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

                             LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
      H.R. 6047, THE ``SHARRI BRILEY AND ERIC EDMUNDSON VETERANS BENEFITS
                                   EXPANSION
                     ACT OF 2025'', H.R. 4077, THE ``GUARD
                           VETERANS' HEALTH CARE ACT

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                         COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                          WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-37

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        Available via http://govinfo.gov

                                       _______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    62-618                    WASHINGTON : 2026

                         COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                         MIKE BOST, Illinois, Chairman

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

                           Jon Clark, Staff Director
                      Matt Reel, Democratic Staff Director

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

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2025

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Mike Bost, Chairman................................     1
    The Honorable Mark Takano, Ranking Member........................     4

                             SPEAKING FROM THE DAIS

    The Honorable Tom Barrett, U.S. House of Representatives, (MI-07)     7
    The Honorable Lloyd Doggett, U.S. House of Representatives, (TX-
      37)............................................................     9

                                   WITNESSES
                                    Panel I

    Mr. Edgar Edmundson, Father of Sgt. (Ret) Eric Edmundson.........    11

    Mrs. Sharri Briley, Surviving Spouse of CW3 Donovan "Bull" Briley    12

    Mr. Tom Wheaton, National Treasurer, Paralyzed Veterans of
      America (PVA)..................................................    14

    Dr. Brian Miller, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Johns
      Hopkins University.............................................    15

    Ms. Kristina Keenan, Legislative Director, Veterans of Foreign
      Wars (VFW).....................................................    17

                                    Panel II

    Ms. Margarita Devlin, Principal Deputy Undersecretary for
      Benefits, Performing the Delegable Duties of the Undersecretary
      for Benefits, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs..............    32

            Accompanied by:

        Ms. Stephanie Li, Assistant Director, Regulations,
            Legislation, Engagement, and Training, Veterans Benefits
            Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

        Ms. Heather Ford, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Veterans
            Health Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans
            Affairs

        Mr. Kevin Johnson, Director, Revenue Operations, and Office
            of Finance, Veterans Health Administration, U.S.
            Department of Veterans Affairs

                                    APPENDIX
                        Prepared Statements Of Witnesses

    Mr. Edgar Edmundson Prepared Statement...........................    45
    Mrs. Sharri Briley Prepared Statement............................    47
    Mr. Tom Wheaton Prepared Statement...............................    48
    Dr. Brian Miller, MD Prepared Statement..........................    53
    Ms. Kristina Keenan Prepared Statement...........................    65
    Ms. Margarita Devlin Prepared Statement..........................    67

                              APPENDIX--continued
                           Statements For The Record

    Disabled American Veterans Prepared Statement....................    71
    The Honorable French Hill, U.S. House of Representatives, (AR-
      02), Prepared Statement........................................    73
    The American Legion Prepared Statement...........................    75
    University School of Public Health Prepared Statement............    84
    Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors Prepared Statement......    91
    Gold Star Spouses of America, Inc. Prepared Statement............   105

                             LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
                    H.R. 6047, THE ``SHARRI BRILEY AND ERIC
      EDMUNDSON VETERANS BENEFITS EXPANSION ACT OF 2025'', H.R. 4077, THE
                       ``GUARD VETERANS' HEALTH CARE ACT

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2025

                        Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
                                 U.S. House of Representatives,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m., in
    room 360, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Mike Bost
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Bost, Bergman, Murphy, King-Hinds,
    Barrett, Takano, Doggett, Cherfilus-McCormick, Budzinski,
    Dexter, Conaway, and Morrison.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE BOST, CHAIRMAN

        The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. The committee will
    come to order. The chair may declare a recess at any point.
        The Chairman, in accordance with the committee rules, I am
    asking unanimous consent that Representative Doggett from Texas
    be permitted to participate in today's committee and
    subcommittee hearing today. Without objection, so ordered.
        Before we begin, I want to pause to recognize Sergeant
    Andrew Wolfe, who is recovering, and Specialist Sarah
    Beckstrom, who sadly passed from her injuries. When our
    National Guards are called from their civilian lives to serve
    and they answer without hesitation, that bravery and sense of
    duty is the cornerstone of what makes our military so
    exceptional. We hold their families, their units, and all those
    affected in our thoughts.
        I am glad to be here today to consider the following bills:
    H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans
    Benefits Expansion Act of 2025; H.R. 4077, the Guarantee
    Utilization of All Reimbursements for Delivery of Veterans'
    Health Care Act (GUARD) Veterans' Health Care Act. Before I
    discuss the bills before us, I would first like to welcome all
    of our witnesses who are here to testify on the impact that one
    of these bills would have on their veterans' communities.
        Mr. Edmundson, thank you to you and your family for
    traveling to Washington to be here. Ms. Briley, thank you for
    traveling to be here. The institution of Congress and this
    committee is honored to have two great Americans like you both
    sitting before us today.
        Eric, it is good to have you here as well. As a father, I
    know the weight that both you carry each day for your families.
    I just want to say thank you.
        We are here today to discuss H.R. 6047. This landmark bill
    would create a significant increase in benefits for a forgotten
    group of veterans and their families. This bill would
    permanently increase the monthly rate of VA's Dependency and
    Indemnity Compensation, DIC, by an additional 1 percent every
    year for the next 5 years. DIC is a tax-free U.S. Department of
    Veterans Affairs (VA) benefit that survivors, spouses, and
    dependents receive if their veteran or loved one's death has
    Active Duty training-related, service-connected, or if the
    veteran was rated a hundred percent disability for 10 years.
        While DIC is an increase to keep up with inflation, the
    base rate has not been increased since 1993. That is over 30
    years. This bill would change that by adding additional 1
    percent on top of any increase to account for the inflation for
    the next 5 years.
        Surviving families of our Nation's heroes like Sharri
    Briley, who this bill is named after, would benefit from this
    increase. Sharri is a surviving spouse of Donovan Lee ``Bull''
    Briley, an Army specialist operation helicopter pilot who lost
    his life during the Black Hawk Down Incident in Somalia in
    1993. Sharri and Donovan's daughter was just 5 years old when
    her father came home from the mission in a casket wrapped in
    Stars and Stripes.
        President Lincoln made a promise to the families like
    Riley's and the thousands more like them. In 1865, over 100
    years before Donovan would take the oath to give his life on
    behalf of the United States of America, that if it came to
    that, our Nation would ensure without hesitation that his widow
    and his child were taken care of and treated with dignity. This
    bill will help do that.
        The bill would also permanently increase VA's special
    monthly compensation, or SMC, by $10,000 for catastrophic
    disabled veterans who receive an R1, R2, or a T rating. These
    three tiers are the highest level of surviving connected
    compensation for veterans whose condition go far beyond 100
    percent disability. Veterans at these rates require regular in-
    home aid attendance under the supervision of a medical
    professional.
        A veteran like Eric right here before us, who H.R. 6047 is
    proudly named after Eric's parents, his sister, his wife, and
    his children care for him every single day. Their care does not
    stop because it is the weekend or because it is 5 p.m. or
    because they want a break. They are the unsung heroes, the
    great Americans who sacrifice every day, that care for our
    veterans who live, who forever change--whose lives have been
    forever changed by their service and the life--and they live
    with the visible and invisible wounds of war.
        Families like the Edmundsons would never expect you to say
    thank you, but we owe them a debt of gratitude that can never
    fully be repaid. This bill is for them and the thousands of
    families like theirs. It is a step forward and it reminds those
    families that America has their back.
        In order to pay for this bill, we would require any veteran
    rated at 70 percent or less to pay the home loan funding fee on
    their second home. Let me say that again. It would require
    veterans who have a 70 percent or below home loan, their second
    home loan would require a fee, that rate that all veterans
    currently pay. That is an average of $35 a month. No changes
    would be made to a veteran's first home buying experience. This
    ensures that veterans still have access to the American dream
    of owning a home without paying the funding fee on their first
    use regardless of the rating.
        Opening the funding fee is a realistic way to get this
    done. This bill cost over $7 billion and this is a path forward
    to get this across the finish line on behalf of the families it
    would positively impact, all while following Pay-As-You-Go
    (PAYGO). The legislation is the first realistic attempt by
    Congress in years to get something done for over 500,000
    recipients of these VA benefits. This bill represents a
    realistic attempt to increase VA's largest survivor benefit.
    This bill ensures the sacrifices of our military families and
    catastrophically injured veterans are not forgotten.
        I am sure there are many who will try to avoid the reality
    of this situation and try to say that we can make these
    expansions without an offset. Under my leadership, I live in
    the real world and I am focused on getting things done. I am
    focused on working with our Republican conference to make it a
    little easier for our families to make ends meet, especially
    the families of our American heroes.
        I remain concerned by the lack of bipartisanship and the
    rhetoric that continues to come from our friends on the other
    side of the aisle during these debates on a bill that would
    directly address the problems we serve--we try to try to fix on
    this committee and try to get them solved. My staff and I have
    spent months trying to understand what the other side of the
    aisle would need in order to support this very good bill.
    Unfortunately, we have not received that response. This is
    disappointing. I want this bill to be a bipartisan bill. Really
    do.
        Now, this is because Eric and Donovan were not serving
    Republicans or Democrats when they were overseas. They were
    fighting for all of us as American citizens. I took that same
    oath when I joined the Marine Corps and I have carried it with
    me every single day of this committee, especially as chairman.
        There may be some that have concerns about the offset,
    which I understand, but inaction, hand-wringing is a receipt
    for nothing getting done. I have heard that some critics of the
    bill have even told witnesses today that they should hold out
    for a better deal in the next Congress, that somehow our
    attempt to move this bill is somehow some kind of trick or
    partisan game. My message on that remains simple: there is no
    place for partisan politics when it comes to our veterans,
    especially with a bill that helps catastrophic disabled
    veterans and gives survivors an increase that they have been
    waiting for 30 years. That is way overdue. It is fiscally
    irresponsible.
        I look forward to a thorough discussion on this legislation
    before us. I would also like to thank Congressman Baretta--
    Barrett. It is a cold medicine. I am sorry. Yes. My friend and
    fellow veteran for his leadership on this issue.
        I want to take a moment, though, to express serious
    concerns with H.R. 4077, the so-called GUARD Veterans' Health
    Care Act. Now, despite its promised title, the bill risks doing
    the exact opposite of what it claims. It could harm veterans.
    The legislation is intended to allow VA to recover cost from
    Medicaid or Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, but, in reality,
    this would function as a punitive tax on Medicare Advantage
    plans that millions of veterans rely on. Over half of eligible
    Medicare beneficiaries, including many veterans, choose these
    plans because they offer robust benefits and broad access. This
    bill would force those plans to absorb new cost, which would
    inevitably lead to fewer benefits, smaller networks, and
    increase premiums for veterans and nonveterans alike. Worse,
    the bill would draw over 1 billion annually from the Hospital
    Insurance Trust Fund, accelerating its depletion and
    threatening Medicare's long-term sustainability.
        Now, I should remind my Democrat colleagues that the
    veterans earned their VA benefits and their Medicare benefits.
    It is wrong to put these two programs at odds with each other.
    If the goal is to better coordination between VA and Medicare,
    there are better ways to do that. This bill is not that. Let us
    not pass a law that punishes veterans while pretending to
    protect them.
        I now yield to Ranking Member Takano for his opening
    remarks.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF MARK TAKANO, RANKING MEMBER

        Mr. Takano. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are going to
    be spending a lot of time talking today about the VA Home Loan
    Guarantee Program. Before I begin my opening remarks, I want to
    take a moment to acknowledge the untimely passing of John Bell.
    Mr. Bell served as the executive director of Loan Guarantee
    Services for many years and testified before this committee on
    a number of occasions. His steady guidance steered VA through
    the COVID-19 pandemic and helped save tens of thousands of
    veterans from foreclosure. His leadership left an indelible
    mark on the VA Home Loan Program. Mr. Chairman, if you would
    indulge me for a moment, I would like to have a brief moment of
    silence for Mr. Bell and for Guardswoman Sarah Beckstrom, the
    recent horrible, tragic shooting of her. If we could take a
    brief moment.
        The Chairman. Without objection, a moment of silence.
        [Moment of silence.]
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Before moving on, I would also like to thank the witnesses
    who are here today to help us understand what is at stake. Ms.
    Briley, thank you for being here and for your courageous
    advocacy on behalf of survivors across this Nation. Your
    husband, Chief Warrant Officer 3 Donovan Lee ``Bull'' Briley, a
    night stalker killed in Mogadishu, is a hero who lived a life
    of service. Your decades of work supporting Gold Star families
    honors his legacy every day. Your testimony reminds us that
    behind every statistic is a home changed forever. Thank you,
    ma'am, for being here.
        Mr. Edmundson, thank you, sir, and your family and your
    son, Eric, Sergeant Eric Edmundson. Thank you, Eric. Thank you
    for sharing the story of your son Eric, who is here with us
    today. I was honored to meet with you, Eric, and your family
    yesterday. Your testimony lays bare what round-the-clock
    caregiving truly requires physically, emotionally, and
    financially, and why additional support for families like yours
    is not optional, but essential.
        Ms. Kristina Keenan of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW).
    Kristina, welcome back to testifying before the committee. I
    want to acknowledge something that is obvious to all of us. You
    are with child, very pregnant, and yet still doing the hard
    work of representing VA's membership. That grit is the
    definition of service. Your long record of advocacy, including
    your work on the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring
    our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act,
    strengthens this committee's work today. Thank you, Kristina.
        Mr. Tom Wheaton of Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA). Mr.
    Wheaton, thank you for your leadership and your decades of
    service with PVA. Your injury 36 years ago began a lifetime of
    advocacy to ensure veterans with spinal cord injuries receive
    the dignity, opportunity, and support that they have earned. We
    appreciate you lending your expertise and voice in today's
    discussion.
        All of your stories and the lives they represent are the
    very reason this work must be done right. Chairman Bost, just a
    few short weeks ago, you and I stood on the floor of the House
    of Representatives to support the Veterans Compensation Cost of
    Living Adjustment Act, an annual legislative action that you
    and I strongly support. As I said at the time, veterans, their
    dependents, caregivers, and families deserve every penny we as
    a Congress can deliver for them. Any policy idea that seeks to
    increase those benefits commensurate with the sacrifices of
    those we serve deserves to be heard. There is bipartisan
    agreement on that.
        There is also bipartisan agreement that an increase in
    benefits for severely disabled veterans and their survivors is
    long overdue. I am determined that we get it done not next
    Congress, but this Congress. That is why I strongly support the
    Caring for Survivors Act and the Love Lives On Act. That is why
    I support expanded access to care and benefits through new
    presumptions of service-connection. In a more perfect world,
    where once again I sit, where you are sitting today, Mr.
    Chairman, those bills and many more would be among our highest
    priorities. However, it is not the world we are in at present.
    We are left to consider the legislation that you have chosen to
    put before the committee today.
        Now, regarding the majority's bill H.R. 6047, the aims of
    this bill are noble. Its potential to help survivors and
    catastrophically disabled veterans is real. I cannot support
    the mechanism chosen to pay for it. As we all know, Mr.
    Chairman, policymaking is about choices. Nearly every bill we
    move or do not move requires that we make tough choices. In
    this case, Mr. Barrett and the co-sponsors of this bill have
    chosen to pay for much-needed increases in special monthly
    compensation and DIC by charging disabled veterans thousands of
    dollars in new fees to access their earned VA home loan
    benefit. This is a choice I cannot accept.
        Now, you all in the majority could have requested a waiver
    of House PAYGO rules. You could have sought offsets from other
    committees. You could have used offsets already at our disposal
    or you could have advanced this bill without an offset as
    Congress did in a bipartisan basis. We did that on a bipartisan
    basis with the PACT Act, and we figured it out. You all have
    not chosen any of these paths.
        Instead, Mr. Barrett and the authors of this bill have
    chosen to pit one group of disabled veterans against another,
    offering long overdue help to veterans--to survivors and
    catastrophically disabled veterans, but only at the direct
    expense of other disabled veterans. You all did so not as a
    last resort after exhausting every other way to pay for this
    increase, but as a first choice.
        Now, this proposal would create an entirely new,
    unprecedented tax on disabled veterans, specifically a tax on
    disabled veterans with a disability rating of 70 percent or
    below, who will now have to pay a fee to access their earned VA
    home loan benefits. Now, since the home loan program was
    created in 1944, the American people have never asked disabled
    veterans to pay a funding fee or the tax you are trying to
    impose on them now. We should not begin to tax disabled
    veterans now for the home loan program.
        We are clear about how this would play out. Under this
    bill, 3.2 million veterans, 3.2 million veterans, and countless
    more going forward would face higher costs just to use their
    earned home loan benefit. The average cost for the home in the
    United States is about $514,000. A disabled veteran using the
    VA home loan will be forced to pay an extra 17,000. We rounded
    that up, it is 16,968, roughly $17,000 at closing on average.
    That number is far more in higher cost areas.
        Now, without a doubt, Mr. Barrett's bill cuts benefits from
    one group of disabled veterans and taxes them in order to fund
    benefits for another group of disabled veterans. I am sorry,
    but this is a very troubling precedent and one that I simply
    cannot support.
        Well, now I would like to turn our attention to the other
    bill on today's agenda, the GUARD Veterans' Health Care Act.
    This legislation gives VA the authority to seek reimbursement
    from veterans' Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D plans for
    any healthcare services or prescription drugs veterans who are
    enrolled in these plans receive at VA. We have the bill's
    sponsor, Representative Doggett, here with us today to tell us
    more about it. I am not going to steal any of his thunder, so I
    am going to keep my opening remarks on it very brief.
        Before I close, I am just going to--like to point out the
    contrast between Mr. Barrett's bill and Mr. Doggett's bill. One
    bill, Mr. Barrett's, will take money away from disabled
    veterans in order to fund much-needed increases in benefits for
    survivors and severely disabled veterans. The other bill, Mr.
    Doggett's bill, will take money away from insurance companies,
    insurance companies that have been profiting from enrolling
    veterans in Medicare Advantage plans to the tune of as much as
    $23 billion per year for healthcare services their enrollees
    got at VA. It is not as if these insurance companies paid for
    any of these services. VA paid for them, but yet their
    shareholders at the insurance companies pocket the money.
        Unlike Mr. Barrett's bill, the GUARD Veterans' Health Care
    Act is a bipartisan, bicameral measure. I am proud to be co-
    leading this bill with Representative Doggett as well as fellow
    Veterans Affairs Committee members Dr. Murphy and Republican
    Representatives David Schweikert and John Joyce. On the other
    hand, Mr. Barrett's bill has attracted only Republican co-
    sponsors in the House.
        The GUARD Veterans' Health Care Act has the support of
    numerous veterans service organizations (VSO) and consumer
    advocacy organizations as a result of thoughtful, bipartisan,
    bicameral collaboration and cooperation. Unfortunately, Mr.
    Barrett's bill is not. The divergence between what the majority
    is proposing and what Mr. Doggett is proposing could not be
    more clear.
        As I said earlier, I know how essential these increases to
    SMC and DIC are. They can mean the difference between keeping
    the lights on or buying food for some people, not even to speak
    of the myriad care needs this money would help address. My
    Republican colleagues have engineered an impossible and false
    choice, pitting one group of disabled veterans against another
    group of disabled veterans. We know there are plenty of other
    ways to handle this cost.
        I want everyone here and those of you watching at home to
    know this, we, the Committee Democrats, are working urgently
    and in good faith to find another way to pay for DIC and SMC
    increases that does not tax disabled veterans. Disabled
    veterans already pay taxes just like the rest of us, and
    Americans are overwhelmingly willing to dedicate their tax
    dollars to support severely disabled veterans. We only need to
    ask them. We do not have to accept this false choice. We do not
    have to choose between survivors and disabled veterans. We can
    and must choose a path that honors both.
        I say to my colleagues, reject the cynicism of forcing
    disabled veterans to shoulder this burden. Choose a better way
    forward. Choose a path that will increase benefits for those
    who so urgently need them and protect benefits for those who
    already rely on VA. To the survivors, caregivers, and veterans
    in this room, I see you. We see you. We hear you. We are
    fighting for a solution worthy of your sacrifice.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member.
        I now recognize Mr. Barrett, and I can say it this time
    now, just so you know, to testify about his legislation that we
    are discussing here today. Representative Barrett.

