    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON.
                  H.R. 472; H.R. 1041; H.R. 740; AND H.R. 1391

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                         COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 119-7

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        Available via http://govinfo.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    59-865                     WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                         MIKE BOST, Illinois, Chairman

    AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       MARK TAKANO, California, Ranking
        American Samoa, Vice-Chairwoman      Member
    JACK BERGMAN, Michigan               JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    NANCY MACE, South Carolina           CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
    MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK,
    GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina        Florida
    DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
    MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas               DELIA RAMIREZ, Illinois
    JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona              NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
    KEITH SELF, Texas                    TIMOTHY M. KENNEDY, New York
    JEN KIGGANS, Virginia                MAXINE DEXTER, Oregon
    ABE HAMADEH, Arizona                 HERB CONAWAY, New Jersey
    KIMBERLYN KING-HINDS, Northern       KELLY MORRISON, Minnesota
        Mariana Islands
    TOM BARRETT, Michigan

                           Jon Clark, Staff Director
                      Matt Reel, Democratic Staff Director

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

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Mike Bost, Chairman................................     1
    The Honorable Mark Takano, Ranking Member........................     3

                             SPEAKING FROM THE DAIS

    The Honorable Delia Ramirez, U.S. House of Representatives, (IL-
      3).............................................................     6

                                   WITNESSES
                                    Panel 1

    Ms. Beth Murphy, Acting Principal Deputy Undersecretary for
      Benefits, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of
      Veterans Affairs...............................................     8

            Accompanied by:

        Ms. Tracey Therit, Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of
            Human Resources and Administration/Operations, Security,
            and Preparedness, Veterans Health Administration, U.S.
            Department of Veterans Affairs

        Dr. Sachin Yende, Chief Medical Officer, Integrated Veteran
            Care, Veterans Health Administration, U.S. Department of
            Veterans Affairs

                                    Panel 2

    Mr. Jim Whaley, Chief Executive Officer, Mission Roll Call.......    30

    Mr. Patrick Murray, Director, National Legislative Service,
      Veterans of Foreign Wars.......................................    31

    The Honorable Max Rose, Senior Advisor, Vet Voice Foundation.....    33

                                    APPENDIX
                        Prepared Statements Of Witnesses

    Ms. Beth Murphy Prepared Statement...............................    43
    Mr. Jim Whaley Prepared Statement................................    66
    Mr. Patrick Murray Prepared Statement............................    76
    The Honorable Max Rose Prepared Statement........................    79

                           Statements For The Record

    Disabled American Veterans Prepared Statement....................    83
    Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute Prepared Statement..........    88
    Whistleblowers of America Prepared Statement.....................    91
    Paralyzed Veterans of America Prepared Statement.................    93
    National Association of Veterans' Research and Education
      Foundations Prepared Statement.................................    97
    Joint Letter from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Labor
      Unions.........................................................    99

                              APPENDIX--continued

    American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO Prepared
      Statement......................................................   101
    Concerned Veterans for America Prepared Statement................   118
    National Association for Gun Rights Prepared Statement...........   122
    Letter from the Everytown for Gun Safety submitted by Mark Takano   125
    Letter from the National Fraternal Order of Police submitted by
      Mark Takano....................................................   132

                             LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
                  H.R. 472; H.R. 1041; H.R. 740; AND H.R. 1391

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025

                        Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
                                 U.S. House of Representatives,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The joint hearing met, pursuant to notice, at 2:13 p.m., in
    room 360, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Mike Bost
    [chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Bost, Miller-Meeks, Murphy,
    Hamadeh, King-Hinds, Barrett, Takano, Brownley, Pappas,
    Ramirez, Budzinski, Kennedy, Dexter, Conaway, and Morrison.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE BOST, CHAIRMAN

        The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Good
    afternoon, everyone. Just so you know, I am glad to be here
    today and consider my bill, H.R. 4472, the Restore VA
    Accountability Act of 2025; also, H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2d
    Amendment Protection Act; H.R. 740, the Veterans' Assuring
    Critical Care Expansions to Support Servicemembers (ACCESS) Act
    of 2025. Now, we will also be discussing a Discussion Draft
    related to information the Secretary is allowed to transmit to
    the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) related to the Second
    Amendment issues. Finally, we will consider Ms. Ramirez's bill,
    the Student Veteran Benefit Restoration Act of 2025.
        Before I discuss the bills before us today, I would first
    like to welcome all of our witnesses who are here to testify on
    this legislation before us. We have discussed at length each of
    the issues these bills would address in multiple oversight
    hearings and through letters and traveled outside the Beltway
    to listen to the men and women who work at U.S. Department of
    Veterans Affairs (VA) and the veterans that they serve to fix
    these problems. Now, that this is this is what each of these
    bills would do, is fix a significant problem that exists in the
    VA.
        Now, I am sure the ranking member will suggest otherwise
    during his comments and he is welcome to continue to disagree.
    I remain concerned by the rhetoric-based talking points and
    fearmongering coming from our friends on the other side of the
    aisle. Despite this, I am focused on action on behalf of the
    millions of men and women who serve and from my seat as
    chairman. That is what the American people elected us to do and
    that is what the House Republican majority will deliver on.
        None of the bills on today's agenda are new or should come
    to a shock to anyone. In fact, we marked two of them up last
    Congress. I should also point out that the ranking member voted
    for VA Accountability Act in 2017, along with the John S.
    McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson VA
    Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated
    Outside Networks (MISSION) Act of 2018, when they both passed
    with large bipartisan majorities.
        With that, I am proud to have introduced my bill H.R. 472,
    the Restore VA Accountability Act of 2025 again this Congress.
    My bill would codify Congress' intent in 2017 to protect
    veterans' care and the taxpayers' investment by holding VA
    employees accountable. The Biden-Harris administration
    repeatedly protected employees who were accused of all kinds of
    misconduct, from disturbing sexual harassment to racism to
    senior executives incorrectly pocketing funds to poor patient
    care. Our investigation list was long and continues to grow,
    and holding people accountable who failed the veterans they are
    in charge of serving has taken far too long.
        Now, under President Trump's leadership, accountability is
    back at VA. Protecting veterans, not protecting bureaucrats is
    our mission once again. This means providing essential services
    to veterans by building a world-class workforce at the VA. The
    VA workforce is the second largest bureaucracy in the world. My
    legislation would protect those employees who come to work
    every day and do the right thing. I am 100 percent confident
    that most VA employees want to do good work. Time and time
    again, members on both sides of the aisle have heard from
    whistleblowers that bad employees continue to serve as a
    distraction from the mission. Right now VA does not have the
    ability to hold these bad employees accountable. This has a
    direct impact on the delivery of services across VA. We must
    ask ourselves if bad employees know they will not face
    consequences, then what is the incentive to correct the
    behavior?
        Now, I am grateful to the over 15 organizations who support
    my bill and I look forward to the discussion today. I am proud
    to also have introduced my bill, H.R. 1041, the Veterans' 2d
    Amendment Protection Act. My bill would prohibit VA from
    sending a veteran's name to the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation's (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background
    Check System (NICS) unless a judge or a court decides that the
    person could be a danger to themselves or others.
        In some cases, Virginia will appoint a fiduciary to a
    veteran to help them manage their VA benefits and finances. The
    appointment of a fiduciary has nothing to do with somebody
    being dangerous. It is about the veteran's ability to manage
    their financial benefits. The minute VA appoints a fiduciary,
    that veteran's name is automatically sent to NICS. In every
    other system a person must be found to be a danger by a judge
    based on the evidence being reported to NICS. Our veterans are
    reported to NICS without the same due process, as others who
    have not worn the uniform.
        My message remains simple: VA should not be able to take
    away a veteran's Second Amendment rights without due process
    simply because they need help managing their finances. Veterans
    should not be treated any different than every other American
    citizen. We know this practice creates a stigma around
    accessing veterans' critical VA care and services. It is time
    to stop it. This bill is not about guns on demand. It is about
    giving veterans the same due process as every other American.
        We also have a Discussion Draft before us today that would
    fix how VA has already reported over 250,000 veterans to NICS
    without due process solely because they have a fiduciary. I
    look forward to today's discussion about this bill and I am
    proud to have introduced my bill, H.R. 740 the Veterans' ACCESS
    of 2025. The House Republican bill would safeguard a veteran's
    right to healthcare that they want, whether in-community or in-
    house; ensuring veterans have access to life-saving mental
    healthcare and treatment; place veterans, not bureaucrats, back
    in the control seat of their own healthcare decisions. It will
    make clear that community care is VA care. Let me say that
    again. Community care is VA care. The ACCESS Act would ensure
    VA's focus is veterans, not bureaucracy.
        VA healthcare is some of the best healthcare in the world,
    but only when it fully relies on the assets in the community.
    This bill ensures that we uphold the promise of President Trump
    and House Republicans' MISSION Act to ensure that veterans
    receive care they deserve. We drafted this legislation
    following two reports of VA bureaucrats during the Biden-Harris
    administration who were actively working to keep veterans'
    healthcare in-house. That is unacceptable. I have said it
    before, I will say it again, the MISSION Act is not optional.
    It is the law. My bill makes this message perfectly clear.
        I am looking forward to a thoughtful discussion on the
    legislation before us today so that we can make a meaningful
    impact for veterans this Congress.
        I now yield to Ranking Member Takano for his opening
    remarks.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF MARK TAKANO, RANKING MEMBER

        Mr. Takano. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In the audience and watching the livestream today, we are
    joined by former VA employees who were illegally and suddenly
    terminated by President Trump since he took office on January
    20th. These are Americans, many of them veterans and military
    spouses, who are now unemployed and I want to tell a few of
    their stories.
        An operations manager in Veterans Benefits Administration
    (VBA) who served 9 years in the Air Force before continuing his
    service at VA, he is 100 percent service-connected. All of his
    performance evaluations were Outstanding or Fully Successful.
    Now jobless, thanks to Trump.
        An Information Technology (IT) specialist in VA's financial
    technology services, she is a veteran spouse and her
    performance was outstanding. She told us her family depends on
    her income. They are now left scrambling to figure out how to
    pay their bills and what they are going to do for health
    insurance, thanks to Trump.
        An appellate attorney in the Office of General Counsel, he
    is 100 percent service-connected disabled veteran with two
    Bronze Stars who served on four combat deployments. He had 9
    days until the end of his probationary period. Fired by
    President Trump.
        A training specialist for the Warriors to Workforce
    Program, nearly 8 years of service in the Navy. He had moved
    his family from Colorado to Maryland just to work at VA. He is
    his family's breadwinner. Now jobless, thanks to Trump.
        These are just a few of the many responses committee
    Democrats have received from VA employees, veterans, and
    military spouses. We are gathering information about these
    reckless firings as a part of our oversight responsibilities.
    It is absolutely heartbreaking, heartbreaking, to hear from
    these Americans who were victims of the illegal Department of
    Government Efficiency (DOGE) purge.
        We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis unlike any
    America has ever faced. Our democracy hangs in the balance. The
    guardrails that check and balance our system of governance are
    rapidly weakening. Our institutions are literally being
    dismantled. Presidents Musk and Trump continue their blatantly
    illegal and unconstitutional rampage, which is premised on the
    belief that we will not notice and that my Republican
    colleagues continue to ignore, that we will not care as we see
    neighbors and friends harmed by these actions.
        We cannot pretend that this is normal or right. This is not
    government efficiency. This is not fixing the bureaucracy. It
    is destruction.
        Now, my colleagues across the aisle accuse us of partisan
    fearmongering and hysteria as they yell and feign outrage. I am
    sure they will continue to do so today because they do not want
    the public to learn the truth: that the illegal and
    unconstitutional actions taken by Musk and Trump are directly
    harming veterans and their families. Veterans are already
    suffering under this regime and anyone who denies that is not
    telling the truth.
        The outrage should be directed at this, at what is really
    happening. Many of those VA employees who lost their jobs since
    January 20th were HR professionals. Their terminations, along
    with a rumored lockout from HR software and USAJobs, are
    already directly impacting VA's ability to onboard mission-
    critical positions, like physicians, nurses, and disability
    claim raters.
        We have also heard that DOGE canceled a contract that
    Veterans Health Administration (VHA) uses to recruit healthcare
    providers. Without the ability to recruit doctors, VA cannot
    sustain a stable healthcare workforce to meet the needs of
    veterans.
        We have talked to veterans whose access to healthcare has
    been directly impacted by employee terminations. We know new
    clinics that would increase access to care cannot open due to
    staffing shortages. This is the truth and it is our
    responsibility as Members of Congress to tell these stories and
    to demand transparency from VA.
        Now, I am appalled that we are even here today considering
    the Restore VA Accountability Act. This bill makes absolutely
    no sense. If we open our eyes to what is happening at VA with
    the ongoing purge of employees based on lies, why would we even
    think about giving VA more authority to fire employees when
    they are haphazardly and illegally terminating employees as we
    speak?
        Last week, the Office of Inspector General released a
    report that revealed UnitedHealth Group and TriWest Healthcare
    profited and pocketed nearly 1 billion taxpayer dollars in
    overpayments from VA through the Community Care program that
    these two third-party administrators have decided they just do
    not want to pay back. Why are we considering a bill that would
    further enrich UnitedHealth Care Group and TriWest Healthcare
    when they are caught up in a legal dispute with VA over the
    money that they owe back to the government?
        Now, I want to share one final story from a terminated VA
    employee. She is a service-connected disabled veteran of the
    Marine Corps, a military spouse of 23 years, and a Federal
    employee for the last 7, with outstanding performance reviews.
    She is now facing immense emotional and financial distress. She
    writes, ``I have given my life to serving this country. Now I
    ask my country to stand by me.''
        With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I thank the ranking member.
        You know, I have said it once and I will say it again, you
    know, I trust Secretary Collins is doing the right thing for
    veterans and taxpayers to effectively right size and recognize
    VA to work better for the men and women it serves. One, because
    he is a veteran himself. Two, because he knows the mission that
    he is serving and the veterans that he is serving.
        I believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
    lost sight of VA's mission. As chairman and as a veteran
    myself, my mission is the same: veterans are my number one
    priority, not protecting bureaucracy. We would be lying if we
    said that everything at the VA is perfect and that there are
    not any improvements to be made to make an agency work better.
    That includes the workforce. I take Secretary Collins at his
    word when he says there will be no impact to the delivery of
    care benefits and services for veterans with this plan.
        My colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to
    spread false information about what is happening to scare and
    use veterans because they have no real plan for the American
    people. The fearmongering needs to stop. I think it is amazing
    that now here we are with the decisions we are trying to make
    to make it better, that during the last administration we had a
    time when our oversight discovered that we had one VA that ran
    a sex room in their VA and we did not fire the employees that
    actually were involved with it. Now we are saying, oh, no, no,
    we cannot do that. We had administrators that where we were
    supposed to be giving bonuses to the frontline workers, the
    docs, the frontline workers, the nurses, and instead they gave
    it to the--they gave that, but they also gave a 20 percent
    bonuses at times to those administrators right here in DC that
    get paid a whole lot more than those docs and nurses. Yet
    nobody said anything.
        Now here we are. We are watching them reduce a staff
    situation and, you know what, if you are the person that were
    mentioned, you know, I am empathetic with that. The concerns
    that you have, reach out to your Congressman or reach out to
    our office and say, okay, here is what my job was. We will try
    to work through that. Let me tell you that just turnover itself
    reduces our staffing by that much about once a month.
        Understand this. The amount of numbers that are being put
    out there are less than 1 percent. Less than 1 percent to help
    to try to straighten out a bureaucracy that is running wild. If
    we can take those dollars and shift them over to try to reduce
    one more suicide from happening, to provide better quality care
    in those programs that actually are working, how do you tell
    that to the taxpayers? How do you tell that to the taxpayers?
        VA has reduced its workforce by less than 1 percent, as I
    just said. All of these employees were in their probationary
    period and have an appeals process. If they believe that it was
    not done properly, there is a process by which you can appeal.
        I will also say that VA has a record hiring surge last
    year. The former administration acknowledges many times over
    that they over-hired and were hoping to manage the problem
    through employee turnover. That was not done. We are in this
    position because the Biden-Harris administration could not
    manage their budget and irresponsibly over-hired employees.
        Now, my colleagues, they go on and leave out details in the
    midst of their rallies and press conferences and fearmongering.
    They do not mention the fact that that is the case, that we
    over-hired. We have heard this song and dance before and I hope
    my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will stop using
    veterans and their families for political posturing. As I said
    before, I trust Secretary Collins, President Trump are doing
    the right thing for millions of veterans at the VA. As long as
    I am chairman, I will continue to focus on the results from
    those men and women.
        With that, let us get back to the business at hand. I would
    this time would now like to recognize Representative Ramirez to
    testify about her legislation that we are discussing here
    today.

                       STATEMENT OF DELIA RAMIREZ

        Ms. Ramirez. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate that.
        Earlier today I had an opportunity to be in our joint
    hearing and hear from many veteran service organizations on the
    incredible work that they are doing and also on the request
    that they have for us to make sure that we are protecting all
    of the veteran benefits that we all say we care so deeply
    about. I am grateful to be here with you now to talk about an
    important bill that I introduced last Congress.
        As someone that gets to represent 20,727 diverse veterans,
    I take this job very seriously. It is why I continue to be part
    of this committee in my second term in Congress. It is an honor
    of my life to represent Illinois' Third congressional District,
    advancing policies that improve the lives of my constituents,
    ensuring that every single veteran has access to the benefits
    that they have earned and that we have promised them. Access to
    affordable quality education is one of those benefits. The GI
    Bill is a critically important policy that makes educational
    opportunities affordable and accessible to veterans.
        We know veterans are diverse. I mean, we were just talking
    about that in a committee a couple weeks ago. When we talk
    about veterans, we are not just talking about veterans because
    of race, but we are talking about women, we are talking about
    first generation veterans, we are talking about low-income
    veterans, we are talking about people of color, we are talking
    about LGBTQI veterans, and deported veterans. Yes, because
    there are veterans that go fight for our country and because of
    trauma, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), come back to the
    country that they love and then they find themselves in a
    difficult situation that gets them deported. We are talking
    about every single veteran, including them.
        As a result of the diversity, they have diverse interests
    and diverse educational needs. Ensuring that they have the
    ability to choose a school that best meets their need while
    being confident that regardless of their choice, they receive a
    high-quality education is one of my top priorities. However, in
    recent years, student veterans have been targeted by bad actors
    seeking to enrich themselves by exploiting veterans' GI
    benefits. Those actors have reduced those who have served our
    Nation to a tuition payment and exploited them to gain access
    to dependable Federal disbursement. Folks, that is
    unacceptable.
        When a student veteran is defrauded by a bad faith actor,
    it is only right, only just that the veteran have recourse or a
    way for them to get their benefits back. No student veteran
    should have to give up or defer their dreams of an education
    because of fraud. That is why I am so proud to say that the
    very first bill I ever introduced as a Member of Congress was
    the Student Veteran Benefit Restoration Act, which would begin
    the process of restoring GI Bill education benefits for student
    veterans who have been defrauded by an educational institution.
    The bill last Congress passed the House with bipartisan
    support, 406 votes in favor.
        We also know that the bill moved us just a step closer to
    having a comparable restoration process to those that govern
    the Federal benefits of non-veteran students. That is why I am
    so proud to reintroduce my bill again this Congress. The
    Student Veteran Benefit Restoration Act of 2025 is stronger and
    offers our student veterans more comprehensive protections. The
    bill introduced this Congress, my first of the 119th, offers
    student veterans who have been defrauded by predatory
    institutions the following protections. It includes mandatory
    restoration, which means benefits could be automatically
    restored in cases of fraud, loss of approval, or even legal
    action. The bill also expands the fraud scope, which means my
    bill would include court rulings and DOJ closures in addition
    to VA investigations for restoration. The bill also provides a
    separate appeals process created for schools who want to
    challenge the repayment determinations. It includes an explicit
    fraud definition. It defines fraud as including false,
    misleading, and deceptive acts.
        We have more work to do to protect our veterans from bad
    faith actors and make certain that they have every single
    opportunity to live a meaningful, thriving, and joyful life
    post service. This bill gets us closer to that.
        Thank you to all of my colleagues in this committee, to the
    ranking member, to the chairman for your support last Congress.
    I look forward to getting this bill passed this Congress out of
    the House, then the Senate, and signed to law. I look forward
    to working with every one of you to make that happen.
        Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. I also look forward to it passing as well.
        I would like at this time to welcome our first panel. If
    everyone would please come to the front. Testifying before us
    today, we have Ms. Beth Murphy, acting principal deputy
    undersecretary for benefits at the Veterans Benefit
    Administration for the U.S. Department of Affairs. She is
    accompanied by Ms. Tracey Therit, is that correct? Chief human
    capital officer at the Office of Human Resources and
    Administration/Operations, Security, and Preparedness for the
    Department of Veterans Affairs. Does that fit on a business
    card? That is pretty long. Dr. Sachin Yende, chief medical
    officer in integrated veterans care at the Veterans Health
    Administration at the Department Veterans Affairs.
        I ask the witnesses to please stand and raise their right
    hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        The Chairman. Thank you. Let the record reflect that the
    witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
        Ms. Murphy. Hi. I now recognize you for 5 minutes for your
    testimony.

