[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY
ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-8
__________
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
60-669 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
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas, Chairman
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky, Ranking
American Samoa Member
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
NANCY MACE, South Carolina MAXINE DEXTER, Oregon
KEITH SELF, Texas KELLY MORRISON, Minnesota
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2025
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Morgan Luttrell, Chairman.......................... 1
The Honorable Morgan McGarvey, Ranking Member.................... 2
WITNESSES
Panel I
The Honorable Jack Bergman, U.S. House of Representatives, (MI-
01)............................................................ 4
The Honorable Chris Pappas, U.S. House of Representatives, (NH-
01)............................................................ 6
Panel II
Mr. Josh Smith, Chief Executive Officer, Veteran Benefits Guide.. 8
Lieutenant Colonel William "Bill" Taylor (Ret., U.S. Army), Co-
Founder and Chief Operating Officer, Veterans Guardian VA Claim
Consulting..................................................... 9
Mr. Peter O'Rourke, President, National Association for Veterans
Rights......................................................... 11
Ms. Diane Boyd Rauber, Executive Director, National Organization
of Veterans' Advocates......................................... 13
Mr. Pat Murray, Acting Executive Director, Washington Office,
Veterans of Foreign Wars....................................... 14
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements Of Witnesses
Mr. Josh Smith Prepared Statement................................ 33
Lieutenant Colonel William "Bill" Taylor (Ret., U.S. Army)
Prepared Statement............................................. 37
Mr. Peter O'Rourke Prepared Statement............................ 50
Ms. Diane Boyd Rauber Prepared Statement......................... 55
Mr. Pat Murray Prepared Statement................................ 70
Statements For The Record
Disabled American Veterans Prepared Statement.................... 73
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Prepared Statement...... 76
The American Legion Prepared Statement........................... 78
Trajector Medical Prepared Statement............................. 87
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Prepared Statement........... 98
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2025
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance &
Memorial Affairs,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m., in
room 360, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Morgan Luttrell
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Luttrell, Bergman, Mace, Self,
McGarvey, Pappas, Dexter, and Morrison.
OPENING STATEMENT OF MORGAN LUTTRELL, CHAIRMAN
Mr. Luttrell. Okay. The Subcommittee on Disability
Assistance and Memorial Affairs will come to order.
Before we start, I have just been told that one of our
colleagues, Mr. Sylvester Turner, he is actually from Texas,
was the former mayor of Houston, passed away. I am not sure if
it was last night or this morning, but may we please have a
moment of silence for our fallen colleague.
Thank you. Our thoughts and prayers are extended to the
Turner family. Not how I wanted to start my day off, but all
right.
Thank you all for joining us today. We are here to discuss
three bills that would each reinstate criminal penalties for
anyone who takes advantage of veterans who are filing claims
for VA disability compensation. Last week, I personally heard
from veterans' advocates testifying on the bad actors for
charging $30,000 or more to assist veterans for filing their
claims. I think we can all agree that veterans should never
ever have to pay $30,000 or more for assistance filing a U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability claim
compensation claim.
I have also heard from veterans that they want the freedom
to choose who helps them file their initial claims. Under the
current law, companies are not allowed to charge a fee for
assisting veterans with claims at the start of the claims
process, limiting their options. At today's hearing, we will be
discussing H.R. 1656, the Preserving Lawful Utilization of
Services for Veterans (PLUS) Act, which would reinstate fines
and jail time for companies that violate laws regarding
representation of veterans pursuing VA benefit claims. The PLUS
Act would also allow VA accredited agents and attorneys to
charge a limited fee to assist veterans with filing their
initial claims for VA disability compensation.
Second, H.R. 1732, the Governing Unaccredited
Representatives Defrauding VA Benefits (GUARD) Act, would
reinstate fines for violations of the law regarding the
representation of veterans before VA.
Third, the Discussion Draft on today's agenda would
reinstate fines and jail time for violating the laws governing
the representation of veterans before VA. The Discussion Draft
would also allow VA accredited agents and attorneys to charge a
limited fee while assisting veterans with filings with filings
on their initial VA benefits claims while prohibiting fees for
certain types of initial claims.
I believe that regardless of the bill anyone supports, we
must ensure that the veterans is at the center of the changes
we make. I look forward to a productive discussion today about
the three bills on our agenda.
We have not currently received VA's views on these bills.
Secretary Collins has only recently began leading the VA, the
second largest Federal agency in the Nation. In my opinion, he
is still and currently getting his sea legs underneath him.
Because the VA did not have its views cleared in time for our
hearing, it was not in the best interest of everyone's time to
have them come and testify. Because we do need VA's views, we
will keep the record open for them. It is not uncommon for us
to receive VA's views after hearings and I think the witnesses
who have joined us today will understand.
I now yield to the ranking member for his opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF MORGAN MCGARVEY, RANKING MEMBER
Mr. McGarvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also echo your
initial sentiments for our colleague Sylvester Turner from
Texas, for his family. Not only was he a distinguished Member
of this body, also a very well-respected mayor across the
country for his work there. A loss.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you all having this hearing.
Appreciate everybody for being here today. I am here for one
reason today. It is not to protect turf in any turf wars. It is
not to defend the status quo. It is not to whine and complain
about things that do not matter for veterans' daily lives. I am
here for one reason: to ensure that our veterans can access
their earned benefits without delay and without being ripped
off.
Now, I want to get this right, which is why I think it is
important to hear from everyone. However, I also want to point
out that we have one critical absence day. Mr. Chairman, you
mentioned the VA is not here and I understand that there is a
new Secretary. We did, however, receive written testimony from
them and I do not think it actually said all that much. It said
they are reviewing their bills, they could not give their views
at this time. Again, I know they are new, but it is hard to
hold a legislative hearing without knowing where the VA stands
on these bills.
I think that is particularly important right now because
they have been so supportive of the GUARD Act in the past. I
hope their absence in reviewing this bill is not a signal that
they are doing a 180. Because if the Trump administration is
now going to support these companies who have been fleecing
veterans out of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, money
that is meant to help our veterans, then I do hope they will
have--they will show up in front of this committee and tell us
why.
Now, let us get to the topic at hand. My goal, and I think
one that is shared by all of my colleagues here, is to
alleviate the circumstances that lead any veteran to feel as
though they have to pay to access the benefits they have
earned. We should strive for a process that does not
necessitate paid assistance, that is simple to navigate, that
is quick to deliver an outcome, and that results in a pro
veteran decision. I think anything short of that is window
dressing.
Do not take that to mean, Mr. Chairman, that I am not
interested in cracking down on those who are violating the law.
Quite the opposite, in fact. It is clear that back in 2006,
Congress made a mistake when it repealed penalties for
assisting with disability claims without accreditation. I do
not think anyone could have anticipated a cottage claims
industry so brazenly flouting the law. That cottage industry,
it is not so quaint anymore. In fact, we are talking about
numerous large companies that are siphoning off hundreds of
millions of dollars a year in veterans' benefits, companies
that are attracting venture capital funding and working on Wall
Street offerings, all to make a quick dollar on what has for
decades been a free service.
I understand we live in a country where everyone is trying
to make a living and if people can find a way to make a buck,
they will, even if that means profiting from veterans'
disabilities. Unfortunately, these companies have deep pockets
which they use to buy influence. We have been at a stalemate
here for years between those who want to crack down on this
illegal behavior and those who want to bless it.
I think we are going to hear a lot about veteran choice and
systemic capacity at today's hearings. I want to point out that
there is a great deal of choice already with thousands of
accredited representatives able to help, not to mention VA's
longstanding duty to assist. Veteran Services Organization
(VSO) capacity is robust and growing, especially with the new
nontraditional VSOs coming on board, such as Tribes and labor
unions. This is not about taking away veterans choices for me.
There is a lot of choices out there. I want veterans to have
their choice. I want veterans to be able to get, again, the
benefits they have earned. These are earned benefits for our
veterans in exchange for their services. This is about, for me,
removing unaccredited, unregulated claim sharks who target
veterans for those earned benefits.
We will also hear that these companies assert they provide
better, faster service to a veteran. In fact, that is one of
their principal lures. Okay, I do understand that. I understand
why that could be enticing to a veteran. One, the VA is
processing claims faster. Two, let us make sure that these
appeals are not so attractive anymore, that the veterans are
actually able to access the benefits they have earned.
There has been a lot of robust hiring at the Veterans
Benefits Administration (VBA) facilitated by the The Sergeant
First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address
Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act. Let us make these claims
easier to navigate. That is what we are all looking for here.
I think most troubling, though, is we are going to witness
some Olympic level displays of mental gymnastics today from
those companies trying to rationalize how their activity is not
illegal when it is and has been for decades. They have the
option to be accredited, but have chosen not to do so, which,
by the way, the accreditation is free. If the process is
cumbersome, we should prioritize a finding a solution to
streamline it, so we can offer more choices to veterans while
keeping their earned benefits where they belong, with them. I
agree with the chairman. It is ridiculous that a veteran is
paying $30,000 to have somebody navigate a claim for them. I
think it is ridiculous that the claims are too difficult to
access, that veterans feel they need someone to help them. I
think it is the job of this committee to help our veterans.
I want to take a step back, actually work through what
works best for them, absent of consideration of what works best
for the companies who are purporting to support our veterans,
but who are, in fact, taking tens of thousands of dollars,
sometimes from each veteran and hundreds of millions of dollars
overall.
I yield back.
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. McGarvey.
This morning we have colleagues who will be testifying from
the dais about the bills they have sponsored. General Bergman,
sir, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to speak on the PLUS
Act.
STATEMENT OF JACK BERGMAN
Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
witnesses for being here today, and to Chairman Bost and the
entire VA Committee staff, for their work on the issue thus
far.
I would like to start by stating I firmly believe that
everyone present today on both sides of the aisle have the same
fundamental goal: to prevent and punish bad actors seeking to
take advantage of veterans and to ensure that veterans are able
to quickly and easily receive the disability benefits they
deserve. Congress must take action to ensure that veterans
looking for help navigating the VA disability benefits system
are not defrauded or otherwise taken advantage of.
However, this cannot come at the cost of removing veteran
agency and choice. It would be unacceptable for Congress to
push a heavy-handed ban on the entire industry of legitimate
businesses, often veteran-owned, that have helped thousands of
veterans get the claims they deserve. The PLUS for Veterans
Act, which I introduced along with my friend Lou Correa from
California, will preserve the right for veterans to get help
from the private sector while preparing VA applications by
incorporating these businesses into the VA accreditation
system, all while imposing penalties on bad actors that seek to
exploit veterans. By incorporating these businesses into VA
accreditation, veterans will have protection against the abuse
and recourse if they are taken advantage of, and VA will have
the teeth it needs to punish bad actors.
Contrary to what some have claimed, no veteran would ever
be forced to pay a fee to obtain the benefits they have earned
through their service under the PLUS Act. In fact, the bill
creates new requirements for veterans to be informed of free
options for getting assistance with their disability benefit
applications, for instance, through the VSOs. This is on top of
the new safeguards in the bill that prevent high fees, require
informed consent in clear language, and prevent conflicts of
interest between agents and doctors who provide medical
evidence.
There also has been new additions and improvements made to
the bill text following constructive feedback we have received
over the past 2 years. Most notably, the bill now establishes a
system of provisional accreditation that will allow new agents
to begin assisting veterans in a timely manner while ensuring
the veteran remains protected from abuse. It also establishes
steep penalties for any malpractice by agents with provisional
accreditation, including a fine of up to $50,000. I remain open
to constructive feedback and good faith dialog as we work to
craft the best legislation possible.
In regard to concerns related to the fee cap structure
included in the PLUS Act, I would like to make the following
points clear. First, any imposed caps on fees by accredited
agents must be set at a level designated to protect veterans
from abuse, not at a level that effectively sets the price for
the entire market and forces out high-quality, good-faith
businesses.
Second, there is existing Federal precedent justifying a
fee cap like in the bill. For example, the Social Security
Administration's fee cap for assistance on disability claims is
currently set at $9,200, and yet assisting with VA claims is
far more complicated and time consuming than with Social
Security. Social Security disability claims do not have to
prove service connection. There is no 0 to 100 disability
rating, like with the VA, and the requirements for obtaining
National Social Security Advisor certification are far lower
than that of the VA accreditation. It would be nonsensical to
impose a cap at or below that of Social Security's given all
the additional complications and costs involved in helping
navigate the VA.
Finally, the projections created through the PLUS Act, like
providing information on free assistance options and
incorporating all agents into VA accreditation, are
fundamentally designed to provide veterans with a fair and well
understood choice. If a veteran decides that they would like to
pay a fee in order to get easier, faster, and more personalized
assistance in filing their claims, who are we to tell them that
they cannot? Veterans should be allowed to choose whatever
option they decide to do in their best interest: filing on
their own, going through a VSO, or through a private business.
Adding overwhelmingly overly draconian fee caps will only limit
the number of choices available to them.