                        STATEMENT OF TOM BARRETT

        Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Ranking Member, for holding this hearing today and really
    bringing forward this important issue and this important
    subject and one that has been overlooked for far too long. I
    want to also thank our panelists here today, especially the
    families. I really want you to know how much I appreciated
    spending time and discussing with all of you yesterday just how
    important this was and learning more about your story and the
    sacrifices your families have made, and more about, Sharri,
    your husband, of course, as well, and Eric, your service and
    the missions that you were on and some of the overlapping
    cavalry assignments we had. I really appreciated that. I want
    you to know how much I really thank you for being here and for
    being advocates and for what you are doing.
        I know we have already summarized a great deal about what
    these bills will do, and for you here today, I mean, I can
    explain what a piece of legislation would do with words written
    on a piece of paper. I think your testimony today will really
    convey to this committee just how important this is and why it
    matters so much for you and those that are in situations like
    yours.
        Sharri, one of the things that you said yesterday that
    really stood out to me was you said when your husband died that
    there were a lot of widowed women from previous conflicts,
    Korean war, World War II, that you became connected with, and
    they were trying to really stand in support of opportunities
    because they knew there would be widows that followed behind
    them. For you here today, I think that is a lasting legacy of
    those that are going to come behind you.
        As we know, we are going to face other conflicts that our
    country will face, that we will send men and women into combat
    to endure for us, and that they will tragically leave behind
    families of their own. You know, someday there is going to be a
    spouse that you talk to that will thank you for the work that
    you have done today. Thank you.
        To the Edmundson family, thank you for your advocacy. I
    know you have completely rearranged your entire life to
    accommodate this circumstance that has really fallen on you and
    to your family. To really see the connection and the bond that
    you have to put everything aside to care for your son and for
    his family is really just what makes the best of our country. I
    want you to know that this bill is something that is long
    overdue and one that we are going to continue to work on.
        I have only been in Congress 11 months. I am hardly an
    expert. I have not been here as long as the folks on the top of
    the dais that have much more seniority than I do. One thing I
    have learned while I have been here is that the easiest path in
    Congress is the status quo. It is hard to change anything. It
    is hard to do something that might be a little bit hard or a
    little bit difficult to explain or maybe something that takes a
    little bit of political risk in order to do. When that happens,
    the status quo just perpetuates over and over and over again,
    and families like yours then get left behind longer and longer.
    This bill today represents a shift certainly in that, to try
    and achieve something that has not been done, it is long
    overdue and might require some difficult decisions of
    policymakers. I did not run for office to push the easy button.
    I ran for office because I recognized that we face complicated
    challenges, and it is incumbent on us to really face that and
    do that in the most appropriate way.
        You know, if the ranking member is sincere in his efforts
    to work together to find ways to sculpt this, I am very open to
    that. I do not claim to have a monopoly on decision-making of
    how we go about things the best and most adequate way. I think
    it should not stop us from making ultimately what is in the
    best interest of those that are most severely impacted by the
    call of our country for the sacrifices that your families have
    made.
        I am encouraged by the work that we are doing on this
    committee. I am hopeful that we can move this bill and get this
    done and really accomplish what is long overdue for the
    thousands of other families in similar situations to yours. I
    cannot thank you again, how much it means to me for you to come
    here to testify in front of this committee today and for the
    rest of our panelists to be here and to provide your insight as
    well. We thank you for that.
        Mr. Chair, with that, I will yield back.
        The Chairman. I now recognize Representative Doggett for
    testifying about his legislation that we are also discussing
    here today. Representative.

                       STATEMENT OF LLOYD DOGGETT

        Mr. Doggett. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
    Ranking Member. I am pleased to see one of the co-leads on this
    legislation, Dr. Murphy, here, who you know other Republican
    physicians both here in the House and in the Senate, with Dr.
    Cassidy, have made this a truly bipartisan effort. It also is a
    bill seeing those who represent our veterans here from the
    service organizations. I am so pleased that this bipartisan
    legislation has been endorsed now by the Veterans of Foreign
    Wars, by the Paralyzed Veterans, by the American Legion, as
    well as a number of labor unions and Medicare groups.
        For years, private insurers have offered Medicare Advantage
    and Part D plans that have benefited from a loophole that
    allows them to take the premiums that are paid for by taxpayers
    for enrolled veterans while the VA actually provides the care.
    This is a waste of taxpayer dollars and it is drain on VA
    resources that should be invested in delivering more and better
    care to those who served our country and protected our
    freedoms. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this
    bill will save the Veterans Administration at least $10 billion
    every year.
        When a veteran is duly enrolled in other commercial
    insurance, say a veteran who is now working for a private
    employer, and that veteran prefers to go to the Veterans
    Administration and get their care, the Veterans Administration
    in turn asks the insurer for that private employer to pay the
    bill. Unfortunately, it does not work that way if the same
    veteran is relying on Medicare Advantage or Part D. This
    exemption, this requirement that the Veterans Administration
    cannot get reimbursed for Medicare actually predates as before
    there were ever any Medicare Advantage or Part D plans in
    existence and it just never got corrected.
        Medicare Advantage insurers are definitely advantaged. They
    are advantaged over other health insurers without having to pay
    for the care that they are getting paid premiums for. The
    Veterans Administration is disadvantaged because while any
    private hospital or other healthcare provider to whom a veteran
    would turn for care can be reimbursed, the Veterans
    Administration in this case cannot get a penny.
        This problem was brought to my attention as a result of
    some excellent investigating reports by the Wall Street
    Journal. Christopher Weaver and his colleagues exposed this
    lucrative loophole along with some academic research from Dr.
    David Myers. The Journal found that this loophole incentivizes
    Medicare Advantage insurers to increase their aggressive
    marketing to target veterans, in some cases offering them cash
    rebates to sign up for plans that they know they will never get
    reimbursement on from the Veterans Administration.
        Such dual enrollment has gone up by 63 percent from 2011 to
    2020 thanks to these marketing techniques. In one case, a duly
    enrolled veteran received a $100 per month cash rebate to stay
    on Medicare Advantage, while the plan received a $6,000
    taxpayer payment to cover his cost of care for the year, care
    which he received only through VA at taxpayer expense. Without
    this corrective legislation, the cost to taxpayers will
    continue to soar with insurers already making billions at the
    expense of veterans.
        I heard your objections, Mr. Chairman, and I respect the
    fact that you raised these concerns. Let me assure you that
    there is no tax being placed on Medicare Advantage plans. We
    only ask them to treat the Veterans Administration like they
    would any other private insurer. While I do not share the
    enthusiasm that some folks have for Medicare Advantage myself,
    let me make it clear that you can be as big a cheerleader for
    Medicare Advantage in general and its value as those TV
    promotional ads that are on nonstop right now during the
    enrollment season, but can still recognize that it is just
    plain wrong and not justifiable to deny the Veterans
    Administration the same ability to seek reimbursement from
    Medicare Advantage as it does from every other commercial plan.
        Regarding any cost shift impacting Medicare and the
    Medicare Trust Fund, Dr. Murphy and I, Congressman Schweikert,
    who is the co-sponsor of this bill, we all serve on the Ways
    and Means Committee, and I believe can say that Medicare
    Advantage plans are already generously, perhaps overly
    generously compensated for the care that they provide. I think
    that there is not any need for an increase in benefits out of
    the hospital trust fund or from Medicare for this.
        In short, then, the GUARD Veterans Care Act is simple. It
    allows VA to collect reimbursement for Medicare Advantage and
    Part D plans just as they already do from other insurers.
    Veterans will maintain the same plan choices they already have.
    Access to care at the VA will remain the same. They will not be
    subject to additional prior authorization barriers, copayments,
    or other challenges that a Medicare Advantage plan might try to
    impose beyond the restrictions that the Veterans Administration
    already has.
        I appreciate your consideration and hope you will be able
    to schedule a markup so that we can work together to improve
    veterans' healthcare and save taxpayers $10 billion each year.
    Thank you so much.
        The Chairman. That would help, would not it? Turn on the
    microphone. Thank you again.
        I would like to welcome our first panel to the table.
    Testifying before us today we have our first witness is Mr. Ed
    Edmundson, father and caregiver to a catastrophically disabled
    Army veteran, Sergeant Eric Edmundson. I want to also say a
    special welcome to Eric, who is here with us and the whole
    family is here with us today.
        Our second witness is Sharri Briley, surviving spouse of
    the Chief Warrant Officer 3 Donovan ``Bull'' Briley, testifying
    in her personal capacity.
        Our third witness is Mr. Tom Wheaton, national treasurer at
    Paralyzed Veterans of America.
        Our fourth witness is Brian Miller, a nonresident fellow at
    American Enterprise Institute.
        Our final witness is Ms. Kristina Keenan, national
    legislative service director at Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
    U.S.
        I ask all those witnesses that can please stand and all
    raise your right hand, please.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        The Chairman. Thank you. You may be seated and let the
    record reflect that witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        Mr. Edmundson, I now recognize you for 5 minutes for your
    testimony.

                      STATEMENT OF EDGAR EDMUNDSON

        Mr. Edmundson. Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano,
    members of the committee, thank you for giving me a few minutes
    of your time today.
        Time is something that we all talk about, but very few of
    us truly understand until life forces do. For my family that
    moment came on October 2, 2005, the day my son, Sergeant Eric
    Edmundson, was nearly killed in Iraq when his Striker was hit
    by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). In one breath our
    lives were split into before and after.
        Eric suffered many injuries, but the one that changed
    everything was the loss of oxygen to his brain. It took away
    his ability to speak, to walk, to live independently. It took
    away the future he had dreamed about. It placed our family on a
    path of 24-hour care that has now lasted for 20 years. I will
    never forget the sight of him at Walter Reed, 25 years old,
    hooked up to machines, his hands lying still in the bed. Just a
    month earlier, those hands had held his newborn daughter.
        In those early days after injury, doctors informed us that
    time was Eric's enemy. I remember standing over him and begging
    time to give us a chance. Give him time to heal. Give us time
    to learn how to care for him. Give us time to build a life
    around injuries no parent imagines for their child. Twenty
    years later, Eric is still battling with time.
        We now know exactly what it takes to succeed sustain a
    severely injured veteran: not luxuries, but life itself,
    basics, the basics of dignity. It means caregivers who truly
    understand his needs and know how to care and know how to
    take--keep him safe. It means a home that will not injure him,
    one that is adapted to support his independence now and as his
    needs change. It means transportation that keeps him connected
    to the world beyond our front door. It means adaptive equipment
    that provides comfort, mobility, and a way to communicate. It
    means opportunities and the support required to stay engaged
    with his community. It means respite care so the people who
    love him most do not collapse under the weight of constant
    vigilance.
        This bill recognizes something families like mine have
    known for a long time: catastrophic injuries do not get easier
    with age. They get harder. The original support well
    appreciated was never designed for 20 years of round-the-clock
    care.
        There is another truth time forces a family like mine to
    face: 1 day the injuries win. When a severely injured veteran
    passes away, the world may move on, but the family does not.
    The home we built around the injury, the equipment we needed,
    the debt, the medical costs, the financial strain of years of
    caregiving, those remain. That is why the proposed increase in
    Dependency Indemnity Compensation is not a small adjustment. It
    is a lifeline to protect the surviving families who gave
    everything year after year alongside their veterans. It allows
    them to keep a roof over their head, maintain the accessible
    home they relied on, to avoid falling into hardship after a
    lifetime of sacrifice. Increasing DIC honors the veteran's
    service by protecting the loved ones who stood by them through
    the worst days of their lives.
        Today my son is 45. He cannot speak for himself anymore, so
    I am here to speak for him. I am asking you to work together
    now to find a mechanism to ensure that the time he has and the
    time all severely injured veterans have is filled with the care
    and support they earned. Thank you for listening and thank you
    for recognizing what this truly means to the families who live
    it every single day because time is the one thing we cannot
    afford to lose.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Edgar Edmundson Appears In The
    Appendix]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Edmundson. Thank you for being
    the voice. Mr. Edmundson's statement will be entered into the
    hearing record.
        Ms. Briley, I now recognize you for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF SHARRI BRILEY

        Ms. Briley. Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano, and
    members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to come
    before you today to speak in support of the Sharri Briley and
    Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefit Expansion Act. I am Sharri
    Briley, the proud surviving spouse of Chief Warrant Officer 3
    Donovan Lee Brawley, also known as his call sign, Bull.
        Donovan was a Special Operations Black Hawk pilot and he
    was larger than life. He was born an aviator, brave, daring,
    and deeply devoted to his family. On one of our first dates he
    took me to was a college event. In the middle of our date he
    disappeared. The next thing I knew I looked up and I saw him
    rappelling head first down the building of a school building--
    down the side of the school building. I remember thinking to
    myself, who is this guy? Then of all things, we were married
    just 10 months later.
        Five years later, our daughter Jordan came along. Donovan
    was the dad who made every moment special. When she was little,
    Donovan would get home late from work and sing old hymns and
    patriotic songs with her until she fell asleep. He grew up
    singing in a choir and would constantly surprise me by crooning
    old Elvis songs to me. He loved reading to Jordan using all the
    different character voices. He taught her to ride a bike. One
    Christmas when he was outside her window in the cold, jingling
    bells so that she thought Santa was arriving. Those are the
    memories that mean the most, for far more than medals or
    ceremonies ever could.
        On 3 October 1993, Donovan was killed in Mogadishu,
    Somalia, when his helicopter was struck by a rocket-propelled
    grenade during Operation Gothic Serpent. His courage and his
    sacrifice and those of his comrades were more commonly known as
    Black Hawk Down. For Jordan and me, it was not a movie. It was
    our life and it still is, 32 years later. This month, December
    28th, would have been our 42d wedding anniversary.
        A few years after Donovan's death, I made it my mission to
    make sure families like mine are never forgotten and that the
    Nation that ask our loved ones to serve keeps its promise to
    care for those of us who are left behind. This legislation is
    deeply personal to me, and not because my name is on it, but
    because it acknowledges that survivors deserve more than words
    of sympathy. We deserve tangible support.
        For surviving spouses this bill would finally raise
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, DIC, by 1 percent each
    year for 5 years, in addition to the standard cost of living
    adjustment. Right now DIC pays $1,653 per month, an amount that
    has not been meaningfully increased since 1993. Over 500,000
    surviving spouses rely on this benefit, yet it has remained
    essentially stagnant for more than 30 years, even as the cost
    of housing, food, and childcare has continued to climb. A
    modest but consistent increase is a step in the right
    direction. It could help families manage groceries and medical
    expenses. Most importantly, it would signal that our government
    acknowledges and honors the ongoing sacrifices surviving
    spouses live with every day.
        October marked 32 years since Donovan's death. When I think
    of him I remember his laughter, his music, and the way he loved
    his family. I cannot change the fact that he did not come home.
    You, the members of this committee, have the ability to change
    what comes next for the families who live this reality every
    single day. As you consider this bill, I hope you will not only
    think about the numbers or the policy language, but about the
    families and the stories behind them.
        As a military spouse, we serve, too. The military becomes
    our family. There is shared duty and shared sacrifice.
    Servicemembers take care of each other in a way that goes far
    beyond obligation. They check on one another. They carry each
    other through fear and uncertainty, and they stand ready to
    step in before anyone even has--has even had a chance to ask.
    It is an unspoken promise, no one left behind.
        To this day, the men who served with my husband, Donovan,
    they still check on me and my daughter. I am very grateful for
    the friendship and the love that they have for us. As a
    surviving spouse, we learn quickly that our strength does not
    come from individual resilience, but from the trust we place in
    those who stand beside us. Families like mine have waited far
    too long, and this bill is our opportunity to finally act, to
    finally show that those who serve and those who stand beside
    them are valued, recognized, and supported. We will never stop
    fighting to increase DIC for parity with other Federal survivor
    programs.
        However, we believe it would be a betrayal to let this
    important first step, the first in years, pass us without
    lending our voices and elevating this issue to the critical
    position it deserves. We thank the committee for its
    willingness and the commitment to act now. We stand ready to
    continue the fight for the thousands of survivors whose lives
    will be better as a result.
        Thank you for your time, your compassion, and your
    dedication to upholding America's promise to its heroes and the
    loved ones they leave behind.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Sharri Briley Appears In The
    Appendix]

        The Chairman. The written statement of Ms. Briley will be
    entered into the hearing record.
        Mr. Wheaton, I now recognize you for 5 minutes for your
    testimony.

                        STATEMENT OF TOM WHEATON

        Mr. Wheaton. Chairman, thank you, and Ranking Member. I
    appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today on behalf of
    the Paralyzed Veterans of America about the importance of VA
    benefits to veterans with spinal cord injuries and disorders,
    their families, and survivors. My written statement covers both
    bills being discussed today. In the interest of time, I want to
    focus my comments on the one that has the greatest potential to
    directly affect our members.
        PVA strongly supports the provisions of the Sharri Briley
    and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act that would
    increase the rates of SMC for the most severely disabled
    veterans and DIC for their surviving family members. PVA has
    long been a supporter of raising baseline rates for these
    crucial benefits.
        Mr. Chairman, SMC is arguably the most important ancillary
    benefit for veterans with catastrophic disabilities, and the
    benefit is unique in that it is designed to address factors
    such as the profoundness of the disability, personal
    inconvenience, and social inadaptability. Even with additional
    financial support, many of our most severely disabled veterans
    are still struggling. They often spend more on daily home-based
    care and other disability-related needs than they receive in
    SMC, which creates a tremendous financial strain on them.
    Eventually, some are forced to opt for care in an institutional
    setting, which is even more costly to the taxpayer.
        I have found that living with a spinal cord injury creates
    costs that most other individuals do not typically have to
    face. Running into a wall or doorframe with my wheelchair is a
    little more damaging than bumping it with your arm or leg.
    Repairs to drywall and doorframes are just one example of the
    cost of being disabled.
        Also, clothing wears out faster as every point of contact
    between myself and my chair causes rips and worn spots. Plus,
    the need for adaptive and tailored clothes means that VA
    clothing allowance runs out quickly. Traveling is also more
    expensive. Many wheelchair people--many wheelchair users pay
    more in travel in first class on airplanes as the difficulty of
    getting on and off the aircraft is just too much due to their
    physical limitations. Then when we get to our destinations we
    might find that the adaptive hotel rooms only have one bed, so
    if a veteran has a caregiver traveling with them, they might
    need to rent two rooms instead of one.
        Simply completing basic tasks required of home ownership
    often triggers additional costs to those with a significant
    disability. Cleaning the house, mowing the lawn, general care
    of the property, even changing a light bulb, and many other
    things other people take for granted result in an additional
    cost for us because we often have to pay someone to do it. SMC
    is intended to assist veterans with higher costs of living that
    disabled veterans experience, but its baseline rates have not
    been raised for decades, so it is not helping veterans as much
    as it did when it was established.
        We are pleased to support the provision in this bill that
    would increase the rates of SMC, R1, R2, and T. We look forward
    to this increase becoming law.
        Mr. Chairman, my family has allowed me to live a full life.
    They have spent their lives caring for me and helping me enjoy
    mine. When I am gone, the amount that will be provided to my
    spouse will fall well short of what is needed to ensure my
    family's financial security. That is not the life I want to
    leave for them. They have served their Nation in their own way
    and deserve better than to be left impoverished once I am gone.
    Because of this, I have scrimped and saved where I can to
    buildup a tiny amount so that I have something to leave them.
    This is not right.
        I pay close attention to the efforts to increase DIC
    because I know any increase in that benefit is an increase in
    my family's future well-being. DIC is intended to protect the
    livelihood of survivors after the death of their loved one and
    more must be done to ensure this promise is kept.
        PVA supports this bill's plan to increase DIC's base amount
    by 1 percent every year for 5 years. This would be the most
    significant increase in survivor benefits in years and to my
    family and many others, it would offer a ray of hope.
        Thank you again for inviting me to share my story on behalf
    of my fellow PVA members. I look forward to answering
    questions.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Tom Wheaton Appears In The
    Appendix]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Wheaton. The written statement
    of Mr. Wheaton will be entered into the hearing record.
        Dr. Miller, I now recognize you for 5 minutes for your
    opening testimony.

