which involves repositioning assets, and it often involves
selling additional financial services to veterans or their
survivors. Similarly, we have seen scams around home care
services or offering to assist with your claims if you sign up
for a particular home care service. So we have seen those
populations being increasingly targeted.
Senator Blumenthal. I want to ask you about the GI Bill and
particularly the basic allowance for housing, the BAH. Think
many of us have friends, relatives--I have two sons and a son-
in-law--taking advantage of the GI Bill, and in particular, I
am saying that the allowance, the BAH, expires or is prorated
while students are not actively in the classroom. For example,
a student veteran whose classes end on December 10th would
receive the BAH for only 10 days. That veteran, consequently,
would have to pay out of pocket for their monthly expenses for
the remaining 21 days.
Maybe Mr. Garcia, shouldn't the current BAH rules be
changed to better serve our veterans?
Mr. Garcia. Sir, as a former veteran myself who relied on
the GI Bill to get me through college and after 8 years
enlisted service I totally get what you are saying. I would not
be here without the GI Bill. I know we have looked, for
example, at the half-rate when a student veteran takes online
courses. We would like to see if that could be changed. You
have still got to pay the rent, whether you are online or not,
right? So that is one example of what we can look at.
In terms of the rate itself, I believe there is a
dependency on what the DoD rates are. We kind of match those.
But we would be happy to work with you in terms of what you are
talking about, the proration part, and see what we could do
there.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, prorating it or covering fully
the time when a veteran needs to stay in the housing. Class may
have ended but he cannot just go out and become homeless as a
result. He needs that support. And I get what you are saying
about online, but why should it be only half?
Mr. Garcia. Sir, that was an original position, maybe
related to COVID. I am not sure. A lot of things maybe were
perceived differently, what was online, what was not. But
again, you have still got to pay the rent whether you are in
the classroom or not. So it is just something we can continue
to work with you on and address that.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, thank you for that, you know, if
someone is taking classes online, the home becomes the
classroom.
Mr. Garcia. Exactly.
Senator Blumenthal. So it is all the more necessary.
Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tester. Senator Tillis.
SENATOR THOM TILLIS
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to
thank Secretary McDonough. We spent about 30 minutes together
last week, to give me an update on the PACT Act implementation.
As many of you know, I voted against the PACT Act. I support
the legislation, need to, since there was a lot of stuff that
we supported out of our office. And he has given me some hope
that we can work out some of the kinks and fulfill the promise
that we made.
Mr. Barrans, I know in your testimony you were talking
about the bill that I was talking about, on timely reporting
response to congressional inquiries, as placing an undue burden
on you on particularly complex issues, and that we would hold
the VA to a different standard of other agencies. I do not buy
the last one, because I want the VA to be one of the top-rated
agencies for responsiveness, for supporting the veterans, for
the best place to work. So if may be treating you differently,
some of that could be intentional because I want you to be
better than the rest. And I also think you have less work to do
than many other agencies.
So can you tell me a little bit--I mean, we can boil this
down to simple use cases. I have some QFRs that I do not think
were particularly complex, that I have not had a response to. I
mentioned that in a prior hearing. If I requested something
that you are going to say, ``He is asking me to answer a
question six months before I can do it well, because I'm doing
analysis, or it requires data-gathering,'' whatever process to
formulate an answer, I do not think this bill would restrict us
from sitting down and you offer a good case, or someone within
the agency, and say, ``I can give you the Cliff Notes version
now. If you want the expanded version it may take me three
months.'' In fact, I would consider that a partial response,
versus a non-response, which is what some of us experience.
And I think Senator Tester pointed out, it is a bipartisan
problem, and I know that it existed across several
administrations. So we are trying to fix it. And I would like
our office to work with you and figure out what other
accommodations we need.
In the VA, timeliness is very important. Most of the things
that we are asking about are things that we, in our heart of
hearts, believe is going to help the VA be better positioned to
serve veterans. So rather than spend time in the office, I am
going to take your support right now as a lean no, but I would
like to get you to a lean yes by realizing--many of you guys
have been around for a while. You have observed my behavior. I
do not attack the VA. I try to ask questions that help the VA
get the job done. And oftentimes the answers to the questions
that I am asking are within the express intent of what I can do
to make your job easier and make the outcomes for veterans
better.
So if I can get the commitment from whoever is the
appropriate person to meet with my office, and let us walk
through and see what concerns we can get addressed so we can
hold the VA to a higher standard?
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Barrans, do you want to take that one?
Mr. Barrans. Chair, thank you. I certainly appreciate the
points and the elaboration and what is motivating them. You
know, VA certainly takes very seriously this relationship and
our duty to provide you the information you need to help us,
and we do work diligently to provide as timely and thorough and
accurate answers as we can, and as we have stated, the
complexity or other factors, collaboration with other
departments may delay things.
But to your point, we would certainly commit to exploring
ways to improve the process, to include modifying it, as you
suggest, to have more touch points if a complete answer is
going to take longer.
Senator Tillis. Good. And I think we can address that,
because I intend to continue to press on the bill.
I told Secretary McDonough, when I met with him, I was 60
seconds from being here for the Committee hearing. I just got
off the train here and missed the hearing. I do not like bad
actors, period. I hate bad actors in the VA space. And I told
Secretary McDonough, one of the questions I wanted to ask, do
we believe everybody who are providing veterans service in a
for-profit model are bad? All of them?
Mr. Barrans. No, no.
Senator Tillis. Do we think more than half of them are? Do
we have the data to substantiate the answer to that question I
just asked?
Mr. Barrans. I do not think we have the data, and I do not
think we know the full gamut of unaccredited representatives
who are out there.
Senator Tillis. I, for one, think that we have many
organizations that are doing a good job, and I think that our
policies need to be instructed by real data and that our
oversight should be instructed by outcomes. And what we do need
to do is come up with some way of objectively measuring an
organization who engages in their services, what they got for
it, how much it cost them. Bad actors just get put out of
business, and good actors get more business.
But I think one of the problems, the concerns that I have,
on Capitol Hill, many people think all of them are bad actors,
just like for-profit institutions of higher learning that have
a pretty high placement rate and fairly low tuition rate. Let
us work on something that will give us the data that will allow
you, maybe over time, to let that data be instructed by policy
so you can make it better.