The PLUS Act for Veterans recognizes that veterans are
capable of choosing what options are best for them when seeking
assistance in obtaining benefits. Denying this right is not
protecting veterans. It is, and this is a strong word, a lot of
syllables for a guy like me, infantilizing, it makes them feel
like little babies. How is that? How is that? I mean, you know,
that is Marine and Navy speak, but I do not know if the Air
Force did, but you get it, right? All right.
I look forward--by the way, I am going to have to make sure
that that is never in a speech again. I am going to have to
look forward. Can I close now?
Mr. Luttrell. You should let the enlisted men do that.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Luttrell. Yes, sir. Thank you, General.
Mr. Pappas, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS PAPPAS
Mr. Pappas. Thank you very much, Chairman Luttrell and
Ranking Member McGarvey, for your opening comments, and General
Bergman for yours as well on your legislation.
I want to share with everyone today about information about
my bill, the GUARD VA Benefits Act. This committee has heard me
and many of my colleagues and veteran service organizations
talk about this bill and reference the troubling increase in
unaccredited representatives that are looking to profit off
veterans' disability claims. They peddle a for-profit model
that veterans can receive free of charge from veteran service
organizations, like those who we will hear from today.
One Navy corpsman we heard from paid a company $8,000 to
help her access her disability benefits after she left the
service. Another Navy servicemember said he was charged almost
$10,000 for just 6 hours of virtual coaching that he later said
he could have found online on his own. It is alarming because
the more third parties that have a hand in a veteran's claim,
the more potential exists for fraud and abuse, which I am sure
we all agree we want to prevent.
To provide veterans with qualified and competent help and
protect them from individuals who may be targeting their
benefits, VA has long operated an accreditation, discipline,
and fees program to provide oversight of those who assist with
fee preparation. Under current law, VA accredited
representatives are the only individuals authorized to prepare,
present, or prosecute VA claims on a veteran's behalf.
Unfortunately, in 2006, Congress decided to strip VA of its
ability to penalize those who violate the longstanding
prohibitions on preparation, presentation, and prosecution of a
VA claim before VA. Since then, the claims consultant companies
have exploited this dangerous loophole to rake in millions of
dollars from veterans across the country.
This bill is simple. It will reinstate criminal penalties
for unaccredited claims representatives, does not create new
criminal acts, nor does it change the well-established
definitions of preparation, presentation, and prosecution. To
that point, I want to be clear. The gathering or development of
third-party medical evidence has long been excluded from the
definitions of preparation, presentation, and prosecution. The
GUARD Act does not change that dynamic, nor would I propose to.
I also want to address another argument that some have
raised, that the GUARD Act would somehow limit the choices that
veterans have with their claims. Some companies have even hired
expensive lobbyists and lawyers to argue that this bill would
violate First Amendment rights. Nothing could be further from
the truth. This legislation does not ban a veteran from
choosing whoever they want when seeking help with their VA
claim. If veterans want options, they can talk to any number of
professional, well-trained veteran service officers. They can
seek help from VSOs like the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW),
the American Legion, and others. If veterans want a paid
option, they are free to turn to agents and attorneys who are
accredited for help. The difference is that all of these
individuals are accredited. They go through that process. They
are subject to the oversight of VA and the Office of General
Counsel. It is exactly that oversight that for-profit claims
consulting companies are seeking to continue to avoid.
These claims consulting companies, they know what they are
doing is beyond the scope of the law and they have spent
thousands and thousands of dollars lobbying against this bill.
They also know that there is nothing stripping them or
preventing them from becoming accredited today except that they
will not make as much money unaccredited if they become
accredited.
I just want to say that I look forward to working with my
colleagues on developing a permanent solution to this. I think
it must include ensuring that we reinstate criminal penalties.
I look forward to hearing from folks on our panel about this
and other bills under consideration today.
I want to commend the continued support of veterans service
organizations in assisting the veteran community and in
speaking out strongly for this legislation. We have strong
bipartisan support in the Congress. The bill has been
reintroduced and I am looking forward to working with my
colleagues on a solution that is going to protect veterans,
make sure that they can keep their earned benefits, and ensure
that we are moving forward in a way that is worthy of the
service and sacrifice of so many in this room and across the
country.
With that, I yield back my time.
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Pappas. It is good to have you
in here again, sir.
It is our practice, We will forego a round of questioning
for the members. Any questions may be submitted for the record.
I now invite our second panel of witnesses to the table if
they are present. Welcome, everyone. Yes, Mr. Smith. Colonel,
go like this. It is on the record. It has got to be right.
Apologies. Thank you, sir.
Now, welcome and thank you for joining us today. Our second
panel includes Mr. Josh Smith, chief executive officer (CEO),
Veterans Benefits Guide (VBG); Lieutenant Colonel Bill Taylor,
cofounder and chief operating officer of Veterans Guardian VA
Claim Consulting; Mr. Peter O'Rourke, president of the National
Association for Veterans Rights; Ms. Diane Boyd Rauber,
National Organizations of Veterans' Advocates (NOVA); and Mr.
Pat Murray, acting executive director, Washington Office,
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.
I ask all the witnesses, please rise and raise your right
hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you. Be seated. Let the record reflect
that all witnesses answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Smith, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir, to
deliver your opening testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOSH SMITH
Mr. Smith. Joshua Smith. I am the CEO and cofounder of
Veteran Benefits Guide. I would like to thank Chairman Luttrell
and Ranking Member McGarvey and other committee members for
providing me this opportunity to share my perspective.
I am testifying today in opposition to the GUARD VA
Benefits Act and in strong support of the PLUS for Veterans
Act. I want to thank Representative Bergman for introducing the
PLUS Act and Representatives Mace and Self for cosponsoring the
bill. VBG also supports the Discussion Draft that has been
shared and believes it represents a reasonable compromise.
While well intended, the GUARD Act would severely and
unfairly limit choices veterans have in seeking assistance with
their claims. Instead of only targeting bad actors, it would
make illegal for veterans to get advice or assistance from any
private services, including honorable companies, like VBG. We
believe the veterans need more help in getting their benefits,
not more limitations on their options and choices.
In contrast, the PLUS Act and the discussion draft provide
the right balance between establishing guardrails to protect
veterans from bad actors and ensuring private companies are
allowed to continue serving veterans. Each of these bills
include strict disclosure requirements, fee caps, and privacy
protections that we support.
Opponents of the PLUS Act and the Discussion Draft
inaccurately claim that organizations such as ours choose not
to be accredited. This is false. VBG would welcome the
opportunity to become accredited. The PLUS Act and the
Discussion Draft legislation would resolve this issue by
providing a pathway for accreditation, allowing VBG and other
good actors to come under the oversight of the VA. The fact
that VBG is not currently accredited does not mean we are
violating Federal law. We provide specially trained case
managers to guide veterans through the claim process, but we do
not act as a veterans agent or representative and we do not
present before the VA.
We believe Federal legislation is needed now to resolve
this issue. Different versions of the GUARD Act and Plus Act
have been introduced in at least 30 states. Without a Federal
solution, the result will be a chaotic patchwork of State
legislation. Our Nation's veterans are being harmed every day
by this chaos and gridlock is allowed to continue. This is not
a partisan issue. In states where these bills are being
considered we have heard from Democrats and Republicans
expressing a desire to reach a compromise that both protects
veterans and preserves choice.
In addition to being the CEO of VBG, I am also a Marine
Corps veteran and a former VA employee. At the VA, I witnessed
firsthand that veterans were being denied benefits they earned.
That is why I left the VA and with my wife Lauren created VBG
to help guide veterans through this complicated process. We
have grown our company and have now more than 200 employees
with offices in Nevada and California. Roughly 80 percent of
our employees are veterans or immediate family members of
veterans, and we employ former VA personnel, like myself,
helping to assure we keep up to date with VA regulations and
training.
It is clear that our service is needed. Despite their best
efforts, veteran service organizations do not have enough
manpower or resources to keep up with the demand for help. In
congressional testimony, the National Association of County
Veteran Service Officers acknowledged that they face
disparities in staffing levels, technology, education, and
outreach, and have become even more acute in recent years, and
that they are scrambling to meet an influx of requests from
veterans for support. In fact, more than 70 percent of our
clients first navigated the process with the help of a VSO.
They were either denied their full benefits or felt the process
was taking too long continuing to submit claims. VBG's sole
focus is getting on the getting the veteran's claim right the
first time, avoiding the need of a lengthy and costly appeal.
The value we bring to our veteran clients is best reflected
in their own words. Leo, an Air Force veteran from Nevada,
stated the following and I quote, ``There are some
organizations out there that say do not go to these companies
that have to pay for that you have to pay for. You should be
doing it on your own. My argument is I did go on my own and try
to file my claim and I did not get help. Many people, including
VSOs, has promised to help me, but they did not actually help.
It was not until I found VBG that I got the rating I deserve.
If it is my money, it should be my choice what I do with it. I
want every veteran to have the ability to make that choice,''
end quote.
With reasonable guardrails in place, we believe that
veterans should be free to contact with whom they wish for
help. This was the guiding principle in 2006 when Congress
loosened restrictions on veterans being able to pay for help
with their appeal claims. It should be the same guiding
principle today.
Thank you for considering my testimony. I will be happy to
answer any questions.
[The Prepared Statement Of Josh Smith Appears In The
Appendix]
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Colonel Taylor, you are now recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM TAYLOR
Mr. Taylor. Good morning, Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member
McGarvey, and members of the subcommittee. My name is William
Taylor and I am the cofounder of Veterans Guardian, a West
Point graduate, and a 23-year Army veteran with six operational
deployments. I am proud to have served my country and cofounded
one of the largest veteran-owned and operated companies helping
veterans navigate the VA claims process. In my written
testimony I have included a detailed description of my military
service and my company. For now I would like to focus--dive
right into the issues.
The bottom line is we are veterans helping veterans. We
provide a valuable service and are committed to serving
veterans. Candidly, I am frustrated to have my integrity and
honor regularly called into question by those who label me a
claim shark simply because I use a different approach than the
traditional model and that approach is often preferred by
veterans. I have remained committed to finding a compromise
that modernizes accreditation and ensures veterans have choice
in claims representation. I once again extend an offer to all
entities at this table to work together and find ways to
compromise without resorting to mudslinging.
The unfortunate reality is that many veterans face
difficulties navigating the VA disability process. It cannot be
ignored that there are currently over 935,000 claims awaiting
adjudication by the VA. Contrary to the views under the Biden
VA, the current systems do not meet the needs of veterans.
Veterans need more options, not less. To address veterans
needs, they should be able to pursue their claim in the manner
that best serves them with full knowledge of all available
options at any step in the process, including free and fee-
based options.
I would like to address the allegations that my company is
breaking the law. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Section 5901 of Title 38 contains the foundational rule
governing claims assistance. It states that, ``No individual
may act as an agent or attorney in the preparation,
presentation, or prosecution of any claim under laws
administered by the VA unless such individual has been
recognized for such purposes by the Secretary.'' The ``agent or
attorney'' qualifier is also included in the statutory
limitation on when fees may be charged for assistance under
section 5904.
Veterans Guardian does not act in either role. We do not
employ attorneys, so that category can be set aside. Our
employees do not act as agents. We provide advice to our
clients, but we do not file claims. We do not interact with the
VA on the veteran's behalf. We do not represent the veteran
before the VA. For those reasons we are not acting as an agent
or attorney as required to meet the Federal restriction on
claims assistance.
We also do not violate restrictions on assignment of
benefits. Veterans Guardian never acquires a right to receive
our clients' VA benefits' which is what the law prohibits.
Rather, clients pay us a fee equivalent to five times the
increase in monthly benefits obtained using our help. The fact
that the amount a veteran pays Veterans Guardian is based on
the increase in benefits does not mean that the company
acquires the right to receive those benefits from either the VA
or the veteran. A veteran can pay fees to Veterans Guardian out
of sources that are completely segregated from benefits
distributed by the VA. Once they start receiving benefits, they
can pay our fees in a lump sum or on a flexible schedule that
is independent from the VA's payment timeline. In other words,
veterans pay a fee for our service. They do not transfer their
benefits to us.
Even though our business is compliant with current law, it
has become clear to me that maintaining the status quo is not
sustainable for all parties involved. Divisive debates over the
years have not served veterans. Our focus should be on finding
solutions that make the system work better for veterans. H.R.
1656 introduced by General Bergman and Congressman Correa does
just that. It would allow companies like mine to become
accredited rather than legislating us out of existence. It
improves oversight and ensures veterans are receiving competent
assistance. It provides veterans the freedom to make informed
decisions on how they want to pursue their claims.
The House Veterans' Affairs Committee (HVAC) Committee
Discussion Draft is also well-intentioned and a step in the
right direction, and we have provided amendments for
consideration that would enable our full throttled support.