                       STATEMENT OF BRIAN MILLER

        Dr. Miller. Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano, and
    distinguished members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
    thank you for allowing me to join you and share my views on VA-
    Medicare benefits coordination.
        I am a practicing physician and last week I worked in the
    hospital. I recognize that benefits coordination is just as
    important as care coordination. Today I am here in my personal
    capacity and my views do not represent those of the Johns
    Hopkins University, the American Enterprise Institute, or the
    Medicare Payment Advisory Commission on which I serve.
        I have three points to share with you today. First,
    veterans should be able to access all of their earned benefits.
    This means their veterans' health benefits and their Medicare
    benefits together. Today they cannot, and that is just wrong.
    Veterans have access to two programs, and despite their complex
    health needs, veterans are forced to choose between two
    options. Together, the VA and Medicare could more fully meet
    their needs if we improve benefits coordination.
        If you work and earn Medicare benefits and you serve and
    earn veterans' health benefits, you cannot access them and use
    them together to pay for your care. Compared to other
    Americans, veterans have not received the same respect and
    investment from health policy and improving access to benefits.
        In contrast, the Medicare's program interfaced with other
    health benefits markets has received a lot of attention. For
    example, TRICARE for Life serves as a Medigap plan, allowing
    TRICARE enrollees to fully access their Medicare and TRICARE
    benefits together. Unions and large employers have group MA
    plans so that union retirees can fully access and use their
    Medicare benefits and union retiree healthcare benefits
    together. , Congress has created these coordination mechanisms
    over 20 years ago.
        Second, H.R. 4077, the GUARD Act, is not the right answer
    to the problem of duplicative payment across the VA and
    Medicare, nor is it the solution for the lack of benefits
    coordination. Instead it transfers costs from the VA to
    Medicare. Policymakers are right to be concerned about
    duplicative payment in the VA and Medicare programs. In fact,
    this has been an issue for both formulations of Medicare, both
    fee-for-service Medicare and Medicare Advantage for years, with
    Government Accountability Office reports as far back as 1979,
    before I was born, denoting the lack of benefits coordination
    resulting in duplicative payment. I would note that Medicare
    Advantage did not exist in 1979.
        A decade after the most recent GAO report we have yet to
    fully execute on the GAO's short-term recommendations to help
    solve this problem, specifically implementing permanent data
    sharing between the VA and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
    Services (CMS) to promote coordination across the VA and
    Medicare. We also have other near-term solutions to address the
    challenge on the MA side that has not been fully explored, such
    as the VA U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) adjuster, which
    modifies the MA benchmarks to account for VA spending,
    rendering such statutory change unnecessary. Yet this
    legislation points out the challenge of benefits coordination,
    an issue from the perspective of the VA in both the Medicare
    Advantage and fee-for-service Medicare arenas. While U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Resources (HHS) Secretary
    Kennedy has used this language in other policy arenas, his
    lessons here are applicable, as solving this problem requires
    long term solutions to address root causes.
        Third, here is what we could do in the near term and long
    term. In the near term, we should fully execute on what is
    already been recommended. We should implement a permanent data-
    sharing agreement between the VA and CMS and promote the long-
    term creation of technical and operational data sharing for
    enrollment, utilization, diagnosis, and other data and
    necessary information to avoid duplicative payment. We should
    also review and modify the VA DOD adjuster for MA plans as
    appropriate, while also ensuring that CMS implements prepayment
    claims editing and fee-for-service Medicare to avoid
    duplicative payment there, too.
        In the long term, we actually need to address the root
    cause. If you are a veteran, you should be able to access all
    of your fully earned benefits and use them together. You
    cannot. What we could do, one, create coordination offices at
    the VA and CMS using the model of the Medicare-Medicaid
    Coordination Office at CMS, which was actually created as part
    of the Affordable Care Act, and task the VA Community Care
    Office on the VA side. We can also create a Veterans Health
    Benefits Marketplace with an annual enrollment period aligned
    with Medicare enrollment and then apply lessons from TRICARE
    for Life and the Union Group Medicare Advantage Retiree Health
    Plans and authorize these sorts of programs on a 5-year cycle
    to ensure that veterans can fully access their earned VA
    benefits and Medicare benefits simultaneously. These programs
    could ensure that the VA health system forever remains the
    center of the veteran's care.
        There are more details in my submitted written testimony
    and I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Brian Miller Appears In The
    Appendix]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Miller. The written statement
    of Dr. Miller will be entered into the hearing record.
        Ms. Keenan, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for your
    opening testimony.