                        STATEMENT OF BETH MURPHY

        Ms. Murphy. Good afternoon, Chairman Bost, Ranking Member
    Takano, and members of the committee. Thank you for the
    invitation to present our views on pending legislation that
    would affect Department of Veterans Affairs' programs and
    services. Accompanying me today is Ms. Tracey Therit, chief
    human capital officer, Office of Human Resources and
    Administration/Operations, Security, and Preparedness; Dr.
    Sachin Yende, chief medical officer for VHA's Integrated
    Veterans Care.
        VA offers support for much of the proposed legislation
    before us today. First, VA supports H.R. 1391, the Student
    Veterans Benefit Restoration Act, which would restore VA
    education benefits for veterans affected by deceptive
    educational institution practices. VA believes the institution,
    not the students, should repay all covered assistance,
    including payments directly to students. To ensure this, VA
    recommends amending the bill to require institutions to
    reimburse both direct student payments and tuition funds
    received from VA, preventing veterans from bearing the burden
    of repayment.
        VA also supports H.R. 1041, the 2d Amendment Protection
    Act, and the unnamed Second Amendment bill, but also notes
    risks with both aspects of the bills. VA has continuously
    complied with all legal reporting requirements to the
    Department of Justice for recording individuals on the National
    Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. When VA
    determines a veteran unable to manage their affairs, H.R. 1041
    would require an evaluative consideration in addition to a VA
    incompetency decision to determine whether the veteran's mental
    capacity warrants NICS reporting.
        Additionally, VA notes that H.R. 1041 would neither remove
    nor amend DOJ's policies and procedures when enforcing the
    Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act. DOJ defines mental
    defective as any individual who lacks the mental capacity to
    contract or manage their own affairs. To avoid putting the
    veteran at risk of facing criminal liability when purchasing a
    firearm, VA recommends including legislative language that
    would clearly exempt an individual deemed incompetent for
    purposes of the VA fiduciary program from being considered a
    mental defective as defined by DOJ. However, I want to make it
    clear, Mr. Chairman, that, if passed, VA will continue to
    comply with Federal law and implement both bills as written.
        VA does wish to note that we continue to take veterans'
    suicide prevention extremely seriously. One example of our
    efforts is that, effective February 14, 2025, VA, in
    collaboration with Veterans Health Administration, requires the
    distribution of two new fact sheets on gun safety storage and
    suicide awareness to prospective fiduciaries during the
    appointment process, reinforcing VA's commitment to veteran
    safety.
        VA also supports H.R. 4472, the Restore Accountability Act
    of 2025, with amendments, to strengthen its disciplinary
    authorities. Legal challenges to the VA Accountability Act have
    weakened its distinction with existing laws, prompting VA to
    advocate for modifications to 38 U.S. Code Sections 712, 713,
    and 714 to enhance accountability, reduce litigation risk, and
    ensure disciplinary actions stand. VA welcomes the opportunity
    to engage in technical assistance to address these issues. VA
    will continue to take disciplinary action under applicable
    existing authorities, providing certainty and minimizing legal
    risk to VA while working with Congress to address the legal
    risks identified in the draft bill.
        Finally, VA strongly supports the intent of H.R. 740, the
    Veterans' ACCESS Act of 2025, proposed by Chairman Bost, which
    directly aligns with Secretary Collins' focus on providing
    timely care for eligible veterans. The bill would codify VA's
    access standards, strengthen referral processes, and expand
    options for mental health residential rehab care. It also
    establishes a standardized screening process for residential
    mental healthcare and requires real-time wait times tracking
    across facilities. VA is steadfast in its commitment to
    refining processes, strengthening provider networks, and
    working with Congress to ensure timely care for veterans. We
    appreciate the committee's leadership and look forward to
    advancing these and similar solutions that prioritize veterans.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Thank you again
    for the opportunity to discuss this important legislation to
    improve benefits and services for veterans, servicemembers, and
    their families. My colleagues and I would be glad to answer any
    questions you or the other members of the committee may have.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Beth Murphy Appears In The
    Appendix]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Murphy. We appreciate your
    testimony.
        We are going to go to questions.
        Ms. Murphy, and I only need a yes or no answer, other
    versions of the Discussion Draft on the bill requiring us to no
    longer return to NICS's list for those who are seeking a
    fiduciary, other drafts would for the VA notification would
    notify the Attorney General that all VA prior reports of the
    veteran to the NICS list was ``improper.'' Do these other bills
    put Trump administration and VA at risk of being sued,
    including for possible reparations?
        Ms. Murphy. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. Okay. Okay. I also need a yes or no answer.
    Once the Consolidation Appropriations Act of 2024 and the
    subsequential Continuing Resolutions expire, will VA resume
    reporting VA with fiduciary to NICS unless Congress passes the
    permanent solution?
        Ms. Murphy. We would follow the law that was applicable. If
    it expired, yes, we would follow the law in effect at the time.
        The Chairman. Ms. Therit, why are the authorities in the
    Accountability Act necessary for VA to be able to hold its
    employees accountable?
        Ms. Therit. Chairman Bost, the authorities in the Restore
    Accountability Act will help us to hold our employees to a
    higher performance standard as well as a higher standard of
    conduct, and that is good for serving veterans.
        The Chairman. Dr. Yende, what are VA's current policies
    when veterans are seeking administration to residential
    rehabilitation treatment programs (RRTP)?
        Dr. Yende. Chairman Bost, the current policy is if a
    veteran needs priority care, that should be provided within 72
    hours. If it is a non-priority care for RRTP programs, it
    should be provided within 30 days.
        The Chairman. Can you tell me how you think that my bill,
    Veterans' ACCESS Act, would improve access for veterans seeking
    substance abuse treatment?
        Dr. Yende. Chairman Bost, we are supportive of this
    legislation. We already are making some changes in our policies
    and procedures. We do require some minor tweaks where we would
    change the priority admission threshold from 72 hours to 48
    hours and the 30-day threshold to 20 days.
        Additionally, there will be a requirement for screening. We
    have already started working on those screening measures by
    standardizing our screening procedures at the Veterans
    Integrated Services Network (VISN) level. I think what is in
    the ACCESS Act, we have already started taking some steps
    toward that direction and we believe it will help in providing
    timely access to our vets.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Murphy, once again, yes or no
    answer. Do you believe that every veteran with a fiduciary is
    automatically a danger to themselves and others?
        Ms. Murphy. I am not able to answer that----
        The Chairman. Wait, wait, wait. You are not able to answer
    whether you believe if a fiduciary is provided for a veteran,
    whether they are automatically a danger to themselves or
    others?
        Ms. Murphy. If a fiduciary is provided, that fiduciary
    takes care of their VA funds.
        The Chairman. Their financial needs.
        Ms. Murphy. Their financial needs. If you are using the
    word ``automatically,'' then I would say no.
        The Chairman. Okay. Dr. Yende, over the last month, this
    committee has conducted several oversight hearings focused on
    community care. Our witnesses have included VA program
    administrators and providers, but, most importantly, veterans.
    Under Secretary Collins, how is VA planning to ensure veterans
    can get the care, including community care, that they have
    earned?
        Dr. Yende. Chairman Bost, we believe community care is VA
    care, and we would make sure that when a veteran is eligible
    and desires community care, our veterans should be provided
    access to community care. We are working, as Secretary Collins
    has said, in making sure that veterans have earned the access
    to community care and will take the steps to make sure that
    happens.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Murphy, I have one more
    question, and I know that you are probably not going to answer,
    but I am going to put it on the record anyway. Do you believe
    that it is right for those people who have fought and died,
    many of them physically disabled for life in many ways, that
    seek care from the VA should have every due process under the
    law that someone who has not receives?
        Ms. Murphy. I believe that we, as part of our VA
    responsibilities, have to administer all the due process that
    is required.
        The Chairman. Okay. Maybe I should ask this. You believe--I
    apologize.
        Ms. Murphy. It is all right, sir.
        The Chairman. By golly, I normally have to stand up in a
    position of attention for that.
        Ms. Murphy. Sounds inspirational, for sure.
        The Chairman. Let me ask this. Do you believe that the VA
    has the authority to give due process?
        Ms. Murphy. Regarding VA benefits and services, yes.
        The Chairman. Regarding their constitutional rights?
        Ms. Murphy. We, as part of our due process, provide
    information, in this case regarding the Brady Bill, information
    that would be helpful to the potential beneficiary, the
    potential individual covered by the fiduciary program, so they
    are aware of the rights. We provide information.
        The Chairman. Well, first off, let me say that I believe
    that every other person in this United States besides veterans
    has the right to go before a judge to make that decision to
    offer them due process. That is why I carry this bill and why
    we are going to push hard to make sure that bill passed.
        With that, my time has expired and I yield to the ranking
    member for his questions. Thank you.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Therit, your title at VA is chief human capital
    officer. Is that correct?
        Ms. Therit. That is correct, Ranking Member Takano.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you. Can you tell me how many VA
    employees have been terminated since January 20, 2025?
        Ms. Therit. Approximately 1,400 employees have been
    terminated during their probationary period.
        Mr. Takano. Can you speak up? I cannot hear you too well.
        Ms. Therit. Sorry. Ranking Member Takano, approximately
    1,400 employees have been terminated during their probationary
    period.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you for that. Who in your chain of
    command ordered you to carry out these terminations?
        Ms. Therit. Ranking Member Takano, I am happy to take
    questions about the termination of employees during their
    probationary period for the record. Today my focus is on the
    legislation, the Restore Accountability Act.
        Mr. Takano. Well, madam, please stop. The Restore VA
    Accountability Act changes the authorities VA has to terminate
    employees, right?
        Ms. Therit. The Restore Accountability Act----
        Mr. Takano. Just to answer my question. The Restore VA
    Accountability Act changes the authorities VA has to terminate
    employees, right?
        Ms. Therit. Ranking Member Takano----
        Mr. Takano. I am establishing the germaneness of my
    questions to you----
        Ms. Therit. I understand.
        Mr. Takano [continuing]. so please answer my questions. Who
    in the chain of your command ordered you to carry out these
    terminations?
        Ms. Therit. I used the authorities within the Code of
    Federal Regulations.
        Mr. Takano. Nobody ordered you to carry out these
    determinations. You did it on your own?
        Ms. Therit. There was direction from the U.S. Office of
    Personnel Management (OPM).
        Mr. Takano. There was a direction from OPM, instructed you?
    Who in that office instructed you?
        Ms. Therit. Sir, I am happy to take these questions----
        Mr. Takano. You are refusing to answer the question. Were
    leaders in the VA offices that these employees worked in
    notified prior or even after their termination?
        Ms. Therit. Sir, I am happy to take questions----
        Mr. Takano. You are nonresponsive. Many VA program officers
    still do not know who from their ranks were terminated. Was the
    decision to terminate these employees made outside of VA?
        Ms. Therit. Ranking Member Takano, I am happy to answer the
    questions for the record.
        Mr. Takano. For the record. You will answer it later? Is
    what you are telling me?
        Ms. Therit. I will, sir.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you. How many VA employees did you
    terminate on the night of February 13, 2025?
        Ms. Therit. Ranking Member Takano, as I mentioned,
    approximately 1,400 employees have been terminated during their
    probationary period.
        Mr. Takano. Okay. You cannot tell me on February 13, 2025?
        Ms. Therit. I will provide that information for the record.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you. How many VA employees did you
    terminate yesterday?
        Ms. Therit. Ranking Member Takano, approximately 1,400
    employees were terminated during their probationary period. I
    can provide the information requested for the record.
        Mr. Takano. Okay. Thank you. I have a poster that shows the
    memo that you wrote and sent to the employees that were
    terminated. Did you write and sign this memo?
        Ms. Therit. Ranking Member Takano, that is my signature on
    that letter.
        Mr. Takano. You wrote and signed the memo?
        Ms. Therit. It is my signature on the letter.
        Mr. Takano. Did you write the memo?
        Ms. Therit. The memo was provided.
        Mr. Takano. You did not write it. It was provided to you by
    someone else?
        Ms. Therit. The memo was provided for----
        Mr. Takano. You are not going to tell me who provided you
    with the memo?
        Ms. Therit. Ranking Member Takano, I am happy----
        Mr. Takano. Your name is on the memo.
        Ms. Therit. I am happy to take questions----
        Mr. Takano. Did you personally determine and verify which
    probationary employees to terminate?
        Ms. Therit. Ranking Member Takano, I am happy to take that
    question for the record.
        Mr. Takano. Okay. Right here, you wrote that based on this
    employee's termination--that you based this employee's
    termination on their performance. Did you verify that each
    terminated employee had been evaluated for their performance?
        Ms. Therit. Ranking Member Takano, I will answer your
    questions for the record.
        Mr. Takano. Did every probationary employee who was
    terminated have performance issues?
        Ms. Therit. Ranking Member Takano, I am happy to answer
    your question----
        Mr. Takano. You cannot answer that question, though you
    sent this memo out and it resulted in their termination?
        Ms. Therit. At today's hearing, I am prepared to talk about
    the Restore Accountability Act.
        Mr. Takano. Okay. Ms. Therit, my staff has now heard from
    many of the people who were fired, and we know that many had
    stellar performance records, which directly contradicts the
    memo you sent out. Did you do your due diligence before you
    sent this memo out and assure yourself that everything in this
    memo was true?
        Ms. Therit. Ranking Member Takano, I am happy to take your
    questions for the record.
        Mr. Takano. You just sent this memo out and whether or not
    you are going to fire an employee based on their performance,
    but you did not do the due diligence yourself to make sure that
    this memo was true?
        Ms. Therit. I am happy to take the question and provide
    that information for the record.
        Mr. Takano. The answer is no. It is not just that you are
    happy to take my question. The acting U.S. attorney in New York
    decided that she would resign before engaging in a quid pro quo
    that violated the oath she took. Did you take an oath to do the
    job you are doing now?
        Ms. Therit. Ranking Member Takano, every Federal employee
    has an oath----
        Mr. Takano. Okay, thank you. Yes. The answer is yes. Do you
    believe that terminating these employees and lying about the
    reason why was a violation of that oath?
        Ms. Therit. Ranking Member Takano, I am supporting the
    decision that was made.
        Mr. Takano. You supported the decision and you sent out
    memos without knowing whether or not their performance actually
    justified their termination?
        Ms. Therit. Ranking Member Takano I am happy to answer
    questions----
        Mr. Takano. Madam, at what point would you resign rather
    than follow an instruction from a superior?
        Ms. Therit. Ranking Member Takano----
        Mr. Takano. Does not that weigh on your conscience that
    somebody's livelihood was terminated and you did not do the due
    diligence to find out whether this memo was, in fact, true?
        Ms. Therit. Ranking Member Takano, if any employee is
    concerned----
        Mr. Takano. Just look at the veterans that are sitting
    behind you, ma'am. You fired these people.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Representative King-Hinds, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. King-Hinds. Whew. We got 99 problems in the Veterans
    Administration. You know, I am a new member and I have seen
    multiple reports, both from the Government Accountability
    Office (GAO) and the Inspector General (IG), laying out what
    the issues are and all this work that needs to be done with
    regards to providing the access to the care that veterans
    rightfully deserve. I want to reshift our focus to the policy
    at hand. For me, my district, the issue is access. The manner
    in which we have been having the conversation with regards to
    access is a one or the other proposition, right? Whether we
    should just put all the money with regards to the VA or expand
    to community care services.
        I am looking for a win-win. How do we--and I do not think,
    right, when you are looking at communities like mine where
    access is an issue, you cannot just get in a car and drive. You
    know, this is an issue for rural communities as well. How do we
    balance and optimize basically having those two complement each
    other so that we ensure that veterans who live in remote rural
    areas actually have access?
        Dr. Yende. Thank you for the question. Dr. Braverman and I
    testified a couple of weeks ago. We completely understand that
    in places like the Pacific Islands and Alaska, we will have to
    come up with some innovative solutions given challenges with
    access in those areas. We actually worked recently with VISN 21
    that covers your area, put together a brief report outlining
    access both through VA direct care system as well as the
    community care system. As Mr. McIntyre from TriWest testified,
    we are also working with our third-party administrators.
        I will make sure we will provide you that summary. I think
    it is already on its way, but I will personally make sure we
    provide you with a detailed summary of how we can ensure access
    in your area.
        Ms. King-Hinds. I would appreciate that because some of the
    conversations that we are having seems or sounds like a first
    world problem to me when the issue really is just can we get
    some service? Looking forward to that report. Thank you very
    much.
        I yield my time. Thanks.
        The Chairman. Representative Budzinski, you are recognized.
        Ms. Budzinski. Thank you, Chairman Bost and Ranking Member
    Takano, for this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for
    your time.
        I have strong concerns about several of the bills up for
    consideration today, but most notably H.R. 472, the Restore VA
    Accountability Act. We have seen, as Ranking Member Takano
    discussed, the mass firings across the Federal Government, but
    specifically those 1,400 VA staff that were fired just last
    night. That is a total of actually at least 2,400 employees let
    go at the VA headquarters. That is not accounting for those who
    have taken the so-called Fork in the Road leave package.
        I want to note I have the privilege of serving as a ranking
    member on the Subcommittee on Tech Modernization. We held our
    first hearing yesterday regarding the ongoing rollout of the
    electronic health record system. At a time when we need to be
    recruiting and retaining staff for major projects, like
    Electronic Health Record Modernization (EHRM) that has really
    struggled to catch fire and get off the ground, it troubles me
    that as a part of that hearing it was acknowledged that some of
    these firings were actually within the EHRM program, creating
    potentially further struggles for the program being further
    short-staffed.
        I want to point out that veterans make up approximately 30
    percent of the Federal workforce. Not only is this
    administration firing thousands of employees who provide
    crucial service to our vets, they are also firing thousands of
    veteran employees themselves. I have also heard directly from
    veteran employees in my district who were unjustifiably
    terminated. I believe in staff accountability, especially when
    it comes to those providing services for our veterans, but it
    must be done in a just and fair manner. VA officials themselves
    have communicated to the committee that they do not need
    additional authorities to hold employees accountable.
        When the Restore VA Accountability Act was considered by
    this committee last Congress, I offered an amendment that would
    have stricken provisions of this bill that explicitly
    superseded collective bargaining agreements made with VA
    employee unions with respect to disciplinary procedures. I
    noted at the time that more than 79 percent of VA's workforce
    are bargaining unit employees. Procedures outlined in VA's
    collective bargaining agreements have been agreed upon after
    extensive negotiations between unions and management to enact
    legislation that would simply throw out these contracts out the
    window, I think is cruel and unfair, given that the parties
    negotiated these agreements under the law at the time.
        When Congress passes new laws, it is customary for labor
    and management to return to the bargaining table to incorporate
    those new laws into VA's collective bargaining agreements, not
    for Congress to unilaterally deny the workforce that right.
    Specifying in this bill that any collective bargaining
    agreements must be superseded is anti-union and anti-worker,
    and it is just that simple.
        My question is, Ms. Therit, my question for you is that if
    instead of tossing out collective bargaining agreements and
    beyond any mass firings of the VA workers, would it not be more
    efficient and cost-effective to simply improve training for HR
    employees and frontline supervisors on how to properly and
    effectively discipline employees under Title V, and especially
    when compared to attempting to pass a law that has proved
    unconstitutional in the past and will almost certainly be
    litigated?
        Ms. Therit. We have recognized that the Restore
    Accountability would require some modifications and some
    rigorous technical review working with the committee. I think
    two things that we have been steadfast in is that we are always
    looking to improve, whether it is improving the training,
    whether it is improving the processes, whether it is improving
    the timelines that we have to propose, decide, and finalize an
    action. The bill offers a lot of those opportunities for us to
    improve our accountability when it comes to performance and
    conduct.
        The other component is that we want to make sure that any
    actions that we take are legally defensible. We do not want to
    have to reinstate employees. We do not want to have to reverse
    actions that we have taken. The sections that you reference
    with respect to collective bargaining, with respect to
    opportunities to improve, in our views on the bill, we do look
    forward to working with the committee to make sure the language
    in those sections is sufficient enough for us to be able to
    learn from some of the challenges that we have had in the past
    and still be able to hold our employees to high levels of
    performance and conduct. Whether it is in the investigative
    process, in the training process, in the execution of these
    authorities that we are able to do what the committee expects
    of us, which is to hold our employees to a high standard and
    keep the veteran at the center of all that we do.
        Ms. Budzinski. There is an acknowledgement that there are
    some issues specifically around collective bargaining that have
    to be addressed, that this legislation is not superseding
    collective bargaining agreements?
        Ms. Therit. Ma'am, Representative Budzinski, we do have, in
    our views, some recommendations for rigorous technical
    assistance with the committee on those sections. The one thing
    that we want to do is learn from the past where we implemented
    without bargaining, and understand what our obligations are, so
    that we meet those obligations and that we use the authority to
    its fullest extent possible.
        Ms. Budzinski. I yield back. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Representative Barrett.
        Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for being here today. I want to follow-up on a
    few of Ms. Budzinski's questions because we are genuinely
    looking at this electronic health record issue.
        First, I wanted to ask Ms. Murphy, and the chairman was
    kind of getting at this point earlier, but is it true that a
    veteran who has their Second Amendment rights revoked through
    that process, their only opportunity to appeal, that is after
    they have already appeared on the list, basically prohibiting
    them from owning a firearm? Is that correct?
        Ms. Murphy. VA, previous to the Consolidated Appropriations
    Act last year, was reporting to NICS. Now we have only reported
    to NICS when there is a court order finding that meets the
    requirements. As far as the--sir, I have lost track of your
    question. Could you help me out?
        Mr. Barrett. Yes. Basically, their only opportunity to
    appeal be after NICS has already been----
        Ms. Murphy. We report as required in the cases. Once they
    are on the NICS list, there is an appeal process. There is a--
    --
        Mr. Barrett. There is no----
        Ms. Murphy. There is a----
        Mr. Barrett. There is no opportunity or no notification
    given to a veteran before they would appear on NICS, basically
    to discourage that from going forward.
        Ms. Murphy. From our side, from the VA side, we would
    provide them information. We make two attempts at phone calls
    during our due process for the fiduciary program purpose, to
    explain what the Brady Act is, what the ramifications would be,
    just so that they are aware. I believe that--so once they are
    on the NICS list, they could ask for a reconsideration.
        Mr. Barrett. Just of that particular provision. It is
    different than what a civilian would encounter in a similar
    situation.
        Ms. Murphy. That is my understanding.
        Mr. Barrett. Okay, thank you. Then, Ms. Therit, can you
    give us a few examples in your experience of just misconduct
    that you have been made aware of that led to an investigation,
    that led to a termination, and others that led to an
    investigation that did not lead to a termination for an
    employee?
        Ms. Therit. Representative, we have varying examples.
        Mr. Barrett. Right.
        Ms. Therit. We take about 5,000 adverse actions a year to
    remove, to suspend, or to demote employees. I know our Office
    of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection has testified on
    some of the investigations that they have done of senior
    leaders and the outcomes that have been implemented regarding
    termination of those senior leaders. I am aware of situations
    that have led to an investigation which was recommended, a
    termination, and that termination was taken. We have also had
    situations where employees have retired or resigned before that
    action could be taken.
        Mr. Barrett. Okay.
        Ms. Therit. I know I have recommended that we look at
    strengthening some of those procedures so individuals are not
    walking out the door with adverse actions and no action taken
    to hold them accountable.
        Mr. Barrett. If a person resigns prior to a finding, does
    that carry forward with them to another Federal agency or
    another Federal job that they may be applying for?
        Ms. Therit. There are limitations in the current
    legislation. For instance, it does not cover senior executives,
    it does not cover individuals who retire, and the circumstances
    under which a personnel record can be annotated. If somebody
    goes to another Federal agency, that adverse action or that
    misconduct is seen by the current employer does not always
    happen in every single case.
        Mr. Barrett. Okay.
        Ms. Therit. We, again, look forward to the committee to
    saying, what can we do to improve? What can we do to be the
    standard bearer when it comes to----
        Mr. Barrett. Right.
        Ms. Therit [continuing]. employee performance and
    accountability in the Federal Government?
        Mr. Barrett. Then how long, on average, does it take for an
    investigation for a serious case of misconduct, an allegation
    of that, how long would an investigation typically take?
        Ms. Therit. Average timeframes can vary depending on the
    allegations, depending on the number of witnesses who need to
    be contacted.
        Mr. Barrett. Can you give me a typical?
        Ms. Therit. I know the Office of Accountability and
    Whistleblower Protection maybe said 120 days on average in some
    cases.
        Mr. Barrett. Okay, 120 days.
        Ms. Therit. That means 4 months.
        Mr. Barrett. I am running short on time. Do you feel that
    there is a disincentive baked into that for managers within VA
    to go forward with that investigation if they feel that it
    takes too long, that the results will not actually be actioned,
    that a person will walk away and maybe take another job before
    they would be held accountable for something?
        Ms. Therit. Representative, I have heard of situations
    where managers feel that it is either not worth their time or
    they do not feel that they would be supported in going through
    the process and taking an action. We need to make sure that our
    managers are supported if they are doing the right thing and
    holding somebody who is not performing at the level expected or
    engaging in misconduct accountable.
        Mr. Barrett. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Representative Ramirez, you are recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Ramirez. Thank you, Chairman.
        As the ranking member of Oversight Investigations for this
    committee, I take seriously my responsibility to carefully
    weigh the impacts of legislation we advance out of this
    committee. It is my priority to ensure that the bills we
    advance protect the VA programs and services that meet
    veterans' needs and improve the quality of their lives.
    However, I got to say, there are some that still insist that
    the mass firings that are happening are not impacting our
    veterans.
        Ms. Therit, let me ask you, did you do an analysis of how
    these reckless terminations would impact the agency's
    efficiency?
        Ms. Therit. Representative Ramirez, I mentioned in Ranking
    Member Takano's call that it is about 1,400 employees.
        Ms. Ramirez. No, no. I am asking, did you do an analysis
    before you went on to fire that many people?
        Ms. Therit. I mentioned to Ranking Member Takano that I
    would be happy to take these questions on the terminations
    during probation and provide answers.
        Ms. Ramirez. You are not responding about doing analysis.
    We do not know who in the VA did that analysis. We do not know
    who told you to prepare that memo. We do not know what went
    into any analysis if, in fact, there was an analysis, because
    we are saying that there is not going to be an impact on
    veterans. We are seeing mass firings happen. We do not know if
    you trusted that analysis because you are unable to disclose
    that.
        Let us say it for what it is. As far as right now, we as
    members of this committee and as the ranking member of
    Oversight and Investigations, I have no idea if you did your
    homework before firing thousands of veterans and VA employees
    to make sure veteran care and benefits would not be impacted.
    Let me just make sure I say that.
        Ms. Therit, less than 3 weeks ago, you testified before our
    subcommittee that under current law, the VA cannot discipline
    an employee if there is no evidence to support a punishment. In
    other words, the VA can only discipline an employee only if
    there is evidence of wrongdoing. Yet today, the VA supports the
    Restore VA Accountability Act, which limits the evidence the VA
    can consider when disciplining employees. By limiting the
    Douglas factors, which is an important criteria that agencies
    have to consider before any disciplinary action to ensure
    fairness in the process, are not we suggesting that the VA
    should consider some piece of evidence but not others? Is not
    that, in effect, just to pressing evidence?
        I mean, we are clear that there could be evidence that
    negates or mitigates a disciplinary action. Correct? The VA
    would not be able to consider that evidence? I do not
    understand how that is fair.
        Ms. Therit, let me ask, my question to you is, do you
