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

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY
                         ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2026

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-46

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        Available via http://govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    63-303                    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

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS

                        MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas, Chairman

    AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky, Ranking
        American Samoa                       Member
    JACK BERGMAN, Michigan               CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
    NANCY MACE, South Carolina           MAXINE DEXTER, Oregon
    KEITH SELF, Texas                    KELLY MORRISON, Minnesota

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

                            C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2026

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

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

                             SPEAKING FROM THE DAIS

    The Honorable Michael R. Turner, U.S. House of Representatives,
      (OH-10)........................................................     4
    The Honorable Dina Titus, U.S. House of Representatives, (NV-01).     5
    The Honorable Brian Fitzpatrick, U.S. House of Representatives,
      (PA-01)........................................................     6
    The Honorable Suhas Subramanyam, U.S. House of Representatives,
      (VA-10)........................................................     6
    The Honorable Gabe Evans, U.S. House of Representatives, (CO-08).     7
    The Honorable Ryan Mackenzie, U.S. House of Representatives, (PA-
      07)............................................................     8
    The Honorable Keith Self, U.S. House of Representatives, (TX-03).     9

                                   WITNESSES
                                    Panel I

    Mr. James McCormick, Executive Director, Government Affairs,
      Vietnam Veterans of America....................................    10

    Mr. Paul Shipley, National Commander, AMVETS.....................    11

    Mrs. Tanya Wilson-Thomas, Surviving Spouse and Former Caregiver,
      Gold Star Wives of America.....................................    12

    Ms. Nancy Springer, Associate Director, National Legislative
      Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.........    14

                                    Panel II

    Ms. Jennifer Bover, Executive Director, Pension and Fiduciary
      Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of
      Veterans Affairs...............................................    22

            Accompanied by:

        Mr. Glenn Powers, Deputy Under Secretary, Field Programs and
            Cemetery Operations, National Cemetery Administration,
            U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

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

                                    APPENDIX
                        Prepared Statements Of Witnesses

    Mr. James McCormick Prepared Statement...........................    35
    Mr. Paul Shipley Prepared Statement..............................    37
    Mrs. Tanya Wilson-Thomas Prepared Statement......................    44
    Ms. Nancy Springer Prepared Statement............................    46

                              APPENDIX--continued

    Ms. Jennifer Bover Prepared Statement............................    48

                           Statements For The Record

    ALS Network Prepared Statement...................................    53
    National Association of Atomic Veterans, Inc. Prepared Statement.    54
    Paralyzed Veterans of America Prepared Statement.................    60
    Gold Star Spouses of America, Inc. Prepared Statement............    63
    Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors Prepared Statement......    69
    The Invisible Enemy Prepared Statement...........................    88
    Reserve Organization of America Prepared Statement...............    90
    National Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. Prepared
      Statement......................................................    98
    Berry Law Prepared Statement.....................................   100
    ALS United Prepared Statement....................................   135
    The ALS Association Prepared Statement...........................   137
    The American Legion Prepared Statement...........................   138

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2026

       Subcommittee on Disability Assistance &
                              Memorial Affairs,
                        Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
                                 U.S. House of Representatives,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m., in
    room 360, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Morgan Luttrell
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Luttrell, Self, McGarvey, Pappas,
    and Morrison.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF MORGAN LUTTRELL, CHAIRMAN

        Mr. Luttrell. The committee will come to order. Without
    objection, the chair may declare recess at any time.
        Thank you for joining us today. We are here to discuss nine
    bills that would benefit veterans and their survivors.
        The bills we will be considering today, the first one will
    require the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Board of
    Veterans' Appeals to include in their annual report the reasons
    why the Board has failed to decide benefits appeals in a timely
    manner; another is to provide equity between all veterans who
    are seeking transportation and private burial plot
    reimbursements from the VA; require the National Cemetery
    Administration (NCA) to publish an annual report like those
    published by Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Veterans
    Health Administration (VHA), and the Board of Veterans Appeals;
    initiate the expansion of the Dayton National Cemetery,
    acquiring nearby land at no charge to the Federal Government;
    change the eligibility requirements for the Dependency and
    Indemnity Compensation (DIC), VA's largest survivors benefit,
    to surviving spouses under the age of 55 who choose to remarry
    and to the survivors whose loved one passed away from service-
    connected Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) before the 10-
    year mark; and consider changes to how VA identifies fraudulent
    disability benefit questionnaires and the evidentiary standard
    for determining if some conditions are service-connected.
        The subcommittee has an important and unique
    responsibility. We are responsible for overseeing veterans'
    compensations, pensions, burial, fiduciary, and survivors'
    benefits. We touch many parts of the VA, including Compensation
    Service, the Board of Veterans' Appeals, the National Cemetery
    Administration, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
    Most importantly, this subcommittee makes an impact on veterans
    and their survivors at some of the--and of the most important
    times in their lives.
        The work we do affects veterans when they are seeking
    disability benefits. It affects them when they are under
    financial distress. It affects families when their veterans--
    when their veteran loved one passes away. It also affects how
    the veterans and their loved ones are honored long after they
    are gone. We are responsible for reviewing legislation that
    impacts veterans throughout their lives, and I am grateful that
    today we will be considering these bills that ensure veterans
    and their families are honored in their life and that they are
    properly cared for in their death.
        I do want to highlight that the bills we are considering
    today are not yet offset. This means that no mechanism has been
    identified for how we will fund these bills and ensure good
    policy and fiscal responsibility. That obviously goes hand-in-
    hand. Our responsibility as legislators and current lawmakers,
    the new spending must be offset by reduction elsewhere to
    minimize the growth of our national debt. Until this offset can
    be found and for other proposals, we would be unable to
    consider that legislation at the full committee markup.
        I look forward to working with Chairman Bost, Ranking
    Member McGarvey, and other members of this subcommittee on
    these important proposals today. I also look forward to hearing
    from witnesses who have joined us about how we can improve
    these bills.
        I now yield to the ranking member.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF MORGAN MCGARVEY, RANKING MEMBER

        Mr. McGarvey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good
    morning, everyone. Thank you all for being here today and for
    holding this hearing. Looks like we got a full agenda, so I am
    going to get right into things today. Just want to start by
    highlighting a few of the bills we are going to be hearing.
        I want to start by highlighting a bill from Representative
    Subramanyam, which is the Susan E. Lukas 9-11 Servicemember
    Fairness Act. I also want to recognize Susan herself, who I
    understand is with us here today. Thank you so much for your
    service, for your sacrifice, for being here, there you are, for
    being here and for, you know, for your bravery for the men and
    women alongside you that day.
        September 11th, is a day that for those of us who were
    here, will never forget. I can tell you what the temperature
    was like that day in the city where I was. It brought our
    country together in a way that I do not think we see much right
    now. Everyone was focused on how we help each other out. You
    are emblematic of that. Of course, it did lead to two wars that
    lasted 20 years. That created millions of veterans. We now have
    to take care of those veterans on this committee.
        Thankfully, we have the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson
    Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act
    and other laws that are addressing a lot of exposure to toxic
    substances and addressing the particular needs of this new
    generation of veterans. One of those groups is the
    servicemembers now, the veterans themselves who were at the
    Pentagon that day, who were at the Pentagon when it was struck.
    They did not get the attention; they did not get the care. They
    do not have same resources that other people exposed to toxic
    substances received even though there was jet fuel and fire
    foam and everything else dripping from the walls in the
    Pentagon that day.
        I am glad to see that H.R. 5339 is here, is going to move
    out of this committee across the House floor. Ultimately, we
    need to make sure this becomes law, so we fix this glaring gap
    in coverage for people.
        We have also learned that some illnesses do not show up
    until years after someone is exposed. That is especially true
    for servicemembers exposed to radiation during their service.
    That is why I am really glad we are taking up Representative
    Titus' Providing Radiation Exposed Servicemembers Undisputed
    Medical Eligibility (PRESUME) Act today. It is a very
    straightforward bill. It is a straightforward way to make sure
    that radiation-exposed veterans can actually access the care
    and the benefits they have earned.
        Honestly, it is heartbreaking when you hear these stories
    and see the illnesses from veterans at the Nevada Test and
    Training Range that they are dealing with. Hopefully, we can
    move this bill forward and finally get them those benefits.
    Their counterparts at the Department of Energy already receive
    these protections, I think it only makes sense that our
    veterans receive the same level of protection.
        Today on the agenda, we also have Ranking Member Takano's
    Fraud Reduction and Uncovering Deception (FRAUD) in VA
    Disability Exam Act, which tries to crack down on a familiar
    enemy of this committee, which is claim sharks and the
    disability benefits questionnaires mills.
        I am also pleased that today we are discussing H.R. 7620,
    the National Cemetery Administration Annual Report of 2026 from
    Representative Mackenzie, a bill I am happy to co-lead with
    him. This bill, simply put, it is good governance. Actually,
    when they came to me with the bill, I said they do not already
    do this? It requires the National Cemetery Administration to
    provide Congress with an annual report with basic statistical
    information about their activities and grants in the prior year
    and the projections for the year ahead. I have absolutely no
    reason to believe that the NCA is doing anything other than
    amazing work. If there is an agency in the entire Federal
    Government that is 100 percent mission-focused and dedicated to
    the families it serves, it is the NCA.
        That said, having a straightforward annual report to keep
    this committee and the American people informed, it just makes
    sense. It helps us do our job. It helps make sure taxpayer
    dollars are being used the right way. I appreciate
    Representative Mackenzie for working on this important bill and
    making sure that it is done in the bipartisan way our veterans
    deserve.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. We have got a full
    agenda, but the agenda seems focused on what the committee
    does, which is making sure our veterans--we honor the promise
    we made to our veterans for their service to us. Thank you.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. McGarvey.
        I respectfully request and ask that each member hold their
    statements to 3 minutes. In accordance with committee rules, I
    ask unanimous consent that the following members be permitted
    to participate in today's subcommittee hearing: Representative
    Turner from Ohio, Representative Titus from Nevada,
    Representative Hudson from North Carolina, Representative
    Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania, Representative Evans from
    Colorado, Representative Mackenzie from Pennsylvania, and
    Representative Subramanyam from Virginia. Without objection, so
    ordered.
        It is our practice that we will forego a round of
    questioning for the members. I will now recognize the members
    for their testimony.
        Mr. Turner, you are now recognized, sir.

                      STATEMENT OF MICHAEL TURNER

        Mr. Turner. Thank you, Chairman Luttrell and Ranking Member
    McGarvey, for holding this markup and considering H.R. 2164,
    the Dayton National Cemetery Expansion Act of 2025.
        Currently, the historic VA Cemetery in Dayton, Ohio, is
    running out of land for burials. Past expansion of the cemetery
    have required cannibalization of the historic Dayton VA Medical
    Center campus. Future planned expansion would not only require
    the medical center campus of VA to cede more land to the
    cemetery for burial use, but would also allow the cemetery to
    place grave site areas in the hospital grounds. That would have
    to be the only option for expansion for the burials.
        Since the VA's policy to expand the cemetery into these
    alternative areas has come to light, I have been working with
    the city of Dayton, the Montgomery County Land Bank, the Dayton
    and Montgomery County Port Authority, to remedy this issue by
    obtaining land adjacent to the cemetery for future burials.
    Once this land is secured, the Montgomery County Land Bank will
    donate the land to the VA Cemetery for expansion for space,
    eliminating any future need to take away land from the Dayton
    VA Medical Center. My bill would simply require the VA
    Department to accept the land donation.
        This land legislation, which was passed by this
    subcommittee during the 118th Congress by a voice vote in which
    enjoys a support from several community leaders in Dayton, will
    also allow families of past veterans to continue to bury their
    loved ones in their hometown on this historical VA campus,
    which was established shortly after the Civil War and is now a
    National Historic Landmark. I and other leaders in the Dayton
    community are proud of the rich historic heritage of our VA
    campus and have worked tirelessly to maintain the historical
    integrity of our grounds. We appreciate your support for
    veterans and certainly for this bill and for our efforts to
    expand these historic grounds. We thank you for your
    consideration of my bill.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Titus, you are recognized for 3 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF DINA TITUS

        Ms. Titus. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    McGarvey, members of the committee. I appreciate very much
    being allowed to sit in with you today to talk about the
    PRESUME Act.
        In Nevada's First congressional District, I hear every day
    from veterans who served honorably, returned home expecting to
    get fair treatment, and instead have encountered unnecessary
    barriers to the care and benefits they earned. Among them are
    atomic veterans, our cold war warriors, and servicemembers who
    worked at the Nevada Test Site and Training Range. These are
    individuals whose missions were so highly classified that their
    presence has been effectively erased even as they were exposed
    to toxic radiation.
        For decades, these veterans have suffered from cancers,
    pulmonary conditions, and other serious illnesses while being
    told by the system that they were never there because their
    records have been masked or buried behind classification. We
    know the military promises to leave no soldier behind and
    Congress must live up to that same commitment. That that is why
    I introduced the PRESUME Act, H.R. 4469. It would eliminate the
    unjust and nearly impossible requirement that atomic veterans
    prove a certain radiation dose before accessing VA benefits.
        Veterans were often exposed without their knowledge and
    today they are asked to provide documentation that is
    controlled entirely by the government. This data has
    hysterically, too, but historically been incomplete, been
    unreliable, or been told, well, that was probably destroyed in
    the fire in St. Louis in 1973. When the government controls all
    the evidence, veterans should not bear the burden of proving
    the impossible. The PRESUME Act would remove those bureaucratic
    barriers and bring fairness and parity to radiation-exposed
    veterans.
        This bill has been endorsed by the Disabled American
    Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), National Association
    of Atomic Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and other
    veterans groups. Now, there are only a few hundred of these
    atomic veterans left, so we need to act now before it is too
    late. These men and women played a critical role in securing
    our victory in the cold war, but it was at great personal cost
    and with little public recognition. It is past time that we
    honor their service.
        As we continue to build on the success of the PACT Act, I
    urge the committee to keep veterans who were in these atomic
    situations front and center. Their service was extraordinary,
    their sacrifice was honorable, and their delay in receiving
    care is just unconscionable. We cannot change the past, but we
    can assure that there is a future rooted in dignity,
    transparency, and justice.
        I thank you for your attention to this and I urge you to
    include it and keeping those atomic veterans in mind. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ms. Titus.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick, sir, you are recognized for 3 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF BRIAN FITZPATRICK

        Mr. Fitzpatrick. I thank the chair and the ranking member
    for allowing me to speak today on my legislation, H.R. 1685,
    the Justice for ALS Veterans Act.
        Mr. Chair, Mr. Ranking Member, this is a bipartisan,
    bicameral bill that ensures that surviving spouses of veterans
    who pass away due to ALS receive the full benefits that they
    have earned. As we all know, ALS is a fast moving, aggressive,
    and fatal disease. Our veterans are twice as likely to be
    diagnosed compared to the general population.
        With an average life expectancy of only 2 to 5 years after
    diagnosis, our ALS veterans often do not survive long enough to
    meet the 8-year requirement for dependency and indemnity
    compensation, leaving their families without this benefit after
    their loved one passes away. Denying a surviving spouse of
    benefits because their loved one did not live long enough to
    meet an arbitrary requirement, I believe is a betrayal to our
    commitment of those who served. The Justice for ALS Veterans
    Act rights this wrong and ensures that the families of our
    brave servicemembers receive the support that they need and
    that they have earned.
        There is no more work to be done--I am sorry, there is much
    more work to be done to accelerate research and treatment
    access for ALS veterans. It is imperative that we close this
    loophole that has prevented surviving families from obtaining
    this support. I want to thank this committee for allowing us to
    raise this issue of ALS that does plague our veterans community
    twice as more frequently than the general population. I look
    forward to working with you all to move this legislation
    forward to honor all of our ALS veterans and their families.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Subramanyam, you are recognized for 3 minutes, sir.