                      STATEMENT OF KRISTINA KEENAN

        Ms. Keenan. Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano, and
    members of the committee, on behalf of the men and women of the
    Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its
    Auxiliary, thank you for the opportunity to prevent the VFW--to
    present the VFW's views on pending legislation. The VFW
    supports H.R. 4077, the GUARD Veterans' Health Care Act, to
    allow VA to recover costs from Medicare Advantage and Medicare
    Part D plans, closing the taxpayer cost duplication loophole
    that results in payments for care that those plans do not
    provide. This would strengthen VA's financial stability. Our
    support is backed by VFW Resolution 603, which affirms the
    organization's commitment to ensuring VA can collect
    appropriate medical reimbursements. The VFW stresses the need
    for careful implementation of this legislation and strong
    oversight to avoid administrative burdens or improper copay
    increases imposed by these insurers on veterans.
        Turning to H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson
    Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2025. While the VFW
    appreciates the committee's focus on strengthening the benefits
    included, we are very concerned about how this legislation will
    be financed through expanding the VA Home Loan funding fee. The
    VA Home Loan program has been one of the most impactful
    benefits ever created for veterans since World War II. It has
    helped veterans achieve stable, long-term homeownership.
        Through the 80-year history of the program disabled
    veterans have always been exempt from the funding fee. They
    earned that exemption through their service and their injuries.
    H.R. 6047 would break that longstanding promise by opposing a
    funding fee on veterans with a VA disability rating of 70
    percent or below on their second and future uses of the loan.
    That is not a minor adjustment. It makes home purchases more
    expensive and is a fundamental shift in how we treat disabled
    veterans. In accordance with VFW's Resolution 601, the VFW
    opposes reducing benefits of one group of veterans to expand
    those of another.
        The VFW recently testified at a hearing, a Senate hearing,
    and participated in House roundtables in response to numerous
    articles by the Washington Post that have claimed that
    veterans' benefits are too generous. We wholeheartedly disagree
    and urge our leaders to honor the contract. When we joined the
    military, we entered into a service contract that obligated us
    to face dangerous conditions and to train and deploy whenever
    and wherever required. That contract also obligates the Federal
    Government to provide benefits to veterans when they get out.
    For generations, these benefits have been viewed as earned
    rights, not financial levers to be manipulated by offsets.
        This proposal creates a designation where some disabled
    veterans deserve to pay and others do not. The VFW rejects the
    entire premise of that debate. Disabled veterans have already
    paid in service, injury, and hardship. They should not be asked
    to pay again through fees.
        If Congress decides to reduce this benefit, what stops
    future Congresses from going even further? Would VA charge fees
    to file claims or to access voc rehab? Why target disabled
    veterans for this offset at all? Congress has other options
    available, options that do not place the burden on disabled
    veterans.
        Regarding the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation portion
    of the bill, it includes a small increase, but it is nowhere
    near the level the VFW has been advocating. Survivors currently
    receive only 43 percent of what a totally disabled veteran
    receives, compared to the 55 percent in other Federal survivor
    programs. Under this proposal, survivors would only see a 2
    percent increase over 5 years, far short of the 55 percent
    parity the VFW has supported.
        The VFW wants to see increases in support for the most
    severely disabled veterans and we want to see survivor benefits
    strengthened. The people in this room, on this panel deserve
    that. We agree that these are long overdue. If this committee
    finds a different way to pay for these, the VFW would be proud
    to support it. We cannot endorse a precedent that makes
    disabled veterans pay and fundamentally changes how veteran
    benefits are valued, accessed, and protected. Honor the
    contract, protect the integrity of the VA Home Loan program,
    and protect the benefits that veterans have earned.
        Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano, this concludes my
    remarks. I am prepared to answer any questions you or the
    members of the committee may have.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Kristina Keenan Appears In The
    Appendix]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Keenan. The written statement
    of Ms. Keenan will be entered into the hearing record.
        We will now turn to questions, and I yield to myself for 5
    minutes as soon as I can get down to my questions.
        Mr. Edmundson, what do you say to those who are unwilling
    to support this bill because they believe it should be done by
    another Congress? To put it more simply, why should we address
    the issue now?
        Mr. Edmundson. For one reason or another, this issue has
    been bypassed. It is very important for Eric and the hundreds
    of other veterans like him to get this bill passed to ensure
    that there--as they--Eric improves that things that he needs
    are there in place for him as he gets better and moves on with
    life. Eric has earned the right to support his family. He--Eric
    has earned that right. I am sorry. This bill would ensure that
    Eric and the other hundreds of thousands of veterans like him
    will be able to move forward in the future, in the present,
    help his caregivers who are with him 24/7. All the veterans
    have caregivers. It is just very, I apologize, it is very
    important.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Ms. Briley, can you speak more about the experience of the
    aftermath of losing your husband and raising your daughter with
    the help of DIC benefits?
        Ms. Briley. Thank you, Chairman. We have struggled. I have
    held part-time jobs. I wanted to be there for my daughter
    during her school-age years and DIC just was not enough. We,
    through my family and other--my church, I was allowed to work
    as my--the financial secretary's assistant and just offered
    part-time jobs just to make up for the loss of--I mean, my
    husband when he died, three-fourths of his salary was cut. That
    is just not enough to sustain a healthy living or a lifestyle.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Ms. Keenan, and I know you know the answer to this, but I
    want to get it on the record, do you understand that the law,
    Congress is required to have offsets increasing in mandatory
    spending?
        Ms. Keenan. Yes.
        The Chairman. I understand we have concerns about the
    offset that we are looking at and what is being proposed. What
    additional offsets do you have proposed?
        Ms. Keenan. Thank you for the question, Chairman. We are
    absolutely open to being at the table discussing directly with
    you and your team any other options for offsets that do not
    negatively impact disabled veterans.
        The Chairman. Okay. It is pretty important that everyone
    that is listening to this and know and understand that we have
    been asking for offset from the other side of the aisle to help
    with us since August. Since August. We understand that they put
    in a proposed bill, but they did that 2 weeks ago.
        This is not a game. The statement that was made earlier
    about ``The Crying Games,'' which I am not familiar with that
    movie, maybe it is an age thing, I do not know, but I pretty
    well understand what was involved in the movie and that was
    pitting one against the other. No one wants to pit our veterans
    against our veterans. We do not. We need to quit playing--we
    need to be bipartisan in how we achieve what desperately needs
    to be done on this side of the issue with our veterans that
    truly are the most severely disabled. I am more than willing to
    hear and understand, but it is not going to be when we continue
    to waste time while waiting for somebody else to come up with
    an answer.
        Let me tell you all this real quickly on my short time that
    I have left, too. The numbers that were put back here were not
    accurate. Now, anyone that has to pay, there is a concern and I
    know that the VFW does have that concern, but that was the
    numbers of everyone that uses a home loan, not everybody that
    seeks a second home loan. Okay? We will look and we will try to
    find out what the answer is going to be.
        I appreciate everyone for being here, and I now recognize
    Ranking Member for his questions.
        Mr. Takano. Well, Mr. Chairman, you are responsible for
    moving legislation out of this committee and you have the habit
    of trying to put the responsibility on veterans service
    organizations and us in the minority every time we disagree
    with your proposals to cut one set of veterans benefits to pay
    for another, one set of disabled veterans benefits to pay for
    another group of veterans. I am more than willing to have a
    conversation about offsets. It is odd to me that your go-to
    money raiser is to tax disabled veterans in order to pay for
    the benefits of another group of veterans.
        I would be happy to deliver a better bill that fully
    addresses the DIC disparity without taking a benefit from
    disabled veterans or charging them a tax to use their own
    earned benefits, just like I did with the PACT Act. You will
    recall that is what we did.
        Can you tell me who is saying that we should wait? I do not
    want to wait. I want to get this done this Congress.
        The Chairman. Yes, I will be glad to answer that question
    if you will yield.
        Mr. Takano. I will yield.
        The Chairman. We had conversations with people who have met
    with your side of the aisle and one particular person was told
    just wait till the next Congress, just wait till the next
    Congress. I think since 1993, we have waited for enough
    Congresses and we need to find the response now. We have waited
    from your side of the aisle since August.
        Mr. Takano. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Time is reclaimed.
        Mr. Takano. I have cited two other bills that are far more
    generous than the benefits that we would offer both groups of
    severely disabled veterans. You have not brought those bills to
    this committee. I am not willing to wait. I want to get this
    done now. You are bringing a bill before us today that does a
    fraction of what those other two bills do and you know it.
        I would like to just now get to my questions. I would like
    to say to Mr. Edmundson and Ms. Briley that I deeply appreciate
    your being here and your continued advocacy on behalf of
    veterans and survivors. I will reiterate what I said to you in
    my office yesterday. I never said to either--to Mr. Edmundson
    that I want you to wait and that we can wait till next
    Congress. I hear you loud and clear, both of you, that we need
    to get your benefits enhanced now.
        Frankly, Ms. Briley, I am not happy that these benefits are
    temporary. Are temporary. They are a fraction of what they
    should be. We have--I have signed on to bills that would more
    fully close that gap. I will not let politics or self-righteous
    imposed offset rules get in the way.
        Now, Ms. Keenan, I believe that the increases in SMC and
    DIC are very much needed. In fact, especially with DIC, I think
    the increases should be even greater. Does VFW agree that these
    increases are warranted?
        Ms. Keenan. Yes, we do.
        Mr. Takano. In fact, in your conversations, is there anyone
    you know who does not want to see catastrophically injured
    veterans and survivors receive more money?
        Ms. Keenan. No.
        Mr. Takano. Well, thank you for that. I think there is
    universal agreement that SMC and DIC are long overdue for
    increases. We all want to see those benefits increase. The
    policy disagreements come when we are presented with the minor
    increases in benefits and ask other disabled veterans to pay
    for them. Personally, I do not think veterans benefits should
    have to be paid for by cuts from anywhere else at all. We made
    a promise to those who volunteered to serve that we would take
    care of them when their services were done.
        There is another way to address the cost of this bill aside
    from cutting veterans' benefits. The majority could ask for a
    waiver of House rules. They could ask other committees for
    help. They could use the committee's existing offsets. Yet they
    chose this.
        I have been trying to find an alternative way to pay for
    these increases and maybe even expand them even more. The idea
    I have landed on is the transferability of the home loan
    benefit. That is a veteran who has not used their VA home loan
    could transfer it to a dependent and, in some cases,
    descendants. I have asked this language to be drafted and we
    should have--and we should have it before the markup in the
    next few days. We would VFW support a concept like
    transferability?
        Ms. Keenan. Thank you for the question. The VFW has a
    current resolution passed at our national convention to support
    the transferability of the home loan benefit, particularly to
    descendants of veterans who were unable to use the Home Loan
    Program while they were alive. It is something that we would
    definitely take a look at and likely support.
        Mr. Takano. Mr. Chairman, I would submit, you know, the
    majority pushed through a reconciliation bill that made
    hundreds of billions of dollars, trillions of dollars in tax
    cuts permanent to billionaires and the richest corporations of
    America. Yet we are quibbling over whether or not we can afford
    this DIC and SMC increase. That does not sit square with me. We
    can find a way to do this without taxing disabled veterans.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlemen yields back.
        General Bergman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
    of our witnesses. You have all been very articulate,
    passionate, and I did not see emotion. I saw the passion for
    what you have been through, how you deal with it on a daily
    basis. I share that passion with you completely. Just know we
    may have different ideas about how things should be done here,
    but I believe deep down all of the members of this committee
    are committed to doing the right thing for all of you going
    forward. Okay?
        I would like to use my time to focus a bit on H.R. 4077,
    the GUARD Veterans' Health Care Act. I believe the intent here
    is good, aiming to allow VA to recoup costs for care delivered
    to veterans who are dually enrolled in VA and insurance through
    Medicare Advantage. I am concerned that the bill may address
    the problem on the back end by billing Medicare after care is
    already delivered rather than addressing the front-end issues
    that actually create potentially duplicative costs. The right
    hand does not know what the left hand is doing, so let us kind
    of sequence them in a way that minimizes that. In doing so,
    that the way it is being done now, it could unintentionally
    shift billions into new of new expenses onto Medicare, raising
    costs for all seniors and potentially worsening care
    coordination for the very veterans that we are trying to help.
        Dr. Miller, given that nearly all veterans over 65 are
    enrolled in Medicare, could allowing VA to bill Medicare
    Advantage for virtually all care, including care that Medicare
    Advantage plans currently adjust for, could that shift
    financial burdens onto Medicare?
        Dr. Miller. Absolutely, and it does not help the veteran.
        Mr. Bergman. Okay. What would happen to Medicare Advantage,
    the premiums, benefits, and networks, if plans were required to
    absorb these added costs?
        Dr. Miller. It would result in higher premiums, decreased
    supplemental benefits, and narrower networks for all seniors.
        Mr. Bergman. Okay. Dr. Miller, does H.R. 4077 actually
    reduce overall Federal spending or does it simply just move
    billions in VA costs onto mandatory Medicare spending,
    ultimately worsening Medicare's fiscal situation?
        Dr. Miller. That is exactly what it does.
        Mr. Bergman. Okay. Dr. Miller, if the stated problem is
    plan overpayments for veterans enrolled in Medicare Advantage,
    is not it true that CMS already adjusts benchmarks to account
    for that?
        Dr. Miller. That is correct. That was part of the 2003
    Medicare Modernization Act.
        Mr. Bergman. Okay. Could VA and CMS take administrative
    action to address any remaining concerns?
        Dr. Miller. Absolutely. No statutory change is required.
        Mr. Bergman. Okay. That is within their power. Okay.
        Ms. Keenan, by the way, as a father and grandfather,
    congratulations. I am excited for you. We just had the newest
    addition to our team. Our deputy chief is a new mom as of about
    a month ago. I have got pictures literally from 2 minutes ago
    of this new little bundle of joy, so congratulations. Send
    pictures when the time is right. Okay?
        Now, on a serious note, would VFW support legislation aimed
    at strengthening front end coordination between VA and Medicare
    Advantage, such as date sharing, better care integration, et
    cetera, rather than only after care is provided to a veteran?
    Can we get this going on the front end?
        Ms. Keenan. Thank you for the question. I think that is a
    great way to look at this. We would be open to having those
    discussions to make that coordination go more smoothly. We do
    have a resolution to support the reimbursement process as well,
    but we are looking for commonsense solutions. Happy to work
    more with you on some of those options.
        Mr. Bergman. Thank you. The simple version is let us be
    proactive rather than reactive. As the old saying goes, when
    you are in a hole, put the shovel down, quit digging, because
    the hole gets deeper. Crawl out, take a look at, you know, what
    is going on out there and figure out a way to do what you are
    doing.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Representative Dexter.
        Ms. Dexter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our
    witnesses for being here. Ms. Briley and Mr. Edmundson, thank
    you for your passionate and very compelling testimony and for
    your service to our country and caring for your family members.
    Eric, you cannot imagine what your honored service means to us
    and what we need to do to take care of you and your family.
    Thank you.
        There is no question that this committee must come together
    and raise Dependency and Indemnity Compensation and Special
    Monthly Compensation. Our veteran families deserve care, and we
    must honor our commitment, our contract with them and their
    service and their families.
        What you have shared mirrors what I have heard from
    veterans across my district. It is clear we are not doing
    enough to ensure disabled veterans, caregivers, and surviving
    families have what they need to get by, let alone thrive. I
    fully support increasing these benefits and I am committed to
    working with my colleagues to make sure that we have a
    responsible and workable way to pay for them.
        However, placing a new fee on disabled veterans who are
    trying to buy a home to pay for these benefits is not an
    acceptable solution for the people I represent. If money can be
    found to give tax breaks to billionaires, we certainly should
    be able to find the money to honor the service of our disabled
    veterans.
        In Hood River, a rural county in my district, the median
    home price is now more than $800,000. Under the current
    proposal in H.R. 6047, a disabled veteran would face a funding
    fee of more than $26,000. Twenty-six thousand dollars. As Mr.
    Wheaton noted, veterans with disabilities face higher daily
    costs for everything from travel to home repairs to clothing.
    Are we really prepared to add another major expense to their
    household budgets? If a veteran cannot pay that 26,000 up front
    and it is rolled into their mortgage, the interest brings the
    total estimated cost to $162 more each month. That is $162 less
    for groceries, medication, and basic needs. For someone living
    on a fixed income, that is a serious strain.
        Mr. Keenan, can you speak to what this new fee would mean
    for veterans day to day and what it would mean for their long-
    term financial stability? Sorry I said ``Mr.'' and I am looking
    at Mr. Wheaton and said Mr. Keenan, I am so sorry. It is for
    Ms. Keenan.
        Ms. Keenan. No problem. Imposing this fee on disabled
    veterans makes home ownership less affordable. You gave some
    statistics. The average VA home loan would give at least 13 to
    $15,000 more on the cost of their home. That is across the
    board, 2025 numbers from the VA. As you said, even if this gets
    rolled into the loan itself, it will take them several years
    longer just to break that equity break-even point to where it
    would make sense for them to sell their home in the future.
        It is a significant shift in the benefit. It is a reduction
    of the benefit for disabled veterans. It is very concerning
    that we would even look at that as a way to finance other
    legislation.
        Ms. Dexter. I absolutely agree. There are clearly other
    ways that we can responsibly pay for these long overdue
    increases.
        Ranking Member Takano has been developing a proposal that
    would allow loan transference to dependents, potentially
    widening the loan pool and supporting intergenerational living.
    Ms. Keenan, can you speak to what it would mean for a veteran
    to transfer their loan to a dependent and how that could
    support intergenerational wealth-building and more stable
    living arrangements?
        Ms. Keenan. I will give the example of my own mother. She
    was a Vietnam era veteran and as a woman did not even know
    while she was alive that she was entitled to the home loan
    benefit and a variety of other benefits. Women were not really
    looked at as real veterans at that time, and she struggled a
    lot in life and that home loan could have given her some
    stability, especially after she got in the military and was a
    single mother. These have real life generational impacts. I, as
    a veteran, because I served, I used the VA home loan, but this
    was decades after her period of service and after she was
    actually alive.
        We strongly support transferability to right some of these
    historic wrongs. The folks that would use this are not disabled
    veterans. They would pay the funding fee and, in fact,
    strengthen the program over time.
        Ms. Dexter. Thank you. I just also want to quickly voice my
    support for the GUARD Veterans' Health Care Act. As a physician
    who has cared for patients for over 20 years, I am laser-
    focused on transformation of our healthcare system that
    recenters patients, not consolidated corporate power, and puts
    physicians who know how to serve their patients back in the
    driver's seat. Our veterans deserve to receive accessible,
    high-quality care and their benefits are meant to cover the
    services they receive, not to drive further profit for for-
    profit companies. We have to get serious about fixing the
    inefficiencies that lead to these overpayments. If we do not,
    we will continue to drain VA of the resources it needs to
    improve and expand care for those who have served this country.
        I take your points, Dr. Miller, about the need for improved
    data collection and care coordination, and do not disagree.
    Those reforms alone are not enough to fix what is broken here.
        I want to thank Dr. Murphy on the other side of the aisle
    for his leadership on this bill. I hope there are ways we can
    continue to work together in a bipartisan manner to fortify the
    VA system and do right by our patients.
        Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlewoman yields back.
        Representative King-Hinds, your recognized.
        Mr. Edmundson. Chairman Bost. Chairman Bost. I apologize.
    May I have a moment to address something that the ranking
    member brought up earlier?
        The Chairman. It is not common to be recognized from the--
    when we are in the questions, but I will grant you that.
        Mr. Edmundson. Thank you, sir.
        The Chairman. Okay. Yes, I will grant you that with leave
    of the ranking member.
        Mr. Edmundson. The ranking member brought up more money. I
    appreciate that. I am all for it. Bring it on. We can sit here
    and take the easy road and come up with a number of reasons why
    not to pass this bill today. The mechanism that needs to be
    developed to ensure the offset is not the veteran's problem, it
    is this committee's problem. We can come up with a number of
    reasons to not pass this. This needs to be passed.
        If you are wanting to add more money to this bill, add it,
    but do it at a later date. I am all for that. This committee
    needs to come together in a bipartisan way and come up with a
    mechanism to get this bill passed. It has been ignored for too
    long.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Edmundson. Thank you, sir.
        The Chairman. Representative King-Hinds, you are recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. King-Hinds. Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano,
    colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on two
    pieces of legislation.
        I had prepared remarks, but I was sitting here listening to
    the debate and it reminded me of a visit that I made while I
    was home to a Marine veteran, Ambrosio Ogumoro. He is a
    paraplegic, served his country, and as I was driving to his
    house, he built a flagpole and there is a flagpole waving
    there, right? You get into his house, it is his wife and
    daughter who is now taking care of him.
        I am sitting here, Mr. Edmundson, I am seeing the
    frustration on your face with regards to the manner in which we
    are debating this issue. I have to say this honestly. I come
    from a district where we have nothing. No full service VA
    facility, no nearby specialized care, no easy access to
    benefits that veterans here take for granted. When I hear these
    arguments about preserving a waiver for a second home loan, it
    feels like we are having a First World conversation while my
    district and the veterans who live there is living in a
    nonworld reality, right? We are not talking about whether
    someone can get a break on their second mortgage. We are
    talking about surviving spouses like Mrs. Briley who need the
    support, severely disabled veterans like Eric who need 24-hour
    care, families who are doing everything alone because the
    system never reaches them.
        Most people in my district, they do not even have a first
    home. Right? These conversations seem to me like First World
    arguments. When I see your frustration, I am frustrated because
    how do I honor your son's service? How do I honor you? How do I
    honor you, Mrs. Briley, for the service? Right? How do I honor
    you, Ms. Keenan?
        These are tough debates, but they are about priorities. My
    priority right now is Eric, Ambrosio, who is lying there in his
    house, paraplegic, does not have a vehicle to get to the
    hospital, which requires him, you know, a special type of, you
    know, vehicle. Right?
        I just want to say I am sorry, and I also want to say that
    I support this bill and I hope that my colleagues across the
    aisle could put the people who really need this help first. I,
    you know, I want to close by giving you, Mr. Edmundson, the
    opportunity to maybe just flesh out what your day looks like in
    terms of providing care for your very own hero.
        Mr. Edmundson. Our day is very fulfilled. Everyone in the
    home wears different hats. My wife and I came together with
    Stephanie to help with Eric's care. We took our retirement,
    burned down our debt load, so we could come on board with
    Stephanie and help take care of Eric. That came with a cost to
    us. It was a decision that my wife and I made. At the time, it
    was necessary. Today, it is not.
        Eric's care is a 24-hour-a-day task, if you want to call it
    that. Eric's disabilities, you know, from the day he gets up in
    the morning till the time he goes to bed, someone is with him
    at all times, help him with just getting dressed in the
    morning, helping him brush his teeth, help him eat his food,
    and to ensure that his life is moving forward in a positive way
    and in a safe environment.
        I cannot express enough that--the importance of getting the
    bill passed. You know, I am just a father. I am not a--but, you
    know, Eric and the hundreds like him went to--they put their
    uniform on, they did not complain. They went to war, they did
    not complain. They did what was expected of them, and they did
    not complain. They came home with catastrophic injuries. The
    hundreds of veterans that I visited with dealing with those
    injuries do not complain. They do not complain about the
    injuries or the way they--whatever happened to them to get
    those injuries. They did what was expected of them. I think
    they were--they have earned the right to come here today and
    ask this committee to do what is expected of them to get this
    bill passed to help them. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
        Representative Budzinski, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Budzinski. Thank you very much, Chairman Bost and to
    Ranking Member Takano, for convening this hearing, and to each
    of the witnesses for being here today. I do want to give a
    special, specific thank you to Mrs. Briley and to Mr. Edmundson
    for testifying and sharing your very personal, deep stories. A
    thank you to Eric Edmundson for your service to our country. It
    is very, very appreciated.
        I 1,100 percent support expanding DIC and SMC benefits to
    help surviving families and the severely disabled veterans,
    without a question. Clearly, your stories highlight the
    affordability challenges facing veteran and Gold Star
    families--who have already sacrificed so much in their daily
    lives.
        What is hard today is I do agree with you, Mr. Edmundson,
    this committee needs to come together. We do need to find
    bipartisan solutions. We do have to find a way to pay for this
    legislation, though, as well. It is really deeply disappointing
    to me that it feels like a partisan pay-for solution here, to
    pay for something that is just so desperately needed.
        Without a question, I support the increasing of these
    benefits. The debate that we are having in this committee is
    the lack of a consensus with Republicans and Democrats coming
    together on how to pay for this. Why I cannot support the bill
    is because I cannot allow for those benefits to be paid for on
    the backs of other disabled veterans. I just personally cannot
    get past that, even though I completely agree that there is a
    fierce urgency of now to getting these benefits that are long
    overdue from getting done today. I share that.
        You know, Ms. Keenan pointed out in her testimony the bills
    pay for would hurt home-buying disabled veterans at a time when
    housing is historically unaffordable. I do want to address what
    the majority in this committee has been talking about, the
    second mortgage. I think it is a mischaracterization of what
    this is about. This is not about a veteran's lake home not
    being--you know, receiving a fee or, you know, them trying to
    prevent themselves from having to pay a fee on a second home.
    This is about mortgages of primary residences of veterans as
    well. It is not just really about vacation homes. I think when
    they talk about second mortgages, it implies that these
    veterans are people with primary residences just looking to buy
    a second home. That is a mischaracterization of what this fee
    that they are trying to impose on disabled veterans is really
    all about. I just wanted to make that clarification point
    because a number of my colleagues have made it on the other
    side.
        3.2 million veterans in our Nation have a service-connected
    disability rating of 70 percent or below. Section 3 of this
    bill would make veterans pay a funding fee if using the VA Home
    Loan Program a second or later time, so when they buy another
    home and they move to another location. These veterans would
    have to pay an average fee of $13,000 to $17,000 when getting a
    new VA home loan. That is a big jump in a cost of a mortgage
    and it is a major policy change for the worse.
        I do not think that this committee should be in the
    business of cutting benefits from for disabled veterans. With a
    very heavy heart that is what weighs on me as it relates to
    this bill and why I cannot support it.
        I just want to point out as well that we cannot forget the
    reconciliation package while we are talking about looking for a
    pay-for. The reconciliation the majority passed last summer,
    what I refer to as the Big Ugly Bill, cuts taxes for the top 1
    percent of earners by $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years.
    This bill we are looking for a $7 billion pay-for to cover the
    cost. It also imposes new Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program (SNAP) work requirements on veterans.
        On top of that, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will let
    corporations claim some $16 billion in retroactive tax breaks
    this year. Again, this bill is looking for $7 billion to pay
    for this, and $362.7 billion over the next 10 years from this
    one retroactive tax break for corporations. I am at a loss on
    how we got to this place. How can we fund these giveaways to
    the wealthiest, but cut home loan benefits for disabled
    veterans?
        With that, I am going to yield back. I do want to say a
    thank you to those that have participated today and I look
    forward to working together to hopefully finding alternative
    pay-fors to get this bill done. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
        Dr. Murphy, you are recognized.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A special thank you to
    all our witnesses today, especially to Ms. Briley and Mr.
    Edmundson and Eric. I enjoyed meeting you guys via Zoom. Thank
    you for your testimony.
        I tell you, you know, sometimes in Congress it is always
    good to get a nice little reminder. We get so damn partisan
    here sometimes and we split hairs for the sake of splitting
    hairs. Thank you for the reminder that why we are here, we
    sometimes need that a nice swift kick in the butt to remember
    these things that we immediately do not have to have a guttural
    response just because it is on the other side. I thank you for
    the reminder.
        Thank you for your service, Eric. My heart goes out to you
    and to the 7,000 other veterans who are severely disabled. My
    heart goes out to the families that care for them. Just very
    similar to families that care for those who need long-term care
    for dementia or any other things, it is oftentimes not only
    traumatic to the recipient, but also traumatic to the family.
    Seen that many, many times and I know it is crushing. It is
    life-changing. It is always a good constant reminder for us for
    people to come in front of this committee who are not
    representing special interests, who are just representing
    themselves, and special folks who have, through no fault of
    their own, been injured, traumatized, et cetera, that this is
    our duty to help.
        H.R. 6047 will increase survival benefits for half a
    million military families on the DIC program as well as Special
    Monthly Compensation benefits for which Sergeant Edmundson
    receives financial assistance and 7,000 other military heroes
    who suffered these tragic injuries. The DIC program has not
    been increased since 1993. That is unbelievable to believe.
    Legislation will increase this by 5 percent over the next 5
    years. Truth be told, it is a pittance. You guys have changed
    your lives to be able to do this, as would any parents do, but
    we should not have to ask this from you. We have to figure out
    a way to how to pay for this. Not partisan ranting one way or
    the other. We have to figure out a way to pay for this. That
    does not do justice to the problem.
        I hope, you know, after this testimony we can actually sit
    down like adults and figure out how to pay for it because the
    means is easy. The end is what we need to be worrying about.
    Thank you for your service.
        Now I am going to ping poor Dr. Brian Miller, who had to
    remind us that even as a physician he was born after 1979.
    Seriously? You know, I mean seriously? You know, I learned more
    about medicine than you ever even dreamed of by that date, so
    do not even talk to me about that. Anyway, thanks for the
    reminder.
        Going back to the GUARD Act, I want to ping you on some,
    you know, hard questions because the devil is always in the
    details. We always want great things, but the devil is always
    in the details. Thank you for bringing them up because I think
    that is important. One thing, again, we do not do enough of, we
    do not have the time for rather, sometimes we do not do enough
    of.
        Describe to me--I would love to--if you can re-flesh out
    again the short-term, long-term problems with the legislation.
    I think we want what to happen to happen. We want coordination.
    As we have learned with Obamacare, the absolute ridiculousness
    of bureaucracy that it has created, we do not need to create
    that same model in the VA.
        Dr. Miller. Simply put, data sharing between the VA and
    CMS, so that CMS for fee-for-service, Medicare and also for
    Medicare Advantage, which they can then give to the MA plans,
    data about what services veterans are using, what diagnoses
    they have, just as with the VA DOD adjuster for fixing the
    Medicare Advantage benchmark, do that way MA plans are not
    overpaid for services that the VA has paid for. With data
    sharing, you can address duplicative payment for fee-for-
    service and then also address some of the diagnosis coding,
    harvesting practices by MA plans because they will not have an
    incentive to do that because they already have that data, and
    then that adjustment of the Medicare Advantage benchmark. That
    way the plan does not get extra money for services that the VA
    has already paid for.
        Mr. Murphy. Right. All right. Well, thank you. I believe
    the streamlining approach.
        Look, I think MA in its original inception was a good idea.
    We have had insurance companies that have abused their position
    of authority and responsibility. We know the big bad offenders
    who have done this have taken a good program and ruined it. We
    do not need to come in and pollute and ruin the VA and benefits
    and cost the American taxpayer more with less benefits for our
    veterans.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Time is up. Yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        Dr. Morrison, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Morrison. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ranking
    Member Takano. Thank you so much to our witnesses for being
    here today. I especially want to thank you, Ms. Briley, and
    you, Mr. Edmundson, for your moving testimony. Thank you,
    Sergeant Edmundson, for your service to our country and your
    sacrifice.
        My husband was deployed to the same theater that yours was,
    Ms. Briley. I feel your loss really deeply. I recognize how
    profoundly unfair life can be. I want to thank you all for your
    immense sacrifice and it is admirable that you are here
    testifying today for all the others.
        I want to start by just taking a moment to talk about a
    member--another member of my family and one of my personal
    heroes who served in uniform, my late father-in-law, Bill
    Willoughby. He was a remarkable man. A proud West Point
    graduate and Airborne Army Ranger. He served two tours in
    Vietnam. During his second tour, he was wounded in combat. His
    elbow was exploded and he lost use of that arm for the rest of
    his life. He continued to command operations on the battlefield
    on that fateful day and he received a Silver Star and a Purple
    Heart for his brave actions. He is certainly a hero in our
    family.
        As we consider the bill before us today, H.R. 6047, I
    cannot help but think about our obligation on this committee to
    honor the contract with those who sacrifice so much for our
    country. The promise we make to them is that when they come
    home, they will get the care and benefits that we owe them. If
    you do not come home, we will do everything in our power to
    take care of their loved ones.
        I think most of us here would agree that increases To
    Special Monthly Compensation, that is SMC, and Dependency and
    Indemnity Compensation, DIC, are long overdue. When it comes to
    strengthening survivor benefits specifically, I have proudly
    worked across the aisle on legislation like Love Lives On. The
    Love Lives On Act, which would ensure that survivors can still
    access their benefits if they remarry before age 55, and we
    need to get that legislation across the finish line.
        As we talk about H.R. 6047 today, I have to agree with many
    of my colleagues that boosting certain benefits at the expense
    of another pool of benefits is a nonstarter. I would be remiss
    if I did not mention that my late father-in-law's disability
    rating was 50 percent. Despite all that he went through and
    sacrificed in his military service, he would not have met the
    threshold that our Republican colleagues have set to remain
    exempt for the home loan fees. We know this would be the case
    for many others as well.
        The last point I want to make before jumping into my
    questioning is just that it has been said already, but I think
    it is worth repeating, it is astonishing to me that my
    Republican colleagues have proposed that we take away certain
    benefits for disabled veterans as an offset when exactly 6
    months ago today they voted to explode the deficit by $4
    trillion in the cruelly named One Big Beautiful Bill. If we can
    find the money to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest among us,
    surely we can find another way to pay for much needed increase
    in the SMC and DIC benefits.
        Ms. Keenan, I want to turn to you. Contrary to President
    Trump's claim that affordability is a hoax that was started by
    the Democrats, the cost of living is a top concern for the
    American people right now, including our veterans. By the way,
    let us not forget that the President and congressional
    Republicans just cut $1 trillion in Medicaid and nearly 200,000
    billion in food assistance, which 1.6 million and 1.2 million
    veterans rely on, respectively.
        At a time when housing costs are exorbitant and home
    ownership is becoming increasingly unattainable for far too
    many Americans, I am concerned by this proposal to chip away at
    the VA loan program for disabled veterans. The median price of
    a home in Hennepin County, Minnesota, where I am from, is about
    $400,000. For a veteran in my district who does not meet the
    required 80 percent disability rating proposed under H.R. 6047,
    that is as much as an additional $13,000 coming out of their
    pocket.
        Ms. Keenan, I would argue that it is never a good time to
    slash benefits for veterans, but can you talk about why this
    moment in particular is such a harmful time to be restricting
    the fee waiver for VA home loans?
        Ms. Keenan. Thank you for that question. We often talk a
    lot about the importance of housing stability for veterans. Any
    instability when it comes to housing can be an increased risk
    of veteran suicide. While this is not a compensation benefit
    for disabilities, it is still a very important benefit for
    veterans. As housing prices increase, we do not want to see
    this benefit reduced. Frankly, we cannot support any reduction
    in earned benefits. We want to see expansions in benefits
    primarily because cost of living keeps going up. We want to
    address those without cutting what we have already fought to
    earn. Thank you.
        Ms. Morrison. Thank you. I see that my time has elapsed,
    Mr. Chair. I just wanted to make a plea that we find a
    bipartisan solution so that we can increase these benefits.
        The Chairman. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
        Dr. Conaway, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
    Member Takano, for bringing us together. Certainly heartfelt
    thanks to the witnesses who presented themselves here today.
        I cannot imagine. Well, I am a physician and certainly have
    taken care of people in extremis and have had long discussions
    with them about how they manage their life, facing such
    difficult hardships with their health. It is particularly
    poignant when you understand that you are talking about a
    veteran who has given so much to our country and what our
    responsibility is as a Nation to honor that commitment and that
    service and that sacrifice, not only by the veteran, but by the
    families who care for them and love them. We should be a
    grateful Nation for what has been done on our behalf and on
    behalf of freedom. It is arguable that we have not met that
    commitment over multiple administrations and for far too long.
        We can all agree on this committee that we want to see
    increases in the Special Monthly Compensation and in the
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. At a time when the cost
    of groceries, healthcare, housing has increased significantly,
    our veterans need and deserve more. I am a veteran myself. I
    used the VA loan for my own primary residence. I understand how
    important--I have served on the base locally where I am from,
    and taken care of veterans for much of my career, and so
    certainly have understood my parents, my uncles, all certainly
    also involved, as it turns out, also involved in the military.
        It is important that we find ways to increase the
    compensation without further burdening other veterans. Mr.
    Edmundson, I appreciate your call that we need to take on our
    responsibilities and do what we need to do. I agree with that
    wholeheartedly. I would say to you that is what we are
    attempting to do here and that we can do this very important
    responsibility without moving money from a program that
    supports veterans while we do what we should do for the Special
    Monthly Compensation, the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
    programs. We can do both of those things and we have time to do
    it.
        Hopefully, we can come up with an agreement that will allow
    us to avoid the very regrettable situation where we are can I
    say robbing Peter to pay Paul? We should not do that. As has
    been mentioned repeatedly, we did find ways to offer an
    enormous tax, and I do not think it is a partisan statement, I
    think it is a statement of fact, to offer enormous benefits to
    the wealthiest people in the world and we are burdening future
    generations with enormous debt while we are doing that and to
    find a relatively small amount of money. Of course, you could
    say that here in Washington, I guess we are talking about $7
    billion. That is a lot of money to the American people. When
    you recognize, however, how much money has been spent to enrich
    the wealthiest people in the world and the generational cost of
    that, we can do better than that. We can certainly take care of
    all we need to do in this program without costing other
    disabled veterans to pay for that program.
        Ms. Keenan, disabled veterans have never paid a VA home
    funding fee. Yet this bill we are taking up today for
    discussion imposes a funding fee for veterans with a disability
    rating of up to and including 70 percent. What message would
    imposing such a fee have on these heroes, these disabled
    veterans?
        Ms. Keenan. Thank you for the question. The VFW feels very
    strongly about this. I represent 1.4 million veterans and their
    families who wholeheartedly believe that veterans' benefits
    should not be reduced. By making this--even having this
    discussion makes veterans believe that other benefits could be
    at risk. Will we see education benefits reduced? Will we see
    disability benefits reduced? Will we see fees on other things?
    It is the starting point of a discussion to reduce benefits and
    we simply do not support that.
        Mr. Conaway. I will just ask this question. Perhaps we will
    have time to answer it. This bill does not include a
    grandfather clause for individuals already serving in the
    military or veterans who have already utilize the program. Why
    would a grandfather clause be important for both individuals
    already in the military and veterans who have already utilized
    the program once? How costly would it be for a veteran with a
    disability rating that I have already mentioned, who already
    has this benefit, to have to pay a second full funding fee the
    second time that you utilize the Home Loan Program?
        With that, I will end and yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you. All questions are completed. I
    want to say thank you to the first panel for being here today.
    I think it has been an enlightening talk to say the least. Now
    you are excused from this panel and we want to invite our
    second panel to come up.
        I would like to welcome our second panel today. With us
    today we have Ms. Margarita Devlin. She is principal deputy
    secretary to benefit--performing the delegable duties of the
    undersecretary for benefits for the Department of Veterans
    Affairs. She is accompanied by Ms. Stephanie Li, assistant
    director for regulations, legislation, engagement, and training
    at the Veterans Benefits Administration for the Department of
    Veterans Affairs; Ms. Heather Ford, acting chief financial
    officer at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for the
    Department of Veterans Affairs; and Mr. Kevin Johnson, director
    of revenue operations for the Office of Finances at the
    Veterans Health Administration for the Department of Veterans
    Affairs.
        I would appreciate you all being here today. If you would,
    can you please rise and raise your right hand?
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        The Chairman. You may be seated. Thank you all and let the
    record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the
    affirmative.
        Ms. Devlin, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
    testimony.