    believe that limiting the Douglas factor is constitutional?
        Ms. Therit. Representative Ramirez, I want to make sure
    that the Restore Accountability Act----
        Ms. Ramirez. Hold on.
        Ms. Therit [continuing]. offers employees due process.
        Ms. Ramirez. Okay. Let me ask the question again because I
    think it is really important. I mean, our responsibility is to
    uphold the Constitution here. Let me ask you again. Do you
    believe limiting the Douglas factors is, in fact,
    constitutional? Yes or no?
        Ms. Therit. I believe employees are due--should have due
    process when they are held to a standard of performance in
    kind.
        Ms. Ramirez. You do not believe the Douglas factors is
    constitutional, or you do believe that they are constitutional?
    Yes or no?
        Ms. Therit. I believe there have to be factors, whether
    they were the Douglas factors or other factors, that are used
    in making those due process determinations.
        Ms. Ramirez. Ms. Therit, I am sitting here and I am
    watching people who have dedicated their life to protecting and
    to providing access to benefits and service to our veterans in
    tears. I am asking myself, how the heck am I in a room right
    now where the person that is responsible for emails cannot tell
    me who told you to write the email, cannot walk us through the
    process in which they determine if it is going to impact the
    ability for veterans to receive the benefits that they deserve?
    Here I am with no answers.
        I mean, you have to understand the frustration in the
    ranking member here because we are talking about
    accountability, but somehow there is no accountability in what
    you just did. That is why I have to tell you that it is
    incredibly important that on the record I state to you that
    what is happening in the VA is unacceptable and has real
    consequences to our veterans. If there was no real analysis
    done, if you are firing left and right during probation period,
    and if you have no way of determining why the employee was
    fired, then that tells me that there is no real due process. I
    cannot leave here without putting that on the record.
        Ms. Murphy, I want to go to you as I wrap up, and I just
    want to ask you a real quick question. Do you believe that
    without sufficient mechanisms in place that we are able to
    protect veterans?
        Ms. Murphy. Could you be more specific with the context for
    that, please?
        Ms. Ramirez. Yes. Well, I know that we are running out, so
    let me get back, if I can, the next round.
        Ms. Murphy. Certainly.
        Ms. Ramirez. Thank you.
        The Chairman. First off, I want to remind members that
    their questions should be directed to the topic of the hearing,
    which is the three pieces of legislation that we have before
    us. Five pieces of legislation we have before us. It has been a
    long day. So, with----
        Mr. Takano. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will just remind you
    that, you know, we are considering the VA Accountability Act,
    which does change the course----
        The Chairman. That is true.
        Mr. Takano [continuing]. of our questions.
        The Chairman. That is true. Some of the comments have went
    beyond what that language actually does. The questions went
    beyond what the Accountability Act actually does.
        Mr. Takano. Well, everything that I have heard today is
    very germane to accountability. What are the standards we are
    using to hire and fire people or how they can be----
        The Chairman. Not the actual language of the bill.
        Mr. Takano [continuing]. disciplined? Our questions are
    going to. You know, people are being fired and under
    disciplinary--you know, they were said that they are----
        The Chairman. Not under the bill that we are discussing.
        Mr. Takano. Well, the bill we are discussing----
        The Chairman. The bill that we are discussing does not deal
    with the situation that--and I gave you free rein to go ahead
    and have the communication and talk about it and I responded.
    We have to be focused on these bills that are before us today.
    That does not mean we will not have another time where we will
    talk and discuss that. As we go off away from what the actual
    language of the bill is, then it deters from the actual
    language of the bills that we are trying to deal with.
        Mr. Takano. Mr. Chairman, when will we have a hearing on
    this topic of all these dismissed veterans? When will you
    commit to do a hearing?
        The Chairman. We can discuss that at another time, but
    right now we have----
        Mr. Takano. Do you commit to doing a hearing on all these
    dismissals that contradict----
        The Chairman. You know, we have----
        Mr. Takano. The veterans----
        The Chairman.--actually had conversations in this room. We
    have had conversations in the other room in the full hearing on
    these issues. Now, my thought is, is that we need to get
    focused on the bills that are before us. You and I have had
    this. We have actually discussed it in two full--actually in a
    bicameral hearing and we have let that go. We need to actually
    get back to focusing on the bills that are before us so that we
    can have this hearing that we need to have.
        Mr. Takano. Well, that is fine. We have veterans who have
    been dismissed, who has----
        The Chairman. We have each----
        Mr. Takano [continuing]. glowing performance records and we
    ought to know why.
        The Chairman. Do you know why?
        Mr. Takano. I am asking you, will you commit to doing a
    hearing on that topic?
        The Chairman. I have answered that if they come to me, we
    can talk about that.
        Mr. Takano. Excuse me?
        The Chairman. If they come to me, we can talk about that. I
    said that to the hearing in there. I said that if the
    individual--there is a due process that they can go through.
        Mr. Takano. I would ask you, I think this merits a hearing.
    The American people are upset about these veterans who have
    been dismissed with glowing performance records. There seems to
    have been no performance--there has been no analysis on
    efficiency, on how this affects--there is no justification for
    why.
        The Chairman. Okay. Representative Hamadeh, you are
    recognized.
        Mr. Hamadeh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You know, as I sit here time and time again, I see my
    colleagues on the other side always seeming to protect the
    bureaucracy. I want to remind everybody that the VA employs
    over 400,000 employees. What we are talking about is 1,400. I
    mean, the 400,000 employees, that is bigger than the United
    States Navy. I know you all have a tough task ahead of you to
    make sure that the VA is actually working for the veteran.
        Going back to the topic at hand, as a veteran and a former
    prosecutor myself, I understand that oath of office to uphold
    the Constitution and to protect the communities. I am proud to
    co-lead Chairman Bost's Veterans 2d Amendment Protection Act
    because it is crucial that veterans retain the same
    constitutional rights we fought to protect.
        Now, Ms. Murphy, does the VA ever report veterans to NICS
    before considering any evidence that they may be a danger to
    themselves or others?
        Ms. Murphy. Thank you for that question. Under the current
    construct, we are not reporting anyone other than those who
    have been adjudicated under a court order that included that
    they were a danger to themselves or others. That is under our
    current instruction. That is already taken care of by the
    court.
        Mr. Hamadeh. When did that happen?
        Ms. Murphy. In March 2024, under the Consolidated
    Appropriations Act. That is the authority we are operating
    under now.
        Mr. Hamadeh. Are you following the Supreme Court's
    guidelines?
        Ms. Murphy. We are. We are following the guidelines of the
    act.
        Mr. Hamadeh. Now, Ms. Murphy, would the ACCESS Act, by
    codifying clear access standards and expanding eligibility for
    substance use and urgent mental healthcare, help these veterans
    get the care they deserve?
        Ms. Murphy. I would like to ask Dr. Yende to weigh in on
    that, please.
        Dr. Yende. Yes, Congressman, we are supportive of the
    ACCESS Act and we believe it will improve access to veterans
    both on the community care side as well as on the direct care
    side and making sure veterans get timely access to substance
    abuse care and residential treatment programs.
        Mr. Hamadeh. I often hear this report or this poll that is
    by my Democrat colleagues and some at the VA that say that the
    VA has a 92 percent trust in the healthcare that they receive
    when veterans go there. That study often is only talking about
    people who actually went through the VA process or the
    outpatient. It is a post outpatient survey, but it does not
    talk about those who never made it through the system. That is
    kind of my biggest concern right now when you are talking about
    mental health and substance use and they never make it through
    the system because they find the bureaucracy and the red tape
    so difficult to go through. I think that is why the ACCESS Act
    is going to hopefully resolve some of this. Is that what your
    opinion is as well?
        Dr. Yende. I would say, Congressman, the ACCESS Act,
    particularly the RRTP provisions, very clearly delineate the
    thresholds when we should be referring veterans out. They would
    be reducing both the priority threshold from 72 to 48 hours and
    the non-priority thresholds from 30 to 20 days. We believe that
    will improve access to veterans.
        Mr. Hamadeh. Have you been implementing that already?
        Dr. Yende. We have made a policy decision, and I cannot
    tell you exactly when, to implement the 72-hour threshold and
    the 30-day threshold. If this act is implemented, we will make
    some changes to meet that threshold. We have already put in
    some place some processes that allow us to sort of meet the
    current thresholds and we will have to just tweak those if this
    particular act is passed.
        Mr. Hamadeh. You are able to currently do that, even given
    the 1,400 people who were dismissed?
        Dr. Yende. I am not sure I can answer your question in
    terms of the impacts of those 1,400 individuals. I would just
    say we are committed to making sure veterans get their timely
    access. The only thing I would add is that there is an
    exceptions list that has been submitted and most of the
    frontline staff are part of that exception list.
        Mr. Hamadeh. All right, thank you.
        Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Representative Brownley.
        Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask my
    first question to Dr. Yende.
        Dr. Yende, last week DOGE canceled a contract with a
    service-disabled, veteran-owned small business that supported
    VHA in marketing and recruiting for difficult to fill clinical
    staff positions, staff vacancies at VA medical centers and
    clinics nationwide. It is my understanding that this contract,
    some version of which has existed for 20 years, actually saves
    VA money by decreasing the cost per hire. Without this
    contract, VA will struggle to attract the doctors and nurses
    that they need, leading to additional workforce shortages, care
    delays, and more care being sent to the community and rising
    costs. Are you aware of this contract being canceled?
        Dr. Yende. I am not aware about the cancellation of the
    contract, so I would take that back as to potential impacts.
        Ms. Brownley. Are you aware of the contract and what it
    does?
        Dr. Yende. I am vaguely aware about contracts to help hire
    sort of providers in the VA, but I do not have the details.
        Ms. Brownley. Okay. You are vaguely aware of the contract.
    Vaguely aware of what its intention to do is to help bring in
    applicants for important positions within the VA. Do you agree
    that that is its purpose?
        Dr. Yende. I believe so.
        Ms. Brownley. Okay. If we do not have it, if we do not have
    that contract, do you believe that that could impact our
    ability to hire high-quality professionals in the organization?
        Dr. Yende. Congresswoman, having served at a facility as a
    chief of staff, I would say there are multiple ways to bring on
    providers, both VA providers, fee basis providers. In terms of
    the impacts of terminating that contract on being able to bring
    in frontline providers, I do not have that information, but we
    can definitely get back to you on that.
        Ms. Brownley. Okay, thank you. Ms. Therit, I think I wanted
    to ask you to--you know, so I think we have established that
    2,400 people have been laid off or fired from the VA. Are you
    aware that the VA has continually told us that there are 40,000
    vacancies within the VA that need to be filled? Does that
    number sound accurate to you?
        Ms. Therit.
        [Audio malfunction] thousand employees and we manage to our
    budget. Our budget does not have 40,000 vacancies on our
    records. We are looking at a smaller percentage than 40,000
    vacancies of positions that we continue to fill. As Dr. Yende
    had mentioned, under the hiring freeze that the Office of
    Personnel Management communicated in January, we have
    identified over 100 occupational series that we continue to
    fill and we make sure that those positions that are in the
    Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits
    Administration----
        Ms. Brownley. Okay, Okay, Okay.
        Ms. Therit [continuing]. National Cemetery Administration,
    and the board are filled.
        Ms. Brownley. Got it, got it, got it. Thank you. Of the 24
    that have been fired, do you have any idea--so, veterans make
    up about almost 29 percent of the VA's workforce and many of
    those are 100 percent service-connected disabled veterans who
    were in those jobs. Do you have any idea how many of our
    veterans were impacted by this firing and layoff?
        Ms. Therit. Representative Brownley, about a third of our
    workforce are veterans. With respect to veteran hiring and
    veteran recruitment and veteran retention, probationary status
    looks at prior Federal service and in many of those instances,
    under the Veterans Recruitment Authority, they continue to have
    continuous service. We do not have the specific numbers of the
    1,400 that have been impacted, but can provide that
    information.
        Ms. Brownley. Okay. Well, I would certainly like to know
    that. I would also like to know how many actually were working
    in VA medical facilities across the country as well.
        I do not have much time left. I understand that there are
    several people here in the audience who have been impacted by
    this firing and layoff. I just want to thank them actually for
    being here. I do not know what all of their responsibilities
    are exactly, but I know some of them are doing very important
    work that have been laid off. Some are training actually people
    who are coming out of the military to work for the VA, to teach
    them how to be procurement managers. Some are making sure that
    their benefits are right and completely fulfilled, as they
    should be.
        To me, these are very, very important positions that need
    to be filled. I am sorry to the people who are here that do not
    have a voice in this hearing/
        I will yield back.
        The Chairman. Representative Kennedy.
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. First, let me start by thanking all
    the veterans that are here with us today for your service to
    our country and those Federal workers that are here with us
    today that are veterans of this country and those that are
    service-disabled. I thank you for your service and I am
    disgusted by the way that you have been treated. Not just you
    in this room, but your colleagues, military colleagues across
    this country. It is heartbreaking, it is infuriating, and it is
    wrong.
        We are talking about those that have dedicated their lives
    to service to this country and then some of whom have bled for
    this country and then have dedicated their lives even further
    by going into public service as Federal workers. Yet because
    you are on probation, or so that is what we have been told, we
    cannot even get a straight answer today, your job is
    terminated. That is despicable. Our veterans deserve better,
    especially those veterans that have bled for this country. This
    House has an obligation to treat you with dignity and respect
    like the heroes that you are.
        I spoke to a service-disabled veteran this past week, who
    worked as a Federal worker for over a decade and a half and
    took a promotion less than a year ago. His job was terminated.
    He was on the chop block. These were arbitrary cuts. Arbitrary
    cuts. Despicable.
        Ms. Therit, you talk about the fact that there is less of a
    staff shortage across the VA. According to the VA's own
    numbers, it is 40,000. That is the number we were told by the
    VA. That is not accurate?
        Ms. Therit. Representative Kennedy, the 40,000 number are
    not funded positions. There are a smaller number of funded
    vacancies.
        Mr. Kennedy. There is a shortage.
        Ms. Therit. There are staffing models that identify
    requirements and those requirements can support that number
    that you mentioned. There is a requirements and a staffing
    model and a staffing study that is done around what workforce
    is needed to support some of the care. I believe those were
    some of the numbers that were identified through the The
    Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to
    Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act.
        Mr. Kennedy. Yet, right when the executive order by
    President Trump was put into place, the hiring freeze, there
    were 1,900-plus people in the pipeline that were hired, ready
    to go to work at our VA across this country, and they were
    automatically cut. Is that accurate?
        Ms. Therit. Representative Kennedy, there were many
    employees, about 1,700, who had job offers and they were
    brought on board.
        Mr. Kennedy. Those job offers were rescinded, correct?
        Ms. Therit. No, they were actually brought on board by
    February the 8th based on those offers that had been made and
    those start dates that were announced.
        Mr. Kennedy. 1,700 people whose jobs have been offered were
    hired----
        Ms. Therit. Correct.
        Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. after the hiring freeze?
        Ms. Therit. Correct.
        Mr. Kennedy. I would like to see a detailed account of
    that. There were 716 job postings that were taken offline. Is
    that accurate?
        Ms. Therit. My understanding is it was 714.
        Mr. Kennedy. Okay, 714 that were taken down, correct?
        Ms. Therit. Correct.
        Mr. Kennedy. We have a staff shortage according to the VA's
    own account. We have those that were posted that were not hired
    and we have 1,400, you are telling us 1,400. We still have not
    seen a detailed account of these firings.
        Ms. Therit. Representative Kennedy, we have exemptions
    approved by the Office of Personnel Management to continue
    hiring, to continue posting job opportunity announcement. We
    continue to bring employees on each pay period to support our
    veterans in our medical centers as well as our benefits offices
    and our cemeteries.
        Mr. Kennedy. Well, tell that to the 1,400 people that were
    terminated, those veterans and service-disabled veterans who
    were terminated. Tell them that there was an exemption. There
    was no true exemption for our VA and those veterans, including
    those that are sitting right behind you here today. It is
    unconscionable. This country is better than that. We have a
    history of treating our military veterans with a priority and
    that did not happen in this instance.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. Representative Dexter, you are recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Ms. Dexter. Thank you, Chairman Bost and Ranking Member
    Takano, for convening this hearing. Thank you to our witnesses
    for being here today. To our veterans who were so clearly fired
    without any understanding of the impact not only on you, but on
    our veterans throughout this country, I am sorry and thank you
    for being here.
        Please know that the Democrats are going to be fighting for
    you. That includes standing up against H.R. 472, which makes it
    easier to fire our committed VA employees, injecting more cruel
    chaos into our communities. Just last week back home in Oregon,
    I convened a roundtable with almost 15 veteran serving
    organizations. Our State has one of the highest veteran suicide
    rates in the country. Each one of the advocates and veterans at
    that table underscored the importance of preventing these
    tragic deaths.
        Ms. Therit, is it correct that suicide prevention is the
    VA's number one clinical priority?
        Ms. Therit. Dr. Yende to answer the question.
        Ms. Dexter. Thank you. Dr. Yende.
        Dr. Yende. Yes, Dr. Dexter, we agree.
        Ms. Dexter. Thank you. I believe Ms. Therit has confirmed
    this number, but I just want to ask again. How many veterans
    have been fired since January 20th? Veterans.
        Ms. Therit. Dr. Dexter, I will have to take that question
    for the record.
        Ms. Dexter. Okay. Job and income loss are two of the top
    indicators for suicidal ideation. Is that correct, Dr. Yende?
        Dr. Yende. It could be one of the many factors. I believe
    it is documented that that is accurate, but thank you.
        Now tell me, Ms. Therit, what communication did the VA
    provide to veterans prior to termination to help them cope with
    their job and income loss?
        Ms. Therit. Dr. Dexter, I will take that question for the
    record.
        Ms. Dexter. I just want to underline that we have
    prioritized clinically suicide prevention as our top clinical
    priority. We went on to terminate veterans without any impact--
    or impactful intervention prior to that termination. Is that
    accurate?
        Ms. Therit. Dr. Dexter, I will take that question for the
    record.
        Ms. Dexter. OK. We have established that you sent an email
    to fire them. I will assert, unless we are proven otherwise,
    when you get back to us, that that was done without any
    additional support for these veterans.
        Ms. Therit. Dr. Dexter, as I had mentioned, I am prepared
    to talk about the Restore Accountability Act today.
        Ms. Dexter. I think this is directly relevant. I am going
    to now move to what did you send these veterans after they were
    terminated to help them cope with their job and income loss, to
    hopefully prevent suicide in these veterans and our workers?
        Ms. Therit. Dr. Dexter, I can mention that as the chief
    human capital officer at the VA, in my signature block, I have
    the 911 suicide prevention hotline. That information is always
    available to individuals who contact me. I think, as Chairman
    Bost had mentioned, if anybody has concerns about the action
    that the VA has taken, they are free to reach out to us or to
    others for answers to those questions.
        Ms. Dexter. That is a 911 is always available. I also
    understand that our crisis line had terminations impacting that
    as well. I will just make the statement because I assume that
    that is not going to be elaborated on.
        Laying off veterans, especially without proper mental
    health resources, is a betrayal of their service to our country
    and our promise to them. I urge you all to remember that no
    amount of perceived efficiency is worth abandoning our values
    as Americans and our commitment to these brave veterans who
    served our country.
        To add insult to injury among those fired, Ms. Therit was
    an instructor, as I mentioned, for the Veterans Suicide
    Prevention Hotline. It is a cruel irony that the Trump
    administration, enabled by Republicans, is not only putting our
    veteran employees at risk, but in doing so is making it harder
    for veterans to access care, which we have said is our top
    clinical priority in their greatest hours of need. Our veterans
    deserve much better than what this administration and our
    country is standing up for at this moment. I believe that we
    have a duty to address this issue imminently.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Dr. Conaway, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Our veterans are courageous men and women who have
    sacrificed much of their lives to defend and protect our
    country. These brave men and women make up roughly 30 percent
    of our Federal workforce. Our House Appropriations Committee
    estimates that nearly 6,000 veterans have lost their jobs,
    which is, to my mind, completely unacceptable when we
    understand and know. We have heard, well, partial answers to
    our questions about staffing levels at the VA.
        Many veteran employees who have been terminated were
    probationary employees, as you mentioned, as some of you have
    mentioned. Many of these persons were not people who were new
    to the VA system. They were people who had been in the VA
    system for some time and were promoted into new positions. It
    makes their termination--presumably, they were promoted because
    they were doing a good job to be promoted. It makes their
    determination as probationary periods, using that as a subtext,
    particularly galling.
        Can you discuss, and I will start with Ms. Murphy, what
    impact you think these firings will have on the lives of
    veterans and our families, and in particular the many veterans
    who were terminated from service in these rounds of cuts?
        Ms. Murphy. Dr. Conaway, from the veterans benefits
    perspective on our side of VA, the core mission, delivering
    benefits to veterans, has continued. I would point out that
    just today we issued a press release noting that we have
    reached our one-millionth claims processed earlier this year
    than ever. In the last--we have had 10 of our highest
    production days just in the last month, and the highest day
    ever at 12,000 claims. We are continuing to deliver, as
    Secretary Collins has instructed, on our core mission:
    delivering benefits to veterans.
        Mr. Conaway. Well, that you are working on your core
    mission is one thing, but the question is what are the outcomes
    as you are working on that?
        Ms. Therit, you mentioned that the number 40,000 is not an
    accurate number reflecting the vacancies. You suggested in your
    comments that if you look at what is budgeted for staff, that
    there is a gap between with respect to the number of employees
    for which there is a budget whose positions have not actually
    been filled. Can you tell us what that number is? If 40,000 is
    wrong and you mentioned we have got a budget limiting that,
    what is the number of budgeted positions that are not filled?
        Ms. Therit. Dr. Conaway, the information that we publish on
    a quarterly basis related to the MISSION Act, Section 505
    report, contains that information. I am happy to provide it. I
    do not have it with me today.
        Mr. Conaway. OK, thank you. I look forward to getting that
    information.
        Now, Dr. Yende, excuse me, do you--and we have had a
    question about this and perhaps we can get a more fulsome
    answer, but the VA facilities across the Nation, are they fully
    staffed? I mean, and if they are not fully staffed, and we do
    not believe they are, is it 70 percent fully staffed, 80
    percent? Where do you think that number? Can you give us a
    range at least about the staffing levels at these facilities
    across the Nation?
        Dr. Yende. I would have to take that question back and
    provide a more definite number. I do not have that information.
        Mr. Conaway. Just in your experience running agencies and
    healthcare systems, does not staffing play an important role in
    the outcomes of care that people receive in those institutions
    that are delivering, well, any service, but in this case
    healthcare to veterans or other services to veterans for that
    matter?
        Dr. Yende. Yes, Dr. Conaway, staffing does play a role, but
    leadership at VA facilities day-in and day-out try to make sure
    that veterans' frontline access is not impacted by staffing.
    There are multiple ways to do that.
        Mr. Conaway. Yet we have seen time after time, and this is
    not any particular administration, by the way, but we have seen
    that veterans are having trouble accessing care. You know,
    referrals can sit for 6, 9 months, we have heard in this very
    hearing room for people with possible cancer who do not get on
    to definitive care.
        What do you expect that you are going to be able to do to
    meet the staffing shortfall that is currently in place? By the
    way, you mentioned--well, I am about done. Please tell us about
    what you expect to happen with respect to staffing and how that
    is going to positively impact the responsibilities of VA.
        The Chairman. The gentlemen's time has expired.
        Thank you.
        Dr. Miller-Meeks, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Miller-Meeks. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank
    you for holding this important hearing.
        Ms. Murphy, after a veteran, and I am saying this as both a
    veteran married to a veteran in a family of veterans and also a
    doctor, former nurse, so, after a veteran is already reported
    to NICS based on no evidence of dangerousness, is not it
    harmful to a veteran's mental health that they have to prove to
    the VA that they are not dangerous to get their name removed
    from NICS?
        Ms. Murphy. Pardon me----
        Ms. Miller-Meeks. Is there any effect on a veteran's
    dignity, purposefulness, and mental health and well-being if
    they have to prove to the VA that they are not defective after
    they have been reported to the NIC system by someone who may
    not be a doctor, may not have any medical experience, and may
    not be a judge?
        Ms. Murphy. I do want to point out that this year, since
    March 2024, when our reporting requirements changed, we have
    reported three individuals. The number in the past, I believe
    the prior Fiscal Year was around 13,000, similar to the prior
    Fiscal Year before that. Our reporting numbers are much lower.
    To have the requirement to be--it is currently not an issue.
        Previously when we were reporting hire, there was an appeal
    process, there was a request for relief process, and those were
    taken on a case-by-case basis. Even in the Veterans Fiduciary
    Program, there is opportunity if there is a change in the
    mental health condition, they can submit additional evidence.
    Plus----
        Ms. Miller-Meeks. Well, thank you for saying that. If the
    VA updates the Attorney General that all prior reports of
    veterans to NICS solely because they have a fiduciary no longer
    applies, will the veteran who was reported to the NICS list for
    other reasons stay on the NICS list or are they removed from
    the NICS list? Are they still on the list even if they find
    there was no basis or they know the fiduciary no longer applies
    to them?
        Ms. Murphy. They would still be on the NICS list and we
    would have to----
        Ms. Miller-Meeks. Without due process, they are still on
    the NICS list. They are denied their constitutional rights even
    after the Attorney Generals have been told that it no longer
    applies to them. They are referred solely on the basis of
    having a fiduciary. I found that appalling after these veterans
    are the ones that defended our rights.
        Dr. Yende, one of the things that we have heard throughout
    the community and from veterans is that their experience
    getting appointments with community care. If they meet the
    eligibility, i.e., they cannot get into a VA clinic appointment
    within 30 days and/or they live over 40 miles, that getting the
    appointment varies dramatically depending upon which VA
    facility or region they are in. What steps is the VA taking to
    ensure that community care policies such as the Referral
    Coordination Initiative are implemented consistently across all
    business?
        Dr. Yende. We have very clear guidance to each facility to
    make sure that Referral Coordination Initiative, or RCI, is
    implemented in as many specialties as possible.
        I would just add, Chairman, there are other reasons why
    there may be delays, which may be related to staff who help to
    schedule these appointments. We work closely with the sites
    where there are long wait times in making sure they have the
    right processes, the right leadership, and the right staffing
    level. It is not just typically staffing level. There may be
    multiple factors at play.
        Ms. Miller-Meeks. Dr. Yende, if a veteran wants a mental
    health appointment in person, should not that be up to them and
    their decision?
        Dr. Yende. Yes.
        Ms. Miller-Meeks. Rather than the VA considering that we
    have given them a telehealth appointment within 30 days and so,
    therefore, they have denied a visit or an appointment if they
    want their visit in person?
        Dr. Yende. We agree with you.
        Ms. Miller-Meeks. OK. Thank you so much.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you. The gentlewoman yields back.
        Ms. Murphy and all others, thank you so much for being
    here. You are dismissed and excused. We want to then invite the
    second panel up to the witness table.
        The Chairman. Turn my mic on first. I would like to welcome
    our second panel, Mr. Jim Whaley, the chief executive officer
    of Mission Roll Call; Mr. Patrick Murray, the director of
    National Legislative Services of Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)
    . I would also like to extend a special welcome to a former
    Member of Congress, himself a veteran, Mr. Max Rose has served
    here in this Congress and like I said, is a veteran himself.
    Nice tie, by the way. Welcome. No one understands that but you
    and I do. He is with us today as a senior advisor to the
    Veterans Voice Foundation.
        I appreciate all of you being here. If you could, would you
    please stand and raise your right hand?
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        The Chairman. Thank you. Let the record reflect that the
    witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
        Mr. Whaley, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for your
    opening statement.

