[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]