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

                             LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON.
                   H.R. 3123, H.R. 3627, H.R. 3833, H.R. 3834, H.R.
                    3835, H.R. 3854, H.R. 3983, H.R. 3951, H.R. 659,
                    H.R. 2055, H.R. 2701, AND H.R. 2721

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

                                    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

                                   __________

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-28

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        Available via http://govinfo.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    61-167                    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

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2025

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Morgan Luttrell, Chairman..........................     1
    The Honorable Morgan McGarvey, Ranking Member....................     2
    The Honorable Mike Bost, Chairman, Full Committee................     4

                                   WITNESSES
                                    Panel I

    The Honorable Julia Brownley, U.S. House of Representatives, (CA-
      26)............................................................     5

    The Honorable Tom Barrett, U.S. House of Representatives, (MI-7).     6

    The Honorable Timothy Kennedy, U.S. House of Representatives,
      (NY-26)........................................................     7

    The Honorable Elise Stefanik, U.S. House of Representatives, (NY-
      21)............................................................     8

    The Honorable Jahana Hayes, U.S. House of Representatives, (CT-5)     9

    The Honorable Chuck Edwards, U.S. House of Representatives, (NC-
      11)............................................................    22

                                    Panel II

    Mrs. Julie Guleff, Caregiver and Surviving Spouse of Stephen
      Guleff, Vietnam Veteran........................................    11

    Mr. Michael J. Wishnie, William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of
      Law and Director, Veterans Legal Services Clinic, Yale Law
      School.........................................................    13

    Ms. Candace Wheeler, Senior Director, Government and Legislative
      Affairs, Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS).......    15

                                   Panel III

    Mr. Evan Deichert, Acting Deputy Vice Chairman, Veterans Law
      Judge, Board of Veterans Appeals, U.S. Department of Veterans
      Affairs........................................................    23

            Accompanied by:

        Mr. Kevin Friel, Executive Director, Pension & Fiduciary
            Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S.
            Department of Veterans Affairs

        Mr. James W. Smith II, Deputy Executive Director, Policy and
            Procedures, Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits
            Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

        Dr. Colleen Richardson, Executive Director, Caregiver Support
            Program, Veterans Health Administration, U.S. Department
            of Veterans Affairs

    Colonel (Ret.) Tiffany M. Wagner, USAF, Clerk of the Court, U.S.
      Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims...........................    25

                                    APPENDIX
                        Prepared Statements Of Witnesses

    Mrs. Julie Guleff Prepared Statement.............................    41
    Mr. Michael J. Wishnie Prepared Statement........................    44
    Ms. Candace Wheeler Prepared Statement...........................    50
    Mr. Evan Deichert Prepared Statement.............................    65
    Colonel (Ret.) Tiffany M. Wagner, USAF Prepared Statement........   114

                           Statements For The Record

    Mr. Jonah Platt Prepared Statement...............................   117
    Republican Jewish Coalition Prepared Statement...................   119
    Disabled American Veterans Prepared Statement....................   120
    Gold Star Spouses of America, Inc. Prepared Statement............   132
    The Honorable Debbie Wasserman Schultz, U.S. House of
      Representatives, (FL-25) Prepared Statement....................   134
    Mr. Iddo Goldberg Prepared Statement.............................   135
    Mr. Jason Greenblatt Prepared Statement..........................   137
    Jewish Federations of North America Prepared Statement...........   139
    Mr. Shabbos Kestenbaum Prepared Statement........................   141
    Mr. Lee Trink Prepared Statement.................................   143
    Ms. Liora Rez Prepared Statement.................................   145
    Ms. Lizzy Savetsky Prepared Statement............................   146
    Ms. Nicole Neily Prepared Statement..............................   148
    National Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. Prepared
      Statement......................................................   150
    Mr. John Ondrasik Prepared Statement.............................   154
    Paralyzed Veterans of America Prepared Statement.................   156
    Quality of Life Foundation Prepared Statement....................   159
    Ms. Sarah Stern Prepared Statement...............................   162
    Shirion Collective Prepared Statement............................   164
    Mr. Adam Zimmerman Prepared Statement............................   167
    The American Legion Prepared Statement...........................   181
    Vietnam Veterans of America Prepared Statement...................   196
    Ms. Bethany Mandel Prepared Statement............................   198
    Administrative Conference of the United States Prepared Statement   200
    Afikim Foundation Prepared Statement.............................   224
    American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO Prepared
      Statement......................................................   227
    Ms. Aviva Klompas Prepared Statement.............................   229
    Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States Prepared Statement.   231

                             LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON.
    H.R. 3123, H.R. 3627, H.R. 3833, H.R. 3834, H.R. 3835, H.R. 3854, H.R.
         3983, H.R. 3951, H.R. 659, H.R. 2055, H.R. 2701, AND H.R. 2721

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 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 1:15 p.m., in
    room 360, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Morgan Luttrell
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Luttrell, Self, and McGarvey.
        Also present: Representative Bost, Brownley, Hayes,
    Barrett, Kennedy, Stefanik, and Edwards.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF MORGAN LUTTRELL, CHAIRMAN

        Mr. Luttrell. The subcommittee will come to order. Good
    afternoon, everyone. How is everybody today? Very colorful. I
    enjoy the yellow and the blues. It livens the place up a little
    bit.
        We are here to discuss 12 bills that would benefit veterans
    and their survivors. These bills would ensure that veterans,
    their caregivers, and their survivors all receive fast,
    accurate, and fair decisions on their claims for U.S.
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits, build on the
    Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 by
    further streamlining and modernizing the VA appeals process,
    provide employees from across VA the technology, training and
    resources they need to efficiently process and decide VA claims
    and appeals, ensure that rural veterans can receive disability
    compensation exams where they are, expand survivors benefits
    and ensure that fallen service members and veterans are
    properly commemorated, and require VA to obtain and track
    necessary information concerning disabled veterans who have
    died by suicide.
        I am proud to have one of my bills on the--on the--on
    today's agenda. H.R. 3983, the Veterans Claims Quality
    Improvement Act of 2025, would ensure that veterans and their
    families receive accurate and fair decisions on their claims
    and appeals for VA benefits. The VA Board of Veterans Appeals
    (BVA) has reported to Congress quality rates of roughly 95
    percent. However, the subcommittee has learned that these
    ratings are quite possibly flawed. We have heard that the way
    the Board calculates quality does not fully account for the
    legal errors identified by the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals.
    In fact, the Court reported in 2024 that 83 percent of Board
    appeals were returned to the Board because of legal errors.
    Many of these mistakes the Board continues to make over and
    over again, and for too long, the Board has been passing the
    book to the Court, leaving the veterans waiting longer for a
    decision on their claim. This bill would change that and would
    require the Board to carry out a robust training and tracking
    program using the proper data measurements so Board judges and
    attorneys can learn from their mistakes.
        When the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) at VA
    denies a benefit's claim, that veteran has the option to appeal
    to the Board. We have heard that the Board often sends
    veterans' cases back to the VBA instead of deciding on the
    claim. In fact, the Board reported it sent back nearly 50
    percent of all the appeals it received in 2024. This is
    unnecessary and remains--in our-and remains a waste of time and
    resources. They can add--this can add months or even years to
    the wait times for a veteran to receive a final decision on
    their claim. Again, this is unacceptable. It is the
    responsibility of the Board judges to ensure that all remands
    are correct, fair, and timely.
        Under the current law, performance reviews on Board judges
    are only required every 3 years. This bill would change that,
    requiring Board judges to undergo annual performances--annual
    performance reviews. This bill would also hold VBA claims
    processors accountable for avoidable deferrals of veterans'
    claims. It would ensure that when a VBA claims processor
    mistakenly requests additional evidence for a veteran's claims,
    all claims processors who may have made the same mistake on
    that case are notified, not just the last one to work on the
    claim itself. It provides an opportunity for the claims
    processors to correctly address claims going forward and do--
    and become better at their jobs. The VA has a hard job
    nonetheless, but veterans deserve a claims and appeals process
    that puts them first. This bill helps make sure that we have an
    adaptable VA that learns from its mistakes to better serve our
    veterans.
        Chairman Bost, Chairman of the VA Committee, and I have
    both gone through the disability claims process ourselves, and
    it is a top priority for us to ensure that the process works
    for every veteran caregiver and survivor. I look forward to
    working with Chairman Bost, Ranking Member McGarvey, and other
    members of this subcommittee on this important proposal today.
    I look forward to hearing from witnesses who have joined us
    today and how we can improve these bills.
        I now yield to the Ranking Member for his opening remarks.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF MORGAN MCGARVEY, RANKING MEMBER

        Mr. McGarvey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you all for being here today. We got a packed agenda with votes
    coming up soon, so I want to--I want to be brief.
        First of all, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your willingness
    to continue to work--work on this committee in a mission-
    focused manner, a bipartisan way that looks out and cares for
    our veterans. We have got a lot of good bipartisan bills here
    today, and you have always been willing to work through some of
    the issues we may encounter in creating not just well-
    intentioned but also well-functioning legislation as we move
    forward.
        I am happy to see Ms. Brownley's bill, the Veterans Law
    Judge Experience Act of 2025, on the agenda today. This is a
    great bill. Dovetails with one of the efforts I have worked on
    with the Board of Veterans Appeals Attorney Retention Backlog
    Reduction Act because it further emphasizes the need to hire
    and retain the best and most qualified attorneys and judges on
    the Board. This helps our veterans. This helps our veterans who
    are already having trouble getting through the system. I look
    forward to hearing more about legislation that seeks to find
    ways to make the Board of Veterans Appeals and the U.S. Court
    of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) work more efficiently for
    our veterans, for their families, for their caregivers, and for
    their survivors. This is about how do we help our veterans.
        That said, there are quite a few concerns with some of the
    agenda items related to appeals that I hope my colleagues in
    the majority will work with us to address prior to moving these
    bills further through the process.
        Mr. Chairman, one of the bills we will discuss today, the
    Caring for Survivors Act of 2025, is a long overdue act to
    improve compensation for survivors--for the survivor's
    community, and I strongly support it. The rate of dependency
    and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and dependents
    was set in 1993. Just to date myself here, that is when I was
    in the seventh grade. I think that we can do a little better in
    updating what is due to our veterans, their spouses, and their
    families. They put on the uniform to sacrifice everything for
    us. We have got to do right by them.
        Needless to say, the world is a little different today than
    it was in 1993. Despite what decisions were made back then, we
    know today that, right now, that survivors of our Nation's
    brave men and women deserve more than we are giving them. Let
    us do that. It is long over due to justice compensation for
    people who have already paid dearly for this country. It is
    time to stop making them stretch their dollars as they continue
    to sacrifice and stretch themselves to their emotional limits.
        While I acknowledge that every expansion of benefits does
    come with a cost on it. There is a difference between spending
    and investment. We have to continue to invest in the people who
    are willing to put on a uniform so that we have people who are
    willing to put on that uniform that they know that the promise
    that we make to them in exchange for their service will
    continue to be honored after they take the uniform off.
        Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing. I thank
    the experts and advocates for being here today. I look forward
    to coming up with practical, workable solutions for those we
    hold most dear here in this Commission.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. McGarvey. Chairman Bost, sir,
    you are now recognized for your opening statement.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE BOST, CHAIRMAN, FULL COMMITTEE

        Mr. Bost. Thank you, Chairman, and I want to thank you and
    the ranking member for holding this hearing today. I am proud
    to have introduced two bills on the agenda today.
        One of my top priorities is continuing to streamline the
    VA's appeal process. That is why we must continue to build on
    what was accomplished through the--my bill, the Veterans
    Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017. My new bill,
    H.R. 3835, the Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act, would provide
    tried and true legal tools to the VA Board of Veterans Appeals
    and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to
    effectively--effectively decline--decide--effectively decide
    veterans claims that are on appeal.
        Even with the massive investment Congress has made in the
    Board, some veterans still are waiting up to 5 years for the
    Board to decide their claim. The Board still has 200,000
    appeals pending and receives over 65,000 appeals a year.
    Currently, the Board is only able to address roughly 120,000
    appeals each year. At this rate, there is no way the Board can
    eliminate its backlog. Simply giving millions more in tax
    dollars to the Board to hire more staff is not the answer. We
    must authorize new tools and processes for the Board to
    modernize whether they want to or not. The Board already has
    the authority to decide appeals in whatever order it needs for
    the good cause, and the veterans waiting years for a decision
    is certainly a good cause to use this authority.
        For decades, other Federal agencies have used legal tools,
    like aggregation, to decide a large number of similar claims at
    the same time. My bill would require the Board aggregate
    veterans' appeals according to the best legal practices. It is
    time for the Board to catch up with the rest of the government
    and use aggregation to provide the veterans with faster
    decisions on their benefit claims. Even the court recognizes
    the importance of this tool and began aggregation veterans'
    appeals in a process known as class actions. My bill would
    improve the process for class actions by allowing the court to
    certify class actions that include veterans waiting for a Board
    decision on their appeal class, closing this legal loophole,
    and ensuring timely discussions for the decisions for the
    veterans.
        My bill would also codify the court's authority to issue
    limited remains--limited remands, which allows the court to
    order the Board to fix specific mistakes it made in a veteran's
    appeal without requiring the Board to issue a whole new
    decision. Each of these charges would make the VA--each of
    these changes would make the VA appeals process work better and
    faster. We owe it to our taxpayers to come up with new,
    efficient solutions instead of hiring more bureaucrats to
    continue a slow status quo. I would like to thank Ranking
    Member Takano as well as Representative Valadao, Bilirakis,
    Bacon, James, and Lawler for co-leading this important bill
    with me.
        My second bill, H.R. 3834, the Protecting Veterans Claim
    Option Act, would ensure that no appeal option becomes a trap
    for veterans. The Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) gave veterans
    more choices for how veterans can pursue VA benefit claims, but
    there are improvements to be made. My bill would close a
    loophole in the law that prevents some veterans from ever
    receiving a final Board decision. Under current law, when the
    Board decides that a veteran did not submit new and relevant
    evidence, the Board refuses to make any decision on whether the
    veteran can receive VA benefits. The veteran's pursuit for VA
    benefits essentially disappears.
        My bill would ensure that the supplemental claim option is
    not a dead-end trap for veterans trying to navigate the VA
    appeals process. It would require the Board to make a decision
    on the merits of the veteran's claim, regardless whether their
    supplemental claim contained new and relevant evidence.
        My bill would close another loophole in the appeals process
    by allowing veterans to submit additional evidence after the
    court sends their case back to the Board. During the appeals
    process, veterans often learn that the evidence that they need
    to support their claim and find it later after they have filed.
    Veterans deserve fast and final decisions on their VA benefit
    claims, not a hamster wheel that forces them to wait months or
    even years just to get denied all over again. My bill would
    ensure that the process would work--not work for, not against--
    the veterans and their families.
        I look forward to discussions of both these bills in the
    future, and I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Brownley, you are recognized--oh. Point of order. I
    will be--each member will be held to 3 minutes for their
    openings or for their remarks. We have got a long list. In
    accordance with committee rules, I ask unanimous consent that
    Representatives Brownley, Hayes, Barrett, and Mr. Kennedy be
    permitted to participate in today's subcommittee hearings.
        Without objection. So ordered.
        Representative Brownley, you are now recognized for 3
    minutes to speak on your bill.

                      STATEMENT OF JULIA BROWNLEY

        Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Chairman Luttrell and Ranking
    Member McGarvey, for giving me this opportunity to speak on my
    bill, H.R. 659, the Veterans Law Judge Experience Act, which
    would give hiring preference to veteran law judges that have 3
    or more years of veterans' law experience.
        Throughout my tenure on the Veteran Affairs Committee, I
    have seen how veterans can end up waiting years before their
    claims for veteran benefits are decided. In some extreme cases,
    veterans have even died while waiting for their claims
    decision, while others spend their time unable to work and
    struggle to make ends meet. These circumstances make it clear
    that a prompter VA decision on a claim would change a veteran's
    life.
        VA's Fiscal Year 2024 annual report, the Board of Veterans
    Appeals had 200,000--over 200,000 pending appeals. The VA
    cannot afford to hire judges with a lack of experience
    practicing veterans' law. Veterans need judges who can hit the
    ground running and get the--get them decisions in a timely
    manner. Not only would my bill decrease the backlog of veterans
    benefit claims, it would also improve the accuracy of cases and
    incentivize those with experience to stay in the field.
        I was disappointed to see VA as opposing my bill. It is
    perplexing to me that VA would not want to hire experienced
    judges in the field of law they would--that they would be
    actually practicing. I have also heard from employees with the
    Veterans Board of Appeals who strongly disagree with the VA's
    official position. These employees informed me of how many of
    the veterans were law judges. VA hires have no experience in
    veterans law. These judges then must undergo lengthy training
    periods and handle a reduced caseload while they become
    acclimated to the ins and outs of the law. This practice of
    hiring judges without veteran law experience clearly further
    delays veterans from receiving their well-earned benefits.
    Judges should be able to immediately start digging into the
    claims backlog to get veterans their benefits as quickly as
    possible.
        I am firmly committed to working with my colleagues on the
    committee to get my legislation signed into law. I thank you
    for the time, and I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ms. Brownley. Mr. Barrett, sir,
    votes will be called in around a minute. Will you be returning
    or would you like to go?
        Mr. Barrett. I will be returning. I can yield to another
    member, if you would like, before votes if that would be better
    for you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Luttrell. Is there any other member that is going to--
    will not be returning after votes because of other committee
    assignments? I am happy to yield their 3 minutes currently. Mr.
    Kennedy? Anybody? Okay.
        Mr. Barrett, go ahead for your 3 minutes. Then after 3
    minutes, I will give us out so we can go vote, and then we will
    return.

                      STATEMENT OF THE TOM BARRETT

        Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. Thank
    you for allowing me to speak today. Ranking Member McGarvey,
    thank you as well for your willingness to take up this bill
    today.
        I appreciate the committee's consideration of my bill, H.R.
    3833, the Veterans' Caregiver Appeals Modernization Act. This
    legislation makes some critical and long overdue reforms and
    improvements to the Department of Veteran Affairs Program of
    Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC). This
    program is set up and designed to ensure that the Nation's most
    injured veterans, those that suffer the most serious injuries,
    who choose to receive their care at home rather than in a
    hospital, not subjecting their loved ones to significant
    financial hardships and burdens.
        Unfortunately, the VA, which handles--the VHA, the Veterans
    Health Administration, which handles this program, does not
    have a unified system available for applications. As a result,
    the records and documents that are scattered across multiple
    platforms and on various different systems, the VA staff that
    manage that see different things throughout the process, and
    there is not a unified way of managing that. Oftentimes, claims
    are delayed or lost or otherwise not actioned for quite some
    time.
        We are going to hear today from a caregiver about the
    personal effect that had on her and her family's life. It leads
    to delays, confusion, unjust denials, particularly during
    appeals, which can take years to resolve. This bill eliminates
    that bureaucratic roadblock that stands in the way between
    family caregivers and the VA. We are going to streamline and
    improve the VA's caregiver program application process for
    veterans and caregivers so they will finally be able to receive
    timely and accurate decisions. We will also ensure that family
    members who put their careers on hold to care full-time for
    their loved ones receive the past-due financial support they
    have earned. A glaring oversight is when a veteran dies while
    these applications are pending and are not able to receive any
    type of back allotted benefits.
        I am excited to hear testimony today, and I want to thank
    the witnesses for attending this hearing. Mr. Chairman, again,
    thank you so much for taking this bill up for consideration
    today. With that, I will yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Barrett.
        A vote has been called in the House. The subcommittee will
    stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. I expect to
    reconvene 10 minutes after the start of the last vote.
        Ladies and gentlemen, we have to adjourn to the House floor
    to have votes. I would like to promise you a timely return,
    however, comma, period, end of discussion, if you want to kick
    it down the road like that, we will wait for the House for the
    first vote. Usually goes a little long. I would like to say we
    are going to be in and out in 15 minutes but that would be me
    lying to you, so I will not do that. It is 1:30. I think it
    would be comfortable if you were to come back in around 2
    o'clock. 2:05 might be a good time.
        [Recess]
        Mr. Luttrell. Mr. Kennedy, sir, you are now recognized for
    3 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY KENNEDY

        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking
    Member McGarvey, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to speak in support of my bill, H.R. 2721, the
    Honoring Our Heroes Act.
        This legislation is rooted in the lived experiences of
    military families from my district and across the country who
    only came to fully understand the depth of their loved ones'
    service and sacrifice years or even decades after they had
    passed. Families who were told by the government that their
    loved ones were ineligible for the same final honors afforded
    to other veterans.
        Under current Federal law, the Department of Veterans
    Affairs will only provide a headstone or marker for veterans
    who died on or after November 1st, 1990. Before 1990, veterans
    were allowed to receive a government-issued headstone
    regardless of when they passed. This change was not enacted out
    of principle but as a cost-saving measure to get legislation
    passed. Our veterans should never have been reduced to a line
    item. Their courage was not conditional, their service did not
    come with a time limit, and neither did their grief of the
    loved ones that they left.
        I have worked closely with families impacted by this
    arbitrary policy. I have heard their stories, shared their
    frustrations, and felt their heartbreak. They are only seeking
    dignity and recognition for their loved ones' honorable
    service. I have made every effort to help them navigate the
    VA's bureaucracy, requesting exemptions, filing appeals, only
    to be repeatedly met with denials and red tape. The Honoring
    Our Heroes Act seeks to change that.
        My bill will create a 2-year pilot program to allow
    families of veterans who passed before November 1, 1990, to
    apply for a headstone or burial marker through the VA. This
    simple, compassionate change would mean everything to the
    families who have already waited too long for their loved ones
    to be recognized with the honor that they have earned.
        My bill has earned strong support from some of our most
    trusted veteran service organizations, including the Veterans
    of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW), Gold Star Mothers,
    Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS), Vietnam
    Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, American
    Legion, including the Jesse Clipper Post 430 and Bennett Wells
    Post number 1780, the Military Order of the Purple Heart,
    including Buffalo Chapter 187, Janetta R. Cole's AMVETS Post
    24, the Veterans One Stop Center of Western New York, and the
    African American Veterans Arts and Culture Corporation.
        This legislation is about doing right by our history and
    ensuring that those who wore the uniform are afforded the honor
    that they have earned. The uniform these brave men and women
    wore did not change with the date, and their sacrifice did not
    diminish over time.
        I respectfully urge the subcommittee to support H.R. 2721
    and help ensure that no veteran's legacy is forgotten. Thank
    you for your consideration, and I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
        In accordance with committee rules, I ask unanimous consent
    that Representative Stefanik be permitted to participate in
    today's subcommittee hearing.
        Representative Stefanik, you are now recognized for 3
    minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF ELISE STEFANIK

        Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Chairman Luttrell, and thank you
    for convening today's hearing on my bill, the Ernest Peltz
    Accrued Veterans Benefits Act.
        First, I want to thank this committee for your tireless
    work in advocating for our Nation's veterans and ensuring their
    voices are heard in Congress. I also want to thank
    Representative Ro Khanna for co-leading this bipartisan
    legislation. It is an honor to speak before the Disability
    Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee to discuss my bill
    that corrects a moral wrong and seeks to improve the payment of
    pension benefits for those who selflessly served our great
    country.
        I proudly represent New York's 21st congressional District,
    which is home to Fort Drum and the 10th Mountain Division, the
    Army's most deployed division since 9/11. Our district also has
    the largest veterans' population in all of New York State. As
    Members of Congress, it is our duty to recognize the sacrifices
    our military families make for our freedoms and develop
    solutions to ease the burdens placed on them. I look forward to
    continuing working with this committee to ensure our vets and
    their families are confronted with fewer hurdles when accessing
    their hard-earned benefits.
        My bill, H.R. 3123, the Ernest Peltz Accrued Veterans
    Benefits Act, improves the process by which our vets receive
    their accrued pension benefits. With one of the largest
    military communities in New York State, I have had the
    privilege of meeting with countless veterans and hearing
    firsthand the issues they face every day. Mr. Peltz was a U.S.
    Navy vet who bravely served in World War II. During the final
    chapter of his life, he lived in an assisted facility in
    Queensbury, New York, to be close to his son Charles. His
    health began to rapidly decline, and the Warren County Veterans
    Service offices assisted Ernest with his application for
    accrued pension benefits for which he was approved.
        I personally spoke with senior VA officials, yet due to a
    processing error at the VA, the funds were not deposited until
    7 days following his death. This erroneous delay prompted the
    VA to then claw back the earned funds and abandon the Peltz
    family with unanticipated expenses while mourning the loss of
    Ernest. The Peltz family was penalized for the VA's mistakes.
    This is unacceptable. A family mourning the loss of a beloved
    veteran should not have to deal with red tape and bureaucratic
    mistakes.
        My bill ensures another family never has to go through
    something like this again. It eliminates the burden on the
    surviving family by ensuring that the veteran is entitled to
    receive their pre-approved pension benefits within the month
    the death occurs. When a service member serves their family,
    serves alongside them. Together, we have the opportunity to
    pass this common sense, bipartisan bill to ensure our veterans
    and their families are never forgotten again.
        Thank you for the opportunity to Chairman Luttrell today. I
    also want to particularly thank Ernest's son, Charles Peltz,
    who is a friend. I saw him last week. Thank you for your years
    of commitment to helping us pass this bill. I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ms. Stefanik.
        It is our practice we will forego a round of questioning
    for each member. Any questions may be submitted for the record.
        A vote has been called in the House. The subcommittee will
    stand in recess, subject to the call of the chair. I expect to
    reconvene 10 minutes after the start of the vote.
        [Recess]
        Mr. Luttrell. The committee will come to order.
        Representative Hayes, you are now recognized for 3 minutes
    to speak on your bill.