And Mr. Chair, the only other thing I wanted to mention, I
was able to observe, on C-SPAN later, because I was walking up
here, the exchange between Senator Hirono and Senator Sullivan
on a bill that he is proposing for the Camp Lejeune toxics. I
think it is fair to say our office had a little bit to do with
the drafting of that bill.
Chairman Tester. You did.
Senator Tillis. Yep. And I hate the ads, and I also am
concerned with just how much money is going to go into the
pockets of a law firm versus providing the veteran with
support. I think the registration period for the Camp Lejeune
Act gives us a remarkable opportunity to find more veterans who
have no connection to the VA.
Now I know that there are going to be problems with getting
a cap on legal fees through, but just if I could--and Senator
Hassan, I apologize for this--I started thinking about a kind
of patriot bill of rights. An attorney that has a retainer
agreement that they are going to have a prospective veteran
sign has an obligation to say, ``Have you contacted the
relevant agency?'' In this case it would be the Department of
the Navy. ``Have you ever contacted the VA for services?'' We
have a lot of people we do not have a connection to, but they
are seeing a hell of a lot of ads right now, and some of them
may be calling that number.
So the first question is, ``Do you realize that you have a
right to call this agency and the nature of the claim may be
one that you do not need legal representation. And if you have
called that agency and you did not have a good response, do you
know that your Congressmember and your two Senators also do
casework like this, and we advise clients, when we think the
complexity of their case is too great for us to carry it
forward. Have you done that?
``And are you also aware, prospective client, that there
are several veteran service organizations that are also
developing expertise here? Are you aware of them? Have you
contacted them?'' And then, ``Are you also aware that you may
be charged exorbitant fees for this,'' and we will let people
justify what that fee needs to be, before they sign a retainer
agreement. What would be wrong with a concept like that, that
requires every attorney, maybe even any organization that is in
the for-profit veteran servicing benefit, to make sure that
these veterans know what rights they have, that have nothing to
do with using anything but an agency and a congressional office
and a veteran servicing organization before they ever go to an
outside source to pay for a service, or pay for litigation.
On its face, you are an attorney so you are never going to
say yes to a question like that, but on its face do you see
anything directionally wrong with that concept?
Mr. Barrans. Nothing wrong with the concept. Obviously we
would be happy to provide views on any proposed legislation,
but certainly anything that helps educate veterans of their
rights and resources available.
Senator Tillis. Expect a draft. Maybe when we get together
on the pending legislation we can talk about that one too.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Hassan, I am sorry for going
over.
Chairman Tester. Senator Hassan.
SENATOR MARGARET WOOD HASSAN
Senator Hassan. Well thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank
you and the Ranking Member for this hearing, and thank you to
all the witnesses here today for your work.
Mr. Garcia, the VA runs a wide variety of important
benefits programs to support and empower veterans, and we have
talked about some of those. As I was coming in I was hearing
you talking with Senator Tester about some of them. We do that
in recognition of the service and sacrifice that veterans have
given to keep our country safe, secure, and free.
For example, in addition to processing disability claims,
the VA also runs programs like the GI Bill for education, the
Home Loan Program for housing assistance, and career assistance
programs like Veteran Readiness and Employment.
So just briefly, can you talk about how important these
programs are to veterans and transitioning servicemembers?
Mr. Garcia. Ma'am, let me turn to my colleague, Nick
Pamperin, on the VR&E to start, and then I can pick it up after
he is done.
Senator Hassan. Yes, and just give me, you know, 15, 20
seconds on each, because I have got a couple of follow-ups.
Mr. Garcia. Sure. Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Pamperin. Absolutely. It is a great question. What I
can tell you is our longitudinal study--it is a 30-year study
for VR&E--shows that veterans who go through the VR&E program,
on average, earn $20,000 to $30,000 more annually than veterans
who discontinue the program. We are an employment program, and
our program demonstrates, you know, significant results for
veterans.
Senator Hassan. Great. Thank you. Anything you wanted to
add, sir, about the other programs?
Mr. Garcia. Well, all the programs are extremely important,
especially we found for the dependents, the educational
assistance that we can provide dependents really are striking
in how much difference they make. We have seen that in surveys.
That is something I think I would like to call out.
Senator Hassan. Okay. Now these types of--well, let me back
up. In light of how important the programs are to veterans, I
want to learn a little bit more about how they are
administered. Can you tell me about the professional background
and expertise of the VA employees who administer the VA's
employment and education programs?
Mr. Pamperin. Sure. For VR&E, the primary case manager is a
master's-educated counselor in vocational rehabilitation
services. We are the only affirmative program within VBA that
has that specific cohort of an educational requirement. So
within VR&E it is a master's-educated counselor.
Senator Hassan. Okay. And other employment programs,
similar kind of career counseling, training?
Mr. Pamperin. Within the VR&E program, we are the
employment program. They are the GS-12, master's-educated
counselors.
Senator Hassan. Okay. So these types of experts are
critical to the effective administration of the VA's economic
benefit programs. I want to turn to the type of expertise that
is best suited, to, though, to administering the VA's
disability benefits process, which involves lawyers and doctors
and health care experts. So can you tell me about the
professional background and expertise of the VA employees who
administer the VA's disability programs?
Mr. Friel. Yes, ma'am. So it varies. We have attorneys that
we hire. We have nurse practitioners that we hire as far as
rating decisions and working in that area. For a claims
processor, we typically look for a college degree, at least a
bachelor's degree, they come in at the GS-7 level, and then
through the training that we provide them, because it is a
unique skill set, and then we work to get them up to speed. And
we have quality and oversight that ensures that the production
that we get is the best that we can get.
Senator Hassan. But you are really looking at an analysis
of health care claims within an adjudicatory process, right? It
is determining disability claims.
Mr. Friel. So yes. I mean, in that arena--I represent
Pension and Fiduciary Service so that is more of a compensation
question, but I would be happy to take that back and work with
compensation service to get you a reply about what they look
for.