                        STATEMENT OF JIM WHALEY

        Mr. Whaley. Good afternoon, Chairman Bost, Ranking Member
    Takano, and distinguished Members of the House Veterans Affairs
    Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf
    of Mission Roll Call and the 1.4 million veterans we represent.
        At Mission Roll Call our goal is simple: making sure
    veterans' voices are heard where it matters most. We use
    polling and direct engagement to bring real, unfiltered veteran
    perspectives to policymakers and the public. Amplifying this
    data on behalf of veterans and their families allows us to
    advocate for meaningful change that improves the lives of those
    who have served.
        One of the biggest concerns we hear about is access to
    healthcare. While the Mission Act of 2018 made improvements,
    many veterans still struggle. A recent poll of over 2,500
    veterans and family members found 44 percent experienced delays
    in care, 31 percent had difficulty scheduling, and 12 percent
    were denied community care. Veterans should not have to wait
    unreasonable amounts of time or travel excessive distance to
    receive care. That is why we support the Veterans' ACCESS Act
    of 2025, to ensure care is built around the veteran, not
    bureaucracy.
        This act makes important progress on several fronts.
    Namely, it mandates reasonable time and distance standards to
    ensure veterans are not asked to travel too far or too long to
    receive care. It clarifies wait time standards to help prevent
    lengthy delays in receiving care. It gives veterans a voice in
    how, when, and where they receive care. Perhaps most
    importantly, it ensures no veteran in need of crucial mental
    healthcare is left unattended in their moments of greatest
    need.
        Another issue is the Veterans 2d Amendment Protection Act.
    Right now, the VA reports to the FBI's NICS data base over
    270,000 veterans since 1998. By comparison, the FBI itself has
    reported fewer than 2,000 under the same criteria. The decision
    to list any American on the NICS list and encroach upon
    constitutionally protected rights should not be made lightly
    and should only be done through judicial process. Yet the VA
    has made this an administrative decision. Veterans fear seeking
    help for PTS or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) could cost them
    their rights without due process. Congress temporarily
    addressed this issue last year, but it is time to make it a
    permanent protection.
        Of course, none of this matters if we do not hold the VA
    accountable. The VA serves over 9 million veterans, but too
    many still face barriers to timely care. Long wait times
    persist and veterans regularly report difficulty assessing
    services. The Restore VA Accountability Act of 2025 is a step
    toward ensuring the VA effective, addresses underperformance,
    maintains a veteran's first culture. Serving veterans is a
    privilege and every VA employee should be held to the highest
    standards.
        Last, I want to highlight the importance of the Student
    Veteran Benefit Restoration Act. Education benefits are life-
    changing for veterans. Veterans invest in their futures using
    their hard-earned educational benefits. When a school loses
    State approval or commits fraud, they are left with nothing.
    This bill ensures veterans do not lose their benefits due to
    circumstances out of their control.
        At Mission Roll Call, we believe in solutions, not just
    critiques. We are eager to partner with the VA to tackle these
    challenges together. We also recognize the vital role of
    veterans service organizations nationwide and urge
    collaboration to maximize impact. Working together, we can
    ensure veterans and their families receive the care and support
    they deserve.
        The bottom line? We need policies that put veterans first,
    healthcare, protection of rights, accountability at the VA, and
    education benefits. These issues directly impact veterans and
    their families. Mission Roll Call will continue to amplify and
    bring their voices to you because where policy and serving
    veterans is concerned, veterans' voices should lead the
    conversation.
        Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano, other distinguished
    members of the committee, this concludes my testimony. Thank
    you. I look forward to any questions.

        [The Prepared Statement of Jim Whaley appears in the
    Appendix]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Whaley. Appreciate that.
        Mr. Murray, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF PATRICK MURRAY

        Mr. Murray. Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano, members
    of the committee, on behalf of the men and women of the VFW and
    its auxiliary, thank you for the opportunity to provide remarks
    on this legislation today.
        On accountability, the VFW fully agrees that the VA
    Secretary should have the ability to remove bad employees from
    their roles. We believe Secretary McDonough should have had
    this authority as the same applies to Secretary Collins. We are
    worried that this could now lead to more arbitrary firings of
    competent and capable employees simply as a cost-cutting
    measure.
        Two weeks ago, Secretary Collins announced VA fired more
    than a thousand employees. Last night it was 1,400 more.
    Nowhere in these messages did it explain what warranted that
    action. Members on this committee regularly say VA needs to
    weed out the bad actors, and we agree. The dismissal of
    thousands of employees was not done because it was warranted.
    It was done because it was easy.
        Among the employees who were let go were veterans and
    military spouses. Other firings were of employees recently
    promoted into new roles. Some of these firings have been
    rescinded because they were key positions, but that is not the
    case for all. Before this committee advances this bill, we ask
    that there be proper oversight to ensure the men and women who
    serve our veterans, caregivers, and survivors were not fired
    from crucial roles.
        The VFW supports the Student Veteran Benefit Restoration
    Act to protect student veterans and their earned education
    benefits from schools that commit fraud. This legislation would
    require VA to restore the education entitlements to the
    student, and the school would be required to repay VA the
    associated funds it received. As written and if passed into
    law, these protections would apply to future violations of
    fraud, and we recommend including retroactive restoration of
    education entitlements for students who could be affected prior
    to enactment.
        The VFW supports H.R. 1041 to protect veterans' Second
    Amendment rights and establish due process for those who have
    been assigned fiduciaries by VA before referring them to the
    NICS list. We supported this bill over 15 years ago when an
    earlier version was first brought to VFW's attention and will
    continue to support this proposal until it is passed into law.
    Even though the issue of fiduciaries affects a small percentage
    of veterans, we argue that every veteran deserves protection of
    their constitutional rights.
        The VFW also supports H.R. 740, the Veterans' ACCESS Act.
    This proposal would provide some enhancements to the VA
    community care program. Since the passage of the MISSION Act
    2018, VA has not implemented this program consistently across
    this entire network. Veterans deserve consistency in their care
    and this is a step toward providing that. While this proposal
    does not address VA direct care, we would be remiss not to
    remind this committee that some of the reasons community care
    appointments and costs are increasing is because VA cannot
    provide some of these vital services.
        Care in the community is VA care, but providing resources
    for care only in the community is something that we cannot
    abide by. VA care, direct care can lead to--sorry, VA direct
    care can lead to a less capable VA and an over reliance on the
    pressure relief system of community care. This could be
    detrimental to the overall care for veterans.
        Last, Section 302 of this proposal seeks to implement a
    different pilot program for accessing certain mental health
    services without a prior referral authorization if the veteran
    is enrolled in VA healthcare. This process is similar to the
    existing urgent care treatment models available to veterans.
    That system works for veterans because it allows quick access
    to treatment that could typically face certain delays or
    overcrowding VA emergency rooms. That system also brings high
    costs and unknown budget impacts. VA does not know if 10
    veterans will use that system or if 10,000 veterans will use
    that system. VA simply has to pay the bill when it shows up.
    This uncoordinated care has grown the community care budget in
    the past few years, and we predict this provision could have
    similar unpredictable increases in cost. We believe this
    provision could be beneficial, but we would like to warn
    against reductions in direct VA care in order to maintain these
    uncoordinated care options.
        Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide remarks on these bills today and I am
    prepared to answer any questions you may have.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Patrick Murray Appears In The
    Appendix]

        The Chairman. Mr. Murray, thank you.
        Congressman Rose, you are recognized.

                         STATEMENT OF MAX ROSE

        Mr. Rose. Chairman, thank you. It is great to see you
    again. Ranking Member, it is great to see you as well. It is
    really an honor to come back to this committee, which I was so
    honored to serve on. Of course, I am equally honored that my
    return to this committee has caused such a surge in member
    attendance to hear what I have to say.
        I am the senior advisor to Vet Voice Foundation,
    representing nearly 2 million veterans and military families
    across the country. I am also a veteran myself, a Purple Heart
    recipient, and I continue to serve in the Reserves. Roughly 3,
    4 years ago, I myself hit a rough patch and made the decision,
    along with my family, that I would seek mental healthcare at my
    local VA. It is not something I am ashamed of, and I think
    every veteran at one point or another goes through that moment.
        What I found at my local VA was an institution that was not
    just represented by the actual healthcare providers. I found a
    home, a place that understands veterans. That is why we built
    this institution as a Nation. That is why we continue to
    support it because we have collectively made the decision that
    we need a healthcare organization that is uniquely suited for
    veterans. I believe that this committee stands in a bipartisan
    fashion to fight for and defend that, which brings me to this
    issue of community care.
        We all collectively agree that if there needs to be a
    safeguard for if veterans cannot seek care or find the care
    that they need at a local VA. I also equally believe that we
    have to fight for each and every day to make sure that our VA
    is properly resourced. At times those two issues can be awfully
    conflicting. We have got to make sure that both from a
    budgeting standpoint as well as from a policy standpoint, what
    we are spending our days on is looking at how we can improve
    the VA itself, not slowly kill it via a thinly veiled effort at
    privatization. That is what I believe our North Star should be.
        I am also gravely concerned by the lack of transparency and
    uncertainty surrounding the recent policy changes that have
    directly impacted VA, the VA workforce. I do not believe that
    there is any such thing as a non-essential category of VA
    workers. They are all essential and they all directly impact
    patient care. We know for a fact that there have been blanket
    firings, at least large groups of people that work the front
    desk at VA's medical, technicians, people that service
    hotlines, people that support, at least on an ancillary basis
    surgeries, and other absolutely essential services. Now, they
    may not be direct providers, but they are absolutely essential
    and they absolutely impact direct patient care.
        I believe that the consequences of these mass firings will
    result in veterans not receiving the care that they need and,
    ultimately, veterans being put in harm's way. That directly
    contradicts the promise that we as a Nation have made to
    veterans, that they, when they sign on that dotted line and
    make a promise to make the ultimate sacrifice for this Nation,
    that we will be there for them when they come home.
        My views on the legislation before the committee today is
    in my written testimony. I, of course, look forward to speaking
    about that. I will conclude with this. As you deliberate on
    these bills, my guiding principle remains steadfast. Our
    veterans deserve policies that honor their service, protect
    their rights, and provide them with the support they need to
    thrive. I look forward to working with this committee to ensure
    your legislative efforts achieve our common goals while
    upholding the trust and well-being of our veterans.
        I thank you for your time and look forward to your
    questions.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Max Rose Appears In The
    Appendix]

