    [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 26, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-14

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

                        Available via http://govinfo.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    60-686                  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 26, 2025

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Morgan Luttrell, Chairman..........................     1
    The Honorable Morgan McGarvey, Ranking Member....................     2

                                   WITNESSES
                                    Panel I

    The Honorable Keith Self, U.S. House of Representatives, (TX-3)..     4
    The Honorable Young Kim, U.S. House of Representatives, (CA-40)..     4
    The Honorable August Pfluger, U.S. House of Representatives, (TX-
      11)............................................................     5
    The Honorable Rob Bresnahan, U.S. House of Representatives, (PA-
      8).............................................................     6
    The Honorable Tom Barrett, U.S. House of Representatives, (MI-7).     7

                                    Panel II

    Mrs. Patricia Krisfalusy-Maxon, Sister of Master Sergeant Dennis
      Krisfalusy, U.S. Air Force (Retired)...........................     9

    Colonel Andrew Shurtleff, U.S. Air Force (Retired)...............    10

    Ms. Diane Boyd Rauber, Executive Director, National Organization
      of Veterans' Advocates.........................................    12

    Ms. Lesley Witter, Senior Vice President, Advocacy, National
      Funeral Directors Association..................................    14

                                   Panel III

    Ms. Kenesha Britton, Assistant Deputy Undersecretary, Field
      Operations, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department
      of Veterans Affairs............................................    25

            Accompanied by:

        Ms. Jocelyn Moses, Senior Principal Advisor, Compensation
            Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S.
            Department of Veterans Affairs

        Ms. Lisa Pozzebon, Executive Director, Cemetery Operations,
            National Cemetery Administration, U.S. Department of
            Veterans Affairs

        Mr. Evan Deichert, Acting Deputy Vice Chairman, Board of
            Veterans' Appeals, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

                                    APPENDIX
                        Prepared Statements Of Witnesses

    Mrs. Patricia Krisfalusy-Maxon Prepared Statement................    37
    Colonel Andrew Shurtleff Prepared Statement......................    39
    Ms. Diane Boyd Rauber Prepared Statement.........................    39
    Ms. Lesley Witter Prepared Statement.............................    43
    Ms. Kenesha Britton Prepared Statement...........................    44

                              APPENDIX--continued
                           Statements For The Record

    American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO Prepared
      Statement......................................................    57
    Disabled American Veterans Prepared Statement....................    59
    Paralyzed Veterans of America Prepared Statement.................    63
    Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors Prepared Statement......    67
    Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States Prepared Statement.    84

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 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.
        Also present: Representatives Kim, Pfluger, Yakym, Barrett,
    and Bresnahan.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF MORGAN LUTTRELL, CHAIRMAN

        Mr. Luttrell. The subcommittee will come to order. Thank
    you all for joining us today. We are here to discuss 13 bills
    that would help veterans and their survivors navigate the U.S.
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) claims and appeals process,
    as well as improve access to VA benefits.
        The bills we will discuss today would and will ensure that
    servicemembers and veterans can be buried together with their
    family members, improve the VA appeals process, including by
    increasing accountability and transparency for the VA Board of
    Veterans Appeals, ensure there is medical research available to
    pave the way to compensate military pilots and air crew for
    conditions due to service-related radiation and other
    exposures, make the VA claims process more transparent and
    understandable by providing veterans and their families with
    clear updates and instructions, ensure that VA issues accurate
    decisions on claims based on military sexual trauma (MST) and
    that MST survivors are not re-traumatized during the claims
    process, and require the VA to give equal attention to the
    needs of our Nation's veterans, as well as their survivors,
    including educating survivors who may not be aware of survivor
    benefits.
        I am proud to introduce two bills on today's agenda, H.R.
    2137, the Review Every Veteran's Claim Act, would prevent VA
    from denying a veteran's VA benefit claims solely because they
    missed their disability claims exams.
        Under current law when a veteran misses their exams without
    providing good cause or rescheduling VA automatically denies
    their VA disability compensation claim. Many of these veterans
    have pursued their VA claims for years and appear for multiple
    exams. Veterans should not--should not be forced to start their
    claims over because they miss one exam.
        This bill would stop VA's unfair practice of automatically
    denying those claims by ensuring that VA makes a comprehensive
    decision on every veteran's claims after reviewing all the
    evidence, including every exam each veteran has already been
    through.
        H.R. 2138, the Veterans Compensation Cost Of Living
    Adjustment (COLA) Act of 2025, would give a cost-of-living
    adjustment to veterans and survivors receiving certain VA
    benefits. They would receive the same increase as what Social
    Security recipients receive. This bill would adjust certain VA
    benefits with inflation rates to help veterans and their
    families pay their bills and put food on the table.
        I would like to thank Ranking Member McGarvey for co-
    leading these bills with me. I look forward to working with
    Chairman Bost, Ranking Member McGarvey, and other members of
    the subcommittee to advance these important proposals today.
        I thank the witnesses who are here and have joined us and
    look forward to discussing how these bills would improve the
    lives of veterans and their families.
        I now yield to the ranking member for his remarks.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF MORGAN MCGARVEY, RANKING MEMBER

        Mr. McGarvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    your leadership in today's committee hearing. I am honored to
    be sponsoring a lot of those bills with you that are going to
    make a difference in our veterans' lives.
        I think in this committee we are fortunate. We are
    fortunate that our guiding light is not partisan or party. It
    is a veteran-centered committee, a veteran-centered approach
    where veteran-centered policy is not right or left. We deal
    more with right and wrong.
        It is a deep thing that we held in this. It is a belief
    that we are here based on a commitment to those who stand for
    something greater than themselves, for the men and women who
    are willing to put on a uniform and quite literally sacrifice
    everything to keep us safe and free. We must do what we can to
    honor their service and give them the benefits they have
    earned.
        I want to highlight a few bills, starting with the Veterans
    Claims Education Act by my colleague, Mr. Peters. This bill is
    a worthy measure to stop claim sharks from taking advantage of
    our servicemembers and their families.
        It is a topic that we know is important as we repeatedly
    hear calls of do not feed the sharks. Our veterans are not chum
    and they cannot be treated like they are. This committee will
    not be complicit in the exploitation of veterans, so I support
    all the efforts to provide them with the information they need
    to make the best decision for their claims preparation.
        Ranking Member Takano's Survivor Benefits Delivery
    Improvement Act seeks to capture important information
    regarding veteran surviving spouses, children, and parents to
    ensure we are serving all who earned their benefits, not just
    some.
        Currently, as a direct result of the VA not dedicating
    sufficient staff and attention to the task, these benefits go
    underutilized. Recent Department of Government Efficiency
    (DOGE) cuts have decreased the four-person team working on this
    down to three. Luckily, the employee was reinstated but you can
    do the math pretty quickly and understand that three employees
    is insufficient to manage a nationwide program of survivors.
        Finally, I want to highlight my bipartisan bill, the Board
    of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) Attorney Retention and Backlog Act.
    I honestly wish we could come up with a better title for that
    because it does really important work.
        This will help cut down the egregious amount of time
    veterans have to wait for their appeals to be reviewed. The
    bill is going to broaden the Board of Veterans' Appeals
    workforce by attracting highly skilled, educated, and effective
    attorneys to dig through the backlog and get our veterans these
    claims decisions in a timely manner.
        To attract and retain the best talent the bill creates a
    GS-15 position for the best BVA attorneys. It does not matter
    how many attorneys we hire if they burn out and leave before a
    claim has been adjudicated. That level of turnover we are
    seeing right now is not efficient. It is not good for our
    veterans.
        Right now, it is clear that the Board of Veterans' Appeals
    is not able to serve our veterans adequately. Appeal times are
    in excess right now of, like, 2 years. This is unacceptable and
    here is the truth.
        The only way out is through. This is a problem that will
    not go away if we simply ignore it. If we do ignore it, the
    backlog will continue to grow. It will continue to frustrate
    veterans and placing BVA employees in an impossible situation
    where they simply cannot work every claim because there are not
    enough people to do the work and get them completed.
        We must employ and retain more attorneys to get to the
    bottom of the pile and dig the VA out of the hole it is in. Let
    me be clear. This is not to say the VA does not serve our
    veterans, does not care about the process. That is far from the
    truth.
        This bill does highlight the need to retain more skilled
    and professional employees at the VA to take care of these
    claims. We cannot expect things to get better for our veterans
    while we take the chainsaw to the very administration that is
    tasked with funding the benefits to them.
        Mr. Peters, Mr. Takano, and I have proposed bills which
    have broad support in the veteran community but to deliver on
    those bills we must fight for a stable institution. We cannot
    attract quality professionals willing to serve if they are
    joining an organization that injects uncertainty into every
    aspect of their life with staff at the appropriate levels, pay
    grades to provide veterans and their families what they have
    earned.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir.
        We will move on to member testimony. We have got a very
    full agenda today so I will be holding everyone to 3 minutes
    per bill so that we can get through them all. This morning, we
    are joined by several of our colleagues both on and off the
    committee who are going to be testifying about the bills that
    they have sponsored.
        Representative Self, sir, you are recognized for 3 minutes
    to speak on your bill.

                        STATEMENT OF KEITH SELF

        Mr. Self. Thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing. I
    share Ranking Member McGarvey's concerns with the appeals
    process. I am going to discuss one of my two bills that will
    deal with the appeals process today.
        H.R. 1741, the Veterans Appeals Transparency Act. This bill
    is a crucial step toward restoring transparency through the VA
    Board of Veterans' Appeals process. Veterans have three docket
    options when filing an appeal. The board tells veterans that
    the average time to receive a decision on their appeal on the
    fast board docket is 1 year, but as of October 2024, even
    veterans who chose the fastest board docket, the direct review
    docket, are waiting an average of 1.5 years to receive a
    decision on their appeal.
        There are veterans in the fastest board docket who have
    been waiting over 5 years to receive a decision on their
    appeal. It is clear to me that the average wait times that the
    board tells veterans and Congress are misleading. These
    averages provide veterans and their advocates with no accurate
    sense of where they are in line.
        The board must do better to provide veterans with realistic
    expectations for how long they will have to wait for a
    decision. My bill will do just that.
        The Veterans Appeals Transparency Act would require the
    board to publish weekly updates on its website about which
    appeals they are working on in each board docket. This will
    ensure greater transparency from the board for our veterans, as
    well as for Congress.
        Additionally, my bill requires the board's weekly updates
    to include a statement clarifying that these weekly updates do
    not mean a decision will be made that week. This will prevent
    veterans from mistakenly believing that a decision is imminent.
    Our veterans deserve clarity and transparency in the appeals
    process. My bill will help to ensure exactly that.
        Again, I would like to thank the chairman for his support
    and Ranking Member McGarvey for his concern on this process. We
    need to fix it, and I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Self.
        Ms. Kim, you are recognized for 3 minutes.

                         STATEMENT OF YOUNG KIM

        Ms. Kim. Thank you, Chairman Luttrell and Ranking Member
    McGarvey for hosting us and holding this very important
    legislative hearing today. I am really excited to see H.R.
    2201, the Improving VA Training for Military Sexual Trauma
    Claims Act that is on the docket and being discussed in today's
    hearing.
        Approximately 1 in 3 women and 1 in 50 men experienced
    military sexual trauma, or MST as a servicemember. Currently,
    the VA must help veterans filing disability benefits claims for
    MST gather evidence for their claims.
        Unfortunately, VA claims processors and examiners often do
    not have the sufficient training to recognize those indirect
    markers of MST or to avoid forcing victims to relive their
    trauma. In fact, disability compensation examiners are only
    required to complete an outdated online sensitivity training
    once every 5 years.
        Filing these claims is burdensome enough. The examination
    process should not cause more pain. The bipartisan Improving VA
    Training for Military Sexual Trauma Act would require all VA
    employees involved with MST claims to complete annual training
    to identify evidence of MST claims and annual sensitivity
    training to avoid re-traumatizing those victims.
        Additionally, to ensure victims cases are processed in a
    timely manner, the VA would be required to automatically obtain
    all service personnel medical records for a servicemember
    filing an MST disability claim. The VA secretary would also
    submit both an annual report to Congress on the progress of the
    MST sensitivity training program and a detailed plan to improve
    it.
        H.R. 2201 is a common sense, bipartisan measure that
    ensures VA staff are prepared to provide veterans with the
    support and protection they deserve. Streamlining the MST claim
    process and improving VA training is a win for our veterans.
        I want to thank the committee for considering H.R. 2201 and
    Representatives Budzinski, Houlahan and Bacon for co-leading
    this bipartisan bill with me. Thank you and I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ms. Kim.
        Mr. Pfluger, sir, you are recognized for 3 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF AUGUST PFLUGER

        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, chairman and ranking member. I am
    not on this committee but this is my top priority in Congress.
    This bill that I am about to talk about is my number one
    priority, and I appreciate the opportunity.
        Military aviators and crew members are tragically being
    diagnosed with various forms of cancer at alarming rates, which
    is why I am proud to lead H.R. 530, 530, the Aviator Cancers
    Examination Study, also known as the ACES Act.
        The ACES Act directs the VA to partner with the National
    Academies of Science to study cancer prevalence among military
    aviators and identify service-connected factors ultimately
    saving lives through earlier detection, developing targeted
    screening protocols, and ensuring our veterans receive the
    specialized care they have earned.
        This is critical because in 2021 an Air Force cancer
    incidence study revealed troubling findings about the health
    risks faced by fighter pilots and their crews. When compared to
    the general population, it shows air crew had a 29 percent
    greater probability of testicular cancer, a 24 percent higher
    probability for melanoma, and 23 percent higher rate of
    prostate cancer.
        Additionally, the U.S. Department of Defense (DODs)
    military aviator cancer study also found elevated rates of
    cancer among military aviators and aviation ground personnel. I
    understand that there is potential duplication concerns. These
    are not true.
        Let me clarify. The ACES Act is complementary. It is not
    duplicative. It leverages the National Academy's expertise in
    meeting the VA's evidentiary requirements for determining
    service connections and includes veterans who might not qualify
    under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our
    Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act.
        Through more comprehensive and focused research on this
    issue than the aforementioned studies, the ACES Act will help
    us develop tailored interventions, improve screening protocols,
    and provide better care for aviators affected by cancer.
        This is not a partisan issue. Over 20 veterans' cancer and
    medical professional organizations have rallied behind this
    bill because they are tired of waiting year after year while
    aviators continue to suffer. They demand action now.
        Moving this legislation forward is not just about providing
    critical care. It is about finally acknowledging the true cost
    of service that these aviators have paid and continue to pay
    daily.
        Myself as an aviator, a fighter pilot with over 20 years of
    service, I have witnessed first-hand the incredible dedication,
    bravery, and resilience of our Nation's aviators but I have
    also seen many of my brothers and sisters affected by this.
    Their toughest battles actually were not in the air,
    unfortunately. They are in hospital rooms as they fight cancer.
        That is why I am honored to invite my dear friend, Colonel
    Andrew Pablo Shurtleff who will testify with us today. You need
    to hear his story, his fight against non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
        The ACES Act is not just a bill. It is a lifeline for those
    who have already given and continue to give so much for our
    freedom. We owe it to them. They were wingman for our country.
    They provided the service to fight for our country for the
    freedoms and now is the time to do the right thing and be their
    wingman and provide the service and find the causal factors for
    what they are going through in the battles that they are
    currently fighting.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Pfluger.
        Mr. Bresnahan, you are recognized for 3 minutes, sir.

                       STATEMENT OF ROB BRESNAHAN

        Mr. Bresnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member
    McGarvey. I appreciate you having me. I would like to open by
    thanking the committee for taking interest in my bill, the
    Simplifying Forms for Veterans Claims Act and inviting me to
    come speak on it today with you.
        Our veterans must complete VA's standard forms to initiate
    and pursue their claims for VA benefits. These forms include
    those filled out by a surviving spouse or other family members
    following the passing of their veteran loved one. These are the
    benefits our veterans and their dependents have earned, yet
    these forms are often difficult to understand and complete.
        Understandably, the complexity of these forms can be
    overwhelming for the veteran's grieving family. There is no
    reason for veterans or their survivors to be subjected to a
    process more difficult than necessary when these forms can be
    improved making them user friendly.
        This bill would require the VA to contract with a
    nonpartisan federally funded research entity to conduct a study
    on and provide recommendations for revising VA forms to be more
    understandable for veterans and their survivors. The research
    entity would collaborate with the VA and the veterans and
    survivors advocates and require the VA secretary to report the
    findings to Congress and implement the recommendations that are
    compliant with VA law.
        The Simplifying Forms for Veteran Claims Act is common
    sense, bipartisan legislation that would ensure veterans are
    able to complete VA forms correctly without unneeded stress so
    they can receive fair and timely decisions on their claims for
    VA benefits.
        I look forward to continuing to work with the committee to
    get this legislation signed into law, and I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Bresnahan.
        Mr. Barrett, sir, you are recognized for 3 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF TOM BARRETT

        Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, appreciate you and
    the committee's attention to this bill, the bill that I
    sponsored and the opportunity to testify on the importance of
    my bill, H.R. 1039, the Clear Communication for Veterans Claims
    Act. I am proud to lead this bipartisan legislation with
    Chairman Bost and Representative Budzinski.
        A priority of mine is to ensure that veterans understand
    how to access the benefits that they have earned and this bill
    will do just that. After a veteran files a disability claim the
    VA sends letters throughout the claims process. These notice
    letters are critical to ensuring that veterans understand how
    to pursue their claims and receive the VA benefits that they
    have rightfully earned through their service.
        I have too often heard from my constituents and other
    veterans across Michigan and across our country that these
    claims letters are difficult to understand. They are filled
    with legal jargon. Many times, they are automated from computer
    systems that are antiquated and outdated and they can be
    upwards of 40 pages long making it extremely challenging to
    distill out from that exactly what the response and required
    information is.
        This can discourage veterans and their surviving family
    members from pursuing their claims and receiving benefits and
    far too often we have heard stories of veterans who have given
    up their claim because the process becomes bureaucratically
    difficult to navigate.
        Our veterans and their families deserve better and that is
    why I sponsored this legislation. These letters should be
    shorter, clearer, and more easily communicating for the
    veterans and their survivors. It should not take a lawyer to
    explain to them what a letter says.
        My bill would require VA to contract with a third-party
    research entity outside of the VA to really review these notice
    letters to make them more understandable for veterans and their
    families. The men and women who serve in our military deserve a
    claims process that is simple and clear, not confusing and
    stressful.
        I know first-hand just in my own interaction with the VA
    the confusion that can follow when you file a particular claim.
    You get a letter automated back in the mail. You do not know if
    it is requiring you to furnish further information. This is
    adjudicating a claim that you have put in. If it is summarizing
    what you have done so far it can be very confusing to follow
    along in the next steps.
        I am proud the first bill that I introduced into Congress
    is this bill which will help ensure veterans receive the
    support that they deserve. I am grateful to Chairman Bost and
    Congresswoman Budzinski's support, and Mr. Chairman, I
    appreciate you taking up this bill and look forward to our
    committee leading on this important issue.
        I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Barrett.
        We will forego a round of questioning for the members. Any
    questions may be submitted for the record. You are now excused,
    although I understand some of the members may be staying to ask
    questions during the next panel.
        I now invite the second panel to take the table. In
    accordance with committee rules, I ask unanimous consent that
    the following members be permitted to participate in today's
    subcommittee hearings, Representative Kim from California,
    Representative Pfluger from Texas, Mr. Yakym from Indiana, Mr.
    Barrett from Michigan, and Mr. Bresnahan from Pennsylvania.
    Without objection, so ordered.
        Is everyone ready and well-rested? That is rhetorical. You
    do not have to answer it. Thank you for coming today. Thank you
    for all of those that traveled to get here.
        Our second panel includes Ms. Patricia Krisfalusy-Maxon,
    the sister of Master Sergeant Dennis Krisfalusy. Stand by.
        I yield to Representative Pfluger to introduce our next
    witness.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It really is an honor
    to introduce my friend, Colonel Andrew J. Shurtleff, but he is
    known to me as Pablo, and I have known Andy for over 20 years.
    He is an exceptionally distinguished and accomplished Air Force
    veteran fighter pilot, leader, husband to Julie, who is also
    here, and father.
        He has flown over 1,500 hours. The accomplishments are too
    numerous to list. We would be here and I fear that you would
    gavel me out if I were to talk about all the accomplishments
    that Colonel Shurtleff has done throughout his career, but
    probably the most important one is that when there was a task
    given, when there was an assignment to be had, when there was
    any sort of activity that needed to be done he was the first
    person to raise his hand. He was the first person to volunteer.
    He was the first person to lead.
        As a squadron commander and someone who served in many
    different roles, he was the most trusted individual that I have
    served with. He is fighting the biggest fight of his life right
    now against cancer and that is why we are here today.
        Andy, I want to thank you for your courage. As I mentioned,
    you were a wingman to all of us at every moment throughout our
    active-duty career and it is time for us to be a wingman to
    you. Thank you for the courage, thank you for standing up, not
    just for you but for so many of our friends that we know who
    have fought the same battles that you are going through.
        I want to sincerely thank you for being here and thank your
    family for allowing you to be here as well.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Pfluger and Colonel, thank you
    for your service and your family's service. Mr. Pfluger speaks
    highly of you and I hold him in the highest regard so you must
    be one amazing human being, which as a Navy guy it is very
    challenging for me to say to you.
        Next on the panel is Ms. Diane Boyd Rauber--good to see you
    again as always--executive director of National Organization of
    Veterans' Advocates (NOVA).
        Ms. Leslie Witter, senior vice president of advocacy at the
    National Funeral Directors Association.
        Would all the witnesses please stand and raise your right
    hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
    provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
    truth, so help you God? Thank you and let the record reflect
    that all witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Luttrell. Ms. Krisfalusy-Maxon, you are now recognized
    for 5 minutes to present your testimony.

                 STATEMENT OF PATRICIA KRISFALUSY-MAXON

        Ms. Krisfalusy-Maxon. Thank you for having me today. I
    greatly appreciate your help for veterans. I am here from my
    brother Dennis Krisfalusy.
        My brother was raised in a small town in western
    Pennsylvania. We were blessed to have wonderful parents and
    siblings Chuck, Cindy, and Lisa.
        My brother graduated from California Area High School class
    of 1961. We were very proud when he made the decision to join
    the military as my father served in World War II in the Army.
        My brother Dennis' smile lit up the room. His kindness is
    memorable from bringing home stray animals and people, helping
    neighbors and friends, and creating a famous ball game called
    rubber hose. My brother was physically fit. He jogged, he
    lifted weights, and he ate very healthy.
        Recently, a friend remarked, ``Your brother was so kind but
    you knew better than to mess with him.'' Being around my
    brother was joyous filled with warmth, love, and pranks. The
    day he left for basic training was filled with tears and
    sadness.
        When he came home it was a holiday. My mother always made
    his favorite ethnic foods and the house was filled with family
    and relatives.
        He was stationed at Davis Monthan Air Force Base. He went
    to a dance one evening, came home, and immediately called my
    mother to tell her that he met a beautiful, kind girl and her
    name was Lois. They were married in June 19, 1965. He
    immediately was bonded with her family and her sisters and they
    welcomed him into the family as we welcomed her. They enjoyed
    traveling, their dog, family, and friends.
        While they were stationed in Germany they got to travel
    Europe. Denny served a tour of duty in Vietnam. We were always
    concerned about his safety and Lois remained loyal and his very
    best friend. This time seemed to make them bond a little
    closer.
        They built a house in Arizona. They completed 20 years of
    service. Denny became a mail carrier and he went to LA. In
    September 1985 they made a decision to go to Mexico to find a
    retirement home. The year before he made that decision my
    mother passed away suddenly.
        He came home to Pennsylvanian discussed with us if
    something ever happened to Lois he would not want to live. At
    the time they traveled they always sent postcards home to our
    family. My grandmother received a postcard from Mexico City.
    She realized that my brother and sister-in-law were there
    during the earthquake, an 8.1 magnitude earthquake that killed
    10,000 people September 19th, 1985, 7:19 a.m. in the morning.
        This occurred before there was a computer, cellphones,
    Internet. Communication was impossible due to the devastation.
    We made contact with my brother's co-workers and friends in LA.
    and realized that my brother did not return to work, that he
    was lost in the earthquake.
        We immediately contacted our family friend, Congressman
    Murphy, John Heinz, the Veterans Administration, and the Red
    Cross to help us. We were informed that the concern was for the
    living and they had to bury the dead. If my brother was alive
    they assured us that they would notify us.
        I asked about going to Mexico. I was told that there would
    be devastation beyond my belief. We did not go to Mexico. We
    trusted that we were being led the right way.
        The day that my brother died and we found that he did not
    make it was the day my father died. We buried my father in
    2006. Lois' mother waited for her to come home until the day
    she died.
        In 2023 we decided to finally honor Denny for in the
    Cemetery of the Alleghenies in Washington County. I contacted
    the cemetery. We worked with the veterans. We planned a
    beautiful ceremony.
        We were told after everything was planned that Lois' name
    could not be permitted on the stone because of the time of her
    death. I worked very closely with the Veterans Administration,
    Congressman Reschenthaler's office, Senator Fetterman's office
    to see if we can make a change.
        What I must tell you that I was treated so fairly with
    empathetic and respect. I was impressed with the constant
    communication of everyone that was involved in the situation.
        What we were asking for today is that we hope we can
    continue to collaborate on changing the current law which
    prevents spouses of veterans like our Lois who died before 1998
    from being honored by passing the Dennis and Lois Krisfalusy
    Act to ensure no veteran's spouse is forgotten. Thank you.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Patricia Krisfalusy-Maxon
    Appears In The Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, ma'am.
        Colonel, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.