                     STATEMENT OF SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM

        Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you, Chairman Luttrell, Ranking
    Member McGarvey, and the entire subcommittee for having me here
    to speak on H.R. 5339, the Susan E. Lukas 9-11 Servicemember
    Fairness Act, a bipartisan bill to close the gap in coverage
    for those who bravely reported for duty at the Pentagon
    following 9-11.
        As many know, American Airlines Flight 77 on 9-11 crashed
    into the Pentagon, killing all those on board, 125 people
    inside, and created a debris-filled blast. What many people may
    not know is that despite the risks to their health and safety,
    Pentagon employees, including many constituents of mine,
    immediately returned to work, risking exposure to toxins which
    caused lifelong health problems and conditions. These employees
    have been left uncovered under the PACT Act. H.R. 5339 covers
    this gap by extending the PACT Act to those who reported for
    duty between September 11 and November 19, 2001, the day the
    Pentagon was deemed safe.
        The need for this bipartisan legislation is evidenced in
    the stories of constituents of mine. The heroic Pentagon
    employees who immediately returned to work to protect our
    national security include the namesake of this bill, the
    retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Susan E. Lukas, who is
    here today, if you want to wave to everyone again, put you on
    the spot one more time. You know in the aftermath of returning
    to work, Susan suffered persistent health issues. She was
    diagnosed with a rare condition found among others who were in
    the Pentagon right after 9-11. As a result, Susan needs to
    purchase a costly and specialized iodizing system, for
    instance, to purify her home's air. As she stated, every action
    I take is designed to overcome the health challenges posed by
    my time in the Pentagon on and after 9-11.
        These servicemembers who reported for duty at the Pentagon
    deserve the same benefits under the PACT Act that Congress
    provided to others. I urge the members of the subcommittee to
    advance this bipartisan bill to support veterans like Susan. We
    want to make sure that when people report to duty to keep our
    country safe after events like that, that they are taken care
    of and that we fulfill our promise to them to take care of
    them.
        Thank you and I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Evans, you are recognized for 3 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF GABE EVANS

        Mr. Evans. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member, other
    members of the subcommittee for the opportunity today to speak
    in support of my bill, the Veterans Burial Allowance and
    Reimbursement Act. This bill is personal to me, and I am proud
    to be a lead sponsor of the measure to benefit veterans and
    veterans families.
        I am a lifetime member of the VFW, and I have often spoken
    of my own experiences flying Black Hawk helicopters for the
    U.S. Army and the Colorado Army National Guard, which included
    an overseas deployment to a combat zone in support of the
    global war on terror. I am proud to come from a long line of
    veterans. My grandfathers on both sides of the family served
    this country honorably. Grandpa Evans is a career naval aviator
    and Abuelo Chavez as a soldier in World War II fighting with
    Patton's 3d Army.
        As someone who has personally attended the burial of
    veterans before, I know how much this sacred honor matters--
    excuse me, this sacred honor matters to the families and loved
    ones of those who have given so much in defense of our Nation.
    This bill seeks to ensure parity in burial allowances and
    reimbursement for all veterans who have earned the benefit.
        Under current law, nonservice-connected burial allowances
    is actually set to exceed the service-connected burial
    allowance next year. That means veterans who pass away from
    nonservice-connected reasons will receive more burial allowance
    funds than their service-connected brothers and sisters. To fix
    this disparity and ensure all veterans receive a just
    disbursement for their benefits, my bill would eliminate the
    distinction between a nonservice-connected and a service-
    connected burial allowance, converting the existing allowance
    into a general veterans benefit for both service and
    nonservice-connected passing. This commonsense fix will secure
    a standard and simple benefit to help the families of veterans
    honor their loved ones during times of loss and grief.
        I urge my colleagues on this committee to support this
    bill, look forward to working with you to advance it, and yield
    back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Mackenzie, you are recognized for 3 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF RYAN MACKENZIE

        Mr. Mackenzie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
    the entire committee for holding this hearing today. I
    appreciate the work of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
    and the staff who have helped prepare our bill for today's
    testimony.
        I am proud to have introduced the National Cemetery
    Administration Annual Report Act of 2026, a bipartisan bill
    that, as we heard, is co-introduced and led with Congressman
    Morgan McGarvey of Kentucky. This legislation is about
    transparency, accountability, and keeping a sacred promise to
    our veterans and their families.
        The National Cemetery Administration plays a critical role
    in honoring those who have worn the uniform. It is responsible
    for caring for our veterans in their final resting place and
    supporting grieving families during one of the most difficult
    moments of their lives. Congress has a responsibility to ensure
    that this work is done with dignity, foresight, and proper
    oversight. Today, there is no single comprehensive public
    report that clearly lays out how the National Cemetery
    Administration is operating, where resources are being used
    appropriately, as we heard, but what does not exist is, again,
    a comprehensive report like this so we can understand all of
    their operations going forward. We aim to address that.
        Under this legislation, the Department of Veterans Affairs
    would be required to submit an annual publicly available report
    dealing NCA operations and performance. That includes the
    number of internments by cemetery, burial options available to
    families, customer satisfaction metrics, cemetery construction
    projects, grants awarded to State and Tribal entities for the
    veterans' cemeteries, and how unclaimed veterans' remains are
    handled. Importantly, it also requires that this information is
    easily accessible online for families, advocates, researchers,
    and policymakers. This bill strengthens congressional
    oversight, supports long-term planning, and ensures that
    veterans and their families receive the respect and care that
    they have earned.
        I am grateful that this legislation or the intent of this
    legislation is supported by leading Veterans Service
    Organizations (VSO), including Vietnam Veterans of America
    (VVA), Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of
    America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the VA, who understand
    how important transparency and accountability are to fulfilling
    this final promise.
        I again want to thank Congressman McGarvey for his
    partnership and the committee for considering this commonsense
    bipartisan measure. I urge my colleagues to ultimately support
    the bill when it comes up for a vote. I look forward to
    continuing our work together on behalf of veterans and their
    families.
        Thank you. With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir. I ask that the second panel
    please take your seats.
        Mr. Self, you are recognized for 3 minutes, sir.

                        STATEMENT OF KEITH SELF

        Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
    opportunity to speak today in support of my bill, H.R. 6698,
    the Board of Veterans' Appeals Annual Report Transparency Act.
        The current law requires the Board of Veterans' Appeals to
    issue an annual report. Within this report is a performance
    measure titled ``Timely Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) Post
    Hearing Decisions.'' This measure reports the percentage of AMA
    hearing decisions with a disposition of held that may have been
    decided within 180 days of the hearing, a benchmark that is
    established by the Board. Unfortunately, the report does not
    require the Board to explain why cases fail to be decided by
    the 180-day goal. Veterans and VSOs do not benefit from simply
    knowing that an appeal has exceeded the Board's 180-day goal.
    Congress, likewise, cannot effectively conduct oversight or
    legislate improvements without understanding the underlying
    causes of those untimely decisions.
        The same gap exists with respect to remands. Remands are
    necessary, but they can also be one of the most significant
    drivers of delay in the appeals process. Yet the Board's annual
    report does not currently require any systematic identification
    of the factors leading to a remand. This bill will close that
    gap. Specifically, it requires the Board of Veterans' Appeals
    to identify in its annual report the factors contributing to
    untimely decisions under the modernized appeals system and to
    quantify how frequently each factor occurs. It also requires
    the Board to identify the causes of remands for both legacy and
    modern appeals, again, with clear data.
        This is not about assigning blame. It is about identifying
    patterns. Are delays and remands being driven by staffing
    shortages, incomplete medical exams, poor record development at
    earlier stages, changes in law, or some other procedural
    bottleneck? Without this information, neither Congress nor VA
    can target reforms effectively.
        This bill does not change veterans' rights, alter the
    standard of review, or interfere with the Board's independence.
    It simply asks the Board to report on what is already happening
    using data, let me emphasize using data, and do so in a
    transparent, standardized way.
        Clear and transparent reporting helps identify where
    investments and changes will have the greatest impact so that
    the recent progress within the Board of Veterans' Appeals can
    be sustained. Ultimately, veterans deserve an appeals system
    that is not only timely, but accountable. This bill is a
    modest, but meaningful step toward that goal.
        I urge my colleagues to support it and I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir.
        Good morning, everyone. Well traveled, I see. Thank you for
    joining us today. I know that the weather is not playing nice,
    so, again, thank you for making time.
        Our second panel, I will make the introductions. Mr. James
    McCormick, executive director of government affairs at Vietnam
    Veterans of America. Mr. Paul Shipley, national commander of
    American Veterans (AMVETS). Ms. Tanya Wilson--''Tan-ya'' or
    ``Tawn-ya''? Thank you. Ms. Tanya Wilson-Thomas, surviving
    spouse and former caregiver from the Gold Star Wives of
    America. Ms. Nancy Springer, associate director of National
    Legislative Service at Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
    States. Good to see you again, Ms. Springer, as always.
        I ask that the panel please stand and raise your right
    hand.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you and let the record reflect that all
    witnesses answered in the affirmative. You may be seated.
        Mr. McCormick, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes to
    provide your opening testimony.

                      STATEMENT OF JAMES MCCORMICK

        Mr. McCormick. Thank you very much. Chairman, Ranking
    Member, and members of this honorable committee, I want to
    thank you for this opportunity to be here today. As recognized,
    my name is James McCormick. I am the executive director of
    Government Affairs for Vietnam Veterans of America. I am also a
    22-year Army veteran who rose through the enlisted ranks
    starting as a private, retiring as a captain, with 16 of those
    years enlisted and a bunch of those years as a noncommissioned
    officer. I have been in those ranks. I served during the cold
    war, the Gulf War, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
        Vietnam Veterans of America was founded on the shared
    resolve of veterans who returned from a very real war to a
    country that was often unprepared or sometimes unwilling to
    accept them or to understand the cost of that very real war.
    Founded in 1978, this congressionally chartered organization
    grew out of Vietnam veterans working together, often
    unofficially and without institutional support, to demand
    recognition, including recognition for those invisible wounds
    of war that would later become a fighting effort to recognize
    Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
        Guided by our principle that never again will one
    generation of veterans abandon another, VVA has evolved from
    advocating for Vietnam veterans only to advocating for all
    veterans. We strive to ensure that as Vietnam veterans age,
    they receive the healthcare they have earned. Much more
    importantly, we strive to ensure that future generations of
    veterans receive a much better treatment than Vietnam veterans
    received when they came home.
        The nine items we have been asked to address largely align
    with VVA's advocacy, and we would likely endorse and robustly
    support them all: H.R. 1685, H.R. 2164, H.R. 1004, H.R. 6698,
    H.R. 4469, H.R. 5723, H.R. 5339, H.R. 6943, and also the
    Discussion Draft on the National Cemetery Administration Annual
    Report Act.
        I commend this subcommittee for working together and doing
    what many cannot seemingly do in this country. Too often it
    seems that negativity and party line politics have seeped into
    veterans' policies in ways that create competition instead of
    compassion, delay instead of care, and noise instead of
    solutions. We debate labels, errors of service, and party
    positions while veterans struggle with housing, healthcare,
    suicide risk, financial insecurity, and the dignity at the end
    of life.
        It does not matter what branch they served in, it does not
    matter when they served, and it does not matter whether they
    faced combat, supported supply lines, maintained equipment,
    gathered intelligence, or served in an administrative role.
    Every one of them raised their right hand and accepted the same
    obligation. Every one of them made sacrifices that shaped their
    lives, their families, and this Nation.
        Advocacy must never devolve into deciding which veterans
    are most politically convenient to support. The role of
    Congress is to ensure that every veteran and every veteran's
    family not be hampered by their service and can live with
    stability, access care without unnecessary barriers, and age
    with dignity.
        As we look at the warrior ethos, it is clear that it says I
    will never leave a fallen comrade behind. I will never leave
    anyone behind. That is an oath. That is a commitment, and that
    is something that we as a Nation must live up to and ensure
    that we are working together across party lines, across wartime
    service lines and peacetime service lines to ensure that we are
    doing the right thing for our veterans and their families.
        Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions
    at any time.

        [The Prepared Statement Of James McCormick Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Shipley, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.

                       STATEMENT OF PAUL SHIPLEY

        Mr. Shipley. Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey,
    and distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of
    AMVETS, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
    legislation before you today.
        As the Nation's most inclusive, congressionally chartered
    veterans service organization, AMVETS represents more than 20
    million veterans from the Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve
    components. The bills before the subcommittee go to the heart
    of our national priorities: mental health, survivor equity, and
    accountability in the veterans benefits system. While they
    address different policy areas, they share a common goal of
    ensuring that veterans and their families are not failed by the
    systems meant to support them after service.
        First, the Love Lives On Act of 2025. AMVETS strongly
    supports this legislation. Under current law, surviving spouses
    who remarry before age 55 lose their dependency and indemnity
    compensation and survivor benefits annuities. Because most post
    9-11 surviving spouses were widowed in their 20's or 30's, more
    than 95 percent choose not to remarry to avoid this penalty. A
    servicemember's sacrifice does not diminish because their
    surviving spouse finds companionship again. This country cannot
    claim to honor the fallen while penalizing the families they
    left behind.
        Second, the Justice for ALS Veterans Act of 2025. AMVETS
    offers full support for this bill. Although ALS is
    presumptively service-connected, current survivor benefits
    rules ignore the disease's short course. Enhanced DIC requires
    8 years of total disability, but ALS veterans typically and
    tragically survive only 2 to 5 years. This legislation removes
    that requirement and ensures survivors receive appropriate
    compensation. We also support the recording requirement to
    identify other high mortality service-connected conditions so
    families are not penalized simply because a disease progresses
    too quickly.
        Third, the Susan E. Lukas 9-11 Servicemember Fairness Act.
    I would like to recognize Mrs. Lukas being here today. Her
    courage is a demonstration for all of us to follow. AMVETS is
    proud to stand with the Reserve Organization of America in
    supporting this bill. While Congress addressed many toxic
    exposure gaps through the PACT Act and the Zadroga Act,
    servicemembers who reported to the Pentagon after September 11,
    2001, were left behind. Despite working for months in
    environments contaminated with asbestos, jet fuel, and
    pulverized building materials, these veterans are forced to
    prove direct service connection for cancers and respiratory
    illnesses that emerge years later. This bill would extend
    presumptive coverage and finally close a longstanding and
    unjust gap.
        Fourth, the PRESUME Act. AMVETS strongly supports the
    legislation for atomic veterans exposed to ionizing radiation.
    Current VA policy relies on decades old reconstruction
    estimates that are scientifically flawed and administratively
    harmful, despite the fact that radiation affects individuals
    differently. If a veteran participated in a recognized
    radiation risk activity and later develops a service-connected
    illness, care should never be delayed or denied.
        Fifth, the Board of Veterans' Appeals Annual Report
    Transparency Act. AMVETS supports this bill based on decades of
    experience representing veterans before the Board. While the
    Appeals Modernization Act made progress, the progress remains
    opaque. Many decisions are remands that prolong resolution
    rather than delivering finality. This legislation would improve
    transparency around delays and remands and ensure the Board is
    evaluated on outcomes, not just volumes of claims.
        Finally, the Fraud and VA Disability Exam Act. AMVETS would
    support this bill if amended. Fraud must be addressed, but
    oversight must be precise. Veterans should not be penalized for
    relying on private providers or for minor clerical errors
    beyond their control. Fraud prevention must not become a new
    barrier to earned benefits.
        In closing, the legislation before the subcommittee
    presents real opportunities to strengthen the system veterans
    and their families rely on. AMVETS stands ready to work with
    you to advance fairness, accountability, and finality, and to
    ensure that honoring service means supporting veterans and
    survivors long after the uniform comes off.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to
    your questions.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Paul Shipley Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir.
        Mrs. Wilson-Thomas, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF TANYA WILSON-THOMAS