                       STATEMENT OF JAHANA HAYES

        Ms. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    Veterans' Affairs Committee for inviting me back to discuss my
    legislation, the Caring for Survivors Act. I had the
    opportunity to come before the committee last Congress to
    discuss the importance of the bill, and I am here again today
    to share the broad support the bill continues to gain and the
    need to sign it into law.
        While I do not sit on this subcommittee, I deeply care
    about our veterans and have worked tirelessly on behalf of the
    men and women and the families who have served our country
    since I joined Congress. My bill, the Caring for Survivors Act,
    is a continuation of that dedication to our veterans. This
    legislation would expand benefits for survivors of
    servicemembers and veterans who have given their lives in
    service to the United States.
        When a servicemember dies in the line of duty or a veteran
    dies from service-related injuries or illnesses, their
    surviving family members receive a monthly benefit known as
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, or DIC. Unfortunately,
    the DIC rate has been minimally adjusted since the VA
    established the benefit in 1993 and is lower than the rate of
    other Federal survivor programs such as the Federal Employees
    Retirement System. Specifically, DIC beneficiaries currently
    receive 43 percent of the rate given to a totally disabled
    veteran, which is significantly lower than the 55 percent of
    the insurance annuity that beneficiaries of Federal civilian
    employees are eligible to receive.
        Additionally, current DIC rules drastically reduce the
    benefits for surviving members if the veteran was disabled for
    less than 10 years before passing away. This 10-year provision
    is more stringent than other Federal survivor programs and
    disadvantages survivors who have put their lives on hold to
    care for a disabled veteran. The Caring for Survivors Act
    addresses these issues through two reforms to DIC benefits.
        First, the bill raises DIC to 55 percent of the rate given
    to a totally disabled veteran, increasing DIC to a level
    consistent with other Federal survivor programs. As a result of
    this change, survivors will receive an approximate increase of
    more than $450 per month.
        Second, my bill reduces the 10-year disability rule to 5
    years to broaden eligibility and expedite DIC benefits for
    veterans who have sacrificed to care for disabled veterans.
    Taken together, these two provisions modernize survivor
    benefits to ensure families receive the financial help they
    deserve.
        I appreciate the support of the Veterans Service
    Organization (VSO) community for the legislation and I also
    want to recognize the surviving spouses and other family
    members nationwide and in this committee room for their ongoing
    advocacy to implement essential changes to survivor benefits.
        Finally, I want to thank my Republican colleague,
    Representative Fitzpatrick, for leading this legislation with
    me in the House, as well as Ranking Member Blumenthal and
    Senator Boozman for their support of the legislation in the
    Senate.
        Supporting veterans and surviving family members is an
    intentional choice that we can all make. I encourage my
    colleagues to support my bipartisan legislation and advance it
    through this subcommittee and vote for passage on the House
    floor.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mrs. Hayes.
        I now invite the second panel to the table.
        Ms. Guleff, you are left--I mean, you are right and Mr.
    Wishnie, you are in the middle. My fault. I should have thrown
    that at you. You guys ready? All right.
        Welcome, everyone, and thank you to those who traveled here
    to share your experiences with today. Our second panel, Mrs.
    Julie Guleff. ``Ju-liff''? ``Who-liff,'' Okay. Ms. Julie
    Guleff, surviving spouse of Stephen Guleff, Vietnam veteran;
    Professor Michael Wishnie, William O. Douglas, Clinical
    Professor of Law and director of the Yale Law School, Veterans
    Legal Service Clinic; and Ms. Candace Wheeler, senior director,
    Government and Legislative Affairs for the Tragedy Assistance
    Program for Survivors.
        I ask all the witnesses to please stand and raise your
    right hand.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you. Let the record reflect that all
    witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        Mrs. Guleff, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to
    present your testimony.

                       STATEMENT OF JULIE GULEFF

        Ms. Guleff. Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today. My name is Julie Guleff. I am the
    surviving spouse of 100 percent disabled Vietnam veteran
    Stephen Guleff. I come here today to speak in support of H.R.
    3833, the Veterans Caregivers Appeals Modernization Act of
    2025. To understand my strong support for this bill, I need to
    explain our story.
        Steve and I first met in 2004, and eventually we were
    married. I was still working three jobs to provide for my
    children and my mother, but was ready to reactivate my nursing
    license and continue my career. However, recognizing his
    growing needs, I put my life on hold to be a caregiver to
    Steve. With the titles of caregiver, nurse, and wife, my
    personal goals and career vanished. I had three jobs, but none
    of them came with a salary.
        With the increasing out-of-pocket medical expenses, our
    debt grew daily. Steve's health needs were clear. He could not
    drive. He could not go anywhere by himself, eat, or manage his
    own affairs. The (PTSD) was unmanageable and often frightening.
    In 2017, Steve's issues compounded once again. On top of
    everything else, we are now fighting prostate cancer.
        In 2018, we moved and Steve was able to get a VA-backed
    mortgage to buy a house. The downside was that by this time I
    did not have the credit to be added to the mortgage. Due to my
    caregiving responsibilities, I had not worked since 2010, had
    significant debt, and definitely could not leave Steve to go to
    work.
        In late 2019, we learned the prostate cancer had progressed
    to Stage 4 Plus. Steve completed 55 consecutive days of
    radiation, which caused severe side effects. He was now
    bedridden, completely incontinent, unable to stand, walk, or
    attend to personal hygiene needs. Moreover, the radiation had
    furthered his dementia, requiring more oversight. Then COVID
    hit.
        On October 1, 2020, we were excited to learn that the PCAFC
    program opened to Vietnam veterans. I immediately applied to
    get some financial relief as I thought my husband was more than
    qualified. I wheeled him into the bathroom, had to take him
    into the shower with me or wash him on a chair and brush his
    teeth and managed all his medications. I had to hire someone to
    stay with him if I had to leave the house for any reason, such
    as grocery shopping.
        Due to the pandemic, our home visit and interview was done
    virtually. It must be noted that these virtual evaluations were
    not necessarily an accurate representation of our reality as it
    is hard to see through a camera all of the medical equipment
    and the piles of pill bottles. My husband went to great lengths
    to not let people see him in his debilitated state. I spent
    endless hours on the phone, writing letters, emailing, faxing,
    hand-delivering, and correcting errors with the medical
    documentation.
        The first denial came in early 2021 with the reason given
    that veteran does not need 6 months of continuous care. That
    was inconceivable to both my husband and me. We had already
    been through years of continuous care, home health, physical/
    occupational therapy, home modifications, and countless pieces
    of medical equipment.
        We were heartened in March 2022 when, recognizing flaws in
    the system, the VA announced it was pausing dismissals from the
    program while the agency reviewed the eligibility criteria.
    Today, over 3 years later, caregivers are still waiting for the
    new regulations to address the problems.
        In August 2022, we went bankrupt. Our finances had all been
    spent. We were buried in medical debt. We appealed the PCAFC
    decision multiple times. To be clear, if it had been approved,
    it would not have solved all our problems, but it absolutely
    would have helped.
        Steve passed away on October 6th of 2022. Days after his
    death, I received a call from our mortgage holder asking me
    when I would be vacating our home. The company made it clear
    that they could not hold a mortgage for a deceased veteran.
    After years of sacrifice of career, credit, savings, and
    personal health, I was now widowed, homeless, alone, destitute,
    and heartbroken. Sadly, I am not alone.
        Our PCAFC case was still open at the time of my husband's
    death even after 2 years of fighting for a favorable decision.
    The overwhelming challenge of gathering and adding documents to
    the veteran's medical record is impossible in its current form.
    I struggled for years to connect the dots between providers in
    both the VA and outside to make sure records were up to date,
    inclusive, and complete. CNN records sometimes never made it to
    Steve's file--excuse me, Community Care Network (CCN) records
    sometimes never made it to Steve's file for use in treatment
    plans and certainly not for PCAFC eligibility.
        In the wake of losing Steve, I was so frustrated with the
    denials for PCAFC, I made it my mission to follow through with
    our quest. In 2023, I filed our case before the Board of
    Veterans Appeals. Ultimately, I went before a judge in December
    2024. By the time I was done, he was in tears.
        Unfortunately, in March 2025, almost 5 full years after we
    applied, we were denied again with the following conclusion of
    law: due to the death of the veteran, the appeal for
    eligibility of PCAFC benefits must be denied as a matter of
    law. The Board also noted it was only able to consider evidence
    of record at the time of the agency of original adjudication
    decision. After all our challenges, COVID interfering with
    appropriate care, evaluations, flawed regulations, changing
    staff, and the lack of appropriate record sharing, we were
    ultimately denied because the VA simply outlasted my husband.
        The VA is an enormous system and will always have
    challenges due to its sheer size, much less added complications
    like COVID. The Board process is a way of rectifying those
    problems. If the process ends when the veteran dies, those left
    behind are left to deal with the consequences. Please pass H.R.
    3833 so that others will not suffer the same fate as me.
        Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Julie Guleff Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you for your testimony, Mrs. Guleff.
        Professor Wishnie, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to
    present your opening testimony.

                      STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WISHNIE

        Mr. Wishnie. Mr. Chair, Mr. Ranking Member, members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    My remarks reflect my own views and not those of Yale or of any
    of my clients.
        I speak today in support of the Veterans Appeals Efficiency
    Act, H.R. 3835, which contains practical reforms that would
    meaningfully improve the adjudication of VA claims and ensure
    that veterans have access to some of the ``tried and true''
    tools, as Chairman Bost put it, that civilians have when they
    seek review of government decisions in Federal court. I will
    focus on just two points.
        First, the act would codify and expand the jurisdiction of
    the Veterans Court to aggregate claims that raise the same
    question of law or fact. Other Federal courts employ
    aggregation to manage mass adjudications in agency contexts. In
    the Veterans Court as well, aggregation can foster more
    consistent, equitable, and fair application of judicial rulings
    while also reducing the strategic mooting of cases by VA. There
    is no reason that veterans should be denied recourse to the
    same tools that civilians challenging government decisions have
    with other Federal agencies.
        The Veterans Court has some authority to aggregate claims
    and it has deployed this power judiciously. Already, tens of
    thousands of veterans have benefited. Many veterans cannot
    afford to hire the legal counsel or medical or technical
    experts necessary to argue complex medical or legal questions.
    Aggregation allows all similarly affected veterans to join
    together and to benefit from one well-presented case.
        Aggregation also advances judicial economy because it is
    more efficient to decide a question once than hundreds of times
    over and over. Aggregation promotes uniformity in decisions,
    avoiding the inconsistency of single judge opinions on the same
    question as we often have at the Veterans Court today.
        Now, when civilians challenge agency actions in Federal
    Court, they can gather together cases that have reached the
    court and that raise the same question, along with those that
    are still pending down at the agency level. However, in a case
    called Skaar, the Federal Circuit recently held that the
    Veterans Court unusually is limited and can aggregate only
    those claims that have reached the court or are within the 120-
    day appeal window. Claims of other veterans raising the exact
    same issue that are languishing at the Board or stuck before
    Regional Offices (RO) must be excluded. This is unusual in
    Federal Courts. Because few veterans with the same issue fall
    within that same 120-day appeals window at the same time, the
    Skaar decision effectively ends aggregation for veterans at the
    court.
        Recognizing the harsh consequences of this decision, five
    judges of the Federal Circuit objected. Judge Dyk explained for
    the dissenters that aggregation, quote, ``promised to help
    ameliorate VA delays to some significant extent, enabling
    veterans in a single case to secure a ruling that would help
    resolve dozens, if not hundreds, of similar claims,'' end
    quote. The Skaar decision denies veterans the ability to both
    ``compel correction of systemic error and to ensure that like
    veterans are treated alike.'' This bill fixes those problems.
        Now, the Board's written testimony raises various
    criticisms which I do not think are well-founded and which I
    would be glad to address during questioning. Importantly, even
    when the Veterans Court decides a single common question, the
    VA still makes the ultimate benefits determination for each
    veteran on an individual basis based on that veteran's facts
    and circumstances. Briefly, there are two amendments I hope the
    committee will consider to this provision.
        First, I agree with the court in its written statement that
    H.R. 3835 should not narrow the court's authority in writ
    cases. I do not believe this was the intent of the drafters. I
    have shared proposed amendments with staff to address this.
        Second, I hope the bill might avoid mention of opt-out
    procedures. The sensible structure of the bill is to
    incorporate the rules prescribed by the Veterans Court itself.
    The rules of that court do not explicitly address opt-outs.
    Removing mention of opt-outs from the bill would continue to
    leave it to the court to adopt such procedures either generally
    or in a particular case.
        The second and final point I wanted to make about the bill
    is to emphasize that it would also codify the authority of the
    Board to aggregate claims. Now I am moving from the court to
    the Board. Seventy other Federal agencies use aggregation in
    mass adjudication settings, but the Board is an outlier. It has
    held repeatedly that it lacks authority ever to aggregate
    claims together and decide once instead of hundreds or
    thousands of times, even when the appeals involve the same
    question of law or fact. According to the Administrative
    Conference of the United States, a result of the Board's
    failure to aggregate is that, quote, ``Agencies risk wasting
    resources in repetitive adjudication, reaching inconsistent
    outcomes for the same kinds of claims, and denying individuals
    access to the affordable representation that aggregation
    procedures promise,'' end quote. The bill would remedy that,
    too.
        Oddly, the Board says it does not want this tool. It wishes
    to remain disempowered unlike 70 other agencies ever to
    aggregate claims. It cites concerns about the manner in which
    it itself might exercise this power if it had it. The bill does
    not dictate these details. It provides the tool and leaves it
    to the Board to properly administer it. There is no reason to
    deprive veterans of a tool that civilians may invoke before 70
    other agencies.
        In conclusion, I urge the committee to approve H.R. 3835.
    Thank you.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Michael Wishnie Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Wheeler, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF CANDACE WHEELER

        Ms. Wheeler. Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey,
    and distinguished Committee members, the Tragedy Assistance
    Program for Survivors appreciates the opportunity to testify on
    behalf of more than 120,000 surviving families we are honored
    to serve.
        TAPS remains committed to strengthening dependency and
    indemnity compensation for surviving families. DIC has only
    been increased by Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) since 1993.
    TAPS is grateful to Representatives Hayes and Fitzpatrick and
    55 original cosponsors for reintroducing the Caring for
    Survivors Act, which will raise DIC by 454 a month, providing
    parity with other Federal survivor benefits, and financial
    stability for surviving families. In the words of Amanda
    Pitzer, surviving spouse of Chief Petty Officer Larry Pitzer,
    Jr., ``Losing my husband changed every aspect of my life
    emotionally, mentally, and financially. While DIC provides some
    support, the reality is that it simply is not enough to keep
    surviving families financially secure. The gap between what is
    provided and what is actually needed forces many of us into
    impossible situations, choosing between paying bills, securing
    our futures, or being present for our children. If the Caring
    for Survivors Act is passed, it would be life-changing.''
        TAPS appreciates Representatives Edwards and Morrison
    introducing the Justice for Americans Veterans and Survivors
    Act to ensure VA collects cause of death data for deceased
    veterans. While the VA currently supports 506,000 surviving
    spouses, VA does not know what percentage are suicide, illness,
    combat, or training accident losses. This data is critical to
    ensure VA and other organizations provide necessary care and
    programs for survivors as well as research into suicide
    prevention, toxic exposures, and illnesses that have led to the
    tragic deaths of many of our Nation's veterans.
        The lack of data also negatively impacts Congressional
    Budget Office (CBO) scoring of survivor legislation, like the
    Love Lives On Act and Caring for Survivors Act, adding to the
    cost of these bills and making it difficult to find funding. We
    urge swift passage of this important legislation.
        TAP strongly supports the Fallen Servicemembers Religious
    Heritage Restoration Act, which ensures every American
    servicemember who fought and died for our country has their
    beliefs and heritage properly honored. Many veterans from
    earlier generations also may lie in unmarked graves. The
    Honoring Our Heroes Act sponsored by Congressman Kennedy seeks
    to correct this oversight by ensuring that every veteran,
    regardless of when they passed, is honored with the dignity and
    recognition they have earned.
        TAPS also appreciates the Modernizing All Veterans and
    Survivors Claims Processing Act, which expands the use of
    automation tools across VA to improve efficiency, accuracy, and
    communication within the claims process. This legislation
    codifies the work being done by VA and ensures veterans and
    survivor claims advancements are protected in perpetuity.
        TAP strongly supports the Veterans Claims Quality
    Improvement Act to streamline the benefits claims process for
    our veterans and their families. We thank you, Chairman
    Luttrell, for your leadership on this important bill.
        TAPS also appreciates Chairman Bost introducing the
    Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act to help streamline the VA
    claims and appeals process, making it more expedient,
    transparent, and easier to track for veterans and their
    families.
        TAPS also supports the Ernest Peltz Accrued Veterans
    Benefits Act to ensure eligible survivors receive their
    veteran's unpaid pension. Last year alone, nearly 9,000 newly
    bereaved survivors connected to TAPS for care and services, the
    most in our 30-year history. Thirty-seven percent were grieving
    the death of a military loved one to illness, and many were
    caregivers to their veterans before their passing, which is why
    TAP strongly supports the Veterans Caregiver Appeals
    Modernization Act, which improves the VA's Caregiver Support
    Program by making the application and appeals process more
    accessible and efficient, and ensures much needed financial
    support for survivors.
        On behalf of our surviving families, TAPS appreciates the
    opportunity to testify and I look forward to your questions.
    Thank you.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Candace Wheeler Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ms. Wheeler.
        The written statement of our witnesses today will be
    entered into the hearing record. We will now move to
    questioning.
        Mr. McGarvey.
        Mr. McGarvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will get right
    into it.
        Ms. Wheeler, you addressed this a bit in your testimony,
    but I was hoping you could tell us more about why TAPS feels
    that the Congressional Budget Office estimates are too high for
    the Caring for Survivors Act. Is there any additional light you
    can shed on that?
        Mr. Luttrell. Ms. Wheeler, I am sorry, Is your microphone
    on? Thanks.
        Ms. Wheeler. It is now, yes.
        Mr. Luttrell. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
        Ms. Wheeler. Thank you for the question. When the The
    Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to
    Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act was passed, the VA had
    initially predicted that there could be up to 382,000 survivors
    that might have benefits under the PACT Act. We have seen a
    record number of 37,000 apply for benefits, which still is
    wonderful news for surviving families, but it certainly is a
    big delta from what the original estimate might have been.
        What we have heard since then is that actually what has
    happened is that they were looking at all of the amounts of
    survivors within their data base that could have possibly had
    benefits due to the PACT Act, and it was not related to cause
    or manner of death. One of the pieces of legislation we have
    all been talking about here today would actually fix that
    problem by helping VA to actually code by cause of death. This
    impacts legislation like the Caring for Survivors Act because
    we believe the Congressional Budget Office is actually scoring
    it based on a much larger number than what actually is. Thank
    you for the question, sir.
        Mr. McGarvey. No, thank you for that. I mean, I think it is
    important we know those numbers. We have to have a data-driven
    approach to this while we are doing our best to take care of
    our veterans.
        I also want people to understand here that we are talking
    about a modest increase in the base rate for dependents in care
    in this bill. It is less than $500 a month for a survivor. What
    does that additional money mean for survivors and dependents?
        Ms. Wheeler. It means paying their bills. It means having a
    little breathing room to be able to even attend to children
    that are grieving as well, to take care of themselves, to just
    breathe a bit easier. It would really go a long way for our
    families and is overdue.
        Mr. McGarvey. Ms. Guleff, I appreciate your testimony so
    much. I appreciate your service. We know when anyone in a
    family serves, the whole family serves. We thank you for that.
    We thank you for your courage in coming here today. Could you
    tell us a little bit about what that additional money would
    mean for families?
        Turn your microphone on. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Guleff. Thank you. That amount of money would make a
    big change, a huge change. In my case, I was left homeless in a
    very short time after my husband died with nothing, destitute
    and no income. $500 was a big deal. That would have done a
    whole lot for me in particular and I am sure for everyone else
    involved.
        My caregiving experience lasted so long that my life was
    virtually nonexistent. It was the caregiver experience. No
    income in savings, no 401(k)'s, no additional input into the
    household income other than my husband's disability check. When
    that was gone, everything was removed with it.
        I would also like to add that not only was I a nurse by
    education and had planned to do that as a career, I was also--I
    went into the admin side and was a biller and coder. Working
    with the numbers and, you know, gathering all of the stuff they
    needed was something that I was very used to.
        To answer your question, $500 a month would be a very big
    deal to someone like me. Quite honestly, it is an even bigger
    deal if you have others at home.
        Mr. McGarvey. And so many families. Thank you.
        While we are on the subject of DIC is there--we are talking
    about these things. There are quite a few bills here that
    address appeals both at the BVA and the CAVC level. Professor
    Wishnie, rather than asking about any specific one of them in
    the time we have remaining, I am more interested in how they
    would operate in concert with one another. If you have analyzed
    these as a total package, how do you think they would work from
    an ecosystem-wide perspective?
        Mr. Wishnie. Thank you for the question. I think each bill
    makes important adjustments and contributions to, hopefully,
    make the overall system work better. My own review of the bills
    for today suggests that they are not in conflict and so it is
    not necessary to do one bill or the other. They come at the
    problem--they come at different parts of the problem. This--no
    one bill today is the AMA that is trying to do an entire
    makeover. Each bill contributes, I think, meaningfully to a
    more efficient system for families, for veterans, for all of
    us.
        Mr. McGarvey. Thank you so much. I am out of time. I
    appreciate all of your testimony.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. McGarvey.
        Mr. Self, sir, recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have got some
    questions that are basically explanatory or clarification.
        Professor Wishnie, on H.R. 3835, the Appeals Efficiency
    Act, you covered some of this in your testimony, so this will
    be covering it, hopefully, in a little more detail just so that
    we understand. Would 3835 give veterans the ability to opt out
    as part of a class action by either the court or the Board?
        Mr. Wishnie. The bill right now speaks of opt-outs at the
    court. The court's own rules currently do not address opt-outs.
    That is managed on a case-by-case basis. At the court, the
    classes that they have certified so far, there has not been a
    request to opt out, there has not been opt-out provisions. This
    is because these are the equivalent of injunctive cases. In
    Federal Court, under the rules operable there, opt-outs are
    rare in injunctive cases.
        The Board, I think that the legislation, I hope, will leave
    to the Board the responsibility to decide how to operationalize
    the power and it will not micromanage that. If the Board were
    to determine a set of opt-out rules function best, I think that
    is the best first step. Let the Board figure out in
    application, just as 70 other agencies have done, how to manage
    that question.
        Mr. Self. Okay. Can you tell us why a veteran might not
    want to be part of a class action?
        Mr. Wishnie. I do not think there are a lot of good
    reasons, honestly. Some veterans might prefer for their
    individual case to continue moving through the agency process
    at the RO or the Board rather than wait for a decision that is
    class-wide, even though that decision might benefit them. If
    they go through by themselves, they run the risk of a single
    judge saying, no, I do not see it that way. Nevertheless, they
    might prefer to have that option and that swifter decision. I
    could see why they might say, I do not want my claim to wait at
    all. Let us go forward.
        Mr. Self. Then can you talk to us about the advantages of
    being in a class action?
        Mr. Wishnie. Some of the things that I mentioned. Many
    veterans, of course, do not have access to medical or
    scientific experts. Maybe I will just give a quick example.
        In the Skaar case itself, which I mentioned, that case
    arose from a group of about 1,400 airmen who responded to a
    plutonium leak in 1966 when we accidentally nuked a village in
    Spain. The bombs did not detonate. We dropped bombs by mistake
    and 1,400 airmen went out to clean up the plutonium that
    spilled out of two bombs. Eventually, the Air Force developed a
    formula to calculate how much radiation each airman was exposed
    to. That same formula was applied to all of those airmen, who
    then later applied to the VA when they experienced radiation-
    related diseases.
        Well, it turns out that that formula is deeply flawed. Even
    the VA's own review concluded it was not a good formula, not an
    adequate formula, but they stuck to it. When Mr. Skaar came
    forward, he was able to marshal nuclear physicists who could
    analyze that formula, explain its shortcomings, propose a more
    accurate formula that would better calculate the radiation for
    each veteran, and then apply that one formula to all veterans.
    The benefit to a veteran, not every veteran can identify and
    persuade a nuclear physicist to take up their case and testify,
    as happened in that case, as an expert. In that example, all
    1,400 of those airmen benefited from the expertise of a
    Princeton nuclear physicist, and the court credited it as a
    result.
        Mr. Self. Okay. I have less than a minute. I have got one
    more question for you. Thank you for that.
        You covered the writs, but would you just explain a little
    bit more about including writs as a covered proceeding for
    purposes of supplemental jurisdiction, how that could result in
    unintended limitations, if it does? Could you just quickly go
    over that?
        Mr. Wishnie. Sure, briefly. Currently, the court has
    authority under the All Writs Act, an ancient common law power
    codified by the First Congress in the First Judiciary Act of
    1789, to use writs in aid of jurisdiction in a narrow set of
    circumstances. Most cases at the court, well over 90 percent,
    are appeals, not writs. The court has done some aggregation in
    the writ context, and that is working fine, I think.
        The Federal Circuit in Skaar was addressed to appeals, and
    the court there said that the Veterans Court cannot aggregate
    appeals because it lacks supplemental jurisdiction. That is not
    an issue for writs cases. It is only an issue for appeals. The
    Federal Circuit said, you lack supplemental jurisdiction,
    therefore, you cannot aggregate claims. This bill would grant
    supplemental jurisdiction, and as I suggested, I think it
    should limit itself to appeals, granting supplemental
    jurisdiction to appeals, and leave writs alone. They are
    working fine. There is not a problem.
        Mr. Self. Thank you for that clarification. I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Self.
        Ms. Guleff, do you currently reside in Florida still?
        Ms. Guleff. Excuse me?
        Mr. Luttrell. Are you still living in Florida?
        Ms. Guleff. No, I am currently living in Texas.
        Mr. Luttrell. Well, that is a great State. Welcome.
        Ms. Guleff. Thank you.
        Mr. Luttrell. We are happy to have you.
        Ms. Guleff. Thank you.
        Mr. Luttrell. I totally lost my train of thought. I am
    sorry. I had to bring it back up a little bit. Yes.
        If you do not mind, during this period with your husband--
    --
        Ms. Guleff. Yes.
        Mr. Luttrell [continuing]. you were currently residing in
    Florida, correct?
        Ms. Guleff. That is correct.
        Mr. Luttrell. Were you engaging with one specific VA and
    one specific VA only or were you actually--did you travel? I
    would like to--if there is anything I would like to do is pick
    apart the VA. Okay?
        Ms. Guleff. Go ahead.
        Mr. Luttrell. There is a large problem set. I need to know
    how we can kind of dive into this because your story is--and I
    have read your testimony twice. Were you dealing with one
    specific VA?
        Ms. Guleff. For the vast majority of the time we were in
    West Palm Beach. Then in 2018, and bearing in mind he died in
    2022, we moved further north to Volusia County, so we were in.
    Within the Orlando system there. It was two, but 99 percent of
    his----
        Mr. Luttrell. When you made the move, I am just going to--
    correct me if I am wrong on this, but everything--did
    everything almost have to start over because you went to a
    different VA or was there a good information communication flow
    between the two?
        Ms. Guleff. My husband did not want to start over because
    it is my understanding and it is been my experience that when
    you move from one VA, each VA seems to be its own universe, and
    he did not want to start from scratch. He requested, and I
    fulfilled that request, we drive over 200 miles each way from
    Daytona Beach to West Palm Beach to see his----
        Mr. Luttrell. Oh, so you stayed at the same VA.
        Ms. Guleff. We did, yes.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. Do we have the list of individuals that
    you talked to, name-wise, specifically? I would like to unpack
    this in a way to kind of--almost to the granular level to see
    why this happened.
        Ms. Guleff. Okay.
        Mr. Luttrell. It was over a 5-year period. After you met
    with one of the appeals court--you met with one of the Board
    members or you met with a judge that you said.
        Ms. Guleff. That was just in December 2024. Before that,
    all of our appeals process had been back and forth on paper, so
    to speak.
        Mr. Luttrell. What was the judge's response to you, because
    then a few months later to a year later, you got the results
    that said you have been declined?
        Ms. Guleff. Yes.
        Mr. Luttrell. Can you tell me exactly what the judge's
    engagement with you was?
        Ms. Guleff. When I got to the judge, the very first thing
    he asked me was, how did you get to me, because he, in his
    experience, had never had a survivor or someone get to his
    level. It was usually done through a much different process.
    Again, I do not know much about that. Shortly in the hour
    before I met--I saw him, it was done virtually, I had to go to
    the Houston VA, who told me that my husband did not exist. No
    such record of him. He does not exist at all. No, sorry, you
    are in the wrong place.
        I said, well, maybe since I have all the powers of
    attorney, maybe you can check my name because I was a point of
    contact for the VA for many, many years. Nope, you do not exist
    either. There was----
        Mr. Luttrell. Was this the Houston VA? I am assuming you
    are talking about DeBakey.
        Ms. Guleff. Yes.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay.
        Ms. Guleff. They refused to let me in. I said, well, I have
    a hearing with a judge and you are going to let me in because
    when the screen opens, I expect to be there. There was quite a
    bit of back and forth and I had to be escorted by the Houston
    Police to get me in front of that judge. When the judge did see
    me, he wanted to know where my representation was and I had to
    tell him I do not have any. I built this case by myself. He ran
    through all the list of the potentials, who this group, that
    group. I am refused, denied.
        Mr. Luttrell. How did we end up in Houston after leaving
    West Palm Beach and Orlando?
        Ms. Guleff. Shortly after my husband died, our mortgage
    holder, it was a VA mortgage, called and asked when I would be
    vacating my home because my name was not on the mortgage. I may
    have been on the deed, but I was not on the mortgage. Since I
    had not had a working job with an income since 2010 because I
    was caring for my husband, I was not qualified for a mortgage
    or a credit of any kind. The mortgage holder asked me when I
    would be vacating or if I would be buying my house back from
    them.
        Mr. Luttrell. When you got to Houston----
        Ms. Guleff. Right.
        Mr. Luttrell [continuing]. which, again, it is very
    challenging for VA facilities to communicate with each other.
    That is no secret.
        Ms. Guleff. Very difficult.
        Mr. Luttrell. West Palm Beach would not communicate with
    Houston DeBakey that says, hey, yes, we have--absolutely know
    who this person is?
        Ms. Guleff. Correct.
        Mr. Luttrell. They did do that or they did not?
        Ms. Guleff. They did not.
        Mr. Luttrell. Did you ask them to do that?
        Ms. Guleff. Oh, yes. Unfortunately, I had to get a little
    bit strong with the people in Houston.
        Mr. Luttrell. Oh, did you get in trouble in the VA?
        Ms. Guleff. On more than one occasion. No is not always the
    correct answer. On this particular occasion----
        Mr. Luttrell. I understand what you are saying, but that
    probably did not come out right, but.
        Ms. Guleff. I had luggage----
        Mr. Luttrell. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Guleff [continuing]. with all of the paperwork and
    documentation that I was supposed to be there on that day.
    After a lengthy conversation with more than a few people,
    including the Houston Police Department, they granted me access
    to the room where the screen was, where the judge was going to
    hear my case.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. The judge's responses to you, as this
    sounds absolute, you are good to go. Then----
        Ms. Guleff. He was, yes, he was shocked that I had no
    representation. He was wondering how this could even happen.
    After he asked me my questions, I spoke to him at length. There
    was more than a few Kleenex passed around the room on that day,
    but he asked for hundreds of pages of documents. I said, I will
    give you everything you want, all of the documents, all of the
    evidence, everything on this case. It is about 180 pages, the
    short version. He asked for all of it.
        I mailed it, I emailed it, I digitized it, and I got it to
    him. As I told the judge, I said, when someone gets a stack
    that big on their desk, most of the time, it is unmanageable to
    look through all of that stuff. He assured me that he would
    look at it and that others would look at it. It is my
    understanding that that did not happen and he was not allowed
    to read my evidence that he asked for based on the rule of law
    that once my husband was gone, so was the case.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay.
        Mr. Edwards, in accordance with committee rules, I ask
    unanimous consent that Representative Edwards be permitted to
    participate in today's subcommittee hearing.
        Mr. Edwards, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.