                     STATEMENT OF ANDREW SHURTLEFF

        Mr. Shurtleff. Good morning, Chairman Luttrell, Ranking
    Member McGarvey, and committee members. Thank you for this
    opportunity to address you this morning and it is quite an
    honor to represent all active duty and veteran military air
    crew members on the topic of the ACES Act, H.R. 530.
        I am joined this morning by my wife Julie, who is sitting
    behind me in the gallery and supports me each and every day. I
    retired from the United States Air Force in December 2022 after
    nearly 23 years of service to our Nation. I was trained as a
    fighter pilot in the F15C and the F22, culminating in
    approximately 1,500 total flight hours of flying operational
    missions and training the next generation of fighter pilots.
        I had a promising career, hand-picked to stand up the sole
    F22 flying unit, early promotion to Lieutenant Colonel, top
    marks as a squadron commander and distinguished graduate from
    senior developmental education.
        In 2018 while serving at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia,
    I was looking forward to the next challenge, promotion to
    Colonel, a flying O-6 command tour, and endless future
    possibilities.
        I was also in the best shape of my life, training for my
    first half Ironman. Simply, I was on top of the world, and that
    world came crashing down on January 8th, 2019 when I received a
    call from my doctor saying I had cancer.
        Scans revealed I have a fist-sized tumor growing on my left
    kidney. Additional tests revealed that the cancer had already
    spread to both of my lungs. I was 41 years old, married with 10
    and 13-year-old sons at home and I had stage 4 cancer.
        While I was selected for promotion to O-6 a few weeks after
    my diagnosis, I was also permanently grounded and eventually
    medically disqualified from aviation service. My promising
    flying career was over.
        Scheduling and attending doctor appointments became a near
    full-time job for the next several months and in the last 6
    years I have undergone two surgeries, multiple procedures,
    three rounds of radiation treatment, untold number of scans and
    blood draws. I participated in the clinical trial and quite
    frankly, I have exhausted all known treatment options.
        In June 2019, following my partial lung resection surgery,
    I woke with a half-inch tube protruding from my back attached
    to a vacuum that was designed to siphon out additional fluid
    from my chest cavity. My friend and fellow fighter pilot August
    Photo Pfluger, now Congressman Pfluger, came to visit me in the
    hospital and slowly walked the halls with me while he carried
    that vacuum. It is something I will never forget.
        The last 6 years have been an emotional rollercoaster for
    me and my family, and I still remain in the fight for my life
    today. I would say it is natural for people to question the
    need for the ACES Act when the PACT Act was just enacted in
    2022.
        The PACT Act is a great piece of legislation that expands
    VA healthcare and benefits for veterans exposed to burn pits,
    Agent Orange, and other toxic substances. The act removes the
    burden from the veteran of having to approve service connection
    for certain medical conditions.
        While the PACT Act will likely help millions of veterans
    and their families, it is also limited to certain time periods
    and specific locations. To be clear, the PACT Act does not
    cover aviators like me and thousands of others who have been
    proven to have significantly elevated cancer diagnoses and
    deaths simply from doing their daily flying duties, as is
    documented in three studies 2021 to 2024.
        In a way I was lucky though because my cancer was diagnosed
    while I was on active duty and it was therefore automatically
    service-connected and as such, I do receive VA healthcare and
    benefits for my condition. There are an untold number of
    veterans who are not so lucky as the cancer is diagnosed after
    their military service and therefore, they do not receive those
    benefits.
        The purpose of the ACES Act is to right this wrong by
    identifying the hazards in the military aviation operating
    environment that more likely than not cause cancer. We must
    identify the root cause affecting otherwise healthy air crew.
        The health and continued service of our military air crew
    directly impacts national security and should be prioritized
    appropriately.
        The United States needs to address the health risks posed
    to military air crew by their unique working environment by
    dedicating the resources to fully investigate, understand, and
    eventually mitigate those risks. That is why the ACES Act is
    needed.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to address this
    subcommittee and I look forward to your questions.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Andrew Shurtleff Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Colonel.
        Ms. Rauber, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF DIANE BOYD RAUBER

        Ms. Rauber. Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and
    members of the subcommittee, on behalf of NOVA thank you for
    the opportunity to provide feedback on the bills before you
    today.
        NOVA members are accredited attorneys and agents who
    represent veterans, family members, survivors, and caregivers
    in their VA disability claims and appeals. Therefore, our
    testimony today focuses on those bills designed to improve the
    adjudication process.
        NOVA supports H.R. 1039, Clear Communications for Veterans
    Claims Act and H.R. 1286, Simplifying Forms for Veterans Claims
    Act. These bills would create centers to assess VA letters and
    forms and would include critical input from advocates.
        We testified in March 2024 regarding VA letters and
    participated in the discussions led by the subcommittee on ways
    to improve them. Given the vast number of letters VA drafts and
    sends on a daily basis, this work needs to be ongoing.
        Likewise, we have long advocated for simpler and clearer
    forms. While we support H.R. 1286, NOVA and other veterans'
    organizations have sought greater flexibility from VA when
    accepting forms from veterans.
        We previously testified about the problem of VA rejecting a
    wrong form submitted by a veteran and asking for a different
    form even when it can be determined from the first form what
    benefit the veteran is seeking.
        Last Congress Chairman Bost introduced legislation that
    would require VA to accept an incorrect form as an intent to
    file under 38 CFR 3.155. We urge the subcommittee to consider
    strengthening this bill with a similar provision as detailed in
    our written statement.
        NOVA supports the Review Every Veteran's Claim Act. This
    bill would prohibit VA from denying a claim solely because the
    veteran does not appear for a medical examination. NOVA members
    frequently report instances where a veteran communicates an
    inability to attend an exam for a host of reasons, conflict
    with work schedules, illness or mobility issues, family
    responsibilities, or a lack of transportation.
        Sometimes they are unable to reach someone to reschedule.
    Sometimes that request is not honored, and sometimes they never
    receive notice of the exam in the first place.
        This bill reflects a more veteran-centric policy. We expect
    it will also result in more scrutiny of a file to determine if
    the claim can be granted based on ongoing VA treatment or
    private medical evidence already of record as required under 38
    USC Section 5125.
        NOVA supports the Improving Training For Military Sexual
    Trauma Claims Act. This bill builds on successful bipartisan
    efforts of past Congresses to improve adjudication of these
    claims. We support all efforts to ensure veterans who make a
    claim for a condition based on military sexual trauma are not
    re-traumatized.
        In particular, given that contract examiners handle most VA
    disability exams, training for healthcare professionals and
    those who communicate with veterans to schedule these exams is
    very important.
        NOVA supports the Veterans' Appeals Transparency Act which
    would require the board to provide weekly notice of the
    assignment of certain docket dates to Veterans Law Judge (VLJs)
    for consideration. With the passage of the Appeals
    Modernization Act (AMA), claimants were provided with more
    choice and control over the course of their appeals.
        The Board of Veterans' Appeals now operates three dockets,
    direct review, evidence, and hearing. On its website the board
    notes that it is finally deciding far more cases in the new AMA
    system than the legacy system. However, it also notes that as
    of December 2025, average days pending for a decision in the
    direct review docket is 506 days, with 713 and 791 days,
    respectively, for the evidence and hearing dockets.
        Therefore, this is a good time for more transparency for
    veterans on where their case is in the process, as well as to
    help veterans and their advocates make informed decisions on
    how to proceed with current and future appeals.
        We also support the Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney
    Retention and Backlog Reduction Act. This bill would allow for
    non-supervisory attorneys employed by the board to achieve
    promotion to a grade GS-15.
        NOVA maintains that individuals with appeals pending at the
    board are best served by decision writing attorneys who are
    experienced and knowledgeable about the ever-changing field of
    veterans' law. Someone who has stayed at the board and produced
    quality work to be eligible for this grade but who chooses not
    to become a supervisor should not be penalized.
        Finally, NOVA supports the Veterans' Claims Education Act.
    This bill would provide veterans, family members, survivors,
    and caregivers with information to help them understand and
    select accredited representation if they seek assistance with
    their claims. Given the ongoing problem with unaccredited
    claims consultants, this information can save claimants from
    receiving potentially incorrect and costly information from
    unaccredited actors.
        Thank you again for the opportunity today, and I will 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.
        Ms. Witter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF LESLEY WITTER