        Mrs. Wilson-Thomas. Good morning, Chairman Luttrell,
    Ranking Member McGarvey, members of the subcommittee. My name
    is Tanya Lynn Wilson-Thomas, surviving spouse of U.S. Marine
    Dwight Anthony Thomas, Sr.
        I am a member of Gold Star Wives of America Incorporated,
    which was founded in 1945 as a service organization of World
    War II widows. We are the surviving spouses of our Nation's
    military servicemembers. We were created to advocate for
    policies that support quality of life for military survivors
    and their children due to their servicemember's spouse's death
    on Active Duty or as a result of service-connected conditions.
    We have been advocating for families for 80 years and are
    continuing to do so.
        I am here to express support for H.R. 1004, the Love Lives
    On Act, and H.R. 1685, the Justice for ALS Veterans Act. I am
    providing testimony on only these two bills as they are most
    impactful to our membership. The Love Lives On Act and the
    Justice for ALS Veterans Act are two bills which would have a
    positive impact on our members and we urge the committee and
    the Congress to see them through to enactment.
        While our members have different stories and journeys, we
    have all arrived to the same destination. We have all found
    ourselves experiencing the trauma of loss of our spouse, the
    upheaval of our lives, and the weight of learning to
    incorporate that loss into our everyday existence. We are also
    tasked with simultaneously helping our children to do the same.
        The Love Lives On Act affirms our Nation's responsibility
    to stand with Gold Star wives and their husbands--and husbands
    beyond their moment of loss. It provides essential recognition
    by acknowledging that our sacrifices are perpetual, just as the
    benefits provided to spouses have a perpetual indemnification
    purpose that should not be threatened. It asserts that honoring
    service must emphatically include honoring those who constantly
    endure life with the rigors of its sacrifices along with its
    lasting associated cost.
        My late husband Dwight Senior was a proud U.S. Marine who
    suffered greatly due to several service-connected illnesses. He
    was on emergency standby with his unit to deploy to the Persian
    Gulf when he collapsed and underwent brain surgery. He
    collapsed with a brain hemorrhage and underwent brain surgery
    at the age of 23. I was 22, our children were 2 and 4. I then
    became his military caregiver until his death 8 years later.
        Support for the Love Lives On Act affirms that our Nation
    does not forget but remembers that although they are no longer
    physically here, our spouse's service and sacrifices are still
    recorded in the annals of our Nation's American history. This
    act provides the reinstatement of the benefits of the Survivor
    Benefit Plan and, in addition, it provides reinstatement of
    TRICARE benefits when a subsequent marriage ends in divorce or
    death. Currently, a survivor would lose eligibility.
        This bill ensures that military survivors are not forgotten
    in a real and tangible way, but provided the resource to
    rebuild stability in their lives after sacrifice on behalf of a
    grateful Nation. Gold Star Wives also strongly supports H.R.
    1685. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, this is a devastating
    and unforgiving disease that has taken the lives of those who
    serve this Nation with honor. The families, after acting as
    their loved ones military caregiver, are left to bear
    unimaginable loss. Then, because of ALS rapid progression, they
    are often left with significant financial loss due to the law's
    inflexibility in recognizing that progression.
        The report on additional medical conditions should commence
    without delay. Gold Star Wives of America Incorporated urges
    the committee to extend eligibility for increased survivor
    benefits to all families whose servicemember died due to ALS
    before October 1, 2025. All surviving spouses with ALS-related
    deaths have similar experience, irrespective of the date of
    death. This bill represents accountability for servicemembers.
        Finally, members of the subcommittee, I close in asking for
    your support for these bills. The ALS bill, it acknowledges
    respect for, compassion for the families by streamlining access
    to care, benefits, and much-needed answers. Supporting this is
    not only good policy, but it is our moral obligation.
        I close in asking you to work together constructively and
    how to accomplish moving these bills beyond this first step.
    For 80 years, Gold Star Wives has seen this committee, which
    formed in 1946, the same age as our organization, come together
    on issues affecting veterans and survivors. We are asking that
    you do so again. We are asking that you proudly build on the
    foundation of President Abraham Lincoln's pledge to care for
    those who borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan. He
    knew this was morally just. We know that you believe the same
    in the end.
        Thanks again for your support. Thank you for the
    opportunity to hold forum with each of you today.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Tanya Wilson-Thomas Appears In
    The Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, ma'am.
        Ms. Springer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF NANCY SPRINGER

        Ms. Springer. Good morning. Chairman Luttrell, Ranking
    Member McGarvey, and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of
    the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in the United
    States and its auxiliary, thank you for the opportunity to
    present our views on the legislation before this subcommittee
    today. My written testimony outlines the VFW's position on all
    the bills under consideration. This morning, I will highlight
    three.
        First, the VFW supports H.R. 1685, the Justice for ALS
    Veterans Act of 2025. This legislation would extend Enhanced
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, or DIC, to surviving
    spouses of veterans who die from ALS, regardless of how long
    the veteran lived after diagnosis. Currently, VA pays surviving
    spouses enhanced DIC only if the veteran is rated totally
    disabled for at least 8 years prior to death and if the
    marriage lasts at least 8 years.
        While VA presumes ALS to be service-connected and typically
    assigns a total disability rating at diagnosis, the 8-year
    disability requirement is fundamentally incompatible with the
    realities of this disease. ALS is a rapidly progressive
    internal illness with a typical life expectancy of just 2 to 5
    years following diagnosis. Consequently, many families can
    never meet the 8-year disability threshold through no fault of
    their own. H.R. 1685 would remove this unattainable requirement
    while preserving the 8-year marriage rule, ensuring surviving
    spouses receive the full survivor benefits Congress intended.
        This issue is deeply personal to the VFW. Chris Mulholland,
    United States Marine Corps, retired, VFW member, and ALS
    patient, led our organization's longstanding advocacy to reform
    ALS survivor benefits, including spearheading the adoption of a
    related VFW resolution. Major Mulholland spoke powerfully about
    the toll ALS takes not only on veterans, but also on families
    who suddenly become full-time caregivers while facing the rapid
    decline of their veteran along with related emotional trauma
    and financial uncertainty. Tragically, Major Mulholland himself
    lived fewer than 8 years after his ALS diagnosis in 2020,
    embodying the very injustice the bill seeks to correct.
        Second, the VFW supports H.R. 5723, the Fraud Reduction and
    Uncovering Deception in VA Disability Exams Act. Veterans use
    VA disability benefits questionnaires, or DBQs, which are
    available on VA's publicly accessible website, to document
    medical evidence supporting disability compensation claims.
    Because DBQs often provide foundational evidence, their
    accuracy is essential to the integrity of the VA claims
    process.
        Unfortunately, their importance has also made them a target
    for exploitation. Some bad actors charge veterans for
    assistance that VA credited representatives provide at no
    charge. Others falsely promise guaranteed outcomes, encourage
    veterans to avoid VA examinations, or claim access to private
    providers who will secure higher ratings. In more serious
    cases, affiliate health care providers charge fees to
    manufacture diagnoses or exaggerate conditions to obtain
    benefits beyond what the evidence supports.
        H.R. 5723 would require VA to establish a formal process to
    identify and report suspected DBQ-related fraud, mandate
    referrals to appropriate authorities, and implement a recurring
    audit program to monitor both reported and detected fraud.
    Together, these reforms would create a systematic and
    accountable approach to addressing DBQ fraud, one that would
    protect honest veterans and preserve trust in the disability
    compensation system.
        Finally, the VFW supports H.R. 6698, the Board of Veterans'
    Appeals Annual Report Transparency Act of 2025. This
    legislation would require the Board of Veterans' Appeals, or
    BVA, to identify in its annual report the factors contributing
    to untimely decisions and remands. Due to the Board's workload,
    veterans can wait up to 2 years and sometimes beyond for a
    decision and even longer if they request a hearing. Remands to
    the agency of original jurisdiction further delay final
    decision. In Fiscal Year 2024 alone, BVA remanded more than 40
    percent of appeals, further extending resolution timelines and
    creating uncertainty for veterans awaiting their final
    disposition.
        Requiring BVA to identify and report the drivers of delay
    would improve transparency and provide the data needed to
    strengthen processes and reduce inefficiencies. This
    transparency would enhance oversight, improve accountability,
    and build confidence that BVA is handling appeals fairly and
    consistently.
        In conclusion, these three bills collectively would ensure
    that veterans and their survivors are treated with the
    fairness, integrity, and urgency their service deserves.
        Chair Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, thank you for the
    opportunity to present the VFW's views. I look forward to
    answering your questions.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Nancy Springer Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ms. Springer.
        Mr. Self, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your line of
    questioning.
        Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. McCormick, I want to explore the 6698 with you. You
    said that it could drive real change. Can you elaborate on
    that?
        Mr. McCormick. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Self. This, of course, is the Board of Veterans'
    Appeals Annual Report Transparency.
        Mr. McCormick. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. What this
    does is it opens up an opportunity for more transparency. As we
    look at common sense approaches to, number one, ensure that
    what we are doing is both monitored and overseen, we believe
    that an Annual Report Transparency Act of 2025 would help
    create that. It identifies root issues, training quality. VVA
    frequently calls for appeals reform and transparency to reduce
    backlogs, delays affecting veterans, indirect benefits through
    pressure for improvements, aligned with priorities, and added
    to the workload is at risk.
        Mr. Self. Well, my real question is, who benefits from
    this? We often talk about inputs here. You know, we love to set
    up new offices and talk about inputs. I want to know, do the
    veterans themselves benefit from this? That should be the goal
    of what we are trying to do here.
        Mr. McCormick. Absolutely. I believe that is that is the
    intent here, sir, of this bill. We believe that it would
    improve a level of trust in the system and also remove some
    additional barriers that have frequently plagued especially our
    generation of veterans, the Vietnam Veterans of America.
        Mr. Self. With that, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time,
    I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Self.
        Mr. Pappas, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
    everyone on the witness panel for their testimony here today
    and for your service and commitment to our Nation's veterans
    and their families. I appreciate that you all have spoken up
    loudly and clearly in favor of the Justice for ALS Veterans
    Act. I appreciate my colleague, Representative Fitzpatrick, who
    was here earlier to testify on behalf of that bipartisan
    partisan bill that we introduced together.
        Mrs. Wilson-Thomas, thank you for relating your own
    personal experience. I am sorry for your loss, and I appreciate
    the way you talked about the moral obligation that we have on
    this committee to get it right for survivors and for families
    who have sacrificed so much for this great country.
        We know specifically with ALS that it is a devastating,
    progressive disease. It affects veterans at a rate twice the
    rate of the general population, and we are learning more about
    ALS, but there is still so much we do not know about the
    disease, no known cause, and certainly no cure for it. Veterans
    with ALS and their families deserve greater understanding and
    the kind of benefits that we strive to provide on an equitable
    basis to all those who wear the uniform. I think updating
    current VA policy to better reflect the reality faced by
    veterans with ALS and their families is simple common sense,
    and it is the right thing to do and it is the moral thing to
    do. Thank you for underscoring that.
        Ms. Springer, I appreciate you relating the personal
    experience of families that have struggled with ALS. I think
    the current 8-year total disability requirement for enhanced
    DIC benefits simply does not align with the medical reality
    faced by ALS patients and certainly their families and
    survivors. I am wondering if you can just underscore for us why
    maintaining that 8-year disability requirement for benefits
    poses harm to survivors of veterans with ALS, even though that
    they already have the service connection and total disabilities
    already recognized. Why do we need to change that 8-year
    window?
        Ms. Springer. Actually it is fundamentally inequitable and
    wholly incompatible with the realities of this disease. The
    lifespan of an ALS patient is between 2 and 5 years, as shown
    by my VFW colleague, Major Mulholland, who lived fewer than 8
    years before his death. Without recognizing that, we are
    putting an unattainable burden on these survivors who have
    suffered so much. Devastating disease and family members
    frequently become full-time caregivers, giving up their jobs,
    giving up their financial security, and we are asking them to
    attain something that they just cannot. That is why we think
    that that is totally incompatible with the realities of this