                       STATEMENT OF CHUCK EDWARDS

        Mr. Edwards. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
    Committee members, Ranking Member, and all of you. I appreciate
    being waived on and allowed to speak today.
        As the proud representative of North Carolina's 11th
    District, a district home to over 50,000 veterans, including
    many who served in the 82d Airborne and across the armed
    services at Fort Bragg, I introduced this bill because we are
    failing our Nation's veterans in one of the most critical ways
    imaginable. We are not fully accounting for the true cost of
    the mental health crisis in their ranks. For years, we have
    heard the number: 22 veteran suicides per day. Emerging data
    from groups like America's Warriors Partnership suggests that
    number may be closer to 40, or nearly 15,000 veterans every
    year. That is simply a tragedy, and it is a failure of policy,
    data, and accountability. Our veterans deserve better.
        We cannot begin to address the veterans' mental health
    crisis without first having accurate data that helps us fully
    understand the scope, severity, and the nuances of the crisis.
    My bill, the Justice for American Veterans and Survivors Act,
    will finally ensure that we collect and report accurate
    comprehensive information about how and why our veterans are
    dying. This includes tracking suicides more precisely,
    identifying when overdose or self-harm is involved, and
    clarifying the role of service-connected injuries and mental
    health conditions, a tragedy that many spouses have to endure
    after their servicemember's death.
        Currently, the Department of Veterans Affairs relies
    heavily on county level reporting, which misses nearly one in
    five veterans. Families are left without closure. Survivors are
    often denied the benefits and support that they deserve.
    Policymakers, us, are left trying to fight the crisis
    blindfolded. This bill changes that. It brings transparency, it
    brings accuracy, and, most importantly, it brings justice to
    the men and women who served and to the families that they
    leave behind.
        In Western North Carolina, we feel this crisis personally.
    My team and I have sat with families who have lost a loved one
    to suicide. We have met with veterans who are still fighting
    daily battles that we cannot see. This bill is about making
    sure that their stories are counted, their struggles are
    acknowledged, and their families are supported.
        I am grateful for the strong bipartisan and community
    support that this bill has received from organizations like the
    Veterans of Foreign Wars, Military Officers Association of
    America, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Tragedy Assistance
    Program for Survivors, and for members on both sides of the
    aisle who agree that this crisis demands action. Passing this
    legislation is not a courtesy to our veterans. It is a
    commitment. A commitment to the truth, to accountable, and to
    the sacred promise that we make to all who serve that when you
    come home, we will continue to stand by you. This legislative
    hearing is just the first step toward fulfilling that
    commitment.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to speak and I urge
    this subcommittee to move swiftly in advancing this
    legislation.
        Mr. Chair, I yield.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. Thank you for the
    testimony from the panel. You are now excused.
        Will the third panel please be seated?
        Dr. Richardson, are you ready? You look ready. You like
    stay ready so you do not have to get ready? Okay, good. All
    right. Is everyone ready?
        Thank you the witnesses for joining us today. From the
    Department of Veterans Affairs and the U.S. Court of Appeals
    for Veterans Claims, the lead witness for VA is Mr. Evan
    Deichert, acting deputy Vice Chairman and veteran law judge at
    the Board of Veterans Appeals. Mr. Deichert is accompanied by
    Mr. Kevin Friel, executive director of Pensions and Fiduciary
    Services at the Veterans Benefits Administration; Mr. James
    Smith, II, deputy executive director of policy and procedures
    for Compensation Services; Dr.--do you prefer Colonel? Okay.
    Colonel Colleen Richardson, executive director for the
    Caregiver Support Program at the Veterans Health
    Administration. I have to ask, military guy.
        Well, you are sitting in the wrong spot. Let us do one of
    these. What? Yours says Colonel in front of you, is that wrong?
    I said Colonel. Everybody leave me alone or I will freak out.
    Oh, all right. Sorry, my part. Dr. Colleen Richardson, my
    fault, yes, ma'am. I know how to fix this problem.
        Dr. Colleen Richardson, executive director for the
    Caregiver Support Program at the Veterans Health
    Administration. Welcome. Joining us from the U.S. Court of
    Appeals for Veterans Claims is Colonel Tiffany Wagner, Clerk of
    the Court for the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
    Got it.
        All witnesses please stand and raise your right hand.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, and let the record reflect that
    all witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        Mr. Deichert, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to
    present the Department's testimony.

                       STATEMENT OF EVAN DEICHERT

        Mr. Deichert. Good afternoon. Chairman Luttrell, Ranking
    Member McGarvey, and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate
    the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the
    Department of Veterans Affairs to discuss how VA strives to
    achieve final resolution of veterans claims and appeals, to
    ensure access to VA health care and benefits, and to provide VA
    cemetery or burial benefits as well. Accompanying me today are
    Mr. James Smith, deputy director of policy and procedures for
    Compensation Service; Mr. Kevin Friel, executive director of
    Pension and Fiduciary Service, both in the Veterans Benefits
    Administration; and Dr. Colleen Richardson, executive director
    of the Caregiver Support Program, Veterans Health
    Administration.
        While VA's views on all the bills are detailed in my
    written testimony, including areas of concern and support, I
    would like to highlight some of the bills in my opening
    remarks.
        First, VA supports the intent of the Justice for America's
    Veterans and Survivors Act, subject to the availability of
    appropriations, but cites concerns with the level of data
    tracking required by the bill. While VA recognizes the tragedy
    of veteran suicides and aims to identify any links to service-
    connected disabilities, VA already reports comprehensive
    mortality data annually, including leading causes of death and
    receipt of care and benefits. VA is concerned about the
    feasibility of tracking new data elements mandated by the bill,
    especially those not currently collected by our systems.
        For instance, determining if a suicide is directly related
    to a service-connected disability like PTSD can be challenging
    without specific death certificate codes. Additionally, if the
    veteran did not die in a VA facility or receive VA benefits, VA
    may not have information necessary to cause--regarding that
    veteran's cause or manner of death. We would appreciate
    discussing the bill further with the committee to clarify the
    intended outcomes and consider necessary amendments to ensure
    we can accurately report the required elements.
        VA does not support H.R. 659, the Veterans Law Judge
    Experience Act. This bill would require the Board Chairman to
    prioritize candidates with at least 3 years of experience in
    laws administered by the Secretary when recommending
    individuals for veterans law judge positions. The current
    selection process for veterans law judges is based on merit and
    fitness for the role, akin to the standards for judges on the
    Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Prioritizing specific
    types of experience could undermine these merit-based
    principles.
        VA has appointed a diverse group of highly qualified
    judges, many of whom had no prior VA experience, but brought
    significant military or judicial backgrounds. This diversity
    has helped VA achieve record numbers, record levels of appeals
    adjudication, offering the best service to veterans. VA
    believes it is crucial to maintain the flexibility to select
    judges based on a wide range of qualifications, ensuring the
    highest standards for serving our veterans.
        VA supports the Rural Veterans Improved Access to Benefits
    Act subject to amendment and the availability of
    appropriations. We appreciate the committee's efforts to
    improve temporary licensure requirements for contract
    healthcare professionals performing VA disability examinations.
    VA recommends removing the sunset date on these licensure
    requirements. This would provide greater flexibility to engage
    a broader range of qualified medical professionals, especially
    in rural areas, resulting in shorter wait times and faster
    examination completions for veterans.
        In addition, VA recommends removing the reporting
    requirement to disaggregate timeliness data by healthcare
    professionals. VA does not have access to the specific data
    from our vendors' proprietary systems, and controlling factors
    outside our individual examiner's responsibilities may skew the
    data. It is important to note that VA may return examinations
    to be reworked for reasons other than error. Additionally, VA
    tracks timeliness from vendor acknowledgement of examination
    request to completion, not by individual examiner activity.
        Mr. Chairman, please understand that the concerns that we
    have raised in our written testimony today and that will be
    raised in our testimony that is oral is sincere. VA understands
    that the appeals process can be long and frustrating for many
    veterans, but I hope that the answers that we can provide to
    your questions will help explain why it takes so long to
    process an appeal or a claim and what VA is trying to do about
    it.
        Ultimately, processing these appeals takes time because
    each and every case represents a veteran with a unique set of
    facts and circumstances. VA shares Congress' goal of continuous
    improvement to both our program and our customer service to
    veterans, their families, caregivers, and survivors. We want to
    express our appreciation for your continued support and we look
    forward to continued collaboration.
        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, this concludes
    my statement. My colleagues and I will be happy to respond to
    your questions.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Evan Deichert Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir.
        Colonel Wagner, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to
    present the testimony of the U S. Court of Appeals for Veterans
    Claims.