        Ms. Witter. Thank you. Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member
    McGarvey, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of nearly
    20,000 licensed funeral directors and embalmers from across the
    Nation who are members of NFDA, the National Funeral Directors
    Association. I am Leslie Witter and I am the senior vice
    president of NFDA.
        The role of funeral directors in ensuring that veterans
    receive a dignified funeral and burial cannot be overstated.
    The vital collaboration between funeral directors, Congress,
    the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of
    Defense is crucial in supporting bereaved veteran families
    during their time of profound grief and loss,
        Mr. Chairman, NFDA supports H.R. 647, which is common sense
    legislation that would allow families to inter their veteran
    loved ones in a VA National Cemetery even if they had
    previously opted for the urn or plan benefit, thus ensuring
    that families have flexibility to make the best decision for
    their loved one's final resting place.
        This legislation provides a thoughtful solution to a
    problem that adds unnecessary stress and grief to veteran
    families. I would like to thank Representative Yakym for his
    efforts to address this nuanced but incredibly important issue
    and NFDA encourages passage of this legislation.
        I am also honored to speak today in support of H.R. 1344,
    the Dennis and Lois Krisfalusy Act. I want to thank
    Representative Reschenthaler for his efforts to ensure that no
    veteran or family member is denied the recognition they
    rightfully deserve for their service to our Nation.
        H.R. 1344 corrects an injustice by addressing an arbitrary
    and outdated restriction that prohibits the VA from providing a
    memorial headstone or marker for military spouses and dependent
    children who passed away on or after November 11th, 1998 and
    ensures that military families are properly honored together.
        By fixing this injustice, we are ensuring that families
    like the Krisfalusy family can be laid to rest together and
    memorialized with dignity and NFDA encourages passage of this
    legislation.
        Mr. Chairman, in preparation for today's testimony I spoke
    with funeral directors who assist grieving families as they
    navigate their way through the sometimes-complicated process of
    applying for benefits from multiple agencies within the VA. The
    Office of Survivor Assistance is a crucial resource overseeing
    all benefits and services furnished by the VA to survivors and
    dependents of deceased veterans.
        Recently the Office of Survivor Assistance (OSA) was moved
    out of the office of the secretary of Veterans Affairs and this
    hampers OSA's ability to serve as the principal advisor to the
    secretary of Veterans Affairs. That impacts survivor families
    so NFDA believes that there should be no barrier between the
    Office of Survivors Assistance and the office of the secretary
    of Veterans Affairs and for this reason we support H.R. 1228
    and encourage passage of this legislation.
        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and members of
    the subcommittee, on behalf of the National Funeral Directors
    Association I want to thank you for your tireless leadership,
    dedication, and diligent work in support of our Nation's
    veterans and their families.
        In closing, I would like to express my sincere gratitude
    for the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of
    funeral service and NFDA and affirm our unwavering commitment
    to honoring our Nation's veterans and their families. I hope
    that my testimony has provided valuable insights, and I am
    happy to address any questions you may have.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Lesley Witter Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ms. Witter.
        The written statements of our witnesses today will be
    entered into the hearing record. We will now begin questioning.
        I recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McGarvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, Colonel Shurtleff, thank you so much for your
    service. We are gratefully appreciative for it and I just want
    to thank you again for your continued service in being here
    today to help all the aviators who come afterwards. To your
    family I hope you know we will say a prayer for you tonight and
    appreciate you being here.
        I want to ask some questions of Ms. Boyd Rauber this
    morning and that we know the Board of Veterans' Appeals is
    already facing a lot of delays. Veterans are literally waiting
    years for their claims and their cases to be heard.
        Keeping the attorneys who are reviewing these claims should
    be a priority but instead it seems like the BVA is making
    decisions that push people away like limiting promotions and
    forcing return to office rules that do not make sense. We are
    trying to fix these even if just a little so our veterans can
    get their claims in a timely manner.
        Since your members regularly work with the Board of
    Veterans' Appeals as accredited attorneys, how crucial do you
    think it is for board attorneys to be skilled and knowledgeable
    in their roles?
        Ms. Rauber. It is absolutely vital. Those attorneys are
    more or less the frontline in reviewing a veteran's claim and
    assisting the VLJ that they are assigned to. Some veterans'
    claims files can be thousands of pages long so that attorney is
    tasked with digging through the files, selecting and
    understanding what the most important evidence is in the
    record, and putting together a draft decision that the VLJ can
    then review.
        Again, they are really, sort of, the critical first line
    and it is absolutely understandable that they have to have a
    very high level of skill and knowledge to do the job.
        Mr. McGarvey. We want the VA to have and use whatever tools
    it needs to attract the best and lightest attorneys that can
    find and to incentivize them to stay there so they get that
    knowledge base and can actually review these claims more
    efficiently?
        Ms. Rauber. Absolutely.
        Mr. McGarvey. Great. Do you think that arbitrarily capping
    the promotion potential of board attorneys is a good thing or a
    bad thing in getting the best and brightest to stay and review
    these claims more efficiently?
        Ms. Rauber. Well, we do not think it is a good thing. We
    think that they should have the opportunities to advance and
    that, you know, those most skilled attorneys that choose to
    stay and actually make it their career are the folks that are
    there to help some of the other newer people as well who are
    coming in.
        I did note that that was something that AFG talked about in
    their written statement and so they are actually you know
    really contributing to the life and the culture at the board
    and then that is important.
        Mr. McGarvey. I appreciate that. I also want to ask you
    about another issue that we have dealt with frequently in this
    subcommittee since I have been here at least, and that is claim
    sharks, the unscrupulous actors, some of the illegal companies
    that are taking hundreds of millions of dollars from our
    veterans every year under the guise of helping them process
    these claims.
        Look, I know veterans are frustrated. We have to do a
    better job of making these claims easier to navigate but we
    also have to understand that they need options. I believe they
    do. You know, there are thousands of companies that are
    accredited and that those representatives are ready to help.
        Can you talk a little bit about the importance of informing
    veterans of the legal, accredited options available to them and
    how would Representative Peters' bill help with that?
        Ms. Rauber. Well, we maintain that more information is
    always good for veterans and that when people are making a
    decision about whether or not they want to do a claim on their
    own or seek assistance with the claim, we feel that it is
    critically important that a veteran understand that there are
    accredited that are in-service organizations.
        There are accredited attorneys and there are accredited
    agents, and we really support anything that will help veterans,
    caregivers, survivors, family members be more informed about
    who is going to be assisting them.
        Mr. McGarvey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Pfluger, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I would
    like to thank my friend Andy Pablo Shurtleff for being here and
    for sharing your testimony, as well as all the other witnesses
    for your time today.
        Today we have three peer-reviewed aviator cancer studies
    that have occurred in the last 4 years and their findings are
    in full agreement. Veteran flyers in all fixed-wing seats,
    fleets, ranks, roles share in significantly elevated rates of
    cancer, so what do we do next? That is the reason that we are
    here exploring the ACES Act.
        Common sense tells us that we need to ask what is causing
    the cancer and there is no other study under way or planned
    except for the ACES Act that can help our veterans with the why
    of their cancers. We certainly will not obtain this information
    from another cancer incidence study that reconfirms the high
    rates of cancer.
        We know that. Now it is about the why. It is about the
    what. What is causing it? What I want to talk about is the cost
    of inaction if we do not do something and if we pivot away from
    getting to the cause of these cancers we are, in fact, telling
    our veteran flyers you are on your own and furthermore we are
    not going to help you figure it out. We are not going to help
    you figure out what made you sick.
        It is my friend Pablo and others that we both know that we
    have served with, that we flew with that suffer. My first
    question for you, Pablo, is tell us about your journey and what
    would have been different had we had the ACES Act already and
    how would your journey have differed?
        Mr. Shurtleff. Yes, thank you, Congressman Pfluger. I will
    answer that in a couple different ways. You know, right now we
    are we are hanging out our veterans and our active duty air
    crew members to dry a bit. We have identified that they are
    sicker than the human population or the U.S. population that
    they are pulled from.
        At a micro scale, my son is a freshman in college. He
    already has his private pilot's license. He is a passionate
    aviator and he is already considering going into the Air Force
    to be a fighter pilot. I do not know if I can back him up on
    that right now. I have concerns for that.
        When you expand that out now across all the different
    veterans' organizations that are backing the ACES Act, that are
    a lot of America's military families that are questioning
    whether or not they should send their sons or daughters into
    America's cockpits right now because cancer is not a fun thing.
    I would not wish it on my worst enemy.
        We do need to figure out the what and the why behind it so
    that we can mitigate that and so we can put clear, definable,
    measurable instruments into place to mitigate those risks to
    protect our aviators and that way they can continue to do our
    Nation's business.
        Mr. Pfluger. What a great point, you know, when we think
    about it from the family members of those who have children
    that want to go serve. You know, are we prepared? Do we believe
    that our country is doing everything they can?
        I want to say thank you to the VA in advance. I know they
    are going to testify here.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman and ranking member for this
    opportunity. What words of advice do you have for the VA? I
    think they try to do their best every single day but now we
    have knowledge and we must act. What words would you have for
    the VA specifically?
        Mr. Shurtleff. Yes. I think we need to act and we need to
    act in a timely manner. You know, as you mentioned earlier and
    I said in my own testimony, we have very clear evidence at this
    point of the incidence. You know, we recognize that people who
    are pulled from the U.S. population, these are not people that
    walk right off the street.
        These are highly screened medically, physically before they
    joined the military. If you become a military aviator, you go
    through additional screen. I personally went through an entire
    day of being poked and prodded in every way, shape, and form
    before I even began my flying career.
        I was a healthy, incredibly healthy individual when I
    entered at 22 years old and less than 20 years later I had
    stage 4 cancer. There is something wrong there so we need to
    act.
        We know there is something going on. We just need to figure
    out what that is. Again, that is why we need to work together
    between the National Academy of Sciences, who is being directed
    to conduct this study, to work with the VA on the study, and
    then report back to the appropriate agencies on what actions we
    need to take.
        Mr. Pfluger. This is anecdotal and not to put you on the
    spot with math in public, but both of us know many of our
    friends that have gone through these battles. I mean, any
    estimate or idea of how many friends that we both know that you
    have served with that have gone through cancer at a very early
    age in their lives?
        Mr. Shurtleff. I know of dozens and I personally know
    probably around a dozen individuals who have gone through
    cancer, some who are with us today, some who are not with us
    today.
        When I think about it on the civilian side or outside the
    military air crew population, for those who are under, say, 50
    years old, I know two. I know two people and one was a baby. It
    is the statistics are there and it is very, very personal to
    me.
        I lost a squadron commander who died of cancer just a few
    years ago. Every once in a while, I would get a phone call and
    say, ``Hey, Pablo, I just found out I have cancer. What do I
    do?'' It is very, very personal and it happens day in and day
    out.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you for testifying, for your courage for
    the fight that you are going through right now, and for being
    here today.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Pfluger.
        Dr. Morrison, you recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Morrison. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you to our witnesses for being here today to testify
    about the legislation before us today. I want to begin by
    thanking the chair and ranking member for their leadership on
    providing a cost-of-living adjustment for our veterans.
        Our veterans have earned these benefits and it is critical
    that we pass this legislation to allow them to keep pace with
    inflation.
        Ms. Boyd Rauber, I would like to begin with you. As you
    know, the rate of claims for military sexual trauma has
    increased significantly in recent years, up 18 percent from
    last year, up 40 percent from a decade ago. I am grateful to my
    colleagues Representatives Kim and Budzinski for introducing
    bipartisan legislation to better train the Veterans Benefits
    Administration (VBA) workforce to handle these highly sensitive
    claims.
        Can you speak to the importance of having VA and contract
    examiners who are well-prepared to manage claims for veterans
    who may have experienced MST?
        Ms. Rauber. Sure. As we noted in our testimony, we think it
    is just really critical that people who are filing these claims
    are not re-traumatized and that they are not made to tell their
    story over and over again to different people and that the
    people who are processing the claims and the medical examiners
    that who are going to be examining them and speaking to them
    have the sensitivity training to understand how to move forward
    with those exams.
        Honestly, we think it is important generally because even
    if the claim is not specifically about MST there could be some
    other things in the claims process that is somehow related to
    that and it is important for them to have that kind of
    sensitivity training and be attuned to the experiences that
    some of these folks have had.
        Ms. Morrison. Thank you.
        Colonel Shurtleff, thank you for your service, for your
    sacrifice, and for being here with us today. I am so sorry to
    learn of your diagnosis but I am heartened by your resolve and
    of working with your friend and my colleague Representative
    Pfluger on the ACES Act.
        Both of my grandfathers were pilots in World War II and I
    have tremendous respect and admiration for aviators and
    recognize the unique risks that you face in your military
    service. You and Representative Pfluger got into this a little
    bit, but I am wondering if you could share a little bit more
    your perspective on how additional research into cancer rates
    among aviators and air crew could help identify some of the
    unique health risks associated with flying?
        Also, how would you suggest making such research
    complementary to ongoing initiatives at VA and DoD?
        Mr. Shurtleff. I think it is incredibly important to
    identify the what and the why that is causing the cancer. The
    sooner we do that the better. We have spent since 2021 proving
    time and time again that there is a higher incident rate among
    our air crew.
        It is funny. When Congressman Pfluger and I learned to fly
    and throughout our flying career, we were always taught to
    maneuver our aircraft in relation to the threat. Understand
    your threat environment and mitigate those threats as best you
    could to accomplish your mission.
        We talked about surface-to-air missiles, enemy aircraft,
    air-to-air missiles and things like that. We never talked about
    what could be happening within our own cockpits, within our own
    aircraft that could be making us sick.
        The quicker we learn to understand and can clearly identify
    what those threats are within our own cockpit, within our own
    operating environment that is unique to military aviation, the
    quicker that we can protect our air crew, regain the faith of
    our air crew in our government, and allow them to continue to
    serve the way they want to defend our Nation.
        Ms. Morrison. Thank you. You know, your comments about your
    son hit me particularly hard. My husband is an Army combat
    veteran. He comes from a long tradition of military services,
    many military families do and continue that tradition. I think
    your hesitation about encouraging your son speaks volumes and
    we need to listen to that.
        I wish you and your family all the best. My prayers to you
    and thank you for your testimony.
        With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Dr. Morrison.
        General, you are recognized, sir, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    having this hearing today because I will just say in some cases
    it is overdue like so many things, but the bottom line is it is
    never a bad time to try to do the right thing going forward.
        Thank you all for being here. Ms. Rauber, can you elaborate
    on why VA should always obtain the complete service personnel
    records for every veteran seeking benefits based on military
    sexual trauma?
        Ms. Rauber. Sure. The personnel service record and medical
    records from service are really the critical piece really of
    most claims, disability compensation claims, but these would be
    particularly important in the case of military sexual trauma
    because oftentimes that personnel record may contain some of
    the critical markers that VA needs to consider when it is
    deciding the claim.
        Mr. Bergman. Okay. Kind of going down that road a little
    bit, can you elaborate a little bit on why you support the
    Improving VA Training for Military Sexual Trauma Claims Act?
        Ms. Rauber. Sure, because again, we think that it is really
    important. I think Representative Kim mentioned that some of
    that training is only happening once every 5 years. It seems
    that that training should be happening on a much more regular
    basis so examiners and claims processors are up to speed with
    the most important information and the most sensitive
    information for treating these cases.
        Mr. Bergman. As we do evaluate all the cases that come
    before and are, you know, filed and reviewing personnel records
    and whoever might have a look at that to make a good decision
    going forward, you used in your testimony the word
    accreditation. In this particular case, should--well, in any
    case but let us just say this particular case, staying with the
    subject, who or what entity should be responsible for the
    accreditation of those entities?
        Ms. Rauber. Are you talking about the claims processors?
        Mr. Bergman. Whatever. If you are accrediting, because
    again, specifically I was listening and you used the term
    accreditation.
        Ms. Rauber. Well, we----
        Mr. Bergman. No matter what it is, I mean, it is going to
    be one or two entities. It is either going to be the Veterans
    Administration if they are going to be accrediting people to
    review and adjudicate all of those, whatever it happens to be
    or evaluate, can you just put a little meat on the bone of what
    it means to you about accreditation and who has the
    responsibility for that?
        Ms. Rauber. Well, in terms of the VA claims processors and
    the examiners I think that is really a question for VA in terms
    of who are the right people?
        Mr. Bergman. Well, what I heard you say is VA is
    responsible for doing that.
        Ms. Rauber. I am----
        Mr. Bergman. I am not trying to be arguing. I am trying to
    get a----
        Ms. Rauber. I mean, when----
        Mr. Bergman [continuing]. handle on who you are talking
    about?
        Ms. Rauber [continuing]. we are talking about accredited I
    think we are talking about accredited representatives who might
    be helping a veteran.
        Mr. Bergman. Yes.
        Ms. Rauber. Those folks are accredited by VA.
        Mr. Bergman. Yes. VA has the responsibility----
        Ms. Rauber. Correct.
        Mr. Bergman [continuing]. for accrediting and holding
    accountable those representatives who would be representing
    those individuals or families?
        Ms. Rauber. Absolutely.
        Mr. Bergman. Okay. I just wanted to make sure and clarify
    that whose court the ball for validating when you think about
    it, because those of us who have served in the military here,
    whether you were, you know, you are flying, you are driving a
    ship, you are on the ground, whatever it happens to be, we all
    get, if you will, accredited.
        In the case of in piloting we get certified every year or
    two that we can actually fly the airplane and do it right.
    Okay? Okay, so that is, kind of, where I was driving on this
    accreditation piece because there is a lot of good folks
    working in the VA who are trying to do the right thing and it
    is important to find whoever is running the Veterans
    Administration to make sure the accreditation process is
    airtight for those, you know, families seeking to get help.
    That is all.
        Ms. Rauber. Of course.
        Mr. Bergman. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Ms. Rauber, are you good? If you wanted to
    respond----
        Ms. Rauber. Oh, no, no.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay.
        Ms. Rauber. I would agree.
        Mr. Luttrell. Mrs. Krisfalusy, how are you doing down
    there? Do not think you guys came all the way to Washington,
    DC. without something. I am going to engage with you, okay?
        Ms. Krisfalusy-Maxon. Okay, thank you.
        Mr. Luttrell. Looks like you are getting a little lonely,
    so I just--can you elaborate a little bit more? The hard date
    seems to be 1998, but we know that, and as a veteran myself, I
    do not know if my spouse necessarily wants to be buried with
    me. That is a discussion she and I need to have together, but I
    do appreciate and respect the importance of that. Could you
    just elaborate to the committee?
        Ms. Krisfalusy-Maxon. What I could tell you in our case,
    which was very unique because Denny and Lois died together.
    They are buried in the common grave in Mexico City.
        I am a resident of Washington County. We are proud of our
    cemetery. I decided it is time to honor my brother. It is time
    to do something to recognize his service and Lois serving with
    him because a military wife, as you know what she does.
        When we went through the process, we were all amazed that
    her information could not be put on Denny's stone because of
    the time of the death. What I can tell you, on the front of my
    brother's stone I put beloved son, brother, and uncle. The
    reason I did that is because I wanted to make sure that my
    children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, nieces, and
    nephews will know about this uncle because he died how many
    years ago.
        On the back of the stone was to be Lois' information, and I
    wanted it to say beloved wife and best friend. When I realized
    Lois her name's not going to be there, I did not put husband on
    the front of his stone. It broke my heart that we were not able
    to recognize the fact that he was a husband and had a beloved
    wife.
        That is why I pursued this process. I was shocked to see
    that there was a date and that we were not able to do this, and
    I believe everyone around me was surprised, too. We were not
    aware of this.
        However, as I have said, I am forever grateful of all the
    help that I have received from everyone involved in this
    situation.
        Mr. Luttrell. Yes, ma'am, and you will most certainly
    continue to get it.
        Ms. Krisfalusy-Maxon. I thank you so much.
        Mr. Luttrell. Colonel, get you a good drink. I am coming at
    you. Are you ready?
        Mr. Shurtleff. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. The exam that you were given and when
    your doctor called you, like, hey, you have cancer and you are
    stage 4, was that an annual exam or was there something
    specific that you went in for?
        Was this something that the aviators will get while they
    are on active duty and yours just happened to hit? Or were you
    in there for something specific and, hey, we found it.
        As far as exit strategy goes, you know, I can only speak
    for myself, but they were not diving over barrels to get me to
    go to all these exams before. They were, like, hey, appreciate
    you. Later. Right?
        Mr. Shurtleff. Before I answer, Chairman Luttrell, I would
    be remiss if I did not recognize and thank you and your
    family's service to our Nation. On behalf of my family, thank
    you.
        No. My cancer was discovered not during a routine exam, and
    I will echo your statement that military aviators would rather
    not see the doctor because the doctor is one of the few people
    in the world that can ground them and prevent them from doing
    the thing that they love, which is fly. That is a culture that
    we will need to overcome within the military.
        My cancer was discovered not during a routine exam but
    because I was seeing my doctor for another issue. I had some
    pain in my lower back is what it was.
        I was doing some physical therapy and they ordered a X-ray,
    and the X-ray a very sharp captain in the Air Force, the
    technician, noticed a occlusion, as they call it, in my lower
    left area and said it could be part of the colon but we do not
    know.
        Of course, I was busy with work and it was not 3 months
    before I came back, did another X-ray and that occlusion was
    still there. Then after a Computed Tomography (CT) scan that is
    how they found the cancer.
        Mr. Luttrell. There lies the most important question in the
    room is how do you convince a culture? My previous career is
    the same mentality. How do you prevent it? How do you convince
    the culture that this is going to be necessary because the last
    thing after knowing everything that you and every other pilot
    has to go through to get in get in that aircraft is to have
    somebody who is not a pilot take them away.
        Mr. Shurtleff. Right.
        I think the culture is already shifting. I have seen it on
    active duty. We now have dedicated pilot gyms, nutritionists,
    physical therapists that are helping the pilots address issues
    in a supportive health way and not grounding them as doing so.
    That culture is already shifting, so----
        Mr. Luttrell. That is good to hear.
        It is going to have to be them that are on board.
        Mr. Shurtleff. Yes.
        Mr. Luttrell. We can legislate that all day long but they
    if they do not want it, you know the deal. I mean, if you are a
    veteran, you understand exactly what I am saying.
        Mr. Shurtleff. I do.
        Mr. Luttrell. It is, hey, we are not going to show up.
        Mr. Shurtleff. Yes.
        Mr. Luttrell. Then inevitably, you know, bad things will
    most certainly happen. Thank you again for your service.
        Mr. Yakym, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Yakym. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing today, and thank you to our witnesses for being here.
        I was proud to reintroduce H.R. 647, the Ensuring Veterans'
    Final Resting Place Act at the beginning of the 2025 earlier
    this year. Under current law if a veteran family chooses to
    have the VA furnish a commemorative plaque or urn for their
    loved one, they may inadvertently forfeit their right to later
    inter the veteran at a National Cemetery. That would require
    either a headstone or a marker at the grave site.
        This issue came to my attention because one of my
    constituents, Mrs. Jerry Simmons, was attempting to get a
    plaque for her late husband Gary, a Vietnam veteran. While
    working with the VA to secure Mrs. Simmons a plaque for her
    late husband, we discovered a problem.
        Current law forces military families to make a choice
    between an urn or plaque or internment at a national cemetery,
    not both. However, a simple choice to temporarily hold the
    veteran's ashes in a VA urn nullifies the veteran's eligibility
    to be buried in a national cemetery after honorable service to
    our great country. We certainly do not want to prevent veterans
    from being laid to rest in national cemeteries if they wish.
        This bill would provide much needed flexibility in
    difficult end of life decisions. The Ensuring Veterans' Final
    Resting Place Act of 2025 would allow a veteran survivor to
    choose to have their veteran loved one interred in a VA
    cemetery, even if the survivor initially chose an urn or a
    plaque in lieu of internment at a VA cemetery.
        We grant veterans the final honor to be interred on solemn
    grounds at our national cemeteries, but those logistics are
    left to veterans' families. The death of a family member is
    always difficult and seldom do the arrangements go smoothly.
        Sometimes families do not immediately know if they want to
    have the remains of their loved one interred at a national
    cemetery or they simply may not want to part with the ashes
    right away. They may opt for urn or plaque.
        This snap decision has permanent consequences as the law is
    currently written. We must allow the grieving families of
    American veterans the flexibility to wait to choose whether or
    not to inter their loved one at a national cemetery and we
    should not deny veterans that right simply because their
    remains were placed in a VA urn.
        Ms. Witter, is it difficult for families to make an
    informed decision about whether to place their veteran loved
    one's remains in a VA-furnished urn or lay them to rest in a VA
    national cemetery?
        Ms. Witter. Thank you for the question. I appreciate the
    work the committee has done on this issue. We have worked with
    the VA and the committee on this and I think it is really
    important to remember that the veteran earns funeral and burial
    benefits but so does the spouse. They are both entitled to
    them. I am sure the chairman's wife would, in fact, like to be
    laid to rest with him when the day comes, despite what you
    think.
        I have spoken to a lot of veterans and their spouses and
    the overwhelming message I get is I want to keep my spouse's
    remains in an urn and then we will both be buried together.
    There are two separate benefits.
        It is not double dipping, but as it stands at the moment if
    you accept the earned benefit and keep your spouse with you for
    20 years then they are now forbidden from being buried, but you
    could still be buried in the cemetery.
        I think that is a complicated thing. I think it adds extra
    stress. What the VA is doing in that situation is expecting the
    grieving loved one to make a decision in the moment with long-
    term consequences. They have to plan a funeral, grieve a loss,
    work through all of that, and then at the same time they have
    to figure out their own final disposition. The spouse has to
    decide, well, do I want to have a ground burial or do I want to
    put the veteran and not have them with me?
        I think it is unfair, and I think it would be a small mercy
    for the VA to allow those grieving families to keep their loved
    one with them.
        Mr. Yakym. Thank you.
        Ms. Rauber, can you elaborate on why you believe
    Congressman Barrett's bill, H.R. 1039, would ensure that the VA
    receives the assistance it needs to improve its vast number of
    notice letters?
        Ms. Rauber. Well, I think by having a center with people
    who have experience in those types of letters or issues and
    also having advocates and experts who will be assisting in that
    process would, sort of, continue part of what actually has
    already started in the last Congress. We think that is good
    work that should continue.
        Mr. Yakym. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Yakym.
        Thank you for your testimony and joining us today. You are
    now excused and we will wait for the third panel to take their
    seats.
        Did we have a high school class walk in and join the
    committee? Where are you guys from? Somebody stand up and with
    a loud thunderous voice. Thomas Jefferson, is that a state? In
    Virginia, Okay. From what? Oh, science and technology, well,
    welcome to the Committee of Veterans Affairs. I am sure
    eventually we will get into science and tech. We are happy to
    have you. Are you enjoying your day in Washington, DC.? Yes?
    Hang on a little bit longer that may change.
        Is everyone ready? Ms. Moses, how are you today?
        Ms. Moses. Good morning, sir, I am well. How are you?
        Mr. Luttrell. I am great. Thank you for joining us today.
        I thank all the witnesses from the Department of Veterans
    Affairs. We are ready to rock'n'roll? Everybody got a good deep
    breath and a glass of water?
        The lead witness for VA is Ms. Kenesha Britton, assistant
    deputy under secretary of field operations at the Veterans
    Benefits Administration. Ms. Britton is accompanied by Ms.
    Moses, senior principal advisor for VBA's compensation
    services, Ms. Lisa?
        Ms. Pozzebon. Pozzebon.
        Mr. Luttrell. Say it one more time?
        Ms. Pozzebon. Pozzebon.
        Mr. Luttrell. Pozzebon, Okay. I am from East Texas. I was
    going to try to get that out but Pozzebon, got it, all right,
    executive director of cemetery operations, National Cemetery
    Administrations, and Mr. Evan Deichert? All right, outstanding.
    Acting deputy vice chairman at the VA Board of Veterans'
    Appeals.
        I ask that all the witnesses please stand and raise your
    right hand. Do you solemnly to swear that the testimony you are
    about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
    the truth, so help you God? Thank you. Let the record reflect
    the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Luttrell. Ms. Britton, you are now recognized for 5
    minutes to present the department's testimony.