As for the GUARD Act, we support the intentions of the
bill, but the execution is flawed and has failed to receive a
markup in 6 years. Despite what some may allege, there is no
sweeping momentum for GUARD-style bills in the states. GUARD-
style bills were defeated in 20 states in 2024. In the last 2
years, only two states have passed laws that fully deny
veterans the choice to use a private company: New Jersey in
2023 and Maine in 2024. Both laws are being challenged in
court. While Congress is certainly not bound by the
developments in the states. I believe conveying what is
factually occurring in the states is important.
I look forward to a constructive discussion regarding the
bills on today's agenda and how all of us should be working
together to address the issues that veterans face and to
provide veterans with more options and protections from
predatory practices. I look forward to remaining engaged and
working with you, your staffs, and the other parties as we
address these important issues for our Nation's veterans.
Thank you, and I am happy to take any questions.
[The Prepared Statement Of William Taylor Appears In The
Appendix]
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Colonel Taylor.
Mr. O'Rourke, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PETER O'ROURKE
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify before you today. My name is Peter O'Rourke and I am
the president of the National Association for Veteran Rights,
NAVR; former acting secretary and chief of staff of the
Department of Veterans Affairs; a veteran of the Navy and the
Air Force. I am honored to be here to provide testimony
addressing the legislation that your committee is considering
today.
For the past 4 years, I have been part of a critical
conversation, one that should be centered on veterans' rights,
yet instead became a battleground over whether they should have
the freedom to choose alternatives outside the Department of
Veterans Affairs or the traditional VSO model when seeking
their service-connected disability benefits. In a world
evolving at breakneck speed, it is truly astonishing to me that
some would argue against applying technology, innovation, and
new ideas to improve veterans' services. Here we are, clinging
to outdated systems, resisting progress, and defending the past
at the expense of the future.
Over those 4 years, those who dare defend the notion of
private sector assistance, many of whom are veterans
themselves, have been vilified, slandered, and relentlessly
attacked by the very institutions supposed to support and
protect them. I have to ask, why do these groups believe they
alone should dictate this conversation? Believe me, they do.
I was there in the 2023 Hill Summit when these groups
shouted down a veteran who was describing his long, agonizing
struggle to obtain a correct disability rating. I read op-eds
from the same veterans groups that shamelessly accused their
fellow veterans of fraud, and even worse, wrongfully painting
them as criminals, while simultaneously pushing legislation
that would actually criminalize the assistance these veterans
provide their fellow brothers and sisters. I have personally
been accused of running a criminal organization by senior
members of veterans groups that oppose our position, a position
that simply stands for veterans choice. I have spoken with
countless lawmakers across the United States who relay to me
the lies, half-truths. and self-serving attacks that they have
heard from those who want to maintain their monopoly over this
process. Why?
2021 brought the first signs of resistance to the industry,
but the oldest of these companies had already been operating
for nearly 7 years when the first version of the GUARD Act was
introduced in the Senate. Some of these companies heard the
rhetoric then and simply believed that there was a
misunderstanding, that if they just explained why veterans were
choosing to pay for these services, if they just told the
stories they were hearing from veterans, all concerns would be
alleviated. The companies never were given a fair chance to
tell these stories.
Unfortunately, opponents of veterans' choice, many of them
are here today, have taken a divisive me first approach to
debating this topic at the expense of a veterans first
approach. The results have been predictably unproductive
because both sides have fought to have an utter stalemate, and
an unfortunate inaction forced honorable companies to take
matters into their own hands. From this inaction, companies in
the private benefits space created NAVR to fill the
accountability void that remained from the ashes of this long
and unrelenting fight.
Despite all these efforts to destroy the industry, veterans
are still utilizing these private companies. Veterans choose
these companies because they are tired of being let down by a
giant bureaucracy and they choose these companies because they
are tired of hearing excuses. Many of these companies have
helped tens of thousands of veterans and have thousands of
positive reviews that describe the quality and satisfaction
that veterans have with these companies. They are truly
accountable to the veterans that they serve.
Because veterans' choice has been resoundingly positive
policy and because President Trump's agenda seeks solutions of
tomorrow to solve the problems of yesterday, there is only one
piece of legislation that will be discussed that meets this
definition. The legislation is the PLUS Act, which preserves
veterans choice, creates guardrails and commonsense rules that
put veterans' needs first. This is why NAVR enthusiastically
supports the PLUS Act.
In closing, this industry has grown over the past decade,
employing thousands of veterans, including many veterans, and
has helped tens of thousands of veterans secure their correct
service-connected disability rating. This did not happen
because veterans are being misled or defrauded. Let me be
clear. We are talking about veterans. They are not naive. They
are not being fooled into seeking this help. No, veterans are
making conscious, informed decisions to seek help outside the
VA's current system, and no one should be outraged that they
now have a choice. The real question is not whether these
choices should exist. It is how we ensure that they work for
veterans, not against them.
My hope is that both sides of this debate can come together
to pass common sense legislation like the plus act so that we
can move forward, work as partners and take the next step of
challenges facing our Nation's past and present warfighters.
Thank you and I appreciate answering your questions.
[The Prepared Statement Of Peter O'Rourke Appears In The
Appendix]
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. O'Rourke.
Ms. Rauber, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DIANE BOYD RAUBER
Ms. Rauber. Thank you, Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member
McGarvey, and members of the subcommittee. NOVA appreciates the
opportunity to appear before the subcommittee and share our
expertise regarding VA accreditation and ethical representation
of veterans.
Our accredited members live, work, hire, and represent
veterans, family members, survivors, and caregivers in your
states and districts. Many are veterans, military spouses, or
members of veteran or military families. Title 38 of the U.S.
Code is clear that only accredited persons may assist Federal
veterans with their claims and appeals. Moreover, only
accredited individuals should be lawfully allowed to assist
veterans because it provides for regulation of those
individuals and recourse for veterans. Unaccredited claims
consultants want you to codify the business model they have
used for years in violation of Title 38. Today's hearing
centers on whether the law should be changed to allow a veteran
to hire a representative at the initial claim stage and, if so,
what is the most veteran-centric way to do so.
Since providing veterans with the right of judicial review
in 1988, Congress has decided three times to expand the
conditions under which veterans can hire accredited attorneys
and agents for representation before VA. Each time, Congress
amended the triggering event, but left the basic fee model
intact. Most recently in 2017, when passing the Appeals
Modernization Act (AMA), Congress declined to move the
triggering event to initial claims. Why? VA has long maintained
it must have an opportunity to decide an initial claim before
paid representation is available. This is based on the
statutory requirement that VA must assist the veteran in
developing the evidence to support an initial claim, which is
at the heart of the nonadversarial process.
Should Congress conclude that the time is right to expand
choices for paid assistance to veterans, the simplest option is
to again move the line by revising 5904 to allow for charging
at the initial claim stage. Such an amendment, discussed at
length in our written statement, is most veteran-centric. NOVA
does not support charging veterans prospective fees that would
frequently result in a veteran owing more than they receive in
their retro payment.
NOVA continues to support GUARD and the return of penalties
to the statute. We also support the provisions of PLUS and the
Discussion Draft that emphasize Title 38 preempts the patchwork
of disparate State bills currently under consideration that
propose to regulate this area.
NOVA does not support any system that would allow for
unaccredited assistance or would create tiers of accredited
representatives who handle only initial claims or only post
initial decision work. Such a model would force a veteran who
is completely happy with a representative to seek a new one for
further assistance if VA does not fully grant the claim, which
is a regular occurrence. This is inefficient, ineffective for
veterans, and the opposite of choice.
Unfortunately, we must again address absurd charges made
against our members. These companies are attempting to distract
you with uninformed and misleading accusations that attorneys
and agents purposely delay cases to earn higher fees. Let us be
clear, this is against VA's standards of conduct. VA can cancel
the accreditation of anyone who delays a proceeding without
good cause. State bars can discipline their members. Veterans
who believe their accredited representative has violated
standards or does not deserve a fee has due process and
recourse through VA and through the State bars. There is
currently no due process or recourse for veterans who have been
harmed by unaccredited actors.
Let us put the intentional delay myth to bed once and for
all. The reality is the VA claims adjudication process takes
time. According to testimony, these companies have been
assisting veterans with claims for a decade. There has been, in
fact, no appreciable reduction in the need for our members'
assistance appealing adverse decisions and also no proof these
companies' model or involvement has promoted greater accuracy
or reduced any backlogs.
NOVA has worked for many years with VA, Congress, and other
stakeholders to improve the adjudication process. We push for
quality and timely decisions for veterans and have appeared
before this committee several times to offer information and
solutions. We remain committed to continued collaboration on
these efforts.
Finally, NOVA will be holding a conference this September
here in DC. We usually invite your staff to stop by and sit in
on any sessions of interest. Please consider this an open
invitation to all of you to come, meet NOVA members from your
states, and hear firsthand about what they do to improve the
lives of our Nation's veterans, family members, survivors, and
caregivers at every level of the claims and appeals process.
Thank you again for the opportunity today and I would be
happy to answer any questions you have.
[The Prepared Statement Of Diane Boyd Rauber Appears In The
Appendix]
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ms. Rauber.
Mr. Murray, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PAT MURRAY
Mr. Murray. Thank you. Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member
McGarvey, and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the men
and women of the VFW, thank you for the opportunity to provide
remarks today.
The VFW continues to lead the charge against unaccredited,
unscrupulous actors we call claim sharks, who charge
servicemembers, veterans, and survivors illegal fees. Our
resolutions urge Congress to pass legislation that protects VA
beneficiaries from predatory companies and individuals
attempting to bypass the VA accreditation system and monetize
the disability and death benefits of veterans and surviving
families.
Due to the stalemate in Washington DC, our members have
worked to pass state-level legislation that installs consumer
protection to enforce the Federal statute. Currently, nine
states have laws that prohibit charging fees that are not
allowed by Federal law and have various degrees of penalties.
Washington, Iowa, Michigan, New York, Illinois, Nevada, New
Jersey, Maine, and Massachusetts have laws that require anyone
who charges fees to do so adhering to Federal law and
regulation. Conversely, one State, Louisiana, allows charging
up to $12,500 for an initial claim.
The VFW has expressed to the committee our red lines
regarding any accreditation bill put forth. Veterans should not
have to pay future benefits, Active-Duty servicemembers should
not have to pay for claims, and no one who prepares a claim
should have any financial affiliation with medical examiners
that could possibly affect the outcome of the claim. These are
commonsense concerns that we insist be in any bill advanced by
this committee.
In fact, VA agrees that payments of future benefits are not
allowed under current law. In a November 2023 letter from VA in
a response to a bipartisan, bicameral congressional inquiry,
the VA was asked, what is VA's official position on contracts
in which a veteran agrees to pay a product of the increase in
future benefits? The response was where a contract ties the
existence and extent of a claimant's payment obligation to the
award of VA benefits, it is logically construed as
contemplating those benefits as the source of the payment.
The statute allowing for the payment of fees to VA
accredited attorneys and agents for the preparation,
prosecution, or presentation of VA benefits claims from past
due benefits is considered an exemption to the prohibition on
assignments set forth in section 5301. Under current law, even
this exemption does not go as far to allow for an agent or
attorney to contract for the payment of fees from a claimant's
future benefits.
VA also stated, in addition, they have concerns that would
heavily depend on the different fee structures that could be
proposed. For instance, a fee based on a product of the monthly
benefits award, such as 5 times or 500 percent of the amount of
monthly increase of benefits, would likely be unreasonable or,
worse, predatory. They go on to state further, a flat fee
limit, such as a cap of $12,500 for services provided on an
initial claim, seems excessive and thus unfair to veterans.
These are VA's words, not the VFWs. Unfortunately, VA is not
here to present those views, so I am doing that for them.
The VFW strongly supports the GUARD VA Benefits Act that
seeks to reinstate penalties. We assert that this legislation,
which adds only one sentence to Title 38, is a sound policy
proposal that simply institutes a penalty for breaking current
law. Anyone who claims to be adhering to Federal law should not
be opposed to being subject to penalties of said law. This
would signify a substantial step forward, holding bad actors
accountable to the intent of the law. In fact, VA has stated
that in its budget request each year in its legislative
proposal section, since 2018, when Mr. O'Rourke was the acting
VA Secretary, they have asked for that legislative proposal in
their budget request. We agree that that would be beneficial
for veterans and survivors.
The VFW opposes the PLUS Act because of the concerns VA has
with the components of that proposal, such as allowing
assignment of benefits and unreasonable fee caps. The VFW
agrees with those concerns.
Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and members of
the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak on
these bills. I am prepared to answer any questions you might
have.
[The Prepared Statement Of Pat Murray Appears In The
Appendix]
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Murray.
We will move to a line of questioning. Thank you for your
opening testimony.
Mr. McGarvey, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McGarvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate everyone
being here today.
I want to say one thing off this, off the bat. Mr.