Senator Hassan. Well, what I am really trying to get at
here, and just really want to know, is if there is a difference
in the expertise that we need, and I want to just highlight the
reasons behind the bipartisan bill I have, that you all know
about, with Senator Rubio, which would create a separate
administration within the VA that would dedicate full attention
to the VA's economic and transition assistance programs, while
the existing Benefits Administration could focus more
completely on processing disability claims for veterans.
My concern is when you have one administration that is
really focused on adjudicating disability claims you do not
necessarily focus in the same ways that you could on economic
empowerment and transition. And so I hope to continue
discussions with all of you about that bill and how we make
sure that we are running these programs as effectively as we
can for veterans.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Tester. Yes, thank you, Senator Hassan. I want to
thank you guys for being here today and being forthright and
willing to work with us. You are dismissed. Thank you.
We have got a second panel coming up. I have got a bunch of
folks that are very familiar with this Committee. We have Shane
Liermann, who is Deputy National Legislative Director of
Disabled American Veterans; we have got Tammy Barlet, Vice
President of Government Affairs for Student Veterans of
America; we have got Ashlynne Haycock-Lohmann, who is the
Deputy Director for Government and Legislative Affairs at the
Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors; and we have got Diane
Boyd Rauber, who is Executive Director for the National
Organization of Veterans' Advocates.
I want to start by thanking all of you for being here
today. We appreciate getting the perspective from the veterans
who are on the ground. More importantly, we appreciate what
each and every one of you do for the veterans throughout this
country.
We will start with you, Mr. Liermann, for your opening
statement, and then we will rock and roll right down the line.
Go ahead.
PANEL II
----------
STATEMENT OF SHANE LIERMANN
Mr. Liermann. Thank you. Chairman Tester and members of the
Committee, DAV is grateful for the opportunity to appear before
you today, and our written testimony covers all of the 14 bills
being considered. However, my comments will focus on just a few
of these.
DAV was founded over 100 years ago by World War I veterans
who banded together to assist each other in establishing their
claims for earned benefits. Today, DAV is a congressionally
chartered and VA-accredited veteran service organization that
provides free VA claims and appeals representation to veterans
and their families.
I am a disabled veteran and a VA-accredited DAV benefits
advocate, and I have been assisting veterans and their families
with claims and appeals for 25 years. Based on this experience,
we appreciate the importance of S. 280, the BEST for Vets Act,
as it would ensure that only licensed health care professionals
furnish disability examinations under the VA contract examiner
program. The VA examination is a vital part of the claims
process as it can be determinative of the existence of a
current condition or if the veteran's illness or injury is
related to their active military service, or specifically, the
severity of that condition. Thus, having medically licensed
professionals will only benefit the process. DAV supports the
BEST for Vets Act.
Part of our mission includes protecting veterans and their
families in the claims and appeals process, which is why DAV
strongly supports S. 740, the GUARD VA Benefits Act. It would
reinstate criminal penalties for those entities who charge
veterans and their families fees for preparing the claim, all
the while intentionally skirting around VA accreditation
requirements. To be clear, these companies were created knowing
they were operating in violation of VA law. Additionally, many
have refused to stop their practices, even after receiving
cease and desist letters from VA's Office of General Counsel.
For many of our Nation's disabled veterans, VA disability
compensation can be the difference between making ends meet and
more severe outcomes such as homelessness. DAV believes that no
veteran should pay these entities to file a claim. Veterans
have already paid with their service and sacrifices.
Mr. Chairman, we thank you and Senator Boozman for
introducing S. 414, the Caring for Survivors Act. This
bipartisan legislation would ease the eligibility criteria for
dependency indemnity compensation, DIC, and increase the
monthly benefit amount to match benefits provided by other
federal survivor programs. Specifically, the bill would
increase the amount of DIC to 55 percent of the rate of the
monthly compensation received by a totally disabled veteran.
This will provide parity with the amount survivors of federal
employees receive, and it will expand eligibility for DIC by
replacing the 10-year rule with a graduated scale of benefits
that begins at 5 years for initial eligibility of 50 percent
and gradually reaches the full benefit at 10 years. For
example, if a veteran is rated as totally disabled for 5 years,
and dies of a non-service-connected cause, a survivor would be
entitled to 50 percent of the DIC benefit.
DIC fully supports the Caring for Survivors Act, which is
extremely important to our members. Just within the past two
weeks, our members have sent over 28,000 emails to Congress in
support of this legislation. That is all right--I will say it
again. That is right, 28,000 emails in support. DIC rates have
changed little since 1993. It is time we provide adequate
compensation for the survivors of our Nation's veterans.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we thank you and Ranking Member
Moran for introducing S. 897, the Expedited Veteran Appeals
Act. We believe a permanent increase of judges from seven to
nine will improve the timeliness in appeals at the Court of
Appeals for veterans claims. The court has sole jurisdiction
over the decisions from the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which
has predicted they will decide more cases this year than at any
other point. DAV supports S. 897, and we point to the court's
own statement, ``Seven permanent active judges are not
adequate.''
This concludes my testimony, and I look forward to any
questions you and the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Liermann appears on page 56
of the Appendix.]
Chairman Tester. We will have questions, Mr. Liermann.
Thank you very much for your testimony.
Next up we have got Tammy Barlet.
STATEMENT OF TAMMY BARLET
Ms. Barlet. Chairman Tester and members of the Committee,
thank you for inviting Student Veterans of America to submit
testimony on legislation pending before you today, and thank
you for considering several pieces of legislation that would
impact student veterans and military-connected students in
higher education.
SVA has a mission focused on empowering student veterans,
and we are committed to providing an educational experience
that goes beyond the classroom. SVA's views on seven bills can
be found in my written testimony, but I will take this
opportunity to highlight two.
SVA supports S. 498, the Veteran Education Empowerment Act,
which would reauthorize a Department of Education grant program
designed to coordinate resources and services for student
veterans through veteran centers.
Over eight years ago, as a new student at Temple
University, I met with the Associate Director of Adult and
Veteran Student Recruitment. She mentioned the university had a
Student Veteran chapter. I smiled and I began to feel at ease,
knowing that the next step in my journey would be surrounded
and supported by those who also served. As a first-generation
college student, leaving the security of my hometown community
college, I knew I would need a place and people to connect to
on campus. After not self-identifying as a veteran for over 10
years, this might be the place to embrace that label.