                      STATEMENT OF KENESHA BRITTON

        Ms. Britton. Good morning, Chairman Luttrell, Ranking
    Member McGarvey, and other members of the subcommittee. Thank
    you for inviting us here today to represent our views on
    several bills that would affect the Department of Veteran
    Affairs' programs and services.
        Joining me today are Ms. Jocelyn Moses, senior principal
    advisor, Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits
    Administration, Ms. Lisa Pozzebon, executive director, Cemetery
    Operations, National Cemetery Administration, and Mr. Evan
    Deichert, acting deputy vice chairman, Board of Veterans'
    Appeals.
        While my written testimony details the views on the bills
    including areas of concern and support, I would like to
    highlight several bills in my opening remarks.
        First, VA fully supports the intent of H.R. 530, the ACES
    Act. VA would like to work with the committee on edits to the
    legislation to allow the department greater flexibility and
    make sure that the bill does not duplicate efforts already
    undertaken by DoD.
        VA supports both H.R. 647, the Ensuring Veterans Final
    Resting Place Act of 2025, and H.R. 1344, the Dennis and Lois
    Krisfalusy Act. The department would like to discuss a more
    equitable cost solution for H.R. 647.
        The department fully supports H.R. 1344 while suggesting
    amendments to eliminate the date of death limitations to ensure
    eligibility with minimum estimated costs.
        VA supports the intent of H.R. 1039, the Clear
    Communications for Veterans Claims Act and H.R. 1286, while
    suggesting amendments to allow VA sufficient time and
    flexibility to comply with Information Technology (IT) and
    legal requirements. The VA also suggests additional amendments
    that would allow time to work through the federally funded
    research development centers' recommendations.
        The department fully supports the Review Every Veteran's
    Claim Act of 2025 that would prevent denials solely based on a
    veteran's failure to attend a scheduled disability exam. VA
    would like to expand the bill language, however, to include
    pension claims and ensure a comprehensive review of all
    evidence within a claims file. The department fully supports
    the Review Every Veteran's Claim Act of 2025.
        VA also supports the Improving VA Training For Military
    Sexual Trauma Claims Act while offering several amendments to
    avoid duplicate requirements and make sure the bill aligns with
    the existing VA practices. The current training is
    comprehensive, robust, and efficient and VA would support
    amendments to the bill to make sure it improves training
    requirements.
        The VA would also support sensitivity training for
    contracted medical examiners but recommends modifying the
    legislative text to reflect the appropriate roles of
    individuals involved.
        The department is also supportive of the Survivors Benefits
    Delivery Improvement Act of 2025 and the Veterans Compensation
    Cost of Living Adjustments Act of 2025. VA would suggest
    certain amendments to the Survivors Benefits Delivery Act to
    improve timely benefits delivery, outreach strategies, and
    resource alignment for survivors. The VA fully supports the
    COLA bill in its current form.
        Finally, VA does not support the Veterans' Appeals
    Transparency Act of 2025 and the Board of Veterans' Appeals
    Attorney Retention and Reduction Backlog Act. The Veterans'
    Appeals Transparency Act would impose serious administrative
    burdens on the board while also causing major confusion and
    misperceptions among veterans.
        The Attorney Retention and Backlog Reduction Act conflicts
    with the specific classification regulations, lacks clarity on
    improving decision quality and processing speed, and could
    seriously impact the board's operations and budget.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. We appreciate
    the congressional intent and welcome the opportunity to work
    closely with Congress on all the bills on today's agenda. My
    colleagues and I are prepared to respond to any questions you
    or members about the subcommittee may have.
        I would be remiss if I did not thank all of the veterans,
    dependents, caregivers, survivors, and others here today
    advocating for veterans and their families. Again, thank you.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Kenesha Britton Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you. The written statement of Ms.
    Britton will be entered into the hearing record. We will now
    move to questions.
        I recognize the ranking member.
        Mr. McGarvey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Deichert, is that correct?
        Mr. Deichert. Deichert.
        Mr. McGarvey. Thank you. As I understand it, the Board of
    Veterans' Appeals has stopped or is planning to stop its
    program to reimburse attorneys for bar dues. Look, this is one
    of those things. I mean, I know.
        I was an attorney in Kentucky. You have to pay bar dues to
    be a lawyer. That is part of it and it is a couple 100 bucks or
    about $300 in Kentucky to be a licensed attorney.
        You know, this is one of those things that could be a
    morale killer at the VA and so can you confirm for me has the
    Board of Veterans' Appeals terminated this benefit for its
    attorneys or does it have plans to? If yes, why?
        Mr. Deichert. Thank you, Ranking Member McGarvey. At this
    point I cannot say that any final action has been taken on it.
    I can tell you that it is something that has been discussed.
        To this point our primary focus is on making sure that our
    budget is as robust as possible to continue employing as many
    attorneys and staff as we can to do the mission of the board.
        Mr. McGarvey. Well, I appreciate that. You used a lot of
    buzzwords there, though, so I am just going to ask you in
    pretty simple Kentucky terms. Is this something you are
    planning on doing?
        Mr. Deichert. I would assume so.
        Mr. McGarvey. Okay. I think in Washington that is as close
    as you can get to a yes. Why?
        Mr. Deichert. Again, sir, in looking at our budget
    projections for this year looking down the line in terms of
    anything that we can do to prioritize keeping the highest
    number of attorneys, staff, and judges to continue working this
    down, that is what we want to do.
        Mr. McGarvey. Yes. I am not asking this question for the
    attorneys who work at BVA. I am asking this for the people they
    serve, the veterans. We know there is a 2-year backlog.
        We know that there is a problem right now with retention
    and recruitment. We know that the only way to get rid of this
    backlog is to go through it. The pile is not going to get
    smaller unless we are intentional about getting through these
    claims so our veterans can get the care they can deserve.
        I think things we are doing like this we are not allowing
    for promotion on one hand, we are taking things away on the
    other hand. This is how you kill morale in an institution. Who
    gets hurt are the veterans. That is what we are trying to get
    to here.
        Did anybody consider how this might impact morale
    especially, you know, since you are already forcing these board
    attorneys to stop teleworking, to come back to an office that
    does not even have space for everybody? I heard today from Ms.
    Britton potentially opposing allowing another level for
    attorneys which makes no sense to me whatsoever. Have you guys
    thought about the impact this would have on the people who work
    there and then, again, on the veterans? That is where this
    ultimately goes.
        Mr. Deichert. Respectfully, Ranking Member McGarvey, there
    are a couple things that I would want to push back on a little
    bit. In terms of our overall retention, our statistics have
    shown that since 2018 our overall attrition rate has dropped
    from 13.9 percent to 7.7 percent. Looking specifically at GS-14
    attorneys, the highest level that you can ascend without being
    a supervisor at this point, that is even lower than 4 percent.
        This year since----
        Mr. McGarvey. What you are telling me is, again, this is
    Washington speak. You are losing people and you cannot afford
    to and you are taking things away from them while you are
    losing people. We agree on that.
        Mr. Deichert. We are losing people but----
        Mr. McGarvey. Can we agree on that? I bring this up because
    we were making some progress, that we actually were making some
    progress but you mentioned in your testimony that this is now
    at risk. The progress is now at risk.
        We should be working hard to secure the progress to get
    those numbers even lower, not doing things that are actually
    going to undo it.
        It seems that what we are doing, so at the very least, let
    us promote our good employees to match their peers at other
    agencies. Let us take care of our employees because these
    employees, the reason to take care of them is not just to take
    care of employees. It is to take care of our veterans.
        Again, we can talk about all the recruitment and retention
    statistics that are not good enough and recognize that the
    people being hurt are the people who put on the uniform and we
    have made a promise to I do not think we are doing a good
    enough job honoring. I appreciate you all being here today.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. McGarvey.
        Mr. Self, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Self. Mr. Deichert, I have got a series of fairly
    simple questions yes or no, hopefully.
        Mr. Deichert. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Self. On average, how many years, the first one is real
    simple, do veterans wait for a VA Board of Veterans' Appeals
    decision on an appeal in the board's AMA direct review docket,
    the direct review docket?
        Mr. Deichert. If you will allow me to consult my notes,
    sir? Currently as of March 23d, direct review was 1-1/2 years.
        Mr. Self. That is what I thought, so does VA still send
    veterans notice of appeal rights which tells them that the
    board on average issues a decision within 1 year of appeals on
    the direct review docket?
        Mr. Deichert. Congressman Self, I believe that you are
    speaking specifically about the notice of appeal rights that
    would accompany a rating decision?
        Mr. Self. Correct.
        Mr. Deichert. I believe that it says that we have a goal of
    365 days, sir.
        Mr. Self. A goal.
        Mr. Deichert. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Self. Can you tell me what the average is?
        Mr. Deichert. Right now for veteran and dependent cases for
    live veteran and dependent our average days pending is 329
    days.
        Mr. Self. Okay. Then is it true that the law requires the
    Board of Veterans' Appeals to issue decisions in docket order?
        Mr. Deichert. Yes it is, sir.
        Mr. Self. Yes or no, is it true that many veterans have
    been waiting since 2019 for a decision on their appeal?
        Mr. Deichert. I will say yes, sir.
        Mr. Self. Do you believe that veterans deserve transparency
    from the board? This is a real simple rhetorical question
    almost so that they can make informed decisions on how to
    pursue their very own claims?
        Mr. Deichert. Yes we do, Congressman Self.
        Mr. Self. This is exactly why I filed the transparency
    bill, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Self.
        Mr. Pfluger, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pfluger. Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank everybody here. Thank you for your service.
    It may seem that I am going to ask some hard questions but it
    is only to actually help those that I have served with, those
    that you are already helping and to do it in a way that is
    targeted, to use a pilot term, that will prevent and will
    continue to find the reason.
        As I mentioned, I think you all were here for the previous
    questions. We have peer-reviewed studies. DoD has done these.
    We know that there are correlative factors between certain
    types of cancer flying.
        You heard my good friend Pablo testifying. Now, it is time
    to pivot to the what. It is time to pivot to what is causing
    this. Why is this happening when you sit in a cockpit that has
    a giant radar, that is filled with electronics, that is exposed
    to the sun, that, I mean, there are so many different factors
    and there is a lot of work already being done.
        Ms. Britton, again, thank you. Currently today, I will just
    start with the simple question of with the PACT Act if a
    veteran aviator is diagnosed with cancer after he or she leaves
    the service, is that condition automatically presumptive under
    the PACT Act?
        Ms. Britton. Thank you for that question, sir. I will defer
    to Ms. Moses to provide a detailed answer.
        Ms. Moses. Thank you very much for that question. In
    regards to whether or not the condition would be presumptive it
    definitely would depend on which specific condition was
    diagnosed. I am happy to take that back for specifics to answer
    your question.
        Mr. Pfluger. I think I will just go ahead and throw a guess
    out here that it is not. That is the problem that I think we
    are trying to address here is that we now know through three
    studies that are peer-reviewed that there is a linkage between
    flying, healthy individuals who are literally the most
    physically fit people, that they have been picked out of the
    society because they are physically fit.
        We had to go through enormous amounts of medical
    examinations in order to fly. No, we do not want to go to the
    doctor but we were, you know, we had to under undergo lots of
    tests and the cancer rates just for the three that I mentioned
    are 24 to 30 percent higher in this population of very healthy
    people than the normal civilian population.
        Ms. Britton, you mentioned in your oral testimony that you
    want to work with the committee. What edits do you see right
    now that we are proposing in ACES that the VA wants to suggest?
        Ms. Britton. Sir, we do not have any specific edits at the
    time. What we are doing is still working to understand the
    studies that DoD is conducting, but I will defer to Ms. Moses
    to add further.
        Ms. Moses. Thank you so much, Ms. Britton. We do not want
    to limit the conditions to the 11 conditions that are listed.
    We want to make sure that we are comprehensive. We understand
    that there are also existing research studies under way.
        We would like to leverage the data that is existing to
    identify what additional ways that we can identify causal
    factors.
        Mr. Pfluger. I will just push back just a little bit on
    that because why would not we go with what the National Academy
    of Science is already recommending? They know that these 11 are
    correlative so let us hone in on that as a starting point and
    go from there. Why are we waiting because then I will ask this?
    Can you explain how waiting years for the DoD studies to, you
    know, finish out serves veterans now because, like, we are in,
    kind of, crisis mode right now.
        Ms. Moses. Sure. Thank you very much for that question. If
    you will allow me to clarify, we are not stating that we are in
    objection to the 11 conditions. We just do not want to restrict
    to those 11.
        We do support. We are in agreement with the 11 but we want
    to make sure that we are not restricting or limiting to those
    11.
        Mr. Pfluger. Do you agree or Ms. Britton, do you agree that
    moving with an extreme sense of urgency right now is the right
    course of action?
        Ms. Britton. Yes, sir, we do.
        Mr. Pfluger. Is VA committed to moving with that extreme
    sense of urgency right now to help Pablo, to help--this could
    be me. I mean, literally we are talking about people. This
    could be Mr. Bergman who was a pilot, the general.
        Ms. Britton. We are 100 percent committed to resolving
    this, sir, in the most timely manner as possible.
        Mr. Pfluger. Will you all commit today to briefing the
    secretary, who also is an Air Force veteran by the way, on this
    issue, on the ACES Act, on the need for ACES Act to move with
    extreme urgency?
        Ms. Britton. Certainly, sir. We are always excited to brief
    the secretary on these type of issues.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you. Again, thank you for what you do.
    The questions, although direct, are built upon some frustration
    that I have over the last 3 years because it is 3 to 4 years we
    have been working on this. In that 3 to 4-year period both
    Pablo and myself know many people who have been diagnosed now
    in their thirties, forties, and fifties, which is, you know,
    the rates are just extremely high.
        The data points to a need for ACES Act. We have a
    bicameral, bipartisan piece of legislation, ACES Act. Senator
    Mark Kelly, Mr. Tom Cotton, myself, and many others in the
    House and the Senate want to see this go.
        We are counting on you. Thank you for the work that you do
    to help so many veterans. I mean that sincerely.
        Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for allowing me to waive on
    to this committee for such an important issue. This is my top
    priority.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Pfluger. Absolute honor to
    have you and we are going to carry this for you all the way to
    the finish line.
        Ms. Britton, I am going to put this at you, but I have got
    a feeling you are going to deflect over Mr. Deichert, the
    Veterans' Appeals Transparency Act.
        Ms. Britton. Your feeling is correct, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. Aha.
        Ms. Britton. I am going to defer.
        Mr. Luttrell. It is going to be a good day in Washington,
    DC. Tell me why that it is a no go. Before you start on that,
    can you give me an idea on just overall on the dockets how many
    outstanding claims are currently in place?
        Mr. Deichert. Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the
    dockets I do not have that in front of me but that is something
    I am happy to take back to the record and report back to you
    on, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. Do you have a plus or minus somewhere,
    because I have got a feeling it is, like, in the hundreds of
    thousands?
        Mr. Deichert. I believe the last statistics I saw 197,000,
    if I am remembering correctly, from our report on Monday.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay, and that is from a report from Monday.
        Mr. Deichert. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. All right. Now, I am going to let you dig in
    a little bit on this, why the VA shooting this down?
        Mr. Deichert. Sir, we have three primary concerns as it
    comes to this bill as written. We definitely share this
    committee's desire to increase transparency as it comes to
    veterans appeals, but those three concerns that we have got
    are, number one, when we have done this in the past we have
    opened ourselves up to litigation at the veteran's court.
        When you are listing out these are the docket dates that we
    are doing, if you are a person who sees, well, it looks like
    this range and I am not part of that, you are going to get
    concerned.
        When you get concerned the place that you go is to the
    Board of Appeals for Veterans Claims to file a writ to say what
    are these people doing? We had to spend a lot of time working
    with our fellow counsel at general counsel to say, well, this
    is what happened in this particular case and here is why we
    could not move that.
        Even if we had a lot of good reasons that that particular
    case could not move it took up a lot of time on our part to
    prepare those declarations.
        Mr. Luttrell. That sounds--okay. Something tells me this
    goes through many lawyers' hands before you put it in front of
    Congress.
        Mr. Deichert. Well, yes.
        Mr. Luttrell. I am not going to say that is a problem.
    There is risk aversion in here?
        Mr. Deichert. Yes. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. Wholeheartedly 100 percent.
        Mr. Deichert. Yes.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. That does not fix the problem.
        Mr. Deichert. No, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. I understand the defensive posture that they
    are taking for the VA. I got it but it is not solving the
    problem.
        Mr. Deichert. I mean, to put everything aside----
        Mr. Luttrell. Absolutely lay it out.
        Mr. Deichert. The biggest thing that I would say, Chairman
    Luttrell, is that knowing that information is not going to help
    a veteran look at his or her claim and say this is the best
    path for me.
        Mr. Luttrell. The one thing I would argue against--are you
    veterans, sir? I apologize.
        Mr. Deichert. No, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. The one thing that I would argue, and
    this transcends the veteran community, but the one thing that
    we really, really like is being informed.
        Mr. Deichert. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. From step out to mission success. The more
    information we have, you know, I say this every committee. You
    know, the veteran community, boy, we hard to handle.
        You know, we get spun up and down quickly and one of the
    reasons we do that is if we have not been given the information
    that we want and need and it is important. Okay? Continue.
        Mr. Deichert. We feel that the more important information
    that we can provide, sir, are those statistics regarding
    average days pending, average days to complete. If you can look
    at that and know this is going to take this long, this is going
    to take this long, I feel like this is the better path for me
    to go on the direct docket because I want an answer as quickly
    as I can.
        Or I want to go on the evidence docket because I have got
    something else to submit, but I also want to make sure that I
    can take that to the board rather than back to VA in the
    regional office.
        Mr. Luttrell. This is going to keep VA in its current
    position, correct? The since the VA disagrees on this piece of
    legislation that is going to keep the posture the same in the
    VA.
        Mr. Deichert. Certainly we are willing to continue to work
    with a committee. Yes, it would not change.
        Mr. Luttrell. I would have, I think I would have been
    happier if it would have said amendments were--VA will provide
    amendments instead of saying VA just does not support because
    you just immediately said no. Instead, let us figure out how to
    get to yes.
        Mr. Deichert. I appreciate that, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. We are not--I am not giving up on this
    little guy right here so this is going to be some discussions
    that we are going to continue to have. I would recommend that
    the VA, lawyers included, figure out again how are we going to
    get the yes instead of no?
        At the end of the day he and I and the other members, we
    have to go home and talk to our veterans. All right? Since we
    have to do that guess who you have to talk to? You have got to
    talk to us.
        Mr. Deichert. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. All right.
        Then I had something for Ms. Moses, but do you have
    anything up for a second round of question and answer? Okay.
        Thank you to all the witnesses for testifying today, and
    let me close with this. You guys are--I really respect and
    admire you guys for working with the VA. It is not an easy
    task. It is a big machine that is very, very complex. Those of
    us that you have to deal with, again, are not easy to deal
    with.
        Please continue to do what you do and just understand that
    even if you are going to sit up in front of this committee, me
    as the chairman and the ranking member, I am going to wire
    brush you if it is necessary, okay?
        It is not a perfect space and we will absolutely die trying
    to get us there, okay, because the veterans deserve that right.
        I will pass it off to the ranking member for your closing
    remarks, sir.
        Mr. McGarvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I agree with
    that. Look, too many times I think the VA comes in front of us
    and says no instead of trying to get to yes and why that is a
    problem is it is because our veterans who are feeling the
    consequences of it.
        We have got to make sure we are busting through the status
    quo to do everything we can to help our veterans. Regardless of
    what you might see in Washington right now, I think this
    committee remains committed to that mission, so appreciate
    that.
        Mr. Luttrell. I ask unanimous consent that the statements
    for the record we have received 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 objection, so ordered.
        I thank the members and the witnesses for their attendance
    and participation today. This hearing 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 Patricia Krisfalusy-Maxon
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     Prepared Statement of Andrew Shurtleff

        Chairman Luttrell and Committee Members, thank you for this
    opportunity to address you this morning on the topic of the ACES Act,
    H.R. 530. I am joined today by my wife, Julie, who is sitting behind me
    and is always supporting me.
        My name is Andrew Shurtleff. I retired from the United States Air
    Force in December 2022 after nearly 23 years of service to our Nation.
    I was trained as a fighter pilot in the F-15C and F-22, culminating in
    approximately 1,500 total flight hours flying both operational missions
    and teaching the next generation of fighter pilots. I had a promising
    career - hand-picked to help stand-up the sole F-22 flying training
    unit, early promotion to Lieutenant Colonel, top marks as a squadron
    commander, and distinguished graduate from senior developmental
    education. In 2018, while serving at Headquarters Air Combat Command at
    Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, I was looking forward to the next
    challenge - promotion to Colonel, a flying O-6 command, and endless
    future opportunities. I was also in the best shape of my life training
    for my first Half Ironman. I was simply on top of the world!
        That all changed on January 8, 2019, when I received a call from my
    doctor saying I had cancer. Scans revealed a fist-sized tumor growing
    on my left kidney. Additional tests showed the kidney cancer had
    already spread to my lungs. I was 41 years old, married with 13-and 10-
    year-old sons, and had stage 4 cancer. While I was selected for
    promotion to O-6 a few weeks after my diagnosis, I was also permanently
    grounded and eventually medically disqualified from aviation service.
    My promising flying career was over.
        Scheduling and attending doctor appointments became a near full-
    time job for the next several months. In the last 6 years I have
    undergone two surgeries, multiple procedures, three rounds of radiation
    treatments, untold number of scans and blood draws, participated in a
    clinical trial, and have exhausted all known viable treatment options.
    In June 2019, following my partial lung resection surgery, I awoke with
    a 1/2-inch tube protruding from my back attached to a small vacuum used
    to remove fluid from my chest cavity. My friend and fellow fighter
    pilot, August `Pfoto' Pfluger, now Congressman Pfluger, came to visit
    me in the hospital and slowly walked with me around the hallways while
    he carried that vacuum. It's something I will never forget. The last 6
    years have been an emotional roller coaster for me and my family and
    today I remain in the fight for my life.
        It's natural for people to question the need for the ACES Act when
    the PACT Act was just enacted in 2022. The PACT Act is a great piece of
    legislation that expands VA health care and benefits for Veterans
    exposed to burn pits, Agent Orange, and other toxic substances. The Act
    removes the burden from the Veteran of having to prove service
    connection for certain medical conditions. While the PACT Act will
    likely help millions of Veterans and their families, it is also limited
    to certain time periods and specific locations. To be clear, the PACT
    Act does not cover aviators like me and thousands of others who have
    been proven to have significantly elevated cancer diagnosis and deaths
    simply from doing their daily flying duties as documented in three
    studies from 2021-2024.
        In a way I was lucky as my cancer was diagnosed while on active
    duty and was therefore automatically service connected. As such I
    receive VA health care and benefits for my condition. But there are an
    untold number of Veteran aviators who are not as lucky, whose cancer
    was diagnosed after their military service, and they do not receive any
    benefits. The purpose of the ACES Act is to right this wrong by
    identifying the hazards in the military aviation operating environment
    that more likely than not cause cancer. We must identify the root cause
    affecting otherwise healthy aircrew. The health and continued service
    of our military aircrew directly impacts national security and should
    be prioritized appropriately. The United States needs to address the
    health risks posed to military aircrew by their unique work environment
    by dedicating the resources to fully investigate, understand, and
    eventually mitigate those risks. That is why the ACES Act is needed.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to address this subcommittee
    and I look forward to your questions.

                    Prepared Statement of Diane Boyd Rauber

        On behalf of the National Organization of Veterans' Advocates
    (NOVA), I would like to thank Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member
    McGarvey, and members of the DAMA Subcommittee for the opportunity to
    offer our views on pending legislation.
        NOVA is a not-for-profit 501(c)(6) educational membership
    organization incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1993. NOVA
    represents over 850 accredited attorneys, agents, and other qualified
    members practicing across the country and assisting tens of thousands
    of our Nation's military veterans, survivors, family members, and
    caregivers seeking to obtain their earned benefits from VA. NOVA works
    to develop and encourage high standards of service and representation
    for all persons seeking VA benefits.
        NOVA advocates for laws and policies that advance the rights of
    veterans. For example, NOVA collaborated with Veteran Service
    Organizations (VSOs) and other accredited representatives, VA, and
    Congress on appeals modernization reform. Those efforts resulted in
    passage of the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act
    (AMA), P.L. 115-55, 131 Stat. 1105, which was signed into law by
    President Trump in 2017. At the time of its passage, VA emphasized the
    AMA would provide claimants with more choice and control over the
    disability claims and appeals adjudication process by expanding their
    review options.
        NOVA also advances important cases and files amicus briefs in
    others. See, e.g., NOVA v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 710 F.3d 1328
    (Fed. Cir. 2013) (addressing VA's failure to honor its commitment to
    stop applying an invalid rule); Procopio v. Wilkie, 913 F.3d 1371 (Fed.
    Cir. 2019) (amicus); NOVA v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 981 F.3d
    1360 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (M21-1 rule was interpretive rule of general
    applicability and agency action subject to judicial review); National
    Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc., et al., v. Secretary of
    Veterans Affairs, 981 F.3d 1360 (2022) (Federal Circuit invalidated
    knee replacement rule); Arellano v. McDonough, 598 U.S. 1 (2023)
    (amicus); Terry v. McDonough, 37 Vet.App. 1 (2023) (amicus); Bufkin v.
    Collins, 604 U.S. (2025)_ (amicus).
        A critical part of NOVA's mission is to educate advocates. NOVA
    currently conducts two conferences per year, each offering
    approximately 15 hours of continuing legal education (CLE) credit for
    attendees. Experts from within and outside the membership present and
    train on the latest developments and best practices in veterans law and
    policy. NOVA sustaining members must participate in at least one
    conference every 24 months to maintain eligibility to appear in our
    public-facing advocate directory. In addition to conferences, NOVA
    offers webinars, online support, peer-to-peer mentorship, and other
    guidance to its members to enhance their advocacy skills.
        NOVA is happy to provide feedback on the following bills.

             H.R. 1039, Clear Communication for Veterans Claims Act

        NOVA supports the Clear Communication for Veterans Claims Act. We
    incorporate by reference our prior testimony before this Subcommittee
    that addressed the notice letters VA sends to veterans, family members,
    survivors, and caregivers. National Organization of Veterans'
    Advocates, Inc., Statement of Diane Boyd Rauber, Esq., Executive
    Director, Before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee
    on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Oversight Hearing, ``Lost
    in Translation: How VA's Disability Claims and Appeals Letters Should
    Be Simplified'' (March 20, 2024) (hereinafter NOVA Letters Testimony).
    In our testimony, we highlighted the lack of readable, understandable,
    and organized notice letters sent to claimants and appellants and made
    suggestions for improvements. Last year, we participated in discussion
    sessions with other stakeholders, VA leaders, and this Subcommittee on
    potential improvements to VA letters. We understand that, given the
    vast number of letters VA must draft, this work needs to be ongoing.
    With the assistance of a center to assess current letters and provide
    solutions for improvement--that considers the input of experts and
    advocates--VA can gain valuable assistance with this process.

              H.R. 1286, Simplifying Forms for Veterans Claims Act

        NOVA supports the intent of the Simplifying Forms for Veterans
    Claims Act, with suggested changes. First, like the letters that are
    the subject of the Clear Communications for Veterans Act discussed
    above, VA forms need to be readable, understandable, and organized. In
    addition, there needs to be fewer forms. We recommend expanding the
    term ``covered entities'' to mirror what is contained in the Clear
    Communications for Veterans Act. Subsection (e)(2)(D) should be broken
    into (D) ``an entity that advocates for veterans'' and (E) ``an entity
    that advocates for the survivors of veterans,'' to allow for
    participation by more entities.
        Furthermore, while we support this legislation, we maintain
    Congress should do more regarding VA forms. Last Congress, NOVA and
    other veterans organizations testified to the serious problem of VA
    rejecting a ``wrong'' form submitted by a veteran and asking for a
    different form even when it can be determined from the original form
    what benefit the veteran is seeking. Sometimes VA sends confusing
    instructions, resulting in the claimant being required to resend forms
    previously sent. See, e.g., NOVA Letters Testimony at 9. This loop of
    submissions, rejections, and additional requests confuses and
    frustrates veterans and wastes valuable time for claimants and VA,
    contributing to unnecessary delays and backlogs.
        Last Congress, this Subcommittee considered the Veterans Appeals
    Options Expansion Act of 2024. That bill contained a provision
    requiring VA to accept an incorrect form as an intent to file under 38
    C.F.R. Sec.  3.155. We urge the Subcommittee to again consider this
    measure. In addition, to make the process more veteran friendly, that
    provision should include an option for VA to accept the form as a claim
    for the specific benefit if it can be determined from the submission.
    If VA cannot determine what benefit is being sought, it can then accept
    the form as an intent to file and let the claimant know of the
    requirement to complete the application within the year.

                H.R. 1578, Veterans Claims Education Act of 2025

        NOVA supports the Veterans Claims Education Act. This bill would
    provide information to veterans, family members, survivors, and
    caregivers to help them understand and select accredited representation
    if they seek assistance with their claims. Given the ongoing problem of
    unaccredited claims consultants, this information can save claimants
    from receiving potentially incorrect and costly assistance from
    unaccredited actors.

              H.R. 1741, Veterans Appeals Transparency Act of 2025

        NOVA supports the Veterans Appeals Transparency Act of 2025. As
    noted above, NOVA participated in stakeholder discussions that led to
    the passage of the AMA. This legislation expanded the review options
    available to claimants after VA denies a claim. One of the options is
    to appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board). When a claimant
    selects that option, they must choose to file on one of three dockets:
    direct review, evidence, or hearing.
        Although it has taken longer than we had expected when the AMA was
    passed, the Board appears to have turned a corner, greatly reducing the
    remaining legacy docket and finally reaching AMA cases in greater
    number. According to the Board's website, ``It took 5 years to change
    the decision output ratio from 99 percent Legacy appeals versus 1
    percent AMA appeals to a 50/50 ratio in February 2024. However, it has
    taken only 7 months to reverse the trend with roughly 87 percent AMA
    appeals versus 13 percent Legacy cases adjudicated.'' Board of
    Veterans' Appeals, More Board Personnel Address Pending AMA Appeals &
    Wait Times, https://www.bva.va.gov/more-board-personnel-address-
    pending-ama-appeals-wait-times.asp. We appreciate this progress and the
    funds Congress provided to allow the Board to hire more decision-
    writing attorneys and Veterans Law Judges for this purpose.
        Requiring the Board to provide a notice of the docket dates being
    assigned each week will provide greater transparency to veterans,
    family members, survivors, and caregivers as to where their case is in
    the process. It will also help veterans and their accredited advocates
    make informed decisions about how to proceed with current and future
    cases.

               H.R. 2137, Review Every Veterans Claim Act of 2025

        NOVA supports the Review Every Veterans Claim Act of 2025 and we
    thank Chairman Luttrell for reintroducing this bill. This bill would
    amend current 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5103A to provide that, ``[i]f a veteran
    fails to appear for a medical examination provided by the Secretary in
    conjunction with a claim for a benefit under a law administered by the
    Secretary, the Secretary may not deny such claim on the sole basis that
    such veteran failed to appear for such medical examination.''
        By eliminating denials based solely on the failure to appear for an
    examination, veterans will stop being unfairly penalized for situations
    often beyond their control. NOVA members frequently report instances
    where a veteran tries to communicate an inability to attend an
    examination for a host of reasons: conflict with work schedules,
    illness, family responsibilities, a lack of transportation, etc.
    Sometimes they are unable to reach someone to reschedule or that
    request is not honored. In other cases, the veteran never receives
    notice of the examination. Veterans who are homeless or at risk of
    homelessness are particularly vulnerable. Amending this provision
    reflects a veteran-friendly policy.
        Furthermore, VA often schedules unnecessary examinations and
    reexaminations for veterans, which has been frequently reported by
    NOVA. See, e.g., National Organization of Veterans' Advocates,
    Statement for the Record Before the House Committee on Veterans'
    Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs
    Concerning ``VA Disability Exams: Are Veterans Receiving Quality
    Services?'' (July 27, 2023); National Organization of Veterans'
    Advocates, Statement for the Record Before the Senate Veterans' Affairs
    Committee Concerning Pending Legislation to Include Discussion Draft,
    S._ , No Bonuses for Bad Exams Act of 2022 (July 13, 2022); see also
    Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General, Veterans
    Benefits Administration: Veterans Are Still Being Required to Attend
    Unwarranted Medical Reexaminations for Disability Benefits (March 16,
    2023), https://www.va.gov/oig/pubs/VAOIG-22-01503-65.pdf. Unnecessary
    examinations are particularly troublesome considering the statutory
    requirement for VA to consider private medical evidence. See 38 U.S.C.
    Sec.  5125 (``a report of a medical examination administered by a
    private physician that is provided by a claimant in support of a claim
    for benefits under that chapter may be accepted without a requirement
    for confirmation by an examination by a physician employed by the
    Veterans Health Administration if the report is sufficiently complete
    to be adequate for the purpose of adjudicating such claim''). By
    amending 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5103A and prohibiting VA from denying a claim
    solely because of a missed examination, VA will be required to conduct
    a more fulsome review of the record to consider private evidence or
    ongoing VA treatment before ordering more examinations in a system that
    is already overloaded with requests.
        We have one minor suggestion for clarification. The current bill
    would strike ``COMPENSATION CLAIMS'' and replace it with ``CLAIMS FOR
    BENEFITS.'' This change appears overly broad as VA ``claims for
    benefits'' encompass a broad range of services and awards that do not
    require an examination as a condition for a grant. By contrast, a
    heading such as ``CLAIMS FOR VA DISABILITY BENEFITS'' would be clearer
    and ensure that this prohibition against denials solely because of a
    missed examination would extend to all VA disability benefit claims and
    appeals.