    disease and totally unfair.
        Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you for those comments. I do think
    we need to give these families compassion and understanding. I
    think this bill does that, and so I hope that the committee can
    find a way to move this forward soon.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir. The vote has been called in
    the House. The subcommittee will stand in recess subject to the
    call of the chair. I expect to reconvene 10 minutes after the
    start of the last vote. What that means, ladies and gentlemen,
    is we have to go across the street to cast our votes and we
    will be back as quick as possible.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you for giving us some grace. I forgot
    to gavel out. Now I am gaveling back in. We are good to go. It
    is the rules. Apologize.
        I will recognize ranking member for his opening line of
    questioning.
        Mr. McGarvey. Thank you all so much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, for having this panel here today.
        Mrs. Wilson-Thomas, I want to start with you. First of all,
    thank you for being here. Thank you for your courage throughout
    this whole ordeal, not just in taking care of your husband and
    your family, but in being here to tell us that story.
        I am not sure if you have had a chance to read the VA's
    testimony on the Love Lives On Act right now, but I hope you
    did because I want to get your reaction to it. In particular,
    the VA says, and I want to quote what it says here, quote,
    ``The existing marriage restrictions help manage and allocate
    VA resources effectively.''
        Now, they tried to make that sound as bland as humanly
    possible, but to me, that is a lot of government speak that we
    are going to take this away from you. I want to know, really
    and truly, again, thank you for your courage and bravery in
    being here, but for you, for other survivors, what does it say
    to you guys when the VA boils your losses down to a budgeting
    exercise?
        Mrs. Wilson-Thomas. Thank you for that. First of all, when
    it is stated as such, it really means that we have to pay more
    attention to ``On behalf of a grateful Nation.'' If we pay
    attention to that statement, ``On behalf of a grateful
    Nation,'' our sacrifices were on behalf of a grateful Nation,
    then the VA should not state it as such, but be very specific
    in how we are to be--how we should have access to resources.
    Really and truly, we are working diligently to try to have some
    semblance of normalcy, have a life, rebuild a life after the
    rug was pulled out from underneath ourselves and our children.
        Gold Star wives and husbands, we need the support of the
    government to provide resources to help rebuild the life. When
    we hear that stated in such a way, it makes us understand that
    that is not really the goal, and that is not what we want to
    understand about our system.
        Mr. McGarvey. The language is seemingly bland. The impact
    is absolutely----
        Mrs. Wilson-Thomas. It is devastating.
        Mr. McGarvey. Devastating.
        Mrs. Wilson-Thomas. It is devastating. It is devastating.
        Mr. McGarvey. I appreciate you sharing your personal side
    of this because I am also afraid that VA is trying to rewrite
    the story with the American public about what Dependency and
    Indemnity Compensation, or DIC, is and the purpose behind it.
        Yes, DIC, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, provides
    money to people whose spouses are killed because of their
    service. This has never been just a check. It is always been
    more than that. This is an acknowledge, as you said, when you
    say, ``On behalf of a grateful Nation,'' when you sign up, when
    you put that flag on your shoulder, when you put on the
    uniform, willing to sacrifice everything to serve us and keep
    us free, we make you a promise. That promise is a legal
    promise. That promise is a moral promise. It says, we are going
    to take care of you and we are going to take care of your
    family.
        The reality is my brother is Active Duty right now. No, no
    servicemember serves alone. They have a team behind them. Your
    service, your sacrifice has to be recognized. It is especially
    true for families of disabled veterans. Their service does not
    end when the veteran passes away and it certainly does not
    disappear if that spouse is fortunate enough to find love
    again.
        You told your story and your husband was injured when you
    were 22.
        Mrs. Wilson-Thomas. Pardon me?
        Mr. McGarvey. You told your story. Your husband was?
        Mrs. Wilson-Thomas. He was 22 when he, yes, developed a
    blood--a brain hemorrhage at the age of 22.
        Mr. McGarvey. Then you----
        Mrs. Wilson-Thomas. Well, excuse me, he was 23. I was 22.
        Mr. McGarvey. You were 22.
        Mrs. Wilson-Thomas. Yes.
        Mr. McGarvey. Then took care of him for 8 years?
        Mrs. Wilson-Thomas. Yes, I did.
        Mr. McGarvey. You know, I just say this, like that does not
    disappear. Your service does not disappear, especially if you
    are able to find love again and fortunate enough to find love
    again.
        One of the reasons we are talking about this is it says
    cost. The Love Lives On Act is supposed to cost $2 billion over
    10 years. Look, I am not saying that is not a lot of money, but
    let us look at where some of the other priorities are. Just
    this year in the One Big Beautiful Bill, there is a provision
    in it which cuts the tax off of firearm suppressors, silencers,
    over the same 10-year period that we are taking money away from
    our Gold Star spouses. We are giving it to make firearm
    silencers cheaper. That to me is not a trade that we should be
    doing. The same amount of money to pay for silencers, but they
    cannot find money to pay for survivor's benefits.
        I appreciate you being here to testify and I hope the VA
    will rethink its opposition to this bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mrs. Wilson-Thomas. Thank you.
        Mr. Luttrell. I was actually going to use the VA's
    testimony and ask something similar, Mrs. Thomas, so he beat me
    to that. Great job. Not really, but great job.
        I try to put myself in the situation, especially in this
    position of--because I have spoken to a lot of spouses, a lot
    of Gold Star spouses. I lost a lot of teammates over the two
    wars, and a lot of my friends lost a lot. Gave it all just like
    you did. I try to appreciate the perspective that the VA is
    providing us--and then I asked them, have you ever had--have
    you had conversations with Gold Star spouses? A spouse's job is
    probably the most challenging job there is. Saw a pretty
    interesting T-shirt one time, said, ``A Navy wife is the
    hardest job in the military.'' I agree with that.
        I do not understand why it is even a conversation that we
    have to have that you would take something from someone who
    walked that pathway alongside us or those members that served.
    The functionality of the military through its men and women is
    successful because of a lot of things, but most certainly the
    family, because the spouses--my spouse looked at me every day
    and said, you are doing great things for our country, and we
    are here for you. If something had happened to me and then my
    wife had gotten her benefits, in my opinion, that is something
    that she earned forever.
        Mrs. Wilson-Thomas. Thank you.
        Mr. Luttrell. I wholeheartedly support the idea that you
    have earned those benefits, whether or not you get remarried
    again or whomever under the age of 55.
        As Mr. McGarvey, I do not look at it as dollar bills. I do
    not. Someone who works in Congress, whose job is to spend
    money, I am speaking as a veteran, that is something that you
    earned, and it is--no one has that right to take that away from
    you, in my opinion.
        Mrs. Wilson-Thomas. Thank you.
        Mr. Luttrell. The challenge is obviously getting there from
    here, which we are working on a daily basis to make sure that
    that does happen. I think speaking to you, Mrs. Wilson-Thomas,
    is that I want you to know that he and I agree wholeheartedly.
    Since I am the chairman and ranking member, in this
    subcommittee will carry this all the way to the finish line or
    damn sure die trying.
        Mrs. Wilson-Thomas. Thank you.
        Mr. Luttrell. I had a young lady, Ms. Patsy Dietz, sit in
    my office, and I have been friends with her a long time. She is
    remarried to another friend of mine who was in the military. I
    got to tell you, I was present when she lost her husband, and
    she came back last year to visit with me. I looked her in the
    face, I was like, you do not have to explain this to me. I
    understand. It is making sure that everyone else does, because
    you are a--you know, being in the military is a very small
    sorority or fraternity. Unfortunately, that, you know, that
    fraternity that you are a part of, losing someone is--it is not
    one anybody should have to be a part of. We are doing our
    absolute to make sure that you get what you deserve and you
    keep it.
        Okay. Ms. Springer, when it comes to ALS----
        Mrs. Wilson-Thomas. Thank you.
        Mr. Luttrell. Yes, ma'am. When it comes to ALS, you know,
    if we can understand how the brain works, that would be an
    amazing thing. The window at which someone with ALS or any
    other neurological disease, you know, it is kind of a rolling
    tide. I think until we can understand exactly, you know, how
    this thing functions, we are kind of throwing darts at a
    dartboard.
        I can appreciate that 8-year window is substantially wrong.
    The timeframe in which it was created to what we understand
    about the brain currently, it has changed. I hate to say, what
    does it look like or what is necessary or what is the sweet
    spot that we should pay attention to? The one that you give me
    is going to be argued amongst everyone and then we have to make
    the decision. That is the hard part about our job. We cannot
    necessarily decide on who is right or wrong. We have to take a
    step forward.
        This place loves to have problems. This place loves to talk
    about the problems we have. It does not seem to be the place
    that wants to solve many problems. On this committee, we do
    everything that we possibly can to solve those problems. You
    may not have this answer for me, but I need--we, if I may, sir,
    where is it? What is the next step? What does the timeline need
    to look like? What is most beneficial for those that are
    suffering from ALS and the families, to put them in a place--I
    am not--you know, you cannot say put them in their comfort zone
    because there is nothing comfortable about this at all.
        It is, hopefully, something that we can change as science
    shows up with medicine. To now, to date, you know, we have to
    pray to God every day that those that are suffering from this,
    you know, they do their best to live in peace. I do not know if
    you have an answer to what I just kind of threw at you, but.
        Ms. Springer. Mr. Chairman, we, we really thank you for
    your concern about this matter. I gave the personal story of
    one of my VFW comrades, Major Mulholland. I did not know him
    personally, but I do know people who did. Unfortunately, it is
    a very devastating, fast-moving disease. People go from being
    essentially normal to being very incapacitated in a very short
    amount of time. Along the way their family members often are
    the caregivers, so they have to leave their jobs and spouse or
    family members leave their jobs and watch that happen to their
    loved one, to their veterans. There is a huge emotional toll on
    the family members. There is loss of financial security.
        I would suggest that we stay plugged in with medical
    science and use data to determine if it is not 8 years, where
    is it? We would say no time limit at all. This is such a
    devastating disease. Once that person dies, and it is likely
    going to be between 2 and 5 years that that surviving spouse
    does get that extra enhanced DIC. It is not a princely sum, but
    every little bit helps because that family's financial
    situation will have degraded tremendously from the time before
    diagnosis.
        Mr. Luttrell. Should it be a timeframe more than a----
        Ms. Springer. Conditions based?
        Mr. Luttrell. A phase in which the conditions have become
    more exacerbated.
        Ms. Springer. Okay. That is--right.
        Mr. Luttrell. If you put--you cannot put a timeframe window
    in----
        Ms. Springer. Right.
        Mr. Luttrell [continuing]. because everyone is different.
    When it comes to science and medicine, and I speak on how
    academia is very siloed, gathering that information may be more
    challenging than saying, hey, look, if a certain individual has
    this systematic diagnoses, they have reached that specific time
    instead of a 2-, 4-, 6-, 8-year window. That is something we
    are going to have to figure out.
        Ms. Springer. That may be a very viable alternate viewpoint
    is to look at it from the basis of condition instead of time
    limit, conditions based, preference it on conditions based.
        Mr. Luttrell. We have not asked those questions. Who in the
    VA do you deal with directly with this issue?
        Ms. Springer. I have not directly.
        Mr. Luttrell. All right. Well, I am going to find out who
    that is and have this conversation to follow up. Hang on for 1
    second.
        Well, it is just me and you guys in here today. Washington,
    DC, is a busy place. I wish we all had the answer for the
    problems that we not only presented here today, but that live
    in the veteran space. It seems forever changing. The problem
    when you inject politics and the government on top of something
    that is so sacred as our veteran community, we are the ones
    that get lost and we are having to wade through that.
        I will close with thank you all for coming and sitting in
    on this panel and sharing this information. We will--the
    chairman and--the ranking member and I will move on this.
        With that, thank you and you are excused.
        The third panel, you may be seated. Mr. Smith, Mr. Powers,
    Ms. Bover, are you ready?
        Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today. From the
    Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Cemetery
    Administration, the lead witness for the VA is Ms. Jennifer
    Bover, executive director of Pensions and Fiduciary Services at
    the Veterans Benefits Administration. Ms. Bover is accompanied
    by Mr. James Smith, deputy executive director of Compensation
    Services at the Veterans Benefits Administration; Mr. Glenn
    Power is deputy undersecretary for Field Programs and Cemetery
    Operations at the National Cemetery Administration.
        I ask that all witnesses please stand. Raise your right
    hand.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you. Let the record reflect that all
    witness have answered in the affirmative. You may be seated.
        Ms. Bover, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to present
    the Department's testimony.