                     STATEMENT OF MARGARITA DEVLIN

        Ms. Devlin. Good morning, Chairman Bost, Ranking Member
    Takano, and members of the committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to discuss the impacts of pending legislation. I
    appreciate the committee's ongoing commitment to improving the
    lives of our Nation's veterans, their families and survivors. I
    also want to thank Sergeant Eric Edmundson for his service and
    sacrifice and the sacrifices of the Briley and Edmundson
    families. Appreciated their testimonies.
        Joining me today from the Veterans Health Administration
    are Ms. Heather Ford, acting chief financial officer, and Mr.
    Kevin Johnson, director of revenue operations, Office of
    Finance, and from the Veterans Benefits Administration, Ms.
    Stephanie Li, assistant director for regulations, legislation,
    engagement, and training.
        VA supports the intent of Sections 2A and B of the Sharri
    Briley and Eric Edmundson Veteran Benefits Expansion Act of
    2025, and we look forward to working with the Congress to
    provide additional details and adjustments to the language.
    Section 2A would increase certain allowances payable under
    Special Monthly Compensation, or SMC. These SMC allowances
    provide critical support who--for veterans who, due to severe
    service-connected disabilities, require regular aid and
    attendance or who experience significant loss such as blindness
    or loss of limb.
        This bill proposes increasing these rates by $833.33
    beginning December 1, 2026, which would bring standard aid in
    attendance up to approximately $3,702 and the higher level to
    about $5,108. VA recommends rounding these rates down to the
    nearest whole dollar to maintain consistency with the other
    rates in 38 USC 1114 and to simplify claims processing. VA also
    recommends building an automatic annual cost of living
    adjustments, which we call COLA, by amending 38 USC 5312 to
    align with other Federal entitlement programs and improve
    efficiencies and ensure more timely adjustments.
        Section 2B would authorize automatic annual increases to
    the basic rates of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, or
    DIC, for surviving spouses equal to the Social Security cost of
    living adjustment plus 1 percentage point for 5 consecutive
    years. The DIC rates for surviving spouses with dependent
    children and surviving parents would continue to receive an
    annual COLA equal to the COLA under Title 2 of the Social
    Security Act. The additional amounts for surviving spouses who
    are housebound or in need of aid of attendance would not
    receive a COLA. As drafted, this exacerbates different COLA
    treatment across DIC categories.
        Section 3 would amend the Home Loan Program to eliminate
    the current waiver of certain fees for veterans with service-
    connected disabilities through September 30, 2035. The
    Department is reviewing this section and looks forward to
    working with Congress on further refinement.
        VA supports the goal of H.R. 4077, Guarantee Utilization of
    All Reimbursements for Delivery of Veterans' Health Care Act.
    The objective of this bill is to enhance cost recovery efforts
    and improve fiscal responsibility across the government.
    Section 2A stipulates that if VA furnishes any healthcare item
    or service covered under Medicare or Title 18 of the Social
    Security Act to persons enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans or
    Medicare Part D prescription drug plans, the organization or
    sponsor of these plans would be required to reimburse VA for
    such items or services. VA supports these efforts.
        Under current law, VA is prohibited from billing Medicare
    Advantage plans resulting in duplicative costs to taxpayers.
    Current law also prevents VA from recovering costs from any
    payer for service-connected care. Section 2 would end this
    practice by requiring private insurers to reimburse VA for the
    cost of care. Section 3 of the bill would amend cost recovery
    to enhance and clarify VA's authority to recover reasonable
    charges for certain care or services furnished to veterans for
    non-service-connected disabilities from third parties,
    including private health insurers, employer sponsored plans,
    automobile insurers, and parties subject to civil liability. VA
    supports Section 3 of the bill, subject to amendments,
    including the enhancement of its cost recovery authorities, but
    recommends technical edits to ensure these provisions have
    maximum effect.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I thank you
    again for your leadership and for your attention to the needs
    of our veterans, their families, and survivors. My colleagues
    and I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee
    may have.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Margarita Devlin Appears In The
    Appendix]

        The Chairman. Thank you. The written statement of Ms.
    Devlin will be entered into the hearing record.
        We will now turn to questions and I will recognize myself
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Devlin, currently, how many surviving spouses receive
    DIC payments?
        Ms. Devlin. Thank you for the question. As of the end of
    November, we have 12,000 pending claims. I do not have the
    active--oh, sorry. I do have the active number, 552,505 active.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Do you think the size of the
    program has made it difficult to increase those payments?
        Ms. Devlin. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. Do you believe DIC is at a reasonable rate
    for helping survivors today?
        Ms. Devlin. Thank you for that question. I believe after--
    especially after hearing the testimonies earlier of the panel,
    it is clear that there are significant expenses for disabled
    veterans and those expenses and those debts can be passed down.
    The Department does not have an opinion at this time. We are
    still analyzing the impacts of the proposed legislation.
        The Chairman. What is the average age of a DIC recipient?
        Ms. Devlin. The average age, I believe, is over 55, if I
    remember correctly.
        The Chairman. The administration has, shifting over to
    something else here, the administration has prioritized
    survivors. It has moved the Office of Survivors Assistance back
    into the Office of the Secretary. How do you think this is
    helping the survivors?
        Ms. Devlin. Yes, sir. Secretary Collins is very interested
    in taking care of our survivors and that places the right level
    of emphasis on that office.
        The Chairman. I think the original agreement, if you were
    around when that came about a couple administrations ago, was
    so that they could actually have input close by and their
    beliefs. I think that is a very good thing.
        You heard, obviously, Mr. Edmundson testifying about the
    cost associated with providing Eric with the most normal life
    possible. Does not this $10,000 increase help? Would not it
    help provide to make sure that they were compensated for
    further--that heavy load burden?
        Ms. Devlin. We are still analyzing the impacts of the bill.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Ms. Devlin. I have no--I can tell you, though, that having
    been a rehabilitation counselor and working with severely
    disabled veterans, I do recognize the needs, the extra needs
    that they have. That comes with a cost for sure.
        The Chairman. Yes. I have no further questions, and I
    recognize the ranking member.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you. My Republican colleague seems to be
    implying that the pay-for, or what I would call a tax, on
    subsequent home loans for disabled veterans only impacts a
    small population of the overall veteran population. Ms. Devlin,
    in your estimate, how many veterans and servicemembers would
    the newly would be newly subject to the funding fee or tax in
    this bill?
        Ms. Devlin. We are still finalizing the numbers on that. I
    do not have those numbers for you today.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you. Can you describe who typically uses
    a subsequent VA home loan and why?
        Ms. Devlin. I have got Ms. Stephanie Li here who works in
    our Home Loan Guarantee program. I am going to ask her to
    elaborate on that.
        Mr. Takano. Sure.
        Ms. Li. Thank you, Ms. Devlin. Subsequent use, what it
    really means is, it is just the use after your initial use.
    That could be an Active Duty servicemember who used the benefit
    and due to a change in duty station, now is being asked to move
    and is looking to purchase a home.
        Mr. Takano. It is not about a vacation home.
        Ms. Li. No. We have a requirement in statute that veterans
    certify to their intent to occupy the residence as a home.
        Mr. Takano. It is actually required by statute?
        Ms. Li. Correct.
        Mr. Takano. It is common for servicemembers or their
    veteran spouses who face multiple deployments or are forced to
    move Expiration Term of Service (ETS) to have more than one
    simultaneous home loan, is not that right?
        Ms. Li. I cannot speak to how common it is, but, yes, we do
    have veterans and Active Duty servicemembers in our program
    with multiple active guarantee loans.
        Mr. Takano. There is a really good explanation for why they
    might have multiple homes, you know, given the nature of how
    they have to move around.
        Ms. Li. Sure. I mean, just servicemembers, like any other
    individual, oftentimes, you know, change homes.
        Mr. Takano. Yes. A disabled veteran who is now a military
    spouse and is forced to move to support their Active Duty
    spouse could now be subject to a new home loan fee under this
    legislation?
        Ms. Li. For an Active Duty servicemember, most Active Duty
    servicemembers would not be exempt. We do have exemption for
    those that have a Purple Heart, but most Active Duty
    servicemembers, unless they previously served a period----
        Mr. Takano. A disabled veteran who is now a military
    spouse.
        Ms. Li. Oh, a military spouse, I apologize. Military
    spouses are--have their own exemption if they are in receipt of
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation.
        Mr. Takano. Depending on their service--their disability
    rating. Is that right?
        Ms. Li. Are you----
        Mr. Takano. We are talking about the spouse, a military
    veteran who is a spouse.
        Ms. Li. Oh. Yes.
        Mr. Takano. Yes. I just wanted to clarify.
        Ms. Devlin, Secretary Collins has claimed that savings from
    staff cuts and contract cancellations instigated by Department
    of Government Efficiency (DOGE) would be used for veterans
    benefits. Do you know how much these savings amount to?
        Ms. Devlin. I do not have an exact number for you here.
        Mr. Takano. There is not an exact number you have?
        Ms. Devlin. I do not.
        Mr. Takano. Okay. Could those savings be applied for the
    bill before us today to increase SMC and DIC benefits?
        Ms. Devlin. Again, we are still analyzing the impacts and
    costs for these bills, so I cannot respond to what the exact--
    --
        Mr. Takano. Even if it is partial. I mean, theoretically,
    these--so these savings that the Secretary is claiming could be
    used for this. Right?
        Ms. Devlin. Any savings that have been achieved, have--will
    be and have been invested in two programs.
        Mr. Takano. You are not able to opine on whether or not
    they are enough to pay this bill. You are still analyzing, is
    that right?
        Ms. Devlin. Cannot opine. That is correct.
        Mr. Takano. Okay. Ms. Devlin, we are focused on survivor
    benefits programs today. I understand that Chapter 35 education
    benefits for survivors are in your purview. Is that right?
        Ms. Devlin. That is correct.
        Mr. Takano. Seventy-five thousand survivors and veteran
    families experience months of delays in receiving their VA
    education payments, impacting their finance and putting them at
    greater risk of food and housing insecurity. I have been
    pushing the VA to publicly address the problem, but veterans,
    their families, their survivors, and Congress have been left in
    the dark. Nobody in the VA hierarchy between you and the
    Secretary have responded to my multiple inquiries and letters
    on the issue. Can you tell me why that is?
        Ms. Devlin. We are working on responses to your inquiries.
    I will tell you when we are--we have been working very hard on
    taking care of those beneficiaries who are receiving Chapter 35
    benefits. We have reduced the backlog dramatically. Our average
    days to complete is currently at 24.7 days for those and our
    backlog, the average wait time is about 58 days.
        Mr. Takano. Well, thank you. When will all the
    beneficiaries in my district and nationwide receive those
    overdue payments?
        Ms. Devlin. They have been receiving them already. We are
    down to the last bit of trying to get through this backlog,
    which will be resolved, we are estimating, no later than the
    middle of this month.
        Mr. Takano. All right. Well, you mentioned that the
    Department is still analyzing Section 3 of the bill, which
    would be for the first time--which would for the first time
    ever make disabled veterans subject to a home loan funding fee
    or tax. What is the Department's position on the reduction of
    disability benefits in general? Is that something the
    Department feels is warranted?
        Ms. Devlin. We are not considering reduction in disability
    benefits at this point, no.
        Mr. Takano. Well, how then would you justify the effort you
    led to cut presumptions of service connection under the PACT
    Act, as you did with male breast cancer?
        Ms. Devlin. The issue--thank you for that question. The
    issue of male breast cancer is that the previous administration
    had characterized that condition as a reproductive cancer. The
    PACT Act specifically calls out reproductive cancers and other
    cancers, but male breast cancer is not a reproductive cancer.
    It can be service-connected and we do provide service-
    connection disability benefits for male breast cancer.
        Mr. Takano. Well, at least conceptually, does the
    Department support cutting one veteran's benefits to pay for
    another?
        Ms. Devlin. I do not have a position on that currently.
        Mr. Takano. Well, can you tell me other presumptions of
    service connection that the Department is thinking of cutting?
        Ms. Devlin. I do not have anything to share with you at
    this moment.
        Mr. Takano. Well, thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        General Bergman, you are recognized.
        Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
    what you do every day.
        Ms. Devlin, I am just going to focus a few questions right
    to you. Okay. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that
    H.R. 4077 would cause VA to collect $10 billion, billion with a
    B, annually from Medicare Advantage plans for services those
    plans would otherwise pay to providers other than VA. Is not it
    true that these VA collections are discretionary and do not
    reduce Federal mandatory spending while Medicare's costs would
    rise on the mandatory side?
        Ms. Devlin. I am going to defer to my VHA colleagues on
    that question, sir, if you do not mind.
        Ms. Ford. Thank you for that question. I am going to ask
    Mr. Johnson, who is the director of revenue operations.
        Mr. Bergman. Okay. Yes or no? My time is clicking here.
    Give me an answer. I do not care who it is.
        Mr. Johnson. I do not know the answer whether or not it is
    a discretionary, whether or not it would impact CMS budgets. I
    think we would have to check with CMS.
        Mr. Bergman. Well, Okay. Then take it for the record. I
    would like an answer.
        Number two. Okay. Ms. Devlin, if you could just defer to
    whoever it is right away if it is not your call to make. I just
    had your name on the top of the list. An unintended consequence
    of requiring Medicare Advantage plans to reimburse VA could be
    to discourage plans from enrolling veterans, limiting their
    healthcare choices. Has VA considered this possibility and how
    could it negatively, potentially negatively affect veterans?
    You guys considered that?
        Ms. Ford. At this time we are still analyzing the bill and
    we have not looked at that specific piece.
        Mr. Bergman. Okay. You are going to consider that as a
    possibility as you analyze the bill?
        Ms. Ford. We can certainly take a look at that.
        Mr. Bergman. I would appreciate that very much.
        Okay, last question. If the goal of H.R. 4077 is to ensure
    that VA bears responsibility for costs it should appropriately
    cover, would not improved front end coordination between VA,
    CMS, and Medicare Advantage plans be more effective than
    billing Medicare Advantage plans after the fact.
        Ms. Ford. Thank you for that question. Improved
    collaboration with our Federal partners is always a positive.
    However, that does not necessarily fix the challenge--or the
    opportunities there are with this bill in terms of closing the
    tax----
        Mr. Bergman. Advance planning, usually to the 80 percent
    level, most cases, there is going to be 20 percent that you
    just could not advance plan for the. That is kind of what we do
    in the military, you know, advance planning for operations so,
    you know, we win and minimize casualties. Anyway, I would
    suggest that the advanced planning, the advanced thoughtfulness
    is going to better the outcome for the veterans, save time in
    the end, and, most importantly, I think, make sure that the
    funds that are spent are wisely spent. You can always do an
    after action afterwards to see where you did not quite get it,
    but let us work it on the front end.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Representative Cherfilus-McCormick recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted
    to talk about the VA home loans. Many of our constituents have
    asked several questions. I think everyone here agrees that the
    Special Monthly Compensation and the Dependency and Indemnity
    Compensation for disabled veterans and the survivors of
    disabled veterans must be increased to reflect the economic
    realities these individuals face. However, both of these bills
    only enact a modest increase to DIC and SMC, while
    simultaneously increasing home loan fees on other veterans with
    service-connected disabilities. At a time of skyrocketing home
    prices, disabled veterans cannot afford to foot another
    surprise bill.
        Ms. Devlin, in your testimony the VA submitted to the
    committee, your Department was quiet on the proposed home loan
    fee offset in H.R. 6047. Specifically, you wrote, ``The
    Department is reviewing Section 3 of the bill and looks forward
    to working with Congress on further refinement.'' My question
    is for you. What further refinement you would like to work on
    and when we receive your comments on the bill?
        Ms. Devlin. Thank you for the question. We are working on
    looking at the impact of the bill and looking at the numbers.
    We do not have that information for you today, but we will
    share that as soon as we have it.
        Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Do you have a timeline, because we
    are trying to meet the needs, that you think that you will be
    able to give it to us? Are----
        Ms. Devlin. We are working----
        Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. I am sorry, go ahead.
        Ms. Devlin. We are working through it as quickly as we can,
    though.
        Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Are there any things that you want
    to talk about now that you want to specifically work on or will
    we find that out when you submit the comments?
        Ms. Devlin. We will provide that.
        Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you. The median home price
    today is over 400,000 according to recent analysts by Forbes.
    That means a veteran could be paying between 2,000 to 14,000
    extra. For disabled veterans living on a fixed income, these
    fees are not sustainable, especially if they are looking to
    downsize or move.
        Ms. Devlin, has your Department analyzed the impact of
    increased home loan fees on the solvency of the VA Home Loan
    Program?
        Ms. Devlin. That is the information we are still
    evaluating. The home loan fees do help sustain the Home Loan
    Program, but we are still analyzing the impacts of the bill.
        Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Could you give any kind of
    preliminary estimate on that at this moment?
        Ms. Devlin. No, ma'am. Sorry, not at this time.
        Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Having no one else that is seeking
    recognition, Ranking Member, do you have any closing statement?
        Mr. Takano. I do, Mr. Chairman.
        As we bring this hearing to a close, I think we need to put
    this conversation into context. I felt that this committee
    examined the issues before us with intensity and with
    sincerity. Costs are rising across the country and populations
    fixed on incomes--on fixed incomes, like the many service-
    connected disabled veterans, are particularly impacted by those
    rising costs. They very much need additional assistance and we
    must find a way to deliver.
        Earlier this year, Congress passed a bill cutting taxes for
    the uber wealthy and did not offset the cost. Moreover,
    Congress added $100 billion for U.S. Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement (ICE) and $150 billion for DOD just for the coming
    year. Yet we are here today asking disabled veterans to fork
    over $7 billion to cover benefits for other disabled veterans
    and their families over the next 10 years when these veterans
    have already paid the cost, they have already paid their taxes.
    Chairman Bost and Mr. Barrett and this majority have set up a
    false choice between taking care of our most severely injured
    veterans and survivors and keeping disabled veterans benefits
    intact.
        When this administration and the majority wants to move a
    priority, they have accepted literally hundreds of billions of
    dollars of deficit spending. Yet here they are trying to force
    disabled veterans to pay for these $7 billion in benefits? This
    is false scarcity at its finest.
        Let me quote the statement for the record submitted by the
    Disabled American Veterans (DAV) today, quote, ``We cannot
    support the provision of funding fees on disabled veterans and
    urge the committee to remove that provision. Furthermore, DAV
    firmly opposes all rules or statutes that require veterans
    benefit increases to be, quote, 'paid for,' end quote, by cuts
    to other veterans benefits. Cut-As-You-Go (CutGo) and all
    similar PAYGO rules and laws essentially require veterans to
    pay for their own benefits. Whereas we all believe that all
    Americans should be paying for the benefits and services
    veterans have earned in defending our freedom,'' end quote.
        In March 1982, 43-1/2 years ago, DAV also testified to this
    very committee on this very topic, saying at the same time,
    quote, ``Frankly, Mr. Chairman, the DAV is opposed to the
    concept of charging veterans for the benefits they have earned.
    It seems to us at least that service-connected disabled
    veterans have already paid the price,'' end quote. I could not
    agree more.
        Back then, this committee agreed, stating in a report to
    the Budget Committee that the original funding fee proposal
    required an amendment to, quote, ``exempt service-connected
    disabled veterans from payment as the committee believes these
    veterans must receive priority and preferential treatment in
    view of the disabilities incurred in service to their Nation,''
    end quote.
        This committee further made its position clear in the
    committee's report on the Fiscal Year 1983 Reconciliation Bill,
    stating, quote, ``During the deliberation, the committee felt
    that the proposals were too heavily weighted against service-
    connected disabled veterans, veterans the committee has always
    given the highest priority,'' end quote.
        I ask what has changed since then, Mr. Chairman? Mr.
    Barrett's bill very plainly cuts benefits from one group of
    veterans in order to fund benefits for another. Cuts benefits
    from one group of disabled veterans in order to fund benefits
    for another group of disabled veterans. This is a very
    troubling precedent and one that I simply cannot support.
        Unto Mr. Edmundson and Ms. Briley, I hear you, and if they
    are not in the room, I hear--I want them to know that I hear
    them loud and clear. We must get DIC increase and SMC increases
    done. We need to do it this year, not wait for the next
    Congress. We need to do it this Congress and we need it done as
    soon as possible.
        A bill addressing the full benefits disparity needs to come
    to markup as scheduled in 2 weeks, and it needs to pass this
    committee. It cannot force one group of veterans to pay for the
    benefits of another, one group of disabled veterans to pay for
    the benefits of another group of disabled veterans. Congress
    needs to do its job and find a bipartisan way to pay for both
    the DIC and SMC increases and also pay for veterans to use
    their earned VA home loan benefit.
        Mr. Edmundson is right. It is not his job to figure this
    out. It is our job, Mr. Chairman. As I said, the American
    people are willing to pay for this. If catastrophically
    disabled veterans and survivors of fallen servicemembers are
    not worthy of American tax dollars tell me who or what is.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, I am thankful for the relationship we
    have. We do not always agree and we go toe to toe and we always
    shake hands after we do so. I appreciate that and you. I have
    made it clear I am willing to do what we need to do for a bill
    to move forward, but that means it must be paid for in a
    different way. Will you commit to removing the provision that
    cuts veteran benefits and work in a true bipartisan manner to
    find an acceptable pay-for that does not charge one group of
    veterans to use their own earned benefits? Would you work with
    me on figuring out an alternative?
        The Chairman. I will commit that we are going to make sure
    this bill gets across the finish line somehow. I will, also, in
    my closing, explain a lot of things that I think we can do. The
    concerns I have is not--you are asking on record, and I want to
    give an answer on record that I would be glad to do that if
    when we asked for you to come forward to help us on something,
    you would not wait until we actually start to move the bill
    before you come up and say, no, we need to now work on this.
    That is what I have seen.
        Mr. Takano. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would beg to differ that
    we wait till the last minute. We have responded. In fact, many
    elements of the bill you brought forward have been changed in
    response to our input. We have not waited till last minute. You
    know, we are working vigorously on, you know, the ability--the
    flexibility in transferring our, you know, our proposal to
    transfer the home loan benefit to descendants. Hopefully that
    can be a part of our discussion. I hear in your response some
    openness to trying to come to a resolution before we bring this
    to markup.
        You know, I just want to say, I will ignore the fact that
    this bill was only introduced a few days ago, just before we
    left for the Thanksgiving holiday. Instead, I will focus on
    what we can control and which, for these purposes, is how
    seriously we are going to take this task and how thoroughly we
    are vetting our ideas. Instead of running with the first idea
    that sounded plausible, we have been working hard to ensure
    that the ideas we are putting forward to pay for legislation
    are sound, supported by the community, and do not disadvantage
    one group of veterans in service of another.
        I do not think the majority can say the same, but I will
    point out that the majority, as the majority, has pointed out,
    that the original draft of the bill is different than from what
    was introduced because of the feedback we gave. Now, you cannot
    have it both ways.
        I want to--I want everyone in this room to know and
    understand that no one is playing games here and that no one is
    trying to derail this legislation. Instead, we are trying to
    improve it in measured and thoughtful ways so that it best
    serves all veterans, their families, and survivors. That takes
    effort. It takes some time, but we are working as quickly as we
    can as we can to get this done. We want to see these benefits
    increased as much as anyone, we want to see it done in this
    Congress.
        As I close, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
    your willingness to engage with us. I would like to end with a
    quote from the American Legion's statement for the record of
    this hearing, quote, ``Until veterans' benefits are exempt from
    austerity measures, all VSOs will be required to choose between
    interests that conflict with one another,'' end quote. I will
    add that we in Congress must do whatever we can to avoid that
    conflict. Our veterans, their families, and their survivors
    deserve no less.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. Let me tell you
    that it is a fact that our staff has been asking, begging since
    August for you to participate. Let me give you some responses
    that came up during that time. October 1st, pouring over
    different permutations. Yes. Chewed over initially on September
    19th. Put out heads--put our heads together and send over
    something as soon as we can. Worst-case scenario, next week,
    that was September 4th.
        You cannot--I mean, I think it is kind of neat, you can
    come in the committee and claim that, oh, yes, you were more
    than willing to work when, no, actually, that has not been the
    case. Now, I hope that it will be the case from here on out.
        Also let me say this because there has been some things
    said in this committee today. Many of the people in there
    talking about this particular offset said that it was a--made
    it sound like we were not going to have veteran home loans
    covered at all. That is not the case at all. It was a case
    where we looked at a lesser disability and a second loan, which
    the idea is it allows the veteran to get their equity built so
    that the second loan--because we did have to have a pay-for. I
    was not in Congress when paygo was passed, but it is the law
    and it is something that we have to deal with. I will work and
    look forward to addressing the problems that these bills
    would--that we can fix and provide a solution for the veterans
    and their families.
        My message is simple. Understand my leadership will
    continue to work to get veterans the support and benefits they
    need. There is a statement around here that says if you are in
    the minority, you communicate. If you are in the majority, you
    legislate. We are moving forward with the bill so that we can
    legislate. If we have to drag your side of the aisle kicking
    and screaming, we are going to do it.
        As chairman, I will always put veterans first. I am a
    veteran. I am a father of veterans. I am a grandson of
    veterans. I am a son of veterans. This has always been my
    priority in this position and it will continue to be so. I look
    forward to working with you. I look forward to the fact that,
    hopefully, our staffs will then look forward to working to try
    to get this done.
        With that, I ask unanimous consent that all members shall
    have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
    include any extenuous materials. Hearing no objection, so
    ordered.
        The hearing now is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:51 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