      H.R. 2201, Improving Training for Military Sexual Trauma Claims Act

        NOVA supports the Improving Training for Military Sexual Trauma
    Claims Act that builds on prior bipartisan efforts to ensure an
    accurate and sensitive adjudication of all claims that involve
    conditions related to military sexual trauma (MST). See Johnny Isakson
    and David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement
    Act of 2020, P.L. 116-315, Jan. 5, 2021, Sec.  5501, 134 Stat. 4932; An
    act to amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of
    Veterans Affairs to provide for peer support specialists for claimants
    who are survivors of military sexual trauma, and for other purposes,
    P.L. 117-272, Dec. 27, 2022, Sec.  1, 136 Stat. 4179. This bill will
    (1) require VA to conduct annual sensitivity training for each VA
    employee who processes a claim for an MST-related condition,
    communicates with a claimant regarding evidence, or decides a claim;
    (2) expand the duty to assist to require the Secretary to obtain the
    service personnel and service medical records of a claimant if there is
    no supporting evidence of an MST in the evidence of record; and (3)
    develop sensitivity training for health care professionals and those
    individuals who communicate with veterans to schedule examinations to
    ensure a veteran is not retraumatized during an examination.
        As an initial matter, NOVA maintains that VA should always be
    obtaining the service personnel record and service medical record of
    every veteran seeking benefits as part of its regular duty to assist.
    See 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5103A(c)(1).
        NOVA supports all efforts to ensure that veterans who make a claim
    for a condition based on military sexual trauma are not retraumatized.
    See NOVA Statement for the Record Before the House Committee on
    Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial
    Affairs, ``Supporting Survivors: Assessing VA's Military Sexual Trauma
    Programs,'' 5 (Nov. 17, 2021) (emphasizing the need for VA and contract
    examiners to receive trauma-informed training on an ongoing basis).
        Some of the legislative strides already made and those being
    considered as part of this bill are an outgrowth of a March 2021
    bipartisan letter sent from House members to VA. See Letter from Reps.
    Elaine Luria, Troy Nehls, Mark Takano, Mike Bost, Julia Brownley, Mike
    Levin, and Chris Pappas to Secretary Denis McDonough, March 29, 2021,
    https://veterans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
    2021_3_29_hvac_dama_ltr_to_secva_re_vba_mst_policy_changes.pdf. In our
    November 2021 statement referenced above, we noted favorably other
    recommendations made by those members that should be considered here if
    they have not been implemented, e.g., ensuring that VA respects the
    veteran-appointed representative and informs them of all scheduled
    communication between VA employees and the veteran and that the Board
    is using protocols to conduct hearings in a trauma-sensitive manner.

     H.R. xxxx, Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney Retention and Backlog
                                 Reduction Act

        NOVA supports the draft bill entitled Board of Veterans' Appeals
    Attorney Retention and Backlog Reduction Act. This bill would allow for
    non-supervisory attorneys employed by the Board to be promoted to a
    grade GS-15. NOVA maintains that individuals with appeals pending at
    the Board are best served by attorneys who are experienced and
    knowledgeable about the ever-changing field of veterans benefits law.
    Someone who has stayed at the Board and produced the quality work to be
    eligible for this grade, but chooses not to become a supervisor, should
    not be penalized.

                                   Conclusion

        Thank you again for allowing NOVA to provide our views on these
    bills, and I would be happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee
    members might have.

    For more information:

        NOVA staff would be happy to assist you with any further inquiries
    you may have regarding our views on this important topic. For questions
    regarding this testimony or if you would like to request additional
    information, please feel free to contact Diane Boyd Rauber by calling
    NOVA's office at (202) 587-5708 or by emailing Diane directly at
    drauber@vetadvocates.org.

                      Prepared Statement of Lesley Witter

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas, and Members of the
    Subcommittee,
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the
    nearly 20,000 licensed funeral directors and embalmers across the
    Nation who are members of the National Funeral Directors Association
    (NFDA). I am Lesley Witter, Senior Vice President of Advocacy for the
    National Funeral Directors Association.
        The role of funeral directors in ensuring that veterans receive a
    dignified funeral and burial cannot be overstated. The vital
    collaboration between funeral directors, Congress, the Department of
    Veteran Affairs (VA), and the Department of Defense (DoD) is crucial in
    supporting bereaved Veteran families during their time of profound
    grief and loss.
        Funeral directors work hand-in-hand with the Department of Veterans
    Affairs to coordinate funeral and burial services, assist families in
    filing benefit claims, ensure veterans receive proper grave markers,
    and collaborate with the Department of Defense and veterans' service
    organizations to provide appropriate military honors. While funeral
    directors are dedicated to ensuring that military honors are properly
    rendered, they also play a crucial role in helping families organize
    personalized services that celebrate the life of their loved one and
    honor their selfless service to our country.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you, Ranking Member Pappas,
    Committee Members, and staff for holding this important hearing. Your
    efforts to advance vital legislation that will help ease the emotional
    burden on the grieving families of our nations heroes is deeply
    appreciated.

    H.R. 647: Ensuring Veterans' Final Resting Place Act of 2025

        Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking Rep. Yakym for his
    efforts to address this nuanced, but incredibly important, issue. I
    appreciate the Committee's efforts to address concerns raised by
    survivor families about a provision in section 2207 of P.L. 116-315
    that authorized the VA to provide a veterans' survivor, an urn or a
    plaque in lieu of the veteran's burial in a VA national cemetery, thus
    taking away the eligibility of that veteran for a ground burial at a
    later date.
        Currently, families of veterans who wish to bury their loved ones
    together after a veteran's survivor chooses an urn or plaque are not
    allowed to inter their veteran loved one in a VA national cemetery with
    their family members.
        Under current law, families are forced to make difficult decisions
    with permanent consequences that they may not be fully able to
    comprehend during their time of mourning. We are concerned that a
    grieving spouse may decide to claim the urn benefit without realizing
    that their decision impacts the veteran's future eligibility for ground
    burial. It is unreasonable to expect a grieving spouse to mourn his/her
    loss, to plan a funeral, and consider their own their own final
    disposition options and eligibility for ground burial in a VA national
    cemetery.
        NFDA supports H.R. 647 which is commonsense legislation that would
    allow families to inter their veteran loved ones in a VA national
    cemetery even if they previously opted for an urn or plaque, ensuring
    families have flexibility to make the best decision for their loved
    one's final resting place. This legislation provides a thoughtful
    solution to a problem that adds unnecessary stress and grief to veteran
    families, and we encourage passage of this legislation.

    H.R. 1344: Dennis and Lois Krisfalusy Act

        Mr. Chairman, I am honored to speak in support of H.R. 1344, the
    Dennis and Lois Krisfalusy Act today. I want to thank Rep.
    Reschenthaler for his efforts to ensure that no veteran or family
    member is denied the recognition they rightfully deserve for their
    service to our Nation.
        As you know, NCA's authority under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  2306(b)(2) to
    provide this benefit is currently limited to those family members who
    passed away on or after November 11, 1998. This arbitrary and outdated
    restriction prohibits the Department of Veteran Affairs from providing
    a memorial headstone or marker for military spouses and dependents if
    they passed after that date.
        H.R. 1344 corrects an injustice by allowing the Department of
    Veteran Affairs to provide memorial headstones or markers for veterans,
    their spouses, and dependent children, regardless of when they passed
    away, ensuring that military families are properly honored together. By
    fixing this injustice, we're ensuring that families like the Krisfalusy
    family can be laid to rest together and memorialized with dignity. NFDA
    encourages passage of this legislation.

    H.R. 1228: Prioritizing Veterans' Survivors Act

        Mr. Chairman, in preparation for today's testimony, I spoke with
    funeral directors who assist grieving families as they navigate their
    way through the sometimes complicated process of applying for benefits
    from multiple agencies within the Department of Veteran Affairs,
    including the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Veterans Benefits
    Administration (VBA), and the National Cemetery Administration (NCA).
        The Office of Survivor Assistance (OSA) is a crucial resource
    overseeing all benefits and services furnished by the Department of
    Veteran Affairs to survivors and dependents of deceased Veterans.
    Recently, the Office of Survivors' Assistance was moved out of the
    Office of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, thus hampering OSA's
    ability to serve as a principal advisor to the Secretary on policies
    affecting survivor families.
        NFDA believes there should be no barrier between the Office of
    Survivors' Assistance and the Office of the Secretary of Veterans
    Affairs. For this reason, we support H.R. 1228 and encourage passage of
    this legislation.

    CONCLUDING REMARKS:

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas, and members of the
    Subcommittee, on behalf of the National Funeral Directors I want to
    thank you for your tireless leadership, dedication, and diligent work
    in support of our nations veterans and their families.
        In closing, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the
    opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of funeral service
    and NFDA and affirm our unwavering commitment to honoring our Nation's
    veterans and their families
        I hope that my testimony has provided valuable insights, and I am
    happy to address any questions you may have.
        Thank you.

                     Prepared Statement of Kenesha Britton

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and other Members of
    the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting us here today to present our
    views on several bills that would affect VA programs and services.
    Joining me today are Jocelyn Moses, Senior Principal Advisor of
    Compensation Service, VBA; Lisa Pozzebon, Executive Director of
    Cemetery Operations, National Cemetery Administration (NCA); and Evan
    Deichert, Acting Deputy Vice Chairman, Board of Veterans' Appeals
    (Board).

    H.R. 530  ``ACES Act''

        Section 2(a) of this bill would require VA to enter into an
    agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
    Medicine (NASEM) under which NASEM would conduct a study on the
    prevalence and mortality of cancers among covered individuals. Section
    2(b) would require this study to identify exposures associated with
    military occupations of covered individuals (including relating to
    chemicals, compounds, agents, and other phenomena) and review the
    literature to determine associations between such exposures and the
    incidence or prevalence of overall cancer morbidity, overall cancer
    mortality, and increased incidence or prevalence of certain cancers.
    The study would also have to determine, to the extent possible, the
    prevalence of and mortality from these cancers among covered
    individuals by using available data sources (which could include health
    care and other administrative data bases of VA, the Department of
    Defense (DoD), and the individual services), the national death index,
    and the study conducted under section 750 of the William M. (Mac)
    Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021
    (P.L. 116-283). Section 2(c) would require NASEM, at the conclusion of
    the study, to submit a report to VA and Congress containing the results
    of the study required by subsection (b). Section 2(d) would define the
    term ``covered individual'' to mean an individual who served on active
    duty in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps as an aircrew member
    of a fixed-wing aircraft, including as a pilot, navigator, weapons
    system operator, aircraft system operator, or any other crew member who
    regularly flew in a fixed-wing aircraft.

        VA supports this bill, subject to amendments and the availability
    of appropriations.

        While VA supports the intent of this bill, VA is concerned it would
    duplicate existing efforts that are already underway. We believe there
    may be ways to amend the bill, though, to enhance these current
    efforts, and we welcome the opportunity to discuss these with the
    Subcommittee.
        Pursuant to P.L. 116-283 Sec.  750, DoD, in conjunction with the
    Directors of the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer
    Institute, must conduct a study on cancer among covered individuals (a
    term generally consistent with the definition above) in two phases. The
    DoD Military Aviator Cancer Study (MACS) is designed to satisfy these
    requirements. The MACS study also covers helicopters, which this bill
    does not. The existing study has several phases that DoD and others are
    currently executing. This ongoing work is examining cancer incidence,
    mortality, and specific exposures that may be associated with cancer
    outcomes; the work is scheduled to continue through Fiscal Year (FY)
    2029. DoD has worked with VA to secure VA health care data in support
    of the MACS study.
        In addition, sections 2(b)(2) and 2(b)(3) of this bill would direct
    NASEM to focus on a prescribed list of 11 cancers. Although VA may
    expand this list, in consultation with NASEM, the bill may produce a
    report with inherent biases and limitations because the scope is
    unnecessarily limited to a specific set of 11 cancers, rather than
    studying all cancers. Other studies, such as MACS, are examining
    incidences of all cancers and will likely yield more meaningful
    results.
        If this bill moves forward, we recommend it be amended to require
    VA to seek to enter into an agreement with NASEM, or another
    appropriate independent organization; this would be consistent with
    other, similar requirements and would provide VA flexibility in case it
    was unable to reach an agreement with NASEM.
        Finally, we note that sections 502 and 505 of the Honoring our
    Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-168)
    already require VA to (1) analyze VA clinical data to try to determine
    the association, if any, between medical conditions of Veterans and
    toxic exposure, and (2) conduct a study on the incidence of cancer in
    Veterans to determine trends in the rates of the incidence of cancer in
    Veterans. In this context, it is not clear that the additional study
    the ACES Act would require would yield new information.
        VA has other technical comments on this legislation that we would
    be happy to share with the Subcommittee.

    H.R. 647  ``Ensuring Veterans' Final Resting Place Act of 2025''

        This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  2306(h), which currently
    authorizes VA to provide, in lieu of burial and other memorialization,
    a plaque or an urn to commemorate the memory of a Veteran whose remains
    are cremated and not interred. This bill would allow a family that
    received a plaque or an urn to also receive burial or other
    memorialization benefits for the Veteran.

        VA supports, if amended and subject to the availability of
    appropriations.

        VA shares Congress' apparent view that this authority should be
    amended.
        Congress is aware of the negative comments VA received when it
    published a notice of proposed rulemaking implementing the plaque-and-
    urn benefit. VA took specific steps in its regulatory documents to
    ensure members of the public would be aware that acceptance of the
    plaque or urn benefit would be in lieu of other memorialization or
    burial benefits. Most of the comments received on the rulemaking raised
    concerns regarding the waiver of future eligibility for burial or
    memorialization benefits through acceptance of a commemorative plaque
    or urn. We appreciate Congress' effort to introduce this bill to
    address the concerns but note that the bill raises other concerns.
        This bill would remove the current language in 38 U.S.C. Sec.
    2306(h) that prohibits VA from providing a headstone or marker or any
    burial benefit under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  2402 for any individual who has
    received a commemorative plaque or urn. In doing so, families that
    choose cremation as the manner of disposition would be able to first
    receive a plaque or an urn and then apply for and receive a headstone
    or marker or burial benefits in a national cemetery. This arrangement
    would create an inequity for families that choose to inter their loved
    ones in a casket as the urn or plaque benefit is only available to
    individuals whose remains are cremated. Additionally, there are
    increased costs associated with this bill as headstones or markers and
    burial benefits would now be available in addition to the plaque or urn
    benefit and many more families would choose to receive the additional
    benefits.
        VA has faithfully taken steps to implement the law as enacted. VA
    understands the desire of some survivors to retain the cremated remains
    of a loved one, as well as their desire to feel VA has provided
    appropriate recognition of their loved one's service. VA notes that two
    benefits are currently available to such families--burial flags and
    Presidential Memorial Certificates--neither of which require families
    to forfeit other benefits. We support Congress' efforts to provide a
    meaningful benefit to these survivors. VA would like to work with the
    Subcommittee to discuss more equitable or cost-effective solutions.
        VA estimates this bill would have significant costs to the
    Discretionary account of $3.3 million in 2026, $67.3 million over 5
    years, and $210.3 million over 10 years.

    H.R. 1039  ``Clear Communication for Veterans Claims Act''

        Section 2(a) of this bill would direct VA, within 30 days after
    date of enactment, to enter into an agreement with a federally funded
    research and development center (FFRDC) to assess benefit-related
    notification letters sent to claimants. Section 2(b) would require that
    FFRDC's assessment be made in consultation with covered entities and
    include a determination as to whether currently used notices may be
    feasibly altered to reduce paper consumption by, and costs to, the
    Federal Government. It would also direct the FFRDC to make
    recommendations on how VA could make such notices for claimants
    clearer, more concise, and better organized.
        Section 2(c) would require VA to submit a copy of FFRDC's
    assessment to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs and
    to implement the recommendations in compliance with laws administered
    by VA within 90 days after receiving the assessment. Section 2(d) would
    require VA to complete the implementation of FFRDC's recommendations
    within 1 year after the date such implementation commences. Section
    2(e) would define the term ``covered entities'' as including the
    Secretary of Veterans Affairs, an expert in laws administered by VA, a
    Veterans Service Organization recognized under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5902, an
    entity that advocates for Veterans, and an entity that advocates for
    Veterans' survivors.
        Last, section 3 of the bill would amend the loan fee table at 38
    U.S.C. Sec.  3729(b)(2) to extend to June 23, 2034, the applicability
    of a provision requiring Veterans to pay fees when obtaining a loan
    which VA guaranteed, insured, or made.

        VA supports, if amended, and subject to the availability of
    appropriations.

        While VA generally supports the intent of the bill, the deadlines
    it would impose are challenging, unrealistic, and difficult to
    implement. The binding nature of any recommendations the FFRDC issues
    is also of concern.
        VA is concerned that the bill's requirement to enter into an
    agreement with an FFRDC within 30 days following enactment of the bill
    may hinder VA's ability to ensure an agreement is reached with the
    FFRDC most appropriate for the task under VA's contracting
    requirements.
        VA is also concerned that the bill's mandate to implement the
    FFRDC's notification letter recommendations within 90 days of receiving
    the assessment would be challenging at best and potentially
    unachievable without significant risk. VA notes that making changes to
    notice letters is a thoughtful, considered, deliberative, time-
    consuming, and complicated process that also requires updating existing
    information technology (IT) systems. Updates to VA's technology
    systems, including the Veterans Benefits Management System, are
    prioritized far in advance. Implementation of the notice changes
    required by the bill, if required within 90 days, could require VA to
    push out current priority updates with more substantial impact on
    Veterans.
        VA notes that the implementation deadline of 90 days mandated in
    section 2(c) contradicts the implementation deadline of 1 year from
    commencement as specified in section 2(d). A 90-day window to implement
    the recommendations in the assessment as specified in section 2(c)(2)
    is not feasible given the needed technological and system upgrades that
    would be required, as noted. VA recommends an implementation window of
    at least 24 months from the date of enactment to allow for adequate
    system development, testing, and implementation. VA notes that these
    enhancements are required since notice letters to claimants are not
    constructed in one uniform manner. Notice letter generation is complex,
    and current templates often require extensive editing, concurrence,
    deployment testing, and validation from subject expert, legal,
    regulatory, and technological standpoints to ensure that all case-
    specific factors for individual claimants can be captured.
        Also, VA must exercise caution to ensure that its notification
    letters comply with existing statutes and controlling case law (which
    is protean in nature). VA is concerned that it could not adopt FFRDC's
    recommendations on a wholesale basis without adequate time to
    independently assure that they would not put VA at risk for non-
    compliance with its legal duties to claimants. Conducting such a review
    would require detailed collaborative efforts involving multiple VA
    business lines that would certainly require more than 90 days.
        Additionally, VA notes concern with the language that would
    effectively make FFRDC's report binding on VA. This provision would
    leave no room for VA to refine or improve upon the recommendations,
    should the need arise. While an FFRDC report could yield valuable
    insights, VA views research and development processes as being designed
    to create recommendations, not binding policy. As such, we recommend
    changes to the bill allowing VA to retain final decision-making
    authority for implementation.
        VA also notes that legislative action is not required for an
    enterprise-wide review of VA's notice letters. If VA internally reviews
    its enterprise-wide notice letters and reports on the findings, this
    will result in a cost-savings to the Federal Government. VBA already
    reviews and updates benefit claim letters internally on a regular
    basis.
        For example, VBA utilizes a Language Change Control Board (LCCB) to
    review and approve all compensation and pension-related language change
    requests for letters, glossary texts, fragments, or any other external
    facing communications. The LCCB is responsible for ensuring that
    identified language changes are tracked, reviewed for accuracy, and
    sent to implementation in a timely manner. Members across various
    business lines within VBA, such as Compensation Service, Pension and
    Fiduciary Service, and the Office of Administrative Review make up the
    LCCB. Requests are generated by statutes, regulation, or policy,
    implementing procedures, or identified deficiencies within our products
    generate requests for changes.
        Focusing on human centered design (HCD), VBA has collaborated with
    the Veterans Experience Office since October 2023 to conduct HCD co-
    design workshops to redesign benefit letters sent to Veterans. The
    objective is to enhance clarity, accessibility, and usefulness of these
    letters for Veterans seeking to understand their eligibility for
    benefits from VA. VA is currently working to implement the findings.
        VA is also concerned with the language in the bill defining covered
    entities in section 2(e)(2). The bill is ambiguous as to whether the
    FFRDC or VA would select which covered entities should be consulted and
    how many covered entities should participate in the assessment.
        Last, VA does not support section 3 of the bill, which would amend
    the loan fee table at 38 U.S.C. 3729(b)(2) to extend to June 23, 2034,
    the applicability of a provision requiring Veterans to pay fees when
    obtaining a loan which VA guaranteed, insured, or made. VA objects to
    using statutory loan fees associated with the VA Home Loan Program to
    fund the cost of other benefit programs.
        A cost estimate is not currently available.

    H.R. 1228  ``Prioritizing Veterans' Survivors Act''

        This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  321(a) to state that the
    Office of Survivors Assistance (OSA) would be reorganized under the
    Office of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

        VA supports this bill, subject to the availability of
    appropriations.

        OSA was established by the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of
    2008, P.L. No. 110-389, section 222, 122 Stat. 4145, 4156. OSA serves
    as a resource regarding all benefits and services VA furnishes to
    survivors and dependents of deceased Veterans and members of the Armed
    Forces. OSA also serves as a principal advisor to the Secretary of
    Veterans Affairs, working to promote the use of VA benefits, programs,
    and services to survivors while ensuring they are properly supported as
    stated in VA's mission.

    H.R. 1286  ``Simplifying Forms for Veterans Claims Act''

        Section 2(a) of this bill would direct VA, within 30 days after
    date of enactment, to enter into an agreement with an FFRDC to assess
    forms sent to claimants. Section 2(b) would require that FFRDC's
    assessment be made in consultation with covered entities and include
    FFRDC's recommendations regarding how VA may make such forms better
    organized and clearer to claimants. Section 2(c) would require VA,
    within 90 days after receiving FFRDC's assessment, to implement the
    recommendations in the assessment that comply with laws administered by
    the Secretary and to submit a copy of the assessment to the House and
    Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs. Section 2(d) would require VA
    to complete the implementation of FFRDC's recommendations within 2
    years after the date of such implementation commences. Section 2(e)
    would define the term ``covered entities'' as including the Secretary
    of Veterans Affairs, an expert in laws administered by VA, a Veterans
    Service Organization recognized under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5902, and an
    entity that advocates for Veterans and their survivors.

        VA supports, if amended, and subject to the availability of
    appropriations.