                      STATEMENT OF JENNIFER BOVER

        Ms. Bover. Good morning, Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member
    McGarvey, and the members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
    the opportunity today to discuss the Department of Veterans
    Affairs' views on several bills that would affect VA programs
    and services. Supporting me today is Mr. James Smith, deputy
    executive director, Compensation Service, and Mr. Glenn Powers,
    deputy undersecretary for Field Programs and Cemetery
    Operations. Our board partners are not able to attend today's
    hearing.
        Unfortunately, I will not be able to speak on H.R. 6698,
    Board of Veterans' Appeals Annual Report Transparency Act of
    2025. I will be taking those questions for the record.
        At VA, we recognize the sacrifice that veterans,
    servicemembers, their families, and survivors have made serving
    our country. It is our job to serve them as well as they have
    served us. VA believes clarity and transparency allows us to
    provide high-quality care along with modernized benefits and
    services. We welcome the opportunity to provide insight into
    these proposed pieces of legislation. We have provided detailed
    comments in the written testimony to include areas of support
    and concern VA has on today's legislation.
        VA supports the intent of H.R. 1004, the Love Lives On Act
    of 2025, and its focus on ensuring that eligible survivors
    receive support from VA following the loss of a veteran. VA has
    determined that the remarriage restrictions currently in place
    for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation and Medal of Honor
    special pension are consistent with that intent. The remarriage
    restrictions align with provisions for a multitude of Federal
    benefits across varying agencies and departments.
        VA supports H.R. 1685, the Justice for ALS Veterans Act of
    2025, subject to appropriations and if amended. VA respectfully
    requests further discussion on section 3 of this bill, which
    requires a report of other conditions that should be treated in
    the same manner as ALS due to high mortality rates. The concept
    of a high mortality rate lacks a standardized government
    definition as there is not a universal set of metrics to define
    this concept. We are happy to work with the committee on
    identifying what may constitute a high mortality rate and the
    service-connected conditions that may qualify for this
    designation.
        VA appreciates the intent of H.R. 5723, the FRAUD in VA
    Disability Exam Act of 2025. However, VA does not support this
    bill. VA is concerned about the requirements to notify
    individuals whose DBQs are suspected of fraud. Under current
    practice, if fraud is suspected, VA typically orders a new exam
    and revises ratings as needed to ensure fairness. VA does not
    support the proposed restriction of reopening or changing
    benefit decisions based on investigations unless the individual
    is convicted of fraud. The time required and the higher bar of
    evidence needed to secure a fraud conviction eliminates VA's
    ability to correct errors in a shorter timeframe than needed
    for a Federal criminal proceeding to unfold, potentially
    harming veterans who are not involved in fraudulent activity.
        VA does not support the Discussion Draft entitled
    ``Veterans Burial Allowance and Reimbursement Act of 2026.'' VA
    appreciates and supports the need to make changes to the burial
    benefit structure to alleviate the issue that occurred on
    October 1st of 2025, where the combination of paying
    nonservice-connected burial and plot allowances is now greater
    than the service-connected burial allowance. VA's
    recommendation within the written testimony provides a more
    streamlined plan to amend the burial benefit structure that
    would allow VA to preserve the distinction of a higher rate for
    service-connected burials that Congress has had in place since
    1973.
        Across VA, we continue to improve services to meet the
    needs of veterans, servicemembers, and their families and
    survivors. We thank the committee for your continued support.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
    today, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my statement.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Jennifer Bover Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Luttrell. The written statement Ms. Bover will be
    entered into the hearing record. We will now move to
    questioning.
        Dr. Morrison, are you ready to go? I will hand it off to
    you if you would like.
        Ms. Morrison. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I want to
    thank you for holding this hearing. Thanks to the panel for
    being here. I also want to thank the gentleman--you, Mr. Chair,
    and the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hudson, for your
    partnership and leadership on the Love Lives On Act. I am
    pleased to see that the bill is on the docket for today's
    hearing and I want to use my time to continue making the case
    that we need this legislation. No surviving military spouse
    should have to choose between finding love again and keeping
    the benefits their family deserves.
        Ms. Bover, I would like to turn to you for my questions.
    The Love Lives On Act was considered at a legislative hearing
    held by this subcommittee in April 2024. During that hearing,
    VA provided a cost estimate of 327 million over 10 years for
    Section 2 of the bill, which eliminates the remarriage penalty
    for DIC. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had a wildly
    different estimate stating that it would cost around $2
    billion. Is VA willing to provide the numbers it utilized to
    determine its score and work with CBO to provide a more
    accurate estimate?
        Ms. Bover. The VA is always happy to work with the
    committee on this topic. We do not have a cost estimate at this
    time, but we are happy to get that for you when it is
    available.
        Ms. Morrison. That would be great. You would commit to
    following up with my team on those numbers?
        Ms. Bover. The Department commits to transparently sharing
    the information that we have as soon as we can.
        Ms. Morrison. Thank you. VA's testimony states that
    Disability and Indemnity Compensation payments are designated
    for individuals who have lost financial support due to a
    spouse's service-related disability or death. It also states
    that if the surviving spouse remarries before age 55, this
    financial need is no longer considered to exist, thereby
    altering the initial intent of the law.
        Ma'am, what changes at the age of 55 for a survivor to
    suddenly need this financial support? How is the situation
    different from someone who is, say, 32 or 52?
        Ms. Bover. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify our
    position. The previous administration, you know, there is been
    a change in administration, and after reviewing the
    legislation, we have recognized that there are different
    complexities this may impose on surviving spouses for the
    benefits, both within the VA and in other areas of Federal
    agencies. The remarriage restrictions are not unique to VA.
        Ms. Morrison. Leaving aside the financial need and earning
    potential, we are also talking about people who suffered
    unimaginable loss. Right? This is about following through on
    the promise we made to our servicemembers, veterans, and their
    families. We owe survivor benefits to men and women who have
    tragically lost their loved ones in service to their country.
    It is not right that we take them away if they find love again
    too soon.
        Ms. Bover, beyond the economic factors, do you think there
    is a moral imperative to protect survivor benefits for those
    who remarry before age 55?
        Ms. Bover. VA supports survivors getting remarried. When we
    reviewed this legislation what we found was it created
    inequities not only within our own programs within VA, but also
    across other Federal agencies. I think it is important to know
    that I myself am a veteran and the VA supports taking care of
    survivors and their families. I have been in this role about 3
    months, and just in those 3 months I have made an effort to
    understand the issues that face survivors. I have set up
    meetings with the Offices of Survivors Assistance, the Tragedy
    Assistance Program. Just since this fiscal year, we have
    decreased the inventory of DIC claims by 34 percent and our
    average days pending by 40 percent.
        We are making survivors a focus. With this legislation, we
    would be happy to work with the committee to address this more
    holistically while considering these secondary effects this
    legislation would have if enacted.
        Ms. Morrison. One final question. In previous testimony, VA
    supported the Love Lives On Act with amendments. This Congress
    the bill was amended to include some technical fixes identified
    by VA in 2024. What has changed for VA to go from supporting
    the removal of remarriage restriction requirements for
    surviving spouses to now opposing the bill outright?
        Ms. Bover. With the change in administration, again, after
    we reviewed the legislation, we found that there would be some
    inequities caused within some of our own survivor programs
    within the VA and also across other Federal agencies. For
    example, survivor's pension, if a survivor remarries at any
    age, they lose that benefit. It also affects other Federal
    agencies, such as TRICARE, the Survivor Benefit Plan, Social
    Security. Those remarriage restrictions are not unique to the
    VA.
        Ms. Morrison. It is disappointing to me. In spite of our
    disagreement, I do hope that we can work together, find a path
    forward, because I believe we owe it to survivors and their
    families to get this done. Thank you.
        Mr. Chair, with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Luttrell. Thank you.
        Ms. Bover, you answered Dr. Morrison's two questions with
    the exact same answer, which means I think you are either
    reading it, or you had that memorized before you walked in. You
    say as far as Love Lives On, it is not unique just to the VA
    and that other Federal agencies are touched. I want you to
    expand on that for me.
        Ms. Bover. Absolutely. Our Survivor's Pension Program has
    remarriage restrictions as well, so if a survivor in our
    pension program remarries, they face----
        Mr. Luttrell. I am aware of that. That is what we are--that
    is what we will be changing. When you say ``other Federal
    agencies.''
        Ms. Bover. Absolutely. Other Federal agencies, Social
    Security Administration has a Remarriage Restriction Act,
    Survivor Benefits Plan has a Remarriage Restriction Act,
    TRICARE has a remarriage restriction. Many other----
        Mr. Luttrell. What do you mean TRICARE has a--explain.
        Ms. Bover. Absolutely. With TRICARE, if a survivor
    remarries at any age, they lose that benefit.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. Social Security, they lose that
    benefit. That is what you are telling me?
        Ms. Bover. For Social Security, if the survivor remarries
    after the age of 60, they lose that benefit.
        Mr. Luttrell. Because other Federal agencies, Social
    Security and TRICARE, have this legislative requirement, the VA
    as a whole is stating that it will not support a young lady or
    a young man remarrying under the age of 55 and keep their
    benefits because other Federal agencies have that legislation
    or have that regulatory clause?
        Ms. Bover. VA definitely supports survivors remarrying at
    any age.
        Mr. Luttrell. No, that is not what I am asking. That is not
    what I am asking at all, because we want the age to be under
    55. From what I understand from the VA's testimony is because
    other Federal agencies, because it is not unique to the VA, it
    seems like you are playing a chess game with me. The VA is
    going to use that Social Security and TRICARE to get out of
    this.
        Ms. Bover. Even within our own Department, again, with the
    Survivor's Pension Program, it would cause an inequity. Then
    also with our Home Loan Guarantee Program, it would also cause
    an inequity within our own Department.
        Mr. Luttrell. Explain. Explain.
        Ms. Bover. The Survivor's Pension Program, if a survivor
    remarries at any age, they would lose entitlement to that
    benefit. Then there is also a remarriage restriction on home
    Loan Guarantee. They would not be eligible for that VA-backed
    loan for that benefit----
        Mr. Luttrell. If we go under the age of 55, they would be
    eligible.
        Ms. Bover. This particular bill only addresses--does not
    address those other instances of benefits within our program.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. Why did you bring it up?
        Ms. Bover. We need the bill to holistically consider the
    impacts of other benefits within our own Department.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. If we add all that in there, the VA
    would be okay with us taking the age of 55 away?
        Ms. Bover. The VA is definitely willing to work with the
    committee.
        Mr. Luttrell. Then why did not the VA come to the committee
    and say, hey, this is the best way forward instead of waiting
    until now? Here is the issue that I have. It seems like the VA
    is using its latitudes to say because other Federal agencies do
    not have the same opportunity that we do or have the same
    opportunity that we do, we are not going to change this piece
    of legislation. I do not care about everybody else because I am
    the chairman of this committee, and my sole responsibility is
    taking care of the veterans and the veterans' spouses. The VA
    is trying to sidestep this landmine, saying that we are not
    going to do that. You are throwing all this political BS at me
    that you are digging up God knows where, thinking that I am
    going to be okay with it. I can assure you, ma'am, I am not.
        In conversation with you from this point forward, I want to
    know why the VA--because you will not use other Federal
    agencies, and it is not unique to the VA. It is the VA. The
    reason that we sit in here today and the country exists is
    because of our veterans and their loved ones. I want a great
    explanation of why you are not going to do this.
        Ms. Bover. The VA supports veterans and survivors and their
    families passionately.
        Mr. Luttrell. I know, yes, ma'am. You said that. You said
    that many times.
        Ms. Bover. Even within our own Department, it would cause--
    --
        Mr. Luttrell. Also, Ms. Bover, you are a veteran, and I
    probably would guess that you probably agree with me, but
    because of the role and responsibility you have inside the VA,
    you cannot. That is sad. Please continue.
        Ms. Bover. Even within our own department, it would cause
    inequities. We are happy to work with the committee.
        Mr. Luttrell. Like, give me a dollar sign on that.
        Ms. Bover. I am sorry, sir?
        Mr. Luttrell. Give me a dollar sign on that. It is all
    about money. At the end of the day, you break it down to the
    lowest common denominator, we are talking about dollar bills. I
    have to look all the constituents in the face and all the
    spouses that lost their loved ones like, hey, you are not worth
    it. You are going to have to convince me that I need to do
    that.
        Ms. Bover. We do not have a cost estimate at this time, but
    we would be happy to get that for you.
        Mr. Luttrell. Over the last Congress, which this thing
    showed up to this Congress in the second year, the VA does not
    have a cost estimate on this. How is that even possible?
        Ms. Bover. We would be happy to get you that information,
    sir, as soon as we can.
        Mr. Luttrell. Is that going to be coming from you or is
    there a secretary I need to talk to?
        Ms. Bover. The VA is committed to transparency, and as soon
    as they have that information, they will get it to you.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. You got 24 hours. Does that sound
    doable? I want all that information in 24 hours from the second
    that you guys walk out of here. Because if I do not tell you to
    do that, I will not get it till next year and, unfortunately, I
    will not be here. You got 24 hours. Or you could call the
    Secretary and have him call me directly. Okay?
        Ms. Bover. The VA will get you the information as soon as
    they can.
        Mr. Luttrell. I gave you 24 hours, period. I am going to
    keep going, Doc, unless, Ms. Morrison, you got anything you
    want to jump on? Okay. I am going to keep going.
        Mr. Powers, how does the VA plan to manage the comfort of
    VA hospital patients who will now see grave sites from their
    hospital window if VA moves forward with existing expansion
    plan? Mr. Powers? Turn the microphone on, sir.
        Mr. Powers. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. We
    have over 20 national cemeteries that are located--co-located
    with VA medical centers. It is a historical--in most cases, it
    is a historical element that goes back to the 18--the 19th
    century, after the Civil War.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. Keep going.
        Mr. Powers. We do not feel that that is an issue. Those
    cemeteries started almost at the same time that those
    facilities started, particularly in the case of Dayton. They
    both started, I think, in 1867. As soon as the Civil War
    veterans passed away----
        Mr. Luttrell. Is the VA planning on moving cemeteries away
    from our VA hospitals? I guess is a better way to ask you that
    question.
        Mr. Powers. No. No, we are not.
        Mr. Luttrell. They are going to keep them right there on
    the same spot?
        Mr. Powers. It is--historically, it is been no issue for us
    to have our national cemeteries co-located with the medical
    centers or the--what preceded the medical centers, which were
    disabled soldiers homes for Civil War veterans and veterans of
    other conflicts.
        Mr. Luttrell. We are running out of space for our
    cemeteries though, are not we? As far as location in the
    hospitals.
        Mr. Powers. We proactively, National Cemetery
    Administration, look at our burial depletion data. We have
    policies to make sure that we are expanding and replacing
    cemeteries where necessary and going through the criteria to
    determine how to get more land so that we can continue to serve
    veterans the way we do throughout the country.
        Mr. Luttrell. Let us shift gears to, let us see here, how
    does the VA currently collect and use data related to national
    cemetery operations? How would a public annual report change
    this process? How often does a report currently come out?
        Mr. Powers. We do not issue, as has been--thank you for the
    question, Mr. Chairman. We do not issue a report right now, as
    has been pointed out. This bill would have us issue an annual
    report and we support the intent of the bill. It clearly does
    what is needed, what many people think is good government, the
    proposed topics which are benefits administration, customer
    satisfaction, cemetery maps, burial options, internment
    activity. That is data that we currently have almost in every
    aspect that the bill requires except one that we pointed out in
    the testimony is we would have to work on. We collect that
    data. We provided it to Congress when asked for, but we never
    did it in a annual report, so.
        Mr. Luttrell. How long have you been at the Department of
    Veterans Affairs, sir?
        Mr. Powers. I have been with--19 years.
        Mr. Luttrell. In the same spot, something similar?
        Mr. Powers. In the National Cemetery Administration for the
    entire 19 years, 15 years basically----
        Mr. Luttrell. Would it be more beneficial for an annual
    report to come out or----
        Mr. Powers. Oh, we support it. We support the intent. There
    is just one slight thing in the bill that we said we would have
    a problem disaggregating along one minor part of the bill. We
    support the intent of this bill for the reason stated in the
    bill.
        Mr. Luttrell. Are we for or against the FRAUD in VA
    Disability Exams Act, Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. Thank you for that question. The way that it is
    written, it really is duplication of efforts that we currently
    have in place, sir. It also uses language that would
    potentially confuse veterans. Where it specifically says that
    we would be required to notify veterans when DBQs are suspected
    of fraudulent activity is problematic. Just because there is a
    possibility that a DBQ would be fraudulent does not necessarily
    mean that it is, so.
        Mr. Luttrell. Explain to me when you say fraudulent DBQ.
        Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question.
        Mr. Luttrell. Kind of walk me through how we have come to
    that.
        Mr. Smith. This is specifically for public facing DBQs, so
    those that are on the web that can be downloaded. Through
    research, we have determined that there are telltale signs that
    a DBQ could potentially be fraudulent, such as you could see
    where the DBQ may have been altered or the information that is
    required in the signature block is missing or the examiner's
    address is, say, greater than 100 miles away from where the
    veteran lives. Looking at those potential signs that a DBQ
    could be fraudulent----
        Mr. Luttrell. Is there a language model inside of our
    computational system that picks this up or is this a still
    human touching this?
        Mr. Smith. That is a great question. We have developed a
    Power BI tool that should be ready this year that is going to
    be able to analyze a little over a million DBQs, public facing
    DBQs that have been scanned going all the way back to 2010, so
    we have a repository. When public DBQs come in, those are
    scanned and there should be a tool that is available this year
    that will allow us to, with greater fidelity, to be able to
    quickly identify potential problem cases.
        Mr. Luttrell. Then this particular legislation, it seems to
    me, would make sense if we had that capability?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. We are just--as far as technology goes,
    we are not there for implementation of this?
        Mr. Smith. We should----
        Mr. Luttrell. That makes sense. I can have that
    conversation with the committee if you are supporting what I
    just said.
        Mr. Smith. I believe that I am supporting what you just
    said unless my colleague kicks me under the table. I think that
    the electronic piece should be available in 2026, so in this
    fiscal year.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. This showed up for a reason. Amplifying
    information will always help us navigate these waters.
        Mr. Smith. I think, and I am not sure how wires may have
    gotten crossed, but VA has been proactive in this space. We
    recognize that there are some problem players out there. We
    have developed training that the claims processors are required
    to take so that they can understand their responsibility to
    potentially identify fraudulent DBQs as well as a defined
    process for them to report suspected fraudulent DBQs up. As an
    organization, we work with the Office of Inspector General if
    we run into issues or cases where we feel that there is some
    type of impairment investigation required.
        Mr. Luttrell. Let us talk about H.R. 5339 for a second. I
    was unaware that servicemembers in the Pentagon did not fall
    underneath the PACT Act. Explain to me how that happened.
        Mr. Smith. I appreciate that question. I cannot explain how
    that location was overlooked or that group was overlooked. With
    the respect to how this rule is written, our issue with it is
    that the conditions are listed in a manner that is too broad.
    All we are asking----
        Mr. Luttrell. Please say more.
        Mr. Smith. For instance, cancers of any type or cancers of,
    I do not know, neck, something of that nature, whereas we could
    be more specific with the conditions that could potentially
    have been caused by whatever toxics may have been present in
    that space. As an organization, we support identifying those
    exposures and making sure that we taking care of veterans.
    However, there needs to be more research in this particular
    area so we could determine if there is causation.
        Mr. Luttrell. The PACT Act covers or explains that very
    well----
        Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell [continuing]. I thought.
        Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. As far as types of--not to go down a rabbit
    hole here, but if we are going to try to unpack this suitcase,
    I do not think anybody can, as far as research goes, I do not
    think anybody can put their finger on exactly what chemical
    combinations create what cancers in anybody, especially if you
    are after an attack of such magnitude. This is total
    truthfulness. I had no idea that they were not included until a
    week ago when this was brought to my attention.
        Mr. Smith. I would be honest and say that I was not aware
    either, sir. In preparing for--and I hope it is okay to be
    honest. In preparing for this hearing, you know, do my due
    diligence and reached out to our partners in VHA, who identify
    the cohorts of veterans and they track them and do the
    research, but this particular cohort has not been defined.
    Again----
        Mr. Luttrell. Who is responsible for that?
        Mr. Smith. It falls under VHA, but there is an office VHA
    Home Health Outcomes, Medical Exposures. They are the research
    point that partners with VBA and the presumptive disability
    process.
        Mr. Luttrell. Has this specific issue been brought to the
    VA's attention in the past?
        Mr. Smith. Not to my knowledge, sir. No, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. I expect movement on this one. This is
    absolutely ridiculous, first and foremost. As far as the global
    war and terror, they were the first ones to feel it short of
    the towers falling, I mean. For them to not be included, that
    makes--it sounds like we are on the same page, though.
        Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. Ms. Bover, are you for or against the
    PRESUME Act?
        Ms. Bover. That is under the oversight of Mr. James Smith,
    so I am going to pass it to my colleague.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay.
        Mr. Smith. With the--I guess this is written down. No, we
    cannot support that. For the presumptive disabilities, dose
    requirement is--dose is not required for us to grant service
    connection as long as there are two criteria that are met. One
    is that the servicemember participated in a radiation risk
    activity and, two, that they be diagnosed with a condition that
    is listed in 3.309 or the presumptive conditions that were part
    of the PACT Act.
        Mr. Luttrell. Okay. This particular group that Ms. Titus
    was speaking about specifically, how do we, because of the VA
    regulations, how do we fix this problem? You cannot argue that
    this happened and that they were there. I understand
    classification levels and everything that happens in between.
    What is the best way to fix this from VA's perspective?
        Mr. Smith. I appreciate that question, sir. I am not a
    clinician, I am not a researcher speaking to counterparts at
    VHA. There is been research looked at this area and, again, I
    cannot speak to the research in and of itself. However, in
    partnership with U.S. Department of War Subject Matter Experts
    (DOW SME), there is no way for them to--or there is not been
    definitive evidence, I am just reading now, ``no definitive
    evidence of health problems as a result of radiation
    exposure.'' I asked someone to send me that report, but I think
    that is the issue is that as it stands, they have looked at
    this area, but, for whatever reason, they have not been able to
    determine causation.
        Mr. Luttrell. If there is a report that you find, would you
    send that over to committee staff so we can see it, too,
    please?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Luttrell. I thank the Department of Veterans Affairs
    for your time today. I appreciate it. As far as this
    legislation goes, I think that we are--I think we disagree with
    each other. It is a shame it has to happen in this hearing,
    which I--you know, if we could have had a roundtable
    discussion, you could have come to my office and reached out to
    the committee and said, hey, we would like to sit down and
    discuss this with you before you show up. I think we could--it
    would have been a lot more productive instead of me being on
    send and you on receive.
        At the end of the day, it is you. It is not me. You touch
    the veterans, you do. Thank you all for your service. I can
    wire brush you all day long, yell and scream and ask you, and I
    do not sit up here and just throw this at you. These are
    conversations I have with those who put me here. It is my job
    to do that, period. When we walk out of here, you can either
    forget the fact that I asked you to do what I asked you to do,
    in 24 hours you are going to have that report for me. I will be
    calling you tomorrow asking for that report. You are going to
    give me the same answer I have gotten since the 3 years and 2
    months I have been here. Then I am going to go home and tell
    the veterans exactly what you told me. That is a damn shame.
    Okay?
        Veterans should not be caught up in the political
    bureaucracies of this place, period, and their loved ones.
    Thank you for your time.
        I ask unanimous consent that all members have 5 legislative
    days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous
    material. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        This meeting is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    =======================================================================