        The Chairman. We are now going to turn to questions. I
    recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        This one is for the entire panel. Yes or no. Do you believe
    every American citizen, including every veteran, is entitled to
    their day in court before they lose any constitutional right?
        Mr. Whaley. Yes.
        Mr. Murray. Yes.
        Mr. Rose. Certainly. I mean, of course.
        The Chairman. Mr. Murray, a few weeks ago, a VFW
    representative testified that VA denied her request for a
    specialized mental health program due to the program being out
    of network. Do you believe veterans should be able to access
    community care that works for them regardless of their network?
        Mr. Murray. Absolutely. That instance, it was actually
    denied multiple times because a veteran on the East Coast
    wanted a treatment facility, first in Arizona, then in Utah.
    Because that was in TriWest versus Optum, it was denied. There
    was nothing that we found that was in writing, that that was in
    statute and regulation. It was just in practice. We believe it
    might have been the contracts, but we are not privy to some of
    that information. That could have led to disastrous
    consequences.
        The Chairman. Mr. Whaley, how do underperforming employees
    impact the quality of care provided to veterans?
        Mr. Whaley. Well, I think every American expects our VA to
    be the most efficient and effective program it could possibly
    be. I mean, we cannot expect to have the greatest military in
    the world if we do not have the greatest healthcare system in
    the world, both for active duty military and for veterans. I
    think we want the best and brightest. We want to retain them.
    We want to give the opportunity to improve the capabilities of
    the VA.
        The Chairman. Mr. Whaley, also, for veterans with substance
    use disorder, does it take a lot of courage to show up to a
    facility and admit they need help? Do you think the VA
    currently--the current community care process is simple enough
    for veterans to get the care that they need?
        Mr. Whaley. No. The numbers speak for themselves. The
    number for suicides has not dropped in years. In fact, it is
    gone higher. We know that there is a challenge, a significant
    challenge, that our country should be embarrassed about. We
    have too many veterans that are taking their life. We need to
    make it easy for them to get the care they want when they need
    it, and promptly. We cannot have veterans that have mental
    challenges, thoughts of suicide have to wait for somebody to
    give them a call to get the appointment that they need. They
    need the appointment now. They need to be taken care of.
        The Chairman. Yes. Congressman Rose, you said yourself you
    have used the VA facility. OK. How close was that VA facility
    to your home?
        Mr. Rose. Well, Staten Island, so the traffic is always
    unpredictable, Chairman.
        The Chairman. I understand, but I would say about a half-
    hour.
        OK. I agree with you, we do not want to privatize the VA. I
    am going to tell you that right now. Never have I said I want
    to provide privatize the VA. You do believe that if a person
    lives in Wyoming and is 3 or 4 hours at best from VA, they
    should still be able to receive care at the level that you do,
    being 15, 20 minutes or even a half-hour or 45 minutes based on
    traffic?
        Mr. Rose. Sure, absolutely, Chairman. I believe that is
    already in statute based off of the ability for someone to seek
    community care dependent on how far away the nearest VA
    facility is. What the concern actually is with this
    legislation, if you look at, for instance, the pilot that is
    being offered, much of that is thrown out the window and you
    see the opportunity for people to seek community-based care,
    often even without a referral. This opens the door exactly to
    privatization, what we both collectively have said, we that we
    are opposed to, because in instances like that, you are
    actually drawing funds away from the VA's capacity to serve its
    own institution. That prevents veterans like myself from being
    able to still continue to go to institutions that were
    developed to actually understand them and support them.
        The Chairman. That will lead me to my last question. Do you
    believe the VA was created for the veterans or was it created
    for the VA?
        Mr. Rose. Of course the VA was created for veterans. Of
    course.
        The Chairman. OK. The only concern that I have is that when
    we tell the veteran they have to go to the VA and that veteran
    has, for whatever reason, a need to go into the community care.
    Like I said, do not want to, I think there are some very
    special things that our VA does and continue to do. Of course,
    this also leads to a bill that I believe you were around when
    we passed, which was MISSION Act. Right? You were here for
    that, which part of that was also to revamp the VA so that
    each--because what we have got is, is we have got several
    veterans that might, in 1950's, lived in one area and now we
    have very few veterans there, and that is in the Air
    Commission. This is not an argument for the House because the
    House did their job. It is for the Senate to do their job. We
    have no senators here, so we cannot badmouth them over that.
        With that, I yield back and I recognize the ranking member
    for his question.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we are not going
    to talk about the Air Commission. All right.
        Congressman Rose, good to see you back, my friend.
        Mr. Rose. Good to see you, too.
        Mr. Takano. You are looking well. Thank you for being here
    today. As a veteran and user of VA, you know, your perspective
    is important for us, your insights. As Congress develops
    policies that may change how VA delivers care, what do you
    think are the most important considerations we should weigh to
    ensure veterans receive timely and high-quality healthcare?
        Mr. Rose. Sure. I think the beginning, our North Star
    should be is that the VA, by virtually every metric, is
    performing better than other large healthcare institutions.
    Based off of patient surveys, treatment quality, even in many
    instances wait times, the VA is performing better. I think our
    first immediate priority should be to make sure that we are
    investing at greater numbers into the VA.
        We also should note that the vast majority of VA employees
    could get paid more in other healthcare organizations. They are
    making the explicit choice to continue their record of service,
    many of whom are veterans. Their service should be honored and
    they should be supported rather than fired en masse.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you for that, Congressman Rose. How does
    staffing affect VA's ability to deliver timely and high-quality
    care to veterans?
        Mr. Rose. I believe it is everything. It is not just
    staffing in regards to how many nurses you have, how many
    direct primary care physicians, although that is absolutely
    essential. If you want to make sure that you are delivering
    high-quality care to veterans, you have to make sure that your
    front desks are manned. You have to make sure that there are
    proper care coordinators in place. You have to make sure that
    there are people policing the parking lots. All of those
    different types of positions were very largely represented in
    the groups that were just fired over the course of these past 2
    weeks.
        Mr. Takano. I am glad you are getting to this. VA relies on
    staffing in its community care offices, at VA medical centers
    to coordinate veterans care when it is referred out. When you
    get a referral to go in the community, you have this Office of
    Community Care which actually follows through on that. Is it my
    understanding that some of these, many of these community care
    offices are understaffed?
        Mr. Rose. They are absolutely understaffed. I am so happy
    you brought this up because when we think about community care,
    certainly if a veteran cannot get a specialty appointment
    within a month or even 20 days, community-based care is
    absolutely a priority and important. That veteran then comes
    back to the VA and everyone in healthcare today is focused on
    treating the entire person and making sure that there is
    properly integrated care. That is completely destroyed if we do
    not have an office in the VA that monitors that.
        Mr. Takano. This Office of Community Care, are you aware of
    firings that affected those offices?
        Mr. Rose. Sure. I mean, I think we all collectively are.
        Mr. Takano. OK. Does the Veterans' ACCESS Act do anything
    to ensure that there is adequate staffing at VA community care
    offices to process those referrals?
        Mr. Rose. Absolutely not. Nor does the bill do anything to
    mandate or require that community-based healthcare options can
    actually serve the veteran better at a lower cost. In fact, the
    vast majority of the time, it is at a much higher cost, which
    is a detriment to the taxpayer.
        Mr. Takano. Help me understand this. Currently at the
    Office of Community Care, in many places, at many medical
    centers, I have heard that there may be appointments available
    inside the VA that could be offered to the veteran at a much
    shorter timeline, meaning that they can get in faster at the VA
    than they could in the community. Then that does not often
    happen, and often veterans may also--are not offered the choice
    of going to the VA, even if it is a little longer, because VA
    has better outcomes on a particular specialty.
        Mr. Rose. Sure, absolutely. Look, and I go back to the
    chairman's point that he made earlier. If this committee is
    truly committed on a bipartisan basis to improving the VA, and
    every single healthcare organization can improve, what it would
    focus on is making sure that it could increase efficiency,
    increase patient care, which both can happen at the same time,
    not on constantly figuring out ways to push veterans out of the
    institution.
        Mr. Takano. I would be all in favor of DOGE looking at
    community care coordination operations within VA to make sure
    that the taxpayer is getting the best value. Sometimes the
    taxpayer will get much better value out of having the veteran
    actually be able to go and seek treatment inside the VA and
    that if we adequately staffed the Office of Community Care that
    this could all be done efficiently. We would see veterans
    getting their appointments, right? Does the Veterans' ACCESS
    Act do anything to improve manual processes that frequently
    lengthen the time it takes for a referral to be made?
        Mr. Rose. No. Look, and to your point, this is ultimately a
    detriment to the taxpayer because all too often these options
    outside of the VA cost so much more, particularly with
    healthcare consolidation as it is today. This is something that
    DOGE should actually be opposed to, not in support of.
        Mr. Takano. Well, thank you. My time has run out. I yield
    back.
        The Chairman. Dr. Dexter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Dexter. Thank you, Chairman Bost.
        Today my Republican colleagues are pushing a proposal to
    expand for-profit care at the expense of our direct VA system.
    The data shows that VA healthcare consistently outperforms for-
    profit care in terms of quality and patient satisfaction. That
    alone should make us skeptical of this policy. What makes this
    even more egregious is that they are pushing lower quality care
    at massive unwarranted cost to American taxpayers. Just last
    week, the Office of the Inspector General issued a report
    indicating that the third-party administrators who run the for-
    profit VA care program were overpaid by almost a billion
    dollars and that those for-profit entities, predominantly
    Optum, are now refusing to return those overpayments to the VA.
        Congressman Rose, thank you for joining us. Since the
    passage of the VA MISSION Act, VA's expenditures on for-profit
    care has dramatically climbed. Is that correct?
        Mr. Rose. Yes.
        Ms. Dexter. In recent years, year over year growth in
    community care expenditure has been as high as 19 percent. I
    bring this to show the vastly increasing proportion of
    community care versus indirect VA care, 2017 versus 2023.
        Congressman Rose, specialty providers in the community are
    not required to make quality of care data publicly available or
    report that data back to the VA. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Rose. Absolutely.
        Ms. Dexter. It is also true that providers in the community
    are not required to provide real-time data on wait times to
    veterans. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Rose. One hundred percent. We have no way, when they
    seek privatized care, to hold these institutions accountable or
    to have any centralized dashboard or metrics on a national
    basis.
        Ms. Dexter. A veteran does not make an informed decision
    about whether to wait for VA, which they have a relatively
    reasonable understanding of the wait, versus a black box of
    going to the
        [inaudible].
        Mr. Rose. Right. This is why I believe it should be the
    bipartisan prerogative of this committee to be opposed to any
    thinly veiled effort to privatize the VA, which is all this is.
    This is not an effort to improve patient care or save money.
        Ms. Dexter. I absolutely agree with you.
        Finally, providers in the community do not have to return
    medical records to the VA after they see a patient. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Rose. Absolutely.
        Ms. Dexter. I know this because I have been a VA provider
    in the VA, in the direct care system. I have trained VA
    doctors. I have been a community care provider outside of the
    VA. I have heard multiple times today, care in the community is
    VA care. I will tell you, as somebody who has delivered that
    care, that is absolutely not the case. I did not have access to
    the medications patients were taking, their prior workup, and
    when I finished with them, I sent them back into a black box.
    It is absolutely a misappropriation of funds to do this work
    this way.
        Thank you, Congressman Rose, for your responses. As our VA
    system is robbed of funding that it desperately needs, this is
    a zero sum game. We are not making the pie bigger. We need to
    serve our veterans. It is insane that we are discussing a
    proposal to increase poor care, disruptive care, and at the
    cost of what we know is data-driven, highly satisfactory care
    for our veterans.
        I look forward to working with you, Congressman Rose, to
    ensure that every veteran in this country has access to care at
    a properly funded VA that allows them to receive the
    comprehensive and integrated care that they deserve. For us to
    continue this and move this bill forward is shameful. It is a
    hundred percent prospectively investing in community care that
    undermines veterans' care. I thank you for this time.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Ranking Member, do you have any
    closing remarks?
        Mr. Takano. Yes. I would like to request unanimous consent
    to enter four items into the record. Let me get the list. I
    have two items, excuse me. I have letters from Everytown Gun
    Safety and the Fraternal Order of Police to be entered into the
    record. I ask for unanimous consent.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        Mr. Takano. Yes. Thank you. You want final comments?
        The Chairman. Yes. Yep.
        Mr. Takano. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I do hope that we can
    have a hearing specifically on the topic of the unfairly
    dismissed employees from VA, especially the veterans who had
    stellar performance reviews, but yet were still dismissed. I do
    not think it is adequate that you invited them to come speak
    with you personally. I do think the American people want to
    know what happened and hold whoever made this decision, because
    Ms. Therit was not able to tell me who ordered her to issue
    that memorandum, which fired every employee. Nor was she able
    to deal with this contradiction in her memo that people were
    fired for their performance, but clearly we know that we have
    employees who had stellar performance records.
        Let me say that I appreciate the testimony of the panel
    today. Mr. Murray, I did not ask you many questions, but I
    certainly appreciated what the VFW's views on many sections of
    the ACCESS Act and that you, like I, and the VFW and my views
    about the adequate balance of, the proper balance between
    community care and direct care, well, I would just say it is
    really about for-profit care and direct care within the VA. I
    just want to make sure that we are not summarily putting out,
    referring into the private sector care that diminishes VA's
    ability to offer direct care. Ninety percent of the veterans
    are getting their care--I mean, 90 percent of the veterans who
    are enrolled in VA are getting their care through direct care.
    We do not want to see that diminished by the trend that was
    shown by my colleague from Oregon.
        With that, I yield back and look forward to working with
    you on a future hearing.
        The Chairman. I thank you and we will take everything you
    said under advisement.
        I think that it is vitally important that we do recognize
    that just a few weeks ago in a hearing that GAO noted that 42
    percent of the care which is given by the community is done for
    25 percent of the cost. That is important and that is why we
    should continue the discussion. Not in any way, shape, or form
    to privatize, I have said that.
        It is important that the veteran remember, and I have said
    it so many times, and I have said it so many times today, the
    VA was created for the veteran, not for the VA. Who are we
    serving? Are we serving the bureaucrats at the VA or are we
    serving the veterans? I, and I believe my constituents, even
    though I have a VA right down the road from me, I believe a
    majority of my constituents believe we are to serve our
    veterans.
        With that, I want to thank all of our witnesses for being
    here. I look forward to addressing the problems that these
    bills would fix to provide solutions for our Nation's veterans
    and their families. I will continue to push VA to strive for
    world-class care and know it is capable of providing that for
    veterans. Under my leadership, we will continue to work to
    ensure VA has the best in class workforce to deliver care and
    benefits. We will hold them accountable when they miss the
    mark. As chairman, I will always put veterans first and they
    should never feel fearful of losing their constitutional rights
    when they visit VA.
        With that, I ask unanimous consent that all members shall
    have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
    remarks and include any extraneous material. Hearing no
    objections, so ordered.
        The hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:26 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

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

                             A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X

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

                        Prepared Statements of Witnesses

                                  ----------

                       Prepared Statement of Beth Murphy
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        Prepared Statement of Jim Whaley
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Prepared Statement of Patrick Murray

        Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano, and members of the committee,
    on behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
    United States (VFW) and its Auxiliary, thank you for the opportunity to
    provide remarks on this proposed legislation.

    H.R. 472, Restore VA Accountability Act of 2025

        The VFW has previously supported this legislation that would
    streamline authorities to suspend, demote, or fire employees of the
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) who have been determined to warrant
    such action. We had also supported the Department of Veterans Affairs
    Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 (Public Law
    115-41) because the VFW had seen examples of VA's inability to hold
    certain employees accountable. While this proposal would restore the
    original intent of the law that had technical gaps and was not
    implemented effectively, we would like to express our disappointment at
    how the recent dismissals of VA employees have been handled.
        The VFW fully agrees that the VA Secretary should have the ability
    to remove bad employees from their roles, but we do not agree with
    using authorities this proposal would provide to arbitrarily remove
    competent and capable employees simply as a cost-cutting measure.
    Reduction in Force efforts should not be bluntly used at VA in order to
    satisfy an arbitrary budget goal. VA should always be fully staffed
    with competent and capable employees in order to serve the men and
    women who have earned their VA health care and benefits.
        Two weeks ago, Secretary Doug Collins announced VA fired more than
    one thousand employees. Nowhere in his message did it explain what
    warranted that action. Members on this committee regularly say VA needs
    to weed out the bad actors, but the dismissal of more than one thousand
    employees was not done because it was warranted, instead it was done
    because it was easy. Among the employees who were let go were veterans
    and military spouses. Some of these firings have been rescinded because
    they were key positions, but that is not the case for all of the
    dismissals. Before this committee advances this bill, we believe there
    needs to be proper oversight to ensure the men and women who serve our
    veterans, caregivers, and survivors are not fired arbitrarily from
    their crucial roles.

    H.R. 740, Veterans' ACCESS Act of 2025

        The VFW supports this proposal that would provide overall
    enhancements to the VA Community Care program. Since the passage of the
    MISSION Act of 2018, VA has not implemented this program consistently
    across its entire network. Veterans deserve consistency in their care,
    and this is a good step toward providing it. While this proposal does
    not address VA direct care, we would be remiss to not remind this
    committee that some of the reasons community care appointments and
    costs are increasing is because VA cannot provide many of these vital
    services. Care in the community is VA care, but providing resources for
    care only in the community and not also for VA direct care can lead to
    a less capable VA, which would be detrimental to veteran care.
        Sec. 101-The VFW supports the codification of access standards for
    the VA Community Care Network (CCN). These access standards have been
    in place for years and, although they were arbitrarily adopted from old
    TRICARE access standards for retirees, the standards have not changed
    and have not been problematic for veterans since the enactment of the
    MISSION Act. The issues with CCN we have heard from our members are not
    due to the geographic or wait times to access this type of care. Enough
    time has passed since the initial implementation that we are
    comfortable codifying these standards.
        Sec. 102--The VFW supports this portion of the bill that would
    require veterans to be notified of eligibility for community care. Too
    many veterans need to advocate on their own to access care in the
    community. If this care is to be provided appropriately to veterans,
    then it should be transparent and accessible and not hidden behind
    levels of bureaucracy.
        Sec. 103--We support this provision to include a veteran's
    preference in the determination for community care. We understand this
    addition does not mean a veteran's preference is the sole factor for
    accessing community care, but it should be part of the consideration.
        Sec. 104--We support this provision to provide a notification of
    denial to veterans.
        Sec. 105--We support this provision to discuss telehealth options
    that are acceptable to veterans.
        Sec. 106--We support this provision to extend the deadline for
    payment claims of providers by an additional 6 months. TITLE II of this
    bill addresses improvements to certain VA mental health treatment
    programs. The VFW is pleased to see language that would improve the
    policies and processes that govern access to VA's Mental Health
    Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Program (MH RRTP) as we recognize
    it needs serious attention. However, we would ask the standards for
    accessing these programs be thoughtfully considered due to their
    different nature. Priority admission standards should be developed
    differently than routine admission standards because many of these
    programs, whether VA-provided or in the CCN, are not local to veterans.
        MH RRTP locations are often secluded and situated in rural areas as
    part of the provided treatments. The fact that they are often
    intentionally situated away from population centers means many veterans
    would automatically be eligible for referral to community-based
    services regardless of where they live. We believe a carefully
    considered combination of wait times and geographic boundaries must be
    considered for routine admissions, rather than arbitrary calculations
    based on entirely different treatment programs such as standard VA
    mental health care.
        Veterans in crisis must receive timely, quality, and consistent
    care that aligns with their needs while also accounting for their
    individual preferences where feasible. We feel the proposed 48-hour
    deadline for residential treatment screening and admissions decisions
    has the potential to save lives and mitigate instances of veterans
    losing trust in VA's ability to provide or facilitate care when they
    need it most. As we collectively look to improve help-seeking behaviors
    among veterans, Congress and VA must ensure resources like these are
    equipped to meet veterans where they are without bureaucratic hurdles
    or inefficiencies undermining such efforts.
        To that end, we would like this committee to consider including a
    provision that also prohibits barriers to accessing the breadth of
    community-based residential treatment programs that are available and
    commonly tailored to veterans. One VFW member recently sought but
    ultimately gave up on receiving residential mental health care through
    VA because the program the provider determined would best meet the care
    needs was in the wrong network. Other available programs that met
    treatment needs and preferences like gender-specific programming were
    similarly out of network.
        With rare exceptions, veterans referred to residential treatment
    via CCN are able to access only programs that are physically located
    within their respective jurisdictions, each of which is managed by
    either Optum Serve or TriWest Healthcare Alliance. While this structure
    works relatively well for common needs like orthopedics and diabetes
    care, the same cannot be said for mental health and substance use
    disorder (SUD) programs that are limited in number, highly specialized,
    and variable in terms of medical expertise and treatment methods.
    Arbitrarily restricting program access based on administrator network
    boundaries limits VA's ability to coordinate timely and appropriate
    residential mental health and SUD care for veterans. While this is not
    in statute, it is in practice at VA and needs to be rectified.
        Sec. 301--The VFW generally supports the idea of this provision but
    would recommend instructing VA, to the extent possible, to purchase an
    existing platform instead of building its own. The existing language in
    this proposal directs VA to develop and implement a plan to establish
    an online interactive self-service module. However, VA is historically
    inept at developing its own IT platforms and a self-service module
    would be a great improvement for VA care, as long as it is done
    properly.
        We support this proposal, and the community care provisions in the
    Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits
    Improvement Act because community care is a program that needs
    improvements. We would be remiss to not mention the underlying cause of
    some community care problems is VA's current inability to perform some
    of this care. VA direct care and community care can complement each
    other to provide a full suite of services for veterans. Often CCN is
    used to relieve the burden of care VA cannot directly provide. But only
    providing additional resources to the community care portion of VA care
    will continue to exacerbate the problems with VA internal capacity. We
    urge this committee to not only fund community care improvements but
    also continue to improve direct VA care so this ``pressure relief
    valve'' is not overused.