        While VA generally supports the intent of the bill, the deadlines
    it would impose are challenging, unrealistic, and difficult to
    implement. The binding nature of any recommendations issued by the
    FFRDC is also of concern.
        VA is concerned that the bill's requirement to enter into an
    agreement with an FFRDC within 30 days following enactment of the bill
    may hinder VA's ability to ensure an agreement is reached with the
    FFRDC most appropriate for the task under VA's contracting
    requirements.
        Section (2)(c)(2) would require VA, within 90 days after receiving
    the assessment, to ``implement the recommendations in the assessment
    that are in compliance with laws administered by the Secretary,'' and
    section (2)(d) would require VA to ``complete the implementation of
    such recommendations pursuant to subsection (c)(2)'' not later than 2
    years after the date on which VA commences such implementation. These
    timelines appear to conflict. VA recommends replacing ``implement'' in
    subsection (c)(2) with ``identify'' if the intent is for VA to
    identify, within 90 days, which recommendations comply with the laws
    administered by VA. If this is the intent, VA notes that this timeline
    is likely infeasible as the volume of recommendations is unknown and
    would recommend a timeline of at least 180 days. Alternatively, if the
    intent is for VA to begin implementation within 90 days, VA recommends
    replacing ``implement'' in subsection (c)(2) with ``initiate
    implementation of.'' VA recommends the language in subsection (d) then
    be revised to align with the updated subsection (c)(2), as needed.
        Additionally, the volume of recommendations from the FFRDC cannot
    be estimated. VA is consequently concerned that the bill's mandate to
    complete the implementation no later than 2 years after VA commences
    such implementation may not allow sufficient time to put all the
    changes into effect considering Paperwork Reduction Act requirements
    and existing IT priorities. The volume and depth of recommended changes
    that the FFRDC may assess are not limited by the bill and cannot be
    estimated. Potentially hundreds of forms may be affected and the extent
    of changes for each one could be substantial. Making changes to VA
    forms is necessarily a thoughtful, considered, deliberative, time-
    consuming, and complicated process. VA must exercise caution to ensure
    that its forms comply with existing statutes and controlling case law.
    It also requires updating existing IT systems.
        While VA agrees with the stated intent to make forms ``better
    organized and clearer to claimants,'' VA is concerned that it could not
    adopt the FFRDC's recommendations on a wholesale basis without adequate
    time to independently assure that they would not put VA at risk for
    non-compliance with its legal duties to claimants. Doing so would
    require detailed collaborative efforts involving multiple VA business
    lines that would certainly require more than 90 days, assuming the
    intent of subsection (c)(2) is for VA to identify the recommendations
    that comply with laws administered by VA within 90 days, as discussed
    above.
        The language would also effectively make the FFRDC's report binding
    on VA if VA is required to implement the FFRDC's recommendations. This
    provision would leave no room for VA to refine or improve upon the
    recommendations, should the need arise. While an FFRDC's report could
    yield valuable insights, VA views research and development processes as
    being designed to create recommendations, not binding policy. If
    effectively implemented, the assessment process could enhance the
    clarity of VA forms, reduce paper usage, and lower costs, ultimately
    benefiting both the agency and Veterans. However, if VA is not afforded
    adequate discretion, it could lead to inefficiencies, delays, and
    additional administrative burdens and hinder existing IT modernization
    activities. As such, VA should retain decision-making authority over
    final implementation to ensure any changes align with the broader needs
    of the Department and the Veterans it serves.
        VA is also concerned with the language defining covered entities in
    section 2(e)(2). The bill is ambiguous as to whether the FFRDC or VA
    would select which covered entities should be consulted and how many
    covered entities should participate in the assessment. It is also
    unclear which VA entity would bear the costs of the contract or if
    additional funds would be appropriated. Additionally, as drafted, it is
    unclear whether Congress' intent is to have either paper or digital
    forms, or both types of forms, be reviewed. This bill would require IT
    resources to both support the FFRDC's review and to implement its
    recommendations.
        A cost estimate is not currently available.

    H.R. 1344  ``Dennis and Lois Krisfalusy Act''

        This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  2306(b)(2) to expand
    eligibility for memorial headstones and markers for certain spouses,
    surviving spouses, or eligible dependent children of Veterans and
    active-duty Service members. This bill would remove November 11, 1998,
    as the earliest date of death for these family members to be eligible.
    The limitation that the death must occur before September 30, 2032,
    would remain in the statute.

        VA supports this bill subject to the availability of appropriations
    and seeks amendment.

        VA supports this bill but also supports amending it to address the
    September 30, 2032, date in 38 U.S.C. Sec.  2306(b)(2)(B) and (C) by
    which an eligible family member's death must occur for VA to provide a
    memorial headstone or marker. VA additionally supports amending the
    bill to address the same limiting date that appears in 38 U.S.C. Sec.
    2402(a)(5) so that covered family members of active-duty Service
    members would remain eligible for burial in a VA national cemetery even
    if their deaths occur on or after September 30, 2032. Rather than
    simply extending the date-of-death limitations in both sections 2306
    and 2402 in the future, VA supports amendments to remove entirely the
    date-of-death limitations in both sections. Eliminating the date-of-
    death requirement in each of these statutes would ensure that active-
    duty Service members who lose their loved ones while serving the Nation
    would retain the opportunity to obtain a government-furnished memorial
    headstone or marker or to choose to inter their loved ones in a VA
    national cemetery.
        VA estimates this bill would have insignificant costs to the
    mandatory Compensation and Pension account of $28,000 in 2025, $141,000
    over 5 years, and $282,000 over 10 years. VA estimates this bill would
    have discretionary costs related to the interment of spouses or
    dependent children who predecease active-duty Service members of
    $55,000 in Fiscal Year 2026, $286,000 over 5 years and $601,000 over 10
    years.

    H.R. XXXX  ``Veterans Claims Education Act of 2025''

        This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5103A to require VA, upon
    receiving an initial claim, to provide specific notice to claimants
    without an accredited representative and require VA to regularly
    maintain an easily accessible online tool to allow claimants to search
    a list of accredited representatives that would be updated quarterly.
    The bill would provide definitions for ``accredited person'' and
    ``represent'' applicable to amended section 5103A. The bill would also
    direct VA to add a ``warning'' to all VA web portals through which an
    individual may file a claim for VBA or Veterans Health Administration
    (VHA) benefits regarding fees that accredited agents and attorneys may
    charge. The bill would require that the warning include a link to the
    aforementioned search tool for finding accredited representatives and a
    link to a website for reporting unaccredited individuals who
    represented the claimant and charged a fee for such representation.
    Finally, the bill would require VA to review VA's accreditation program
    under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5904 and submit to Congress recommendations for
    legislative or administrative action for improvements.
        VA is still examining the legislation and is unable to provide
    comprehensive views currently.

    H.R. XXXX  ``Review Every Veterans Claim Act of 2025''

        This bill would restrict VA from denying a claim for benefits based
    solely on a Veteran's failure to report to a scheduled VA disability
    examination.

        VA supports subject to the availability of appropriations and seeks
    amendment to this bill.

        Generally, VA must review and consider all the evidence gathered in
    support of the claim. However, currently 38 C.F.R. Sec.  3.655(b)
    requires VA to deny a claim if a Veteran fails to report for an
    examination as part of a supplemental claim, a claim for increase, or
    an original claim other than an original compensation claim. This bill
    would prohibit denying such claims on the sole basis of failure to
    report to an exam. Revision to 38 C.F.R. Sec.  3.655(b) would be
    required.
        Currently, VA has a statutory duty under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5103A(d)
    to provide a medical examination or obtain a medical opinion when such
    examination or opinion is necessary to decide a compensation claim. A
    medical examination or opinion is necessary to decide a claim where the
    evidence of record contains competent evidence that the claimant has a
    current disability associated with their active military, naval, air,
    or space service but the medical evidence of record is insufficient for
    VA to decide the claim.
        VA notes that while this bill would prohibit denial of a claim on
    the sole basis that a Veteran failed to appear for a medical
    examination, cases may remain where, without the examination, there is
    insufficient evidence to support entitlement. Hence, even if this bill
    were enacted, claims may still be denied in those circumstances. The
    only difference would be that the denial would be due to lack of
    sufficient evidence rather than for failure to appear for the
    examination.
        VA supports this bill because it would reinforce VA's general
    practice of reviewing and considering the full body of evidence before
    deciding a claim.
        VA suggests amending 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5103(A)(d)(1) to include
    pension claims to align with the bill's apparent intent in amending the
    subsection's heading from ``Medical Examinations for Compensation
    Claims'' to ``Medical Examination for Claims for Benefits.'' The
    current language within paragraph (d)(1) focuses solely on disability
    compensation claims and should include claims for pension.
        A costing determination is not currently available.

    H.R. XXXX  ``Improving VA Training for Military Sexual Trauma Claims
    Act''

        Section 2(a) would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1166(c) to require annual
    sensitivity training regarding military sexual trauma (MST) for any VA
    employee who processes or decides MST claims or communicates with a
    claimant regarding evidence supporting such a claim. This bill would
    require VA to update such training not less than once annually and
    would require a report to Congress within 90 days of the bill's
    enactment regarding changes made to training provided to such
    employees.
        Section 2(b) of the bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5103A(c) to
    expand VA's duty to assist in obtaining records for a disability
    compensation claim. The bill would require VA, for MST claims under 38
    U.S.C. Sec.  1166, to obtain the claimant's service medical records
    and, if there is no credible supporting evidence of MST in the evidence
    of record, obtain the claimant's service personnel records.
        Section 2(c) of the bill would require VA to report to Congress on
    the required sensitivity training for medical disability examiners
    contracted under section 504 of the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act
    of 1996 to perform examinations for MST claims, as well as for
    individuals who communicate with MST claimants to schedule
    examinations. The report would also detail plans to improve such
    training and ensure that such Veterans are not retraumatized during the
    medical disability examination process.

        VA supports section 2(a), if amended, and subject to the
    availability of appropriations.

        VA suggests that the requirements in section 2(a) are unnecessary,
    as they would be duplicative. VA notes that a comprehensive training
    curriculum already exists. The current VBA training curriculum contains
    training modules pertaining to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and
    personal assault, including claims based on MST. These training modules
    cover areas such as developing and gathering evidence, submitting
    examination requests, applying guidance for sympathetic reading of
    mental disorders, developing stressors related to personal trauma,
    evaluating evidence, deciding a claim for service connection for
    disabilities related to MST, and much more.
        VA uses training curricula containing dynamic and practical
    training experiences for claims processors. This form of training
    enables claims processors to distinguish indicators of PTSD stressors
    that result from MST, such as deterioration in duty performance and
    requests for transfer or substance abuse. All training content stresses
    the importance of complete evidence development for signs of an in-
    service MST event and takes a comprehensive approach to identifying
    evidentiary markers that indicate the possibility of the MST event.
    Legal and policy considerations are also included as part of the
    curriculum.
        Currently, the MST special issue indicator is assigned to any
    condition, mental or physical (including PTSD) resulting from MST. The
    MST special issue indicator must be used for all MST-related claims,
    including claims to establish service connection and claims for
    increased evaluation, to facilitate routing of these claims to the
    appropriate personnel for processing and automatic notifications from
    VBA to VHA about certain upcoming events during the claims process.
    Only an individual who has completed the required MST trainings, has
    been designated an MST claims processor, and is assigned to a
    specialized MST claims processing site or special mission station
    responsible for the claim due to other special circumstances can take
    development action on claims involving MST.
        Decisions made by Rating Veterans Service Representatives for MST-
    related disabilities require approval by a more experienced Rating
    Quality Review Specialist specializing in MST-related claims processing
    until the claims processor demonstrates an accuracy rate of 90 percent
    or greater. The accuracy rate is calculated based on a review of cases
    in which a condition claimed due to MST was either granted service
    connection, denied service connection, or received an increased
    evaluation. Further, MST claims processors are required to have three
    Individual Quality Reviews (IQR) each month. These reviews determine
    the employee's individual quality level as part of their overall
    performance evaluation. An MST-trained Quality Review Specialist
    processes and conducts all reviews. Additional training requirements
    may be added based on error trends and analysis following these IQR
    reviews. While the requirements of section 2(a) are unnecessary, the
    Department supports implementing additional accountability and
    oversight to ensure documentation of the training for all identified
    personnel.

        VA supports section 2(b), if amended, and subject to the
    availability of appropriations.

        Under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5103A, VA is required to make reasonable
    efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to
    substantiate a claim. This assistance includes obtaining all relevant
    Federal records (38 U.S.C. Sec.  5103A(c), 38 C.F.R. Sec.  3.159(c)).
    These records include, but are not limited to, military personnel
    records, service treatment records, and records from other Federal
    agencies. In addition, 38 C.F.R. Sec.  3.304(f)(5) outlines VA's policy
    concerning the adjudication of PTSD claims based on in-service personal
    assault, providing that evidence from sources other than the Veteran's
    service records may corroborate the Veteran's account of the stressor
    incident. This regulation also states that evidence of behavior changes
    following the claimed assault may constitute credible evidence of the
    stressor, including but not limited to a request for a transfer to
    another military duty assignment or deterioration in work performance.
        If there is no credible supporting evidence of an MST in the
    evidence of record, section 2(b) of this bill would require VA, as part
    of its duty to assist, to obtain the MST claimant's service personnel
    record. Section 2(b) would also require VA to obtain the MST claimant's
    service medical records.
        Service treatment records are always considered in claims for
    compensation, and personnel records are generally requested for PTSD
    claims based on personal assault as such records would be relevant to
    the consideration of behavioral changes following the claimed assault.
    However, in some cases, the Veteran may submit or identify credible
    supporting evidence to corroborate the stressor prior to requesting
    service personnel records. VA cites concerns with section 2(b) because
    VA already has a duty to obtain all relevant Federal records, to
    include military personnel records and service treatment records. VA
    suggests the requirements of section 2(b) are duplicative and,
    therefore, unnecessary.

        VA supports section 2(c) of this bill, subject to appropriations,
    and seeks amendment.

        While VA supports the Subcommittee's intent to improve sensitivity
    training for contracted disability examination providers, including
    individuals scheduling MST examinations, to ensure that MST claimants
    are not retraumatized during the medical disability examination
    process, there are potential resource concerns.
        VA has recently released a guide to contracted disability
    examination vendors and providers titled ``Trauma-Informed
    Communication with Veterans and Service Members Who Have Experienced
    Military Sexual Trauma.'' This guide reinforces the WE CARE values and
    provides important information and resources for examiners regardless
    of specialty or examination type to avoid re-traumatization during
    examinations.
        VA suggests amending the language in section 2(c)(1) to remove the
    parenthetical mentioning ``individuals who communicate with veterans to
    schedule examinations'' as those individuals are generally not health
    care professionals. Instead, section 2(c)(1) could require VA to report
    on sensitivity training required for health care professionals
    contracted to perform examinations of MST claimants and for individuals
    who communicate with Veterans to schedule examinations.
        A costing determination is not currently available.

    H.R. XXXX  ``Survivor Benefits Delivery Improvement Act of 2025''

        Section 2 of this bill, the ``Survivor Benefits Data Collection Act
    of 2025,'' would add a new 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5322, which would require VA
    to collect the demographic data from recipients of survivors' benefits
    or burial benefits for VA to designate underserved demographics.
    Section 2(b)(2) would provide applicable deadlines for the development
    of data collection, the designations of any underserved demographics,
    and submissions of annual reports. Section 2(c) would require VA to
    develop and submit to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans'
    Affairs an outreach and education strategy for raising awareness
    regarding benefits specified in 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5322(a) among covered
    survivors (which includes a surviving spouse, child, or parent of a
    veteran) who belong to an underserved demographic and benefits
    specified in 38 U.S.C. Sec.  2303 among Veterans and other
    beneficiaries who belong to an underserved demographic. Section 2(d)
    would require VA to assess the resources of OSA and develop a strategy
    to ensure the availability of resources necessary for the function of
    such office.
        Section 3, the ``Survivor Solid Start Act of 2025,'' would amend 38
    U.S.C. chapter 63 in several places to add a definition for ``covered
    individual'' and replace ``Veterans'' with ``covered individuals''
    where applicable. Additionally, this bill would require VA to provide
    outreach services for surviving eligible dependents of covered
    individuals. Section 3(c) would require VA to create full-time
    equivalent positions focused on outreach for survivors' benefits at VA
    call centers.

        VA supports section 2 of this bill, if amended.

        VA highlights the need to edit proposed 38 U.S.C. Sec.
    5322(a)(1)(A) as that proposed provision would refer to ``disability
    and indemnity compensation'' under 38 U.S.C. chapter 13. However, under
    chapter 13, the term is properly referred to as ``dependency and
    indemnity compensation'' (DIC). VA recommends using the term currently
    used under chapter 13 to avoid any confusion.
        VA notes that the collection of the data points specified in
    proposed section 5322(f)(2)(A)-(E) would require extensive development.
    It is presumed that future demographic data requests would also need to
    be incorporated within existing VA forms, which would result in
    significant additional work on the part of VA to implement this bill
    given the need to review, revise, and approve numerous administrative
    claim forms, as well as obtain the necessary clearances from the Office
    of Management and Budget and consultations with other entities as
    specified in proposed section 5322(b). Additionally, under current
    procedures, certain VA benefits awards are made via automated processes
    without the collection of additional data--for example, in certain
    situations, surviving spouses who were a dependent on a Veteran's award
    can be granted benefits through automation if VA has sufficient
    information already on file at the time of the Veteran's death. VA
    understands that a person's failure to provide information is not to be
    considered in the receipt of benefits but, nevertheless, the Department
    would be in a position of issuing benefits without even having
    attempted to collect the data specified by this bill as existing
    systems would not necessarily have captured this data previously. For
    the reasons outlined above, VA recommends the 180-day implementation
    date under section (2)(b)(2)(A) of the bill be expanded to an
    implementation window of 24 months from the date of enactment to allow
    for adequate evaluation of forms as well as the development, testing,
    and implementation of system changes.
        VA also views the implementation deadline for initial designations
    under section (2)(b)(2)(B) of the bill as not being feasible and again
    recommends the implementation window be expanded to 24 months from the
    commencement of the data collection. This would provide sufficient time
    for data collection and analysis prior to VA making initial
    designations of underserved demographics.
        VA notes that section (2)(c)(2)(A) of the bill covers the
    development of an outreach strategy ``regarding eligibility for burial
    in a national cemetery under [38 U.S.C. Sec.  2303].'' However,
    eligibility for burial in a national cemetery is covered by 38 U.S.C.
    Sec.  2402. Therefore, VA believes that the reference in this portion
    of the bill should be changed to 38 U.S.C. Sec.  2402.

        VA supports section 3 of this bill if amended.

        VA highlights that the mandated frequency of conducting outreach
    services to surviving eligible dependents once per quarter in the
    proposed language for 38 U.S.C. Sec.  6308(c) is a more frequent
    cadence than the outreach provided to separating and retiring Service
    members under VA's Solid Start (VASS) program and could be seen as
    disparate treatment. As a requirement of VASS, VA attempts contacts
    with newly retired and those newly separated Veterans in three general
    windows of time post-separation: 0-90 days, 91-180 days, and 181-365
    days. VA recommends mirroring this cadence for survivors and supports
    using the date VA is notified of the Veteran's death to start the
    notification process timeline.
        Section 3(b)(5) of the bill would require VA to conduct outreach
    for eligible dependents of a Veteran. Generally, VA is not notified of
    the death of a Veteran unless they were receiving VA benefits. Thus, VA
    does not determine eligibility until a claimant files an application
    for benefits, unless they were previously identified as a dependent on
    the Veteran's award. If VA was never provided information that
    identifies a dependent, then it would not be possible for VA to conduct
    outreach to those individuals.
        As drafted, and as it pertains to beneficiaries that VA has on its
    rolls, the outreach services would continue until the eligible
    dependent files a claim for a benefit; however, 38 U.S.C. Sec.
    5101(a)(1)(B)(i) allows VA to pay benefits to survivors who have not
    filed formal claims if the record contains sufficient evidence to
    establish entitlement. Accordingly, VA recommends amending the bill's
    language so that VA would not be required to conduct outreach services
    to survivors who receive benefits without filing a formal claim.
        Finally, VA recommends broadening the contact information provided
    to eligible dependents under proposed section 6308(c)(2)(A) to include
    ``appropriate contact information for additional support'' or similar.
    VA notes that the provision of contact information for only OSA may
    result in an unmanageable caseload for that office. By broadening the
    language in the bill, VA would be able to determine the most
    appropriate offices to refer eligible dependents, to include but not
    limited to OSA. Similarly, VA provides that the removal of the
    specified full-time equivalent position allocation in this section
    would allow for VA to properly assess staffing needs to support the
    required outreach.
        A cost estimate is not currently available.

    H.R. XXXX  ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of
    2025''

        Section 2(a) of this bill would increase payments of disability
    compensation and DIC, effective December 1, 2025. Specifically, section
    2(b) would increase payment amounts for wartime disability
    compensation, additional compensation for dependents, clothing
    allowance, and DIC payable to a surviving spouse or child. Section 2(c)
    would increase the payment amounts described in section 2(b) by the
    same percentage as the percentage by which Social Security benefit
    amounts under 42 U.S.C. Sec.  415(i) are increased effective December
    1, 2025. Section 2(d) would authorize VA to adjust administratively the
    rates of disability compensation payable to individuals under P.L. 85-
    857 Sec.  10 who have not received compensation benefits under 38
    U.S.C. chapter 11. Section 3 would require VA to publish in the Federal
    Register the increased amounts covered in section 2(b) no later than
    the date of publication required by 42 U.S.C. Sec.  415(i)(2)(D).

        VA supports the bill.

        Annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) to compensation rates
    tangibly express the Nation's gratitude and respect for the sacrifices
    service-disabled Veterans and their surviving spouses and children have
    made. This bill would ensure that the value of their well-deserved
    benefits keep pace with the costs of inflation.
        VA also believes consideration should be given to amending 38
    U.S.C. Sec.  5312 to provide for automatic annual COLAs in the rates of
    disability compensation. Such an amendment could also provide for
    automatic COLA for clothing allowance and additional compensation for
    dependents. Currently, Congress must enact legislation each year to
    adjust those rates, which risks delaying timely COLA increases for
    compensation and clothing allowance payments to Veterans with service-
    connected disabilities.
        VA supports the publication of annual COLA increases in the Federal
    Register. VA routinely publishes Federal Register notices of increased
    benefits following the enactment of law by Congress specifying the
    percentage by which payments will be increased.

    H.R. XXXX  ``Veteran Appeals Transparency Act of 2025''

        This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  7107 to require new weekly
    reporting of docket dates of the cases assigned to a Board member for a
    decision during that week.

        VA does not support this bill.

        VA believes that this new reporting requirement may be averse to
    Veterans by introducing unnecessary confusion, delays, and potential
    inequities in how appeals are adjudicated. Section 2 of this bill would
    add a weekly reporting requirement for the Board to publish the docket
    dates of all cases assigned to Board members for adjudication each
    week. However, VA believes that such a requirement would be
    administratively burdensome to execute and, more importantly, would
    likely cause misperceptions and confusion for Veterans and
    representatives because the Board's docket can vary and change so
    significantly. Prior similar efforts to publish docket numbers being
    worked in the legacy VA appeals process resulted in numerous petitions
    to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) for a
    writ of mandamus seeking to have the Board decide particular cases out
    of order because erroneous expectations were created by publishing the
    information as suggested.
        Governing law generally requires that cases be decided in docket
    order on a first-come, first-served basis with some exceptions. Those
    exceptions include cases advanced on the docket (AOD) and cases
    remanded back to the Board by the Veterans Court, which the law
    requires to be automatically moved to the head of the line.
    Additionally, legacy appeals that return to the Board from the agency
    of original jurisdiction (AOJ) (e.g., VBA, VHA, NCA) after a Board
    remand maintain their original place in docket order.
        To put these types of cases into the context of the Board's overall
    docket, the Board adjudicates between 2,000-3,000 appeals per week.
    Approximately 25 percent of cases the Board adjudicated the last two
    fiscal years were AOD cases, which are moved ahead of other cases
    because they involve Veterans with serious health conditions, severe
    financial hardship, or advanced age. They will have docket dates that
    may be years later than others waiting. Another 30 percent of cases
    adjudicated were either expedited because they were remands from the
    Veterans Court or were cases that returned to the Board from the AOJ
    and retained their original older docket number.
        On a weekly basis, the numbers of expedited appeals, older docket
    cases, and non-expedited appeals being adjudicated can vary widely.
    Additional challenges include the current influx of appeals from VBA
    and VHA, which causes fluidity in the number of cases in each docket, a
    different pace of movement for each docket, and changes in the number
    of cases worked in each docket. It would be impossible for the Board to
    provide an exact estimate for when a particular appeal may be
    adjudicated because each appeal's place in line is constantly changing
    based on which appeals are joining (or re-joining) the appeals queue
    each day. This bill's proposed requirement would be very frustrating
    and potentially misleading to Veterans on how many appeals remain to be
    adjudicated ahead of them because the number of cases moving to the
    head of the line each week is so variable.