    ?

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

                             A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X

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

                        Prepared Statements of Witnesses

                                  ----------

                     Prepared Statement of Edgar Edmundson

        Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano, Members of the Committee,
    thank you for inviting me to testify today and thank you for your time.
        Time... it is assumed to be unlimited by the young, and spoken of
    as passing too quickly by the older and wiser--like myself, and, I
    suspect, a few of you fine folks on this committee. For my family,
    every day since October 2d, 2005 has been lived with a different
    understanding of time. We do not take a single hour for granted.
        My son, Sgt. (Ret.) Eric Edmundson, was serving in Iraq when the
    Stryker vehicle he was driving was struck by an IED. In an instant, our
    lives were split into ``before'' and ``after.'' Eric sustained multiple
    traumatic injuries that day, but it was the loss of oxygen to his
    brain--the anoxic brain injury--that changed the course of his life
    most dramatically. It robbed him of his ability to speak, to walk, and
    to live independently. It requires him to have care and assistance 24
    hours a day, 7 days a week.
        Twenty years ago, around this very time of year, I was standing
    beside Eric's bed at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital. My 25-year-old
    son--strong, driven, optimistic--lay hooked to machines that were
    keeping him alive. I remember looking at his hands, the hands that had
    held his daughter for the first time just months before he deployed. I
    kept thinking, ``Time. Give him more time. Give us time to learn how to
    help him, how to care for him, how to rebuild a life around injuries no
    family ever expects.''
        Two decades later, I am here because time has taught us a great
    deal. We have learned what it truly takes--physically, financially, and
    emotionally--to support a catastrophically injured veteran over the
    long term.
        When I speak about ``quality of life needs,'' I'm not talking about
    luxuries. I'm talking about the basics of living with dignity, safety,
    comfort, and human connection. The additional funds proposed in this
    legislation would go directly toward:

          Specialized caregivers and increased caregiving hours
        Eric requires constant supervision--not because he is unsafe, but
    because the environment around him can become unsafe for someone with
    his impairments. Trained caregivers prevent falls, prevent choking or
    aspiration, ensure proper transfers, assist with personal care, monitor
    health changes, and provide engagement that keeps him connected to the
    world. While I am enrolled in the VA's Program of Comprehensive
    Assistance for Family Caregivers, these hours add up, and families
    cannot shoulder them alone forever.

          Home modifications and maintenance of an accessible
    environment
        A home adapted for someone with severe disabilities requires
    constant upkeep as needs change over time--wider doorways, accessible
    bathrooms, safe flooring, reinforced entryways, and space that can
    accommodate medical equipment and wheelchairs. These demands often
    increase as the veteran ages and the injury evolves. While the VA SAH
    (Specially Adapted Housing) and SHA (Special Housing Adaptation) grants
    can help fund needed modifications, the process is complex and slow,
    making it difficult to find contractors willing to navigate the VA's
    requirements. Even with a strong contractor, the administrative hurdles
    can be so burdensome that many consider walking away, as we personally
    experienced.

          Transportation and mobility support
        Accessible vehicles and medical transport are essential for
    veterans to stay mobile, attend therapy, and remain connected to their
    communities, yet the costs are often prohibitive. VA Form 4502 allows
    eligible 100 percent service-connected disabled veterans to access the
    current $27,074.99 automobile grant, and in limited cases a second
    allowance may be available--either after 30 years or if a previously
    funded vehicle was destroyed in a natural disaster. Even with this
    support, accessible vehicles remain expensive, with new wheelchair-
    accessible vans ranging from about $65,000 to $98,000 and used options
    typically running $18,000 to $75,000.

          Adaptive equipment and assistive technology
        Adaptive equipment for hobbies, exercise equipment, adjustable
    beds--these items are not one-time purchases. They wear out. They need
    upgrades. Technology evolves, and what worked 5 years ago is now
    obsolete. The additional funding would allow veterans like Eric to have
    tools that give them independence and comfort.

          Therapeutic and quality-of-life activities
        Activities like gym sessions with a personal trainer, painting
    classes, music therapy, adaptive recreation, community programs, and
    church or personal enrichment may not be ``medical'' on paper, but they
    are essential for quality of life--they transform mere existence into
    true living, yet are often not covered by the VA. For veterans like
    Eric, who require 24/7 care, participating in these activities involves
    significant support: organizing and scheduling outings, one or two
    caregivers assisting with physical preparation, transportation, and
    ongoing help to ensure full engagement and participation in the
    activity.

          Respite care for families
        Spouses, parents, and children who become full-time caregivers burn
    out--physically, emotionally, financially. Respite care is not a break
    from duty; it is a critical component of sustaining long-term
    caregiving and benefits the caregiver AND the veteran.

          Out of pocket expenses related to VA programs
        The Federal Government provides many benefits and services for
    veterans like Eric, but sometimes agencies like the VA are so difficult
    to navigate that families like ours end up paying out of pocket for
    needed services like: wet wipes, 4x4 gauze for stomach tube, catheters,
    dental appointments. In addition, arbitrary caps, misaligned programs,
    and increased costs of living mean that available programs don't cover
    Eric's needs. And sometimes, Eric, who will never be able to work
    again, needs to simply have cash on hand to be able to support his
    family.
        These are the things additional funding supports. These are the
    things that allow my son--and others like him--to experience life with
    dignity, purpose, and comfort.
        We have stretched every dollar, we have fought every battle, and we
    have advocated at every stage because time continues to move forward.
    Veterans like Eric do not stop needing care just because the years
    pass. In fact, as they age with catastrophic injuries, their needs
    increase.
        This legislation recognizes that reality. It acknowledges that the
    original support--while deeply appreciated--was never designed to cover
    two decades of round-the-clock care. It gives families the ability to
    adapt, to adjust, and to ensure that veterans are not simply surviving,
    but living.
        And just as importantly, this legislation addresses what happens
    when time finally catches up--when a severely injured veteran passes
    away from the very injuries they sustained in service. The proposed
    increase in Dependency and Indemnity Compensation is not a symbolic
    gesture. It is a lifeline. Families who have spent years, often
    decades, caring for their veteran do not suddenly stop carrying the
    financial and emotional weight of those injuries upon the loss of the
    veteran. The medical equipment, the home modifications, the vehicle
    payments, the caregiving expenses, the loss of income and retirement
    wages--those responsibilities don't disappear after the funeral. The
    current DIC rate simply does not reflect the reality of those
    continuing costs. An increase would allow surviving spouses to maintain
    stability, preserve the homes and systems built over a lifetime, and
    avoid financial hardship after years of sacrifice. However, in addition
    to this change, we suggest that parent caregivers enrolled in the VA's
    Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) be
    treated as spouses for the purposes of DIC eligibility. This would
    remove an inequity for a relatively small, but highly vulnerable
    population of survivors who often left their employment and lost their
    retirement to serve as caregivers, but, due to an outdated income
    threshold, do not qualify for DIC payments. Together, these changes
    honor the service member's sacrifice by protecting the family they
    leave behind.
        When I look at my son today, at 45 years old, I see a man who gave
    everything he had in service to his country. He cannot speak for
    himself anymore--so I am here to speak for him. And I am asking you to
    work together now to find a mechanism to ensure that the time he has,
    and the time all severely injured veterans have, is filled with the
    care and support they earned.
        Thank you for your time, and for considering what this support
    truly means to families like mine.

                      Prepared Statement of Sharri Briley

        Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano, and distinguished members of
    the House Veterans Affairs Committee:

        Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of the
    Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act,
    legislation that will finally bring meaningful increases to benefits
    for survivors and catastrophically disabled veterans.
        My name is Sharri Briley, and I am the proud surviving spouse of
    Chief Warrant Officer Three Donovan Lee ``Bull'' Briley, an Army
    Special Operations Blackhawk helicopter pilot.
        My husband Donovan had always been larger than life. We met at a
    blood donation drive at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. On
    one of our earliest dates, he invited me to a community event at his
    junior high school. Mid-conversation, I looked up to see him sprinting
    headfirst down the side of the building, performing an Australian
    rappel with the kind of fearless energy that came to define him. At
    that moment, I remember thinking, ``Who is this guy?''
        From then on, he never ceased to surprise me, sweeping me off my
    feet and taking my breath away. It wasn't long before his bold spirit
    drew me into a love story I would never forget. We married just 10
    months after we began dating, and this December 28th would have marked
    our 42d wedding anniversary.
        Donovan was a born aviator--brave, daring, and deeply devoted to
    his family. We were blessed to welcome our daughter, Jordan, 5 years
    into our marriage. From an early age, she adapted her world around her
    father's flight schedule: sleeping in late so she could stay up at
    night to sing with him when he returned from missions. We would lie in
    bed together, singing old hymns and patriotic songs until she knew
    every word by heart. Donovan, who grew up singing in church, would
    often croon Elvis to me, and I would melt like butter every time. He
    made it a point to always fill our home with music, laughter, and love.
        He read to Jordan with theatrical flair, igniting her love of
    learning. He taught her to climb trees before she turned two, to ride
    her bike, and even pulled her first tooth. One Christmas, he jingled
    bells outside her window so she would believe Santa was arriving. It is
    these small, cherished moments that defined him far more than any medal
    ever could.
        On October 3, 1993, my husband was killed in Mogadishu, Somalia,
    while flying a mission in support of American ground forces during
    Operation Gothic Serpent. His Blackhawk helicopter was struck by a
    rocket-propelled grenade. Donovan's actions, and those of his comrades,
    were later memorialized in the book and movie Black Hawk Down. But for
    me and our daughter, Jordan, who was just 5 years old at the time,
    Donovan's sacrifice has never been a story on a screen. It has been our
    lived reality every day for thirty-two years.
        For his courage, Donovan was awarded the Distinguished Flying
    Cross, later upgraded to the Silver Star following years of advocacy
    from myself and his fellow soldiers. He also received the Purple Heart
    and two Air Medals. Yet no medal can replace the empty chair at
    birthdays, graduations, and family milestones. No decoration can fill
    the silence left by his absence. The families of America's fallen live
    with this reality for the rest of our lives.
        After Donovan's death, I made it my mission to ensure that families
    like mine are never forgotten, that the Nation that asked our loved
    ones to serve also keeps its promise to care for those left behind. I
    have worked with organizations like Hearts of Our Heroes and, as a
    proud member of Gold Star Spouses of America, I continue to advocate
    for the survivors who too often feel invisible in the aftermath of war.
        This legislation is deeply personal to me, because it acknowledges
    that survivors deserve more than words of sympathy; we deserve tangible
    support. For surviving spouses, the bill increases Dependency and
    Indemnity Compensation (DIC) by 1 percent each year for 5 years, in
    addition to the annual cost-of-living adjustment. Today, roughly half a
    million survivors receive DIC, which currently amounts to about $1,653
    per month.
        Survivors have not received a real increase in over 30 years.
    During that time, the cost of food, housing, childcare, and medical
    care has grown dramatically. A modest but meaningful DIC increase will
    help surviving spouses put food on the table, cover rent, and provide
    stability for their children. It will send a clear message that our
    government recognizes the ongoing sacrifice made by surviving families.
        The bill also strengthens support for catastrophically disabled
    veterans and their caregivers. Families like that of Sergeant Eric
    Edmundson, who sustained devastating injuries in Iraq and now requires
    daily, round-the-clock care, represent the enduring costs of war. His
    wife and parents provide that care out of love, but the financial and
    emotional burden is immense. This bill provides over $10,000 more each
    year in Special Monthly Compensation for these families. That increase
    will not erase their hardships, but it will give them greater resources
    to continue providing the dignity, independence, and quality of life
    their loved ones deserve.
        In total, more than 520,000 survivors, caregivers, and veterans
    will benefit from this legislation. This is the most significant
    expansion of survivor and caregiver benefits in decades.
        For too long, survivors and catastrophically disabled veterans have
    waited for Congress to act. This bill answers that call. It represents
    a long overdue acknowledgment that families like mine, and like the
    Edmundsons, should not have to worry whether they can make ends meet
    while carrying the invisible burdens of service and sacrifice.
        As we marked the thirty-second anniversary of Donovan's death this
    October, I reflected on his courage, his love for his family, and his
    devotion to his country. I cannot change that he did not come home. But
    you, the Members of this Committee, can change the future for the
    families who walk in my shoes today and for generations to come.
        When I think about Donovan--singing Elvis in our living room,
    reading stories to Jordan, jingling Santa's bells--I'm reminded that
    behind every legislative and policy debate are real families, real
    love, and real sacrifices.
        I urge you to pass the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans
    Benefits Expansion Act, and in doing so, deliver on the sacred promise
    that our Nation makes to its heroes and the loved ones they leave
    behind.
        Thank you for your consideration.