                      STATEMENT OF TIFFANY WAGNER

        Ms. Wagner. Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify. Today I am appearing on behalf of Chief Judge Michael
    P. Allen to offer the Court's perspective on the proposed
    Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act of 2025, specifically Section
    2(e), which proposes to expand the Court's jurisdiction and
    define the Court's limited remand authority.
        I had the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee
    regarding similar legislation in April 2024. As I noted then,
    the Court cannot comment on the advisability or scope of
    proposed changes to our jurisdiction. Such matters are squarely
    within the purview of Congress. Likewise, the Court does not
    offer advisory opinions or suggested language on legislation it
    may 1 day be asked to interpret. That said, we can offer
    general observation on the bill's language and possible
    implications.
        First, regarding supplemental jurisdiction. The proposed
    language and subsections of 38 USC Section 7252 aims to broaden
    the Court's class action authority and allow concurrent claim
    processing between the Court and the VA. While this may provide
    new pathways for veterans, we offer a general caution that some
    of the language as drafted is somewhat unclear. For example,
    broad references to terms like ``claim,'' ``notice of
    disagreement,'' or ``supplemental claim'' without specific
    citations or context make it difficult to determine the
    intended application. Additionally, the inclusion of writs
    under supplemental jurisdiction may raise legal complexities
    and could unintentionally limit the Court's existing authority
    under the All Writs Act.
        Furthermore, the proposal to toll the deadline for appeal
    filings introduces a new category of jurisdictional questions
    which could increase the Court's caseload. Given that our Court
    is already handling a record volume of appeals, such growth
    would likely require reassessment of both resources and
    procedures.
        Second, on the matter of limited remand authority, the bill
    proposes a statutory framework under 38 USC Section 7252(c),
    which appears intended to codify the Court's authority. The
    Court already possesses limited remand authority, and by
    defining in statute when and how limited remands may be issued,
    the legislation could inadvertently narrow the Court's existing
    discretion rather than expand it. We raise these points not to
    oppose the bill, but to help ensure that any changes fully
    reflect Congress' intent and avoid unintended constraints on
    judicial flexibility.
        In closing, the Court remains committed to delivering full,
    fair, independent, and timely judicial review to veterans,
    their families, and survivors. We appreciate your continued
    efforts to improve the appeals process and thank you for
    including the Court in these important discussions. I am happy
    to answer any questions.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Tiffany Wagner Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Colonel. The written statement of
    the witnesses will be entered into the record.
        Mr. McGarvey, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
        Mr. McGarvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
    being here today and thank you for your testimony.
        Mr. Friel, I am going to start with you and with the VA's
    testimony on H.R. 3854, the Modernizing All Veterans and
    Survivors Claims Processing Act, says that VBA, and I quote
    this, ``is working to identify solutions in the claims process
    where benefit adjustments can be made using technology without
    human intervention.'' I am not against technology. Technology
    has a wonderful place. I think you can see that I have some
    pause on the VA moving toward true end-to-end automation there.
    There are mistakes that are made with machines and, of course,
    some of our veterans have some problems navigating these
    systems already, as we have heard from many of them. Certainly
    I have in Louisville, Kentucky.
        I think a lot of those beneficiaries, we are talking about
    our veterans. Right? We are talking about the people who have
    served us. They want and need a human backstop to any decision
    that is made. More importantly, that quote makes me question
    whether the VA intends to replace the people who work for the
    VA, not just give them additional tools that are going to help
    our veterans get their claims processed.
        Can you tell me right now that the automation in Pension
    Fiduciary Service will not lead to a replacement of reduction
    in the VBA workforce?
        Mr. Friel. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. We have
    been automating since 2014 in reality. This year we are on
    target to automate over 320,000 claims. We have not removed any
    individuals, any employees from the--have lost their job
    because of automation. They may have been reassigned to maybe
    work compensation instead of pension or fiduciary, but we have
    no intention right now that I know of, that I am aware of, to
    remove anybody because of what we are doing in automation.
        To give you some--an aspect, in an automated world, we have
    cases where a DIC claim came in and 9 hours later, we had
    awarded the benefit and sent out the letter and everything else
    to the surviving spouse with no human interaction. That is
    truly, you know, talking about getting benefits out as quickly
    as you can, that is one of the goals we have, is to make it.
    The human will always be needed because of the complexity of
    some of the claims. Right? Some of them are much more complex
    than what we could do in an automated space.
        Mr. McGarvey. The difficulty some people have in applying
    for the claims in the first place and might need someone
    helping and we are trying to get our veterans what they need. I
    appreciate you said ``no intention to.'' Just to drill into it
    a little further, everybody at VBA is going to still be at VBA
    next year?
        Mr. Friel. That is above my pay grade and I am prepared to
    talk to the legislation, but I am not prepared to talk to the
    staffing.
        Mr. McGarvey. Again, what we are trying to do is, this
    committee, my sole focus, what is best for our veterans? How do
    we make sure that they are getting everything they are entitled
    to and they deserve? I want to make sure that that happens. I
    am not anti-technology. I think we can use technology to help
    our veterans to get those claims processed quickly. When there
    are difficulties in the process, which inevitably there are
    going to be difficulties even with automation, we got to have
    people there who are ready to help our veterans. I want to make
    sure that they are.
        Along those same lines, have you talked to veterans? Do you
    guys--I mean, because I know what I hear on the ground. I know
    when I go to veterans events in Louisville, Kentucky, what I
    hear from veterans. Right? That is why I am bringing those
    concerns here today. Do you have any data that says the
    veterans and other beneficiaries are--like the automation or
    the algorithms that are calling the shots?
        Mr. Friel. I can speak from what we have done in our space
    and I would let Mr. Smith talk about what happens in the
    compensation space. We have received great feedback from VSOs
    and organizations like TAPS in any area we can. We actually
    have, based on a law passed by Congress, the ability to pay a
    surviving spouse based on evidence of record at the time of a
    veteran's death. We automate those claims, so we will pay a
    month of death payment, burial payment and if the veteran meets
    requirement for 1318, we will pay DIC payment without an
    application. That is just based on, you know, the surviving
    letting us know that the veteran's passed away and we validate
    the information and it happens.
        We have gotten great feedback from VSOs, you know, that
    people get an award without even putting in an application. You
    know, we wish we could do that for more, but we have limited
    based off what data we have. Mr. Smith could probably talk more
    about the compensation side of this.
        Mr. Smith. For the disability compensation, the automated
    decision support technology leverages technology to deal with
    the administrative burdens of claims processing. It works on
    being able to pull in those digital records from VHA. It works
    on going out to folks to pull in private medical records,
    things of that nature. It allows the claims processors to focus
    more on the complexity and the analysis necessary to be able to
    deliver quality decisions.
        Mr. McGarvey. Thank you. I am out of time.
        I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. McGarvey.
        Mr. Self, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
        Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Colonel Wagner, can you describe how aggregation has helped
    the Court be more consistent in the past? I understand you have
    concerns about the future, but in the past.
        Ms. Wagner. Yes. Thank you for your question,
    Representative Self.
        The Court's, first of all, the Court's concerns about the
    current statute is not--we do not want to speak about the
    authority to expand our jurisdiction or narrow it or broaden
    it. That is within Congress' purview, so the Court does not
    want to speak about that. The issues we brought up about the
    current legislation deal with some of the language that appears
    ambiguous and we do not want to interpret it. We wanted to
    highlight that.
        The Court does have an active class action process where we
    aggregate cases. Currently, we have received 26 requests for
    class certification and the Court has certified 5 of those, 10
    were denied, and the rest, the 11 other, were either dismissed,
    reached the negotiation on their own, or are still pending. The
    Court has used it, as you know. What was brought up by
    Professor Wishnie is that the Federal Circuit has determined
    that our class action authority needs to be a little bit narrow
    and there was a case where the Federal Circuit determined that
    the Court went a little too far. I hope that answers your
    question.
        Mr. Self. Well, the consistency was what I asked about. Has
    it improved the consistency of the decisions?
        Ms. Wagner. Yes, I believe so.
        Mr. Self. Okay.
        Ms. Wagner. I can get back to you with some more details on
    that, but I think that a lot of those answers about the
    consistency would have to be answered by veterans who have
    experienced it and how it affects additional future case law.
        Mr. Self. Well, would the authority as outlined in the bill
    approve efficiency then? Let us talk about that. Are you
    willing to opine on that?
        Ms. Wagner. Yes, aggregation would increase efficiency.
        Mr. Self. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Luttrell. Dr. Richardson, I got you. If the veteran
    passes away while their caregiver is appealing their
    application to join the VA Caregiver Support Program, what
    happens to the appeal?
        Dr. Richardson. Sure. Thank you for the question, Chairman.
        It depends. As long as we have the information available to
    us, so certain requirements are met, we have enough evidence or
    information, we are able to render a decision and retroactively
    pay----
        Mr. Luttrell. Does that information have to live and
    breathe in one specific site, because from the way I understand
    it, if an individual moves from their location where they
    reside to another one, does not seem like the information
    flow--it seems like the information flow is broken.
        Dr. Richardson. We have access to Joint Longitudinal Viewer
    (JLV), which allows us to access all data and all health
    records for any veteran in our system.
        Mr. Luttrell. I do not know if I exactly believe that
    statement right there. Does the guidance and training for
    evaluating applications to the VA Caregiver Support Program
    that VHA employees receive match the guidance and training of
    VBA's employees receive?
        Dr. Richardson. Thank you for the question, Chairman. The
    adjudicators for VBA is different for the appeals that they
    file through the Caregiver Support Program. You have the Board
    appeals, then you have AMA and supplemental--so we have
    supplemental claims and higher level reviews that VHA does
    within the Caregiver Support Program. The level of training
    that we do for our appeals staff is the same training that we
    give all of our staff who render any type of initial decision
    or any type of appeal decision.
        Mr. Luttrell. Say more.
        Dr. Richardson. When a veteran when a veteran and
    caregiver, a joint application is submitted to the Program of
    Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers, all of those
    folks who make those initial decisions on those original
    applications get the same level of training on standardization,
    consistency, how to apply----
        Mr. Luttrell. Across the VA?
        Dr. Richardson. Across the Caregiver Support Program.
    Within my program I have staff at the Veterans Integrated
    Service Network (VISN) called CEAT Teams, Centralized
    Eligibility and Appeals Teams.
        Mr. Luttrell. How many personnel do you have under your----
        Dr. Richardson. Roughly about 2,200, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. Across the country?
        Dr. Richardson. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. They all come to the same spot or is this a
    virtual training now since COVID, whenever that happened?
        Dr. Richardson. It is a virtual training. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay.
        Dr. Richardson. The folks that make those initial decisions
    on applications are stationed at the VISNs. Those that render
    decisions on appeals are stationed at the VISNs and within VA
    Central Office (VACO) under me, under my program office. Higher
    level review, supplemental claims are decided in VACO and the
    VHA clinical appeal process is done through the CEAT Teams.
        Mr. Luttrell. If a veteran dies while their caregiver is
    pursuing an appeal, is that family caregiver eligible to
    receive any unpaid stipends owed at the time of the veteran's
    death?
        Dr. Richardson. Yes, they are, as long as we have
    information that is available to us. It would help if I just
    explain. When a veteran and caregiver apply to the program,
    there are certain steps that they must follow, certain
    eligibility requirements must be met. At any point along the
    way, if they do not meet eligibility requirements, they are
    denied at that step.
        Mr. Luttrell. Is there one--let me ask you this. Forgive my
    interruption.
        Dr. Richardson. Sure.
        Mr. Luttrell. Out of the laundry list of checks in the
    boxes that you have to have, if they miss one, they are done?
        Dr. Richardson. They are denied at that point in the
    process, yes. Just because a veteran passes away does not mean
    that we do not give retroactive benefits. It is only if we do
    not have that information available to us to render that
    decision. For example, Mr. Chairman, if a veteran and caregiver
    are denied because it is deemed that the veteran does not need
    in-person personal care services, it does not make clinical
    sense to have the caregiver go through training. It does not
    make sense to do the caregiver assessment, the veteran
    assessment, go into the home on that particular application.
    They are denied at that point in the process.
        Mr. Luttrell. I would be willing to bet every caregiver
    that is living in a home with a veteran in need will disagree
    with what you just said.
        Dr. Richardson. We--if they do not meet program
    requirements for PCAFC, we enroll them in PGCSS, our Program
    for General Caregiver Support Services. We continue to help
    them as a caregiver in the journey of that particular veteran
    and his or her needs. That is why we have the two programs,
    sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. What is the win? You can give me a range
    here?
        Dr. Richardson. Sure.
        Mr. Luttrell. I will give you some latitude. What is the
    window of confirmed or denied when a caregiver reaches out to
    the VA for this kind of support?
        Dr. Richardson. Today, we render decisions. Probably 9,000
    applications come in a month. About 30 percent of those are
    approved for the program. 30 to 33 percent.
        Mr. Luttrell. What is the turnaround time?
        Dr. Richardson. 86 percent of applications are adjudicated
    or, excuse me----
        Mr. Luttrell. No, no, I am sorry. Window, like, if I--if I
    give it to him today.
        Dr. Richardson. Yep.
        Mr. Luttrell. He is going to give him a response tomorrow.
        Mr. Richardson. 86 percent are done in under 90 days.
        Mr. Luttrell. 90 days?
        Dr. Richardson. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. When we have the 4 or 5 years, that is an
    anomaly?
        Dr. Richardson. Those are for applications. When we are
    talking appeals, different discussions. So, VHA----
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay.
        Dr. Richardson [continuing]. clinical applications.
        Mr. Luttrell. Let us walk back to application real quick.
        Dr. Richardson. Yes, sure.
        Mr. Luttrell. How long does an application normally take?
        Dr. Richardson. 86 percent under 90 days.
        Mr. Luttrell. 90 days?
        Dr. Richardson. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay, so 3 months. Then, if it has to go into
    appeals, does it get lost in the metaverse?
        Dr. Richardson. It does not. Understand that the VHA
    clinical appeals, roughly, you have two levels of VHA clinical
    appeals. Most of those decisions are done in under 45 days,
    level one and level two. Now, you come over to the AMA side,
    which we had to implement back in 2021. We had to notify
    450,000 veterans of their new rights to appeals as a result of
    a court case that happened in April of that year. We mailed out
    those notifications in November 2021 with no staff on Board. By
    late summer of 2024, we finally had permanent staff on Board.
    Today, we adjudicate more decisions--more appeals that come in
    our door than we receive. In a very, very short timeframe, our
    team has turned around the number of appeals coming in our door
    than what we have originally received, if that makes sense. We
    started behind the power curve with appeals, AMA appeals.
        Mr. Luttrell. Do not answer this question that I am fixing
    to ask you, but why? Why is this process so weighted and so
    challenging for our veterans and caregivers? We had a young
    lady sitting. She is sitting in the chair just to the left of
    you. Just hearing her, reading her testimony and--and hearing
    her in here today, it seems extremely burdensome. Now I know
    the VA has to protect itself, and a lot of times, that is why--
    that is how this is created. Have we gone too far, too fast,
    and got out ahead of the veterans where they cannot keep up? Do
    not answer that question.
        Mr. Deichert, the Board of--the Board reports quality rates
    of roughly 95 percent, but the court reported last year that
    83--83 percent of Board appeals were returned to the Board
    because of legal errors. What accounts for the discrepancy
    between these two numbers?
        Mr. Deichert. Thank you for the question, Chairman
    Luttrell. When we had the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
    Conference in September, I made the point that I am about to
    make to you, and that is that a case is fundamentally different
    when it comes before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
    than it often is when it is before the Board of Veterans
    Appeals.
        Mr. Luttrell. We are talking about the same veteran.
        Mr. Deichert. Yes, sir. Because----
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay, let us make believe I am not an
    attorney, but I have one sitting here and he is listening.
        Mr. Deichert. Absolutely. What--what oftentimes happens is
    Mr. McGarvey, Esquire, is not generally there with you at the
    Board level, so that is not impugning anything that any of our
    VSOs do. Veterans most often get attorneys when they get to the
    court level in terms of providing them representation. That
    attorney is able to go deeper into the file. They have an
    incentive to ensure that they are looking at every individual
    thing that could be there. That case is different when it is
    presented by an attorney before the Court of Appeals for
    Veterans Claims than it may have been as it came up through the
    Board of Veterans Appeals and even VBA before.
        Mr. Luttrell. Is that an extra step that does not need to
    exist for 10 percent delta between those two numbers?
        Mr. Deichert. In terms of the representation at each stage?
        Mr. Luttrell. Correct. Right.
        Mr. Deichert. We certainly welcome additional attorney
    representation before the Board of Veterans Appeals. Those
    numbers happen----
        Mr. Luttrell. Do veterans know that? Is that something that
    we populate?
        Mr. Deichert. I think it is getting out there, to be
    honest, because the number of--the number of appeals that we
    have that have veteran representation by attorneys at the Board
    is increasing year over year. I can tell you, sir, that as a
    person who adjudicates those, those also look fundamentally
    different than if they come directly from the American Legion
    or state veterans service organization. You are packaging
    everything. Lawyers are packaging everything in the way that
    another lawyer knows how to look at it. They are able to say on
    page 424 of this record, you can find this information. They
    are able to say this based on this regulation, this is the
    action that you should take.
        Mr. Luttrell. Ms. Hayes, I am sorry, ma'am. I apologize. I
    went long. Thank you. I recognize,--Ms. Hayes, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Hayes. Thank you for allowing me to be here. I am not
    sure if the witnesses heard my opening statement earlier, but
    my bill, the Caring for Survivors Act, would modernize survivor
    benefits to ensure families receive the financial help they
    deserve.
        I recognize the cost concerns of implementing this
    legislation. However, the cost is likely lower than the current
    reported estimate, which is based on outdated data from the
    PACT Act, which was passed in 2022. VA data shows that of the
    382,000 survivors originally estimated to be eligible for
    benefits in the PACT Act, less than 10 percent have submitted
    claims nearly 3 years after the bill has been passed.
    Accordingly, the number of survivors that will apply for
    benefits under the Caring for Survivors Act is also likely far
    less than the number of eligible individuals included in the
    current cost estimates. Having a better estimate of the number
    of survivors who will likely apply for benefits will allow for
    a more accurate cost estimate of my bill.
        Mr. Deichert, my question is, does the VA know how many
    survivors are likely to apply for DIC benefits under the Caring
    for Survivors Act? Is it fair to assume that we may see the
    same 10 percent rate of survivors that have submitted PACT Act
    claims compared to the original estimates on the number of
    eligible individuals? Would that also apply to this bill?
        Mr. Deichert. Representative Hayes, with respect, I am
    going to defer to Mr. Friel on this.
        Ms. Hayes. Okay.
        Mr. Friel. Ma'am, thank you for the question. As it relates
    to the PACT Act, we--we identified--we did not have the causes
    of death, so we identified all beneficiaries where DIC had been
    denied. We sent out over 300,000 letters as required by the
    law. We were expecting a higher rate of return, but it did not
    come in that high. Today, we are seeing, you know, an increase
    year over year in our population within the DIC program.
        The issue with determining the cost of it, the first part,
    is, you know, we agree, and with the bill, we supported pending
    appropriations, that, you know, the increase of the date DIC
    rate to 55 percent at 100 percent rate.
        The second part of it is a lot more complicated. You know,
    it says to treat 10--to treat 5 years as it--as it relates to
    10. Our interpretation of that means that we would be 50
    percent of the DIC rate if they were at 5 years at 100 percent.
    We do not know what congressional intent is. If it is 5 and a
    half years, what is that number, right? That is part of the
    clarity we need.
        The other part of that is any of those survivors that we
    would grant DIC to say on the reduced DIC 1318 rate would then
    have to be adjudicated for DIC because it would be a higher
    rate. We would have to still do the research and get the
    information to see if they are, in fact, eligible for the full
    DIC rate. Then, we also would need clarity on what the intent
    is for the other parts of the benefit. If at 5 years we are
    going to give 50 percent for DIC, what if there is a child?
    Does that mean it is 55 percent, or 50 percent, of the child
    rate, or is it that they get to the 100 percent of the child
    rate? There is a lot of things there. We would be more than
    happy to sit down with your staff and work through some of the
    issues we have and being able to develop a costing for that.
        Ms. Hayes. Is it possible? I mean, I really want this
    legislation to see the light of day because it is so important.
    I guess just saying it would cost too much, or we do not have
    the information, just does not feel like an appropriate answer
    to me. I would propose that we say, under this scenario, this
    is what would happen. Under this scenario, this is what would
    happen. You know, these are the number of people who are
    eligible. If 50 percent applied, this would be the number. If
    10 percent applied, this would be the number. I believe that
    ultimately, having the best data that reflects the likelihood
    of participation in the program will give us, as Members of
    Congress, the information that we need to at least explore
    options here. I mean, like I said, this is--I am back again
    trying to push this legislation because the families, the
    survivors, the children, they need it. I mean, it is long
    overdue. If we do not have the data, I feel like we have the
    facilities to. We have the information. All we need to do is
    pull it together and disaggregate it.
        Mr. Friel. I think we could give you information for the
    first part, right? The 100 percent, 55 percent of the 100. It
    is the second piece that is really difficult because they maybe
    come in and say, okay, you are 50 percent today, but, oh, by
    the way, when we adjudicate the claim now, you are entitled
    to----
        Ms. Hayes. We are the United States of America. there is
    nothing beyond our capacity.
        Mr. Friel. I did not say it was beyond our capacity. I just
    said we wait. For our purposes, we need clarification of the
    intent of that section. Then we could--we could sit down with
    our budgeting people and kind of get a better scenario of what
    it looks like and how that would play out.
        Ms. Hayes. Well, I would love to continue to work with you
    to try to get as much good data as we can to make the best
    possible case. Thank you again for allowing me to join this
    committee, and I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ms. Hayes. Mr. McGarvey, sir.
        Mr. McGarvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me ask
    just a few more questions. I want to start kind of back where
    we were when I was asking questions last time. We were talking
    about some of what is happening at VBA and doing what is going
    on.
        Mr. Deichert, I want to start with you. What we were
    talking about some of the things that are happening with
    automation and whether our veterans are fully getting taken
    care of. This leads me to something that might be related or
    might not be related, but I want to ask about it. There is a
    May 27th bulletin from the Chief Human Capital Officer
    extending the probationary period of all Board of Veterans
    Appeals employees hired after March 2024 for an additional
    year.
        Let us talk about what this means in plain English. If you
    are on a probationary period, you are there for a year, and
    then after a year, you are no longer on your probationary
    period. If in March 2024, you were hired, or in April 2024, you
    were hired, you are out of your probationary year. Then May
    27th, a bulletin is issued saying, no, you are still in
    probationary year. Was BVA consulted prior to this decision,
    and if so, what was their feedback?
        Mr. Deichert. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member
    McGarvey. I cannot say whether the Board was consulted with
    regards to this particular memo. It is something I am certainly
    happy to take back for the record, but I am not aware at this
    time of whether we were consulted.
        Mr. McGarvey. Okay. I would love to know if you were
    consulted and if there was feedback. Please get back to us on
    that. It is also my understanding that this applies to all
    probationary employees at the Board, irrespective of their
    actual performance during the preceding year. Is that correct?
        Mr. Deichert. I am going to have to claim a little
    ignorance, and if you will permit me to tell you why. I had
    knee surgery 3 weeks ago, and there is been a lot of movement
    in this. I know that I have missed some of the emails
    explaining exactly how this is going to play out and exactly
    what we are going to do with it. Between recovering from that
    and preparing for this, I do not have the specific information
    that I can give you at this time, but it is, again, something
    that I am happy to get back with you on, sir.
        Mr. McGarvey. Can anybody answer that question? Nobody can
    answer that question. Okay.
        Mr. Deichert. One thing I can say, Representative McGarvey,
    even under that Office of the Chief of the Chief Human Capital
    Officer (OCHCO) memo, I know that they did have a carve-out for
    those who would have a veterans preference. If you had a
    veteran's preference, your probationary year stayed at 1 year.
        Mr. McGarvey. Okay. The purpose of a probationary period is
    to make sure that employees are learning and that they are
    progressing well enough to be granted full employment. There
    are people who have worked there who are finished with their
    probationary year to our understanding that now are back in a
    probationary year. Is it BVA's position that absolutely none of
    the employees that were hired during the last year passed that
    muster?
        Mr. Deichert. We will follow whatever guidance we are given
    by VA's OCHCO, but that does not mean that anybody who is at
    that point has not passed muster. We evaluate our attorneys,
    especially our new attorneys, on a consistent basis throughout
    their probationary year. If that becomes 2 probationary years,
    then we evaluate them consistently through that entire time.
        Mr. McGarvey. Yes. Again, it is we talk about these things
    in such technical terms. Let us really phrase what is happening
    here. There are people who signed up and they knew they would
    get a probationary period for a year. They served that
    probationary period for a year. Now, they are back under a
    probationary period for another year. Why under a probationary
    period, especially if they are doing a good enough job? One of
    the things that happens when you are under a probationary
    period is you can--you are easier to fire. You do not have the
    same civil service protections that someone who--who is no
    longer in a probationary period has. I just got to ask bluntly,
    is BVA planning, or does it intend to plan a significant
    reduction in force at the Board of Veterans Appeals?
        Mr. Deichert. In terms of anything that may be coming down
    from VA on high, I cannot answer that. I do not know what the
    overall plans are. What I can say as it comes to the Board
    specifically, we hired staff, we hired attorneys because we
    needed them to do the adjudications to deliver answers to
    veterans. We invest a lot of time, a lot of money into training
    them, into getting them up to speed. It would not be my
    intention if anybody is doing well enough to be retained to do
    anything other than with them than to retain them.
        Mr. McGarvey. Look, I appreciate that. I believe you. I
    hope your knee is feeling better. The answer is still not
    satisfactory, right? What you are telling me is you cannot tell
    me whether that is happening or not. What I do think we all
    agree on is veterans need the best possible care. They need the
    best people working on their claims. It is helpful when they
    have attorneys working on their claims. We are now making it
    easier to fire people who should be there no matter what. Let
    us just be honest about it. That makes it harder to recruit--to
    retain. It hurts morale. It hurts the people who are working
    there. Who does that ultimately hurt? Our veterans. That is who
    it ultimately hurts. That is why we are concerned about this.
    That is why I want you to get back to us with those answers
    because we do not want to hurt our veterans.
        Mr. Chairman, you have been very kind, I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Whose role is it in the appeals process to
    ensure that the Board's decisions are or remands are correct,
    fair and timely, person wise?
        Mr. Deichert. I am sorry, Chairman Luttrell, could you?
        Mr. Luttrell. Whose role is it in the appeals process to
    ensure that the Board decisions or remands are correct, fair
    and timely?
        Mr. Deichert. There is no one individual entity that would
    say----
        Mr. Luttrell. Entity or person?
        Mr. Deichert. Neither.
        Mr. Luttrell. Seems like a problem.
        Mr. Deichert. What specifically, sir, would you be
    envisioning that in terms of----
        Mr. Luttrell. I do not know. That is why I am asking you.
        Mr. Deichert. Well, I mean, veterans law judges will issue
    a decision, will issue a remand based on----
        Mr. Luttrell. Whose role is it in the appeals process to
    ensure that the Board's decisions or remands are correct, fair
    and timely?
        Mr. Deichert. It is the individual veterans law judges role
    to ensure that all of those.
        Mr. Luttrell. That person?
        Mr. Deichert. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. Specifically?
        Mr. Deichert. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. Are we sure?
        Mr. Deichert. Certainly, we have a quality review process.
    They select a statistically significant number of cases to
    review to determine whether there are any number of three
    errors out of----
        Mr. Luttrell. What is the N value of that evaluation?
        Mr. Deichert. I believe it is 5 percent, but do not----
        Mr. Luttrell. Of how many?
        Mr. Deichert. Out of all of the total number of decisions
    that are dispatched.
        Mr. Luttrell. What is that annually?
        Mr. Deichert. This year we are on track for 118,000. Well,
    we are always told not to do math in public, but we will go the
    5 percent. Yes. Look at about 6,000 cases that the Board's
    Office of Assessment Improvement will look at this year.
        Mr. Luttrell. Is that a high enough number, just out of
    curiosity? 5 percent out of 180,000. I mean, you would think
    you would be pushing over 20 just to get a good----
        Mr. Deichert. Well, so----
        Mr. Luttrell [continuing]. margin of error.
        Mr. Deichert. Any person that you would have in the Office
    of Assessment Improvement looking over those numbers is also a
    person who is no longer drafting cases or a judge who is no
    longer signing them.
        Mr. Luttrell. How many people are doing that?
        Mr. Deichert. I do not know, sir. I can get back to you.
        Mr. Luttrell. Rough guesstimation.
        Mr. Deichert. We now have----
        Mr. Luttrell. A couple hundred?
        Mr. Deichert. What is that?
        Mr. Luttrell. Couple hundred?
        Mr. Deichert. Six people.
        Mr. Luttrell. Six people?
        Mr. Deichert. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. Six people. Do not make me--I am not going
    laugh. I am not going laugh. That seems like a problem, right?
    That seems like a problem.
        Mr. Deichert. It is certainly----
        Mr. Luttrell. You do not have to answer that question. I am
    not going to put you on the spot, sir. All right, thank you.
        Thank you to all the witnesses for testifying today about
    these important proposals. Ranking Member McGarvey, would you
    like to make a closing statement?
        I look forward to working through these issues with the
    department and my colleagues on this--on this subcommittee. The
    bills discussed today will provide important improvements for
    veterans, caregivers and survivors navigating the VA claims and
    appeals process. I ask unanimous consent that the statements
    for the record we have received be entered into the record.
        Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        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 3 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    ====================================================================

                             A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X

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

                        Prepared Statements of Witnesses

                                  ----------

                       Prepared Statement of Julie Guleff

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
        My name is Julie Guleff, and I am the spouse, former caregiver, and
    now survivor of 100 percent service-connected disabled Vietnam Veteran,
    Stephen Guleff. I come here today to speak in support of H.R. 3833, the
    Veterans' Caregivers Appeals Modernization Act of 2025. This
    legislation would:

          Allow former veteran caregivers who are now survivors to
    receive back pay for the care that was provided to the veteran prior to
    his/her passing if their caregiver application is approved on appeal.

          Require VA to ensure that all documents and medical
    records related to any application for eligibility in VHA Program of
    Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) is uploaded to a
    single electronic system accessible by all VHA and VA Board of
    Veterans' Appeals employees who make decisions on such applications.