O'Rourke, you said that people are outraged that veterans have
a choice, and I just want to correct that. I am outraged that
veterans are feeling so desperate in getting their claims
adjudicated that they are willing to pay tens of thousands of
dollars to get those claims adjudicated. That is what makes me
outraged. These are veterans who have earned these benefits,
who have put on a uniform, who are willing to sacrifice
everything for us, and they are feeling so stymied right now,
they are willing to go to companies to pay this kind of money.
That is what has me outraged.
Let us get to the testimony. Colonel Taylor, page 6 of your
testimony states ``the PLUS Act lifts the outdated prohibition
on paid representation for initial disability claims.'' It
lifts the outdated prohibition. That sounds like you and I are
in agreement that charging for assistance on initial claims is
currently not legal, not allowed.
The Code of Federal Regulations states also that, quote,
``No individual may assist claimants in the preparation,
presentation, and prosecution of claims for VA benefits as an
agent or attorney unless he or she has first been accredited by
the VA for such a purpose.'' Now, I know in your testimony you
said that you all do not act as an agent or attorney. Just to
clear up some doubt, I just went to the Oxford Dictionary on my
phone, an agent is described as, ``A person who acts on behalf
of another person or group or a person or thing that takes an
active role or produces a specified effect.''
You can see behind me how the VA defines ``preparation''
from this, in particular, but I will read it for people around,
``Preparing a benefits claim generally includes, but is not
limited to, consulting with or giving advice to a claimant or
potential claimant in contemplation of filing a benefits claim,
gathering evidence in support of a benefits claim on behalf of
a claimant or potential claimant, or filling out VA forms for
their submission to the VA.''
We know what ``preparation'' means. We know an agent is
someone who acts on behalf of another person or a person or a
thing that takes an active role or produces a specific effect.
When you look at this definition, when you look at the
definition of ``agent,'' Colonel Taylor, I just have to ask
you, is your company doing any of these things?
Mr. Taylor. We fundamentally do not believe that we are
acting as agents or attorneys. We acknowledge that we are
helping with preparation. That is definitely clear.
Mr. McGarvey. Are you doing these things? In the
preparation are you preparing a benefits claim generally
includes, but is not limited to consulting with or giving
advice to a claimant or potential claimant in contemplation of
filing a benefits claim, gathering evidence in support of a
benefits claim on behalf of a claimant or potential claimant,
or filling out VA forms for their submission to the VA?
Mr. Taylor. We are assisting with the preparation. We do
acknowledge that.
We do not believe that we are acting as agents. When you
look at the definition of ``agency,'' agency typically requires
three parties: the agent who is acting on behalf of the client
and engaging with the third party, which in this case would be
the VA. We never represent the client, we never engage with the
VA, and we never represent before the VA. We do not meet the
three pieces of that triad that define agency. We are acting as
a consultant that helps the veteran prepare to navigate the
system on their own behalf in their own name.
When we talked about lifting the limitations within the
current law, that was in reference to what accredited agents or
attorneys can do. We believe that if we can change that, allow
us to become accredited, we would like to work within and under
the system with restriction.
Mr. McGarvey. I appreciate that. What you are talking about
is a belief, and what I am trying to talk about is a
commonsense definition of how we are representing people in
preparation of a claim, which it very much sounds like you are
doing, whether you are helping veterans or not. That is not
what I am asking. These are the current laws we have. It seems
you are doing these things on behalf of these veterans, and
that is not allowed under the current law.
Mr. Smith, I have a question for you, and this is a very
sincere question. We only have a minute. I am going to try and
get through it very quickly. Right now, you could apply for
free for accreditation to assist veterans. Instead, you are
choosing not to do so. I do understand that the accreditation
process can be time-consuming, so I am granting you that. I am
even going to go so far as to say we should tweak that system,
change the system. All right. Thousands of people have gone
through it. My very sincere question to you is why have not you
all?
Mr. Smith. Yes, thank you for that question. That is
exactly why we are here today, is to get a pathway for
accreditation for companies, for our company to help veterans.
Mr. McGarvey. There is a pathway for accreditation. It
exists right now and thousands of people have used it.
Mr. Smith. Yes. We are in full support of the PLUS Act or
the Discussion Draft to create additional pathways.
Mr. McGarvey. Why have not you gone through the pathway
now? I mean, it is a very serious question.
Mr. Smith. During my time at the VA, I was preparing claims
for a decision and I was on the other side making the decisions
for these claims. I spent years doing that. I have much respect
for the VSOs doing it for free. I was a member of a VSO. They
helped me with my claim along with the VA Home Loan and also
with education.
My experience at the VA, I saw a wide variety of quality
from the VSOs are from veterans doing it on their own. It
showed a big disparity between the training I received as a VA
employee versus--and the expertise I know of the VA regulation
to how they were being represented from VSOs. I saw a big need
for veterans to have the type of knowledge and expertise that I
had as a VA employee, which is why I started the company. I had
no idea what it would turn into. For 5 years, it just grew by
word of mouth. We have tens and thousands of happy veterans----
Mr. McGarvey. Mr. Chairman, I know we are out of time, and
all I am going to say is I appreciate people trying to help,
honestly trying to help veterans. I asked you why you have not
gotten any accreditation, and you just told me how good your
company is, but that did not answer the question. That is
something I want a sincere answer to the question to at some
point.
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. McGarvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Luttrell. Mr. Bergman, you are recognized, sir.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can I take a point of
personal privilege before my time starts?
Mr. Luttrell. You may.
Mr. Bergman. All right. I figured out why I could not
pronounce infantilizing. It has got five syllables. I am
limited to four. I just wanted to let you know that, so I
apologize. I am going to make sure my note writers, we limit it
to four syllables. Okay. I am ready for the clock to start.
Let us get to the point very quickly. I heard my colleague
talk about protecting veterans. When I think about protecting
things, whether it be our country, our little children, or
people who need assistance, we have to be very careful. I
believe that when we try to protect someone, we do not limit
their ability to become independent. I would suggest you we
have to be very careful here as a committee and what we do in
oversight and what we do as we look at things, do not let
protect be the roadblock that enables independency on the part
of the marketplace and the part of the veterans to interact
with them.
With that, Mr. Taylor, I will start with a simple question.
Does any part of the PLUS Act force veterans to pay a fee to
receive assistance in obtaining their disability benefits?
Mr. Taylor. It absolutely does not. One of the things that
we appreciate about the PLUS Act is that it maintains the
veteran's freedom of choice. They can pursue a claim on their
own. They can pursue it with the VSO from one of the veteran
service organizations or a State or county employee or their
congressional office. Or if they choose that those services are
not meeting their needs, they can choose to use a private
service like ours.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. I do not think anybody in this room
disagrees, you know, with the fact that we need to accredit
anybody in any place. Doctors need to be accredited. You know,
pick your--teachers need to be accredited. They need to show
that they can do the job. Can you speak to the need for changes
to the accreditation application system, for instance, through
the temporary and provisional accreditation included in the
PLUS Act?
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, sir. We do agree with the
requirement to be accredited. We do believe that accreditation
needs to be open to allow people to help at any step of the
process. That is really the limitation to becoming accredited
right now.
What is proposed in the PLUS Act would provide a
provisional path to allow us to become accredited, to operate
within the system, but also provides immediate protections that
if we violate any of the rules, there is a heavy penalty that
will be enacted if we do not act properly under the rules of
the PLUS Act.
Mr. Bergman. I know we are going to--because this is going
to--I had a zillion questions for all of you, but we are going
to stay focused on here. What steps, Lieutenant Colonel Taylor,
what steps does Vets Guardian take to make sure veterans can
pay the fees they agreed to without placing financial strain on
them or their family?
Mr. Taylor. We have developed a payment system that ensures
that no veteran is financially disadvantaged from where they
were when they started working with us. We do not believe in
collecting fees until a veteran--we have validated that the
veteran is getting their new benefits from the VA and that we
believe that any benefits that are--any fee that is paid to us
should be paid out of new benefits that the veterans are
receiving. We would be happy to see additions to this bill that
would codify some of those rules, require fees to be contingent
on a successful outcome and require them to only be collected
after the veteran is collecting their benefits.
Mr. Bergman. You have developed your business model and how
you are going to do this. Would you be open to adding
additional guardrails? We do--part of what we are looking here
to do is to create guardrails and guidelines. Would you be open
to additional guardrails to PLUS, ensuring agents who charge
fees take steps like what you just articulated?
Mr. Taylor. Yes, absolutely. For the last--since I have
been engaged in this process, we have been open to commonsense
guardrails. We do understand there is predatory practices and
that we need to protect veterans and we are open to anything
that addresses those concerns.
Mr. Bergman. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Murray, got a couple of just, you know, yes or no
questions. Does the VA accreditation system adequately ensure
agents are held accountable to veterans and the VA?
Mr. Murray. I wish VA was here to answer that.
Mr. Bergman. Yes or no.
Mr. Murray. I cannot say no. I cannot say no.
Mr. Bergman. No, no, you are providing a perspective based
upon your knowledge, your in-depth. I will repeat it. Does the
VA accreditation system adequately ensure agents are held
accountable to veterans and the VA?
Mr. Murray. We believe the system can.
Mr. Bergman. Does the VA accreditation system adequately
insure agents, yes or no? You are looking at--you are very
deeply into it. Or maybe simply, do you think it can do better?
Mr. Murray. It can always do better.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. Is it doing good enough now?
Mr. Murray. I do not think so.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back
whatever seconds.
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, General.
Mr. Pappas, sir, you are recognized.
Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you. I appreciate everyone's
testimony and the conversation here, and I really do hope we
can have a deliberative process as we move forward to figure
out legislation that is going to address this issue.
I started from this hearing about it from constituents,
hearing about it from veteran organizations about the problem
that does exist out there, where veterans are being charged
exorbitant fees to get access to the benefits that they have
earned. Many have talked about deceptive practices along the
way. That is a problem that I believe this committee needs to
work to address. We should do it by strengthening the
accreditation program and passing my bill which would put in
place those criminal penalties that were stripped out of the
law in 2006.
Now, we heard from companies and others have said that we
do not, you know, participate in the preparation, presentation,
and prosecution of VA claims. If that is the case, then there
is nothing to worry about with respect to reinstating criminal
penalties for those that are running afoul of the law. I think
my bill is pretty simple and straightforward.
Mr. Murray, I wanted to turn to you and just ask about your
team and the work they do to get accredited and to do the work
that they do. Just help us understand a little bit about what
goes on in terms of your organization and assisting veterans
with claims.
Mr. Murray. Sure. Thank you for that question, Mr. Pappas.
As VSOs, we have to go through 40 hours of training. A lot
of it now can be done self-paced online. You need to pass a
test, you know, with a certain percentage correct, and then
pass a background check. That is just the process for veterans
service organizations. The accredited attorneys and accredited
agents have a different process as well.
Mr. Pappas. Can you talk about the difference between pre-
filing consultations and claims preparation? We heard a little
bit about this today. Companies are arguing that because they
do not actually hit the send button on a veteran's application,
they are not actually assisting in preparation. How do you view
that issue?
Mr. Murray. We view not physically mailing the claim
itself, that is not the only part of preparing a claim. As VA
stated, gathering evidence, contemplation of a claimant,
providing assistance and advice, we believe that is also part
of the preparation because you are preparing the entire
package. I know that legally ``preparation'' has a certain
definition. We feel that the whole part of that is preparation,
as does VA.
Mr. Pappas. Mr. McGarvey talked about frustrations that
veterans have in terms of delays in getting claims processed,
in getting their benefits. I think that is an issue we have
been working on. We have to continue to address. Obviously, we
have asked VA to do more in passing PACT Act and other
legislation that has put a lot of pressure on the workforce at
VA. I am wondering if you can talk about capacity within the
VSO community, within the accredited agents and attorneys that
are out there. Do we have enough capacity to deal with some of
the new authorities that Congress has given VA?
Mr. Murray. I do not think so. There are a lot of places
where the entire system can get better. The VFW is not saying
that we can do this on our own. We are supported by an entire
network of county VSOs, State VSOs, our other partners like the
American Legion and Disabled American Veterans (DAV), and
accredited agents and attorneys. There are places all around
this country that can invest more in helping with those
services. Nothing that we are talking about today, whether it
is the GUARD Act or the PLUS Act or the Discussion Draft, will
make VA process these claims any faster.
The backlog, you know, does exist. There are claims that
are waiting for adjudication. Nothing on our front end is going
to make that any better. A fully developed, fully prepared
claim will, hopefully, get through correct the first time, but
it is up to VA to process that. No one sitting at this table
can speed up the actual process itself.
Mr. Pappas. Yes, that is the other essential element in
this conversation.
Ms. Boyd Rauber, can I turn to you? I appreciate your
reflections on the legislation before us today. You did say
there were elements of the PLUS Act that you could support, and
I am wondering if you could elaborate on that.
