[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]