        To understand my strong support for this bill, I need to explain
    our story. I first met Steve in 2004 after I moved to Florida to care
    for my mother, following my veteran father's passing. I had been
    navigating my father's care with the VA healthcare system from a
    distance since 1999, so when I met Steve, I already had some experience
    in how it worked. Shortly after we met, I learned he was a struggling
    Vietnam veteran. We quickly became friends, and I offered my assistance
    in navigating the VA, as he was largely unfamiliar and very cautious
    about trusting the system.
        It wasn't too long before Steve was getting the help he needed and
    beginning to allow and embrace those practitioners he was fortunate to
    encounter. As I helped him learn to trust, find his way around, find
    ``guys like him,'' and take advantage of all the services available, he
    began showing progress in all areas of his life. It was then that
    things took a turn. Between the PTSD diagnosis and treatment,
    additional physical and mental health issues uncovered, and the growing
    impact of Agent Orange exposure, he started to crumble before my eyes.
    I steadfastly stood with him and helped him face all of those
    challenges while reminding him he was not alone in this struggle. I
    would not give up when things got difficult.
        Fast forward 5 YEARS. Steve was finally sticking with his services
    and programs at the West Palm Beach VA Medical Center. I was still
    working 3 jobs to provide for my children and mother but was ready to
    reactivate my nursing license to continue my career I had planned for
    most of my life. However, as our relationship had transformed from best
    friends to something more and recognizing his growing needs, I put my
    life on hold for a greater purpose as ``caregiver'' to Steve.
        As time progressed, so did Steve's challenges. He remained active
    in his treatments at the VA, worked tirelessly with his doctors, but
    his health progressively got worse. The medication list was now pages
    long, and I carried these pages with me everywhere to present to each
    provider.
        We had only been married a year, but now my role changed again. I
    was full time caregiver, nurse, and wife. With those titles my personal
    goals and career vanished. I had 3 jobs, but none of them came with a
    salary. Because I couldn't work due to my caregiving responsibilities,
    we were 100 percent dependent on Steve's disability payments. With the
    increasing out-of-pocket medical expenses, such as non-formulary
    prescriptions, durable medical equipment that was too difficult to get
    through the VA process, and needed safety modifications to our home,
    our debt grew daily.
        Steve's health needs were clear and documented. He couldn't drive,
    go anywhere by himself, eat, self-sustain, or manage his own affairs to
    any degree. The PTSD was unmanageable and often frightening. The
    outbursts (often brought on by his failing health that angered him),
    nightmares, and ``night patrols'' on high alert, which meant
    barricading doors and windows to keep him in and ``others'' out,
    required 24 hour a day vigilance. It was overwhelming to say the least
    and beyond exhausting.
        In 2017, Steve's issues compounded once again. His health was
    becoming increasingly unstable and difficult. As a nurse, I read EVERY
    report, note, and bloodwork result, and diligently researched
    EVERYTHING looking for answers or possible treatments. It was then that
    I saw his PSA bloodwork and noted a big change. On top of everything
    else, we were now fighting prostate cancer.
        In 2018, we moved to Daytona Beach and were very fortunate for
    Steve to be able to get a VA-backed mortgage to buy a house. The
    downside was that, by this time, I did not have the credit to be added
    to the mortgage. Due to my caregiving responsibilities, I hadn't worked
    since 2010, had significant debt, and definitely could not leave Steve
    to go to work.
        It was in late 2019, after the VA's approach of ``watch and wait,''
    that we learned the prostate cancer had progressed to STAGE 4 PLUS.
    Steve completed 55 consecutive days of radiation, which caused severe
    side effects. The radiation left Steve with even more challenging
    healthcare needs. He was now bedridden, completely incontinent, and
    unable to stand, walk, or attend to personal hygiene needs. Moreover,
    the radiation furthered his dementia, requiring more oversight. And
    then the COVID-19 pandemic hit, and the isolation of COVID lockdown
    made it all even more overwhelming for both of us.
        On October 1, 2020, we were excited to learn that the PCAFC program
    opened to Vietnam Era Veterans. I immediately applied to get some
    financial relief as, according to the regulations, I thought my husband
    was more than qualified. His records reflected and documented him as
    housebound, bedridden, unable to complete any activities of daily
    living other than barely holding his own fork. I wheeled him to the
    bathroom and physically held him while he attended to that; had to
    enter the shower with him and wash him on a chair as he could not do
    that unaided; brushed his teeth; and managed all medications. He was
    unsafe if left alone for even a moment. If unwatched, he would find and
    take medication, try to get outside and wander off, and, if he found
    the car keys, he would attempt to get to the car and drive. He had
    significant dementia and often was unable to think or act coherently.
    He was a danger to himself and others and required constant monitoring.
    I had to hire someone to stay with him if I had to leave the house for
    any reason, such as grocery shopping. Our first PCAFC application was
    submitted by November 2020. Months passed, and we completed all
    necessary paperwork and documentation.
        Due to the pandemic, our home visit and interview were done
    virtually. It must be noted that these virtual evaluations were not
    necessarily an accurate representation of our reality, as it's hard to
    see through a phone camera all of the medical equipment and the piles
    of pill bottles I had to hide from my husband. It really would have
    been more accurate if an actual person had been there. My husband lived
    with fear, shame, and guilt of his situation and went to great lengths
    to not let people see him in his debilitated state. He always wanted to
    make people like him and always put his best face forward for the brief
    time they spoke to him. He could be quite convincing and charming, but
    his medical and mental health records told a different story. Those
    records show a broken and terminally ill man living in fear, shame
    guilt, and suffering. The suicidal ideations were frequent and long
    lasting. Keeping him safe was my top priority and all-consuming.
        I received the notes and records from the virtual evaluations while
    we waited for a decision. There were glaring differences noted as to
    what was actually happening. The PCAFC coordinators seemed to change
    weekly, making continuity of care and sharing of information difficult.
    We were handed off to patient advocates and social workers, and each
    contact was a different person.
        I spent endless hours on the phone, writing letters, emailing,
    faxing, hand delivering documents, and correcting errors with PCAFC
    documentation for what appeared to be a clear case for approval. The
    first denial came in early 2021, with the reason given that the
    ``Veteran does not need 6 months of continuous care,'' a requirement
    under PCAFC. That was inconceivable to both my husband and me. We had
    already been through YEARS of continuous care--home health, physical
    and occupational therapy, retrofitting of portions of our house to
    accommodate his disabilities, and countless pieces of medical equipment
    all over the house. The more time that passed, his needs grew. We were
    heartened in March 2022 when, recognizing flaws in the system, the VA
    announced that it was pausing dismissals from the program while the
    agency reviewed the eligibility criteria. Today, over 3 years later,
    caregivers are still waiting for the new regulations to address the
    problems.
        By the end of 2021, Steve's diagnosis was terminal. The cancer had
    metastasized. He was in pain and always searching for relief. Life was
    getting impossible. He would remain in bed for days at a time. He was
    so angry and frustrated, and he was having tremendous trouble thinking,
    communicating, and understanding what was happening to him. He often
    refused to eat and was getting weaker by the day. Keeping him safe,
    clean, and fed was becoming more and more difficult. Yet I persevered.
    I could see where this was going and was working in the background to
    prepare for the end.
        In August 2022, we went bankrupt. Our finances had all been spent,
    and we were buried in medical debt. We appealed the PCAFC decision
    multiple times. To be clear, if it had been approved, it wouldn't have
    solved all our problems, but it absolutely would have helped.
        Steve passed away on October 6, 2022. Days after his death, I
    received a call from our mortgage holder asking me when I would be
    vacating our home. The company made it clear that it could not hold a
    mortgage for a deceased veteran. As I was not credit qualified and had
    no income, no employment, and 12 years of history with no ``job,''
    there was no possible way to keep my home. I had no choice but to sell
    it quickly and take what I could get before they took it. In a matter
    of moments, it was clear I would become homeless. After years of
    sacrifice of career, credit, savings, and personal health, I was now
    widowed, alone, destitute, and heartbroken. Sadly, I am not alone; my
    situation is only one of many.
        Our PCAFC case was still open at the time of my husband's death,
    even after 2 years of fighting for a favorable decision. The
    overwhelming challenge of gathering and adding documents to the
    veteran's medical record for both the Veterans Health Administration
    and for review of the Board of Veterans Appeals is impossible in its
    antiquated current form. I struggled for years to connect the dots
    between providers both in the VA and outside to make sure records were
    up to date, inclusive, and complete. I often went from provider to
    provider, office to office, doctor to doctor to demand printed and
    digitalized copies of each and every note, treatment, and diagnosis. I
    would then hand carry them into the VA to be added to Steve's records,
    only to be told, ``These must all be scanned by a live person into the
    record. We don't have the manpower--just hold on to it until we ask for
    it.'' I physically carried copies of everything with me to every
    appointment to beg for someone to add pertinent information to Steve's
    records. Community care was even more of a challenge; outside records
    sometimes never made it into Steve's file for use in treatment plans
    and certainly not for PCAFC eligibility.
        Despite my best effort of hand carrying records and calling,
    writing, and emailing requests to update records, it RARELY, if ever,
    happened. This failure of an antiquated recordkeeping system left huge
    gaps in care and treatment.
        In a time where it is easy to instantly transmit documents
    digitally, it is hard to believe that the VA is as far behind as it is.
    I acknowledge changing an entire system to update technology is a huge
    challenge, but I also believe it is long overdue. Had this option been
    available, I may have stood a chance at PCAFC approval before my
    husband died.
        In the wake of losing Steve, I was so frustrated with the denials
    for PCAFC that I made it my mission to follow through with our quest.
    In 2023, I filed our case before the Board of Veterans Appeals, and,
    while I knew it was a long shot, I was determined to stand strong. I
    built my case with the mountains of evidence and records I had from my
    husband's decades with VA direct and community care and, ultimately, I
    went before a judge to plead our case in December 2024. I spoke to him
    for over an hour. He asked numerous questions and, by the time I was
    done, he was in tears at all of the pain and anguish we had been
    through .
        Unfortunately, in March 2025, almost 5 full years after we first
    applied, we were denied again, with the following Conclusion of Law:

            ``Due to the death of the veteran, the appeal for eligibility
            of PCAFC benefits must be denied as a matter of law.''

        The Board also noted that it was only able to consider ``evidence
    of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ)
    decision...''. After all our challenges--COVID interfering with
    appropriate care and evaluations, flawed regulations, changing staff,
    and the lack of appropriate records sharing, we were ultimately denied
    because the VA simply outlasted my husband.
        The caregiver experience is a challenging and difficult one, and it
    is impossible to explain unless you have lived it. It is a job that no
    one chooses to have but is often necessary to ensure the best possible
    outcome for the veteran.
        Caregivers take on this challenge out of love for the person who
    has served and suffered. It is not a singular act. It requires that one
    give of themselves endlessly, most often at great sacrifice to self. A
    fellow caregiver once told me one of the most poignant things I have
    ever heard. ``A Veteran does not heal in a vacuum.'' A truer statement
    has never been spoken. It takes all of us---- doctors, nurses, and
    caregivers--to be a part of the healing process. How can we do less
    than care for them?
        Taking care of these veterans and helping them achieve the best
    quality of life they can have, however, also requires supporting those
    caring for them--, whether they be doctors, nurses, or family members.

        I THANK YOU ALL for inviting me here today to listen to my story. I
    tell it not for personal gain, as it is likely too late for me, but for
    those who are still caregivers and those yet to be. While PCAFC would
    not have solved my issues or changed the outcome, it most certainly
    would have helped and made it more tolerable.
        Thank you for your time today, and I look forward to your
    questions.

                     Prepared Statement of Michael Wishnie

                                  Introduction

        My name is Michael J. Wishnie. I am the William O. Douglas Clinical
    Professor of Law at Yale Law School, where I serve as director of the
    Veterans Legal Services Clinic. I have represented the National
    Veterans Legal Services Program and other veterans' organizations on
    legislative matters, but I make this statement in my individual
    capacity. The views set forth below are my own and do not reflect the
    views of Yale Law School or my clients.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ My students and I represented the veterans in several of the
    cases mentioned in these remarks: Monk v. Shulkin, Skaar v. McDonough,
    Manker v. Spencer, and Kennedy v. Esper.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I write today in support of the Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act of
    2025, H.R. 3835, which contains several concrete, practical reforms
    that, if enacted, would meaningfully improve the adjudication of
    disability compensation claims and appeals. The Subcommittee's focus on
    the appeals backlog is welcome. The Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act
    wisely does not attempt a wholesale revision of the disability
    compensation system, but it does make important, common-sense changes
    that are likely to materially assist veterans and relieve the burdens
    and frustrations of the notorious ``hamster wheel'' of recycled claims
    and delayed relief. These improvements also ensure that veterans have
    access to similar judicial tools as civilians when contesting
    government action. The reforms in this bill make two essential changes
    to the adjudication process of veterans' benefits decisions to increase
    efficiency and efficacy.
        First, the Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act would amend the statutes
    governing judicial review of veterans' claims at the U.S. Court of
    Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). The bill would grant the CAVC
    supplemental jurisdiction over certain pending claims in cases that
    satisfy the court's standard for aggregation, just as civilians are
    already able to do in judicial review of other government actions.\2\
    In addition, the bill would enhance the court's authority to issue
    limited remands without returning a veteran's claim to the hamster
    wheel of agency review. I urge the Committee to adopt these twin
    reforms, which provide the CAVC with necessary tools that other Federal
    courts have used to manage mass adjudications in agency contexts. These
    reforms also ensure consistent and fair application of judicial
    rulings, reduce strategic mooting of cases by the agency, and limit the
    senseless repetition of unpublished single-judge opinions on the same
    issue of law or fact. There is no reason that veterans seeking judicial
    review of benefits decisions should be denied recourse to the same
    tools available to civilians challenging government decisions by other
    Federal agencies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The CAVC's rules provide for certification of a class where:
    (1) the class is so numerous that consolidating individual actions is
    impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
    class; (3) the legal issue or issues being raised representative
    parties are typical of the legal issues that could be raised by the
    class; (2) the representative parties will fairly and adequately
    protect the interests of the class; and (5) the Department of Veterans
    Affairs has acted or failed to act on grounds that apply generally to
    the class. Vet. App. R. 23.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Second, the bill would codify into statute the authority of the
    Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) to aggregate claims in appropriate
    cases. More than seventy other Federal agencies possess and have
    exercised this authority, but the BVA has repeatedly held that it is
    unable to decide like cases together.\3\ This measure in the bill would
    relieve the burden on veterans to repeat arguments and evidence before
    the agency on the same issues time and again. Many veterans do not have
    the resources to hire the counsel or experts necessary to argue complex
    medical or legal issues central to their benefits determination. Where
    appropriate, aggregation would allow a veteran with such access to
    present a case on behalf of all similarly affected veterans.
    Additionally, many agencies use aggregation and precedential decisions
    to promote consistency and fairness in mass-adjudication settings.\4\
    Here too, there is no reason to deny veterans access to tools that
    civilians may invoke before other Federal agencies to manage backlogs,
    promote uniformity of decisions, and ensure speedy adjudications.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Michael Sant'Ambrogio & Adam S. Zimmerman, Inside the Agency
    Class Action, 126 Yale L.J. 1634, 1658-59 (2017).
        \4\ Id. at 1644 (2017).
        \5\ H.R. 3835 would also make other helpful reforms to the BVA,
    such as directing the Board to prescribe guidelines for advancement of
    a case on the Board's docket, requiring the Board to ensure compliance
    with its decisions on remand to the Regional Office, and providing for
    an assessment of the feasibility of permitting the Board to issue
    precedential decisions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For the reasons explained below, I support these reforms in the
    Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act, with limited amendments noted below.

    CAVC Supplemental Jurisdiction

        I enthusiastically support the reform set out in section 2(e) of
    the Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act, which grants the CAVC supplemental
    jurisdiction over claims ``for which the agency of original
    jurisdiction has issued a nonfinal decision and the claimant has filed
    a notice of disagreement,'' including those where the claimant has
    filed a supplemental claim within 1 year of a Board decision.
        The CAVC has the authority to aggregate claims where appropriate, a
    power it has exercised judiciously to ensure efficient and consistent
    application of its holdings and to address the Secretary's well-known
    practice of strategically mooting cases on which VA wishes to avoid a
    judicial ruling.\6\ Already, tens of thousands of veterans have
    benefited from class-wide relief in cases before the court. However, a
    recent Federal Circuit decision adopted an improperly narrow
    construction of the CAVC's jurisdictional statute, frustrating the
    ability of veterans raising a common issue of law or fact to obtain a
    single, enforceable resolution. In Skaar v. McDonough, 48 F.4th 1323
    (Fed. Cir. 2022), the Federal Circuit held that the CAVC can aggregate
    only those claims that have received final Board decisions and are
    appealable to the Court. The claims of other veterans whose cases are
    languishing at the Board or before the VA Regional Offices, held the
    court, must be excluded.\7\ Because few veterans raising the same issue
    are likely to fall within the 120-day appeals window at the same time,
    the Skaar decision undermines the ability of veterans to meet the
    numerosity requirement of class certification.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Monk v. Shulkin, 855 F.3d 1312, 1320-21 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
    (noting that ``[c]ase law is replete'' with examples of strategic
    mooting); id. at 1321 (``Permitting class actions would help prevent
    the VA from mooting claims scheduled for precedential review'' (citing
    amicus brief)).
        \7\ The Federal Circuit rejected CAVC's determination in that it
    had jurisdiction to aggregate claims of veterans ``who do not have a
    final Board decision'' so long as ``(i) the challenged conduct is
    collateral to the class representative's administratively exhausted
    claim for benefits--i.e., the class representative has obtained a final
    Board decision; (ii) enforcing the exhaustion requirement would
    irreparably harm the class; and (iii) the purposes of exhaustion would
    not be served by its enforcement.'' See Skaar v. Wilkie, 32 Vet.App
    156, 184-185 (2019) (en banc)), vacated sub nom. Skaar v. McDonough, 48
    F.4th 1323, 1331-1332 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Recognizing the severe consequences of excluding veterans with
    pending claims from any class, five of the 12 judges of the Federal
    Circuit objected to the Skaar decision in a dissent from denial of
    petition for rehearing en banc.\8\ ``For many years, the system for
    processing veterans' claims has been inefficient and subject to
    substantial delays,'' Judge Dyk explained for the dissenters.\9\ ``The
    class action mechanism [at the CAVC] promised to help ameliorate these
    problems to some significant extent, enabling veterans in a single case
    to secure a ruling that would help resolve dozens if not hundreds of
    similar claims.'' \10\ But the court's decision in Skaar ``will
    effectively eliminate class actions in the veterans context.'' \11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Skaar v. McDonough, 57 F.4th 1015, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Dyk,
    J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).
        \9\ Id.
        \10\ Id. at 1017.
        \11\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Federal Circuit's ruling in Skaar has undermined the CAVC's
    ability to utilize aggregation to ``promot[e] efficiency, consistency,
    and fairness, and improv[e] access to legal and expert assistance by
    parties with limited resources.'' \12\ The CAVC, and as a result
    veterans, are deprived of an important instrument to ``compel
    correction of systemic error and to ensure that like veterans are
    treated alike.'' \13\ The Veterans' Appeals Efficiency Act advances a
    narrow but urgent fix. By granting the CAVC supplemental jurisdiction,
    this bill will allow the court to meet numerosity requirements and
    certify classes that include veterans with a final Board decision,
    claims pending at the Board, and supplemental or remanded claims
    pending at regional offices after a Board decision. This reform will
    restore aggregation as a vital tool for the CAVC to address VA backlogs
    and hold the agency accountable to the veterans the agency is charged
    with serving.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Monk v. Shulkin, 855 F.3d at 1320.
        \13\ Id. at 1321.

            1. Other Federal courts have jurisdiction to certify mixed
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            classes.

        It is well-settled that when civilians challenge Federal agency
    actions in court, those civilians may use aggregation as a procedural
    tool to treat collectively those cases that have reached the court and
    like cases still pending at lower levels of the agency decision-making
    process. The Federal Circuit's interpretation of the CAVC's authority
    means this tool is effectively denied to veterans.
        The Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act remedies this problem by
    restoring the authority of CAVC to use aggregation to address recurring
    problems. The CAVC's lack of authority to aggregate non-final claims in
    a certification order is anomalous. This is a power possessed by other
    Federal courts that review agency actions.\14\ In fact, other Federal
    courts hearing claims of former service members can aggregate exhausted
    and unexhausted claims.\15\ Without adequate aggregation authority,
    however, the CAVC mechanism is drained of its utility. This is because
    veterans appealing final BVA decisions are unlikely to be able to meet
    the numerosity required for certification in the first instance, and
    because, even if a class were to be certified, the court would be
    constrained from simultaneously applying its decision in all claims
    where it applies--a core consistency and efficiency benefit of
    aggregation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ See, e.g., Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 703-704 (1979)
    (holding that the inclusion of future claimants in was permissible
    because recipients may benefit from the injunctive relief in the
    subsequent treatment of their individual claims); Newkirk v. Pierre,
    No. 19-cv-4283, 2020 WL 5035930, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2020)
    (``that the class includes future members . . . does not pose an
    obstacle to certification.'') (quoting Westchester Indep. Living Ctr.,
    Inc. v. State Univ. of N.Y., Purchase Coll., 331 F.R.D. 279, 299
    (S.D.N.Y. 2019)) (including future claimants in certification order
    because injunctive relief sought would affect future class members);
    J.D. v. Azar, 925 F.3d 1291, 1305 (D.C. Cir. 2019); Barfield v. Cook,
    No. 3:18-cv-1198, 2019 WL 3562021 (D. Conn. Aug. 6, 2019); Tataranowicz
    v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 268, 272-73 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Dixon v. Heckler,
    589 F. Supp. 1494, 1512 (S.D.N.Y. 1984), aff'd, 785 F.2d 1102 (2d Cir.
    1986), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds sub nom. Bowen
    v. Dixon, 482 U.S. 922 (1987) (approving aggregation of claims to
    include those who had not yet filed for Social Security benefits at the
    time of certification); R.F.M. v. Nielsen, 365 F. Supp. 3d 350, 369
    (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (explaining that a class can include non-final claims
    because ``[t]he plaintiffs do not seek to litigate individual claims
    but rather a policy the agency uses to adjudicate those claims'').
        \15\ See, e.g., Manker v. Spencer, 329 F.R.D. 110 (D. Conn. 2018)
    (certifying nationwide class of former sailors and Marines challenging
    procedures at the Naval Discharge Review Board); Kennedy v. Esper, No.
    16-cv-2010, 2018 WL 6727353 (D. Conn. Dec. 21, 2018) (same, as to
    former soldiers challenging procedures at Army Discharge Review Board).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As practiced in other courts, aggregating claims that have reached
    the court and those that are still pending before the agency would
    maximize the benefits to veterans by promoting consistency, fairness,
    and efficiency for veterans; advancing access to justice by ensuring
    fuller legal and expert assistance; and preventing the Secretary from
    strategically mooting cases to evade the CAVC's correction of systemic
    error.\16\ Such reform would bring veterans' aggregation authority to
    parity with that of civilians.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Monk v. Shulkin, 855 F.3d at 1317; Skaar v. McDonough, 57
    F.4th at 1017 (Dyk, J., dissenting from denial of reh'g en banc)
    (explaining that aggregation can ``help ameliorate'' backlog problems
    ``to some significant extent'' and ``improve access to legal and expert
    assistance by parties with limited resources'' (internal quotations
    omitted)).

            2. Supplemental jurisdiction would provide the CAVC a tool for
            efficiently resolving common issues before remanding cases for
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            merits adjudication.

        The supplemental jurisdiction provided in H.R. 3835 would usefully
    permit the CAVC to aggregate non-final claims for the narrow purpose of
    resolving a common issue of fact or law. Each veteran's ultimate
    benefits determination, however, would still be made on an individual
    basis, according to their individual circumstances and record, by VA.
        The proposed bill would not interrupt the court's discretion in
    determining which claims are worthy of aggregation, nor would it invite
    unqualified attorneys to take advantage of the aggregation
    mechanism.\17\ Rather, extending the court's supplemental jurisdiction
    to enhance aggregation codifies and clarifies a functional tool to the
    court's toolbox, one familiar in suits challenging Federal agency
    conduct in many other Federal courts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Rule 23(f) of the CAVC's Rules of Practice and Procedure
    requires the court to assess the competence of attorneys before
    entering a certification order and appointing counsel. Vet. App. R.
    23(f).

            3. Broad aggregation that includes non-final claims would
            advance equity, judicial economy, and uniformity in the appeals
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            process.

        An aggregation authority more akin to that available to other
    Federal courts adjudicating claims of civilians against Federal
    agencies would advance equity, judicial economy, and uniformity. The
    Supreme Court has explained that the potential benefits of aggregation
    include ``provid[ing]the most secure, fair, and efficient means of
    compensating'' claimants.\18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Amchem Products Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 628-29 (1997).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        First, aggregation advances equity interests. Many veterans file
    their claims pro se or with the assistance of Veterans Services
    Organizations, but certain claims involving complex medical or legal
    issues or challenging VA systemic practices and procedures will benefit
    from legal representation.\19\ Securing counsel to assist in benefits
    adjudication can be crucial both for the outcome of the case and for
    the veteran's dignity throughout the process.\20\ Through aggregation,
    veterans without lawyers receive the benefit of legal representation
    from class counsel. Beyond this, aggregation also distributes other
    resources throughout a class. For example, veterans who have a
    complicated medical claim are able to utilize expert testimony that may
    otherwise be inaccessible. Additionally, claimants whose damages are
    too small to hold agencies accountable or to justify the costs of legal
    counsel are also benefited by aggregation.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ See James D. Ridgway, Why So Many Remands?: A Comparative
    Analysis of Appellate Review by the United States Court of Appeals for
    Veterans Claims, 1 Vet. L. Rev. 113 (2009).
        \20\ Ctr. for Innovation, Veteran Appeals Experience: Listening to
    the Voices of Veterans and Their Journey in the Appeals System, U.S.
    Dep't of Veterans Affs. 5 (Jan. 2016), https://perma.cc/6HFN-KSVV
    (finding that veterans often feel alone in a complex legal process that
    they do not understand, and having an advocate in the process makes
    them feel acknowledged and understood).
        \21\ Adam S. Zimmerman, The Class Appeal, 89 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1419,
    1441 (2022).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Second, aggregation advances judicial economy. Aggregation results
    in financial savings, for the simple reason that it costs less to
    adjudicate a claim once than to adjudicate hundreds or thousands of
    individual claims raising the same issue of law or fact. Aggregating
    non-final claims raising the same issue of law or fact (as prevalent
    here, where veterans serving together often experience similar events
    or circumstances in service) allows courts to avoid repetitive
    adjudication and its accompanying costs to the agency and to veterans.
        Third, aggregation helps to advance uniformity in decision-making.
    Currently, most CAVC decisions are non-precedential and issued by
    single judges--just like the decisions of the Board. This can lead to
    inconsistent outcomes for similar claims.\22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ James D. Ridgway, Barton F. Stichman & Rory E. Riley, ``Not
    Reasonably Debatable'': The Problems with Single-Judge Decisions by the
    Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, 27 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 1, 25-26
    (2016) (concluding that ``outcomes in some individual appeals [ . . . ]
    would result in a different outcome had the appeal been adjudicated
    instead by one or more of the other judges.'').