Ms. Rauber. Well, we appreciate the fact that they want to
put in the criminal penalties, just as you do in GUARD. We
also, again, have seen this move in the states to pass these
different bills, GUARD, PLUS. It is extraordinarily confusing
for veterans. It is confusing for advocates. We absolutely
think there has to be something in there that emphasizes that
Federal law, this is a Federal area of disability benefits,
trumps and preempts the State laws.
Mr. Pappas. My time is up. I may have some other questions,
but I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Mace, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a daughter of a
veteran, most of my family serves, I know how important it is
to correct--to protect, excuse me, our veterans. I applaud and
thank all of our veterans. This is standing room only today.
You men and women showed up, you served your country. You
showed up to protect your benefits and get what you deserve.
Thank you and God bless you.
My mission in life and my mission on this committee and
other committees I serve on is to protect veterans. It is also
to protect women. I have some questions for Colonel Taylor, who
is here today this morning. Thank you for being here. What
percentage of the benefits a veteran gets, when they come
through your company to get benefits, what percentage of their
benefits does your company receive when working with veterans?
Mr. Taylor. We do not work on a percentage basis.
Ms. Mace. How do you work on--how do you get your funds?
Mr. Taylor. We charge a contingent fee that is equal to
five times the monthly increase. That fee is only charged if
the veteran has a successful outcome and receives an increase
in their benefits. We only invoice that fee once we validated
that the veteran is getting their new benefits from that
filing.
Ms. Mace. What are your gross revenues for your company?
How much money are you guys making every year?
Mr. Taylor. We are a private company and we do make a
profit, but when we look at our fee----
Ms. Mace. Gross revenues?
Mr. Taylor. I am--my compensation is not publicly disclosed
because we are a private company.
Ms. Mace. How much money is your company making every year?
Mr. Taylor. I would be----
Ms. Mace. Ninety million, 100 million, or more?
Mr. Taylor. I would be prepared----
Ms. Mace. More or less than $100 million?
Mr. Taylor [continuing]. to discuss it offline. I am not
prepared to discuss that here today.
Ms. Mace. Of course not. All right. What percentage of your
cases are fraudulent?
Mr. Taylor. I would say that 0 percent of my cases are
fraudulent.
Ms. Mace. Mm-hmm. I have a question for you, a couple
questions for you. What is your company's position on people
who serve--well, do not serve, people who maybe attend a
college or an academy for a year or two but never graduate and
never serve and get 100 percent disability? What is your
position on that?
Mr. Taylor. That is not a position that my company should
determine. That is a position that is determined by the VA and
their regulations and the law and how that is administered.
Ms. Mace. Have you ever helped anybody who has not served
like that, that maybe went to college or an academy for a year
or two and got them 100 percent disability? Has your company
ever done that?
Mr. Taylor. I cannot speak on that. I would have to go
back. I could come back to you with an answer on that question.
Ms. Mace. I doubt you could. Would a football injury,
someone who was at college or an academy for a year or two and
got a football injury, deserve 100 percent disability, in your
opinion?
Mr. Taylor. In my opinion, no.
Ms. Mace. What if it was, like, from a car crash? Would
they deserve 100 percent disability?
Mr. Taylor. Once again, that is not for my company----
Ms. Mace. What if they just made it up and lied to get
their 100 percent disability and they only attended college and
academy for a year or two? What if they just completely 100
percent made it up and lied?
Mr. Taylor. That would be a fraudulent claim.
Ms. Mace. If there was a fraudulent claim and there was an
investigation, would you work with whoever's investigating it
to ensure it does not happen again and to reverse the claim?
Would you, I mean----
Mr. Taylor. Absolutely.
Ms. Mace. Mm-hmm. All right. I have some ethics questions.
I understand your CEO, Scott Greenblatt, has a degree in
criminal justice. Is that right?
Mr. Taylor. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Mace. What is your company position on rape?
Mr. Taylor. We are fundamentally against it.
Ms. Mace. What is your company position on voyeurism? Women
who are filmed illegally without their knowledge, permission,
or consent.
Mr. Taylor. Completely against it.
Ms. Mace. What is your company position on women who come
forward to report rape?
Mr. Taylor. We fully support that.
Ms. Mace. Or voyeurism?
Mr. Taylor. We fully support that.
Ms. Mace. Would you work with anyone--would you work with a
veteran who is accused of doing those things or something like
it? Would your company ever want to affiliate with an
individual like that?
Mr. Taylor. We would not.
Ms. Mace. You are saying you would not work with any
students who try to get 100 percent disability who are at
school for a year or two. Would your company ever work with any
veterans who are being investigated for breaking the law?
Mr. Taylor. I would--from a initial position, we should
not. I cannot say categorically that we have not in the past,
but we do not believe that someone was----
Ms. Mace. If you knew someone was being investigated, would
you help them get their benefits if they were being
investigated for heinous crimes against women?
Mr. Taylor. We should not be, no.
Ms. Mace. You should not be.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ms. Mace.
Dr. Dexter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Dexter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the ranking
member for convening this hearing today. Thank you to our
witnesses for coming and to our room full of veterans for
standing up for your benefits. Thank you for being here.
No veteran should have to pay to file a claim to access the
benefits that they have earned, full stop. Could we improve the
VA claim system to make it faster and easier? Absolutely. That
is why I am here in Congress, to make sure that government
works for Oregonians. You know what I am not here to do? Sit by
while Elon Musk takes a chainsaw to veterans' services or hands
a blank check to industries ignoring the law. I know that is
true because I hold town halls and I listen.
At my town hall on Saturday, the first person to speak was
a Marine Corps veteran who was unjustly fired from the Veterans
Benefits Administration. He had just taken a job. I know who I
am fighting for, and that is why I support the GUARD VA
Benefits Act. Last Congress, the GUARD VA Benefits Act had
overwhelming bipartisan support, 221 cosponsors in the House,
55 in the Senate, and backing from 44 bipartisan attorneys
general, including those from every State and territory
represented on this committee. Most importantly, it had the
robust support from veterans and VSOs.
Yet, instead of advancing this commonsense, bipartisan
bill, we are here debating other proposals to put corporate
profit ahead of veterans. A loophole that should not exist is
being exploited. Instead of fixing it, we are entertaining ways
to help companies continue to take from our veterans. To top it
all off, the VA is not even here to weigh in.
Ms. Boyd Rauber, I am sorry, I hope I said that right. Tell
me, what does this committee need to do to make it faster and
easier for veterans to file claims through the trusted
accredited system that exists?
Ms. Rauber. Well, I think that Congress has constantly been
looking at ways on how to make the system better. We really
strongly believe in accreditation and making sure that everyone
who is representing veterans is accredited because that system
requires people to become educated, to take the Continuing
Legal Education (CLE). Agents have to pass an exam. VA has to
oversee all of these things. In addition, for people who are
charging fees currently under the system, they must submit
every fee agreement that they sign with a veteran to the
Department of Veterans Affairs, who always has the right to
look at a fee and determine whether or not it is reasonable. We
really think that those safeguards are very critical to
protecting the system, protecting veterans.
Ms. Dexter. Great. Ms. Boyd Rauber, what risks do veterans
face when they file a claim with an unaccredited company?
Ms. Rauber. Well, again, because someone's not accredited
and to their points, they are standing in the shadows coaching
a veteran, consulting, but they are not the person who is going
to put their name on a power of attorney (POA) and represent
themselves to VA and say, I stand for this veteran. I am the
person you can contact when there is something wrong. I am the
person who is going to reach out to VA and say this particular
veteran needs to be advanced on the docket. We just see it as
accountability to stand up and say, I am representing this
person.
Ms. Dexter. Very good. This administration claims it is
tackling waste, fraud, and abuse. Again, they are showing their
true colors, taking money from veterans to pad the profits of
unaccredited, potentially predatory companies quite literally
writes waste, fraud, and abuse into the law. I will not
entertain bills that seem more interested in protecting a so-
called free market than ensuring veterans can access the
benefits they have earned.
Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ms. Dexter.
Mr. Self, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am actually delighted to hear that we are making progress
toward the, the PLUS Act or the Discussion Draft. I want to go
back to a different situation and it is the case that we have
in VA that we have debated now for 2 years, and it is veteran
suicide. The VA wants to keep veterans in the big VA. There are
veterans who want to go to a local clinic. There are veterans
who want to go to peer-to-peer Non-governmental Organizations
(NGO), counseling. They have choices. Here I think I have heard
that we agree that the accreditation process is inefficient and
changes need to be made. I always look to monopolies, need to
have competition. I hope that we can reach agreement on
whichever bill we can that will give our veterans choices
because our veterans need choices.
I am not sure I have a question for our panel, but I want
to say that I am encouraged with the conversation here. I think
that at the end of the day I will--and I look forward to our
hearing, a true hearing on these bills because I want our
veterans to have as many choices in every area as they can
have. Veterans are different. They have different interests,
they have different needs. I am actually encouraged here and I
want to see whatever bill this committee eventually advances,
Mr. Chairman, will give our veterans a choice.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Self.
Dr. Morrison, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Morrison. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you for
holding this hearing today and thank our witnesses for being
here. I also want to thank my colleagues for putting forward
their proposals. I appreciate hearing the views and
conversation that we are having.
As the wife of an Army combat veteran and the daughter-in-
law of a disabled Vietnam veteran, I know the VA claims process
can be challenging to navigate. Since we are talking about
benefits that veterans have earned, I think we need to make
sure that we are helping them avoid paying out of pocket for
what they are owed.
It strikes me, too, that part of the challenge we are
facing here is the increased and entirely appropriate need that
the PACT Act is designed to meet. The news that was leaked last
night, the administration plans to fire up to 83,000 more VA
employees, is perplexing to me at best and designed to gut the
VA at worst.
My question is for Ms. Rauber. In your testimony you
described the patchwork of State laws that have passed because
of congressional inaction, frankly, on the issue. It seems like
it is not for lack of support. I believe last Congress the
GUARD VA Benefits Act was cosponsored by the majority of
members in both the House and the Senate. My question for you
is, what are some of the other consequences that might result
from further congressional inaction on these issues?
Ms. Rauber. Well, I think that there is just more growth of
these companies. They perceive that they are outside the bounds
of the law, which we do not agree with, because it would seem
perplexing that Congress over all these years would have said
we do not want veterans to be paying for initial claims and
that by saying that they were somehow allowing for a loophole
that would be this big. We really think that there has to be
some kind of action to sort of get a grip on what has become a
growing industry.
Ms. Morrison. Thank you. This question has sort of been
asked, but I am hoping, Mr. Murray and Ms. Rauber, that you
could share some recommendations that you might have on how
VA--what could VA be doing to make this process more efficient
besides firing 83,000 people?
Mr. Murray. We think that would be harmful. What they have
been doing, as we have seen the backlog for claims cases, how
long it takes, I believe it was about 146 days a week ago. It
is slowly decreasing. The stories of claims taking 3 years to
adjudicate is a thing of the past. We want to see that
continue. Continuing to hire people at VA to review those
claims to hopefully make it faster.
We also would really appreciate things like adding
additional resources to, like, our county VSO system. Right?
There are plenty of states around the country that do great
things. The Texas Veterans Commission is a great example. Not
every State does that. We can here push out great resources to
help other states do that, so that there are so many more
resources for veterans to show up and get that help they need.
Ms. Rauber. If I could add, in 2017, President Trump signed
the Appeals Modernization Act. That was the product of a lot of
collaboration between Congress, VSOs, stakeholders. It actually
has made a lot of changes to the system that have greatly
improved it. I know this subcommittee is looking at even
further improvements to the AMA, some things that need to
happen. We wholeheartedly support that and would love to maybe
get some of these issues passed, so we can actually dig in on
some of the meat of those.
Ms. Morrison. I appreciate those answers. Thank you so
much.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Dr. Morrison.
Mr. Smith, do you believe that a veteran should be charged
a fee for helping filing an initial claim for presumptive
disability that VA assumes is related to their military
service?
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chairman Luttrell, for that question.
We do not believe that veterans should be paying for any
presumptive claims. These are in the spectrum of complicated
cases, VA claims, presumptives tend to be relatively simple
and----
Mr. Luttrell. Relatively simple. Do not ever say that again
out loud.
Mr. Smith. Regarding what it takes to be service-connected
versus a nonpresumptive claim and the scope of that, there is
not as many prongs that need to be met in order for a
presumptive condition to be met. It is fairly automatic when
you compare it to a disability you are claiming for military
service. For presumptive claims, we do refer them to veteran
service organizations and we refer all of our clients to any
that there are free services. The majority of our clients have
used them, such as myself.
Mr. Luttrell. Ms. Rauber, as a trade association of law
firms assisting veterans at no cost on initial claims, what
guardrails do you think should be in place if Congress passes
legislation that would allow charging fees on initial claims?