    H.R. 1041, Veterans 2d Amendment Protection Act

        The VFW supports this proposal to protect Second Amendment rights
    for veterans and to establish due process for those who have been
    assigned fiduciaries by VA before referring them to the National
    Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). We supported this bill
    over 15 years ago when this issue was brought to the VFW's attention
    and will continue to support this proposal until it is passed into law.
        The VFW hears from veterans that a negative consequence of VA's
    current practice is that they are hesitant to seek mental health care
    because they fear their firearms will be taken away. This has created a
    significant stigma surrounding mental health and has created a barrier
    to care for many. This perception is difficult to change. The VFW
    continues to encourage veterans to use their earned VA health care,
    including the world-class, veteran-specific mental health services that
    VA provides. The VFW has also been involved in numerous efforts to
    reduce veteran suicide, including urging that veterans in distress
    temporarily give their firearms to a trusted friend or consider using
    trigger locks to lessen the ease of using a firearm to harm themselves.
    The VFW also believes in looking at the economic factors veterans face
    that can put them at risk for death by suicide, as we know suicide is
    not solely a mental health or firearm issue.
        Few veterans that the VFW represents in the VA disability claims
    process are assigned a fiduciary, and of those it is very rare that our
    accredited representatives are asked to assist in appealing the
    decision. Even though we understand the issue of fiduciaries likely
    affects a small percentage of veterans, we argue that every veteran
    deserves protection of their constitutional rights.

    H.R. XXX To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the
    Secretary of Veterans Affairs from transmitting certain information to
    the Department of Justice for use by the national instant criminal
    background check system

        The VFW does not support this legislation. As written, the bill
    does not contain safeguards to reasonably ensure that beneficiaries
    with VA-assigned fiduciaries are not a danger to self or others prior
    to removal from NICS.
        Between January 1, 2009, and March 14, 2024, VA referred more than
    258,000 incompetent veteran beneficiaries for inclusion in the NICS
    index. Of this number, nearly 40 percent of these veterans were
    diagnosed with serious conditions like dementia or schizophrenia.
    Accordingly, automatic and unconditional NICS removal of beneficiaries
    with VA-fiduciaries could include people whose underlying injury or
    disease may indicate a heightened threat of harming themselves or
    others. We ask this committee to carefully restore veterans' rights
    while not inadvertently causing them harm.

        H.R. XXX, Student Veteran Benefit Restoration Act of 2025

        The VFW supports this legislation to protect student veterans and
    their earned education benefits from schools that commit fraud.
    Instances of fraud could include United States Code, Title 38, Section
    3696 violations of substantial misrepresentation through advertising,
    marketing, recruiting, and enrollment practices. It would also include
    programs without approval by a State Approving Agency (SAA) and schools
    found guilty of fraud by a court of competent jurisdiction.
        This legislation would require VA to restore the education
    entitlements to the student, and the school would be required to repay
    VA the associated funds it had received. As written and if passed into
    law, the protections would apply to future violations of fraud. We
    recommend including retroactive restoration of education entitlements
    for students who could be affected prior to enactment.
        We also recommend that the provision regarding programs not
    approved by SAAs be clarified. Currently, schools without SAA approval
    do not receive VA education funding. However, if clarified this could
    be a useful protection to students who are unable to complete their
    programs if SAA approval were removed due to fraud after they had
    begun.
        Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano, thank you for the opportunity
    to present our views today. I am prepared to answer any questions you
    may have.

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

        Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the VFW
    has not received any Federal grants in Fiscal Year 2025, nor has it
    received any Federal grants in the two previous Fiscal Years.

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

                         Prepared Statement of Max Rose

        Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano, and distinguished members of
    the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on these
    important pieces of legislation affecting our Nation's Veterans. It is
    an honor to appear before you, as a senior advisor for Vet Voice
    Foundation, representing nearly 2 million Veterans and military
    families across the country, and drawing on my experience serving in
    the U.S. Army and my ongoing commitment to those who have worn the
    uniform of our Armed Forces.
        People join the service for many reasons and share a common
    experience that those who have not served cannot always understand.
    Themes of dedication, sacrifice, embracing the suck and resilience are
    common among veterans. I witnessed the challenges they encounter upon
    transitioning to civilian life, being suddenly disconnected from those
    they served with. Everything feels harder without your battle buddy,
    but there is a familiarity that comes with Department of Veterans
    Affairs (VA) encounters that can feel a little like being back in the
    ranks, at least that's how it feels to me. But besides just feeling
    good, I want those encounters to work for me and my Veteran peers.
        Like millions of my fellow Veterans, I use the Department of
    Veterans Affairs for my healthcare. My personal experiences with the VA
    have been overwhelmingly positive. I have received high-quality care
    from dedicated professionals who understand the unique needs of those
    who have served. I strongly believe that investing in VA direct care
    should be an imperative, not an afterthought, and must be central to
    any discussion about caring for Veterans. The Veterans community is
    largely united in this view; in a recent VFW survey, Veterans indicated
    overwhelming support for VA to remain our primary deliverer of care.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Statement of Patrick Murray, Director National Legislative
    Service Veterans of the Foreign Wars of the United States, before the
    House Veterans Affairs Committee. 17 December 2024. https://
    www.vfw.org/advocacy/national-legislative-service/congressional-
    testimony/2024/12/pending-legislation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We shouldn't lose sight that the VA is more than just a healthcare
    provider; it is a system built to serve Veterans in ways no private
    sector model can fully replicate. The goal should not be to shift
    resources away from the VA, but to maintain capacity in-house to ensure
    it remains strong, effective, and capable of meeting Veterans' needs
    now and in the future. I support Veterans' choice and the Community
    Care system as important options to access unique specialties or
    capacity that local VA clinics cannot provide. But I don't believe that
    community care or veteran choice should outweigh the VA system at face
    value because we cannot assume that choice automatically increases
    provider capacity. Many local providers are already backlogged and
    overwhelmed with local patients, resulting in long wait times for
    veterans using community appointments.
        I am gravely concerned by the lack of transparency and uncertainty
    surrounding recent policy changes that directly impact the VA
    workforce. While some positions at the VA were exempted from the recent
    round of personnel reductions, military-centric news agencies have
    reported that employees supporting the Veterans Crisis Line and Vet
    Centers were fired.\2\ Veterans employed by VA, many of them disabled,
    have reported receiving confusing messages about their employment
    status. Some have been ``fired for performance problems'', despite
    receiving consistently excellent performance reviews.\3\ Others
    accepted the deferred resignation offer, and were later told they were
    ineligible, and then fired.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ ``VA Crisis Line Employees Among Those Fired Amid Federal
    Workforce Purge.'' Patricia Kime, Military.com, 19 February 2025.
    https://www.military.com/daily- news/2025/02/19/va-crisis-line-
    employees-among-those-fired-amid-Federal-workforce-purge.html
        \3\ Examples of Veterans fired by DOGE (not comprehensive list):
    ``Disabled vet says he was laid off from Department of Veterans
    Affairs.'' WPTV News, 18 February 2025. https://www.youtube.com/
    watch?v=u8fgLmbCUQU. ``Veteran speaks out after job at VA terminated in
    DOGE purge.'' CNN, 19 February 2025. ``He Served Four Tours in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. DOGE Just Fired Him.'' Newsweek, 20 February 2025. https:/
    /www.newsweek.com/he-served-four-tours-iraq-afghanistan-doge-just-laid-
    him-off-2033503 ``Disabled veteran shares emotional story about being
    fired from Federal job.'' CNN, 19 February 2025. https://www.cnn.com/
    2025/02/19/us/video/disabled-veteran-fired-Federal-job-digvid
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Veterans make up 30 percent of the Federal workforce--far higher
    than their representation in the private sector. More than half of the
    Veterans employed by the Federal Government - about 340,000 - are
    disabled. Federal workforce policy and Veterans policy are thus one and
    the same. Policies that impact the Federal workforce disproportionately
    impact Veterans, and disabled Veterans in particular.\4\ Policies that
    harm the VA workforce are doubly harmful, impacting both the Veterans
    employed by VA, and the Veterans who rely on VA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Employment of Veterans in the Federal executive branch, Fiscal
    Year 2021. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, November 2023. https://
    www.opm.gov/fedshirevets/hiring-officials/ved-fy21.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The men and women who serve our Veterans deserve clarity,
    stability, and support. It is incumbent upon this Committee, and every
    elected representative, to demand greater information from the
    administration, to consult closely with your Veteran constituents, and
    to fully assess the potential consequences of the externally directed
    staff reductions before moving forward with the legislation under
    consideration today. I urge great caution before taking any action that
    could undermine the VA's ability to serve those who rely on it.
        I would like to offer some brief comments on the legislation before
    the Committee today.

            H.R. 472, The Restore VA Accountability Act of 2025

            H.R. 472 purports to ensure that VA leadership can take
            necessary action to address poor performance and misconduct
            within its workforce while maintaining fairness and due process
            - a laudable goal, and one we all share.

            Unfortunately, if enacted into law as written, H.R. 472 would
            be counterproductive. VA already has the authorities it needs
            to discipline employees and it uses those authorities every
            day. This bill is a counterproductive attempt to make it
            ``easier'' to fire employees, but it will only result in
            lengthy litigation over its unconstitutionality. Litigation
            arising from VA's use of one section of the Accountability and
            Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 resulted in more than $130
            million taxpayer dollars in settlements with former employees
            and the reinstatement of over 100 employees who had been
            terminated using that law.\5\ H.R. 472 arguably raises even
            more constitutional questions than the 2017 Accountability Act,
            putting VA at risk of lengthy, costly litigation and
            undermining its ability to take effective disciplinary action.

        \5\ ``VA reinstated 100 employees fired under widely challenged
    law, paid $134M to hundreds more.'' Jory Heckman, Federal News Network,
    29 October 2024. https://Federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2024/10/va-
    reinstated-100-employees-fired-under-widely challenged-law-paid-134m-
    to-hundreds-more/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            This bill would also undermine the due process and collective
            bargaining rights of VA employees compared to other Federal
            employees.\6\ This would have the effect of driving talented,
            committed professionals away from the VA, and subjecting more
            Veterans to diminished quality of care. The VA's ability to
            recruit and retain skilled professionals is already a
            challenge, and weakening workplace protections will only
            exacerbate this issue. Ensuring accountability within the VA is
            critical, but it must be done in a way that strengthens, rather
            than weakens, the institution's ability to serve Veterans
            effectively. One wise step, for example, would be to invest in
            VA's ability to train HR employees and managers in how to
            effectively use tried and true Title 5 disciplinary
            authorities, which already enable VA to remove poor performing
            employees while respecting civil service protections.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ National Fraternal Order of Police letter opposing the Restore
    VA Accountability Act, 18 July 2023. https://fop.net/letter/h-r-4278-
    the-restore-va-accountability-act/National Federation of Federal
    Employees, Statement for the Record, 12 July 2023. https://
    docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR08/20230712/116186/HHRG-118-VR08-20230712-
    SD003.pdf American Federation of Government Employees, Statement for
    the Record, 12 July 2023. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR08/
    20230712/116186/HHRG-118-VR08-20230712-SD005.pdf

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            H.R. 1041, The Veterans 2d Amendment Protection Act

            As a Veteran, I take the Second Amendment and the rights of
            those who served very seriously. Protecting the constitutional
            rights of Veterans is a responsibility we all share, but H.R.
            1041 is not the right approach. Under current law, certain VA
            determinations regarding a Veteran's ability to manage their
            own finances can lead to their information being reported to
            the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This
            safeguard exists to prevent those who may be at risk of harming
            themselves or others from accessing firearms. While due process
            concerns deserve attention, this bill eliminates an important
            mechanism that helps prevent tragedies, without offering a
            meaningful alternative to protect Veterans in crisis.

            Veterans are at a higher risk of suicide than the general
            population, and firearm-related deaths account for the vast
            majority of Veteran suicides. Of the 18 Veteran deaths by
            suicide every day, 13 are from a self-inflicted firearm injury,
            according to a 2023 VA suicide prevention report.\7\ Weakening
            protections designed to identify those at risk could have
            devastating consequences. Ensuring due process is important,
            but this bill goes too far by stripping away an essential
            safeguard without providing any replacement to ensure Veterans
            who need help receive it.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ 2023 National Veteran Suicide Prevention Annual Report.
    Department of Veterans Affairs, November 2023. https://
    www.mentalhealth.va.gov/docs/data-sheets/2023/2023-National-Veteran-
    Suicide-Prevention-Annual-Report-FINAL-508.pdf

            Instead of passing legislation that could put more Veterans at
            risk, Congress should focus on improving mental health
            services, expanding access to crisis intervention by protesting
            the recent firing of suicide hotline operators, and ensuring
            Veterans have the resources they need. Protecting Veterans'
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            rights must go hand in hand with protecting their lives.

            Discussion Draft: To amend title 38, United States Code, to
            prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from transmitting
            certain information to the Department of Justice for use by the
            national instant criminal background check system

            Like H.R. 1041, this proposal shows reckless disregard for
            Veterans' lives, especially in the context of diminishing
            support from the administration for VA's suicide prevention
            programs. This bill would remove an essential safeguard by
            preventing the VA from reporting veterans who have a disability
            rating for mental illness to the background check system. The
            background check system is not about infringing on Second
            Amendment rights--it is about ensuring that firearms do not
            fall into the hands of individuals who have been legally
            determined to be a danger to themselves or others. I support
            the right to bear arms, but with that right comes
            responsibility. Responsible gun ownership means recognizing
            that mental health crises must be taken seriously and that
            preventing tragedies is more important than rhetoric.

            Regrettably, recent policy changes have resulted in the firing
            of staff for VA's Veterans Crisis Line. I fear that cuts to VA
            resources, combined with advancing these proposals, would send
            a dangerous message to Veterans: that suicide prevention is not
            a priority. Rather than advancing these proposals, Congress
            should focus on improving mental health care for veterans,
            reducing the stigma around seeking help, and ensuring that due
            process is followed when making determinations about
            competency. We must not allow a well-intentioned but misguided
            bill to undo necessary protections that help keep Veterans,
            their families, and the public safe.

            H.R. 740, Veterans' ACCESS Act of 2025

            I strongly support ensuring that Veterans have the freedom to
            choose among healthcare services and providers. However, I have
            grave concerns that this bill would significantly weaken the
            Veterans care system by diverting critical funding from VA
            direct care to the private sector, ultimately reducing
            Veterans' access to the specialized, high-quality care they
            rely on. The VA was built to serve Veterans with complex,
            service-related conditions--injuries and illnesses that many
            private providers are neither equipped nor trained to handle.
            By allowing Veterans to bypass the VA system without oversight,
            this bill would accelerate the shift from the VA as a provider
            of care to merely a payer for private sector services,
            undermining the very institution designed to serve those who
            have worn the uniform.

            The consequences of this approach are clear: fewer resources
            for VA hospitals and clinics, staff reductions, and the closure
            of vital programs and facilities. Veterans--especially those
            with service-connected disabilities--will see their choices
            diminish as the services they depend on disappear.
            Additionally, the VA plays an essential role in medical
            research, provider training, and emergency response, all of
            which will suffer if its funding is drained. Instead of
            dismantling the VA in the name of choice, Congress should focus
            on strengthening and modernizing it to ensure Veterans continue
            to receive the best care possible--care that is tailored to
            their unique needs and experiences.

            H.R. 1391, Student Veteran Benefit Restoration Act of 2025

        The Student Veteran Benefit Restoration Act, as drafted, is a sound
    proposal and important step in protecting the benefits Veterans earned
    through their service. The GI Bill has long been one of the most
    successful programs in helping Veterans transition to civilian life,
    but it must be protected from bad actors who seek to exploit those who
    have served. Unfortunately, too many Veterans have been cheated by
    predatory for-profit schools that take their benefits while providing
    little or no real education in return. This bill ensures that those who
    were defrauded can have their GI Bill benefits restored so they can
    continue their education and pursue the opportunities they earned
    through their service - a commonsense measure that aligns protection
    for Veterans with those already provided to non-Veteran students under
    Federal loan forgiveness programs.

        As you deliberate on these bills, my guiding principle remains
    steadfast: our Veterans deserve policies that honor their service,
    protect their rights, and provide them with the support they need to
    thrive. I look forward to working with this Committee to ensure your
    legislative efforts achieve our common goals while upholding the trust
    and well-being of our Veterans.
        Supporting and improving the VA is not just a policy decision--it
    is a sacred obligation. This Committee has the weighty responsibility
    of ensuring that obligation is met with the greatest care, diligence,
    and commitment.
        I thank you for your time and look forward to your questions.

                           Statements for the Record

                                  ----------

                Prepared Statement of Disabled America Veterans

        Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano and Members of the Committee:

        Thank you for inviting DAV (Disabled American Veterans) to submit
    testimony for the record of this legislative hearing. As you know, DAV
    is a congressionally chartered and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
    accredited veterans service organization. We provide meaningful claims
    support free of charge to more than 1 million veterans, family members,
    caregivers and survivors. We are pleased to provide our views on the
    bills under consideration by the Committee.

              H.R. 472, the Restore VA Accountability Act of 2025

        DAV has consistently advocated for a culture of accountability
    within the VA, where VA employees are held to the highest standards of
    performance and conduct. We applaud the committee for its efforts to
    address longstanding issues within the VA and to ensure that Federal
    employees are responsible for their actions. We concur that bad
    employees must be held accountable to ensure that the best Federal
    employees are serving veterans; however, accountability must include
    due process principles, protecting the rights of employees, including
    veterans, who make up nearly 30 percent of VA's workforce.
        H.R. 472, the Restore VA Accountability Act of 2025, makes several
    changes to the due process of appeals for employees at the VA. The Act
    would allow for expedited disciplinary actions for certain categories
    of VA employees based on substantial evidence of misconduct or poor
    performance. Specifically, the bill would remove the Performance
    Improvement Plan (PIP) requirement and the appellant's review by the
    Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
        Although the goal of the Restore VA Accountability Act is to
    increase accountability by streamlining the disciplinary process and
    ensuring that VA employees who do not meet performance standards or
    engage in misconduct can be held accountable more swiftly and
    effectively, DAV asks the committee to give careful consideration to
    our concerns, which may have an indirect impact on the high quality of
    care and benefits services provided to veterans.
        DAV's major concern is the exclusion of the MSPB from the appeals
    process for Federal employees. The MSPB has historically served as an
    independent and impartial body that reviews agency decisions and
    safeguards employees from arbitrary or unjust actions. By removing the
    MSPB from the appeals process, we risk depriving employees of a crucial
    avenue for redress and oversight.
        Additionally, DAV has concerns with provisions that eliminate the
    necessity for PIPs before any disciplinary measures are taken. PIPs
    provide employees with a fair opportunity to address and correct
    performance issues before facing more severe consequences. Eliminating
    this critical step could lead to unjust disciplinary actions.
        DAV wholeheartedly supports the Committee's commitment to
    accountability within the VA. However, striking a balance between
    holding civil servants accountable for their performance while
    maintaining the VA as an employer of choice for the best and brightest
    to ensure veterans receive the best care and timely services remains
    our priority.
        We firmly believe that due process must not be compromised in
    pursuit of these goals, which has been reiterated within DAV's
    Resolution No. 138 that notes any bill enacted by Congress should
    include standards by which accountability can be measured while
    ensuring due process and fairness for VA employees subject to such
    standards.

                     H.R. 740, Veterans' ACCESS Act of 2025

        The VA health care system is vital to millions of service-disabled
    veterans, offering comprehensive primary care and specialized programs
    tailored to their unique needs. While community care should be
    available as a supplement when the VA cannot provide timely,
    accessible, or high-quality care, it should not replace the VA's
    primary role in delivering and coordinating integrated care for
    enrolled veterans. The lack of expansion in the VA's capacity to meet
    the increasing demand for care has led to an over-reliance on external
    providers. The growing reliance on community care in recent years
    presents significant challenges to this comprehensive, evidence-based
    care model.
        The VA MISSION Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-182) introduced a new process
    for integrating community care with the VA's hospital care, medical
    care, and extended care services, ensuring veterans receive the highest
    standards of care regardless of limitations within the VA health care
    system. The legislation aimed to expand access to non-VA care when
    necessary while strengthening the VA direct care system to meet the
    growing needs of enrolled veterans.
        The Act established the Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP),
    setting wait time and travel distance standards. The goal was to ensure
    the VA maintained overall responsibility for veterans' care by
    coordinating their treatment and requiring community providers to meet
    the same quality standards as VA providers. Unfortunately, the VA has
    yet to implement the intended quality standards for non-VA providers or
    establish a robust care coordination program for veterans receiving
    both VA and community care.
        The Act also included provisions to enhance the VA's internal
    capacity by improving the recruitment, hiring, and retention of
    qualified clinicians and addressing the longstanding neglect of the
    VA's aging health care infrastructure. Without sufficient
    infrastructure and capacity to meet the rising needs of veterans, the
    VA has turned increasingly to community care, which has seen more rapid
    growth than VA services. Despite significant increases in the VA's
    workforce over the past 6 years, the Department's health care
    infrastructure remains critically under-funded.
        H.R. 740, the Veterans' Assuring Critical Care Expansions to
    Support Servicemembers (ACCESS) Act of 2025, aims to improve the
    provision of care and services under the VCCP and enhance veterans'
    health care with defined eligibility standards, mandatory notification
    of eligibility and denial of requests, consideration of veterans' care
    preferences, and extension of claim submission deadlines. It also seeks
    to streamline specialized mental health treatment programs with a
    standardized eligibility process and make improvements to the Mental
    Health Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Program (RRTP). The
    legislation also includes provisions to establish an interactive online
    self-service module for care, change requirements for the Center for
    Care and Payment Innovation (CCPI), and mandate pilot programs and
    reports to ensure effective implementation.
        The ACCESS Act stands to bring substantial changes to the VCCP,
    potentially impacting the VA's mission of delivering timely, high-
    quality, veteran-focused health care and services to enrolled veterans.
    As we move forward with proposed program changes, we believe that it is
    essential to appropriately balance the role community care plays in the
    VA's provision of specialized health care and support to our Nation's
    ill and injured veterans.
        The Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2026-2027--coauthored by the
    DAV, Veterans of Foreign Wars and Paralyzed Veterans of America, calls
    on Congress to ensure that VA remains the primary provider and
    coordinator of care for veterans and that community care is available
    and accessible to veterans as needed to support and supplement VA care.
    With this background and context, DAV offers the following comments and
    recommendations regarding H.R. 740.