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            4. Proposed Amendments to Section 2(e): CAVC Aggregation

        To enhance the efficacy of the Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act, I
    propose two amendments to Section 2(e) regarding the CAVC's aggregation
    authority.
        First, section 2(e) should omit language on writs. Currently, the
    bill defines ``covered proceedings'' over which the CAVC has
    jurisdiction to include both appeals and petitions for a writ. While
    Skaar frustrated the CAVC's ability to aggregate appeals, it did not
    impact the court's authority to aggregate in writ cases, which
    presently function reasonably well.\23\ The CAVC's writ authority
    derives from the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec.  1651(a), enacted in the
    First Judiciary Act of 1789 and made available to the CAVC as with
    other Federal courts. By applying the reforms aimed at appeals to
    writs, the current language of H.R. 3835 risks narrowing the CAVC's
    authority to aggregate in appropriate writ cases. I do not believe this
    is the intention of the bill, but reducing CAVC's writ authority would
    inadvertently undermine the broader purpose of H.R. 3835: to grant
    additional tools to veterans, the CAVC, and the BVA to manage their
    large dockets, reduce backlogs, and improve fairness and uniformity of
    decisions. This change can be accomplished by eliminating lines 1-2 on
    page 11 and amending page 10, lines 21-24 to read ``(B) For purposes of
    subparagraph (A), a covered proceeding means an appeal over which the
    Court has jurisdiction pursuant to section 7266 of this title.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ See, e.g., Gladney-Chase v. Collins, No. 24-4472, 2025 WL
    1335465, at *6 (Vet. App. Apr. 24, 2025) (granting joint motion to
    certify class seeking mandamus relief in connection with failure of the
    BVA to timely docket appeals from Veterans Health Administration).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Second, section 2(e) should omit mention of opt-out procedures.
    CAVC's rules for class actions do not specifically address opt-out
    procedures, which are rare in injunctive-relief classes like those that
    arise in that Court. The references to opt-out procedures thus
    potentially introduce confusion into the statutory scheme. The basic
    structure of H.R. 3835 is to incorporate ``the rules prescribed by the
    Court,'' Sec.  2(e)(2) (adding new 38 U.S.C. Sec.  7252(b)(1)(A)), and
    that approach makes sense as to opt-outs as well. Removing the
    references to opt-out procedures from H.R. 3835 would not preclude the
    Court from adopting such procedures in the future, in its rules for all
    class actions or in a particular case.

    Limited Remands at the CAVC

        I also support the reform described in section 2(e) of the Veterans
    Appeals Efficiency Act, which clarifies the CAVC's authority to issue
    limited remands to the Board.
        The limited remand--briefly returning a case to the agency for a
    specific purpose--ensures that the CAVC can resolve a procedural or
    substantive deficiency via a determination from the BVA without losing
    jurisdiction over the case. The CAVC has recognized its authority to
    issue limited remands, but only in exceptional cases.\24\ Therefore, it
    rarely exercises this power and instead chooses to order full remands,
    resulting in years of delay for the veteran.\25\ The Veterans Appeals
    Efficiency Act addresses this problem by codifying the Court's current
    authority to issue limited remands and directing the Court to establish
    guidelines for their use, including the authority to direct the Board
    to act within a prescribed period.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ Cleary v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 305, 308 (1995) (``Nowhere has
    Congress given this Court either the authority or the responsibility to
    supervise or oversee the ongoing adjudication process which results in
    a BVA decision.'').
        \25\ See Skaar v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 16, 18 (2019) (en banc)
    (ordering ``a limited remand for the Board to provide a supplemental
    statement of reasons or bases addressing the appellant's expressly
    raised argument in the first instance''); id. (noting two prior
    instances of limited remands).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One must not lose sight of the veterans and their families who are
    stuck in the hamster wheel of appeals. While awaiting a decision,
    disabilities persist, and hardships can intensify. Some veterans do not
    survive these trials of bureaucracy. Presently, veterans can expect to
    wait nearly 4 years for the BVA to decide their appeal.\26\ When the
    veteran finally reaches the CAVC, their claim may have already been
    subjected to numerous remands. This cyclical process is a devastating
    reality for veterans. Therefore, it is paramount that the CAVC have
    tools that allow it to resolve errors expeditiously, efficiently, and
    with finality. The inability to issue a limited remand to resolve
    outstanding errors inevitably leads to further remands, further delays,
    and further pain for veterans and their families.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\  The BVA currently reports the average wait time to be
    1,091days. See Board of Veterans' Appeals Decision Wait Times, https://
    department.va.gov/board-of-veterans-appeals/wp--content/uploads/sites/
    19/2025/04/2024_bva2024ar.pdf. A 2023 Freedom of Information Act
    disclosure revealed ``data indicating that the average appeal before
    BVA has been waiting for an average of 43 months--1308 days.'' See
    https://tinyurl.com/4e6snp5e.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BVA Aggregation

        In addition to its important reforms to the CAVC's supplemental
    jurisdiction and limited remand authority, the Veterans Appeals
    Efficiency Act would also help reduce the backlog of veterans' benefits
    appeals by implementing a key improvement at the BVA. Section 2(d)(1)
    contains a provision which aims to reduce the backlog of veterans'
    benefits appeals by confirming the BVA's authority to aggregate
    appeals.
        While more than seventy other Federal agencies have a class action,
    joinder, or consolidation practice that facilitates aggregation of
    administrative appeals, the BVA is an outlier in insisting that it
    lacks power ever to group together appeals raising the same question of
    law or fact for efficient adjudication.\27\ Like other Federal
    agencies, the Board has broad authority to prescribe rules to manage
    its docket of appeals \28\; unlike other agencies, the Board has
    repeatedly held that its organic statute does not authorize
    aggregation.\29\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ Sant'Ambrogio & Zimmerman, Inside the Agency Class Action, 126
    Yale L.J. at 1658-59.
        \28\ See 38 U.S.C. Sec.  501(a) (2021) (providing that the
    Secretary has ``authority to prescribe all rules and regulations which
    are necessary or appropriate to carry out the laws administered by the
    Department,'' including the manner and form of adjudication).
        \29\ See Ruling on Motion to Aggregate, Robert C. Scharnberger,
    Deputy Vice Chairman, Board of Veterans' Appeals, No. C XX XXX 522
    (Feb. 13, 2024) (concluding Board lacks legal authority ever to
    aggregate claims); Letter from Anthony C. Scire, Jr., Chief Counsel,
    Board of Veterans' Appeals, to Edward Feeley, No. XX XXX 167 (Oct. 6,
    2021) (same).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to the American Conference of the United States (ACUS),
    the result of this failure to aggregate is that ``agencies risk wasting
    resources in repetitive adjudication, reaching inconsistent outcomes
    for the same kinds of claims, and denying individuals access to the
    affordable representation that aggregate procedures promise.'' \30\
    This risk is already a reality at the BVA, where veterans wait years
    for a decision on their appeal. Consistent with the recommendations of
    ACUS and with the Board's organic statute, Section 2(d)(1) of the
    Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act wisely confirms that the BVA has
    authority to aggregate like claims in appropriate circumstances.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ See Administrative Conference Recommendation 2016-2,
    Aggregation of Similar Claims in Agency Adjudication (2016), https://
    www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/aggregate-agency-
    adjudication-final-recommendation_1.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In conclusion, I urge the Committee to enact the Veterans Appeals
    Efficiency Act, particularly the reforms to codify the CAVC's authority
    to aggregate like claims and issue limited remands, as well as the
    BVA's authority to aggregate claims. Together, these measures will
    materially reduce the appeals backlog while advancing uniformity and
    consistency of decisions, fairness to veterans and families, and more
    equitable access to justice.

                     Prepared Statement of Candace Wheeler
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Prepared Statement of Evan Deichert
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Prepared Statement of Tiffany Wagner

        CHAIRMAN LUTTRELL, RANKING MEMBER MCGARVEY, AND DISTINGUISHED
    MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:

        Thank you for inviting the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans
    Claims (Court) to participate in the June 24, 2025, legislative hearing
    of the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
    Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs
    (Subcommittee). I'm Tiffany Wagner, the Court's Executive Officer and
    Clerk of Court, and I'm pleased to appear as the designee of Chief
    Judge Michael P. Allen on behalf of the Court. The Subcommittee is
    considering several bills, but we limit our comments to the Veterans
    Appeals Efficiency Act of 2025, and specifically, to section 2(e)
    titled ``Expansion of Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals for Veterans
    Claims,'' that directly impacts the Court and pertains to proposed
    supplemental jurisdiction and limited remand authority for the Court.
        At the outset, the Court notes that we presented testimony to this
    Subcommittee last April 10, 2024, on a similar Veterans Appeals
    Efficiency bill. As we stated then, congressional modification or
    expansion of the Veterans Court's jurisdiction is a legislative policy
    determination, and respectfully, the Court cannot comment on the
    advisability or breadth of such. Nor can we suggest alternative
    language that we may be required to interpret in the context of a
    veteran's case. The Court speaks through its opinions in the context of
    concrete cases or controversies. Our testimony is thus limited to
    offering general observations about the potential for unintended
    consequences with regard to the specific language proposed in the bill.

            A. Supplemental Jurisdiction

        Section 7252 of title 38 of the U.S. Code establishes that the
    Court has ``exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board.''
    Proposed new subsections 7252(b)(1) and (2) would grant the Court
    ``supplemental jurisdiction'' over certain claims that would not
    otherwise meet the current jurisdictional requirements and would permit
    concurrent processing of claims at the agency and the Court in certain
    circumstances. Proposed subsection 7252(b)(3) addresses tolling of the
    deadline for filing appeals to the Court.
        As noted above, the Court does not and may not advise on how
    Congress may modify the Court's jurisdiction or broaden concurrent
    jurisdiction at both the Court and the agency. As we said, the Court
    may be called on to interpret any language affecting the Court's
    jurisdiction and we can't issue an advisory opinion on the issue today.
    That said, we offer a general caution that any modifications to the
    Court's jurisdictional statute should be as precise as possible to
    avoid unintended consequences. Some of the language of proposed section
    7252(b) is unclear and limits any technical advice we may offer. For
    example, the general reference to 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5104C(a) and the use
    of the phrases ``notice of disagreement,'' ``supplemental claim,'' and
    ``request for administrative review'' in proposed subsections
    7252(b)(1) and (2), without more specific statutory citations,
    obfuscates the intent of those subsections. Further, the repeated use
    of the word ``claim'' in proposed subsection 7252(b)(2) makes it
    unclear when the draft is referring to the class proponent's claim or
    the potential class member's claim over which the Court would have
    supplemental jurisdiction.
        Additionally, the Court's appellate jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C.
    Sec.  7252 is separate and distinct from its jurisdiction over writs
    under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec.  1651. Including writs in this
    bill as ``covered proceedings,'' particularly in light of subsection
    (b)(1)(A)(ii)'s definition of the claims over which the Court would
    have supplemental jurisdiction, may result in unintended limitations.
    Again, we are not interpreting this language. We merely are flagging a
    potential issue for the Subcommittee to consider. Finally, proposed
    subsection 7252(b)(3) creates a new subcategory of timeliness/
    jurisdictional disputes that the Court would be called upon to decide.
    This alteration to the parameters of the Court's jurisdiction, like any
    such alteration, could grow the Court's caseload, which in turn would
    require reevaluation of Court processes and resource needs at a time
    when our Court is already receiving record numbers of appeals.

            B. Limited Remand Authority

        Section 2(e)(2) of the Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act of 2025
    proposes to add new 38 U.S.C Sec.  7252(c), addressing the Court's
    remand authority.
        Proposed new subsection 7252(c)(1) would authorize the Court to
    remand a matter to the Board of Veterans' Appeals ``for the limited
    purpose of ordering the Board to address a question of law or fact''
    that the Court determines the Board failed to either address after it
    was explicitly or reasonably raised, or adequately explain the reasons
    or bases for the Board's decision about such question. Proposed new
    subsection 7252(c)(2) would direct the Court to issue Rules (1)
    addressing how and when a party could request a limited remand; (2)
    identifying the time period within which the Board would be required to
    issue a decision on a relevant question; (3) detailing when the Court
    could sua sponte or upon request of a party order a limited remand; and
    (4) directing the parties to provide notice to the Court when the Board
    issues a relevant decision following a limited remand. Proposed new
    subsection 7252(c)(3) would require the Court to retain jurisdiction
    over such remanded matters and to stay Court proceedings until the
    Board satisfies the remand instructions and issues a decision.
        Proposed subsection 7252(c) could inject uncertainty into the law
    given that the Court already has the authority to employ limited
    remands. Currently, 38 U.S.C. Sec.  7252(a) permits the Court to remand
    matters as appropriate. As the Court has held, that authority
    encompasses issuing limited remands, retaining jurisdiction, and
    setting out timetables within which the Board must act. By statutorily
    defining the circumstances in which the Court could order a limited
    remand, new subsection 7252(c)(1) may limit, rather than expand, the
    Court's current authority. Similarly, the requirements in proposed
    subsections 7252(c)(2) and (c)(3) may constrain when and how the
    parties may request, and the Court may ultimately use, this remedy. In
    deciding each case, the Court carefully considers the particular facts
    and circumstances of each veteran. A confining statutory framework may
    inhibit the Court's ability to employ what it deems as the most fitting
    remedy in a particular case. To be clear, the possibilities we have
    highlighted here are certainly within Congress' policy-based options.
    We make these points only to raise the issue to ensure that the choices
    made through the proposed amendments are intended.
        In conclusion, the Court takes seriously its mission to afford
    veterans and their families and survivors full, fair, independent, and
    prompt judicial review of final Board decisions. The Court is open to
    ways to improve its functioning and appreciates the Subcommittee's
    continued interest and effort in this shared goal. Thank you for the
    opportunity to submit this statement.

                           Statements for the Record

                                  ----------

                       Prepared Statement of Jonah Platt
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Prepared Statement of Republican Jewish Coalition
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                Prepared Statement of Disabled American Veterans
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Prepared Statement of Gold Star Spouses of America, Inc.

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and distinguished
    members of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, Subcommittee on
    Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs,
        On behalf of Gold Star Spouses of America, Inc., thank you for your
    continued leadership on behalf of our Nation's veterans, their
    families, and the surviving spouses who carry the weight of both love
    and loss. Our organization represents a diverse community of surviving
    military spouses who, despite overwhelming grief, continue to advocate
    for change and justice in honor of those we have lost.
        Gold Star spouses face a unique and often overlooked set of
    challenges, from navigating grief and trauma to securing education,
    financial stability, and access to critical benefits. These challenges
    are compounded by outdated policies and bureaucratic barriers that fail
    to reflect the evolving needs of surviving families. Through
    partnerships with veterans service organizations (VSOs), government
    agencies, and policymakers, we work to ensure that the voices of
    surviving spouses are not just heard, but acted upon.
        We are grateful to the Committee for considering several bills
    today that aim to improve the delivery of benefits and support to
    servicemembers, caregivers, and survivors. Gold Star Spouses of America
    is proud to express our strong support for four of these measures:

                      H.R. 2055: Caring for Survivors Act

        One of the most urgent challenges facing military surviving spouses
    is the glaring disparity between the Department of Veterans Affairs
    (VA) Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) and survivor benefits
    for Federal civilian employees. Currently, DIC provides just 43 percent
    of the compensation that a 100 percent service-connected disabled
    veteran receives from the VA. Meanwhile, Federal civilian employees
    have the choice to designate up to 55 percent of their compensation as
    a death benefit for their spouse.
        This inequity leaves military surviving spouses at a severe
    financial disadvantage, despite their loved ones making the ultimate
    sacrifice in service to our Nation. To correct this imbalance, DIC must
    be increased to 55 percent of a 100 percent disabled veteran's
    disability compensation, ensuring that military families receive the
    fair and just support they were promised. It's time for Congress to
    fulfill its promise to those who have given everything for our country
    and pass the Caring for Survivors Act.
        Many service members enlist under the belief that if something
    happens to them, their families will be cared for. The reality is
    vastly different. Many service members and veterans are unaware of the
    staggering financial loss their families will face when they pass away.
    For example, an active-duty E-1 service member stationed in Norfolk,
    VA, earns $2,108.10 per month in base pay. With the Basic Allowance for
    Housing (BAH), their total monthly income is $4,262.10. Similarly, a
    100 percent service-connected disabled veteran with a spouse receives
    $4,044.91 per month in VA compensation.
        However, when that service member or veteran dies, their family's
    financial stability is shattered. The VA replaces their income with
    DIC, which currently stands at just $1,653.06 per month, a devastating
    drop in support that often leads to severe financial hardship for the
    surviving spouse and their family.
        When these benefits are cut, the pain is not just emotional but
    financial. Surviving spouses are still paying the same rent, the same
    utility bills, and the same everyday costs of living, but with
    drastically reduced resources. Their expenses are not slashed by 59
    percent, but their means of survival are. In the midst of profound
    loss, they are forced to navigate not only the grief of losing a loved
    one but also the harsh reality of economic insecurity. This is not just
    a policy flaw, it is a failure to uphold our promise to those who have
    sacrificed for this country.
        The families of those who laid down their lives in service to our
    Nation deserve nothing less than equal benefits to those of Federal
    employees. It's time to honor their sacrifice with the full and fair
    compensation they have rightfully earned. This legislation does not
    grant Gold Star families a life of luxury, it simply aligns their
    benefits with the standard set by the Office of Personnel Management,
    ensuring their sacrifice is not valued less than that of civilian
    government employees.
        Gold Star Spouses of America is grateful to Representative Jahana
    Hayes for her leadership in championing this bill. Now, it's time to
    see it cross the finish line.

          Draft Bill: Justice for America's Veterans and Survivors Act

        Invisible wounds can be just as fatal as physical ones. Too often,
    the families of veterans lost to suicide or self-inflicted harm are
    left without closure, and without access to the benefits they deserve,
    because the cause of death is misclassified or never formally
    recognized.
        The Justice for America's Veterans and Survivors Act takes a vital
    step forward by requiring the VA to collect and report accurate, annual
    data on veteran deaths, including those involving suicide. Without this
    information, we cannot craft effective policy, deploy targeted
    prevention efforts, or support the families left behind.
        We cannot afford to operate in the dark. This legislation equips
    policymakers, providers, and support networks with essential tools and
    signals a meaningful commitment to transparency and accountability. We
    urge the Committee to support this bill. It is not just good policy; it
    is a moral imperative.

      H.R. 2701: Fallen Servicemembers Religious Heritage Restoration Act

        We are proud to support the Fallen Servicemembers Religious
    Heritage Restoration Act, which upholds the dignity and faith of
    Jewish-American servicemembers buried overseas. By establishing a 10-
    year program within the American Battle Monuments Commission to
    identify and correct religious misrepresentations on grave markers,
    this bill helps right historical wrongs while honoring the individual
    identities of our fallen.
        Accurate grave markers are not just symbolic, they are essential
    for the healing and remembrance of surviving families. When a headstone
    reflects a loved one's true faith and heritage, it provides comfort,
    closure, and lasting recognition. Gold Star Spouses of America thanks
    the many champions of this legislation for their thoughtful approach
    and urges swift passage.

                       H.R. 2721: Honoring Our Heroes Act

        Many veterans, particularly from older generations, lie in unmarked
    graves without the headstones or markers they earned through service.
    The Honoring Our Heroes Act offers long-overdue recognition by allowing
    surviving families to request official markers through the VA, ensuring
    that these heroes are not forgotten.
        The bill also updates public eligibility information, making it
    easier for families to learn about and access this benefit. These
    changes are more than administrative, they are acts of remembrance.
    They restore honor where it has long been denied. We strongly support
    this pilot program and its potential to bring healing to families
    across the country.
        We thank you again for your dedication to the well-being of
    veterans, their families, and the survivors they leave behind. Our work
    is rooted in the belief that honoring the dead must go hand-in-hand
    with supporting the living. These bills offer tangible progress toward
    that goal.
        As Reverend Warnock so aptly stated:

            The men and women in our military serve our country
            courageously--and their spouses serve our country, too. If one
            of our heroes loses their life in the line of duty, we should
            honor our servicemember's sacrifice by ensuring their spouse
            can retain survivor benefits if they choose to remarry.

        We stand ready to partner with you to advance these proposals and
    fulfill the promises made to our military families.

    Gold Star Spouses of America, Inc.

        Gold Star Spouses of America is a national nonprofit organization
    dedicated to supporting the surviving spouses of military service
    members and veterans who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of
    our country. Our mission is to provide meaningful support, advocacy,
    education, and a sense of community for Gold Star families. Through our
    programs, we work to ensure that the needs of these spouses and their
    families are heard, addressed, and prioritized by policymakers at the
    Federal, State, and local levels.
        GSSA is listed as an approved resource in the National Resource
    Directory (NRD.gov) and has been approved by the Department of Defense
    as a resource on Military OneSource and in the ``Days Ahead'' binder
    for all active-duty losses.
        GSSA is also recognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs for
    volunteer opportunities within the department's Center for Development
    and Civic Engagement.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of Debbie Wasserman Schultz

        Thank you to Chairman Luttrell and Ranking Member McGarvey for
    adding my bill, H.R. 2701, the Fallen Servicemembers Religious Heritage
    Restoration Act, to the agenda for today's legislative hearing and for
    allowing me to speak on it.
        And thank you to Congressman Max Miller for joining me as the
    Republican co-lead and to Senate Veterans Affairs Chairman Moran and
    Senator Rosen for leading this effort in the Senate.
        The Fallen Servicemembers Religious Heritage Restoration Act is a
    straightforward, bipartisan bill that ensures the United States
    properly honors the religion and heritage of the men and women who made
    the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation.
        It creates a program within the American Battle Monuments
    Commission to identify American-Jewish servicemembers buried in U.S.
    military cemeteries in ABMC purview under headstones that incorrectly
    represent their religion and heritage.
        World War II was brutal and devastating, leading to challenges of
    ensuring every fallen American servicemember received the honor and
    respect of a proper burial.
        From World War II alone, it's estimated that 600 American-Jewish
    servicemembers killed in action remain improperly buried under Latin
    Crosses rather than Stars of David.
        While some of these improper burials were due to clerical errors,
    we have heard many stories of Jewish war heroes not wanting to display
    their faith on their dog tags while fighting against the antisemitic
    and genocidal Nazi regime.
        But this issue is not limited to World War II. This spring, I had
    the honor of participating in a ceremony at Arlington National Ceremony
    to properly honor two World War I fallen American Jewish
    servicemembers, Private David Moser and Private First Class Adolph
    Hanf.
        Both were laid to rest for over 100 years under a headstone etched
    with a Latin Cross. In a moving ceremony sponsored by Private Moser's
    niece, the headstones of these American heroes were replaced, properly
    honoring their heritage after all these years.
        At a moment when antisemitism is at record highs, this moment of
    healing was incredibly special.
        I've been honored by the wide-ranging organizational support for
    the bill. That list includes the American Legion, Jewish Federations of
    North America, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Gold Star
    Spouses of America, Jewish War Veterans, and Veterans of Foreign Wars.
        The Non-Commissioned Officers Association, Vietnam Veterans of
    America, and the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, or TAPS, are
    also in support of this bill.
        As the Ranking Member of the Military Construction and Veterans
    Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, which provides funding for the
    ABMC, I am acutely aware that the programs Congress authorizes require
    funding to ensure proper implementation.
        In the Fiscal Year 2026 MILCON/VA Appropriations bill on the floor
    this week, I secured $500,000 to carry out this mission within AMBC and
    will fight to ensure it stays in the bill as we continue the Fiscal
    Year 2026 appropriations process.
        Thank you again for including H.R. 2701 in today's hearing.

                      Prepared Statement of Iddo Goldberg
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     Prepared Statement of Jason Greenblatt
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Prepared Statement of Jewish Federations of North America
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    Prepared Statement of Shabbos Kestenbaum
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        Prepared Statement of Lee Trink
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        Prepared Statement of Liora Rez
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Prepared Statement of Lizzy Savetsky
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       Prepared Statement of Nicole Neily
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      Prepared Statement of National Organization of Veterans' Advocates,
                                      Inc.

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and members of the DAMA
    Subcommittee, thank you 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
    members advocate for their clients before the Department of Veterans
    Affairs (VA), Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board), U.S. Court of Appeals
    for Veterans Claims (CAVC), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
    Circuit (Federal Circuit), and U.S. Supreme Court. 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 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. 659, Veterans Law Judge Experience Act of 2025

        NOVA supports H.R. 659, Veterans Law Judge Experience Act of 2025,
    which will require the Chairman of the Board to give priority to
    individuals with three or more years of legal experience in relevant
    veterans law for positions as Veterans Law Judges. The expansion of
    benefits in recent years makes it more important than ever that those
    who are making benefits decisions on behalf of our Nation's veterans,
    survivors, family members, and caregivers come to their positions,
    whenever possible, with the requisite knowledge and experience.