I soon became active in the Temple Veterans Association,
and I participated in the grant-writing task force to find
funds to support our dream of a centralized rendezvous on
campus. The grant was awarded, and in the fall of 2016, Rear
Admiral Lynch, the then President and now Chancellor at Temple
University, Richard Englert, and the late General Colin Powell
officially cut the ribbon to open the Temple's Military and
Veteran Services Center.
The benefits of veteran service centers is more than
anecdotal. A study published in Journal of Education found that
Post-9/11 veterans were 94 percent more likely to graduate if
they use a veteran center. A veteran center is an oasis for
student veterans, military-connected students, family members,
and survivors. It is where we escape the noisy and often
bustling computer lab, host resume writings and mock interview
sessions, and find a place of refuge from the academic and
personal stressors of the post-traditional student life.
SVA and other veteran-serving organizations can connect
with those on campus at a simple, single location. Programming
at veteran centers can provide education and training for
campus facility and staff to further aid in creating a more
welcome community for transitioning student veterans. This
legislation would support a single dedicated point of contact
for veterans and veteran-specific orientation, which has been
shown to increase student veteran success outcomes by 15 and 10
percent, respectively.
There are just a few and more important support mechanisms
of this bill that would make it possible to have on campuses
across the country through a well-equipped student veteran
center.
SVA supports 1090, a bill to direct the Secretary of
Veteran Affairs to update the payment system of the Department
to allow for electronic fund transfer of education assistance
to foreign institutions of higher education. SVA has heard from
numerous veterans and their family members encountering major
obstacles using the VA education benefit overseas. One of the
many issues they face is their institution being barred from
approval from VA education benefits because it does not have an
employer identification number or a U.S. bank account. VA
recently indicated that an EIN is no longer required, but the
institutions are still required to have a U.S. bank account,
due to the current IT limitations. We believe VA is already
contemplating a fix for this issue, but the Department's
failure to act thus far continues to limit beneficiaries'
choice overseas.
The continued success of veterans in higher education in a
Post-9/11 era is no mistake or coincidence. In our Nation's
history, educated veterans have always been the best of our
generation and the key to solving our more complex challenges.
Today's student veterans carry this legacy forward.
We thank you, Chairman and Committee members, for your
time, attention, and devotion to the cause of veterans in
higher education. As always, we welcome your feedback and
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Barlet appears on page 66 of
the Appendix.]
Chairman Tester. Thank you for your statement, Ms. Barlet.
Next we have Ms. Haycock-Lohmann. You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF ASHLYNNE HAYCOCK-LOHMANN
Ms. Haycock-Lohmann. Chairman Tester, Ranking Member Moran,
and distinguished members of the Senate Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors is
grateful for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the
over 120,000 surviving families TAPS is honored to serve.
TAPS strongly supports S. 1266, the Love Lives On Act, and
we thank Ranking Member Moran and Senator Warnock for
reintroducing it yesterday. A top legislative priority for TAPS
is ensuring military surviving spouses are allowed to remarry
at any age and retain their benefits. Current law penalizes
surviving spouses if they remarry before the age of 55. Given
that many Post-9/11 surviving spouses are widowed in the 20s
and 30s, we are asking them to wait over 20 years to remarry
and retain their benefits.
Military spouses are among the unemployed and underemployed
populations in the United States. Due to frequent moves,
deployments, and expensive childcare, military spouses face
many challenges to employment and are unable to fully invest in
their own careers and retirements. For many families, military
retirement is considered the household's retirement. These
barriers continue when a military spouse becomes a surviving
spouse. Many surviving spouses have to put their lives on hold
to raise grieving children. They rely on survivor benefits to
help offset the loss of pay for their late spouse and their own
lost income as a result of the demands of military life.
The stories of surviving spouses, Rebecca Morrison
Mullaney, and Linda Ambard Rickard, shine light on the issues
and why the current law needs to change.
Rebecca was widowed at 24 years old, when her husband,
Apache helicopter pilot and West Point graduate, Captain Ian
Morrison, died by suicide in 2012. Rebecca had to leave her
home and career after Ian's sudden death and attempt to rebuild
her life. She could no longer pursue the career she had trained
for and had to withdraw from her graduate program.
In memory of Ian, Rebecca has dedicated her life to
preventing suicide. Through her work she met her now-husband,
Brennan, also an Army veteran and West Point graduate. Rebecca
and Brennan married knowing that she would lose all of her
benefits, but they made the difficult decision in order to
build a family together. Nine months ago, they welcomed their
first child, a boy, whom they named in honor of Ian.
Just because Rebecca has remarried does not mean she loves
Ian any less. She is a wife to both men. Ian is a daily part of
both of their lives. Brennan even went to the cemetery to
promise Ian he would always love and support Rebecca before he
proposed to her.
Rebecca is one of the less than 5 percent of surviving
spouses who have chosen to remarry before age 55 and lose their
benefits, even though Ian earned those benefits through his
service and sacrifice.
Linda's story is different. She was widowed at 50, after
her husband of 23 years, Major Phil Ambard, was killed in
Afghanistan. Just like Rebecca, Linda was fortunate to find
love again after the loss of her husband. But because she was
over 55, Linda did not lose her benefits upon remarriage. She
was not forced to decide between her own financial security and
being alone for the rest of her life.
The only difference between Rebecca and Linda is their age.
They both lost their spouses to military service, and they both
found love again, but only one of them is penalized for it. All
they are asking for is the right to choose how they move
forward and pick up the broken pieces of their lives, lives
that were permanently changed because they loved and married
someone who died due to service to our country.
In addition, TAPS strongly supports S. 414, the Caring for
Survivors Act, and thanks Chairman Tester and Senator Boozman
for reintroducing this important bill. Raising DIC from 43 to
55 percent of the rate paid to 100 percent disabled veterans
will provide parity with other federal survivor benefits. More
than 450,000 survivors receive DIC from the VA, but the current
rate for surviving spouses is $1,562 per month, and has only
been increased by COLA since 1993.
TAPS and the survivor community have supported
strengthening DIC for many years. 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.''
It is time we fixed this inequity. Our Nation's surviving
families should not be receiving less than their civilian
counterparts.