                             A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X

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

                        Prepared Statements of Witnesses

                                  ----------

                     Prepared Statement of James McCormick

        Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee. Thank you for
    the opportunity to appear before you today.
        My name is James L. McCormick II.
        I am the Executive Director of Government Affairs for Vietnam
    Veterans of America (VVA). I am a retired captain with 22 years of
    service in the United States Army. That included 16-years as enlisted
    in the NCO ranks, which then led to my direct commission as a combat
    arms officer where I spent the last 6 years of my service in the
    officer ranks.
        I served during the Cold war, the Gulf War, and Operation Iraqi
    Freedom.
        Vietnam Veterans of America was founded on the shared resolve of
    veterans who returned from a very real war to a country unprepared, or
    sometimes unwilling, to understand the cost of that service.
        Formed in 1978, the congressionally chartered organization grew out
    of Vietnam veterans working together, often unofficially and without
    institutional support, to demand recognition, including for those
    invisible wounds of war that would later, because of their fighting for
    it, become formally recognized as post-traumatic stress disorder
    (PTSD).
        Guided by our principle that, ``Never again will one generation of
    veterans abandon another,'' VVA has evolved from advocating for Vietnam
    veterans alone to standing for all veterans and their families. We
    strive to ensure that as Vietnam veterans age they receive the
    healthcare, long-term support, disability and survivor benefits, and
    dignity they have earned... while also fighting just as fiercely to
    protect future generations from being ignored, misunderstood, or left
    to fight alone.
        The nine items we've been asked to address largely align with VVA's
    advocacy; and would likely endorse most while monitoring implementation
    to avoid administrative pitfalls or unintended restrictions.
        H.R. 1685--Justice for ALS Veterans Act of 2025: VVA would strongly
    support this bill. It addresses a clear inequity for surviving spouses
    of veterans who die from service-connected ALS, a condition often
    progressing rapidly and linked to exposures (relevant to Vietnam
    veterans via Agent Orange or other hazards). Deeming total disability
    for the full 8-year DIC enhancement period prevents unfair denials due
    to disease timeline. The reporting requirement on other short-life-
    expectancy conditions promotes broader equity and oversight--aligning
    with VVA's push for presumptive and survivor benefits. Minimal VA
    burden makes it practical. The noted condition about shifting from 90
    to 120 days active duty appears to be a mis-reference (bill focuses on
    DIC rating, not presumption threshold), but VVA would likely back
    mitigations for edge cases.

        H.R. 2164--Dayton National Cemetery Expansion Act of 2025: VVA
    would support this targeted expansion. Ensuring burial capacity in
    regions like Dayton prevents future access restrictions for veterans
    and families. Accepting no-cost land transfer with clear timelines
    advances NCA goals without new cemetery creation. VVA emphasizes
    dignified burial access; this addresses a regional constraint
    efficiently. Risks like timeline delays for reviews are valid watch
    items, but the bill's direction to VA helps move it forward.

        H.R. 1004--Love Lives On Act of 2025: VVA would strongly support
    this. Eliminating the remarriage penalty for DIC, survivor pensions,
    SBP, and TRICARE modernizes outdated rules that penalize surviving
    spouses (often widows) for remarrying, especially after age 55 or if
    later marriages end. This improves financial/health stability and
    reflects contemporary realities. Retroactive elements and age
    provisions help many. VVA has long advocated for survivor equity; this
    reduces hardship without major drawbacks beyond potential costs (which
    VVA would argue are justified). Guidance clarity is a key watch item.

        H.R. 6698--BVA Annual Report Transparency Act of 2025: VVA would
    support this. Enhanced BVA reporting on delays, remands (distinguishing
    legacy/AMA systems), causes, and mitigation plans boosts accountability
    and identifies root issues (e.g., training, quality). VVA frequently
    calls for appeals reform and transparency to reduce backlogs/delays
    affecting veterans. Indirect benefits through pressure for improvements
    align with priorities. Added workload is a risk, but paired with
    resources, it could drive real change.

        H.R. 4469--PRESUME Act: VVA would strongly support this. Removing
    dose-proof requirements for radiation-exposed veterans aligns with
    presumptive frameworks VVA champions (e.g., Agent Orange, burn pits).
    Many Vietnam-era veterans faced radiation risks; easing evidentiary
    barriers reduces unfair denials from incomplete records. It simplifies
    adjudication while potentially increasing grants--consistent with VVA's
    toxic exposure advocacy. Watch for clear verification standards to
    maintain integrity.
        H.R. 5723--Fraud Reduction And Uncovering Deception (FRAUD) in VA
    Disability Exams Act: VVA would support this. Stronger oversight of
    contractors via audits, fraud identification (especially DBQs),
    reporting, and tracking targets bad actors/claim mills without broadly
    reopening decisions absent criminal conviction. This protects program
    integrity and veterans from predatory practices. VVA emphasizes
    contractor accountability; safeguards against delays/false positives on
    legitimate claims are essential watch items.

        H.R. 5339--Susan E. Lukas 9/11 Servicemember Fairness Act: VVA
    would support this presumption for Pentagon responders on/after 9/11.
    Broad disease list (respiratory, cancers, etc.) tied to documented
    hazards eases nexus proof for an identifiable group. While site-
    specific, it promotes equity for post-9/11 exposures; VVA supports
    similar presumptions. Cohort verification and outreach are important to
    avoid burdens.

        H.R. 6943--Veterans Burial Allowance and Reimbursement Act of 2026:
    VVA would cautiously support, pending details. Standardizing/
    consolidating burial authorities (including service-connected deaths)
    could simplify processing and reduce confusion. VVA values clear,
    uniform benefits for families. However, repeals/amendments risk
    unintended narrowing; VVA would watch for side-by-side comparisons
    ensuring no eligibility/benefit losses during transition.

        Discussion Draft--National Cemetery Administration Annual Report
    Act of 2026: VVA would support this. Detailed annual NCA reporting
    (interments disaggregated, satisfaction, maps, options, memorials)
    enhances transparency and oversight of burial access/program
    performance. Indirectly benefits veterans/families by informing
    improvements and accountability. Aligns with VVA's interest in
    dignified, accessible burials nationwide.
        I commend the subcommittee for the work it is doing. Helping
    veterans get the benefits they deserve is noble and required of our
    government. Too often, it seems that negativity and party-line politics
    have seeped into veteran policy in ways that create competition instead
    of compassion, delay instead of care, and noise instead of solutions.
    We debate labels, eras of service, and party positions while veterans
    struggle with housing, healthcare, suicide risk, financial insecurity,
    and dignity at the end of life.
        It does not matter what branch they served in. It does not matter
    when they served. And it does not matter whether they faced combat,
    supported supply lines, maintained equipment, gathered intelligence, or
    served in an administrative role. Every one of them raised their right
    hand and accepted the same obligation. Every one of them made
    sacrifices that shaped their lives, their families, and this Nation.
        But advocacy must never devolve into deciding which veterans are
    most politically convenient to support. The role of Congress is to
    ensure that every veteran, and every veteran's family, area not
    hampered by their service, and can live with stability, access care
    without unnecessary barriers, and age with dignity.
        Thank you. I look forward to your questions now or at any time.

                       Prepared Statement of Paul Shipley
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Prepared Statement of Tanya Wilson-Thomas
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Prepared Statement of Nancy Springer

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and members of the
    subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign
    Wars of the United States (VFW) and its Auxiliary, I would like to
    thank you for the opportunity to speak on these subjects.

    H.R. 1004, Love Lives On Act of 2025

        As a resolutions-based Veterans Service Organization, the VFW does
    not have a position on whether survivors should retain their benefits
    upon remarriage. However, the VFW supports restoring TRICARE
    eligibility for surviving spouses who remarry and whose subsequent
    marriage later ends. Under current law, a surviving spouse in this
    circumstance may apply to have Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
    (DIC) and Survivor Benefit Plan payments reinstated. To ensure parity
    across survivor benefits, legislation should also reinstate TRICARE
    coverage when a surviving spouse's subsequent marriage ends.

    H.R. 1685, Justice for ALS Veterans Act of 2025

        The VFW supports this legislation to extend the enhanced DIC paid
    to surviving spouses of veterans who die from amyotrophic lateral
    sclerosis (ALS) regardless of the length of time the veteran lived
    after diagnosis. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
    veterans are approximately 1.5 times more likely to develop ALS than
    individuals who did not serve in the military. VA presumes ALS is
    service-connected and assigns a 100 percent disability rating due to
    its severe and progressive nature. VA pays surviving spouses DIC and an
    additional monthly allowance if the spouse was married to the veteran
    for at least 8 years and VA rated the veteran totally disabled due to
    ALS for a minimum of 8 years.
        However, ALS is a rapidly progressive and terminal disease, with a
    typical life expectancy of only three to 5 years following diagnosis,
    making the 8-year disability requirement unattainable for many
    families. This legislation would remove that unrealistic requirement
    while preserving the 8-year marriage rule, ensuring more surviving
    spouses receive the full benefits available for survivors of veterans
    who die from ALS.
        VFW member and ALS patient Major Chris Mulholland, United States
    Marine Corps (Retired), spearheaded the VFW's long-standing advocacy to
    reform ALS survivor benefits, including leading the VFW's adoption of a
    resolution on this issue. Major Mulholland personally experienced the
    relentless progression of this debilitating and terminal illness. He
    spoke out not only about the disproportionate impact of ALS on
    veterans, but also about the profound toll it takes on families, who
    shoulder intense caregiving responsibilities and face financial
    uncertainty while coping with rapid decline and loss. Tragically, Major
    Mulholland's own life reflected the very injustice this bill seeks to
    address, as he lived fewer than 8 years following his ALS diagnosis in
    2020.
        The VFW also supports the provision that would require VA to submit
    a report identifying other service-connected disabilities with high
    mortality rates that warrant similar treatment.

    H.R. 2164, Dayton National Cemetery Expansion Act of 2025

        Although this legislation addresses a specific circumstance in
    Ohio, the VFW supports both this legislation and the broader principle
    of expanding VA-administered cemeteries whenever feasible. In this
    instance, it authorizes VA to enter into an agreement with a local bank
    to acquire a 58-acre parcel adjacent to Dayton National Cemetery. This
    land transfer would create additional burial capacity for veterans and
    eligible family members, which is particularly important given the
    limited availability of other VA-managed cemeteries in the region.
        In 2018, the median age of the Nation's approximately 18 million
    veterans was 65, while the median age of the 6.4 million Vietnam-era
    veterans was 71. Taken together, these demographics underscore the
    urgency of proactive planning. Accordingly, the VFW urges VA to develop
    and implement a comprehensive, forward-looking national cemetery land
    acquisition strategy to ensure it can continue to honor the final
    wishes of these large and aging veteran populations.

    H.R. 4469, Providing Radiation Exposed Servicemembers Undisputed
    Medical Eligibility (PRESUME) Act

        The VFW supports this legislation to eliminate the requirement for
    a specific radiation dose to determine whether a veteran qualifies as
    radiation exposed. Currently, to qualify for a presumption of service
    connection due to radiation exposure, the veteran must provide proof of
    on-site participation in a radiation-risk activity and radiation dose
    estimates from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
        This legislation would streamline this process by eliminating the
    dosage requirement and aligning the process more closely with that used
    for radiation-affected civilian personnel. Diseases attributable to
    radiation exposure may manifest several years after exposure,
    exacerbating the difficulty of obtaining an accurate dosage reading.
    Also, both service members and civilian employees worked many times in
    the same radiation-affected areas, yet programs for civilian employees
    do not require dose assessments to establish exposure. This discrepancy
    creates the appearance of unequal treatment.

    H.R. 5339, Susan E. Lukas 9/11 Servicemember Fairness Act

        The VFW supports this legislation to establish a presumption of
    service connection for specific diseases associated with exposure to
    toxins attributable to the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. This attack may
    have exposed individuals to toxins that cause various respiratory,
    cardiovascular, and cancer-related conditions. Because current law
    excludes this cohort from the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson
    Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022
    (Public Law 117-168) and other benefits programs, this legislation
    would streamline the disability compensation claims process and close a
    long-standing coverage gap.

    H.R. 5723, Fraud Reduction And Uncovering Deception (FRAUD) in VA
    Disability Exams Act

        The VFW supports this legislation to require VA to identify and
    report instances of fraud with respect to VA Disability Benefits
    Questionnaire (DBQ) forms. Since DBQs provide foundational evidence for
    many VA disability compensation claims, they must accurately reflect a
    veteran's injury or illness to preserve the integrity of the claims
    process.
        Veterans use public DBQs, available on VA's publicly accessible
    website, to collect clinical information from their health care
    providers to assist VA in evaluating disability compensation claims. VA
    organizes these commonly used forms by body systems as characterized in
    the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. Because DBQs often play a
    decisive role in claims outcomes, fraudulent schemes have emerged to
    exploit their use. In some cases, bad actors charge veterans for
    assistance that VA and VA-accredited representatives provide at no
    cost. These actors may also falsely promise access to private health
    care providers who will secure higher ratings, improperly advise
    veterans to avoid VA examinations, or claim they can guarantee
    favorable outcomes. Some affiliated health care providers charge fees
    while offering to manufacture diagnoses or exaggerate existing
    conditions for the DBQs to obtain benefits beyond what the evidence
    supports.
        This legislation would require VA to establish a formal process for
    claimants and claims processors to identify and report suspected DBQ-
    related fraud. VA would refer these cases to appropriate authorities
    while also implementing a recurring audit program to monitor both
    reported and detected fraudulent activity. Together, these measures
    would create a systematic approach to reporting, evaluating, and
    prosecuting DBQ-related fraud, which is an approach that does not
    currently exist.
        The VFW also supports the legislation's reporting requirements to
    ensure that VA regularly informs the appropriate congressional
    committees of the program's effectiveness.

    H.R. 6698, Board of Veterans Appeals Annual Report Transparency Act of
    2025

        The VFW supports this legislation to require the Board of Veterans'
    Appeals (BVA) to include in its annual report an identification of the
    factors contributing to untimely disposition and remand of appeals. In
    its Fiscal Year 2024 annual report, BVA reported an appeals inventory
    of approximately 200,000 cases and projected an additional 100,000 new
    appeals in Fiscal Year 2025. As a result, veterans may wait up to 2
    years for a decision, depending on the docket, with significantly
    longer delays for appellants who request a hearing.
        Remands from BVA to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction further
    delay appeal resolution. In Fiscal Year 2024, BVA remanded more than 40
    percent of appeals. Because remands occur for a variety of reasons, the
    time required for a claim to return to BVA if necessary varies widely,
    making it difficult to predict when BVA will issue a final decision.
    Although returned appeals retain their original place on the docket,
    the remand process still prolongs the overall appeals timeline.
    Requiring BVA to identify the factors driving delays in appeals and
    remands would improve transparency, and provide data BVA could use to
    evaluate and strengthen its processes and procedures.

    Discussion Draft, Veterans Burial Allowance and Reimbursement Act of
    2026

        The VFW supports this proposal to standardize the payment of burial
    and funeral expenses, and plot allowances for deceased veterans.
    Currently, burial benefits vary based on many factors such as the
    veteran's date of death, the manner or location of interment, or
    whether a service-connected condition caused the death. Also, statutory
    provisions governing plot allowances and burial or interment
    eligibility remain scattered throughout the United States Code or lack
    a consistent, unified framework. This proposal would consolidate and
    clarify existing statutes to ensure VA treats similarly situated
    veterans and their survivors consistently and equitably.