    Section 101: Codification of Requirements for Eligibility Standards for
    Access to Community Care from the Department of Veterans Affairs

        Section 101 of the bill would codify the minimum access standards
    for community care from the VA including all extended care services,
    except for nursing home care and mandate the VA to review these
    standards with an expanded stakeholder group and report to Congress
    triennially. Provisions in this section would prohibit telehealth
    appointments from fulfilling access standards if an in-person VA
    appointment is unavailable within the standards. It would also require
    that canceled VA appointments restart the wait time calculation from
    the original request date, and any deviations in wait time or distance
    agreed upon by a veteran and their provider must be documented and
    provided to the veteran and apply to all VA care and patients, whether
    new or established.
        DAV has no concerns with codifying the eligibility standards for
    access to community care from VHA, while emphasizing the need for
    thorough and periodic reviews of these standards. However, we strongly
    recommend amending the provision that the Secretary shall not take into
    consideration the availability of telehealth appointments from the
    Department when determining whether the VA is able to furnish such care
    or services. We believe that a telehealth appointment should be
    considered as an option if agreeable with a veteran. Additionally, if a
    veteran is eligible and opts for an in-person community care
    appointment because VA only had a telehealth appointment available,
    that appointment in the community should be for an in-person
    appointment only. Telehealth services would have already been offered
    or provided by the VA under Section 105 of this act, which requires the
    VA to discuss telehealth with veterans as an option for care, both in
    the VA health care system and in the community, if telehealth is
    available, appropriate, and acceptable to the veteran.
        We endorse the mandate in this section of the bill to document
    medical records and make them accessible to veterans through digital
    platforms such as VA.gov, email, and mobile text, except where veterans
    specifically request them and lack digital access.

    Section 102: Requirement that Secretary Notify Veterans of Eligibility
    for Care under Veterans Community Care Program

        Section 102 mandates the VA to promptly notify veterans of their
    eligibility for community care. To ensure clarity, we propose that the
    2-day notification requirement includes digital methods, as traditional
    mail may not meet the deadline. We recommend expeditious deployment of
    the External Provider Scheduling (EPS) system within the Community Care
    Network (CCN) to facilitate real-time scheduling when the VA cannot
    provide direct care or meet access standards, thereby enhancing more
    timely and effective communication and care coordination for veterans.

    Section 103: Consideration of Veteran Preference for Care, Continuity
    of Care, and Need for Caregiver or Attendant

        Section 103 of the Veterans ACCESS Act would require the VA to
    consider various factors when determining if it is in the best medical
    interest of a veteran to seek care in the community. These factors
    include the veteran's preference for when, where, and how to receive
    care, continuity of care, and the veteran's need or desire for a
    caregiver or attendant to accompany them.
        We have concerns with the definition of veterans' preference for
    where, when, and how to seek hospital care, medical care, or extended
    care services. While we want the veteran's preference to be considered
    when determining the best option for care, the best medical interest
    including the distance to care, the frequency of care, and the
    availability of appointments, should be the primary factors considered,
    as provided in the MISSION Act.

    Section 104: Notification of Denial of Request for Care under Veterans
    Community Care Program

        Section 104 mandates that if the VA denies a veteran's request for
    community care, it must provide the veteran with the reason for the
    denial and instructions for appealing the decision through the Veterans
    Health Administration's clinical appeals process. DAV has no concerns
    with this section. In fact, our benefits advocates stand ready to
    assist any veteran with filing a clinical appeal.

    Section 106: Extension of Deadline for Submittal of Claims by
    Healthcare Entities and Providers under Prompt Payment Standard

        Section 106 extends the deadline for health care entities and
    providers to submit claims for reimbursement for community care
    services from the current 180 days to up to 1 year after service,
    aligning with industry standards.
        DAV has no concerns with this section, as it provides a more
    flexible timeframe for providers without compromising the timely
    processing of claims or the quality of care for veterans.

    Section 202: Standardized Process to Determine Eligibility of Covered
    Veterans for Participation in Certain Mental Health Treatment Programs

        Section 202 would require the VA to establish a standardized
    screening process to determine, based on clinical needs, whether a
    covered veteran satisfies criteria for priority admission to a covered
    residential rehabilitation treatment program (RRTP). As part of the
    evaluation process a veteran must be screened and admitted into a
    program within 48 hours if determined eligible for RRTP. Either a
    veteran or relevant health care provider can make the request for
    admission into a treatment program if they meet criteria for priority
    admission.
        We recommend that the language in this section be amended to
    require that a VA clinician make the determination if the veteran meets
    the eligibility criteria for priority admission within 48 hours of the
    request.
        We appreciate the provision in this section of the bill that
    requires non-department RRTP facilities to be properly licensed by a
    State and accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of
    Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) or the Joint Commission.

    Section 203: Improvements to Department of Veterans Affairs Mental
    Health Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Program

        We appreciate that Section 203 includes requirements for the VA to
    develop a process for assessing the quality of specialized RRTP care
    delivered by both VA and non-VA providers, including the use of
    evidence-based treatments, cultural competency, clinical outcomes and
    oversight, and referral of billing practices.
        The VA is advancing efforts to give veterans faster and simpler
    access to its mental health RRTPs, which provide around-the-clock
    support for substance use disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder,
    depression, and other mental health conditions common among veterans.
    Over 27,000 veterans were treated at VA RRTPs in Fiscal Year 2024, and
    we urge the department to increase its bed capacity to expand these
    critical services.
        The VA's national RRTP conference in September 2024 underscored the
    high priority the VA is giving to fostering more timely access for
    veterans who need these programs. The VA is focused on implementing a
    new centralized screening process for each region. However, there are
    still limits to timely access to these specialized services, and we
    want to ensure veterans do not have barriers to accessing this life-
    changing care. Accountability and oversight are paramount to ensure
    facilities meet the quality of care standards, include veteran-centric
    programming, and demonstrate effective patient outcomes.

    Section 301: Plan on Establishment of Interactive, Online Self-Service
    Module for Care

        Section 301 mandates the VA to create an interactive, online self-
    service module to help veterans schedule appointments, track referrals,
    appeal care denials, and receive reminders for both VA and community
    care appointments.
        DAV is supportive of this effort but suggests that alternative
    methods and adequate support be provided to bridge the digital divide
    and guarantee equitable access to care for all veterans, including
    those living in rural and remote communities.

        Section 302: Modification of Requirements for the Center for
    Innovation for Care and Payment of the Department of Veterans Affairs
    and Requirement for Pilot Program

        Section 302 would require the VA to establish and report to
    Congress on a 3-year pilot program allowing enrolled veterans to access
    outpatient mental health and/or substance use services through
    community care network providers without referral or pre-authorization.
    This pilot program would be conducted in areas with varying degrees of
    urbanization, locations with high rates of veteran suicide, overdose
    deaths, calls to the Veterans Crisis Line, and long wait times for VA
    mental health and substance use disorder services. The VA would also be
    required to develop a care coordination plan with appropriate oversight
    and patient safety plans to monitor and support veterans participating
    in the pilot.
        The bill requires development of robust metrics and measures to
    track and oversee the program's implementation, patient safety, and
    patient outcomes. Annual reports would be required to the Committee on
    Veterans' Affairs, detailing the number of participating veterans and
    health care providers, program effectiveness, costs, and other relevant
    matters.
        We appreciate the intent behind the proposed pilot program aimed at
    improving access to outpatient mental health and substance use services
    for veterans. However, we have significant concerns about the bill's
    lack of a requirement for clinical authorization for such care from the
    VA.
        While we fully support the goal of enhancing access to critical
    mental health and substance use services, the absence of a clinical
    authorization requirement raises serious questions about the quality
    and coordination of care. Clinical authorization is a key element in
    ensuring that veterans receive appropriate, evidence-based treatment
    that is tailored to their individual needs. Without this oversight,
    there is a risk of fragmented care, potential overuse or misuse of
    services, and the potential for insufficient monitoring of treatment
    outcomes.
        The VA has a comprehensive understanding of veterans' unique health
    care needs and a robust system for coordinating care across the system.
    By bypassing clinical authorization, the bill may undermine the VA's
    ability to properly manage and oversee the delivery of care
    effectively. This could result in inconsistent treatment plans, gaps in
    care continuity, and ultimately, negative impacts on veterans' health
    outcomes.
        We recommend that the bill be amended to include a requirement for
    clinical authorization from the VA for all services provided under the
    pilot program. This would ensure that veterans receive high-quality,
    veteran-centric, coordinated care that aligns with best practices and
    leverages the VA's expertise in managing veterans' health care and
    these specialized services. Incorporating this requirement will
    strengthen the program's effectiveness and safeguard the well-being of
    our veterans.
        In conclusion, while we understand and support the intent of the
    pilot program, we urge the Committee to address the critical concern of
    clinical authorization. Ensuring that the VA retains a central role in
    authorizing and coordinating care will enhance the program's success
    and better serve our Nation's veterans. We appreciate the opportunity
    to submit this statement and welcome further discussion on this
    important matter.

              H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2d Amendment Protection Act

                                      and

    Discussion draft to prohibit the VA Secretary from transmitting certain
          information to the Department of Justice for the NICS list.

        The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, prohibits certain
    classes of persons from purchasing or possessing firearms and
    ammunition. One of the classes of prohibited persons are those who have
    been ``adjudicated as a mental defective.'' A person may be
    ``adjudicated as a mental defective'' if a court, board, or commission
    finds that they are a danger to themselves or others.
        Under the provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
    of 1993, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) administers the
    National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that allows
    federally licensed firearms dealers to perform a required background
    check on potential buyers to ensure they are not prohibited from
    purchasing firearms and ammunition.
        Historically, it has been the VA's policy to submit the names of
    all beneficiaries determined to be incompetent to the Attorney General
    for inclusion in NICS. However, incompetency within VA regulatory
    provisions (38 C.F.R. 3.353) defines a mentally incompetent person as
    someone who because of injury or disease lacks the mental capacity to
    contract or to manage his or her own affairs, including disbursement of
    funds without limitations. It does not address the requirement of a
    finding that they are a danger to themselves and others.
        On March 15, 2024, VA announced that through the remainder of
    Fiscal Year 2024, VA would only report to the FBI NICS in instances
    when VA was aware that a mentally incompetent beneficiary had been
    found by a judicial authority to be a danger to themselves or others.
    While VA implemented this change and updated its electronic reporting,
    on March 11, 2024, VA stopped all weekly reporting to the NICS of
    mentally incompetent beneficiaries.
        These bills focus on two main provisions that are essential to
    protecting veterans from unjust stigmatization and the loss of their
    Second Amendment rights without proper due process:

          The VA Secretary must notify the Attorney General that
    the basis for transmitting personally identifiable information of a
    beneficiary to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for use by NICS does not
    apply, or no longer applies, if such transmittal was solely based on a
    determination to pay benefits to a fiduciary.

          The VA Secretary shall not treat a person as having been
    adjudicated as a mental defective solely on the basis of requiring a
    fiduciary.

        Additionally, the draft bill would require notification of lack of
    basis for the VA to have transmitted a veteran's information to the DOJ
    on or after November 30, 1993, for placement on the NICS solely on the
    basis of a determination by the VA to pay benefits to a fiduciary.
        DAV supports these bills, to ensure that veterans are not unfairly
    stigmatized or deprived of their Second Amendment rights based on VA
    determinations without judicial oversight. Our veterans have dedicated
    their lives to defending the freedoms we hold dear, and it is our
    responsibility to safeguard their constitutional rights in return.

       Discussion Draft, Student Veteran Benefit Restoration Act of 2025

        Veterans have selflessly served our country, and it is our duty to
    ensure they receive the benefits they have earned. Unfortunately, some
    educational institutions have taken advantage of veterans, defrauding
    them of their well-deserved educational assistance.
        This draft bill, the Student Veteran Benefit Restoration Act of
    2025, would restore educational entitlements of those veterans who have
    fallen victim to fraudulent practices and would not be charged against
    their benefit entitlements. This includes periods when the institution
    was not approved or engaged in fraudulent activities. Additionally,
    educational institutions found guilty of fraud would be required to
    repay the VA Secretary any funds received fraudulently. This ensures
    that the burden of fraud is placed on the institutions rather than the
    veteran.
        DAV supports this draft bill based on DAV Resolution No. 238, which
    calls for legislation that reduces and removes barriers to a service-
    disabled veteran continuing their education. We must ensure that we are
    protecting veterans and their hard-earned education benefits from fraud
    and deceptive acts.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes DAV's statement for the record.

           Prepared Statement of Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute

        Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano, and distinguished members of
    the committee:
        On behalf of the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute, we thank you
    for inviting us to submit a statement for the record for today's Full
    Committee Legislative Hearing on improving the care and services for
    veterans. Many members of our organization are veterans or have family
    members who are veterans. Many of us have had long careers serving
    veterans, published papers on veterans' healthcare in peer-reviewed
    journals, or presented testimony to your committee. In today's
    statement, we wish to convey our appreciation for your leadership and
    commitment to ensuring that veterans receive the highest level of
    health care within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and
    supplementary care in the private sector when it's both needed and
    authorized by the VHA.
        While today's hearing considers five bills, we limit our comments
    to only one of them----H.R. 740, the ``Veterans' Assuring Critical Care
    Expansions to Support Servicemembers (ACCESS) Act of 2025.'' We are
    concerned especially about Section 302 of the bill, which puts ideology
    before veterans, and in so doing, will imperil their ability to access
    the full range of health care and services through the VHA system.
    Modifications are recommended. Otherwise, it may be harmful to veterans
    because:

            1. By granting veterans unfettered access to community care,
            large sums of funding will be diverted from the VHA to the
            private sector. This will drain VHA coffers, forcing reductions
            of VHA staff, curtailment of in-house programs, and closures of
            inpatient units, emergency rooms, and entire facilities.

            2. By allowing veterans' access to private sector healthcare
            without VHA referral or pre-authorization, the VHA's
            foundational model of integrated healthcare will be replaced.
            The VHA healthcare system will transform from its current
            primary role as a provider of healthcare into a payer for
            private sector care.

            3. In the name of offering more preference and choice,
            healthcare options will diminish for veterans. Draining VHA
            funds means that veterans - especially service-connected
            veterans who depend on VHA as a provider of high-quality care
            that is tailored to their needs - will be denied that choice
            when their preferred programs and facilities are defunded and
            close.

            4. This bill will make it difficult for the VHA to continue to
            collect data and conduct research on veterans' complex health
            conditions. Every VHA patient and their electronic health
            record is available for analysis, which, for decades, has
            enabled researchers to make impressive big data breakthroughs
            on veterans' complex healthcare problems. Those innovations
            will fade if veterans' care becomes scattered across the
            private sector where there is no dependable way to study
            veterans. The bill will also jeopardize the critical role the
            VHA plays in the training of future healthcare professionals.
            Further, there will be fewer ER and inpatient beds so that the
            VHA will be unable to fulfill its Fourth Mission as backup for
            national emergencies.

        Below, we elaborate on the ramifications of Section 302, as well as
    three other sections of important consequence.

    Section 302: Modification of requirements for Center for Innovation for
    Care and Payment of the Department of Veterans Affairs and requirement
    for pilot program.

        This section turbocharges the privatization of the VHA via a pilot
    program that dramatically alters how veterans access mental health and
    substance use disorder (SUD) care. It poses an irreversible threat to
    VHA's survival as an integrated healthcare system.
        Veterans would be allowed to receive unfettered Veterans Community
    Care Program (VCCP) outpatient mental health or SUD care without VHA
    referral and pre--authorization. VHA's primary role would shift to
    paying invoices. Though initially a pilot program, the bill also
    mandates that after 3-years, the VHA develop measures to make the
    program universal for all health conditions across the entire VHA.
        A comprehensive report released last year by six healthcare experts
    warned that community care utilization was endangering the VHA. VCCP
    care has been relentlessly increasing 15-20 percent year after year,
    and by 2022, its share of VHA health dollars reached 44 percent. The
    report concludes that even if no additional changes are made as to who
    is eligible to receive private sector care, the VHA system's future is
    at risk due to this unsustainable growth. Section 302 worsens the very
    issues that concerned the report's authors. By significantly expanding
    VCCP eligibility, it accelerates spending and threatens the long-term
    viability of the VHA.

        Eliminating VHA are as the authorizer of care means that over time
    there will be fewer, not more, options for veterans. When VHA funds are
    diverted to the private sector, millions of veterans who depend on the
    VHA--especially those with service-connected conditions who rely
    exclusively or near exclusively on the VHA for all their health care
    needs--will be deprived of the freedom to choose the VHA when units and
    programs they depend on vanish. Many have catastrophic war-related
    ailments, such as lost limbs, traumatic brain injuries, or a variety of
    toxic exposures, which civilian providers are ill-equipped to
    recognize, much less treat.
        A recent summary of research confirmed yet again that the quality
    of care veterans receive from the VHA is as good as or better than what
    they receive in the community. When the VHA is transformed from
    primarily providing integrated healthcare to an insurance payer for
    care, veterans will be deprived of high quality, patient-centered care
    delivered in a system that has amassed decades of expertise
    understanding, recognizing, and treating their complex health
    conditions. In this new insurance system, everything that is
    indispensable and unique to the VHA will fade-integrated and
    coordinated team-based care, comprehensive prevention screenings, wrap-
    around services, veteran-centric specialization, training of providers
    with veteran expertise, and research on veterans' conditions that helps
    all Americans. VHA social work connecting patients to veteran-specific
    follow-up resources for legal, transportation, home health, and housing
    services would wane. Bypassing VA oversight also eliminates traditional
    utilization review functions, which would make the care more expensive
    to taxpayers.
        Siphoning VHA funds will also make it nearly impossible to upgrade
    existing infrastructure required to address the demand for services.
    That demand is continuing to grow. Between August 2022 and 2024, VHA
    experienced a 33 percent increase in enrollment over the previous 2-
    year period. The PACT Act of 2022 alone contributed to an influx of
    400,000 newly enrolled veterans with serious toxic exposure-related
    medical conditions.
        Unfettered community care is hugely expensive, and as such, a CBO
    score for this section, and others, is urgently needed.

    Section 103: Consideration of veteran preference for care, continuity
    of care, and need for caregiver or attendant.

        This language, for the first time, would allow veterans the option
    to obtain care in the private sector if they express that's their
    ``preference'' and it's in their own best interest. The percent of VHA
    veterans potentially eligible for the VCCP will increase from 8133
    percent to 100 percent. The extant standards of the VCCP eligibility
    standards - travel time to or wait time for a VHA appointment - would
    become moot.
        This stipulation violates the core agreement that went into
    drafting the VA MISSION Act language. According to the Independent
    Budget's analysis of the MISSION Act at that time, the ``best medical
    interest'' criterion ``is to be considered when a veteran's health and/
    or well-being would be compromised if they were not able to be seen in
    the community for the requested clinical service. When using this
    community care eligibility criteria, the ordering provider should
    include the following considerations: nature or simplicity of service;
    frequency of service; need for an attendant; and potential for improved
    continuity of care. `Best medical interest' is not to be used solely
    based on convenience or preference of a veteran'' (bold emphasis
    added).
        The proposed legislative language will predictably increase the
    proportion of VHA funds flowing to the VCCP. For all the reasons noted
    above, increased spending through the VCCP means that, over time,
    veterans will lose their preferred VHA options that are shuttered.
        Many veterans deeply appreciate the convenience of being referred
    to community care close to home rather than traveling long distances to
    VHA facilities. But when they are polled about preserving the VHA
    system, veterans' priorities are clear. A VFW survey of its members 2
    months ago revealed ``overwhelming support for VA to remain the primary
    deliverer of care for veterans.'' A prior VFW report involving 10,000
    members found that 92 percent explicitly prefer that the VHA to be
    ``fixed not dismantled.''
        A Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute report noted that many
    veterans who live in rural areas will have no choice of care providers
    should the VHA be turned into an insurance provider. This is due to a
    long-standing crisis in rural healthcare that now deprives rural
    residents of primary care, mental health care, as well as access to
    hospital, emergency, and pharmacy services. Last month, The Center for
    Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform reported that nearly 200 rural
    hospitals have folded, and over 700 more-a third of all rural hospitals
    in the country-are on the brink of collapse.

    Section 202: Standardized process to determine eligibility of covered
    veterans for participation in certain mental health treatment programs.
    and
    Section 203: Improvements to Department of Veterans Affairs Mental
    Health Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Programs (RRTPs).