    H.R. XXXX  ``Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney Retention and Backlog
    Reduction Act''

        Section 2 of this bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  7101A to
    establish General Schedule (GS)-15 promotion (and pay) potential for
    all non-supervisory Board Staff Attorney Advisor positions to improve
    recruitment and retention. This bill would make no reference to an
    evaluation of the duties and responsibilities of the position, and it
    is unclear how this bill would lead to achieving the other stated goal
    of improvements in decision quality and claims processing speed. It
    would also require technical edits to meet apparent congressional
    intent. For example, it does not provide clear legal authority to
    establish classification and/or qualification standards for Board
    attorneys to overcome the statutory inconsistency with title 5
    provisions.

        VA does not support this bill.

        This bill would not align with classification regulations and 5
    U.S.C. Sec.  5107, which states, ``[e]xcept as otherwise provided by [5
    U.S.C. chapter 51], each agency shall place each position under its
    jurisdiction in its appropriate class and grade in conformance with
    standards published by the Office of Personnel Management.''
    Consequently, amending section 7101A to allow all non-supervisory Board
    attorneys to be promoted to grade GS-15 would completely negate 5
    U.S.C. Sec.  5107.
        The Board's retention incentives for attorneys have proven to be
    very effective in the past few years. Retention rates have improved
    dramatically, with attrition rates dropping by nearly 50 percent from
    13.4 percent in Fiscal Year 2019 to 7.7 percent in Fiscal Year 2024.
    Retention incentives offer the Board necessary flexibility and do not
    count as basic pay.
        As an aside, there is no current operational need at the Board for
    any non-supervisory GS-15 attorneys. The Board has existing flexibility
    to establish GS-15 attorney positions, consistent with the Office of
    Personnel Management (OPM) classification requirements. There are
    currently 33 supervisory GS-15 attorney positions at the Board,
    appropriately classified based on the OPM standards. Even if the Board
    could somehow create non-supervisory GS-15 positions outside the OPM
    factors, the pool of applicants for these more difficult supervisory
    GS-15 positions would likely diminish and have a correspondingly
    negative impact on Board operations.
        Budget impacts are also important. All attorney advisor positions
    are eligible for promotion to GS-14 and an ever-increasing number of
    the Board's roughly 1,040 attorneys are at that highest non-supervisory
    grade level. Nearly 65 percent of the Board's non-supervisory attorneys
    are currently GS-14s and that number is growing because of increasing
    retention rates and regular upcoming promotions expected for the higher
    number of new attorney hires during the past 2 years. For example,
    payroll projections are expected to increase by nearly $15 million from
    Fiscal Year 2025 to Fiscal Year 2026 even if the Board adds no new
    personnel during that same period.

    Conclusion

        This concludes my statement. We thank the Subcommittee for your
    continued support of programs that serve the Nation's Veterans and look
    forward to working together to further enhance delivery of benefits and
    services.

                           Statements for the Record

                                  ----------

    Prepared Statement of American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-
                                      CIO

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and Members of the
    Subcommittee:

        The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) and
    its National Veterans Affairs Council (NVAC) appreciate the opportunity
    to submit a statement for the record on today's hearing on ``Pending
    Legislation.'' AFGE represents more than 750,000 Federal and District
    of Columbia government employees, nearly 320,000 of whom are proud,
    dedicated Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees. These include
    front-line providers at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) who
    provide exemplary specialized medical and mental health care to
    veterans, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) workforce
    responsible for the processing veterans' claims, the Board of Veterans'
    Appeals (Board) employees who shepherd veterans' appeals, and the
    National Cemetery Administration employees (NCA) who honor the memory
    of the Nation's fallen veterans every day.
        With this firsthand and front-line perspective, we offer our
    observations on the following bills being considered at today's
    hearing:

    Discussion Draft of the ``Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney Retention
    and Backlog Reduction Act''

        AFGE strongly supports Ranking Member McGarvey's (D-KY) and Rep.
    Bilirakis's (R-FL) draft legislation, the ``Board of Veterans' Appeals
    Attorney Retention and Backlog Reduction Act.'' This legislation will
    help the Board with retention of its attorney workforce by making the
    full performance level for non-supervisory Board staff attorneys Grade
    15 on the General Schedule (GS-15).
        As AFGE Local President Doug Massey testified to the DAMA
    Subcommittee in November 2023, for many decades, the Board has had a
    GS-14 career path for attorneys. However, in November 2021, Board
    leadership downgraded the career path to GS-13, which is
    counterintuitive from a management perspective and does not help the
    VA's and this subcommittee's goal of recruitment and retention of
    talent. Any competent executive understands the importance of
    competitively remunerating the highest qualified candidates for any job
    based on their work and abilities. Eliminating this level of growth and
    compensation for attorneys dissuades qualified applicants from joining
    the Board or from choosing to stay long-term. Instead of attempting to
    remain minimally competitive with the private sector, Board management
    has effectively lowered the career path salary for attorneys, widening
    the pay gap faced by public employees. AFGE firmly believes that this
    Committee shares AFGE's commitment to ensuring that disability claims
    for veterans and their families receive the highest level of attention,
    and that this policy change is contrary to that goal.
        At the same hearing, Mr. Massey provided additional testimony
    outlining the extraordinary and uncredited work that senior non-
    supervisory Board attorneys take upon themselves to train newer
    attorneys in the absence of suitable training from Board leadership,
    which has helped dozens of employees improve and now thrive at the
    Board.
        From this testimony and additional conversations with subcommittee
    members and staff, it is clear that members of the subcommittee do not
    agree with Board leadership's penny-wise and pound-foolish treatment of
    Board attorneys, especially considering the critical role the Board
    plays for veterans, the relatively small size of the Board, and the
    nuanced expertise required of Board attorneys. To help reverse this
    trend, AFGE applauds Rep. McGarvey and Rep. Bilirakis for drafting the
    ``Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney Retention and Backlog Reduction
    Act.'' If enacted, this bill will authorize the Board to promote non-
    supervisory attorneys to the GS-15 level, when appropriate. With this
    authority, the Board can fulfill the committee's goal of retaining
    senior attorneys at the Board who have institutional knowledge of the
    Board and expertise in veterans' law. This will encourage senior
    attorneys to stay at the Board and not look for other GS-15 jobs
    elsewhere within the government, including within the VA Office of
    General Counsel, where these jobs do exist, and potentially delay
    retirement. Furthermore, by making the full performance level for Board
    attorneys GS-15, it will also undo the Board's promotional cap on new
    attorneys at GS-13 and allow attorneys who meet qualifications to be
    eligible for promotion to GS-14. This increased retention will also
    benefit the Board financially by reducing expenditures on recruitment
    of new attorneys by reducing turnover. Most importantly, this will help
    keep the most experienced and productive Board attorneys at the Board
    to continue serving veterans.
        In 1994, Congress took legislative action to place Board Members
    and Veterans Law Judges on the Administrative Law Judge pay scale. By
    enhancing the compensation levels of the adjudicators signing Board
    decisions, retention levels for Board members significantly increased
    and the issue was resolved. Today, this legislation could also resolve
    the retention issues caused by highly qualified decision writing
    attorneys leaving the Board for the VA Office of General Counsel and to
    other agencies for greater compensation and a better work environment.
        The ``Best Places to Work in the Federal Government'' rankings
    issued by the Partnership for Public Service and Boston Consulting
    Group in May 2024, have the Board of Veterans' Appeals ranked at 444
    out of 459 Federal agency subcomponents. The Board is by far the worst
    rated component at all of VA. No other agency subcomponent of VA is
    ranked worse than 256. The VA Office of General Counsel is rated at 81.
    The dismal ranking at the Board reflects rock-bottom morale for Board
    attorneys due to unreasonable workloads, pay that is not commensurate
    with the complexity of veterans' law, and a disengaged and incompetent
    senior management team. Indeed, while the Board's ranking is 444, the
    effectiveness of Board senior leadership was ranked an abysmal 447 out
    of 458 subcomponents. In the Best Places to Work rankings released in
    March 2025, the Board was ranked at 130 out of 154 midsize agency
    subcomponents, and once again has the lowest engagement scores of any
    organizational component at VA. The effectiveness of the Board's senior
    leadership is rated at 151 out of 154 midsize agency subcomponents,
    which is in the bottom 2 percent. By contrast, in these rankings, the
    Veterans Benefits Administration is ranked 9 out of 30 large
    subcomponent agencies and the effectiveness of its senior leadership is
    at as 5 out of 30. Employee engagement scores are significantly higher
    across in all categories at the Veterans Benefits Administration than
    the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
        This legislation, by establishing a career path to GS 15, will fix
    the compensation issues which have made recruitment and retention such
    a challenge at the Board and will accordingly help reduce the nearly
    200,000 case backlog by incentivizing highly proficient and productive
    attorneys to stay at Board rather than leave for better opportunities.

    Discussion Draft of the ``Veterans Claims Education Act''

        The ``Veterans Claims Education Act,'' is draft legislation
    authored by Rep. Peters (D-CA) that will raise awareness among veterans
    of the resources available to them to assist in the preparation of
    their claims. In particular, the bill will highlight Veteran Service
    Organizations which may represent claimants at no charge to help
    navigate the complex veterans claims process. AFGE supports this bill
    and wants to highlight that the assistance VSOs provide helps veterans
    receive the benefits they have earned and assists VBA claims processors
    and Board of Veterans' Appeals attorneys to be more efficient in their
    work. Simply put, more complete and accurate claims mean fewer
    deferrals, appeals, and remands.

    Discussion Draft of the ``Improving VA Training for Military Sexual
    Trauma Claims Act''

        The ``Improving VA Training for Military Sexual Trauma Claims Act''
    is draft legislation authored by Rep. Kim (R-CA) that will improve
    training to VA Claims Processors and Contract Compensation and Pension
    Examiners related to Military Sexual Trauma (MST). AFGE supports the
    intent of this legislation and has suggestions and comments that we
    hope are considered by the committee.
        AFGE strongly supports Section 2 Subsection (a) of the bill, which
    requires training for claims processors working on MST claims. MST
    claims are nuanced and highly sensitive and require the utmost care and
    understanding of both the veterans' needs and VBA's internal processes.
    However, as AFGE has previously noted to the subcommittee, VBA seldom
    if ever considers frontline claims processors' input when designing
    such training. AFGE hopes that the subcommittee uses this legislation
    as an opportunity to mandate that VBA consult with AFGE, as the union
    representative of claims processors, to identify common problems that
    workers have encountered while working MST claims, to address these
    issues, and to recommend best practices for claims processors who get
    assigned to the MST Special Operations Center. Absent that, AFGE
    believes that VBA will again create training that meets its bare legal
    obligations but does not meet the intent of Rep. Kim and the
    subcommittee.
        AFGE also understands the intent of Section 2 Subsection (c) to
    train contract disability examiners conducting MST examinations to
    improve sensitivity and quality and prevent additional trauma. If
    contractors are going to perform these exams, veterans will benefit
    from this training. Over 90 percent of disability exams are currently
    performed by contractors. Exams performed by contractors cost more than
    exams performed by VA employees, and the contractors, irrespective of
    additional training, do not have the same familiarity and understanding
    of veterans and their specific needs as VA employees do. Considering
    the sensitive nature of MST claims and exams, AFGE would urge the
    committee that disability exams, particularly specialty exams such as
    MST exams, should be performed exclusively by VA examiners, which will
    also reduce the number of remands due to inadequate medical opinions
    provided by contracted examiners.

    Discussion Draft of the ``Review Every Veterans Claims Act''

        AFGE supports the draft of the ``Review Every Veterans Claims Act''
    authored by Chairman Luttrell (R-TX). This legislation would ensure
    that no veteran's claim is denied for failing to attend a disability
    exam requested by the VA. While the VA allows veterans to provide
    reasons for missing exams that are often accepted, failure to provide a
    response can be used for an automatic denial of a claim. Additionally,
    the VA will also not accept the excuse that the veteran never received
    notice from the VA to attend the exam, which is a common reason given
    by veterans for missing VA exams. Denying benefits on the basis of
    missing a VA examination that the veteran may not have known was
    scheduled is deeply unfair and concerning.
        Changing this statute and preventing VA from denying claims simply
    for missing an exam will help prevent the VA from wrongly denying
    veterans the benefits they have rightly earned. This will in turn
    better allow VBA claims processors and Board of Veterans' Appeals
    attorneys to perform their duties and make sure veterans receive their
    benefits, instead of being forced to deny their claims for
    administrative reasons.

    Discussion Draft of the ``Veterans Appeals Transparency Act''

        The ``Veterans Appeals Transparency Act'' is draft legislation
    authored by Rep. Self (R-TX) with the intent of increasing transparency
    at the Board of Veterans' Appeals, and in turn allowing veterans to
    better track the status of their appeal. AFGE supports the spirit of
    this legislation and giving veterans more information while they wait
    for their appeal to be adjudicated.
        However, AFGE also has concerns with the way the Board will carry
    out this law, and the additional administrative burden it will place on
    Board personnel, especially given the current hiring freeze and
    potential for Reductions in Force at the Board. With the Board
    processing between two and three thousand appeals every week, AFGE
    fears that the amount of time required to comply with this law may
    require Board employees to focus on this compliance instead of working
    on cases. In turn, we welcome the opportunity to work with Rep. Self to
    amend the bill to provide the desired transparency, with the most
    efficient and least administrative burden.
        AFGE thanks the House Veterans' Affairs Committee Subcommittee on
    Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs for the opportunity to
    submit a Statement for the Record for today's hearing. AFGE stands
    ready to work with the committee on this legislation and find solutions
    that will enable VA employees to better serve our Nation's veterans.

                Prepared Statement of Disabled American Veterans

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey and Members of the
    Subcommittee:

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

           H.R. 530, the Aviator Cancer Examination Study (ACES) Act

        This bill would address the pressing concerns related to cancer
    prevalence and mortality among active duty aircrew members of the Armed
    Forces. The bill mandates a comprehensive study by the National
    Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), focusing on
    identifying exposures to hazardous chemicals, agents, or phenomena
    linked to military aircrew duties. By utilizing available data from
    various defense and health organizations, the study aims to investigate
    associations between these exposures and both overall and specific
    cancer risks, such as brain, prostate, and thyroid cancer.
        Congress ordered a study in the William M. (Mac) Thornberry
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA) in
    response to growing concern among retired pilots about an apparent
    rising incidence of cancer. The Defense Department examined health
    records for 156,050 aviators and 737,891 ground crew for the period
    1992 to 2007, concluding that aviators were 24 percent more likely to
    be diagnosed with cancers of all kinds than members of the general
    population.
        The study found even higher rates for specific types of cancer. For
    example, aircrew were 87 percent more likely to suffer melanoma, 39
    percent more likely to have thyroid cancer, and 16 percent more likely
    to contract prostate cancer.
        These findings strongly support the intent of the ACES Act. The Act
    aims to further investigate the prevalence and mortality of cancers
    among active-duty aircrew, building on the data from the 2021 NDAA
    study. By directing NASEM to conduct a comprehensive study, the ACES
    Act seeks to deepen understanding of the links between military service
    and cancer risks, ultimately improving care and policies for affected
    service members and veterans.
        We strongly support this draft legislation in accordance with DAV
    Resolution No. 171, which urges Congress to actively oversee its
    established mechanism of delegation to the National Academy of Sciences
    and to provide adequate funding for research to identify all disabling
    conditions and effective screening and treatment for such disabilities
    that may have been caused by exposure to environmental hazards and man-
    made toxins while individuals served in the armed forces of the United
    States.

        H.R. 647, the Ensuring Veterans' Final Resting Place Act of 2025

        This bill would authorize eligible veterans who already received an
    urn or plaque and died after January 5, 2021, to be buried in a
    national cemetery. The legislation addresses a gap in the eligibility
    process by removing restrictions on duplication of benefits.
        Allowing veterans to receive this duplicate benefit ensures they
    receive recognition and support for their service and sacrifice,
    alleviating the financial, emotional, and logistical challenges related
    to burial expenses for their surviving families.
        DAV supports this bill in accordance with Resolution No. 104, which
    supports legislation to adequately fund the National Cemetery
    Administration, fund cemetery expansions and reform eligibility for
    burials and entitlement to headstones, markers, and medallions.

           H.R. 1039, the Clear Communication for Veterans Claims Act

        This bill would require the VA to partner with a federally funded
    research development center to assess and recommend improvements with
    more concise language in claimant notification letters.
        Many VA notifications are overcomplicated and contain legal jargon
    that is difficult to understand. The complexity of these notification
    letters can be overwhelming for veterans with mental health issues and
    traumatic brain injuries (TBI), hindering their ability to make timely
    and accurate decisions during the claims and appeals process. Making
    these changes to notifications could simplify information and
    instructions allowing the claimant to make well informed decisions and
    take appropriate actions.
        Veterans service organizations (VSOs) play a crucial role in
    assisting veterans and their families by translating information from
    notification letters into understandable terms. We agree with the
    provision in the bill to continue to involve accredited VSOs in the
    review process. This inclusion ensures that notification letters are
    improved with insights from those who intimately understand the
    challenges veterans and their families face, leading to a more
    efficient claims and appeals process.
        DAV supports the Clear Communication for Veterans Claims Act in
    accordance with Resolution No. 306, which advocates for meaningful
    claims and appeals reform.

              H.R. 1228, the Prioritizing Veterans' Survivors Act

        This bill would organize the Office of Survivors Assistance (OSA)
    under the Office of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
        This important adjustment ensures that the OSA has the visibility,
    resources, and direct connection to senior leadership necessary to
    fulfill its mission: serving as a crucial resource for survivors and
    dependents of deceased veterans and service members. By placing the OSA
    directly under the Office of the Secretary, the Act would enhance the
    Office's ability to advocate more effectively and provide comprehensive
    support, guidance, and assistance to grieving families navigating their
    benefits.
        Although DAV does not have a specific resolution calling for this
    action, we have no objections to it moving forward.

            H.R. 1286, the Simplifying Forms for Veterans Claims Act

        This bill would require the VA to enter into an agreement with a
    federally funded research and development center to study and provide
    recommendations on making VA claims forms more user-friendly.
        The complexity of these forms can be frustrating to the average
    person and overwhelming for veterans with mental health issues and TBI,
    hindering their ability to fill out complete, error-free, and timely
    claims. Making the forms user-friendly could lead to higher utilization
    rates and more accurate claims processing.
        We agree with the provision to include accredited VSOs in the
    review process as they play a crucial role in assisting veterans with
    filling out VA forms. Their expertise and firsthand experience are
    invaluable throughout the claims process. This inclusion ensures that
    forms are improved with their specific insight from those who
    intimately understand the challenges veterans face, leading to more
    effective and user-friendly forms.
        DAV supports the Simplifying Forms for Veterans Claims Act in
    accordance with Resolution No. 306, which advocates for meaningful
    claims and appeals reform.

                 H.R. 1344, the Dennis and Lois Krisfalusy Act

        This bill would expand access to memorial headstones and markers
    for qualified veterans and their family members by eliminating the
    current date restrictions for veterans or eligible family members who
    died on or after November 11, 1998.
        By eliminating the date restriction, this act would allow veterans
    and their families to be memorialized together regardless of when they
    passed away, providing emotional and financial relief to the remaining
    survivors.
        DAV supports the Dennis and Lois Krisfalusy Act in accordance with
    Resolution No. 104, which supports reforming eligibility for burials
    and entitlement to headstones, markers, and medallions.

              H.R. 1578, the Veterans Claims Education Act of 2025

        The Veterans Claims Education Act of 2025 mandates that the VA
    provide specific notifications to claimants filing initial claims
    without representation by an accredited individual. The Secretary shall
    inform claimants that (1) representation by an accredited individual
    may be available; (2) VSOs recognized under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5902 may
    provide representation at no cost; (3) an online tool exists to search
    for accredited representatives; and (4) a publicly accessible VA
    website allows claimants to report non-accredited individuals who
    represented them and any fees charged for such representation.
    Additionally, the Secretary would be required to maintain an online
    tool that lists accredited representatives who assist claimants. These
    provisions aim to ensure that claimants are informed of their rights
    and available resources when seeking representation for VA claims.
        This legislation seeks to distinguish between representatives who
    charge fees and those offering free services, providing veterans with
    clear guidance. This framework aims to protect veterans from
    unaccredited or predatory practices, simplifying the process of seeking
    legitimate support and enhancing accountability within the claims
    representation system.
        We recommend VSOs be involved in any regulation review process to
    ensure changes are aligned with best practices and highest standards
    regarding lawful accreditation and representation.
        DAV supports this bill in accordance with Resolution No. 306, which
    supports meaningful claims and appeals processing reform.

            H.R. 1741, the Veteran Appeals Transparency Act of 2025

        This draft legislation would add a new subsection to 38 U.S.C.
    Sec.  7107 - ``Appeals: dockets; hearing''. This would require the VA
    Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) to give weekly updates on the
    docketed cases that the Veterans Law Judges are working on for that
    particular week. This information would be accessible on the Board's
    website for viewing by the public. Cases that have been advanced on the
    docket and remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
    Claims will not be placed on the weekly update.
        The Board understands that many veterans and appellants have been
    waiting a long time for a decision, which can be very frustrating. This
    draft bill seeks to give veterans and appellants useful information
    about their appeals status and an approximate time when their appeals
    will be reviewed.
        In accordance with DAV Resolution No. 306, we support this draft
    legislation. It is important that veterans and appellants have the
    ability to track their appeals at the Board and be able to anticipate
    when a decision may be completed on their case.

            H.R. 2137, the Review Every Veteran's Claim Act of 2025

        This bill addresses a critical concern in the adjudication of
    veterans' benefits by prohibiting the denial of claims solely on the
    basis that a veteran failed to attend a medical examination.
        Currently, 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5103A(d)(2) provides, ``the Secretary
    shall treat an examination or opinion as being necessary to make a
    decision on a claim for purposes...''. This requirement usually results
    in the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) denying a veteran's claim
    if they did not attend the requested examination, even if the rest of
    the evidence of record contains service medical records, private
    medical records and lay statements from the veteran, supports the
    claim. This draft bill would strike that language from the statute and
    replace it with ``provide for a medical examination or obtain a medical
    opinion.''
        Veterans often face unique challenges, such as medical conditions,
    transportation barriers, or unforeseen circumstances, which can make
    attending these examinations difficult. Denying benefits on this sole
    basis unfairly penalizes those who have served our country and
    undermines the principles of justice and compassion that should guide
    the administration of veterans' benefits. By ensuring that claims
    cannot be denied solely for this reason, this legislation promotes
    fairness, respects the sacrifices of our veterans, and reinforces the
    responsibility of the VA to make decisions based on the entirety of the
    evidence available.
        In accordance with our Resolution No. 306, DAV supports the Review
    Every Veteran's Claim Act, as this is meaningful and significant reform
    to the duty to assist.