    Discussion Draft, National Cemetery Administration Annual Report Act of
    2026

        The VFW supports this legislation that would require VA to submit
    an annual National Cemetery Administration (NCA) report to Congress.
    Currently, VA's performance and financial reports to Congress include
    NCA data and information. A separate report exclusively focused on NCA
    would increase transparency of its operations, enable better oversight,
    inform budgeting and strategic planning for veteran burial benefits,
    and highlight shortfalls or challenges that need a legislative
    solution.
        The VFW would support a well-written, informative report that would
    enhance NCA services and ensure veteran burial benefits despite
    dwindling resources. The proposed report would include a variety of
    cemetery-related data markers that VA could use to analyze cemetery
    operations, and either support reforms or continue best practices.
        Chairman Luttrell and Ranking Member McGarvey, this concludes my
    testimony. I am prepared to answer any questions you or the members of
    the subcommittee may have.

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

    Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the VFW has
    not received any Federal grants in Fiscal Year 2026, 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 Jennifer Bover

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and other Members of
    the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting us here today to present our
    views on several bills that would affect VA programs and services.
    Joining me today is Mr. Glenn Powers, Deputy Under Secretary for Field
    Programs and Cemetery Operations, National Cemetery Administration, and
    Mr. James Smith, Deputy Executive Director, Compensation Service,
    Veterans Benefits Administration. I appreciate the opportunity to
    discuss the important pieces of legislation affecting Veterans pending
    before this Subcommittee.

    H.R. 1685  Justice for ALS Veterans Act of 2025

        Section 2 of this bill amends 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1311 to ensure that
    surviving spouses of Veterans who die from ALS receive the increased
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation under Sec.  1311(a)(2), commonly
    called the `eight and eight' kicker, regardless of how long the Veteran
    had the disease. Currently, this additional benefit applies only when
    the Veteran was totally disabled for 8 years prior to death and married
    for that same period. The bill removes that 8-year requirement for ALS
    cases but keeps the length of marriage requirement. It also applies to
    deaths on or after October 1, 2025, and directs VA to report on other
    high-mortality conditions.

        VA supports the intent to provide this benefit to ALS-affected
    families.

        We also support the goal of Section 3 to review other rapidly
    progressive diseases, like cancer or Parkinson's, but note the bill
    lacks criteria for defining ``high mortality rate.'' Clear standards
    are needed to ensure consistent implementation with congressional
    intent.

        Position: VA supports the intent of this bill if amended, however,
    VA is unable to assess the impact to budgetary resources and therefore
    will follow up with the committee once this evaluation is complete or
    the Congressional Budget Office has provided a score.

    H.R. 2164  Dayton National Cemetery Expansion Act of 2025

        This bill would require VA to enter into an agreement with the
    Montgomery County Land Bank to acquire land near Dayton National
    Cemetery for future expansion. VA does not support this bill.
        VA has an established policy on expansion processes in National
    Cemetery Administration (NCA) Directive 3001. This directive provides
    statutory references, establishes mandatory policy for the
    establishment, expansion, and replacement of VA national cemeteries, as
    well as detailed decision criteria for expanding, replacing, or closing
    an existing national cemetery.
        NCA monitors the rates at which each cemetery will deplete capacity
    for each type of burial it provides. Current projections show that
    Dayton National Cemetery has sufficient burial space until at least
    2050, and NCA and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) are already
    exploring transfer of excess and unneeded land from the co-located
    medical center, which is VA's preferred and standard approach.
        The bill raises several other concerns as well. It mandates VA to
    accept land even if we have no need for it, and without time limits on
    acquisition. Although the transfer is described as ``no cost,'' VA
    would bear significant potential expenses to clear structures,
    remediate hazards, and maintain the property. The land also includes
    occupied homes, raising the risk of displacing families and creating
    the impression VA endorses that outcome.
        VA remains committed to using existing property to meet burial
    needs before pursuing new acquisitions.

        Position: VA does not support this bill.

        H.R. 1004  Love Lives On Act of 2025

        Section 2 of this bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  103(d) by
    restructuring and expanding exceptions to the remarriage bar for
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) and Medal of Honor Pension.
    VA does not support removing remarriage restrictions for these
    benefits.
        VA is sensitive to the intent behind this bill and is available to
    work with the Committee to pursue ways to better support surviving
    spouses, while accounting for secondary impacts across various benefit
    entitlements. Existing remarriage restrictions help manage and allocate
    VA resources effectively, ensuring that they are directed to
    individuals who have lost the financial support of a spouse due to that
    spouse's service-related disability or death. DIC payments are
    designated for individuals who have lost financial support due to a
    spouse's service-related disability or death. In regard to DIC
    benefits, if the surviving spouse remarries before the age of 55, this
    financial need is considered to no longer exist, thereby altering the
    initial intent of the law.
        Furthermore, if enacted, this bill would create a greater disparity
    of survivor pension beneficiaries under Chapter 15 who will remain
    precluded from benefit entitlement if they remarry at any age.
        The bill also creates a secondary impact. Under 38 U.S.C. Sec.
    3701(b)(2), surviving spouses of Veterans who died from service-
    connected disabilities are eligible for VA home loan benefits.
    Currently, VA relies on DIC eligibility to determine home loan
    eligibility. The bill would break that link because proposed Sec.
    103(d)(5)(C) still bars home loan benefits if remarriage occurs before
    age 57. VA would need to separately verify remarriage status for home
    loan eligibility, adding complexity. Aligning DIC and home loan
    requirements would streamline this process.
        Finally, VA also highlights an ambiguity created within this bill
    regarding Medal of Honor Pension under Sec.  1562. Section 2 removes
    application of certain provisions for DIC but retains them for Medal of
    Honor Pension, despite language aligning Sec. Sec.  1311 and 1562. If
    remarriage is not intended to bar entitlement under Sec.  1562, VA
    recommends removing that reference in Sec.  103(d)(5) or clarifying
    when remarriage applies. VA offers this clarification for accuracy,
    even though we oppose the bill.
        We understand the Department of War has long opposed section 3 on
    the grounds of increased cost and inequity among surviving spouses.
    Furthermore, termination of a spousal annuity due to remarriage before
    a certain age is a standard feature of all Federal annuity programs
    (and civilian employers' pension programs). For that reason, it would
    be inequitable to further enhance the benefits for active-duty deaths
    while not allowing a similar option for the surviving spouses of
    retirees under other Federal programs such as the Federal Employee
    Retirement System, the Civil Service Retirement System, the Federal
    Railroad Retirement program, Social Security, and the Worker's
    Compensation Program survivor annuities.
        VA defers to the Department of War on Section 4.

        Position: VA does not support this bill.

    H.R. 6698  Board of Veterans Appeals Annual Report Transparency Act of
    2025

        This bill would amend the Board's annual reporting requirements
    under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  7101(d) to include reporting on factors
    contributing to untimely dispositions and remands. While the VA
    supports the intent, we have concerns that this requirement could harm
    Veterans by introducing delays, unnecessary costs, and confusion about
    docket choices--especially as appeal processing times are improving
    under the Appeals Modernization Act of 2017 (AMA). The AMA became
    effective in 2019 and introducing new reporting requirements at a time
    when VA is significantly decreasing adjudication times would divert
    resources and potentially stall current progress.
        Section 2 of this bill would require the Board to report the number
    of cases not disposed of timely, identify contributing factors, and
    provide percentages for each factor. Many factors affect case
    timelines--staffing levels, productivity, evolving case law, case
    complexity, evidence volume, and appellant-requested delays. Within the
    Board's case management system, there are nearly 100 task assignments
    that influence processing time to varying degrees, making it difficult
    to isolate specific factors. Often, multiple factors, some of them
    subjective, apply to a single case.
        Section 2 also adds reporting on remanded cases under the AMA or
    legacy system, requiring identification of factors and percentages.
    This creates a significant administrative and IT burden. Current
    systems track remands at the issue level, not the case level, so
    reporting by case would require major system changes. Many cases can
    have multiple issues remanded with multiple other dispositions in the
    same case. Accordingly, while reporting by issue is possible, it would
    produce confusing data because the number of remanded issues would not
    match the number of remanded cases.
        In short, while we support transparency, these requirements would
    divert resources, create complexity, and risk slowing progress for
    Veterans.

        Position: VA supports the intent of this bill but cites concerns.
    VA is unable to assess the impact to budgetary resources at this time.

    H.R. 4469  Providing Radiation Exposed Servicemembers Undisputed
    Medical Eligibility Act or the ``PRESUME Act''

        Section 2 of the proposed bill would amend 38 United States Code
    (U.S.C.) Sec.  1112 by adding the following new paragraph:

            ``The Secretary may not require evidence of a certain dose of
            radiation to determine that a Veteran is a radiation-exposed
            Veteran.''

        VA does not support this bill because it would not meaningfully
    change existing statutory or regulatory standards. Under 38 U.S.C.
    Sec.  1112, a `radiation-exposed veteran' is defined by participation
    in certain radiation-risk activities during service--not by dose
    estimates. Current law already grants presumptive service connection
    for Veterans who engaged in these activities and later develop the
    listed conditions. Dose evidence is only required when the claimed
    condition is not on the presumptive list.
        This bill does not expand the list of presumptive diseases,
    redefine radiation-risk activities, or alter VA's approach for non-
    presumptive claims. In short, the PRESUME Act would largely restate
    existing practice and would not create new eligibility or relief. The
    bill's intent is unclear because radiation dose estimates do not factor
    into presumptions under Sec.  1112 or healthcare eligibility under
    Sec.  1710.

        Position: VA does not support this bill.

    H.R. 5723  FRAUD in VA Disability Exam Act

        This bill would require VA to establish a process for auditing,
    identifying, and reporting fraudulent Disability Benefit Questionnaire
    (DBQ) activity, regardless of source. It mandates reporting suspected
    fraud to investigatory bodies, including the Office of Inspector
    General (OIG); creating a process for claims processors to flag and
    transmit suspected fraud; conducting recurring audits of all DBQs; and
    notifying individuals when their DBQs raise suspicion. The bill also
    prohibits reopening or changing benefit decisions based on
    investigations unless the individual is convicted of fraud and requires
    annual reporting on these activities.
        VA appreciates the intent but notes this may duplicate existing
    processes. In Fiscal Year 2025, VA implemented mandatory training for
    claims processors and quality reviewers on identifying insufficient or
    potentially fraudulent DBQs and required actions when concerns arise.
    All DBQs--whether from VA-employed, VA-contracted, or public sources--
    are reviewed for consistency and integrity. When concerns arise, claims
    processors can refer cases to the OIG.
        VA is concerned about the requirement to notify individuals whose
    DBQs are suspected of fraud, especially when exams were requested by VA
    and conducted by VA-employed or contracted examiners. The bill also
    prevents VA from revising decisions unless there is a fraud conviction.
    Under current practice, if fraud is suspected, VA typically offers a
    new exam and revises ratings as needed to ensure fairness. The proposed
    restriction would eliminate VA's ability to correct errors promptly,
    potentially harming Veterans who were not involved in fraudulent
    activity.

        Position: VA does not support this bill.

    H.R. 5339  Susan E. Lukas 9/11 Servicemember Fairness Act

        This bill would create a new section, 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1120A, to
    establish presumptive service connection for certain diseases linked to
    toxin exposure at the Pentagon Reservation between September 11 and
    November 19, 2001.
        VA does not support this bill. The listed conditions are broad and
    lack sufficient research support to confirm causality. While the number
    of affected Veterans may be small, the scientific basis for the
    proposed diseases is not established.
        The bill references 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1119, which currently includes
    Gulf War Veterans with service in specific locations in Southwest Asia
    after August 2, 1990, and in certain other countries after September
    11, 2001, creating confusion about who qualifies and which conditions
    apply. This could complicate benefit implementation and disrupt
    automated claims processes.
        The proposed paragraph in Sec.  1120A(b)(9) adding presumptive
    diseases for Veterans linked to substances identified in 38 U.S.C.
    Sec.  1119(b)(2) would conflict with the specific definition of
    ``covered Veteran'' already used for that section in Sec.  1119(c).
    Referencing Sec.  1119 in a bill about toxic-exposed Veterans could
    lead to confusion, suggesting that Veterans covered under Sec.  1119
    are also eligible under Sec.  1120A, or that all conditions in Sec.
    1119 apply to Sec.  1120A's covered Veterans.
        The proposed legislation has overlaps and some differences with the
    September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, necessitating further inquiry
    into potential impacts for Veterans.
        In short, VA opposes this bill due to unclear definitions,
    operational challenges, and insufficient evidence supporting the
    presumptions.

        Position: VA does not support this bill.

    H.R. XXXX  Veterans Burial Allowance and Reimbursement Act of 2026

        This bill would repeal 38 U.S.C. Sec.  2307 and amend Sec.  2303 to
    pay all burial and plot allowances--service-connected and non-service-
    connected--at the same rate. VA does not support this bill and instead
    recommends amending Sec.  2307.
        Since 1973, VA has provided a higher burial allowance for service-
    connected deaths to recognize the sacrifice of Veterans whose deaths
    are related to service. Aligning the rates would eliminate that
    distinction. Under current law, the service-connected burial benefit is
    capped at $ 2,000 and has not increased since 2001, while non-service-
    connected benefits are indexed to inflation. As of October 1, 2025, the
    combined non-service-connected burial and plot allowance now exceeds
    the service-connected allowance.
        VA recommends amending Sec.  2307 to authorize annual cost-of-
    living increases based on the Consumer Price Index, ensuring parity and
    preserving the intent to provide greater assistance for service-
    connected deaths. VA also recommends a one-time increase to restore the
    service-connected benefit as the higher amount. We defer to Congress on
    the rate but are ready to assist with analysis.

        Position: VA does not support this bill. VA recommends amending
    Sec.  2307 instead.

        H.R. XXXX  National Cemetery Administration Annual Report Act of
    2026

        The National Cemetery Administration Annual Report Act of 2026
    would add a new section, 38 U.S.C. Sec.  2415, requiring VA to submit
    an annual report to the Veterans' Affairs Committees. VA supports the
    intent of this bill. The report would improve transparency and provide
    Congress with consistent data on NCA operations, programs, and
    outcomes. Proposed topics--benefits administration, customer
    satisfaction, cemetery maps, burial options, and interment activity--
    are frequently requested by Congress, and consolidating this
    information would be helpful.
        Many of these elements are already captured in NCA's annual
    statistical summary. However, some proposed requirements raise
    feasibility concerns. For example, Sec.  2415(b)(1) would require
    interment data broken down by cemetery, eligibility category under
    Sec.  2402(a)(1)-(10), and type of remains. Section 2415(b)(6) would
    require reporting memorial products by cemetery and eligibility
    category. Memorialization benefits, such as Presidential Memorial
    Certificates and headstones, are authorized under different statutes
    (Sec. Sec.  112 and 2306), and eligibility differs accordingly.
        Current systems--Burial Operations Support System, the Memorial
    Benefits Management System, and related analytics--do not track data by
    the categories in Sec.  2402(a)(1)-(10). Meeting these requirements
    would require major system redesign or manual reconciliation, risking
    delays and data quality issues. NCA recommends revising the language in
    Sec.  2415(b)(1)(B) and (b)(6)(A) to align with reliable data points
    already maintained in our systems. This approach would meet the bill's
    intent while remaining operationally feasible.
        NCA looks forward to working with the Committees to ensure the
    report fulfills oversight objectives and is analytically sound.

        Position: VA supports the intent of this bill; however, VA is
    unable to assess the impact to budgetary resources and therefore will
    follow up with the committee once this evaluation is complete or CBO
    has provided a score.

    Conclusion

        I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today and welcome
    any questions you may have. Thank you for your continued support of
    Veterans and the many programs to support them through the Department
    of Veterans Affairs.

                           Statements for the Record

                                  ----------

                       Prepared Statement of ALS Network
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      Prepared Statement of National Association of Atomic Veterans, Inc.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Prepared Statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and members of the
    subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank
    you for the opportunity to submit our views on some of the bills being
    examined by the subcommittee 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. 1004, the Love Lives on Act of 2025

        When a military member or veteran dies, their spouse is eligible to
    receive a number of survivor benefits, but current law strips many of
    them if the spouse remarries again before age 55. This arbitrary age
    limit often prevents many surviving spouses from remarrying out of
    concern for the financial stability of their surviving children. These
    surviving spouses should be freed from the fear of losing the benefits
    owed to them through their late spouse's military sacrifice. PVA
    supports the Love Lives On Act, which would ensure they retain many
    benefits from both the VA and the Department of Defense (DOD),
    regardless of their age at the time of remarriage.