TAPS also strongly supports S. 350, the Fry Scholarship
Enhancement Act, which expands Fry Scholarship eligibility to
the families of those who die in the 120-day release from
active duty period. If a veteran dies during the 120-day REFRAD
period, they are considered an active-duty death for all
benefits except the Fry Scholarship. The only difference is
that these families are eligible for Chapter 35 instead of Fry.
This bill would bring long-overdue parity to these surviving
families.
Finally, TAPS would like to express support for S. 740, The
GUARD VA Benefits Act; S. 1090, the GI Bill Foreign Institution
Electronic Payment Act; and the Student Veterans Transparency
and Protection Act, all of which would positively impact the
surviving families TAPS supports.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Haycock-Lohmann appears on
page 72 of the Appendix.]
Chairman Tester. Thank you, Ashlynne.
Now we have Ms. Rauber.
STATEMENT OF DIANE BOYD RAUBER
Ms. Rauber. Chairman Tester, Ranking Member Moran, and
members of the Committee, NOVA thanks you for the opportunity
to testify. Our written statement addresses other bills on the
agenda, but we will focus today on S. 740, the GUARD VA
Benefits Act, and explain why accreditation provides important
safeguards to veterans and reinstatement of penalties is long
overdue. We thank Senators Boozman, Blumenthal, Tester, and
Graham for reintroducing GUARD and their continuing leadership
on this issue.
The GUARD VA Benefits Act is necessary to protect veterans
from unaccredited representation, illegal charging, predatory
practices, and fraud that is being flaunted and excused in the
name of choice. Accredited representation provides veterans
with due process, choice, and the best outcomes. When a veteran
retains an accredited attorney, agent, or VSO, that
representative obtains access to the veteran's claims file and
VA databases. The advocate can develop a comprehensive,
coordinated plan for representation at all levels of the
process. The advocate can request medical and service records.
The advocate can call or email a VA employee on the veteran's
behalf. The advocate can appear at a hearing with the veteran
and submit argument. The advocate can work to ensure the
appropriate effective date is assigned, benefits are maximized,
and expedited treatment is requested when warranted.
Furthermore, accredited attorneys and agents file every
single fee agreement with VA. When a veteran chooses to hire an
accredited agent or attorney, they have peace of mind that VA
will enforce reasonable fees and allow for due process. NOVA
fully supports these protections.
You are now hearing from unaccredited claims consultants
that the accreditation process is broken. These arguments ring
hollow when made by those who have never subjected themselves
to vetting by VA, submitted a single fee contract for review,
and publicly state they cannot make enough money abiding by the
same laws and regulations that our members do.
While predatory practices and contracts vary, we see some
common elements and hear common complaints. Consultants
aggressively advertise online and solicit veterans
electronically to file claims, fraudulently maintaining they
can get faster decisions or otherwise guaranteed results.
Consultants gather information and prepare an initial claim or
claim for increase and coach the veteran filing it. Sometimes
the claim is submitted by a consultant using the veteran's
eBenefits login information. Consultants charge illegal fees
with contracts requiring 5 or 6 months of the veteran's future
increase. Some commit fraud by reaching back in to take fees
from awards unrelated to the original action.
Unaccredited claims consultants also interfere with
existing power of attorney relationships. For example, one of
our members reported that a company prepared four claims for
her client, promising faster results. The veteran submitted
four VA disability benefits questionnaires completed by a nurse
practitioner procured by this company. On the consultant's
advice, the veteran asked VA not to schedule any examinations
for him. The consultant had no idea that two of these claims
were already pending at the Board of Veterans' Appeals and VA
denied them. VA denied the other two claims because of the
veteran's stated unwillingness to submit to any additional
examinations.
Some companies also use predatory collection practices.
Aware that a veteran might not receive enough retroactive
payment to fulfill the amount for 5 or 6 months, they set up
payment plans that charge interest. Other companies have
employees who ask veterans for payment that is clearly not
owed. For example, one company charged the client of a NOVA
member $6,000 for an increase that was not based on the
material prepared by the company. The company's in-house debt
collector called the veteran 20 times about the alleged sum
owed. They asked the veteran to send screenshots of his
eBenefits and va.gov account, and asked the veteran's
accredited representative to send the rating decision to them
for review.
Other consultants target elderly veterans in nursing homes
with promises of aid and attendance benefits. For example, NOVA
recently received a call from an individual assisting a veteran
in a nursing home. She reported a consultant had come to that
facility and told the veteran they could help him apply for
benefits, but they needed his bank account information first.
VA has repeatedly told Congress that they need
reinstatement of penalties to stop fraud and predatory
practices because these companies ignore cease and desist
letters. The accredited advocate community supports the GUARD
VA Benefits Act. Every day the penalties are not reinstated is
another day that a veteran or family member is exploited.
We ask this Committee to advance GUARD. Thank you again for
the opportunity to testify, and we are happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rauber appears on page 86 of
the Appendix.]
Chairman Tester. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Rauber.
Senator Hassan?
Senator Hassan. Well thanks, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank
the panel for your testimony. And I just had really one
question for you, Mr. Liermann. In your written testimony both
DAV--and actually to you, Ms. Barlet, as well--and Student
Veterans of America both expressed support for my bill with
Senator Rubio to create a separate Veterans Economic
Opportunity and Transition Administration within the VA. Can
you expand on that testimony by telling us a little bit about
the value that your organizations and your members see in
creating this new entity to focus on the VA's economic
benefits? And I will start with you, Mr. Liermann, and then Ms.
Barlet.
Mr. Liermann. Thank you very much for the question. There
are several different things we could point to within the
education or employment parts that did not get the amount of
attention that it needed. And real quick, VR&E, for eight
years, has been trying to establish an electronic case
management system for their counselors, eight years. We do not
have one yet. They have already spent $20 million, and now they
are about to embark on a third one.
We believe that is a prime example of if there was somebody
focused, dedicated, overseeing that, we would not be where we
are eight years later, $20 million, and we still do not have
the tool they need.
Senator Hassan. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Barlet?
Ms. Barlet. Thank you, Senator, and I appreciate the
question. By establishing that fourth administration it gives
the opportunity to have the economic opportunity looked at,
stronger messaging and outreach, along with possibility of
reviewing programs and adding that modernization piece into it.