Ms. Rauber. Well, we think that the current guardrails that
are in place would be adequate if people are--if Congress
decides that they are going to allow for some charging system,
then what is under the accreditation system currently is
adequate. Everyone has to file a POA on every veteran they
represent. Again, to my earlier answer, because then you are
showing that you are the person that is representing the
veteran. You have to do CLEs. You have to, if you are an agent
and you are not an attorney, you have to pass an exam. You have
to submit all your fee agreements to the Department so they can
look at them. The Department has the right to decide whether or
not that fee is reasonable.
We think that the guardrails that are in place are solid
ones. It is the determination that you all have to make as to
whether or not you want to take that next step and allow for
veterans to pay for assistance with filing their initial
claims.
Mr. Luttrell. Mr. Murray, you were asked the question is
the accreditation process, does it need to be changed,
advanced, or moved forward? You said absolutely yes. Then you
were asked what do you think about it actually? You are like,
it is not good enough. My question to that is, if it is not
good enough, is it worthwhile at all? You have members on
this--you may have members in the hearing right now that do not
have the accreditation.
Mr. Smith, your answer was absolutely out in left field.
You are in the people's house and we want answers. That was not
one, sir.
Colonel Taylor, I am going to ask you, because if the other
companies are getting accreditation for accountability,
responsibility, and to be held accountable, I seem to think
that that is what the accreditation means. Do you have one?
Mr. Taylor. We believe----
Mr. Luttrell. Does your company have--is your company
accredited?
Mr. Taylor. We are not accredited right now.
Mr. Luttrell. Okay. You are going to need to tell me why
you are not. Because as the ranking member asked, there is a
process and thousands of companies have gone through it. In my
interpretation, it just means you do not want to be held
accountable if anything happens, which the accredited agencies
are going to be called to the carpet. Tell me why is the
process skewed, flawed in a way that you have not done it? I
have heard you say in your testimony that you plan on it. How
long has your company been under active?
Mr. Taylor. We have existed since late 2017.
Mr. Luttrell. 2017, Okay. You may answer.
Mr. Taylor. Yes. Under the current accreditation rules, we
are obviously not allowed to charge a fee to assist with an
initial claim. Our entire assistance model is focused on
helping veterans with initial claims. When I look at a veteran,
I am looking at three pillars.
Mr. Luttrell. I heard you speak on the triad, which I think
you are kind of skirting the line there a little bit, but go
ahead.
Mr. Taylor. Okay. Well, aside from the triad, I want to
look for things that a veteran should have claimed that they
did not. That is an initial claim.
Mr. Luttrell. Are you telling these veterans to collect
this information for you or you are actively doing it yourself?
Mr. Taylor. The veterans have to provide the information to
us, and then we help them develop it from there.
Mr. Luttrell. Just over the phone. You are not touching
anything. You are telling them you got a guideline you are
reading off of like, hey, this is what you are going to do. I
am trying to find out why you are not wanting to become
accredited.
Mr. Taylor. We want to become accredited, but----
Mr. Luttrell. No, you do not. You do not, sir.
Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
Mr. Luttrell. Unless I am absolutely missing something,
because the organizations that are sitting to your left are. In
2017, as you said. Tell me why.
Mr. Taylor. Because under the current accreditation
limitations, we cannot assist with initial claims, and that is
where we believe the veterans need the most assistance. For us
to most effectively help our veterans and look at them
holistically, I need to be able to assist them across the
entire process, both of what accredited agents are allowed to
do----
Mr. Luttrell. Legislatively, there is a problem,
apparently.
Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
Mr. Luttrell. That is something that you are asking us to
fix?
Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
Mr. Luttrell. Ms. Rauber, I would assume you would disagree
with that statement or Mr. Murray?
Ms. Rauber. Again, this is Congress' decision about initial
claims.
Mr. Luttrell. Congress listens to the people. We are
elected by the people. We are here to do the people's work.
Ms. Rauber. Our members are accredited and help veterans,
typically after they have been denied. As I talked about
earlier, there is an appeals process, so veterans have a lot of
choices to make when they get a denial. That is typically when
agents and attorneys have been involved in the process. A lot
of our members do initial claims pro bono, for free. It is just
a different way of representing veterans. Again, our members
are accredited and are putting their names out there to say we
represent this veteran and we will be held accountable for it.
Mr. Murray. Mr. Chairman, I would--the VFW's position is
exactly that everybody can get accredited. If Ms. Rauber and
the other accredited agents and attorneys said we want to talk
about extending fees within the current system, we are here for
that. Right now, people who are operating outside the system,
refusing to get accredited are saying you must change it before
we start following the law. We do not agree with that.
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Murray. I apologize. I went
over my time.
Mr. Pappas, sir, we are going to move into closing remarks.
Would you like to close out? Please do.
Mr. Pappas. Our closing. Well, I want to thank our panel
and certainly all the veterans that are in the room here today
for this important discussion.
I see this problem as one of veterans being taken advantage
of in our country and us needing to insist on some basic
guidelines here in Congress. Yes, to protect veterans and
ensure that they are able to seek the help that they need and
successfully obtain the benefits that they all deserve.
Now, I think there are some in this room that we have heard
from that think the problem is their company is not able to
make as much money as they possibly can on the backs of our
veterans. I just fundamentally believe that our veterans should
not be a profit center. There should be penalties for those who
are violating the law and ripping off our veterans. If
companies believe that they are not violating the law today,
then there is no reason why they should not welcome some
additional teeth in the law and some oversight by VA. I think
that the GUARD Act is pretty straightforward.
I also think that there was a lot said today about choice.
We should be taking steps to bolster the choice that veterans
have. We can do that by encouraging the hiring of more county
veterans service officers, by supporting VFW and other
organizations in the work that they do, by strengthening the
accreditation process to ensure that more can come into the
system under that umbrella. Ultimately, and this came out
today, working as hard as we can to strengthen VA's response
times and their customer service for the end veteran to
alleviate that frustrating process that so many endure.
I think that we have got an ability to work this through
and I hope that we will continue to engage the veteran
community ultimately in the work ahead on this subcommittee. I
just thank you for the opportunity to hear these bills today. I
think this was really instructive for us.
I yield back.
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Pappas.
You know, the VA, it is not a perfect machine. It is not.
It is big, it is bold, it is beautiful at times, and it fails
at times. I do not mind wire brushing it and calling everything
out. The VA, it is ours. I am looking at the 100-plus people
sitting in the room with us today. It belongs to us. We dictate
how it should be operated.
Now, these two pieces of legislation are amazing. Yes, the
veteran has every right to pick and choose exactly who moves
their claims through. Colonel, Mr. Smith, 100 percent they do.
They have that choice. They earn that right. They put that
uniform on, they can make those choices because, yes, they do
go to the VA. The VA has failed multiple times. We hear it
every day. It is no secret. We are trying to build out that
infrastructure in order to handle us. We are a very complicated
group of individuals, especially the Marines. We will not let
any organization take advantage of the most cherished asset we
have in our country, which is those individuals on the dais and
sitting behind you and amongst every other State in the
country. I hope I am very clear on that.
As we talk about this legislation, full committee, what we
will do, because we should not be having this conversation.
Now, whether if we messed up legislatively in the past, it is
because we are listening to you and we are listening to you
right now. Now it is our job on the subcommittee and the
committee to fix this problem. Because what we want at the end
of the day is for our veterans to be taken care of, their
quality of life increased so they can be happy until the day we
have to lay them down.
I want you to know, yes, I will get aggressive with you
because sometimes you deserve it. I can assure you I get my ass
handed to me every day because I am voted in by the people and
that is who I am speaking for, the 40,000 veterans in my
counties. Okay.
I would like to thank the ranking member again for this
hearing and the other members of this committee. I ask
unanimous consent that the statements for the record we have
received today be entered into the hearing record. Hearing no
objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that all members have 5 legislative
days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous
material. Hearing no objections, this meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
Prepared Statements of Witnesses
----------
Prepared Statement of Josh Smith
My name is Josh Smith and I am the CEO and Co-Founder of Veteran
Benefits Guide (VBG). VBG is a private company that assists Veterans in
navigating the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability claims
process.
I would like to thank Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey
and other Committee members for providing me this opportunity to share
my perspective on how best to regulate the private benefit services
industry and on the related bills now being considered by the
Committee.
On behalf of VBG and our Veteran clients, I am testifying today in
opposition to the GUARD VA Benefits Act and in strong support of the
PLUS for Veterans Act. I want to thank Representative Bergman for
introducing the PLUS Act and Representatives Mace and Self for
cosponsoring the bill. VBG also supports the Discussion Draft
legislation that has been shared and believes it represents a
reasonable compromise between the GUARD and PLUS bills.
While well-intended, the GUARD Act would severely and unfairly
limit choices Veterans have in seeking assistance with their VA
disability claims. Instead of only targeting bad actors, it would make
it illegal for Veterans to get advice or assistance from any private
services, including honorable companies like VBG. We believe that
Veterans need more help in getting the benefits they earned from their
service, not more limitations on their options and choice.
In contrast, the PLUS Act and the Discussion Draft legislation
provide the right balance between establishing necessary guardrails to
protect Veterans from bad actors and ensuring that honorable private
companies like VBG are allowed to continue serving Veterans. Each of
these bills includes strict disclosure requirements, fee caps, and
privacy protections that we support. In most cases, we are already
adhering to these terms.
Opponents of the PLUS Act and the Discussion Draft legislation
inaccurately insinuate that organizations such as ours choose not to be
accredited. That is false. VBG would welcome the opportunity to become
accredited but cannot because Federal law currently prohibits
accredited entities from charging a fee for helping Veterans on an
initial claim. The PLUS Act and the Discussion Draft legislation would
resolve this issue by providing a pathway for VBG and other good actors
to become accredited and come under the oversight of the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
The fact that VBG is not currently accredited does not mean we are
violating Federal law. We provide specially trained case managers to
guide Veterans through the claims process. But we do not act as the
Veteran's agent or representative, and we do not present before the VA.
Our Veteran clients file their own claims.
We believe Federal legislation is needed now to resolve this issue.
Different versions of the GUARD Act and PLUS Act have been introduced
in at least 30 State legislatures since the beginning of the year and
are making their way through the State legislative process. Without a
Federal solution, the result will be a chaotic patchwork of State
legislation, where Veterans will face no access at all to private
services in some states, a carefully regulated industry in others, and
a free-for-all for bad actors in others. Our Nation's Veterans are
being harmed every day this chaos and gridlock is allowed to continue.
I would also note that this is not a partisan issue. In State
legislatures across the country where these bills are being considered,
we have heard from Democrats and Republicans expressing a desire to
reach a compromise that both protects Veterans and preserves choice.
For example, at a hearing on the GUARD Act in the California State
Senate last year, the Democratic Judiciary Committee Chairman, Thomas
Umberg, stated:
``I do think we should create a system where Veterans have the
option of choosing someone who is accredited to be able to pay
them to help in this adversarial process that we all agree is
an adversarial process. And so rather than keeping Veterans at
a disadvantage, not allowing them to pay for the best
expertise, that we should put the Federal Government to their
proof... I think before this thing gets to the Governor's desk,
that we ought to make a point that California stands with
Veterans and would permit Veterans actually to pay for
expertise.''
At the same California hearing, the sponsor of the GUARD Act there,
Democratic Senator Caroline Menjivar, a U.S. Marine Corps Veteran,
acknowledged that she herself had used a private service and had a good
result, and expressed a desire to reach a compromise. She stated:
``Because I was one of those people. The 70 percent that used
the free service, and then I turned to a paid service. Because
just like Senator Wilk, I myself wanted to pay for it, and I
did get a good result... I will continue to find a way within
that box, there could be something I can change. Because you're
right, that is essentially what could happen, right? We're
addressing the bad apples and then the good apples go away... I
am committed to work alongside the opposition, which is made up
of Veterans, and the support, which is also made up of
Veterans, to find a common ground that elevates and supports
all Veterans.''
With the remainder of my remarks, I will detail a bit more about
who we are as a company, why we were formed and what we do, and why the
problems inherent in the VA disability claims system call for more
choices for veterans, not fewer.
In addition to being the CEO of VBG, I am also a Marine Corps
Veteran and a former VA employee. At the VA, I served as a Rating
Veteran Service Representative, where I reviewed disability
compensation applications and assigned disability ratings, determining
the amount of benefits Veterans would receive. In that role, I
witnessed firsthand that the VA's disability compensation benefits
process is inefficient and often running counter to the agency's
mission of helping Veterans.
While we were certainly helping some Veterans, far too many were
being denied benefits they earned due to an absurdly complicated
system. Through no fault of their own, Veterans were receiving lower
disability ratings than they deserved or were simply waiting years to
receive final determinations on their benefits.
That is why I left the VA and, with my wife Lauren, created Veteran
Benefits Guide to help guide Veterans through the process and ensure
they receive the full benefits they earned from their service in a
timely manner. Much like a tax service provider, we help Veterans
travel through a confusing bureaucracy to get what they are owed.