                      H.R. 2055, Caring for Survivors Act

        NOVA supports H.R. 2055, Caring for Survivors Act. This bill makes
    important changes that will provide better support to surviving
    spouses. NOVA supported similar legislation introduced in the last
    Congress. The current dependency and indemnity (DIC) benefit is
    $1653.07, which is only about 43 percent of what a 100-percent service-
    connected veteran receives. Benefits for survivors of Federal civil
    service retirees are calculated as a percentage of the retiree's
    benefits, up to 55 percent. H.R. 2055 would increase the DIC rate to 55
    percent of what a totally disabled veteran receives and this increase
    ensures equity for surviving spouses.
        In addition, H.R. 2055 would amend the 10-year rule. Currently, if
    a veteran is 100-percent service connected for 10 years before his or
    her death, the surviving spouse is eligible for DIC even if the death
    is not service connected. This bill will provide a partial DIC benefit
    for the surviving spouse if the veteran dies 5 years after being rated
    totally disabled, with full entitlement at 10 years.

             H.R. 3123, Ernest Peltz Accrued Veterans Benefits Act

        NOVA supports H.R. 3123, Ernest Peltz Accrued Veterans Benefits
    Act. NOVA supports the payment of pension due and unpaid at the time of
    the veteran's death, to the veteran's spouse, children, dependent
    parents, or estate.

        H.R. 3833, Veterans' Caregiver Appeals Modernization Act of 2025

        NOVA supports H.R. 3833, Veterans' Caregiver Appeals Modernization
    Act of 2025, with qualifications. NOVA members represent caregivers in
    appeals. Our members report extensive problems with appeals being
    properly docketed and relevant records not being promptly associated
    with the file, causing lengthy delays in resolution of appeals. NOVA
    supports efforts to improve this process.
        To that end, NOVA supports improvements for VHA and Board employees
    to access applications and appeals. Without more details, however, we
    cannot unequivocally support development of a new system when existing
    programs such as the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) and
    Caseflow exist. Given VA's challenges with implementing new
    technological programs and finite resources, it makes more sense to put
    resources into existing systems to improve and modernize them to
    support appeals for caregivers.
        NOVA fully supports the ability of a family caregiver to receive
    monthly stipends to which he or she was entitled and were due and
    unpaid on the date of the death of the eligible veteran, as well as the
    requirement that VHA employees responsible for these appeals receive
    the same guidance and complete the same training as a higher-level
    adjudicator in VBA.

             H.R. 3834, The Protecting Veterans Claims Options Act

        NOVA supports H.R. 3834, The Protecting Veterans Claims Options
    Act. First, this legislation would counter the negative result of the
    recent CAVC decision in Loyd v. Collins,_ Vet.App._, No. 22-5998 (May
    8, 2025). Mr. Loyd filed a supplemental claim within a year of VA's
    denial of his left eye condition. VA denied the supplemental claim, on
    the basis the veteran had not submitted new and relevant evidence. The
    Board subsequently denied the appeal on the same basis, never reaching
    the underlying merits of the appeal. The CAVC affirmed the Board's
    decision. As noted in the dissenting opinion, however, this holding
    ``seems likely to be the death knell for supplemental claims following
    AOJ decisions.'' Slip op. at 30-31. Furthermore, ``the majority's
    endorsement of the Secretary's common contention that there is no
    prejudice to the veteran because he can always file another
    supplemental claim fails to appreciate the realities of VA's system.
    The veteran will never get the Board to review the merits of his claim,
    notwithstanding his timely efforts, if he cannot gather more or better
    evidence that the Board deems new and relevant or draw a Board member
    that does not make the mistakes evident here--the apparent inattention
    to both the additional evidence considered by the AOJ in adjudicating
    the supplemental claim and the AOJ's unduly miserly test for
    relevance.'' Id. at 31 (footnote omitted).
        Under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  7104(a), veterans are entitled to ``one
    review on appeal to the Secretary'' that ``shall be made by the
    Board.'' Furthermore, the Board's decisions ``shall be based on the
    entire record in the proceeding and upon consideration of all evidence
    and material of record and applicable provisions of law and
    regulation.'' 38 U.S.C. Sec.  7104(a) (emphasis added). These are
    bedrock principles of the veterans benefits system and The Protecting
    Veterans Claims Options Act will ensure that veterans are not deprived
    of their right to have the Board decide the merits of their appeal
    based on consideration of the entire record.
        Second, this bill would allow a veteran, survivor, family member,
    or caregiver whose case has been remanded by the CAVC to submit
    evidence to the Board within 90 days following a remand, which the
    Board would be required to consider in the first instance. This
    provision promotes efficiency for appellants and the system overall.

    H.R. 3854, Modernizing All Veterans and Survivors Claims Processing Act

        NOVA supports H.R. 3854, Modernizing All Veterans and Survivors
    Claims Processing Act, with qualifications. NOVA appreciates and
    supports VA's embrace of automation to decide claims and appeals in a
    more timely fashion. To be clear, however, Congress should require that
    existing VA automation tools be analyzed under Sec. 2(c) to ensure
    these tools meet the mark before they are expanded further throughout
    VBA. Furthermore, Congress needs to ensure VA has the funding and
    employees to verify that these automation tools achieve more accurate
    and timely decisions for veterans, survivors, family members, and
    caregivers, and that adequate human oversight is exercised in every
    claim and appeal.
        This bill also addresses a critical issue regarding correct
    labeling of documents. Specifically, the Secretary would be required to
    create a plan to ensure that documents in VBMS are correctly labeled.
    This problem has existed since the creation of VBMS and NOVA has long
    urged VA to correct it, providing feedback and offers of assistance to
    create accurate labels. For example, VA overuses the label ``Third
    Party Correspondence'' to describe a wide variety of documents, e.g.,
    lay statements from veterans, briefs/argument submitted by accredited
    advocates, and medical opinions. Inconsistent labeling results in VA
    employees and examiners missing important evidence and information that
    is necessary to correctly decide claims and appeals. We applaud
    Congress's efforts to correct this long-standing problem and, should
    this bill become law, we urge VA to seek input from the accredited
    stakeholder community to advise on improvements. Furthermore, NOVA
    recommends an addition to Section 3(b) that would allow accredited
    representatives to label the documents they submit electronically to
    VA.

                   H.R. 3835, Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act

    NOVA does not support H.R. 3835 in its entirety as currently drafted.

        Reporting Requirements. NOVA generally supports the provisions that
    require the Secretary to report on the length of adjudication (Section
    2(b)) and information on certain claims/notice of certain assignments
    (Section 2(c)). Congress, however, must ensure that VA has the
    necessary resources to collect and report such data so as to not
    interfere with the Board's primary mission as articulated at 38 C.F.R.
    Sec.  20.103: ``The principal functions of the Board are to make
    determinations of appellate jurisdiction, consider all applications on
    appeal properly before it, conduct hearings on appeal, evaluate the
    evidence of record, and enter decisions in writing on the questions
    presented on appeal.''
        Advancement on the Docket. NOVA supports the prescription of
    guidelines for advancement on the docket at the Board, primarily to
    ensure consistency in how such rules are applied. Presently, the Board
    considers 75 years to be the age for automatic advancement on the
    docket; however, the VA Regional Offices apply the rule at age 85.
    Congress should institute a set age of 75 for all claimants.
        Board Aggregation/Precedential Decisions. NOVA does not support the
    aggregation provisions as currently written. This bill needs to provide
    more clarity on the role of the study prior to implementation of actual
    aggregation. Section 2(d)(1)(A) would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  7104(a) to
    add the following new sentence: ``If the Chairman of the Board
    determines that more than one appeal involves common questions of law
    or fact, the Chairman may aggregate such appeals to decide such
    questions of law or fact.'' That provision takes ``effect on the date
    of the enactment of this Act'' but will ``apply beginning on the date
    on which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs completes the developments
    of policies and procedures required under subsection (g)(4)(A)(ii).''
    Subsection (g)(4)(A)(ii) provides for the development of policies and
    procedures to implement the recommendations in FFRDC assessment with
    respect to the authority of the Board. The language is confusing and
    the authority bestowed under Section 2(d)(1)(A) appears to put the cart
    before the horse.
        This bill correctly identifies problems with inconsistent Board
    decisions that hinder efficient and accurate appeals processing.
    Aggregate action is a powerful tool that, used well, may address these
    problems. As currently drafted, however, the bill is too broad,
    provides too much unilateral authority to the Board Chairman, and risks
    introducing further systemic inefficiency.
        Specifically, the only additional guidance regarding aggregation
    that the bill provides is at section 2(d)(3), defining ``aggregate'' to
    encompass ``any practice or procedure to collect common issues, claims,
    or appeals by multiple parties for the purposes of resolving such
    issues, claims, or appeals,'' including ``the use of joinder,
    consolidation, intervention, class actions, and any other multiparty
    proceedings.'' This broad language allows for the Secretary, acting
    through the Board Chairman, to unilaterally convene a class of
    unrepresented claimants and decide--without mention of any right of
    notice or opportunity to opt out--one or more common questions of law
    or fact adversely and in binding fashion across the entire class.
    Statutory restrictions upon VA's ability to provide information
    regarding a claimant or claim to third parties (intended to protect
    veterans' privacy) would also pose potentially substantial obstacles
    against providing notice to claimants whom the Board Chairman's
    aggregate action might adversely affect.
        Furthermore, the bill, as drafted, leaves in question whether
    adversely affected claimants even could appeal any such action. The
    Federal Circuit has ruled that the CAVC has no jurisdiction to review a
    decision of the Board's Chairman. See Mayer v. Brown, 37 F.3d 618
    (1994). Based on that precedent, adverse aggregate action by the
    Chairman could stand absolute, immune to appeal. The bill's commission
    of such unilateral power and discretion to the Chairman also would be
    at odds with 38 U.S.C. Sec.  7102(b), which instructs that ``[a]
    proceeding may not be assigned to the Chairman as an individual
    member,'' subject to section 7103(a)'s provision that the Chairman may
    ``order[] reconsideration of the decision'' and then, pursuant to
    section 7102(b), participate among a multi-judge panel in that
    reconsideration.
        At this time, NOVA recommends proceeding with the FFRDC assessment
    that will provide for a broader debate about the potential role of
    aggregation or other related policies at the Board, to include
    consideration of use of precedential decisions at the Board.
        Ensuring Compliance with Board Remands. It is critically important
    that the Board ensure substantial compliance with a decision to remand,
    even though the Board does not maintain jurisdiction in the AMA system
    upon a remand. This language of this section, however, is confusing as
    to the role of the agency of original jurisdiction in this process.
    Specifically, under (f)(2)(B), it is unclear how a determination of
    ``such decision was unnecessary'' would be made. This section needs
    more clarification.
        CAVC Jurisdiction. NOVA supports the expansion of the CAVC's class
    action jurisdiction in the amendments proposed for 38 U.S.C. Sec.
    7252(b).
        NOVA does not support the amendments proposed for 38 U.S.C. Sec.
    7252(c). Existing law permits the CAVC to exercise limited remand
    authority, which it has done since its earliest decisions. See, e.g.,
    Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 59 (1990) (Court retained
    jurisdiction and remanded for the Board to provide adequate reasons or
    bases for its determinations). This language as drafted seems too
    rigid. For example, it should not require the CAVC to make a rule
    defining the amount of time to allow for every limited remand because
    each case is different. Any such ``guidelines'' can be included in the
    CAVC's Internal Operating Procedures, but should not be in the Rules of
    Practice and Procedure.

           H.R. 3983, Veterans Claims Quality Improvement Act of 2025

        NOVA supports H.R. 3983, Veterans Claims Quality Improvement Act of
    2025, with qualifications. NOVA supports policies, procedures, and
    technological capabilities to inform VBA employees of avoidable
    deferrals, as well as a program for quality assurance in Board
    decisions. In addition, NOVA supports a training program for Board
    members on timely and correct adjudication of appeals. As previously
    noted, however, it is important that Congress ensure VA and the Board
    have the appropriate resources to carry out these functions so as to
    not interfere with their main mission to decide and issue decisions on
    the claims and appeals of veterans, survivors, family members, and
    caregivers.
        NOVA supports further discussion and study of the role that OGC
    opinions could potentially have in fostering consistency in decisions
    on issues raised in CAVC appeals.
        NOVA supports the amendment to 38 U.S.C. Sec.  7104 that would
    require the Board to provide specific reasons for a remand, to include
    any failure of VA to comply with duty to assist and the duty to notify.
    Specificity as to these failures will assist the veteran in determining
    how to proceed on remand and allow the Board and the CAVC to more
    readily determine whether VA corrected the errors identified in the
    remand should the issue(s) return to either body in any future
    proceedings.

                                   Conclusion

        NOVA appreciates the opportunity to present its views to the
    Subcommittee. We remain committed to working with this Committee, VA,
    and accredited stakeholders to improve the VA disability and claims
    adjudication process for veterans, survivors, family members, and
    caregivers.

    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 John Ondrasik
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              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 some of 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 acquired a spinal cord
    injury or disorder (SCI/D).

    H.R. 659, the Veterans Law Judge Experience Act

        This legislation would prioritize the appointments of individuals
    with three or more years of veterans law experience to the Board of
    Veterans' Appeals (Board). PVA supports this legislation because it
    would help ensure that those who are deciding the pending appeals for
    veterans have the experience necessary to increase the accuracy and
    number of decisions coming from the Board.

    H.R. 2055, the Caring for Survivors Act

        Losing a spouse is never easy but knowing that financial help will
    be available following the death of a loved one can ease this burden.
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) is intended to protect
    against survivor impoverishment after the death of a service-disabled
    veteran. In 2025, this compensation starts at $1,653.07 per month and
    increases if the surviving spouse has eligible children who are under
    age 18. DIC benefits last the entire life of the surviving spouse
    except in the case of remarriage before reaching 55. For surviving
    children, DIC benefits last until the age of 18. If the child is still
    in school, these benefits might go until age 23. The DIC program was
    established in 1993 and has been minimally adjusted since then. In
    contrast, monthly benefits for survivors of Federal civil service
    retirees are calculated as a percentage of the civil service retiree's
    Federal Employees Retirement System or Civil Service Retirement System
    benefits, up to 55 percent. This difference presents an inequity for
    survivors of our Nation's heroes compared to survivors of Federal
    employees. DIC payments were intended to provide surviving spouses with
    the means to maintain some semblance of economic stability after the
    loss of their loved one.
        PVA strongly supports the Caring for Survivors Act of 2025, which
    would increase the amount of DIC to an amount equal to 55 percent of
    the compensation received by a 100 percent service-disabled veteran
    with a spouse. This change would bring the benefit in line with the
    standard for survivors of Federal employees. The bill would also reduce
    the timeframe a veteran needed to be rated totally disabled from 10 to
    5 years. Current law restricts the DIC benefit for survivors if the
    veteran was rated at 100 percent for less than 10 years before his or
    her death. The reforms included in the Caring for Survivors Act would
    allow greater numbers of survivors to benefit from this important
    program.

    H.R. 2721, the Honoring our Heroes Act

        Currently, only veterans who died on or after November 1, 1990, can
    be furnished a government headstone or marker for their resting place,
    regardless of whether the grave is already marked with a privately
    purchased headstone or marker. The only exception to this is if the
    veteran's grave is currently unmarked. PVA supports the Honoring Our
    Heroes Act of 2025, which would allow veterans who passed away prior to
    November 1, 1990, to be able to have this same benefit afforded to
    their final resting place. PVA believes that all families should be
    able to honor their veteran loved ones regardless of when they passed
    away.

    H.R. 3123, the Ernest Peltz Accrued Veterans Benefits Act

        PVA supports this legislation, which would allow the VA to award
    entitlement to accrued pension benefits to the surviving family members
    of veterans who were awarded entitlement but died before such benefit
    was paid. In many cases, accrued benefits can be paid to surviving
    family members in DIC claims so we believe that it makes sense that the
    VA treats Non-Service Connected (NSC) Pension claims the same. In
    addition, veterans who are eligible for NSC Pension benefits are at the
    poverty level, and these funds could be critical to helping the
    surviving family members.

    H.R. 3833, the Veterans' Caregivers Appeals Modernization Act

        The Veterans Health Administration lacks an integrated system to
    manage applications and appeals pertaining to its Program of
    Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC). As a result,
    medical records and patient documents are scattered across multiple
    platforms, many of which are not accessible to all VA staff involved in
    the process. This creates delays, confusion, and unjust denials,
    particularly during appeals, which can take years to resolve. Also,
    some of our members receive care from outside providers that could be
    relevant to their PCAFC application; thus, capturing this information
    is extremely desirable.
        PVA supports this bill, which seeks to create a single system where
    medical records, including those from providers outside of VA, PCAFC
    applications, PCAFC assessments, and Centralized Eligibility and
    Appeals Team decisions through all levels of appeals would be kept.
    This would give all interested parties access to the complete
    information for each veteran and caregiver through a single records
    system. Such a move is way overdue and might be achievable by
    leveraging VA's existing systems versus creating or procuring a new
    product. The bill also clarifies deadlines to file an appeal and allows
    caregivers to be eligible for past-due caregiver stipends, if the
    caregiver application is eventually granted on appeal, including in
    cases where the veteran dies during the pendency of the appeal.

    H.R. 3854, the Modernizing All Veterans and Survivors Claims Processing
    Act

        This bill requires the VA to develop and submit a proposal to
    Congress for the use of automation to streamline the processing of
    claims administered by the Secretary. By automating the retrieval of
    service records, the information sharing between Federal agencies, the
    dissemination of correspondence, and the compilation of relevant
    evidence, VA could significantly reduce the time needed for the
    processing of VA claims and reduce veterans' wait times. Another
    provision requires VA to implement policies, processes, and leverage
    technological capabilities to ensure that when a veteran or school age
    child is awarded benefits based on the child attending school, Veterans
    Benefits Administration's (VBA) Compensation Service and Education
    Service are each automatically updated to help prevent overpayments of
    dependent benefits. Other language directs the VA to ensure that
    documents in VA's electronic claims processing system are correctly
    labeled when they are uploaded into that system, including when they
    are automatically labeled using AI technology. PVA supports this
    legislation and looks forward to its passage.

    H.R. 3834, the Protecting Veterans Claim Options Act

        Currently, when a veteran disagrees with a decision from VA, they
    can choose one of three options to appeal it. One of those options is
    the ``supplemental claim,'' which requires the veteran to submit ``new
    and relevant'' evidence to continue their claim. However, many times
    the VA denies that the new evidence is relevant, in which case, the
    veteran is left having to try and appeal, not on the merits of his or
    her original claim, but on the relevance of the evidence. This creates
    an undue burden on the veteran and needlessly drags out a claim far
    longer than necessary. PVA supports the Protecting Veterans Claims
    Options Act, which would ensure that the Board decides on the merits of
    the claim, and that an appeal could not be denied due to the lack of
    ``new and relevant'' evidence with a timely filed supplemental claim.

    H.R. 3627, the Justice for America's Veterans and Survivors Act of 2025

        This legislation would require the VA to create an annual report on
    the cause of death among veterans, with particular focus on whether the
    individual veterans were rated as totally disabled, the primary cause
    of death, the secondary cause of death, and whether the veteran died by
    suicide secondary to a disability for which the veteran was rated as
    totally disabled. PVA supports the intent of this legislation and
    believes that the additional information to be gathered is a step in
    the right direction to help veterans who are at risk of dying by
    suicide. However, we suggest the following change to help increase the
    quality of information gathered. Specifically, we believe combining
    these new efforts with the Behavioral Health Autopsy Program (BHAP)
    would help the VA better understand the circumstances surrounding
    suicide and develop prevention strategies. BHAP was established in 2012
    to enhance suicide prevention efforts by learning more about the
    circumstances and contexts surrounding veterans' deaths by suicide. To
    do this, BHAP systematically collects information for all veteran
    deaths by suicide reported to VA clinicians and Suicide Prevention
    Teams through comprehensive medical record reviews and interviews with
    family members who have lost loved ones to suicide. In addition, while
    BHAP collects the data of all veterans who were reported to have died
    by suicide, this legislation focuses on those who ``died by suicide
    secondary to a service-connected disability rated as total.'' Combining
    these efforts would result in a more well-rounded picture.

    H.R. 3951, the Rural Veterans' Improved Access to Benefits Act of 2025

        The Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and
    Benefits Improvement Act of 2020 (P.L. 116-315) created a pilot program
    that allowed VA's contracted healthcare professionals to provide
    medical disability examinations across State lines. This bill would
    make that authority permanent and expand the categories of providers
    who can perform cross-state disability exams. Also, it requires the VA
    to establish a mechanism for providers to submit evidence that a
    veteran brings with them to the examination to the VA, a process which
    is currently not in place. PVA supports expanding and permanently
    extending this authority and greatly appreciates the provision
    directing VA to consider evidence the veteran may bring with them to
    their disability examination appointments.

    H.R. 3835, the Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act of 2025

        This bill creates additional reporting and tracking requirements
    for VBA and the Board, such as information on Higher Level Reviews,
    Supplemental Claims, and Notices of Disagreement. It also requires the
    tracking of claims pending in the National Work Queue, not assigned to
    an adjudicator; cases that are remanded by the Board; Veteran Appeals
    Improvement and Modernization Act cases pending a hearing; and when a
    decision-maker did not comply with the Board's decision. We recognize
    the value of and support efforts to track meaningful data to improve
    the effectiveness and accuracy of the claims process. However, the data
    sought by this legislation will be meaningless until the VA first fixes
    their problems with obtaining medical opinions, since the lack of them
    are constantly creating remandable errors.
        This legislation would also give the Board the authority to
    aggregate certain claims. While PVA does not oppose allowing the Board
    to aggregate appeals involving common questions of law or fact, we
    believe that before that can be done a feasibility study should be
    conducted, and the findings reviewed. Then, legislation based on those
    findings could be brought forth.