Senator Hassan. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That is all I had.
Chairman Tester. Senator King?
SENATOR ANGUS S. KING, JR.
Senator King. Thank you, Senator. I would like to ask a
question about the GUARD Act, and I completely agree that it is
important and necessary. What is the accreditation process now?
What does it take to become an accredited representative?
Ms. Rauber. Well, Senator, that depends on whether you are
a VSO, an attorney, or an agent. So VSOs are accredited under
the umbrella of their congressionally chartered organization,
but that is on an individual basis.
Senator King. But if you are a member of the Legion, is
that enough?
Ms. Rauber. No. You still have to submit information to VA.
I am more familiar with attorneys and agents. Attorneys have to
submit evidence of being in good standing with the state bar.
They have to complete CLEs that VA requires.
Claims agents are slightly different because they are
laypeople that are neither part of the VSO community or an
attorney. They have to have a background check conducted by VA,
they have to also participate in CLEs, and they are required to
complete a claims agent exam, which is to know that these
people have some common, basic----
Senator King. Do you think the process itself is timely and
effective?
Ms. Rauber. I definitely think the process is effective. We
always think that VA can do things a little bit faster. So we
know that sometimes it takes a little longer for agents to be
accredited. But we also think that that is really important
because you want to be sure that these people can do the job.
And we think maybe they could offer exams more frequently. That
would be a big help.
Senator King. Along the lines of representation--I see
Senator Sullivan has joined us--one of the issues that we are
going to be debating and trying to work through is the
appropriate cap on contingent fee percentage, particularly at
Camp Lejeune. I would just like to survey the panel, because
you are involved in these kinds of matters. What is reasonable?
Senator Sullivan has proposed, I think, 17 percent. There is
discussion of 30 percent, which is more of the conventional
attorney contingent fee. Help us out here, with any thoughts
you have on this matter.
Ms. Rauber. Senator, I am going to disappoint both you and
Mr. Sullivan by saying that our members are not mass torts
attorneys. Our members are not the people who have been
advertising. Our members are people who are experts on VA.
Senator King. Oh, I understand that. I was not casting
aspersions. I am just asking you to help give us guidance on
what the right number is--17? 22? 31?
Ms. Rauber. We do not have a number. We just----
Senator King. We have got to arrive at a number. That is
why I am looking for something.
Ms. Rauber. I understand that. There needs to be sure that
there are people who are able to competently represent veterans
and their families in these cases, and that is all I can really
state today.
Senator King. Okay. One other more general question for the
panel. This is a good list of legislation that we have been
talking about here. Are there other things that, if you had a
blank sheet of paper, you would bring to us in terms of
improvements in the VA process that we are not attending to
adequately at this point? This is a big opportunity for you,
Shane.
Mr. Liermann. Thank you, Senator, it is.
Senator King. I am opening the door, man.
Mr. Liermann. I do not think there is enough time for this
Committee to listen to me for the next five hours, explaining
them.
Senator King. Well, I have got a minute 39.
Mr. Liermann. Real quick, one of the issues that we have
been seeing as part of the claims process--and there has been a
bill on it the last few Congresses--and that goes specific to
MST claims and processes. There have been several hearings
about it in the House over the several years on VA not getting
the accuracy correct when it comes to claims, based on military
sexual trauma. We think that is something that really needs to
be addressed. It has been something the VSO community has been
talking about for many, many years. And if I were to give
anything it would be to find a better way for VA to get it
right the first time.
Senator King. Thank you. Any other thoughts?
Ms. Rauber. Yes. I would like to jump in. I think a few
years ago we worked on the Appeals Modernization Act with some
of the people in this room, and while we think that that bill
has done some really good things at VA, we think maybe it is
time to sit down and take a look at that. We think there are
some things that could be improved, particularly taking a look
at the Board of Veterans' Appeals and how long it is taking for
decisions to be made there.
Senator King. Great. Thank you. And I take it you all
support the GUARD Act? Is that accurate? Yep. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Tester. Senator Sullivan.
SENATOR DAN SULLIVAN
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am just
going to follow up where my good friend, Senator King, left
off. This is the Camp Lejeune Act that we passed last year, and
I think every American has seen all the advertisements. We had
a hearing last fall that the VA representative mentioned it is
over $1 billion in ads. It has probably gotten way north of
that.
So I know that maybe all of you are not ready to talk about
a specific cap, and I understand that. We are working through
that. But would all of you agree that you need some cap on
contingency fees, right? Pretty much every federal law that
enables a claim against the government--and now we are talking
way outside the realm of veterans--they all have caps on
contingency fees, every law, with the exception of this one. I
will not go into the details of why that did not happen.
The Biden administration, as we were negotiating the Camp
Lejeune Act and the PACT Act, of which it was part, the Justice
Department of the Biden administration encouraged this
Committee to adopt caps. It did not happen. It is just not good
for the veterans and the Camp Lejeune Marines and families that
are seeking compensation.
So can I just real quickly--does everybody agree we need
caps on contingency fees? There have been reports of 40, 50, 60
percent contingency fees, which is just outrageous. So do you
guys all agree that we need caps? I want to start with you,
Shane.
Mr. Liermann. Thank you, Senator. Well, we do not have a
specific resolution for this bill.
Senator Sullivan. No, I know.
Mr. Liermann. DAV does believe, and we do have resolutions
that does support capping attorney fees, specifically within
the VA system. So yes, we believe that is something that must
be done to help protect veterans.
Senator Sullivan. Yes, absolutely. Okay. Tammy?
Ms. Barlet. Although SVA does not directly have an impact
on this, but we do have student veterans who are going through
their comp and pen benefits, and we rely on our VSO friends to
help them through that process.
Senator Sullivan. Okay. Ms. Haycock-Lohmann?
Ms. Haycock-Lohmann. Yes, of course, surviving families are
at high risk for being taken advantage of by bad actors, and
anything we can do to reduce that for surviving families is
important to us.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Ms. Rauber?
Ms. Rauber. We do not have a position on it, but I would
point you to the fact that our members are capped under VA
disability law, and that we really think that GUARD is
necessary because some of those same practices you are seeing
in Camp Lejeune we are seeing with the unaccredited claims
consultants.