We have grown our company and now have more than 200 employees,
with offices in Nevada and California. Roughly 80 percent of our
employees are Veterans or immediate family members of Veterans. And we
employ former VA personnel, like myself, helping to ensure we keep up-
to-date with VA regulations and the practice of the VA disability
compensation system.
I am proud of our record and the service we provide to Veterans. We
have an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau and consistently have
perfect or near-perfect ratings from our clients on Google and
Facebook. We have been recognized as a Military Times ``Best for Vets''
employer, named as a finalist for the Better Business Bureau ``Torch
Award for Ethics,'' and ranked as one of the ``Best Places to Work in
San Diego'' by the San Diego Business Journal.
It is also clear that our service is needed. As the Committee is
aware, the VA still faces a backlog of more than 250,000 claims and a
claims inventory of almost one million. Despite their best efforts,
Veteran Service Organizations do not have enough manpower or resources
to keep up with the demand for help.
Many VSO representatives simply do not have the appropriate amount
of time to spend on each case. These representatives are also
volunteers with differing levels of expertise who are supported with
limited State resources and must often rely on archaic technology and
infrastructure. The result is that many Veterans have been misguided in
filing their claims, requiring them to accept lower benefits than they
deserve or undertake a costly appeals process.
In 2023 congressional testimony, the National Association of County
Veteran Service Officers acknowledged that they face ``disparities in
staffing levels, technology, education and outreach'' that ``have
become even more acute in recent years,'' and that they are
``scrambling to meet an influx of requests from Veterans for support.''
In fact, more than 70 percent of our clients first tried navigating
the VA benefits process with the help of a VSO representative. They
were either denied their full benefits or felt the process was taking
too long.
To help address this problem, we provide specially-trained case
managers to guide Veterans through the claims process. Up to six of our
benefits specialists review and assist on each case. And our staff are
often more knowledgeable of the VA process than VSO representatives.
Our Veteran clients also receive thorough and timely medical exams
from a trusted nationwide network of more than 150 independent medical
service providers. To be selected for our network, providers go through
a rigorous credentialling and due diligence protocol that mirrors the
credentialling process conducted by the VA. In fact, our company has
previously served as a subcontractor to the VA to provide medical
personnel to conduct exams.
Following these exams, our Veteran clients submit fully developed,
accurate claims to the VA, which helps avoid the need for appeals and
speeds up the final benefits decision. Our role in the process helps
cut back on VA paperwork and labor needs, and reduces the VA case
backlog.
VBG's process, from the time a client comes to us until the VA has
decided on their claim, typically takes about 6.5 months. In
comparison, an attorney or agent appealing an incorrect rating at the
Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) will typically take more than 3 years
to achieve the same result, on top of the time spent by the Veteran
filing their initial claim.
It is important to recognize that attorneys may only be paid to
assist Veterans during the appeals process, which provides a perverse
incentive for them to offer uneven or incomplete help at the initial
claims stage. And attorneys are then incentivized to drag out appeals,
since they are paid up to 33 percent of the Veteran's back pay. The
longer an appeal takes, the more the attorney is paid.
In congressional testimony in 2023, Kenneth Arnold, the Vice
Chairman of the BVA, also noted that a small number of boutique law
firms are getting paid millions of dollars while their Veteran clients
see no increase in benefits. He stated:
``The courts clerk annually approved 6500 to 7300 attorney fee
requests each year, almost all for remanded cases. This
generates $45 to $50 million in attorneys' fees each year, with
the majority going to a small number of boutique law firms, but
relatively few Veterans receiving any increase in their monthly
compensation from a new board decision post-remand.''
BVA's 2023 Annual Report further noted that some attorneys cancel
or postpone BVA hearings at the last minute, allowing them to profit
from bigger backpay while harming other Veterans waiting for hearings.
The report stated:
``[S]ome Veterans are represented by accredited
representatives, who sometimes after waiting years for a
requested hearing, waive the requested hearing or seek a
postponement once it finally gets scheduled. Crucially from the
Board's perspective, nearly half of the scheduled hearings that
are ultimately canceled or withdrawn are done so with
insufficient time for the Board to fill that empty slot with
another patiently waiting Veteran. In these cases, the Board's
judges have spent precious time reviewing case files and
preparing for hearings not held, where that time could have
been better utilized reviewing, editing, and signing draft
decisions to resolve appeals for other waiting Veterans.''
BVA's report found that 31.5 percent of hearings were canceled,
withdrawn or postponed by attorneys in 2023, representing more than
32,500 cases where another Veteran was unfairly delayed in receiving
consideration of their own claim.
In contrast, VBG's sole focus is on getting the Veteran's claim
right the first time, avoiding the need for a lengthy and costly
appeal.
In exchange for our service, we are paid a one-time nominal fee,
but only if the Veteran receives an increase in their disability
benefit. We charge no upfront fees.
VBG advises Veterans up-front in writing about the availability of
free services and how to locate those services. We have never taken a
Veteran to court to collect unpaid fees and we automatically write off
10 percent of fees due.
To date, we have guided more than 45,000 Veterans through the
claims process. These Veterans have received an average increase in
monthly benefits of $1,300, benefits they would not have received
without our help.
The value we bring to our Veteran clients is best reflected in
their own words.
Leo, an Air Force Veteran from Nevada, stated:
``There are some organizations out there that say, `Don't go to
these companies that you have to pay for. You should be doing
it on your own.' And my argument is I did go on my own and try
to file my claim, and I did not get help. Many people,
including VSOs, promised to help me, but they didn't actually
help. It wasn't until I found VBG that I got the rating I
deserve. If it's my money, it should be my choice what I do
with it. I want every Veteran to have the ability to make that
choice.''
Lynn, a Navy Veteran from Arizona, stated:
``I have used both a VSO and VBG. The VSO did an adequate job,
but what I loved about VBG is that they were upfront and guided
me through the process. They told me how it works and explained
what they were doing...[T]hanks to VBG's help, I can
realistically look at retiring. I won't be rich, but I can get
by and be comfortable. This service also allows Veterans the
right to choose how we file our benefits, and I think that, in
this country, is so important. If I want to pay, I'll pay. If I
want to use a free service, I will. This option should be
available to everybody.''
Sam, an Army Veteran from Florida, stated:
``Companies like VBG fulfill a service that we desperately
need. We're thrown to the wolves when we come home. We're
expected to be subject matter experts on our own benefits. I
had no clue how to file my disability benefits claim and was
basically flying blind . . . I thought about going through a
VSO, but I knew that I could write my claim just as well as
they could... VBG was honest, and their contingency model is
far more clear than an attorney who blanket-states that they're
going to take 30 percent of your backpay. I paid less than VBG
initially quoted me, and I thought what they quoted me was
perfectly fair. I didn't realize how easy it could be.''
I want to close by emphasizing again that we need a Federal
resolution to this issue. Veterans are being disserved by the chaotic
patchwork of State legislation that is emerging. They are being
disserved by confusing legal arguments as to what is or isn't permitted
under Federal law. We need a Federal law like the PLUS Act or the
Discussion Draft that will ensure trustworthy companies meeting
standardized guidelines are allowed to continue serving Veterans, while
driving bad actors out of the marketplace and protecting Veterans from
fraud.
Veterans are mature enough to navigate the choices available to
them for claims assistance. And they understand that, with reasonable
guardrails in place, they should be free to contract with whom they
wish for that help. That was the guiding principle in 2006 when
Congress loosened restrictions on Veterans being able to pay for help
with their claims. It should be the same guiding principle today.
Thank you for considering my testimony as you deliberate about this
significant legislation impacting our Nation's Veterans. I do have
technical and clarifying suggestions on both the PLUS Act and the
Discussion Draft, but would be happy to work with the subcommittees
members and staff on those items at your later convenience. And I would
be happy to answer any questions or provide the Committee with
additional information.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Patrick Murray
Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and members of the
subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States (VFW) and its Auxiliary, thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony with regard to this pending
legislation.
The VFW continues to lead the charge against unaccredited,
unscrupulous actors we call Claim Sharks who charge service members,
veterans, and survivors illegal fees. Our resolutions urge Congress to
pass legislation that protects Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
beneficiaries from predatory companies and individuals attempting to
bypass the VA accreditation system and monetize the disability or death
benefits of veterans and surviving families.
Due to the stalemate in Washington DC., our members have worked to
pass state-level legislation that installs consumer protection to
enforce the Federal statute. Currently, nine states have laws that
prohibit charging fees that are not allowed by Federal law and have
various degrees of penalties for violating its State law. Washington,
Iowa, Michigan, New York, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Maine, and
Massachusetts have laws that require anyone who charges fees to do so
adhering to Federal law and regulation. Conversely, only one State,
Louisiana, allows charging up to $12,500 for an initial claim.
The VFW has expressed to the committee our redlines regarding any
comprehensive bill put forth seeking our support. Veterans should not
have to pay future benefits, active duty service members should not
have to pay for claims assistance prior to transition, and no one who
prepares claims should have any financial affiliation with medical
examiners that could possibly affect the outcome of the claim. These
are commonsense concerns that we insist be in any bill advanced by this
committee.
Discussion Draft, To amend title 38, United States Code, to allow for
certain fee agreements for services rendered in the preparation,
presentation, and prosecution of initial claims and supplemental claims
for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, and for other purposes.
The VFW does not support this legislation as written. We appreciate
the committee's attempt to provide a compromise, but this bill is still
slightly off target. There are portions of this draft bill that we do
support and believe could provide necessary protections for veterans.
However, the major redline we cannot support is the fee of five times
future benefits for claims preparation.
We support the provision in this draft to ensure veterans are fully
informed of their options when filing a claim. Notifying veterans of
all the choices they have to assist them in filing a VA claim would
hopefully result in more veterans accessing the care and benefits they
have earned. Additionally, requiring VA to maintain a system through
which a claimant may report unaccredited entities charging illegal fees
is positive. Currently, the staff at the VA Office of General Counsel
(OGC) is inept at dealing with this issue and needs assistance to
perform this basic task. We urge this committee to provide that office
with additional resources so it can be adequately staffed with
competent employees who have 21st century tools to accomplish their
day-to-day tasks.
We also support VA providing warnings to veterans in order to make
them aware of unaccredited entities who are in violation of the law.
The VA OGC has sent numerous cease and desist letters to individuals
and companies, including two of the witnesses at this hearing, but
never bothered to follow up with any further actions. That office and
the staff who work there abdicated responsibility for the past decade
concerning this issue. The OGC has been unhelpful and unresponsive
about this aspect of accreditation. We believe the responsibility for
overseeing and maintaining accreditation should be removed from OGC,
and instead placed under the authority of the Veterans Benefits
Administration and tasked to an appropriate office that can competently
carry out this mission.
We support individuals seeking accreditation to be allowed a
conditional and temporary status that may be extended if necessary. The
inefficient staff at OGC cannot process accreditation applications for
agents in a timely manner. Providing flexibility would allow upstanding
individuals seeking to become accredited agents the ability to still
work with claimants under the law while they await the process to be
completed.
We support extending accreditation to employees of non-profit
organizations who are seeking to assist veterans, caregivers, and
survivors but do not primarily work with VA claims. The VFW has worked
with other organizations to provide accreditation under our authority
so they can also assist people filing claims. The VFW extended
accreditation to case workers from Wounded Warrior Project before they
were able to do so on their own. We have also offered a similar dynamic
to our partners from Student Veterans of America and the Tragedy
Assistance Program for Survivors. There are numerous organizations that
could benefit from having accredited staff on board to help with claims
assistance for the beneficiaries they represent. This proposal would be
a step in the right direction.
We fully support the portion of this draft bill that would prohibit
charging service members for claims through the Benefits Delivery at
Discharge (BDD) process. BDD claims are processed separately and faster
that other VA claims. Additionally, the claimants are still on active
duty, so the conditions applied for are mostly incident to service and
would automatically be service connected.
We support protecting veterans' legal option to terminate the
representation agreement prior to a decision being rendered to the
claimant. This is similar to the protection afforded to veterans who
work with accredited agents and attorneys, and this is important to
maintain. The VFW has worked with too many veterans who had severed
relationships with Claim Sharks only to have them reappear years later
seeking fees for work they did not perform. Additionally, we support
prohibiting charges for existing claims and work that was not directly
performed by said individuals.
What we do not support in this draft bill is the prospective fees
of 5 months of future benefits. Charging fees from future benefits is
illegal and predatory, and has the potential of putting veterans in
debt. We will never support a paradigm that could put veterans in debt
simply for accessing their earned benefits, and neither should this
committee.
Charging future benefits is called ``Assignment of Benefits'' and
it is prohibited by VA and the Social Security Administration. It is
also prohibited in civil court case claims such as tort, workers'
compensation, mesothelioma, and asbestos. According to VA, under Title
38 of the United States Code (U.S.C), Section 5301(a), a contract with
a claimant generally may not obligate that claimant to pay fees from
their VA benefit payments. The only legal option for charging fees in
these cases is from payments for retroactive benefits.