                       Prepared Statement of Tom Wheaton

        Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano, and members of the committee,
    Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you for the
    opportunity to submit our views on the bills being examined by the
    committee today. No group of veterans understand the full scope of
    benefits and care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
    better than PVA members--veterans who have incurred a spinal cord
    injury or disorder (SCI/D).

    H.R. 4077, the GUARD Veterans' Health Care Act

        In recent years, there has been a noticeable uptick in the
    marketing of Medicare Advantage affinity plans to veterans, including
    those dually covered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).
    Insurers are often able to offer incentives to attract veterans to
    these plans (e.g., $0 premiums or supplemental benefits), which
    typically do not include prescription benefits under Medicare Part D.
    Many of these veterans already receive much of their care and
    prescriptions through the VHA, so their participation in a Medicare
    Advantage plan is likely a redundant effort. Meanwhile, insurers of
    these Advantage plans receive full monthly capitated rates for their
    veteran enrollees from the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
    Services, but they do not reimburse the VHA system for any Medicare-
    covered service that occurs in VHA facilities, since the VHA is not
    allowed to bill Medicare for reimbursement.
        This legislation seeks to amend title 38, United States Code, and
    the Social Security Act to allow the VA to recover from Medicare
    Advantage and Medicare prescription drug plans part of the cost of care
    or services furnished to veterans enrolled in these Medicare benefits
    for both service--connected and non-service-connected disabilities.
    Because Medicare Advantage plans receive fixed per-patient payments for
    health care services without having payments reduced when veterans
    receive care through the VHA, it's a reasonable assumption that the
    department should have the ability to recoup some of those costs. This
    would be, in essence, a form of Medicare subvention, which PVA has
    generally supported for decades.
        The delivery of health care has changed dramatically in recent
    years, and the intense pressure to control costs, coupled with the
    rapid spread of managed care, has had an impact on every health
    delivery system in this country, including VA. We believe Congress
    should consider legislation like this which could be beneficial in a
    couple of ways. First, VA would be reimbursed by Medicare Advantage
    plans for the high-quality care it provides to veterans who had the
    opportunity to seek it elsewhere. Second, and perhaps most importantly,
    it helps preserve veteran access to VA's direct care system.
        VA's SCI/D system of care is the crown jewel of the VA's health
    care system. It is unequaled in the care it provides to paralyzed
    veterans. There are no comparable systems of such care in either the
    private sector or the world. PVA's number one priority is to protect
    this system of care. Access to the care it provides is the difference
    between life and death for our members. PVA members want to receive
    their care at the VA because it is the best care available for them.
    Allowing VA to receive payment from certain Medicare plans for care and
    services it provides these veterans is a commonsense use of taxpayer
    funds.

    H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits
    Expansion Act of 2025

        PVA strongly supports provisions in this bill that would increase
    the amount of Special Monthly Compensation (SMC) for the most severely
    disabled veterans and raise VA Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
    (DIC) rates for the surviving family members of deceased servicemembers
    and veterans. PVA has long advocated for increasing these critical
    benefits. Unfortunately, little attention has been paid in recent years
    to the ongoing financial needs of these veterans and their survivors.

    Increase in Special Monthly Compensation

        SMC is arguably the most important ancillary benefit for veterans
    with severe, service-connected disabilities. The benefit is unique in
    that it is dependent on non-economic factors such as the profoundness
    of the disability, personal inconvenience, and social inadaptability.
    For example, a veteran who lost the use of their lower extremities in
    service to their country is compensated not just for the loss in their
    future earnings potential, but also all future hardships and costs
    associated with the disability. VA considers entitlement to SMC based
    on the medical evidence when adjudicating a claim for service
    connection or an increase in an evaluation. VA considers it an
    ``inferred issue.'' To be clear, given the extreme nature of the
    disabilities incurred by most veterans in receipt of SMC, we do not
    believe that the impact on quality of life can be totally compensated
    for; however, SMC does at least offset some of its loss.
        Some of the most seriously disabled veterans who, because of their
    disability, can no longer take care of themselves without aid, may be
    eligible for aid and attendance (A&A). There are three rates for A&A
    within special monthly compensation. If the veteran has a single 100
    percent schedular-evaluated disability and requires the aid of another
    person to perform the personal functions required in everyday living,
    the veteran would be considered for A&A under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1114 (r).
    If the veteran is entitled to the maximum rate under either 38 U.S.C.
    Sec.  1114 (o) or (p), and needs regular A&A, the veteran would be
    considered for A&A under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1114 (r)(1) or SMC R1. If the
    veteran meets the requirements for R1, and then clearly establishes the
    need for supervised, daily, skilled health care on a continuing basis,
    the veteran would be considered for a higher A&A benefit under 38
    U.S.C. Sec.  1114 (r)(2) or SMC R2. These veterans live with the most
    severely disabling conditions and might be bedridden due to a traumatic
    spinal cord injury or a disease such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
    (ALS). Currently, the SMC rates of R1, and R2 are $9,559.22 and
    $10,964.66, respectively. Meanwhile, SMC T is provided to veterans with
    severe medical residuals related to a service-connected traumatic brain
    injury (TBI). These veterans often need additional care, and SMC T is
    provided at the SMC R2 rate for additional financial support.
        Even with additional financial support, many of our most severely
    disabled veterans are struggling. They often spend more on daily home-
    based care and other disability-related needs than they receive in SMC
    benefits, which generates a tremendous financial strain on them.
    Eventually, some are forced to opt for care in an institutional
    setting, which is even more costly to the taxpayer. This problem is due
    in part to SMC's baseline rates, which haven't been adjusted in
    decades, so they are inadequate to offset the burden placed on veterans
    by their disabilities.
        Most veterans receiving SMC are spending it directly on their care.
    Some veterans are fortunate to have parents or family members who can
    provide for many of their care needs. It may cost $30-$35 an hour for a
    veteran to hire someone to attend to such needs. If the veteran needed
    skilled care nursing, the cost would be much higher. Even veterans who
    have family members to help provide daily care, or receive home-based
    supports from the VHA, often need to hire additional assistance.
    Bringing someone in for just 6 hours a day could cost $180 per day or
    $5,400 a month. That's about half of the SMC a veteran with R2
    receives. In addition, many veterans who have received their R1 or R2
    rating earlier in their lives due to a training accident or wounds
    received on the battlefield, might not realize how much more aid will
    be needed as they get older. SCI/D ages with the veteran, and like any
    injury or medical condition, as the body ages the conditions get worse
    and the costs that used to be covered by their compensation are no
    longer adequate for their new needs. For those catastrophically
    disabled veterans who don't have family members close by to support
    them, it's not uncommon for them to use the bulk of their SMC for
    needed care, especially later in life.
        The higher direct and indirect costs of living with a disability
    are well documented. A 2020 study determined a household containing an
    adult with a disability that limits their ability to work requires, on
    average, 28 percent more income (or an additional $17,690 a year) to
    obtain the same standard of living as a similar household without a
    member with a disability.\1\ Many PVA members have examples of
    additional costs for daily living due to their disability that many of
    us take for granted. They run the gamut from the mundane to life
    threatening.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Extra Costs of Living with a Disability in the U.S.--
    Resetting the Policy Table.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In my own life, I have found that living with my condition creates
    costs that many would normally not have to face. Wheelchairs are not
    sports cars that can ease through turns or whip around bends. I have
    found that drywall repairs and repairing or replacing damaged door
    frames is a constant strain on the budget. Vehicles suffer similar
    damage that need constant attention. My clothing wears out faster than
    most, as every point of contact between myself and my chair causes
    rips, tears, and worn spots. Couple that with the need for adapted and
    tailored clothes, made especially for my situation, means that the
    clothing allowance provided by the VA runs out quickly, and I find
    myself going deeper into my own pocket just to keep myself properly
    clothed. As an advocate for paralyzed veterans, I need to keep and
    maintain suits so I can participate in events like this hearing. I may
    look dapper, but maintaining this image is more costly than you might
    realize.
        Traveling is also more expensive. First, many veterans who utilize
    a wheelchair and choose to fly must travel first class, as the
    difficulty boarding and deboarding a plane is just too much due to
    their physical limitations. When we get to our destinations, we find
    many hotels whose ``accessible rooms'' aren't, because there isn't
    enough room to accommodate a large wheelchair. The accessible room with
    the roll in shower may only have a king bed. So, if a veteran has a
    caregiver traveling with them, two rooms may have to be rented instead
    of one. This makes it more expensive for travel and many of us who are
    living off the SMC we receive find it impossible to take even a small
    vacation with our families. Living with paralysis leads to added costs
    in all aspects of my life, whether it is hiring someone to do regular
    home upkeep or shovel show, or purchasing necessary items like shower
    benches; they all put a strain on the budget.
        A fellow PVA member who also lives in Colorado is housebound
    because of their service-connected condition. It is extremely difficult
    for them to do things that most of us take for granted. For a person
    with SCI/D, a trip to the grocery store can be daunting, so this
    veteran must have needed items delivered, which adds an additional $20-
    $30 a trip, not including the additional markup of 15 percent, in her
    case, of the in-store items. Additionally, she incurs charges on some
    very basic errands that the average American wouldn't give a second
    thought to, such as dropping off or picking up dry cleaning, going to
    the pharmacy or post office. She utilizes an online service to help
    mitigate costs, but it is not free, and it adds up quickly.
        Another example of higher expenses is the cost of renting an
    accessible vehicle. PVA's Senior Vice President, who uses a power
    wheelchair, relayed her experience renting an accessible van for a PVA
    business trip earlier this year. She knew of two companies in the large
    metropolitan area she was visiting on the west coast that rented
    accessible vans. The first one she called told her that they didn't
    work weekends and didn't deliver vehicles to the airport. They also
    won't pick up customers who are renting vehicles. Renters must arrange
    with another company for transportation from the airport to the
    company's pickup location. She then called the other company, which was
    willing to deliver a vehicle to the airport. The delivery fee was
    nearly $200. Then the daily rental fee was over $100 a day. This was
    the cost borne by our organization, but it could just as easily have
    been the cost to a veteran visiting the area to see family. In that
    case, the cost would be borne solely by the veteran.
        Owning an accessible vehicle is also costly despite the amount
    offered through the VA's auto grant program. A PVA member in West
    Virginia lives in a rural area, and air travel is challenging and
    potentially even dangerous for him. So, he relies extensively on his
    adapted vehicle. It's easy to think that an eligible veteran receives
    their auto grant and then the issue is resolved, but that isn't the
    case. The auto grant amount is currently $27,000, which might sound
    like a lot, until you realize an adapted vehicle can cost anywhere
    between $50,000 for a sedan to upwards of $90,000 for a van.
        Adapted vehicles are usually larger and heavier which causes them
    to consume more fuel and require additional maintenance. To maintain an
    adapted vehicle means to acquire unique costs that the average vehicle
    owner does not encounter. Our member in West Virginia says the increase
    in his SMC over the past few years was erased by a single purchase of
    new tires for his vehicle because of increased costs. These are just a
    few examples of the costs associated with living with physical
    disabilities.
        Damage to the spinal cord or nerves often makes veterans more
    susceptible to temperature. For those with Multiple Sclerosis (MS),
    inflammation in the nervous system causes damage to the myelin sheath,
    a fatty coating around nerve fibers that helps them send electrical
    signals. This damage and myelin loss (demyelination) impairs the
    nerves' ability to send electrical signals and makes it harder for them
    to regulate their body temperature. Roughly three-fourths of all
    veterans with MS find their symptoms get worse in response to heat, so
    they rely heavily on air conditioning to help manage their condition.
    In similar fashion, many veterans with high level spinal cord injuries
    (above T-6) experience difficulties because their heat dissipating and
    heat conserving mechanisms are interrupted. This can trigger
    Dysautonomia, a nervous system disorder that disrupts autonomic body
    processes, and in the severest cases, Autonomic Dysreflexia, a
    dangerous situation that requires immediate medical attention.
        While SMC receives a modest annual cost-of-living adjustment, it
    does not account for actual increases in the types of services our
    members require. For example, retail electricity prices have increased
    faster than the rate of inflation since 2022, and the U.S. Energy
    Information Administration expects this trend to continue for at least
    another year. Some veterans who are kept alive by a ventilator have
    reported electricity bills of more than $1,000! \2\ Another veteran has
    had modifications made to their very rural house to include electrical
    door openers, electrical sinks, adapted lights, etc. However, due to
    the unreliable power grid in the area, VA also installed generators to
    ensure the veteran is not put in a life-threatening situation. These
    generators need maintenance and fuel, which are costly and not covered
    by the VA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ U.S. electricity prices continue steady increase--U.S. Energy
    Information Administration (EIA).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2007, after studying veterans' benefits for two and a half
    years, the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission, which was
    established by Public Law 108-136, the National Defense Authorization
    Act of 2004, released its long-awaited report that addressed the
    benefits and services available to veterans, servicemembers, and their
    families. In their concluding recommendations, they stated succinctly
    that, ``Congress should review the profound impact of disabilities on a
    veteran's quality of life and consider increasing SMC payments and
    determine if additional ancillary benefits are warranted.'' \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Honoring the Call to Duty: Veterans' Disability Benefits in the
    21st Century (2007), Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I want to stress that being disabled is costly, both financially
    and otherwise. A basic task for most people often results in an
    additional cost to those with an SCI/D. Cleaning the house, mowing the
    lawn, or general care of the property--even changing a light bulb--can
    require a catastrophically disabled veteran to pay someone to perform
    these services. Just maintaining life impacts their finances. They
    don't often have the choice to perform these tasks themselves. These
    injuries were incurred serving this Nation, and we as a nation should
    be able to do more to ensure that a disabled veteran never has to be
    institutionalized because they can no longer afford, even at a young
    age, to live in the community.
        We are pleased to support the provision in this bill that would
    increase the amount of R1, R2, and T, SMC rates by $10,000 annually.
    The veterans with these ratings are living with the most disabling
    conditions and therefore incur the most costs associated with them. We
    thank the supporters of this bill for seeking to address this issue and
    we look forward to this increase becoming law.

    Increase in Dependency and Indemnity Compensation

        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.
    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 the age of 18. DIC benefits typically
    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.
        Our oldest veterans are passing away, and in the case of many of
    our members, their surviving spouses were their primary caregivers for
    40 years or more. Many of them could not work outside of the home. When
    a service-connected SCI/D veteran passes away, monthly compensation
    that may have been upwards of $10,000 a month stops, and their
    surviving spouse receives roughly a fifth of that per month in DIC,
    creating a tremendous hardship on those left behind. Adjusting to this
    precipitous drop of revenue into the household can be too difficult for
    some surviving spouses who may be forced to sell their homes and move
    in with friends or family members. In addition, that spouse may have
    been receiving caregiver benefits and the loss of that compensation is
    economically catastrophic. Having to handle this along with the death
    of a loved one can leave the survivor in a precarious mental and
    financial position.
        For me personally, the livelihood of my loved ones is a paramount
    concern to me. They have spent a good portion of their lives caring for
    me and helping me enjoy mine. I am very aware that when I am gone, the
    amount that will be provided to them falls far short of the amount
    needed to give them financial security. That is not the life I want to
    leave for them. They have served their nation in their own way and
    deserve better than to be left impoverished once I am gone. Because of
    this, I have scrimped and saved where I can, to build up a tiny amount
    so I have something additional to leave them. This is not right. I pay
    close attention to efforts to increase DIC because I know any increase
    in the benefit is an increase in my family's future well-being.
        PVA supports this bill's provision increasing the DIC amount by 1
    percent every year for 5 years in addition to the yearly cost-of-living
    adjustment. This would be the most significant increase in veteran
    survivors' benefits in years. It also represents a major step toward
    our goal of ending the disparity between DIC and all other Federal
    survivor benefit programs.
        PVA would once again like to thank the committee for the
    opportunity to present our views on the legislation being considered
    today. We look forward to working with you on this legislation and
    would be happy to answer any questions.

      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 2026

    Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of National Veterans Sports
    Programs & Special Events--Grant to support rehabilitation sports
    activities--$368,500.

                                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.

                         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.

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     Prepared Statement of Kristina Keenan

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

    H.R. 4077, GUARD Veterans' Health Care Act

        The VFW supports this legislation to allow the Department of
    Veterans Affairs (VA) to recover costs from Medicare Advantage and
    Medicare Part D plans. This would significantly enhance and clarify
    VA's authority to recover costs directly from Medicare Advantage plans,
    helping to offset the expenses of care provided to veterans. Currently,
    a problem arises with the duplication of Medicare payments for veterans
    enrolled in both VA and Medicare Advantage or Part D plans. Under
    existing law, VA is prohibited from billing Medicare for services
    provided to veterans, which results in private insurers receiving
    payments from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services without
    actually covering veterans' care. This loophole leads to taxpayers
    effectively paying twice for the same services.
        Resolution No. 603 (VA Medicare and TRICARE Reimbursement) approved
    in 2024 at the 125th VFW National Convention acknowledges the
    significant role that medical care collections can play in
    supplementing the appropriations that VA receives from Congress. Given
    the increased demand on VA health care due to the enactment of the PACT
    Act, it is crucial to ensure that the Veterans Health Administration
    has adequate funding.
        These changes would significantly improve VA's financial
    flexibility and efficiency. However, careful implementation is
    essential to avoid unintended consequences. Strengthening VA's
    authority to recover costs from Medicare Advantage and Part D plans
    must not create new administrative barriers, delays in care, or
    confusion for veterans about what services are covered and by whom. VA
    must ensure that expanded billing authority is paired with modernized
    claims systems, clear guidance to insurers, and adequate training for
    VA staff so that reimbursement processes do not slow access to non-
    service-connected care or generate disputes between VA and private
    plans. Additionally, rigorous oversight is needed to prevent insurers
    from shifting liabilities, denying claims inappropriately, or altering
    provider networks in response to VA's new authority. With strong
    coordination, transparency, and implementation safeguards, H.R. 4077
    can close long-standing payment gaps, protect taxpayers, strengthen
    VA's financial stability, and maintain or even enhance the quality and
    timeliness of care veterans receive.