    H.R. 3983, the Veterans Claims Quality Improvement Act of 2025

        This legislation would require the VA to develop policies and
    procedures to provide notice to an employee of the VBA that they had
    committed an ``avoidable deferral'' during the claims adjudication
    process. In addition, it would also require a report on ``inconsistent
    opinions in matters involving substantially similar questions of law or
    fact'' that had come from the Office of General Counsel.
        While we generally do not have concerns with the first two
    provisions, we believe that the term ``avoidable deferral'' needs to be
    defined. While VA and others have used this term to point out broader
    adjudicative issues, having this be a reason for punitive actions
    against individual employees requires a specified reason that the
    deferral was ``avoidable'' or else the legislation is meaningless.
        A third provision in the bill directs the Chairman of the Board to
    establish a program to ensure the quality of Board decisions with a
    requirement to report to the Veterans' Affairs Committees annually.
    This section would impose many requirements related to items that are
    already the Board's responsibility. Instead of a new law, the Board
    should be held accountable for these existing requirements.
        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 Quality of Life Foundation

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and members of the
    subcommittee, Quality of Life Foundation (QoLF) would like to thank you
    for holding this hearing and allowing us to submit a statement for the
    record on pending legislation. We would like to offer a special thanks
    to Congressman Barrett for introducing H.R. 3833, Veterans' Caregivers
    Appeals Modernization Act, which would allow medical records from both
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and outside providers to be stored
    in a single system created specifically for VA's Program of
    Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC).
        QoLF's sole focus is on helping caregivers of veterans navigate
    PCAFC. We help caregivers of veterans apply for and appeal eligibility
    decisions regarding PCAFC while participating in legislative and policy
    advocacy around PCAFC and its collateral programs like extended care
    services. In our work, we found that many caregivers and veterans are
    denied PCAFC based on a lack of evidence in the record rather than the
    actual lack of need for assistance. To combat this, we run education
    programs for caregivers to assist them in ensuring a medical record
    documents the evidence of the veteran's need for assistance. Our
    programs are made possible by grants received from other veteran
    service organizations, and we do not charge the veterans and caregivers
    we serve.
        In our education calls for initial and repeat applications,
    clinical appeals, higher-level reviews, and supplemental claims, we
    urge caregivers and veterans to collect the veterans' Community Care
    Records (CCN) and any additional outside medical records the veteran
    may have through providers under private pay or other health insurance.
    Previously, QoLF has testified on how difficult it is for a veteran's
    outside medical records to be considered by the Caregiver Eligibility
    and Appeals Team (CEAT) who make the determination of whether veterans
    and caregivers quality for PCAFC. Differing IT policies at each VA
    Medical Center (VAMC) restricted who could place the records in the
    file for PCAFC consideration. Some VAMC Caregiver Support Programs
    (CSP) had the authority to scan any outside records directly into a
    veteran's record. Other VAMC CSP teams had a special person in records
    responsible for uploading outside records that were sent to CSP. Still
    other VAMC's had a policy that the Primary Care Manager (PCM) went
    through the submitted outside records, determined what was relevant to
    be scanned in, and submitted relevant records to VA Medical Records
    office to be scanned. Last, some VAMC's required that veterans and
    caregivers simply drop the outside medical records at VA Medical
    Records office to be placed in the queue for scanning where they would
    sit until they were reached. Additionally, there did not appear to be
    any uniform policy as to which VA technology system the records were
    scanned into.
        Beyond the initial PCAFC application, veterans and caregivers have
    multiple appeals options. There are two levels of Veteran Health
    Administration (VHA) clinical appeals, a VHA supplemental claim that is
    done using a Veteran Benefit Administration (VBA) process, a VHA
    higher-level review that is done using a VBA process, and an appeal to
    the Board. These appeals can be done in any order, and appeals focus on
    the last decision made in the queue of appeals for the same initial
    application. However, the varying method of collecting medical records
    ensured outside records were often missed as clinical appeals,
    supplemental claims, higher-level reviews, and Board appeals may not
    have access to whichever system the outside records were scanned into.
    As advocates who work on clinical appeals, supplemental claims, and
    higher-level reviews only for PCAFC, this meant we were constantly
    having veterans and caregivers get additional copies of records to send
    in with every level of appeal they were doing so there would not be a
    delay in decisions while the appropriate records were gathered.
        Recently, QoLF reached out to VA Central Office (VACO) CSP
    leadership to ask if there had been a change for the collection of
    veterans' outside medical records after multiple caregivers came to us
    asking about mailing records to a P.O. Box in Janesville, WI, for
    initial or new applications. The reply we received in early June stated
    that all outside medical records were to be sent to the same
    Janesville, WI, mailbox as the 10-10 CG, the application form for
    PCAFC. (QoLF has supplied this correspondence to the HVAC majority DAMA
    and TechMod staffers.) VACO CSP stated the reason for this change was
    to offer a way to ensure veterans' outside medical records were getting
    into a system used by the CEATs and the Board, establishing uniformity.
    This policy change circumvented the multiple different scanning
    processes that veterans and caregivers had faced at the multiple VAMCs,
    allowing CEATs and the Board full access to all the information
    submitted with the initial application.
        QoLF was pleased to learn through the inquiry that, under this
    method, the elapsed time from opening the mail to scanning in received
    records is usually one to two business days. We do know that these
    records are now visible to the CEATs when making decisions. However, we
    are not sure what system these records are entered into. We know it is
    not the veteran's medical record, and the wording of inquiry response
    does not read as if the records are uploaded to the Caregiver Records
    Management Application (CARMA).
        QoLF's inquiry unearthed further complications. According to the
    answers we received, records submitted for VHA clinical appeals are not
    sent to Janesville, WI. PCAFC clinical appeals are submitted at the
    veterans' local VAMC to the Patient Advocate. The Patient Advocate then
    scans in the appeals paperwork, including any additional outside
    medical records the veteran and caregiver told VA were available but VA
    failed to collect as part of their ``duty to assist'' the veteran and
    caregiver in developing their application. These records are then
    uploaded and stored, in the Patient Advocate Tracking System (PATS)
    because VHA clinical appeals for PCAFC are governed by different
    directives than the VHA appeals which run under the VBA process. Should
    a veteran and caregiver decide to progress to a supplemental claim,
    higher level review, or Board appeal, QoLF is unclear how those records
    would be transferred from PATS into the new system outlined in the
    inquiry response. We know they have to be transferred as the appeal
    must be based on the latest decision stemming from that original PCAFC
    application decision; however, QoLF did not include this in our
    inquiry. This information was new to us as we began writing our
    testimony for this hearing, and our time for inquiry had passed.
        Please do not take our explanation of this new process as
    criticism. QoLF is thrilled that VACO CSP has taken steps to simplify
    getting outside records into the PCAFC application and appeal process.
    Inclusion of the veteran's outside medical records along with
    differential VAMC IT policies are two significant barriers to correct
    approvals in PCAFC, and we have included this in multiple congressional
    testimonies. However, as cited above, QoLF still has concerns about the
    multiple systems these records may be stored in and the fact they are
    not stored in the veteran's medical records, thus necessitating a
    second copy of the records be obtained for the veteran's doctors to use
    for treatment purposes.
        QoLF believes H.R. 3833, Veterans' Caregivers Appeals Modernization
    Act, would create a single system which would keep the veteran's
    outside medical records, PCAFC applications, PCAFC assessments, and all
    CEAT decisions, through all levels of appeals. This would give all
    advocates, agents, Veterans Service Officers (VSO), VA staff, and the
    Board access to the complete application and appeals process
    information, as well as needed medical documentation, for each veteran
    and caregiver in one records system, which is long overdue.
        QoLF has another concern that we ask this legislation to address.
    PCAFC falls under VHA as a clinical support program. As such, as
    advocates, we have to be recognized by VHA, something that is currently
    done through using Releases of Information (ROIs). Congress passed
    another form of VHA acknowledgment and certification for organizations
    that work within VHA under Section 129 of the Senator Elizabeth Dole
    21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act. However,
    lately we see this clinical program being confused as a VBA programs,
    in both practice and paperwork.
        Recently, we worked with a veteran and caregiver on an initial
    application to document the veteran's needs for assistance. The
    decision came back approved. However, the veteran's benefits service
    officer and organization were the one copied on the decision, even
    though this is not a benefit of nor decided by VBA. In fact, the
    application is a VHA application and has no area to designate a VSO
    representative. It concerns QoLF that this information is being
    released to a VSO, information that a veteran and caregiver may not
    want released. QoLF would ask that in this bill, that Congress re-
    affirm that PCAFC is a clinical intervention governed by VHA and that
    any technology and records system created to house this information be
    accessible to veterans, caregivers, and their accredited VHA
    representatives as deemed by VA under section 129 of the Senator
    Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Act.
        To remedy the confusion being found in practice, QoLF asks that
    this piece of legislation offer clarification on submission of a new
    application while an appeal is pending. Because PCAFC is a VHA program,
    QoLF has been told by VACO CSP that veterans and caregivers are allowed
    to submit new applications for PCAFC while appeals are pending. This
    submission of a new application for PCAFC does not impact the potential
    backpay that a caregiver and veteran dyad would receive if their appeal
    is granted in the future. Because we have this clarification, QoLF
    routinely has veterans and caregivers submit new applications for PCAFC
    while their supplemental claims, higher level reviews, and Board
    appeals languish in a usually no less than twenty-four months process.
    This new application is especially crucial for those veterans who are
    terminally ill.
        Clarifying the clinical nature of this program would allow more
    veteran and caregivers to fully access this program. Many VSOs treat
    PCAFC as a benefits program and tell caregiver and veteran dyads that
    submitting new applications will trigger a loss of entitlement to
    backpay, which is not true under the VHA process. QoLF currently has
    two caregivers in this situation. We have now helped them to ensure
    records document the evidence of the veteran's needs for assistance,
    but, because they fear losing back pay, as told to them by VSOs who
    work VBA Claims, they will not file new applications. The problem with
    these two particular cases is that there is a high likelihood neither
    applicant will be approved back to the original application as the
    initial medical records have a lack of evidence of need for assistance.
    This means not only will their appeals be denied, but they will also
    miss out on pay and other PCAFC assistance they could be receiving if
    they re-applied and were approved with a better developed record of
    evidence of need for assistance.
        QoLF is especially aware of the need to preserve the rights of
    caregivers whose veterans pass away during the appeals process. As it
    stands today, if caregivers fail to do the training and home visit for
    any reason, including if either the veteran or caregiver pass away
    during the appeal, the appeal dies because the caregiver has not
    completed training nor the home visit. It is the main reason that we
    encourage those dyads in appeal to submit a new application. If
    approved under the newly submitted application for PCAFC, then those
    caregivers are able to do the home visits and caregiver training with
    the approval of the new application. That means if the veteran or
    caregiver were to pass away during the appeal process, and the PCAFC
    appeal for the original application were eventually granted, then the
    surviving caregiver or veteran could receive the retroactive PCAFC pay
    because the caregiver had completed the training and home visit.
        QoLF appreciates that H.R. 3833 seeks to preserve the right to back
    pay for any surviving veteran or caregiver whether the training or the
    home visit are completed prior to the claimant's death, but we would
    ask for clarification on the ability of caregivers and veterans to file
    new applications while appeals are pending.
        QoLF appreciates this subcommittee's effort to create a unified
    system for gathering records and refining the appeals process for the
    VA's Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers. QoLF is
    glad to work with the Committee to make H.R. 3833, Veterans' Caregivers
    Appeals Modernization Act, come to fruition as it will work out many
    issues we encounter on a daily basis when working with our clients.

                       Prepared Statement of Sarah Stern
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    Prepared Statement of Shirion Collective
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Prepared Statement of Adam Zimmerman
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Prepared Statement of The American Legion
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                      Prepared Statement of Bethany Mandel
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      Prepared Statement of Administrative Conference of the United States
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    Prepared Statement of Afikim Foundation
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    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:

    H.R. 659, the ``Veterans Law Judge Experience Act''

        AFGE strongly supports Congresswoman Brownley's (D-CA) bill, the
    ``Veterans Law Judge Experience Act.'' This legislation would require
    the Board to give priority to Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) candidates
    ``with three or more years of legal professional experience in areas
    that pertain to the laws administered by the Secretary.''
        As AFGE Local President Doug Massey testified to the DAMA
    Subcommittee in November 2023, historically, VLJs were required to
    possess a minimum of 7 years of experience in veterans' law,
    acknowledging the intricate nature of the work involving complex legal
    statutes, evolving caselaw, and nuanced medical terminology in VA
    disability claims. In February 2020, the longstanding 7-year
    requirement was abruptly eliminated from the VLJ hiring criteria,
    opening the door for appointments for those without any veterans' law
    experience.
        This led to an influx of VLJ's who were ill-prepared for the job,
    who were slower to approve decisions and resulted in lowered output
    from the Board. In addition to fewer decisions, attorneys complain that
    the inexperienced VLJs struggle with approving quality decisions,
    requiring that attorneys train the VLJs for whom they work. Similarly,
    many of the Board's experienced VLJs are now tasked with training their
    new inexperienced colleagues, which detracts from time they could
    devote to signing decisions. Furthermore, the hiring of inexperienced
    VLJs has demoralized attorneys because it has foreclosed promotion
    opportunities to these coveted positions. Some attorneys have indicated
    they plan on retiring earlier than expected.
        Rep. Brownley's bill, prioritizing VLJ candidates who have 3 years'
    experience in veterans' law, would help reverse the Board's 2020
    decision, and prioritize qualified candidates for VLJ positions, which
    would better serve veterans, their families, and BVA employees.

    H.R. 3854, the ``Modernizing All Veterans and Survivors Claims
        Processing Act''

        AFGE opposes Congressman Valadao's (R-CA) bill, the ``Modernizing
    All Veterans and Survivors Claims Processing Act.'' This bill would
    require the VA to produce a plan to implement an automation tool, to
    the ``maximum extent possible'' for a wide range of functions related
    to the preparation and production of claims.
        AFGE understands the importance of utilizing technology to help
    with the assistance of carrying out VBA's mission reviewing claims and
    delivering benefits to veterans and their families. However, AFGE
    believes that technology should assist dedicated VBA workers, half of
    whom are veterans themselves, more accurately and efficiently perform
    their jobs. The scope of the tool proposed in this legislation is less
    about supporting VBA employees, and instead replacing them, without
    describing how VBA employees who do remain can ensure the automation
    tool in question is accurate.
        Before VBA develops and overreliance on automation, VBA must ensure
    that the tool is carefully drafted, and will not, even with the best
    intentions, delay veterans receiving their benefits.

    H.R. 3951, the ``Rural Veterans' Improved Access to Benefits Act of
        2025''

        AFGE opposes H.R. 3951, the ``Rural Veterans' Improved Access to
    Benefits Act of 2025.'' AFGE has long advocated against the continued
    contracting out of VA disability exams, commonly referred to as
    Compensation and Pension Exams, and believes that VA employees, who are
    experts in veterans care, are better prepared and equipped to perform
    these exams for less expense, compared to less effective contractors
    who get paid by the exam, at a higher cost to taxpayers. This is
    particularly true for specialty exams with such as military sexual
    trauma, spinal cord issues, or traumatic brain injuries.
        Despite this objection, if the committee proceeds with the
    consideration of this bill, it should pair it with ``Medical Disability
    Exam Improvement Act.'' This bill from 118th Congress (S. 2718),
    contained a provision (Section 4) that would require VA to pay for all
    in-house disability exams from the VBA account, instead of the VHA
    account. Doing this would encourage VBA to reduce waste and control
    costs, which would in turn encourage bringing these exams in house,
    improving the quality of exams and reducing the cost to the VA.
    Veterans would be better served by bringing as many exams as possible,
    especially specialty exams, in-house, and this committee should not
    consider further expanding contract exams without also making this
    commonsense change.

    H.R. 3983, the ``Veterans Claims Quality Improvement Act of 2025''

        AFGE supports the intention of H.R. 3983, the ``Veterans Claims
    Quality Improvement Act of 2025'' introduced by Chairman Luttrell (R-
    TX). This bill creates a multipronged approach that would attempt to
    address certain errors and avoidable deferrals at the Board of Veterans
    Appeals. AFGE particularly applauds Chairman Luttrell for the portion
    of the bill related to training of Veterans Law Judges and Board
    Attorneys, that incorporates the feedback of Board Attorneys. AFGE
    still has technical questions on the bill that it hopes are addressed
    during today's hearing and prior to a subcommittee markup.
        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 Aviva Klompas
    [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. 3123, Ernest Peltz Accrued Veterans Benefits Act

        The VFW supports this legislation to ensure survivors receive their
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pension benefit for the entire
    month in which a veteran dies. Receiving the full month-of-death
    benefit payment would better equip survivors to manage the financial
    hardships that accompany a veteran's death. Rather than abruptly
    stopping these benefits mid-month, VA would maintain the accustomed
    income immediately following the veteran's death, providing grieving
    survivors the resource to settle urgent end-of-life expenses.
        World War II veteran Ernest Peltz of Queensbury, New York, is the
    namesake of this bill. VA approved his accrued pension, which he wanted
    his survivors to use for his end-of-life care and funeral expenses. Due
    to its error, VA made the deposit 7 days after his death (during the
    following month) and then immediately recouped it, depriving his family
    of these funds to manage the imminent expenses after his death. This
    legislation would prevent this situation by ensuring that survivors
    receive a final, full pension payment during the month of the veteran's
    death, regardless of the date on which the veteran dies.

    H.R. 3627, Justice for America's Veterans and Survivors Act of 2025

        The VFW supports this legislation to direct VA to collect
    additional data on the causes of veterans' deaths and compile an annual
    report for the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs. This
    deliberate data collection and analysis could illuminate a variety of
    health-related trends to influence proactive, preventive treatment
    protocols such as suicide prevention interventions.

    H.R. 3833, Veterans' Caregiver Appeals Modernization Act of 2025

        The VFW supports this legislation to improve the application and
    appeals processes for the VA Program of Comprehensive Assistance for
    Family Members. This program allows eligible veterans to elect in-home
    care from a caregiver to whom VA provides a monthly stipend.
    Unfortunately, unlike the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) that
    houses all pertinent documents for disability claims in a single
    electronic folder, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) uses
    multiple electronic systems that are dissimilar to the Board of
    Veterans' Appeals (BVA) electronic records system. BVA is the entity
    that has final adjudication authority on caregiver program
    applications. This uncoordinated and disparate process causes
    information gaps among reviewers. This situation then leads to
    unnecessary remands, slowing the entire application process and
    ultimately delaying or depriving caregivers from receiving this vital
    benefit. Appealing a denied application is similarly arduous and can
    take years.
        This legislation would compel VA to develop and implement a single
    electronic application system so that every VHA and VBA employee in the
    application review process could access and view all application
    documents, thereby closing information gaps. In the case of successful
    appeals, caregivers could qualify for past-due caregiver stipends in
    instances in which the veteran died during the pendency of the appeal.
    Last, this legislation would require VA to provide consistent guidance
    and training to VHA employees who adjudicate caregiver applications.
    Upon implementation, the provisions in this bill would streamline VA's
    caregiver application process, enabling timely and accurate application
    decisions.

    H.R. 3834, Protecting Veterans Claim Options Act

        The VFW supports this legislation to require that the Board of
    Veterans' Appeals cannot deny the supplemental claim of a veteran
    solely on the basis that the appellant did not submit any new and
    relevant evidence. When VBA denies a claim, veterans may file one of
    three appeal options within 1 year of the denial. Currently, the
    supplemental claim option requires that veterans produce new and
    relevant evidence for VBA claims processors to review before a decision
    will be made, adding considerable time to the process. If VBA and BVA
    agree that the appellant added no new and relevant evidence, BVA will
    refuse to reconsider granting the veteran relief despite the appellant
    continuously pursuing the claim in a timely manner. This legislation
    would also elucidate that appellants may submit additional evidence to
    BVA in the event that the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
    Claims remands their case back to BVA. This is something the VFW has
    been requesting in order to stop the endless remand and appeals cycle.

    H.R. 3835, Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act of 2025

        The VFW supports this legislation to expand BVA authority to
    streamline the veteran appeals process to improve efficiency, reduce
    the inherent backlog of appeals at BVA, and allow appellants to receive
    quicker decisions. Veterans wait on average more than 2 years for an
    appeal decision, with some veterans waiting significantly longer when
    hearings are requested. BVA cannot reduce or eliminate its current
    appeals inventory of roughly 200,000 cases to functional zero by
    operating at its current rate and staff level. With an average of
    65,000 new claims received each year, faster and accurate decisions are
    not possible without streamlining BVA policies and procedures, and
    significantly increasing its staff size. Furthermore, there appears to
    be a lack of specific guidance on when a veteran's appeal is not only
    eligible to advance on the docket but also when it is likely to be
    decided, which leads to inconsistent appeal decisions.
        This proposal would also allow for the aggregation of claims, so
    multiple claims could be decided all at once. Since current law is
    unclear on whether or not BVA has the authority to aggregate claims, it
    presently does not use this method to streamline them. Additionally,
    this proposal would certify class actions that include veterans still
    waiting for a BVA decision. Under current law, the United States Court
    of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the Court) is prohibited from
    certifying any class that includes veterans who have not yet received a
    BVA decision. This prevents class actions and excludes those veterans
    who could benefit from joining a class action. Plaintiffs in other
    Federal courts can join class actions when they receive an initial
    unfavorable decision, but veterans who receive a VBA denial of their
    claim cannot. Thus, these veterans are denied the same access to class
    action options as other Americans.
        Last, this legislation would codify the Court's authority to issue
    limited remands to BVA and require the Court to issue rules on how and
    when it would do so. In previous testimony, the VFW expressed that
    there has been a problem with too many unnecessary remands. In Fiscal
    Year 2024, the Court remanded 83 percent of appeals back to BVA because
    of legal errors in BVA-issued decisions. Limited remands are when the
    Court orders BVA to address specific issues on which it erred without
    requiring BVA to issue a new decision on the entire, perhaps lengthy,
    and multi-issue appeal. Limited remands increase efficiency by
    eliminating the need to review a second time those issues on which BVA
    did not previously err. Though the Court has the authority to issue
    limited remands, it does not have rules and procedures in place for
    when a veteran can request a limited remand and when the Court should
    issue one. As a result, such actions are rare.

    H.R. 3854, Modernizing All Veterans and Survivors Claims Processing Act

        The VFW supports the intent of this legislation to direct VA to
    ensure the development and subsequent dissemination of an automation
    tool to aid in the processing of VA claims. Processes that would be
    automated would include the retrieval of service records or health
    records, compiling of evidence, decision support, facilitating
    information sharing between Federal agencies, and generating
    correspondence related to the claim. This proposal would also promote
    modifying existing automation tools where possible to increase the
    availability, functionality, and compatibility. While the VFW supports
    VA exploring the continued use of automation technology to improve
    processes and build a more responsive, customer-focused claims process,
    we have questions about how to prevent overreliance on an automated
    decision support tool. We strongly believe that claims decisions must
    include verification by a human as a critical part of the process.

    H.R. 3983, Veterans Claims Quality Improvement Act of 2025

        The VFW supports this multi-faceted legislation to improve training
    and oversight for VBA claims processors and BVA staff to enhance the
    accuracy, efficiency, and effectiveness of claims processing. The
    legislation would direct BVA to establish comprehensive and mutually
    supportive data-driven training and quality assurance programs to
    improve the accurate adjudication of appeals. This is something for
    which the VFW has expressed a need in previous testimony.
        Complementing these programs would be a revised performance
    evaluation system that would annually review the performance of BVA
    members versus the current triennial evaluation. Augmenting BVA's
    training and quality assurance regimen would be refined policies and
    procedures, and technology enhancements to reduce avoidable deferrals.
    This situation occurs when claims processors mistakenly think a claim
    needs additional evidence prior to adjudication, delaying decisions and
    wasting resources. The reporting requirement would enhance oversight of
    these initiatives and monitor the results.

    H.R. 3951, Rural Veterans' Improved Access to Benefits Act of 2025

        The VFW supports this legislation to extend the license portability
    for contracted health care professionals to perform VA disability
    examinations to January 2031. The disability examination system has
    evolved and expanded over many years. In 1996, as part of a pilot
    program, VA granted temporary license portability to allow contracted
    physicians to assist with disability examinations. Since the fall of
    2016, VA has transitioned from VA-conducted examinations in VA settings
    to contracted examinations in non-VA settings for nearly all disability
    examinations. Exceptions are examinations that VA personnel must
    specifically perform by law. By increasing the number of eligible
    providers, this legislation would accelerate the initial stage of the
    disability claims process, particularly for rural and tribal veterans
    who often have few examination options near their homes.

    H.R. 659, Veterans Law Judge Experience Act of 2025

        The VFW supports this legislation to require the Chairman of the
    Board of Veterans' Appeals to preferentially recommend individuals with
    three or more years of applicable legal experience to serve as members
    of the board. According to the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 38,
    Section 20.104, BVA has jurisdiction over a substantial number of
    appeals that cover a wide range including educational benefits,
    disability compensation claims, and a variety of other issues.
    Therefore, the chairman's recommendation of experienced individuals for
    these positions is prudent and integral to efficient and effective BVA
    operations.

    H.R. 2055, Caring for Survivors Act of 2025

        As stated in previous testimony, most recently before the Senate
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs on March 11, 2025, the VFW strongly
    supports this legislation. We have advocated for this legislation for
    the past several years and support its swift passage.
        The rate of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) paid to
    survivors of service members who died in the line of duty or veterans
    who died from service-related causes has only minimally increased since
    the benefit's inception in 1993. Currently, DIC pays 43 percent of the
    compensation of a 100 percent permanent and totally disabled
    beneficiary, while all other Federal survivor programs pay 55 percent.
    We strongly support this provision to increase DIC to 55 percent, on
    par with other Federal programs.
        Second, we support paying affected survivors the greater of this
    increased DIC or the amount of the older, rank-dependent compensation
    system in effect for deaths before 1993. This provision would equalize
    compensation across the rank structure, substantially increasing the
    compensation of the survivors of all enlisted personnel and nearly all
    officer decedents. Differentiating compensation based on rank unfairly
    disadvantages certain survivors.
        Third, the VFW supports reducing the time requirement of service-
    connected total disability for veterans whose cause of death is
    unrelated to a service-connected disability. The current requirement is
    for the veteran to have had a service-connected total disability for at
    least 10 years immediately preceding death. Reducing the requirement to
    5 years would expand the number of eligible survivors and greatly
    assisting them in restarting employment and other facets of life after
    caring for their disabled veterans.

    H.R. 2701, Fallen Servicemembers Religious Heritage Restoration Act

        The VFW supports this legislation to facilitate identifying the
    several hundred overseas graves of American-Jewish service members
    mistakenly buried under a Latin cross, and to confirm the decedents'
    religious affiliation. This information would aid descendants applying
    for a replacement headstone by not having to do this painstaking
    research themselves.
        The large number of casualties and the chaos of war directly
    contributed to burials with inappropriate headstones. During World War
    I, more than 100,000 Americans fell abroad during the country's first
    large-scale overseas combat deployment, and administrative errors were
    not uncommon. Complicating the situation during World War II, some
    American-Jewish service members who served in the European Theater
    deliberately concealed their religious affiliation to avoid torture or
    death if captured by the Nazis. An attractive feature of the bill is
    contracting with experienced nonprofit organizations rather than
    assigning the job to the relatively small staff of the American Battle
    Monuments Commission--the organization that administers, operates, and
    maintains these overseas cemeteries.
        American-Jewish service members who fought and died for our country
    deserve to have their religious heritage properly recognized and
    honored. The VFW advocates for rectifying this long-standing error to
    properly commemorate our war dead.

    H.R. 2721, Honoring our Heroes Act of 2025

        The VFW supports this legislation to expand eligibility for veteran
    burial benefits by establishing a 2-year pilot program to furnish a
    headstone or burial marker for those who died on or before November 1,
    1990. Under Public Law 101-508, enacted on November 5, 1990, VA can
    furnish a headstone or burial marker only for eligible veterans who
    died on or after November 1, 1990. This legislation would authorize VA
    to provide a headstone or burial marker for all eligible veterans
    regardless of date of death.
        Chairman Luttrell and Ranking Member McGarvey, this concludes my
    statement. Again, thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on
    these issues.

    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]