The reason for allowing fees only from retroactive benefits is
because it is guaranteed the claimant has the money in hand to pay the
bill. Every VA claim comes with a retroactive payment based on how long
it took to process the claim. The current processing time for a claim
is 146 days, which means a veteran would receive an average of 146
days' worth of benefits. If a claimant is charged a future amount of
benefits, that individual might not have enough money to cover that
cost when they are billed.
Veterans Guardian states that its average time to complete a claim
is approximately three months. That means a veteran who works with
Veterans Guardian would receive retroactive payment for 3 months of
benefits from VA, but then get charged a fee of 5 months of benefits by
Veterans Guardian. Consequently, veterans could be in debt for 2 months
of benefits to companies such as this, in addition to late fees and
penalties for not paying the full amount that some of them charge. This
prospective fee structure is illegal, predatory, and could lead to
veterans being in debt.
A percentage of fees charged out of the retroactive payment is the
only guaranteed method to ensure the veteran has enough money to cover
whatever fees may be assessed for services. Accredited agents and
attorneys are allowed to charge 20 percent of a retroactive payment if
VA processes the payment, and 33 percent of the retroactive payment if
the client is billed directly by the accredited agent or attorney. This
is the fee structure the VFW has been amenable to with other accredited
individuals, and this is what we believe would be reasonable for
initial claims as well. Putting veterans in debt is the last thing this
committee should propose, and the VFW and our allies would oppose any
bill that financially harms veterans.
The VFW questions how this discussion draft arrived at 5 months of
future benefits and $10,000 as a reasonable fee. VA regulation--Title
38 Code of Federal Regulations 14.636-- currently outlines nine
specific factors that determine whether a fee is reasonable, including
factors of the complexity of the case; the level of skill and
competence required of the representative in giving the services; the
amount of time the representative spent on the case; the level of
review to which the claim was taken and the level of the review at
which the representative was retained; or the rates charged by other
representatives for similar services.
To be frank, when considering factors like skill and complexity
coupled with VA's statutory duty to assist, we cannot ascertain how
this fee structure could ever be considered reasonable. Instead, we see
this as just a rehash of what the Claim Sharks have lobbied for in
states around the country. This is what these companies want to charge,
so this is all they will accept.
To the VFW, this has never been about the money. Accredited agents
and attorneys can make a healthy living operating within the ethical
confines of the established, non-predatory fee structure. When payment
comes from retroactive benefits, it is hard to consider it predatory
since the veteran is guaranteed to be able to settle the debt.
H.R. XXX, Governing Unaccredited Representatives Defrauding (GUARD) VA
Benefits Act
The VFW strongly supports this legislation that seeks to reinstate
penalties against unaccredited representatives who charge unauthorized
fees for aiding veterans filing for VA disability compensation claims.
Prior to the enactment of Public Law 109-461 on December 22, 2006,
Title 38 U.S.C. included criminal penalties against the involvement of
unaccredited representatives in the claims process. Unfortunately, the
elimination of these criminal penalties so that accredited attorneys
and agents could charge fees for appeals provided a loophole through
which unaccredited representatives could illegally charge for claims
preparation without penalty. This problem was exacerbated following the
increase in claims attributable to the passage of the Honoring our PACT
Act of 2022.
The VFW asserts that this legislation, which adds only one sentence
to Title 38 U.S.C. is a sound policy proposal that simply institutes a
penalty for breaking current law. It would signify a substantial step
toward holding these unaccredited representatives accountable to the
intent of the law and to ethical practices.
H.R. XXX, Preserving Lawful Utilization of Services (PLUS) for Veterans
Act of 2025
The VFW does not support this legislation that seeks to implement a
fee structure for providing initial claims assistance under the guise
of veteran choice.
Chairman Luttrell and Ranking Member McGarvey, this concludes my
testimony. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Information Required by Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives
Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the VFW
has not received any Federal grants in Fiscal Year 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.
Statements for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Disabled American Veterans
Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey and Members of the
Subcommittee:
DAV (Disabled American Veterans) is grateful to provide testimony
for the record for this legislative hearing concerning different pieces
of legislation pertaining to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
accreditation. DAV is a congressionally chartered and VA-accredited
veterans service organization (VSO). We provide meaningful claims
support free of charge to more than 1 million veterans, family members,
caregivers and survivors.
To fulfill our service mission, DAV directly employs a corps of
benefits advisors, national service officers (NSOs), all of whom are
themselves wartime service-connected disabled veterans, at every VA
regional office (VARO) as well as other VA facilities throughout the
Nation, including the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board).
First, we draw attention to the unique, veteran-centric
relationship between the VA and veterans of all generations. As
promised by VA Secretary Doug Collins, the veteran is at the center of
all VA programs. In order to qualify for compensation benefits, and a
majority of other VA programs, such as health care and employment
assistance, veterans must apply for and be found eligible for service
connection for one or more service-related illness or injury. During
the process of deciding service connection, the VA is bound by law to
assist the veteran in application completion, evidence gathering, and
medical examinations. VA is also bound by law to resolve all reasonable
doubt in all instances in favor of the veteran.
For the VA to ensure veterans receive responsible, qualified
representation and assistance when applying for VA benefits, Federal
laws were created requiring anyone who assists them in preparing,
presenting, or prosecuting those claims to be properly accredited
through the VA Office of General Counsel (OGC). Those same laws govern
whether, when, and how much veterans can be charged for that
assistance.
In 2006, the criminal penalties for violating those laws were
removed, leaving the VA OGC virtually powerless to enforce the law
against anyone except those who voluntarily followed those laws and
became accredited. That left the door open for unaccredited, often
unscrupulous, actors to target veterans and illegally charge them for
claims assistance.
A warning from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, dated
February 15, 2023, states: ``Unfortunately, there has been an influx of
predatory advertisements, which purport to help veterans often through
the guise of `medical consulting' or `benefits coaching' submit their
initial claims to the [VA] for a fee. But unauthorized assistance in
claim preparation is illegal.'' We have been advised and in fact have
seen that they have contracts the veteran signs showing they are going
to take six times the amount of a veteran's increased benefits.
As these predatory companies operate outside of accreditation, they
do not fall under the OGC's oversight. Additionally, these entities are
not required to have employed individuals take VA training, follow VA's
required code of conduct, nor undergo background checks. We are
concerned that the OGC's purpose to protect veterans and their families
has been intentionally circumnavigated, thus placing veterans at risk
of financial exploitation.
The Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 was
signed into law (Public Law No. 115-55) on August 23, 2017, which
allows VA-accredited attorneys or claims agents to charge fees for
representation in the case of; a supplemental claim and higher level of
review or after a notice of disagreement has been filed after an
initial final decision on a specific claimed issue.
There is already a clear path for these individuals to become VA
accredited and provide assistance. If these companies are solely
concerned with assisting veterans, they would already be accredited;
however, this path does not allow them to charge exorbitant fees for
merely filling out paperwork. We must hold all of these predatory
companies accountable for their knowingly illegal actions and take
appropriate action to ensure they are not allowed to further exploit
our Nation's ill and injured veterans.
The Governing Unaccredited Representatives Defrauding VA Benefits Act
or GUARD VA Benefits Act
By amending 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5904 (2023), the GUARD VA Benefits Act
would reinstate criminal penalties on individuals for soliciting,
contracting for, charging, or receiving any unauthorized fee or
compensation with respect to the preparation, presentation, or
prosecution of any claim for VA benefits.
In August 2023, the National Association of Attorneys General sent
congressional leadership a letter of support for The Guard VA Benefits
Act. They point out that these unaccredited claims predators are
financially exploiting veterans and their families. This letter was
signed by 44 State Attorneys General.
In accordance with DAV Resolution No. 324, DAV strongly supports,
the GUARD VA Benefits Act, which will help ensure disabled veterans
receive VA-accredited representation while deterring predatory
practices that seek to pick the pockets of our Nation's heroes of their
earned benefits. DAV vehemently believes that no one should be charged
to file a claim in a non-adversarial process.
For many of our Nation's disabled veterans, VA disability
compensation can be the difference between making ends meet and more
severe outcomes such as homelessness. That's why it is so vitally
important that veterans are properly represented by accredited
individuals and institutions when applying for VA benefits.
Some opponents of the GUARD VA Benefits Act argue that it impinges
upon a veteran's right to choose their own representative. We believe
the GUARD VA Benefits Act simply removes unaccredited, unregulated, and
often unscrupulous actors who target veterans from entering the
process. Unfortunately, veterans who do not understand the veteran-
centric promise made by VA Secretary Collins fall victim to constant
advertisements, primarily on social media, making unrealistic and
baited promises. The passage of the GUARD VA Benefits Act holds bad
actors accountable to the law and allows for redress when veterans find
themselves victims of those bad actors.
In the 118th Congress, this legislation had over 220 bipartisan co-
sponsors. We urge members of the House to again protect veterans and
their families and focus on Secretary Collins' vision of placing
veterans in the center of all things VA.
Preserving Lawful Utilization of Services for Veterans ACT of 2025 or
the PLUS Act
This legislation alleges that the administration of medical
examinations and the writing of related reports do not constitute the
preparation, presentation, or prosecution of claims.
DAV takes great exception to the deliberate blurring of the
definition of what constitutes preparation, presentation, and
prosecution of claims by those who claim to be completing a report. The
deliberate blurring of the definitions clearly displays that those who
are unwilling to be accredited in accordance with the current law, are
knowingly, willingly, and consistently breaking the law, should not be
allowed into any current or future accreditation model, and should be
held accountable once the GUARD VA Benefits Act, or similar
legislation, is passed.
Additionally, the bill introduces a 90-day deadline for the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to recognize agents or attorneys applying
for VA accreditation with automatic recognition if qualifications
cannot be verified within this period.
The VA has no obligation to provide manpower, resources, or funds
to assist those seeking accreditation especially when they are
knowingly breaking current law. An arbitrary 90-day waiting period is
of no advantage to veterans seeking benefits they have earned as free
assistance is available.
The PLUS for Veterans Act would revise fee structures for
representation, capping fees at $12,500, adjustable annually based on
the Consumer Price Index, and would stipulate that fees are contingent
on favorable claim outcomes. It would reinstate penalties for charging
unauthorized fees, with fines or imprisonment for violations, effective
1-year post-enactment.
DAV strongly supports current law, which clearly outlines what
steps are necessary to become accredited and when it is appropriate to
charge fees. We find it egregious to charge any amount for assistance
in filing claims, but a charge contingent on favorable outcomes is
particularly degenerate. This practice means that those veterans who
fell prey to predatory practices, and who are ultimately found ill or
injured in service to our Nation, are not only paying the salaries of
predatory claims employees, but they are also paying for the
examinations and claims preparation of those veterans who use the
predatory service but do not ultimately meet the criteria for service
connection. What a veteran has earned through blood and sacrifice to
our Nation belongs to them; any redistribution is unacceptable. Based
on DAV Resolution 324, we oppose this legislation. No veteran should be
charged any amount for filing a claim, especially unjustified fees of
thousands of dollars.
Discussion Draft, to allow for certain fee agreements for services
rendered in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of initial
claims and supplemental claims for benefits under laws administered by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
This discussion draft attempts to be a compromise but in reality,
it favors these predatory claims companies being allowed into the VA
system to further exploit veterans. For example, it would introduce a
180-day deadline for the VA Secretary to recognize agents or attorneys
applying for VA accreditation with automatic recognition. If
qualifications cannot be verified within this period; it would grant
them temporary conditional recognition for a year.
Regardless of a 90-day or 180-day deadline, the VA should have no
obligation to provide manpower, resources, or funds to assist those
seeking accreditation, especially when they are knowingly breaking
current law. An arbitrary 90-or 180-day waiting period is of no
advantage to veterans seeking benefits they have earned as free
assistance is available.
This proposed legislation would allow the VA Secretary to charge an
assessment for accreditation and impose $50,000 fines and banish an
individual for a year. However, many of these predatory companies are
taking millions of dollars from veterans and a $50,000 fine is not much
of a deterrence.
Additionally, we take umbrage with this proposed legislation's
requirement that VA cannot hold against these claim companies, the fact
they are/were illegally charging fees prior to the potential enactment
of said legislation. If they are/were knowingly breaking the law, they
should not be rewarded by allowing them in the VA system.
These companies have broken current law, exploited disabled
veterans, and received hundreds of millions of dollars as a reward. It
is abundantly clear that the current law means nothing to the companies
who seek to gain from veterans' sacrifice and any change in law to
accredit them will last only as long as these bad actors can generously
profit. Once the process is no longer lucrative enough, we can surmise
they will again break the law and then seek to legitimize their new
business model as they have done here.
DAV opposes this discussion draft in accordance with DAV Resolution
324, as it would reward companies that have been breaking the law and
taking millions out of the pockets of veterans and their families.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we thank you for the opportunity to
submit a statement for the record addressing our concerns on the bills
being considered by the Subcommittee.
Prepared Statement of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]