Senator Sullivan. Okay. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we
can, again, get to a spot. I have been kind of going up in the
negotiations, the issues with regard to contingency fees, I
understand we want good lawyers to be able to represent the
Marines and Marine families. As you know, in the Camp Lejeune
Act, though, there are a lot of elements of that. The defense
of the government have been waived, so this is not as
complicated as a full trial that starts with discovery and has
a full trial and litigation. This is a much cleaner process for
the attorneys representing the families, which is another
reason we believe 17 percent cap and 12 percent on filing is
more than generous for our lawyers.
I will just make one final point. There is a 2-year
timeline for families to file under this law. So unlike the
GUARD Act, which I know has been literally considered since the
mid 2000s, we are getting to the point where we are running out
of time. And the more that this gets delayed without fixing the
attorney fee cap issue, the more Marine Corps families and
Marines who we are trying to help are going to not get the
justice that they deserve.
So I really appreciate the panel here. I want to work with
everybody on the Committee. Again, this one, you know, you can
rope-a-dope an issue long enough to where it goes away. That
will happen here, but it will not be the right outcome. We all
know that that will be enriching certain trial lawyers. I am
not saying they are all bad, but there are certainly some
unethical ones at the expense of Marines and their families,
and I think everybody knows that is just wrong. It is just
wrong, and I certainly hope the Congress can fix it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tester. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
It is my understanding that Senator Durbin has a bill, you
have got a bill. I think there is an opportunity here to find a
spot that works.
Senator Sullivan. I hope so. I hope we can do it quickly,
though, because like I said----
Chairman Tester. No, I hear you.
Senator Sullivan [continuing]. The timeline is----
Chairman Tester. I think it is hard to argue 40, 50, 60
percent contingency.
Senator Sullivan. No. That is wrong.
Chairman Tester. I think it is easy to argue comprehensive
representation. So it is good. I appreciate that.
I have got a couple of questions and then we will see who
else shows up. The first one is for you, Ms. Haycock-Lohmann,
and the Caring for Survivors Act increases the DIC and expands
access to this benefit by reducing the number of years a
veteran must be rated totally disabled for their spouse to
qualify. Why is this important?
Ms. Haycock-Lohmann. Currently, surviving spouses of those
who died from military service are receiving lower benefits
than other federal service. My husband works for the U.S.
Marshals Service. My benefits would be higher under his service
there than they would be if he were to die from his military
service.
Chairman Tester. Okay. Ms. Barlet, we have five education-
related bills on this agenda today. One of those bills requires
VA to update its payment system to allow schools overseas to
accept student veterans. Why is this bill necessary and why are
students overseas having trouble accessing their VA benefits?
Ms. Barlet. Thank you for the question, Chairman. Student
veterans who choose to use their benefits overseas are having
issues, and the institutions where they are at are having
barriers to getting reimbursed through VA. There is a
requirement--or sorry, there was not a requirement for an
employer ID number or a U.S. bank account, but then they are
finding that the process still does require that U.S. bank
account. So if a student chooses to go overseas to use their
benefits, the institutions are running into the barriers and
challenges of being reimbursed and allowing those beneficial
funds to come in to cover the cost of the tuition.
Chairman Tester. Okay. Ms. Rauber, your members represent
the veterans before the Court of Appeals for veterans claims.
There is a bill in here to increase the number of judges. Why
is that important, and can you give me any sort of idea on what
the timeline is now for delayed justices, justice?
Ms. Rauber. Thank you, Senator Tester. Well, we do support
that legislation as stated in our written statement, and I
think it is important to kind of look, as the PACT Act came
into being, all different parts of VA are getting more
resources. So we anticipate that as more claims are decided,
and hopefully at some point the Board of Veterans' Appeals is
deciding more cases, that there will be more cases that will
potentially go up to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims,
and we want to make sure that after all this has been put into
the resources for the PACT Act there is not a stall-out up
there, and that they need to have those judges.
Chairman Tester. I appreciate that.
Mr. Liermann, you have already answered this question but I
am going to ask it again in case you want to say something else
in the minute 50 that I have got left.
The GUARD Act is really important. From your membership,
why?
Mr. Liermann. I think allowing people to pick and choose
the veterans they represent, because they have said that. They
have said that they are only taking cases they know they can
win. So are they really trying to represent a veteran or just
wanting more money for themselves? So are they really doing it
justice in that way?
There is also then deciding the fees that they get to
charge. There are many veterans, I know just in the DC area,
that were being told the only way you could get a claim done
quickly is if you go to these claims agents, and that is not
true. That has been debunked more than once.
And I think one of the big things we would like to point
out is they have told us the people they represent are getting
their claims decided in 5 to 6 months, and they made that sound
like that was, oh, my God, 5 to 6 months? Well, guess what?
That is what everybody else is getting through with free
representation and free help from somebody who is accredited.
I think what they are doing is dangerous. They are setting
expectations that are not realistic. Veterans are falling for
that. Then they are coming to VSOs and those that do not
charge, for help when they need an appeal, because they cannot
represent them at that point.
So thank you, Senator.
Chairman Tester. I am sorry. I do not know. We are awful
busy here. We have a lot of people that are in line to ask
question. Go ahead, Senator King.
Senator King. This is not really a question for the panel,
but I think S. 656 is a very important bill. It is the one that
allows the waiver of the time lapse for commercial driver's
licenses. We desperately need commercial drivers, and we have
got veterans who have that skill. They have learned it in the
military. And we ought to be able to expedite that process. You
are nodding. Can you say yes so it will be on the record.
Mr. Liermann. Yes, Senator----
Senator King. ``Yes, Senator King, you are absolutely
right,'' is the right answer.
Mr. Liermann. Yes, Senator King, you are absolutely right,
and DAV fully supports this because we know that is removing
another barrier for service-disabled veterans into employment.
Senator King. Right, and it is an area of the economy where
we need commercial drivers.
Mr. Liermann. Correct. I believe they said there were over
80,000 commercial drivers, a shortage of that many commercial
drivers in the country right now. So this is a way to get
veterans into needed employment in a very quick way.