    H.R. 6047, Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion
    Act of 2025

        While this legislation proposes increases to Special Monthly
    Compensation and enhancements to Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
    (DIC), these gains would come at the expense of disabled veterans.
    Specifically, the proposal would impose the VA home loan funding fee on
    veterans with disability ratings of 70 percent and below, who are
    currently and have always been exempt from this fee. Consistent with
    Resolution No. 601 (Protecting Health Care and Benefits) approved this
    year at the 126th VFW National Convention to safeguard the full suite
    of veterans' benefits and services, the VFW opposes reducing the
    benefits of one group of veterans to expand those of another.
        The VA Home Loan Guaranty program is one of the most enduring and
    historically significant benefits earned through military service,
    rooted in the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 that helped
    veterans prosper after service, creating America's middle class.
    However, this proposal to impose a funding fee on disabled veterans,
    even on the second and any subsequent uses of the loan, would
    fundamentally alter that legacy and represents a significant step in
    the wrong direction. Funding fees have traditionally been used as
    budgetary offset tools, but applying them to disabled veterans is
    unprecedented and undermines the foundational belief that these
    benefits are earned through service, not bought with fees.
        This policy shift would disproportionately affect veterans who,
    while not totally incapacitated, often face underemployment, physical
    limitations, and reduced earning potential due to their disabilities.
    Charging them a fee for attempting to access secure, stable housing
    punishes them for trying to reintegrate and build a life after service.
    Further, while veterans rated at 80-100 percent would continue to
    receive full fee exemptions, as they should, imposing fees on those
    below that threshold would create a two-tiered system of worthiness
    based on disability percentage. Yet all disabled veterans earned their
    benefits. This sends the message to veterans with lower ratings that
    they are not disabled enough to qualify for this exemption. Disability
    ratings reflect medical impairment, not merit, and should not determine
    financial penalty or access.
        Additionally, VA funding fee reduces veterans' homebuying power and
    increases their long-term housing costs at a time when affordability is
    already at historic lows. For the average VA loan in 2025 of
    approximately $398,000, adding a 3.3 percent fee increases the starting
    loan balance by more than $13,000. It also raises monthly payments, and
    adds roughly $27,000 in total costs over the life of the loan, much of
    which is interest on the fee itself. Because most non-exempt veterans
    finance the fee, they begin their mortgage more than 3 percent
    underwater and need nearly two more years to reach a break-even equity
    position. Higher balances, higher payments, and longer periods of
    negative equity increase the risk of default for veterans.
        There are broader consequences, too. This change may create
    perverse incentives, driving more veterans to pursue higher disability
    ratings just to avoid the fee, further burdening the VA claims system.
    For example, bad public policy on the concurrent receipt of Department
    of Defense retirement and VA disability compensation pay has already
    created a situation for military retirees to seek disability ratings of
    50 percent or higher. The proposed change to the VA home loan policy
    would once again raise the stakes for veterans now to 80 percent or
    higher. Moreover, the VFW has warned the House and Senate Committees on
    Veterans' Affairs 15 times through testimony over the last 3 years
    about the exaggerated and fraudulent disability ratings perpetuated by
    unaccredited and unregulated pay-to-play Claim Sharks. VA's Office of
    Inspector General issued multiple fraud warnings over these schemes to
    maximize benefits. With one recent Department of Justice indictment in
    Puerto Rico and another fraud lawsuit in North Carolina, this kind of
    policy would likely exacerbate this scourge.
        Most importantly, disabled veterans have never paid the VA home
    loan funding fee in the history of the program. This proposal would
    represent a deeply concerning shift in how our Nation honors and repays
    the sacrifices of its disabled service members. Congress must not allow
    budgetary expediency to come at the expense of those who have already
    paid a high price in service to their country. The VFW strongly
    discourages rhetoric like recent The Washington Post articles claiming
    that veteran benefits are too generous. We call on our leaders to
    ``Honor the Contract'' by honoring their side of the military service
    contract to provide veterans with benefits and services as directed by
    law. If the committee changes the funding mechanism for this
    legislation, the VFW would be proud to lend our support to this overdue
    expansion of benefits.
        Special Monthly Compensation provides added disability compensation
    beyond the standard VA schedule rates for veterans with particularly
    severe disabilities. This proposal would provide eligible veterans a
    supplemental monthly allowance of $833.33. Veterans eligible for this
    supplement require 24-hour medical aid and attendance from either a
    trained layperson or a health care professional, depending on the
    severity of their injuries. Other than routine cost-of-living
    adjustments (COLAs) that track Social Security benefits, these severely
    disabled veterans have not received additional compensation increases
    in recent years.
        For survivors, the proposal would increase DIC by an additional 1
    percent every time Social Security benefits receive a COLA. This would
    take place each year for 5 years unless another piece of legislation
    were to extend it. After 5 years, DIC would revert to receiving
    increases only when Congress approved a COLA for this benefit, which is
    approved through legislation each year and is not automatic. If there
    were a year with no COLA increase, the DIC rate would not change.
        DIC currently lags behind other Federal survivor programs by
    approximately 12 percent and has not received a non-inflationary
    increase since the establishment of the current program in 1993.
    Presently, DIC pays 43 percent of the compensation of a veteran rated
    100 percent permanently and totally disabled, while other Federal
    survivor programs pay 55 percent. This proposed legislation would raise
    that percentage to only about 45 percent by the end of the 5-year
    period. While an increase in DIC is desirable, the VFW has been
    actively advocating for ways to reach the 55 percent rate to achieve
    parity with other Federal survivor programs. We suggest looking at ways
    to increase the base rate of this benefit annually, separately from
    COLA. Improvements to Special Monthly Compensation and DIC are well
    overdue, and the VFW is eager to work with the committee to find a
    better mechanism to fund these expansions.
        Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano, this concludes my testimony.
    I welcome any questions from you or members of the committee.

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

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

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

                     Prepared Statement of Margarita Devlin

        Good afternoon, Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano, and Members
    of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
    today to discuss pending legislation, including bills pertaining to
    disability compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation,
    education benefits, and home loan guaranty. Joining me today are Ms.
    Heather Ford, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Veterans Health
    Administration; Mr. Kevin Johnson, Director, Revenue Operations, Office
    of Finance, Veterans Health Administration; and Ms. Stephanie Li,
    Assistant Director, Regulations, Legislation, Engagement, and Training,
    Veterans Benefits Administration.

    H.R. XXXX - ``Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits
    Expansion Act of 2025''

        The Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion
    Act of 2025 provides targeted increases in compensation for the most
    severely disabled veterans and for surviving spouses receiving
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC), while modifying VA home-
    loan funding fee waivers.
        Section 2(a) of the bill would impact service-connected disability
    compensation benefits. VA disability compensation is typically paid
    based on the assignment of a percentage of disability rating ranging
    from 0 to 100 percent. In the early 1960's Congress acknowledged that
    certain injuries require additional compensation beyond the monetary
    values that the 1945 rating schedule percentages did not adequately
    address by creating special monthly compensation (SMC). SMC provides
    additional benefit payments to compensate severely disabled veterans
    for the permanent loss of independence, mobility, bodily function, and
    daily living capability resulting from additional functional and
    independence-loss caused by catastrophic disability. The tiered SMC
    system addresses injuries considered catastrophic by nature (i.e., loss
    of limbs, blindness, paralysis, loss of sphincter controls, or
    combinations thereof). The hierarchical design formalized those certain
    injuries that permanently eliminate autonomy and require a different
    category of compensation not just a higher percentage.
        Section 2(a) increases the statutory aid-and-attendance amounts
    payable to veterans already entitled under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1114(r) or
    Sec.  1114(t) by creating a new subsection (u). Effective December 1,
    2026, this subsection adds a flat supplemental payment of $833.33 per
    month to both the standard aid-and-attendance rate and the higher-level
    care rate--raising those amounts to $3,702.74 and $5,108.18,
    respectively, based on the December 1, 2024 COLA-adjusted levels.

        VA supports the intent of section 2(a) and looks forward to working
    with Congress to provide additional detail and adjustments to the
    proposed language.

        VA recommends that the amounts be rounded down to the nearest whole
    dollar. This change would maintain consistency with the other rates
    codified in 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1114 and simplify claims processing.
        Additionally, VA recommends amending 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5312 to align
    with other Federal entitlement programs that have built-in automatic
    annual cost-of-living adjustments to improve administrative
    efficiencies and ensure more timely adjustments.
        Section 2(b) increases the basic DIC payment for surviving spouses
    under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1311(a)(1) and (a)(3) by providing an enhanced
    COLA equal to the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment plus 1
    percentage point, for five COLA cycles beginning December 1, 2026.
    After the fifth adjustment, legislation would be needed for future
    COLAs.
        The bill would also require VA to publish the increased rates in
    the Federal Register.

        VA supports the intent of section 2(b) and looks forward to further
    engagement with Congress to refine the language.

        Section 2(b) would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5312 to only authorize an
    enhanced cost-of-living adjustment solely for the basic rate of DIC
    payable to a surviving spouse under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1311(a)(1) and
    (a)(3). Under this provision, for five COLA cycles beginning December
    1, 2026, those rates would increase by the Social Security COLA plus an
    additional 1 percentage point. The DIC rates for surviving spouses with
    dependent children under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1311(f) and for parents under
    Sec.  1315 would continue to receive an annual COLA equal to the COLA
    under title II of the Social Security Act. The additional amounts for
    surviving spouses who are housebound or in need of aid and attendance
    would not receive a COLA. As drafted, this exacerbates different COLA
    treatment across DIC categories.
        Section 3 of the bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3729(c) to
    temporarily narrow current VA home-loan funding fee waivers, for
    certain disabled veterans through September 30, 2035.

        The Department is reviewing section 3 of this bill and looks
    forward to working with Congress on further refinement.

    H.R. 4077     ``Guarantee Utilization of All Reimbursements for
    Delivery of Veterans' Health Care Act,'' or the ``GUARD Veterans'
    Health Care Act''

        Section 2(a) would add a new 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1729C(a) to require,
    notwithstanding sections 1814(c), 1835(d), and 1862(a)(3) of the Social
    Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  1395f(c), 1395n(d), and
    1395y(a)(3)), that if VA furnishes any health care item or service that
    is covered under the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social
    Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sec.  1395 et seq.) to any individual who is
    enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans or Medicare Part D
    prescription drug plans, the MA organization or Part D sponsor of such
    plan would be required to reimburse VA for such item or service for
    both service connected and non-service connected care regardless of any
    additional documentation, utilization management, or other
    administrative requirement the plan may impose on the item or service.
    Proposed section 1729C(b) would provide that VA would have to recover
    amounts required to be reimbursed through the procedures under 38
    U.S.C. Sec.  1729 to the same extent as those procedures are used to
    recover amounts authorized to be recovered under that section. Recovery
    of amounts reimbursed would have to be in such an amount, and occur in
    accordance with such procedures, as VA would prescribe. Proposed
    section 1729C(c) would state that subsection (a) would apply to MA and
    prescription drug plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2026.
    Proposed section 1729C(d) would state that amounts reimbursed to VA
    under subsection (a) would be deposited in the VA Medical Care
    Collections Fund (MCCF) under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1729A.
        Section 2(b) would amend sections 1814(c), 1835(d), and 1862(a)(3)
    of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sec.  1395 et seq.) to conform
    these laws with the proposed section 1729C.

        VA supports the goal of enhancing cost recovery efforts and
    improving fiscal responsibility across the Federal Government.

        Under current law, VA is prohibited from billing MA plans. This can
    result in duplicative costs to taxpayers when MA plans are paid for
    Veteran-enrollees who receive taxpayer-funded care from VA at no
    expense to the MA plans. Current law also prevents VA from recovering
    costs, from any payer, for service-connected care. Section 2 would seek
    to end this practice when billing MA and Medicare Part D plans by
    requiring MA organizations and Part D sponsors to reimburse VA for cost
    of both service connected and non-service connected items or services
    provided to veterans. This reimbursement obligation would apply
    regardless of any plan documentation or utilization management rules
    that the MA or Part D plan might otherwise impose.
        We would welcome the opportunity for additional dialog with the
    Committee and the Department of Health and Human Services to understand
    Federal budget impacts as well as any potential benefits or costs to
    Veterans currently utilizing both VA furnished care and Medicare
    programs. We look forward to engaging the Committee for further
    discussions.
        VA does not have a cost estimate for this section at this time.
        Section 3 of the bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1729 to enhance
    and clarify VA's authority to recover reasonable charges for care or
    services furnished to Veterans for non-service-connected disabilities
    from third parties, including private health insurers, employer-
    sponsored plans, automobile insurers, and parties subject to tort
    liability. The statutory revisions would broaden VA's recovery rights
    to encompass tort, contract, and other coverage circumstances in which
    a third party is financially responsible for the care necessitated by
    the non-service-connected disability.
        This section would require third-party payers to timely respond to
    VA reimbursement claims. Specifically, a third party receiving a claim
    for the cost of care would be required, within 45 days, to either: (A)
    pay the claim; (B) pay an alternative amount that VA has agreed in
    writing to accept; or (C) if the claim is disputed, provide written
    notice of the claim's receipt, stating with specificity either the
    reason for refusal to pay or the additional information required to
    substantiate the claim. If additional information were requested, VA
    would be required to respond within 45 days, and upon receipt of VA's
    response, third parties would have 15 days to pay the claim or provide
    a written denial with a clearly articulated reason for the denial.
        Interest would accrue at the rate set by the Department of the
    Treasury for any portion of the claim that remained unpaid after the
    applicable deadline. These requirements would impose statutory
    timeframes and documentation requirements for claim resolution,
    minimize the potential for delayed or disputed payments, and compensate
    VA for payment delays.

        VA supports section 3 of the bill, subject to amendments.

        VA supports the enhancement of its recovery authorities proposed in
    section 3 but has technical edits it recommends be included to ensure
    these provisions have maximum effect. These provisions would improve
    cost recoupment from third parties, assign payment responsibility more
    fairly, and provide additional resources for Veteran care.
        VA does not have a cost estimate for this section at this time.

                                   Conclusion

        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. We would be happy to
    answer any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have.

                           Statements for the Record

                                  ----------

                Prepared Statement of Disabled American Veterans

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

        DAV (Disabled American Veterans) appreciates the opportunity to
    provide testimony for the record of this legislative hearing
    considering H.R. 4077, the ``GUARD Veterans' Health Care Act'' and H.R:
    6047, the ``Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits
    Expansion Act of 2025''. DAV is a congressionally chartered non-profit
    veterans service organization with nearly one million wartime service-
    disabled veterans dedicated to ensuring our promise is kept to
    America's veterans.

                   H.R. 4077, GUARD Veterans' Health Care Act

        DAV understands and greatly appreciates the intention of H.R. 4077,
    the Guard Veterans' Health Care Act, to strengthen funding for the
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system and to reduce
    duplicative, unnecessary Federal spending on health care through the
    Medicare Advantage (MA) program. These are both worthy goals we share
    with the bill's sponsors and DAV applauds their continuing efforts to
    ensure veterans have timely and convenient access to VA's high-quality,
    veteran-centric care. However, looking at the history of VA budget
    requests and congressional appropriations, we have concerns about
    whether this legislation would be able to achieve these laudable goals.
        Medicare Advantage companies are compensated by the Medicare
    program on a fixed price per enrollee basis intended to cover the cost
    of their enrollees Medicare-covered health care expenses. However, when
    a veteran who is dual enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan and the VA
    health care system uses VA for their care, the insurance company is
    effectively receiving Federal funding for care being provided by VA. In
    recent years, private insurance companies have been aggressively
    marketing their Medicare Advantage plans to veterans because, on
    average, veteran enrollees yield greater profits.
        Currently, VA has the authority to seek reimbursement from private
    insurance companies for the non-service-connected care VA provides to a
    veteran who is also enrolled in a private health care plan, such as
    through their employer. VA can bill these insurance companies for care
    received at a VA facility or through VA's community care program with
    the resulting reimbursement deposited into VA's Medical Care
    Collections Fund (MCCF) and subsequently appropriated back to the VA
    health care system to pay for veterans' health care services. However,
    Federal law prohibits VA from seeking reimbursement from other Federal
    health care programs, including Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans
    operated by private insurance companies.
        H.R. 4077 would remove this statutory prohibition and allow VA to
    seek reimbursement from private companies operating Medicare Advantage
    plans. The goal of the legislation is to use this new source of revenue
    to increase the overall level of funding available for VA's health care
    programs. The bill also aims to reduce overall Federal health care
    spending by preventing Medicare Advantage companies from receiving
    payment for medical care provided by VA.
        Although the legislation would create a new funding stream for VA,
    there is nothing in the legislation that would prevent VA or Congress
    from offsetting this new funding by reducing other sources of funding,
    principally VA's annual discretionary appropriations. In fact, this is
    exactly what happened with the MCCF, which was originally designed to
    provide additional new funding for VA to extend its health care
    services to more veterans. However, when VA and the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB) prepare VA's annual budget request, they
    begin by estimating how much total funding is required for the next
    Fiscal Year and then build a total budget request based on all sources
    of funding available. VA's budget request now includes anticipated
    funding from the MCCF, the Recurring Expenses Transformational Fund
    (RETF) and the Toxic Exposures Fund (TEF), and those additional sources
    become offsets for new discretionary appropriations.
        For example, if VA estimates collecting $4 billion from the MCCF in
    a fiscal year, it reduces its request for new discretionary
    appropriations by $4 billion. Similarly, if VA anticipates having $25
    billion in mandatory funding from the TEF, it similarly reduces its
    discretionary appropriations request by $25 billion. There is no reason
    to believe, and no provision in the legislation to guarantee, that VA
    would not use the new Medicare Advantage reimbursement revenue in the
    same manner - as an offset against future discretionary appropriations
    requests - rather than as extra funding above what would have otherwise
    been available. While we fully respect the sponsors' intention to
    increase overall funding for VA health care, based on the history of
    the MCCF and other alternate sources of funding, we have concerns about
    whether this would actually occur.

    H.R. 6047, Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion
                                      Act

        H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits
    Expansion Act of 2025, would increase the amount of Special Monthly
    Compensation (SMC) for the most severely disabled veterans, increase
    the amount of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) for survivors
    of disabled veterans, and require disabled veterans rated 70 percent or
    less to pay funding fees for using the VA home loan guaranty program
    more than once. While DAV strongly supports the two benefit increases
    included in the legislation, we cannot support the provision of funding
    fees on disabled veterans and urge the Committee to remove that
    provision.
        DAV greatly appreciates the efforts of the Committee and the bill's
    sponsors to provide a long overdue increase in benefit levels for some
    of the most deserving veterans and their survivors. We have
    consistently advocated to increase rates of disability compensation,
    DIC and other critical supports that veterans have earned through their
    sacrifice and service. We recognize that the Committee operates under a
    House fiscal responsibility rule adopted in January, known as CUTGO
    (``cut-as-you-go''), that requires any legislation that would increase
    mandatory spending on veterans benefits to include commensurate
    mandatory spending reductions in other veterans benefit programs.
    Because increasing the home loan funding fee would effectively reduce
    this benefit for disabled veterans, we oppose this provision based on
    DAV's longstanding and fundamental opposition to any reduction in
    earned benefits for disabled veterans, particularly large ones such as
    the funding fee imposition.
        The VA home loan guaranty program has enabled millions of veterans
    to purchase homes, and especially those who do not have long credit
    histories or are unable to make large down payments. For disabled
    veterans, these funding fees have been waived in recognition of the
    circumstances and sacrifices of these American heroes. H.R. 6047 would
    eliminate the current fee waiver and apply the funding fees for
    service-connected disabled veterans rated 70 percent or less who use
    the loan guaranty more than once. Currently, the funding fee rate for a
    second or subsequent use, based on a down payment of 5 percent or less,
    is 3.3 percent of the total loan amount. On a typical $400,000 loan,
    the new funding fee would be more than $12,000 if paid upfront, or more
    than $25,000 if financed over the course of a 30-year mortgage. To put
    that in context, that is about the same cost as if the veteran wanted
    to purchase a home with one more bedroom or bathroom for their family.
        Furthermore, DAV firmly opposes all rules or statutes that require
    veterans benefit increases to be ``paid for'' by cuts to other veterans
    benefits. CUTGO and all similar PAYGO (``pay-as-you-go'') rules and
    laws essentially require veterans to pay for their own benefits,
    whereas we believe that ALL Americans should be paying for the benefits
    and services veterans have earned in defending our freedom. For these
    reasons, we urge Congress to exempt all veterans' programs, benefits
    and services from House CUTGO and Senate PAYGO rules adopted for the
    119th Congress, as well as the requirements of the Statutory Pay-As-
    You-Go Act requirements.
        We look forward to continuing our work with this Committee and
    Congress to enact legislation and appropriations that will ensure all
    disabled veterans, their families, caregivers, and survivors receive
    the benefits and services they have earned and deserve.

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]