        The VA MISSION Act of 2018 mandated uniform quality standards
    across VHA and VCCP providers, as outlined in Section 104 of Sec.
    1703C: ``The Secretary shall establish standards for quality regarding
    hospital care, medical services, and extended care services furnished
    by the Department pursuant to this title, including through non-
    Department health care providers pursuant to section 1703 of this
    title.'' The phrase ``Community Care is VA Care'' captures this
    intended equivalency between these two settings-from provider training
    to preventative screenings to overall quality of care. Yet, despite
    this explicit requirement for parity between VA and VCCP services
    (including Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Programs (RRTPs)), that
    has not occurred.
        The ACCESS Act takes an important step to address this gap. A key
    provision requires community RRTPs to obtain accreditation from either
    the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) or
    The Joint Commission (TJC) - bringing them in line with VHA's operating
    RRTP standards. We strongly commend this important step that recognizes
    that there must be one, not two, standards of care.
        That said, achieving true parity across both VHA and community RRTP
    settings requires additional requirements. Those include:

        VHA and VCCP program requirement and certification of:

          A scientific peer-reviewed, evidence-basis for its
    treatment program

          Standardized ratios of licensed practitioners (LPs) to
    residents

          Semi-annual LP peer review quality assurance

          Mandatory VHA training for mental health and substance
    use disorder LPs: 4 hours in relevant patient population care and 4
    hours in military culture

          Discharge planning commencement within first week after
    veterans are admitted to the program

          Mental health and substance use assessments for veterans
    at program entry, exit, and 6-months post-discharge

          Submission of veterans' outcome data to VHA for analysis
    and public reporting on the Access to Care website

        Further, this section has no mandated utilization review and
    approval once a veteran enters a VCCP RRTP. The default length of VCCP
    RRTP stays should not be 90 days, which this section tacitly abets.
    Regular utilization review by VHA and approval for extended care, as is
    standard medical practice, should be required.
        Finally, the section's requirement for real-time tracking and
    public reporting of RRTP wait times, for both VHA and community
    facilities, will empower veterans to make informed healthcare
    decisions. However, veterans also deserve transparent information about
    their providers' qualifications, training, and competency in addressing
    specific health concerns. We recommend that VHA gather and publicly
    share this information too.

    Section 101: Codification of requirements for eligibility standards for
    access to community care from Department of Veterans Affairs.

        Among its key provisions, this section would prohibit VHA from
    considering the availability of a telehealth appointment as satisfying
    the access standards.
        We fully support giving veterans who prefer in-person care the
    option of in-person community care when VHA cannot meet access
    standards. However, for veterans who seek telehealth appointments,
    community care telehealth should only be offered if VHA cannot provide
    telehealth care within the standard timeframe. Such an approach manages
    resources fairly and effectively.
        When establishing the VA MISSION Act eligibility rules, the VHA
    made a significant oversight: they did not include the availability of
    VHA telehealth when calculating distance or wait times for care. This
    was a shortsighted decision that has had serious negative consequences.
    By not considering telehealth options, the VHA has unnecessarily
    limited veterans' access to quality healthcare while wasting taxpayer
    money. Telehealth is a valid means of providing health care to veterans
    who prefer that option. In a survey of veterans engaged in mental
    health care, 80 percent reported that VHA virtual care via video and/or
    telephone is as helpful or more helpful than in-person services. And
    yet, because of existing regulations, VHA telemental health does not
    qualify as access, resulting in hundreds of thousands of visits being
    outsourced yearly to community practitioners that could be
    expeditiously and beneficially furnished by VHA clinicians. The best
    action that Congress can take is to stipulate that VHA telehealth care
    constitutes ``access to treatment.'' If implemented, this correction
    would save taxpayers a vast sum--up to 1.1 billion dollars annually
    according to a VA's September 2022 ``congressionally Mandated Report:
    Access to Care Standards.''
        Our organization is happy to support legislation that encourages
    the judicious use of the private sector to ``support, not supplant''
    VHA healthcare. We also back legislation that ensures VHA has robust
    resources needed to care for current and future cohorts of veterans.
        We respectfully thank you for the opportunity to provide our
    perspectives on these essential matters. We look forward to working
    with the committee to ensure that veterans can receive timely, high-
    quality compassionate care in the VHA and the community now and in the
    future.

                Prepared Statement of Whistleblowers of America

        Chairman Kiggans and Ranking Member Ramirez:

        Whistleblowers of America (WoA) appreciates the opportunity to
    provide this statement for the record. WoA has worked with this
    committee since 2019 on issues related to the Department of Veterans
    Affairs' (VA) employees and the Office of Accountability and
    Whistleblower Protection (OAWP). We are grateful for the opportunity to
    review and respond to legislative efforts so that the voices of so many
    can be heard. WoA, incorporated in 2017, has connected with thousands
    of whistleblowers seeking peer support from government agencies across
    the country and varies Federal positions. They provide medical care in
    clinics and hospitals. They are scheduling appointments or operating x-
    ray equipment. They are police patrolling facilities or managers
    operating voluntary services.
        The WoA primary mission is focused on mental health because
    retaliation is a traumatic stressor that can lead to posttraumatic
    stress disorder, depression, and anxiety- and as you are aware,
    suicide. This is the Committee that also passed the Dr. Chris
    Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017. Today, I ask you to
    call upon Dr. Kirkpatrick's memory and his VA experience as a
    psychologist turned whistleblower who shot himself in his living room
    after experiencing some of the same maltreatment that this Committee is
    now calling for in the Restore Department of Veteran Affairs
    Accountability Act 2025. Dr. Kirkpatrick should have known about his
    appeal rights. He should have been afforded the due process opportunity
    that the laws would have provided him when he raised concerns about his
    patients being overly prescribed psychotropic drugs. Dr. Kirkpatrick
    might still be alive today if he had been supported through the process
    and not vilified. How many other VA employees are like Dr. Kirkpatrick?
    I have jointly written to this Committee with the brother of Dr.
    Kirkpatrick asking for a full accountability for the enactment of this
    act, but we have seen no real action to prevent staff from dying by
    suicide or to report on the suicides by employees.
        There is no doubt that there is fraud, waste, and abuse at VA. WoA
    has called out wrongful deaths, substandard care, fraudulent data,
    sextortion, discrimination, and contract manipulation. We have
    advocated for better oversight by the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
    and greater independence for the OAWP to assist claimants, but for the
    Office of Special Counsel (OSC) to take over the investigative mission.
    There is wasteful duplication between OAWP and OSC, with the OSC having
    greater authority to assist. During previous hearings, I have raised
    issues related to the lack of timeliness, unclear processes, misaligned
    staffing, and poor performance in assisting whistleblowing employees as
    well as the disconnect between the OAWP, OIG and the OSC. I have
    previously suggested that VA be mandated to:

            1. Publish a whistleblower policy and be transparent with data
            requested from the veteran community;

            2. Utilize properly trained, independent, and unbiased staff
            for investigations; and have timely sanctions for retaliators;

            3. Track OIG recommendations and hold accountable VA leaders
            for implementing those recommendations, which can otherwise be
            shelved and ignored ;

            4. Abolish OAWP investigations and transfer resources to the
            Office of Special Counsel (OSC);

            5. Allow VA employees to take their cases to civilian Federal
            courts and provide them with access to legal counsel and/or
            support when they file retaliation claims;

            6. Remove VA Police from the Department and transfer their
            authority to the Department of Justice similar to other Federal
            agents. Police should not have to get permission from medical
            center directors to investigate crimes or be obstructed in
            their pursuit of justice.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\  Retired Special Agent Bruce Sackman describes the impact of
    Medical Center Directors who have control over the investigative
    process as potentially obstructive and impairing to investigations to
    protect their reputations and bonuses in his book, ``Behind the Murder
    Curtain.''

        Additionally, according to 38 U.S. Code Sec.  5103A, the VA has a
    duty to assist claimants. The law states that, ``The Secretary shall
    make reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence
    necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim for a benefit under a
    law administered by the Secretary.'' A claimant is defined as any
    individual submitting a claim for benefits under the law administered
    by the Secretary. In creating the OAWP, there should be an inherent
    duty to assist the claimant, which would mean that an employee filing a
    claim should be entitled to the same assistance as veterans. This
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    should include:

        1. Explaining the level of evidence necessary to substantiate a
    claim against an alleged perpetrator;

        2. Assisting with obtaining the necessary evidence to substantiate
    the violation of laws, rules, court opinions or regulations;

        3. Helping document retaliation by using the Occupational Safety
    and Health Administration (OSHA) description;

        4. Offering options and transparency for remedies and settlement
    agreements, which this Committee has also previously advocated during
    hearings;

        5. Establishing an independent mentor program with training and
    education in peer support and a trauma-informed framework as described
    by the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

        WoA understands the frustrations that this Committee feels when
    dealing with the wrongs at VA, but the removal of due process rights
    outlined in Restore Department of Veteran Affairs Accountability Act of
    2025 is not the most effective means to confront these problems. As we
    have seen since the Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of
    2017 passed, its implementation has been highly controversial, marked
    by the use of ``hit lists,'' and OSC/MSPB reversals and as POGO
    observed in 2020,\2\ a ``terrified'' workforce is not effective.
    Removing appeal rights harms those individuals and the veteran programs
    that they championed. We have seen dozens of these cases, and once
    adjudicated, it is often discovered that the whistleblower was not the
    problem - it was a supervisor or a senior leader covering up crimes.
    Property stolen from VA is a crime, drug diversion is a crime, and
    contract steering is a crime. Let the OIG and VA police have the power
    to investigate and charge criminals. Make these systems more effective
    and mandate that the VA ensures that perpetrators (employees and
    contractors) are not only terminated but also pay their fines to the
    Department of Treasury Judgement Fund, which they do not currently do.
    That is millions of dollars being lost to the Treasury.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.pogo.org/investigations/terrified-of-retaliation-
    inside-veterans-affairs-whistleblower-office
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The US Surgeon General Framework \3\ on Workplace Mental Health and
    Well-being Report describes these attributes as facilitating workplaces
    which protect from harm, have opportunities for growth, encourage work-
    life harmony, support connection and community, and engage employees
    with dignity and meaningful work. These are not novel ideas. They are
    based on decades of research on organizational safety and development.
    They come from business management leaders like Edward Deming \4\,
    Donald Berwick \5\, Kurt Lewin \6\ and of course Malcolm Baldridge and
    the National Quality Award \7\ that VA competes in. These are the types
    of tools needed to manage an effective workforce. Treating every
    employee like a criminal will disincentivize initiative, create more
    bystanders, and will distract them from the mission of caring for my
    fellow veterans. Every day, there are VA employees who go the extra
    mile to provide care, listen to problems, assist with appointments, and
    adjudicate benefits. Most of the problems veterans encounter at VA
    occur when employees are hamstrung by policies and procedures that do
    not allow them to think or act outside the box. They must clear
    computer alerts before listening to a patient's problems, cancel
    appointments because there are staffing shortages, and deny benefits
    because the record is unavailable. Suicidal veterans are prescribed
    medication and sent home when there are not enough VA beds available
    for admission and the community is already on diversion. Community Care
    has created new levels of access but also dysfunction when community
    providers cannot see VA records. As a result, care is denied or
    repeated tests and treatments that are unnecessary and wasteful are
    prescribed. To quote The American Legion, VA is a ``system worth
    saving,'' but the system is only as strong as its workforce. We must
    protect and assist those employees who dedicate their professional
    selves to it. There is no ``us/them.'' VA employees are often veterans
    themselves or the spouses, sons, daughters, grandchildren, or siblings
    of a veteran or active duty service member. They are Reservists,
    Guardsmen, former VA interns, or individuals who have undergone a
    prolonged hiring process to get the jobs that they hold dear. Many of
    these employees have participated in the Department of Defense
    SkillBridge program, taken college courses on Military/Veteran Cultural
    Competency, and/or have been active in VA Voluntary Services. They have
    been trained by the Veterans Experience Office (VEO) to ensure veterans
    are satisfied customers. The VEO tools are available within VA to
    improve employment engagement and ensure organizational effectiveness.
    Let's trust that process and those teaching tools.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/
    workplace-well-being/index.html
        \4\ https://deming.org/explore/fourteen-points/
        \5\ https://hcp.hms.harvard.edu/people/donald-berwick
        \6\ https://practicalpie.com/lewins-change-theory/
        \7\ https://asq.org/quality-resources/malcolm-baldrige-national-
    quality-award
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, above all else, lets uphold the 5th Amendment of the US
    Constitution, which states that no person shall be ``...deprived of
    life, liberty, or property without due process of law.'' This provision
    protects Federal employees from discriminatory practices that include
    terminations and other adverse employment decisions without due process
    of law including judicial review. Federal employees are afforded these
    protections as an incentive for a speak up culture that can call out
    corruption without fear of retribution. VA employees take an oath to
    ``support and defend the Constitution.'' They should not be excluded
    from these most basic constitutional rights, especially since so many
    of them fought for these rights and their families sacrificed to
    protect America. Now is not the time to alienate them from those
    lawfully protected rights. President Lincoln once called upon this
    Nation to be ``Highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in
    vain - that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -
    and that the government of the people, by the people, for the people,
    shall not perish from the earth.'' (Gettysburg, November 19, 1863).
    These are our people. These are their rights.

        Thank you.

              Prepared Statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America

        Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano, and members of the committee,
    Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you for the
    opportunity to submit our views on some of the pending legislation
    impacting the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that is before the
    committee. No group of veterans understand the full scope of benefits
    and care provided by the VA better than PVA members--veterans who have
    incurred a spinal cord injury or disorder (SCI/D). We appreciate the
    opportunity to offer our observations on some of the legislation being
    discussed during today's hearing.
        VA's SCI/D system of care is the crown jewel of the VA's health
    care system. It is unequaled in the care it provides to paralyzed
    veterans. There are no comparable systems of such care in either the
    private sector or the world. PVA's number one priority is to protect
    this system of care. Access to the care it provides is the difference
    between life and death for our members. We will strongly oppose any
    efforts that seek to dismantle the VA's SCI/D system of care. This
    includes starving the system through efforts that prevent proper
    staffing, ignoring critical infrastructure needs, and limiting
    available financial resources that are crucial for purchasing items,
    such as wheelchairs and other assistive devices that support PVA
    members' independence and well-being. PVA members want to receive their
    care at the VA because it is the best care available for them.

    H.R. 472, the Restore VA Accountability Act of 2025

        PVA supports efforts like the Restore VA Accountability Act to
    ensure proper accountability at all levels of the VA. Throughout the
    years, there have been unfortunate instances where those serving in
    leadership positions at the department have failed to fulfill the
    responsibility of their positions and steps should have been taken to
    remove them. We believe the VA Secretary should have the ability to
    remove bad actors from the department; however, we would not support
    abusing authorities like this proposal to arbitrarily remove competent
    and capable employees simply as a cost-cutting measure or in
    furtherance of any discriminatory purpose. If the VA or any other
    Federal agency needs to remove someone from their position, they must
    follow established procedures designed to protect the rights of workers
    and the government alike. It also ensures that veterans' access to care
    and benefits is not harmed due to inappropriate removals of staff who
    support these crucial services.

        H.R. 740, the Veterans' ACCESS Act of 2025

        PVA supported the passage of the VA MISSION Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-
    182), which reformed VA's ability to provide timely access to care and
    modernize its health care infrastructure. Of particular importance to
    PVA were the bill's provisions that increased VA's internal capacity to
    provide care by improving the recruitment, hiring, and retention of
    highly qualified clinicians; expanded eligibility for VA's Program of
    Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers; and established a
    process to address the department's aging health care infrastructure.
        While the MISSION Act also allowed greater numbers of veterans to
    receive care in the community, it was never intended to replace or
    undermine VA's health care system. Also, PVA firmly believes VA is the
    best health care provider for disabled veterans, particularly those
    with catastrophic disabilities. More importantly, our members
    consistently choose VA's SCI/D system of care, because it provides a
    coordinated life-long continuum of services that has increased the
    lifespan of these veterans by decades.
        Beyond the loss of use of arms and legs, SCI/D can affect other
    body systems, including skin, bowel, bladder, and breathing. SCI/D
    demonstrates the interconnectedness of our body's systems, where damage
    to one part of the body can affect other aspects of it. Because SCI/D
    has profound and lasting effects, disrupting both physical and
    neurological functions, seeing a provider who understands the impact on
    each body system is a vital necessity. Most community care providers
    lack the knowledge, expertise, and time to properly understand the
    impact of SCI/D on body systems. While the overwhelming majority of our
    members rely on VA's SCI/D system of care, PVA supports the Veterans'
    ACCESS Act but we offer some thoughts on its individual sections as
    follows:

        Section 101: Although we do not believe codifying access standards
    would improve veterans' access to care, lower wait times, improve
    quality, or produce better health outcomes, particularly for veterans
    with catastrophic disabilities, we do not oppose formalizing the access
    standards for care received in the community.

        Section 102: We support requirements for the VA to notify veterans
    of their eligibility for care under the Veterans Community Care
    Program. However, under no instances should a veteran be forced to
    accept care in the community if they request care at a VA facility.

        Section 103: We support the requirement that a veterans'
    preferences in regard to how, when, and where they receive their health
    care be considered, including whether they require the assistance of a
    caregiver, whenever they are seeking hospital care, outpatient care, or
    extended care services. We understand that the veteran's preference is
    not the sole factor in determining a veteran's access to community
    care, but it should be part of the consideration. Many of our members
    require the assistance of a caregiver, and we are pleased to see that
    recognition included here.

        Section 104: We strongly believe that the VA should provide denials
    in writing not only when requests to access care in the community are
    denied, but also for all other decisions that affect veterans' access
    to care.

        Section 105: As health care delivery evolves, we believe veterans
    should be afforded access to telehealth options. Therefore, we support
    requirements for VA to better inform veterans about telehealth
    appointment availability, but veterans should not be required to use
    telehealth if they would prefer an in-person appointment.

        Section 106: PVA does not object to extending the deadline for
    health care entities and providers to submit claims.

        Section 202: PVA supports efforts like those described in this
    section to improve and standardize VA's processes to determine a
    veteran's eligibility for priority or routine admissions into a covered
    treatment program.

        Section 203: We agree with the intent of this section. However,
    homogenizing policies and procedures for VA's mental health Residential
    Rehabilitation Treatment Programs (RRTP) should be carefully thought
    out, and must include an assessment of its availability within VA's
    health care system and community health care facilities. Unfortunately,
    for veterans with SCI/D, such care is non-existent within VA and the
    community if they require assistance with other health conditions, such
    as regular bowel and bladder care. It is a well-established fact that
    depression is strongly associated with poor health outcomes and
    exposure to higher pain levels often trigger depression among members
    of the SCI/D community. Having a history of mental illness or substance
    abuse, current mental illness other than depression, and current abuse
    of alcohol or illegal substances are also risk factors for depression
    among the SCI/D community. Substance use disorders are prevalent and
    associated with poor outcomes in individuals with SCI/D, with 14
    percent of individuals with SCI/D reporting significant alcohol-related
    problems and 19.3 percent reporting heavy drinking. With its expertise
    in SCI/D care, the VA is uniquely positioned to provide this level of
    care for these veterans and should be directed to do so as part of this
    legislation.

        Section 301: We agree that VA should establish an interactive,
    online self-service module to allow veterans to request and track their
    appointments and their referrals for VA community care. Any such
    system, however, must meet disability access standards to ensure
    veterans with visual, hearing, cognitive, dexterity, and other
    impairments are able to independently use it.

        Section 302: PVA believes that VA-direct care is the best care for
    veterans who need specialized health care services. However, we support
    improved access to community outpatient mental health and substance use
    services for veterans, when appropriate. Any efforts to extend the
    pilot program in (c), following its completion, must carefully consider
    any protections that would be required to ensure there is no
    degradation of care provided in the VA for these or any other
    conditions on which veterans, including those with the most significant
    disabilities, rely. VA is a coordinated care system and how expanded
    access to community care fits into that system must be well thought
    out. The pilot program at (c) could begin to explore several of these
    potential issues by including provisions that address elements like
    whether treated conditions must be service-connected, the veteran's
    prior use of VA health care, how and whether other payment remedies
    must be attempted first, defining reasonable values for reimbursement,
    and setting standards for notifying VA about when community-based care
    has been scheduled or received. [Many of these factors have been
    established in the statute (38 U.S. Code Sec.  1725) and regulation (38
    CFR Sec.  17.120) that govern veteran use of non-VA emergency care
    facilities.

        Based on outreach from our members, most veterans with SCI/D want
    to receive their care at a VA facility. So, if Congress is sincere
    about improving access to care, this committee must also take
    meaningful steps to strengthen VA's internal capacity, in particular,
    the department's specialized services like SCI/D and blind
    rehabilitation. Also, there must be meaningful discussions about what
    can be done to address VA's infrastructure backlog, which was a primary
    goal of the MISSION Act.

    H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2d Amendment Protection Act

        PVA supports the Veterans 2d Amendment Protection Act. We believe
    the VA's current practice of reporting veterans who need assistance
    managing their VA benefits and finances to the FBI's National Instant
    Criminal Background Check System, without a court of law finding that
    the veteran is a danger to themselves or others, violates their
    constitutional rights because of a disability.

    H.R. 1391, the Student Veteran Benefit Restoration Act of 2025

        PVA supports this legislation which would restore benefits to
    students who were using their VA education benefits at an institution
    of higher learning if they were victims of fraudulent activities,
    including substantial misrepresentation through advertising, marketing,
    recruiting, and enrollment practices. However, we feel the bill could
    be improved by amending the language so the change is applied
    retroactively, and clarifying which programs would not be eligible for
    reimbursement.
        PVA would once again like to thank the committee for the
    opportunity to submit our views on some of the bills being considered
    today. We look forward to working with you on this legislation and
    would be happy to take any questions for the record.

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

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

                                Fiscal Year 2025

        Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of National Veterans Sports
    Programs & Special Events----Grant to support rehabilitation sports
    activities--$502,000.

                                Fiscal Year 2023

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

                                Fiscal Year 2022

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

                         Disclosure of Foreign Payments

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

     Prepared Statement of National Association of Veterans' Research and
                             Education Foundations
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Joint Letter from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Labor Unions
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9865.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9865.037

    Prepared Statement of American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-
                                      CIO
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Prepared Statement of Concerned Veterans for America
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Prepared Statement of National Association for Gun Rights
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Letter from the Everytown for Gun Safety Submitted by Mark Takano
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Letter from the National Fraternal Order of Police Submitted by Mark
                                     Takano
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]