    H.R. 2138, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA)
                                  Act of 2025

        The Veterans' Compensation COLA Act of 2025 ties the rates of
    disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation for
    veterans and survivors to the cost-of-living adjustment made under
    Social Security. By doing so, it guarantees that the benefits our
    veterans and their families depend on will keep pace with the rising
    costs of everyday life.
        Without annual COLAs, many disabled veterans who sacrificed their
    own health and family life for the good of our Nation may not be able
    to maintain the quality of life they deserve.
        Consistent with DAV Resolution No. 159, we support H.R. 2138. We
    must ensure that veterans' benefits keep pace for the many veterans and
    survivors who are on fixed incomes and largely rely on their
    compensation payments for basic necessities.

    Draft bill, the Improving VA Training for Military Sexual Trauma Claims
                                      Act

        This bill would improve the processing of claims related to
    military sexual trauma (MST) by enhancing training for VA employees and
    contracted health care professionals who process MST claims,
    communicate with a claimant, or decide on such a claim.
        Markers of MST are often difficult to verify in medical records.
    This bill highlights the need, especially for claims related to MST to
    require VA to obtain personnel records and service treatment records
    and review them for these markers if there is no other supporting
    evidence of record. This change will increase the veteran's ability to
    validate their claim and obtain the benefits they earned. By requiring
    those who process MST claims to attend annual sensitivity training and
    training tailored to MST, they are better equipped to handle these
    unique cases with care and professionalism and not retraumatizing
    veterans in the process.
        DAV supports the Improving VA Training for Military Sexual Trauma
    Claims Act in accordance with Resolution No. 118, which supports
    oversight of VA practices in evaluating disability claims for residuals
    of military sexual trauma.

    Draft bill, the Survivor Benefits Delivery Improvement Act of 2025 and
                      the Survivor Solid Start Act of 2025

        The Survivor Benefits Delivery Improvement Act of 2025 introduces
    critical measures to collect demographic data of beneficiaries of
    identified underserved groups and ensures benefits are equitably
    distributed among survivors and their families. Moreover, the
    legislation requires a comprehensive outreach and education strategy
    targeting these underserved demographics, along with enhanced awareness
    of burial benefits for veterans. The act also mandates periodic reviews
    and updates to ensure effectiveness.
        Simultaneously, the Survivor Solid Start Act of 2025 expands the
    definition of individuals covered by VA outreach to include all who
    have served in uniformed services. The act prioritizes frequent and
    proactive outreach to dependents, particularly following the death of a
    service member, providing crucial information about benefits and
    assistance. Additionally, this legislation seeks to strengthen the
    Office of Survivors Assistance by assessing and addressing resource
    needs, as well as establishing additional personnel for call centers to
    improve the efficiency of outreach services.
        Although DAV does not have a specific resolution calling for this
    action, we have no objections to it moving forward.

       Draft bill, the Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney Retention and
                             Backlog Reduction Act

        This draft bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  7101A - ``Members of
    Board: appointment; pay; performance review'', to reform and enhance
    the pay of Board of Veterans' Appeals attorneys for recruitment and
    retention, to increase the decision quality, and claims processing
    speed of the Board. The new paragraph would allow an individual
    employed by the Board as a non-supervisory attorney may be promoted to
    grade GS-15 of the General Schedule.
        DAV has no specific resolution on this issue and takes no position
    on this bill. Mr. Chairman, this concludes DAV's statement for the
    record.

              Prepared Statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and members of the
    subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank
    you for the opportunity to submit our views on the pending legislation
    impacting the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that is being
    considered during today's hearing. No group of veterans understand the
    full scope of benefits and care provided by the VA better than PVA
    members--veterans who have incurred a spinal cord injury or disorder
    (SCI/D).

    H.R. 530, the ACES Act

        The results of many recent studies suggest that veterans who were
    aviators are diagnosed with cancer and die from it at rates
    significantly higher than the U.S. general population. PVA supports the
    ACES Act, which proposes a multi-year study conducted by the National
    Academy of Sciences-Engineering-Medicine (NASEM) to determine what
    causes elevated cancer rates among military aircrew members. Its goal
    is to better understand how cancer affects these individuals by
    identifying the types of hazardous exposures related to aircrew-related
    occupations that may contribute to cancer; attempting to establish
    links between these exposures and various types of cancers; and
    determining the prevalence of certain cancers, specifically among these
    aircrew members, and assessing mortality rates linked to these cancers.
    Once the study is completed, NASEM will be required to submit their
    findings to the VA and Congress.

    H.R. 647, the Ensuring Veterans' Final Resting Place Act of 2025

        Under current law, if a veteran's family chooses to have the VA
    furnish a commemorative plaque or urn for their loved one, they
    inadvertently forfeit their right to later inter the veteran at a
    national cemetery, which requires either a headstone or a marker at the
    grave site. PVA has no objections to this bill which allows surviving
    family members to have the veteran interred at a VA National Cemetery
    at a later date, as long as they cover the cost of the urn or plaque
    that was initially received from the VA.

    H.R. 1039, the Clear Communication for Veterans Claims Act

        Testimony from veterans service organizations received by this
    subcommittee on March 20, 2024, revealed many problems with the
    language the VA uses in its letters to veterans regarding the status of
    their disability claims and appeals. In recent years, these letters
    have become lengthy tomes that require veterans to obtain help to
    interpret them. The Clear Communication for Veterans Claims Act directs
    the VA to enter into an agreement with a federally funded research and
    development center for an assessment of notice letters that the
    department sends to claimants. PVA believes the VA should place greater
    emphasis on successfully communicating with the veteran, and focus less
    on legalese. Therefore, we appreciate and strongly support efforts like
    this to help demystify the VA claims process.

    H.R. 1228, the Prioritizing Veterans' Survivors Act

        VA's Office of Survivors Assistance (OSA) was established in 2008
    (P.L. 110-389) to serve as a resource regarding all benefits and
    services furnished by the department to the survivors and dependents of
    deceased veterans and members of the Armed Forces. Congress also
    intended that OSA would serve as a principal advisor to the VA
    Secretary, and promote the use of VA benefits, programs, and services
    to survivors. In February 2021, the OSA was moved from the Office of
    the VA Secretary to the Veterans Benefits Administration's, Pension and
    Fiduciary Service, changing the span of control and altering a key role
    that Congress intended for the office. PVA supports this bill which
    seeks to realign the OSA back under the Office of the VA Secretary.

    H.R. 1286, the Simplifying Forms for Veterans Claims Act

        PVA supports this legislation, which seeks to simplify the VA
    claims process by requiring the department to contract with a federally
    funded research and development center to assess how to make the claims
    forms more user friendly. PVA believes that simplifying VA forms helps
    veterans to better understand the process and can help dissuade
    veterans from seeking outside, unaccredited help to pursue their VA
    claims and appeals.

    H.R. 1344, the Dennis and Lois Krisfalusy Act

        This legislation would authorize the National Cemetery
    Administration to provide a headstone, marker, or burial receptacle for
    an eligible spouse or dependent child buried in a national, state, or
    tribal cemetery regardless of the date of death. Currently, eligible
    dependents who passed before November 11, 1998, or after October 1,
    2024, are ineligible to be so memorialized. This bill would also extend
    this authorization an additional 10 years past 2025. PVA has no
    objection to this bill.

    H.R. 1578, the Veterans Claims Education Act of 2025

        PVA supports this legislation, which would require the VA, upon
    receipt of a claim by an unrepresented veteran, to provide the
    information for accredited agents who could assist in the process going
    forward. Veterans who file a claim should not be victims of predators
    seeking to scam them out of their VA benefits. The VA should ensure
    that any veteran who files a claim be provided the contact information
    of accredited agents who can help them and answer their questions,
    steering them away from unaccredited agents.

    H.R. 1741, the Veteran Appeals Transparency Act of 2025

        PVA supports efforts like this bill to increase transparency of the
    Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) process by publishing the docket dates
    for cases assigned to the Board members for decisions that week. By
    requiring the BVA to post the docket dates, it would give a veteran who
    currently has an appeal at the Board a better understanding of how the
    appeals are being adjudicated and increase overall transparency.

    H.R. 2137, the Review Every Veterans Claim Act of 2025

        PVA strongly supports this legislation, which seeks to limit the
    VA's authority to deny a veteran's claim solely based on the veteran's
    failure to appear for a medical examination associated with the claim.
    Thousands of veterans' claims for service connection, claims for
    increase, and for other benefits like Total Disability Individual
    Unemployability and Aid and Attendance have been denied solely on the
    basis of missing an examination. There are many legitimate reasons why
    a veteran may not be able to attend a scheduled exam. We are also aware
    of numerous instances where VA contractors erroneously record the
    veteran as a ``no show.'' Veterans with SCI/D often encounter multiple
    barriers in travel when compared to other veterans and are apt to miss
    some of these appointments. We believe that passage of this legislation
    will ensure that a missed exam isn't the only basis for denying a
    veteran's claim. VA should also more carefully consider whether an
    examination is needed since many veterans with SCI/D already receive
    the majority of their care through the department's SCI/D centers whose
    records have adequate information to provide an accurate disability
    picture for the veteran.

    H.R. 2138, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of
        2025

        PVA supports this legislation, which directs VA to increase amounts
    payable for disability compensation, additional compensation for
    dependents, the clothing allowance for certain disabled veterans, and
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) for surviving spouses and
    children. Specifically, VA would be required to raise compensation
    amounts by the same percentage as the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA)
    in benefits for Social Security recipients that is effective on
    December 1, 2025. These COLA increases maintain the purchasing power of
    VA's compensation amounts but we believe that programs such as DIC,
    Special Monthly Compensation, and other monetary benefits should be
    revisited to ensure that the amounts are adequate in addressing the
    needs for seriously disabled veterans and survivors.

    Discussion draft, the Improving VA Training for Military Sexual Trauma
    Claims Act

        PVA supports this draft legislation, which would require every VA
    employee who processes a claim related to Military Sexual Trauma (MST),
    or who engages in communications with an MST claimant, to receive
    annual sensitivity training. Additionally, it would also require
    contracted providers who conduct compensation and pension exams to
    receive the training. The delicate nature of MST claims should be
    enough to recognize that each person involved in every step of the
    claims process should receive training to avoid revictimization of
    survivors and help to ensure that they are treated with care and
    dignity.

    Discussion draft, the Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney Retention and
    Backlog Reduction Act

        This draft legislation would increase the cap for non-supervisory
    attorneys at the BVA to the GS- 15 level on the Federal pay scale.
    Currently, attorneys at the BVA can reach a maximum of GS-14. PVA
    supports this legislation as it would encourage retention of trained
    and experienced attorneys, reduce turnover, and help recruit top
    candidates. Recruiting and retaining high quality attorneys at the BVA
    should be a top priority for the VA to help reduce the backlog of
    appeals and ensure high quality decisions from the BVA.

      Discussion draft, the Survivor Benefits Delivery Improvement Act of
                                      2025

        PVA supports this draft bill, which directs the VA to collect
    demographic data on veterans' survivors. We believe the change would
    help the department and Congress better understand the utilization of
    survivor-related benefits and services. It also directs the VA to
    develop an outreach program for survivors, similar to the Solid Start
    program, to make sure that every survivor knows what benefits are
    available to them.
        PVA would once again like to thank the subcommittee for the
    opportunity to submit our views on the legislation being considered
    today. We look forward to working with you on this legislation and
    would be happy to take any questions for the record.

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

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

                                Fiscal Year 2025

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

                                Fiscal Year 2023

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

                                Fiscal Year 2022

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

                         Disclosure of Foreign Payments

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

         Prepared Statement of Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      Prepared Statement of Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States

        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 regarding this pending legislation.

    H.R. 530, ACES Act

        The VFW supports this legislation that would authorize a study by
    the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM)
    on the prevalence and mortality rates of certain cancers in U.S. Armed
    Forces fixed wing aircrew members, and on any association between these
    cancers and exposures to various materials and environmental conditions
    in this military occupational field. A related study that NASEM
    conducted on behalf of the Department of Defense indicated heightened
    incidences of certain cancers in this population.
        However, we make two recommendations. First, we recommend adding
    deadlines to enhance accountability and to ensure a timely product.
    Specifically, we favor setting deadlines for the Department of Veterans
    Affairs (VA) to enter into an agreement with NASEM and to deliver a
    final report to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs.
    Second, we recommend a subsequent study focused on rotary wing air and
    ground crews.

    H.R. 647, Ensuring Veterans' Final Resting Place Act of 2025

        The VFW supports this legislation to authorize VA to provide an urn
    or commemorative plaque as personal property to the next of kin of a
    decedent who died/dies on or after January 5, 2021, but who is not
    interred in either a private cemetery or in a national, state, tribal,
    or county veterans' cemetery. Current law prohibits additional burial
    benefits for the veteran decedent after the next of kin chooses the urn
    or commemorative plaque option. However, qualified family members
    retain eligibility for burial in a VA national cemetery, which creates
    a situation in which the entire family could not be interred together.
    We agree that future interment of an urn alongside eligible family
    members is an appropriate option for VA to provide so survivors may
    choose how to best memorialize their loved ones.

    H.R. 1039, Clear Communication for Veterans Claims Act

        The VFW supports this legislation to streamline communication and
    messaging from VA. It would establish a collaboration between VA and a
    federally funded research and development center (FFRDC), in
    consultation with Veterans Service Organizations and other
    stakeholders, to assess disability notification letters to make them
    clearer, better organized, and more concise for claimants.
        One of the primary challenges veterans encounter when reviewing
    these letters is their intricate language and terminology. Legal jargon
    and medical terms can be overwhelming, especially for veterans without
    a background in law or medicine. This complexity often leads to
    confusion and frustration, hindering veterans from understanding the
    full scope of their benefits entitlements.
        Frequently, accredited representatives spend considerable time
    explaining letters that make sense to them because of their training
    and experience, but that can be nearly incomprehensible to a layperson.
    The VA disability system involves a multitude of regulations, policies,
    and procedures. Understanding the full spectrum of benefits associated
    with a disability rating is another hurdle. The notice letter may
    mention various forms of compensation, health care coverage, and
    vocational rehabilitation. However, veterans may struggle to understand
    the significance of the information and its applicability, and in some
    cases they may mistakenly limit their participation in beneficial
    programs because they erroneously assume they are not eligible.
    Consequently, this unfamiliarity may impede their ability to make
    informed decisions about their health care and overall well-being.

    H.R. 1228, Prioritizing Veterans' Survivors Act

        The VFW supports this legislation to relocate the Office of
    Survivors Assistance (OSA) from its current placement in the Veterans
    Benefits Administration to the Office of the Secretary, where it
    resided prior to 2021. As the large cohorts of Vietnam and subsequent
    Gulf War veterans age and die, demand for OSA services will
    significantly increase. This placement would restore OSA's direct
    access to the Secretary, ensuring prioritization of survivors' needs,
    and enabling the Secretary to better assess the effectiveness of the
    survivor benefits program. Survivors who may be unfamiliar with the
    military or VA will have to successfully navigate a bureaucratic
    process to access benefits while simultaneously coping with grief,
    significant upheaval, and loss of income. In this context, VA must
    optimally locate and robustly resource OSA for maximum effectiveness
    and ease of access for survivors.

    H.R. 1286, Simplifying Forms for Veterans Claims Act

        Veterans deserve straightforward, clear communications from VA that
    they can independently understand. The VFW supports this legislation to
    revise the forms VA sends to claimants to make them more intelligible
    and better organized. An FFRDC collaborating with Veterans Service
    Organizations and other stakeholders should facilitate a comprehensive
    assessment from diverse viewpoints and yield more concise, easy to
    understand forms. However, in order to realize the potential benefits,
    Congress must provide adequate resources for assessment and
    implementation of the recommendations prior to the 2-year deadline
    specified in this legislation.

    H.R. 1344, Dennis and Lois Krisfalusy Act

        The VFW supports this legislation to authorize VA to place a
    headstone or marker in specific types of cemeteries for any eligible
    spouse or dependent child who dies prior to September 30, 2032. Per
    current United States Code (U.S.C.), spouses and dependent children who
    died before November 11, 1998, are ineligible for this benefit. This
    legislation would remove this date restriction that currently prohibits
    memorializing eligible family members alongside veterans or active duty
    beneficiaries. The VFW recommends removing the September 30, 2032, end
    date and making the law permanent.
        The bill's namesakes, veteran Dennis Krisfalusy and his spouse,
    Lois, died in a Mexico earthquake in 1985, with no recoverable remains.
    In 2023, VA provided a memorial marker for Dennis, but current statute
    prohibits VA from inscribing Lois' name on the marker because she died
    prior to November 11, 1998.

    H.R. 1741, Veterans Appeals Transparency Act of 2025

        The VFW supports this legislation to provide veterans greater
    clarity and transparency regarding cases residing at the Board of
    Veterans' Appeals (BVA). However, veterans must realize the BVA
    adjudication process is not linear, and manage their expectations
    accordingly. Special situations as highlighted in the proposed Title 38
    U.S.C. Section 7107(f) may accelerate cases or reposition them in the
    docket queue entirely, sometimes dramatically ahead of cases that have
    been in queue much longer. Additionally, the weekly docket date
    publication would not apply to those exceptional cases. With those
    caveats in mind, this proposal could still provide appellants useful
    information. However, the VFW urges Congress to robustly resource this
    proposal to facilitate its success.

    H.R. 2137, Review Every Veterans Claim Act of 2025

        The VFW supports this legislation that would amend Title 38 U.S.C.
    Section 5103A(d) to limit the authority of the Secretary to deny a
    veteran's disability claim solely on the basis of missing a
    compensation and pension examination. VA has made the disability claims
    filing process significantly easier for veterans, except for this
    practice of denying a claim. Veterans miss appointments for many
    reasons and would benefit from a less harsh process. This legislation
    is a positive development and should facilitate continued improvements.
        The VFW has assisted countless veterans who had to reapply for
    benefits because they missed examination appointments. Restarting a
    disability claim solely for this reason is burdensome and unnecessary.
    In such a case, we recommend returning the claim file to the work queue
    with a specific flag denoting ``missed medical examination.'' This
    method would enable the veteran to resume processing the claim at the
    point of the missed appointment instead of starting over from the
    beginning.

    H.R. 2138, Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2025

        Every year Congress introduces legislation to make cost-of-living
    adjustments to the rates of compensation for veterans with service-
    connected disabilities, the rates of Dependency and Indemnity
    Compensation for survivors, and the amount of the clothing allowance.
        The VFW supports this legislation that codifies the correlation
    between veterans' and survivors' compensation rates and Social Security
    benefits increases, reassuring beneficiaries that their compensation is
    sufficient to counterbalance inflation. We are grateful for the
    bipartisan and bicameral commitment each year to ensure compensation
    for the cost-of-living. However, we recommend broadening the language,
    if possible, to allow an automatic renewal and obviating the need for
    annual legislation.

    H.R. XXX, Improving VA Training for Military Sexual Trauma Claims Act

        The VFW supports this proposal that would mandate sensitivity
    training for VA employees and contracted medical providers who process
    claims related to military sexual trauma (MST), expand VA's duty to
    assist claimants in obtaining records, and provide congressional
    reports on implementing these actions.
        Some MST survivors are hesitant to report their incidents for a
    variety of reasons, one of which is a fear of retraumatization during
    the claims process. A claims processor asking probing questions or a
    claimant having to repeatedly recount assault details could be a
    trigger. To help prevent these situations, the VFW fully supports
    mandating this sensitivity training to teach claims processors how to
    elicit vital information for claims adjudication without
    retraumatizing.
        This proposal would expand VA's duty to assist MST-related
    claimants. The VFW recommends that VA offer this enhanced service with
    all claims related to mental health. Though their records may not
    contain traditional evidentiary support such as a medical examination
    directly attributable to a trauma, an investigation report, or a police
    report, they may include ``markers'' that could substantiate a claim or
    provide cause for further medical examination or opinion. For example,
    personnel records could include abrupt or nonstandard transfer requests
    or performance evaluations that indicate an inexplicable drop in
    performance. VA automatically obtaining these records for claims
    related to MST and mental health would standardize and therefore
    streamline procedures for these typically complicated and nuanced
    claims.

    H.R. XXX, Veterans Claims Education Act of 2025

        The VFW supports this proposal that would educate and inform
    veterans about VA disability claims filing options, promote the use of
    accredited representatives, and provide an avenue to report
    unaccredited representatives and their unlawful fees. Leaving military
    service is a daunting process filled with many tasks to complete during
    the transition back to civilian life. Filing a VA disability claim is
    one of those substantial tasks that the veteran can complete him/
    herself or by using the services of an accredited representative.
    Accredited representatives employed by a Veterans Service Organization
    must offer this service at no cost. Other accredited representatives
    who may be attorneys or claims agents may charge a fee as determined by
    VA. Accredited representatives have VA oversight, must conform their
    fee schedules to VA guidelines, and may legally represent veterans
    before VA.
        Unfortunately, entities comprised of unaccredited representatives
    have sprung up promising quicker claims adjudication with higher
    disability ratings than accredited representatives. Using aggressive
    marketing and complicated, unregulated contracts, these unaccredited
    representatives advertise themselves as a better choice than accredited
    representatives. Because they are unaccredited, these individuals may
    not legally represent veterans' claims before VA. The veterans actually
    compile and file their own claims while the unaccredited
    representatives offer advice as ``coaches'' or ``consultants.''
    Consequently, VA cannot hold them liable for fraudulent or erroneous
    claims. In those cases, VA would hold the veterans responsible. VA does
    not have oversight of the unaccredited representatives, does not
    regulate their fee schedules, and cannot require scrupulous business
    practices.

    H.R. XXX, Survivor Benefits Delivery Improvement Act of 2025

        The VFW supports this proposal to improve access to survivors'
    benefits by establishing a data-informed education and outreach
    program. Focused outreach using demographic data to confirm survivors
    most in need is a smart and efficient practice that would enable VA to
    best use its limited resources to accurately disseminate critical
    information, particularly immediately needed burial benefits.
        The VFW agrees with Section 3 and the proactive, personal, and
    multi-media Survivor Solid Start Act of 2025 in which VA would maintain
    a quarterly outreach to each eligible dependent until that person files
    a claim for a benefit. A particularly attractive feature is VA
    assisting survivors with accessing accredited representatives to file
    claims. This action would aid survivors coping with the loss of a loved
    one to fulfill basic needs as soon as possible, and hopefully debunk
    common misconceptions about VA benefits. For example, as indicated in
    previous VFW testimony, VFW Service Officers report that some survivors
    do not realize their deceased loved one's VA benefits are not
    transferrable, resulting in a loss of income when the survivors start
    receiving lower Dependency and Indemnity Compensation amounts.
        The VFW appreciates the explicit mention of call center manning
    levels to facilitate this outreach and education plan. Accordingly, we
    urge Congress to robustly resource VA to facilitate it fully
    implementing all the provisions in the legislation.

    H.R. XXX, Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney Retention and Backlog
    Reduction Act

        The VFW supports this proposal that would promote attorney
    retention at the Board of Veterans' Appeals by eliminating the current
    GS-14 cap on BVA non-supervisory attorneys and allow promotion to GS-
    15, which is an approximate $10,000 salary increase. Currently, other
    VA departments such as the Office of General Counsel allow GS-15 non-
    supervisory attorneys, luring some attorneys away from the lower paying
    positions at BVA.
        Attorney attrition also adversely affects the appeals decision
    backlog at BVA, so this proposal could help reduce the backlog by
    retaining experienced attorneys. Of note, it does not mandate new
    hiring or attorney promotion, but gives BVA the flexibility to increase
    pay within its existing appropriations like other VA entities.

    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.

                                     [all]