Senator King. Well, let me broaden the question a little
bit. One of the things that has always bothered me is that
people learn tremendous skills in the military, and then they
come out and they have to go through an entirely new licensing,
apprenticeship, delay program. Talk to me about that. Is that
something we should be addressing? I realize many times it is a
state issue. But if somebody has electronics skills in the
military, and then they have to go through a lengthy process of
relicensing that is expensive and time-consuming, I never
thought that made a lot of sense.
Tammy, you have got your finger right on----
Ms. Barlet. Finger on the buzzer. Thank you, Senator King.
Along the lines you had mentioned electronics, and looking at
cybersecurity, that is why SVA supports the expansion and
improvement of the VA VET TEC Program. This is a program that
VA has established for 5 years, and a GAO report came out in
the fall and found it was successful in placing veterans in
that type of employment, by then using their Post-9/11 GI Bill
monies to go toward certifications in those types of jobs.
There is a bill at the House, and we just testified on it
last month.
Senator King. But it has not been introduced over here?
Ms. Barlet. Not that I am aware of, but we would----
Senator King. Could you supply a copy to my office?
Ms. Barlet. We would love to work with your office. Thank
you.
Senator King. Thank you. Other comments on the more general
question of military skills being transferred into the private
sector?
Mr. Liermann. Yes, Senator. At DAV we have a resolution and
we support finding a way to reduce or remove some of those
certification requirements. For a skill earned in the military,
now you have got to go through that process in the civilian
sector.
And a few just real quick examples, HVAC, electricians,
plumbers, people who learned that and did those skills in the
military cannot go out and get a job unless they get
recertified, go through an apprenticeship, and we are slowing
down.
Senator King. It takes several years.
Mr. Liermann. Right. When they should be ready for that job
the minute they are out. I have seen, in some of the setups
people did when I was in the Marine Corps, and I would want
those people doing the electricity in my house.
Senator King. Thank you. You know about the lawyer that had
a plumbing problem in his basement? The plumber came and
repaired it, handed him the bill. The lawyer said, ``I cannot
afford this.'' And the plumber said, ``I could not either when
I was a lawyer.''
[Laughter.]
Senator King. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tester. I do not know, Senator King, if you know
anybody in the Armed Services Committee, but it may be an issue
of credentialing that some of the fine members on the Armed
Services Committee could take up, to have the Defense
Department----
Senator King. I know a guy.
Chairman Tester. You do know a guy? Good. I think, by the
way, your points are spot on. I think we have traditionally
undervalued the experience that people have in the military,
and people say, ``Well, it just does not apply to the private
sector,'' which is total BS, and you know, that, and the folks
on this panel know that too. And truck drivers are an
interesting situation.
I want to thank the VA for being here, and I want to thank
the VA for sticking around for the VSOs' part of the panel. I
want to thank the VSOs for being here today and the folks you
advocate for. Both of these panels I thought were very, very
good and gave us some information.
The record will be kept open for a week.
Before I close I just want to say something, and use a
little personal privilege. We just had a bill on the floor
called the Elizabeth Dole Veterans Programs Improvement Act. It
did not receive cloture. Let me tell you what this bill did. It
established a grant program to expand the work of county
veteran service officers, the folks on the ground who provide
critical outreach and assistance to veterans seeking the
benefits they have earned.
We just talked about veterans hiring lawyers? These folks
can give them information. This went down. Give them
information so that they can make the right decision. A lot of
these programs you guys deal with, and you know this, they kind
of get kind of complicated once in a while, maybe unnecessarily
so. But these veteran service officers play a really important
role in expanding information.
The other thing it did is it expanded access to home and
community-based care programs for veterans. Now look, some
veterans may not be able to stay in their home and might have
to go to a veterans home. But those who can, we ought to be
encouraging them to stay there. If they want to, we ought to be
encouraging them to stay there. That is what this would have
done. It went down.
It strengthened VA's long-term care programs, important for
people who get hurt and they have an injury that disables them
for their entire life, and they are young people when they get
hurt, important.
It made the Native American Direct Loan Program more
accessible to Native Americans. This is group that serves at a
higher rate than any other minority in the country.
It improves the VA's program--by the way, it went down--it
improved the VA's program of comprehensive assistance for
family caregivers by creating more appropriate processes for
evaluating and assessing veterans who need mental health care,
specialist care, or veterans with chronic or degenerative
conditions.
I do not have to tell the folks here, it is why the VA is
so important is because the issues coming out of the Middle
East have been mental health, mental health, mental health,
PTSD, PTSD, TBI, and when it comes to veterans that need
special care, talk to the DAV about it. Talk to Paralyzed
Veterans about it. These folks need help. That went down, by
the way.
And the last thing it would have done is it would have
required the VA to conduct a retroactive study on the effects
of cannabis on veterans' health, followed by clinical trials.
These studies would go for two years. They would be talking to
veterans who have been using marijuana, already using
marijuana, and see if it works, to deal with things like PTSD
or chronic pain. Now what is the other option? Just give them
the stuff and say, ``Well, we do not know, but go ahead and use
it.'' No, I think it would be great to have some science
backing this up. Otherwise, you know what they are using? They
are using opioids, very addictive. That went down.
Senator King. Was that the issue that took the whole thing
down?
Chairman Tester. That was the issue that took the whole
thing down.
And look, we have got bills out there to bank marijuana. We
have got states, including my state of Montana, that legalized
it across the board. The truth is that marijuana is here.
Whether you like it or you do not like it, it is here. So let's
get some science to back it up so the veterans know what is
going on, to see if it actually does help with chronic pain,
which, by the way, is a huge issue, or post-traumatic stress
disorder, which is a huge issue.
The Senate usually does some good work, did some good work
getting Josh Jacobs for the Veterans Benefits confirmed earlier
today. This is not a stellar day for the United States Senate.
And I would hope that the veteran service organizations let the
people, let the 42 people--it went down 57 to 42, so we did not
get cloture--let those 42 people who voted against cloture for
this, make them justify that vote, because this, in my neck of
the woods, would be what comes out of the back end of a bull.
With that we will keep the record open for a week, and this
hearing is adjourned. Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 4:38 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Hearing Agenda
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statements
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Questions for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statements for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]