    H.R. 1685, the Justice for ALS Veterans Act of 2025

        Currently, if a veteran was rated totally disabled for a continuous
    period of at least 8 years immediately preceding death, their eligible
    survivor can receive an additional $360.85 per month in Dependency and
    Indemnity Compensation (DIC). This monetary installment is commonly
    referred to as the DIC ``kicker.''
        Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is an aggressive disease that
    quickly leaves veterans incapacitated and reliant on family members and
    caregivers. Many spouses stop working to provide care for their loved
    one who, once diagnosed, only has an average lifespan of between three
    to 5 years. Because so few veterans survive beyond 5 years, the
    surviving spouses of veterans with ALS rarely qualify for the
    additional DIC benefit. Jann, the surviving spouse of a PVA member, was
    disqualified for this exact reason. Determined not to let this happen
    to other spouses, she helped PVA craft the Justice for ALS Veterans Act
    to make the surviving spouses of future veterans with ALS eligible for
    the DIC kicker, regardless of how long the veteran had the disease.
        Members of this subcommittee were supportive of this legislation
    when it was reviewed in October 2021, but some suggested that there may
    be other service-connected conditions that deserve similar
    consideration. The VA recognizes ALS as a presumptive service-connected
    disease, and due to its progressive nature, automatically rates any
    diagnosed veteran at 100 percent once service connected. Although we
    are unaware of other service-connected conditions that have a 100
    percent mortality rate, like ALS, we are pleased this version of the
    bill incorporates PVA's recommended language directing the VA to study
    the matter and provide their findings to Congress. With the addition of
    this language, Congress should not further delay passage of this
    critical legislation.

    H.R. 6698, the Board of Veterans Appeals Annual Report Transparency Act
    of 2025

        PVA supports efforts like this bill to increase transparency of the
    Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) process. This legislation
    would require the Board to identify specific factors that contribute to
    the delay in the adjudication of pending appeals. PVA supports this
    bill, which requires these factors to be included in the Board's annual
    report that is published online to help find these inhibiting factors
    to help improve the appeals process.

    H.R. 6943, the Veterans Burial Allowance and Reimbursement Act of 2026

        This legislation would remove the distinction between non-service-
    connected and service-connected cause of death, as it pertains to
    eligibility for VA's burial allowance. Currently, a veteran who died
    due to a service-connected condition is eligible for $2,000 toward
    their funeral/burial expenses. A veteran who dies due to a non-service-
    connected condition is eligible for up to $1,002 for burial and $1,002
    toward a plot potentially equaling $2,004 toward funeral/burial
    expenses. PVA supports this legislation, which removes the service-
    connected allowance of $2,000 and instead amends the eligibility for
    the $1,002 for burial and $1,002 plot allowance to include those who
    die from a service-connected condition.

    H.R. 4469, the Providing Radiation Exposed Servicemembers Undisputed
    Medical Eligibility (PRESUME) Act

        Veterans exposed to radiation during service may be eligible for VA
    disability compensation. Currently, the VA recognizes specific
    conditions as being presumptively caused by exposure to ionizing
    radiation that may have occurred during service. However, when a
    veteran applies for their compensation benefits, the VA asks DOD's
    Defense Threat Reduction Agency to confirm exposure and to provide the
    actual or estimated radiation dose the veteran received. PVA supports
    this legislation which rescinds the need for a veteran to prove that
    the amount of ionizing radiation they were exposed was sufficient to
    warrant service-connection for their conditions.

    H.R. 5723, the Fraud Reduction And Uncovering Deception (FRAUD) in VA
    Disability Exam Act

        PVA supports the intent of this legislation and appreciates that
    the bill seeks to look at Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs)
    submitted from all sources, not just the veteran. However, we disagree
    that individuals responsible for processing claims for benefits have
    the adequate expertise to identify and report issues with DBQs. Also,
    we are concerned that this legislation does not specify who in the
    process will be responsible for identifying and reporting fraud. Adding
    requirements like this would help improve the oversight process that
    already exists. PVA strongly believes that the VA could improve the
    quality control review of an incoming DBQ before it is input into a
    veteran's file, and further, can ensure that fraud can be investigated
    and prosecuted. Currently, VA claims processers have the authority ``to
    evaluate and weigh all evidence of record, including privately
    completed DBQs. If it is determined that a privately completed DBQ
    contains indicator(s) of inauthenticity that are substantive enough to
    deem it potentially inauthentic or fraudulent, claims processors have
    the authority to assign low or no probative value to the privately
    completed DBQ.'' But if a DBQ is completed by a contracted examiner,
    the claims processors ``are not expected to routinely scrutinize or
    question the credentials of clinical personnel to determine the
    acceptability of their reports, unless there is contradictory evidence
    of record.'' However, according to the VA's Clinician's Guide, it
    informs contract providers, ``It is important to remember that
    [Veterans Benefits Administration] Raters are not clinicians and
    therefore may not understand concepts that are considered basic or
    assumed by those educated in the field of medicine.'' This leads to
    obvious questions of whether the claims processors are actually picking
    up on the adequacy of DBQs and the possibility of fraudulent/
    inconsistent findings being recorded by either outside providers or
    contracted examiners.
        VA's Medical Disability Examiners Office (MDEO) presently employs
    approximately 20 quality analysts whose job is to review DBQs that are
    received from contractors and determine whether or not they are
    ``contractually compliant'' by ensuring that the reports include all
    requested issues, reviewing for discrepancies, and whether or not the
    report described the condition(s) that have impacted the veterans
    ability to work, among other requirements. However, these analysts only
    have access to the DBQs after they have been uploaded to the Veterans
    Benefits Management System (VBMS), which is the same time claims
    processors receive them. Many times, this is too late as the processors
    are waiting to finalize a claim and only need the DBQ to finish the
    rating process. According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO)
    report from August 2025, ``MDEO also analyzes the effects of checklist
    errors on claims, such as delays associated with correcting errors.
    MDEO officials say many claims continue through processing and are
    decided before the office completes its checklist review. After MDEO
    identifies errors, claims processors determine if the errors affected
    their decisions on the claims.''
        To effectively do their jobs and to provide real oversight to the
    claims process, PVA believes that MDEO should make two changes to the
    claims process. First, prior to them being downloaded to VBMS, all
    DBQs, regardless of whether they are provided by the veteran or a
    contractor, should go into a drop box that is only accessible by the
    quality analysts. Second, the quality analysts should be trained and
    required to review the forms for contractual compliance and for
    potential fraud/inconsistent findings. Only after this review has been
    done should the forms be uploaded to VBMS and the claims process be
    allowed to continue.

    H.R. 5339, the Susan E. Lukas 9/11 Servicemember Fairness Act

        This legislation would allow presumptive service-connection for
    eight conditions that veterans who were exposed to toxins during their
    service at the Pentagon between September 11 and November 19, 2001,
    subsequently develop. Many service members were exposed to chemicals
    and toxic substances during the period after the 9/11 terrorist attacks
    after having to return to duty at the Pentagon before the building was
    determined to be safe. PVA supports legislation that would help
    veterans receive their benefits for conditions they incurred due to
    their time of service.

    H.R. 7260, the National Cemetery Administration Annual Report Act of
        2026

        PVA supports this draft legislation, which would require the VA to
    submit an annual report on the National Cemetery Administration (NCA).
    This report would include key information such as the number of
    interments performed by the NCA by cemetery, burial options at each
    location, completed or planned cemetery construction projects, and data
    on grants awarded for veterans cemeteries. Additionally, it allows the
    VA to include any other metrics they feel would be appropriate. PVA
    believes this report would help the VA with long-term planning within
    the NCA to ensure that our veterans and service members' families can
    lay their loved ones to rest with dignity and respect for generations
    to come.
        PVA would once again like to thank the subcommittee 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.

            Prepared Statement of Gold Star Spouses of America, Inc.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Prepared Statement of Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Prepared Statement of The Invisible Enemy
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Prepared Statement of Reserve Organization of America
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

        Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and members of the DAMA
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to offer our views on
    pending legislation.
        NOVA is a not-for-profit 501(c)(6) educational membership
    organization incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1993. NOVA
    represents over 900 accredited attorneys, agents, and other qualified
    members practicing across the country and assisting tens of thousands
    of our Nation's military veterans, survivors, family members, and
    caregivers seeking to obtain their earned benefits from VA. NOVA
    members advocate for their clients before the Department of Veterans
    Affairs (VA), Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board), U.S. Court of Appeals
    for Veterans Claims (CAVC), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
    Circuit (Federal Circuit), and U.S. Supreme Court. NOVA works to
    develop and encourage high standards of service and representation for
    all persons seeking VA benefits.
        NOVA advocates for laws and policies that advance the rights of
    veterans. For example, NOVA collaborated with Veteran Service
    Organizations (VSOs) and other accredited representatives, VA, and
    Congress on appeals modernization reform. Those efforts resulted in
    passage of the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act
    (AMA), P.L. 115-55, 131 Stat. 1105, which was signed into law in 2017.
    At the time of its passage, VA emphasized the AMA would provide
    claimants with more choice and control over the disability claims and
    appeals adjudication process by expanding their review options.
        NOVA also advances important cases and files amicus briefs in
    others. See, e.g., NOVA v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 710 F.3d 1328
    (Fed. Cir. 2013) (addressing VA's failure to honor its commitment to
    stop applying an invalid rule); Procopio v. Wilkie, 913 F.3d 1371 (Fed.
    Cir. 2019) (amicus); NOVA v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 981 F.3d
    1360 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (M21-1 rule was interpretive rule of general
    applicability and agency action subject to judicial review); National
    Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc., et al., v. Secretary of
    Veterans Affairs, 981 F.3d 1360 (2022) (Federal Circuit invalidated
    knee replacement rule); Arellano v. McDonough, 598 U.S. 1 (2023)
    (amicus); Terry v. McDonough, 37 Vet.App. 1 (2023) (amicus); Bufkin v.
    Collins, 604 U.S.(2025)_(amicus).
        A critical part of NOVA's mission is to educate advocates. NOVA
    currently conducts two conferences per year, each offering
    approximately 15 hours of continuing legal education (CLE) credit for
    attendees. Experts from within and outside the membership present and
    train on the latest developments and best practices in veterans law and
    policy. NOVA sustaining members must participate in at least one
    conference every 24 months to maintain eligibility to appear in our
    public-facing advocate directory. In addition to conferences, NOVA
    offers webinars, online support, peer-to-peer mentorship, and other
    guidance to its members to enhance their advocacy skills.
        NOVA provides feedback on the following bills.

                      H.R. 1004, Love Lives On Act of 2025

        NOVA continues its support for H.R. 1004, Love Lives On Act of
    2025. This important bipartisan legislation, which currently has 128
    cosponsors, would remove the bar to furnishing benefits to surviving
    spouses who remarry before the age of 55 and restore certain benefits
    to surviving spouses who remarried before age 55. Many surviving
    spouses forego remarriage due to the impending loss of important earned
    benefits that provide long-term security to themselves and their
    families. Congress should promptly remedy this injustice.

                  H.R. 1685, Justice for ALS Veterans of 2025

        NOVA supports H.R. 1685, Justice for ALS Veterans of 2025, which
    would extend increased dependency and indemnity (DIC) compensation to
    the surviving spouse of veteran who dies from amyotrophic lateral
    sclerosis (ALS) regardless of how long the veteran had ALS prior to
    death. Current law only provides for enhanced DIC benefits for
    surviving spouses of veterans who were rated totally disabled for at
    least 8 years prior to death. Given the devastating effects of this
    disease on veterans and their families, expansion of DIC would provide
    critical benefits to this population of survivors.

       H.R. 4469, Providing Radiation Exposed Servicemembers Undisputed
                       Medical Eligibility (PRESUME) Act

        NOVA supports H.R. 4469, Providing Radiation Exposed Servicemembers
    Undisputed Medical Eligibility (PRESUME) Act. This bill will help all
    veterans who have been exposed to radiation get proper consideration by
    VA in their radiation-related claims.

           H.R. 5339, Susan E. Lukas 9/11 Servicemember Fairness Act

        NOVA supports H.R. 5339, Susan E. Lukas 9/11 Servicemember Fairness
    Act. This bill will extend presumptive service connection for certain
    conditions to those who served on active duty at the Pentagon between
    September 11, 2001, and November 19, 2001.

       H.R. 5723, Fraud Reduction And Uncovering Deception (FRAUD) in VA
                              Disability Exam Act

        NOVA supports the intent of H.R. 5723, but amendments are needed.
    NOVA supports ensuring proper investigation of those who submit
    fraudulent disability benefit questionnaires (DBQs) in support of VA
    disability benefits claims. However, the bill as written is not
    sufficiently detailed and could result in veterans being unfairly
    targeted.
        Specifically, under proposed 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5322(a)(3), notice
    must be expanded. As currently written, this subsection would require
    the Secretary to only inform ``the individual who submitted the
    disability benefit questionnaire form or claim.'' This notice is not
    sufficiently specific. This subsection should be amended as follows:
    ``with respect to such disability benefit questionnaire forms or such
    claims that the Secretary suspects may contain fraudulent information,
    informing the following individuals of suspicion of fraudulent
    activity: (1) the individual who signed the disability benefit
    questionnaire; (2) the claimant in connection with whose claim the
    disability questionnaire was submitted; and (3) that claimant's
    representative, if any.''
        NOVA is also concerned about the broad language found at proposed
    subsection 5322(c)(2), which would permit VA to upset final, favorable
    decisions when the individual convicted is not the veteran. In those
    instances, the claimant may be unaware of the fraud. Unless the
    claimant is convicted of fraud, overturning final grants would punish
    the wrong person. We recommend the following change: ``Paragraph (1)
    shall not apply in any case in which, pursuant to an investigation of
    the Inspector General under subsection (b), the claimant is convicted
    by a court of competent jurisdiction of a crime relating to fraudulent
    activity in the submission to the Secretary of evidence supporting a
    claim for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary.''
        Congress should also consider that the unfettered rise of
    unaccredited claims consultants and coaches has resulted in the
    submission of thousands of DBQs. It is unclear if VA is tracking these
    submissions since VA has no way of knowing if anyone is assisting a pro
    se veteran. These unaccredited individuals operate behind the scenes
    and are unaccountable to VA (unlike accredited VSOs, attorneys, and
    agents). Congress should seek specific information from VA about any
    current efforts to track these submissions and require VA to seek
    additional information from veterans - as simple as a checkbox on a
    form - regarding any assistance received from an outside company.

    H.R. 6698, Board of Veterans' Appeals Annual Report Transparency Act of
                                      2025

        NOVA supports the intent of H.R. 6698 and recommends two changes.
    First, Congress should define what ``timely'' disposition means.
    Second, Congress should require all reporting to distinguish between
    those cases that are advanced on the docket versus those that are not
    advanced.

                                   Conclusion

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

    For more information:

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

                        Prepared Statement of Berry Law
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        Prepared Statement of ALS United
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Prepared Statement of The ALS Association

        The ALS Association would like to thank Chairperson Luttrell,
    Ranking Member McGarvey, and the members of the House Veterans Affairs
    Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs for the
    opportunity to submit this statement for the record for the hearing on
    legislation in your subcommittee.
        H.R. 1685--Justice for ALS Veterans Act ensures that veterans and
    families who have made the ultimate sacrifice for this country receive
    benefits they cannot qualify for, through no fault of their own.
    Boosted Dependency and Indemnity payments grants peace of mind to
    current veterans living with ALS because they will know their families
    are supported after they are gone.
        The ALS Association endorses this legislation and asks the Veterans
    Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs to
    consider and swiftly pass H.R. 1685 to deliver boosted DIC benefits
    surviving families have earned.

    Background

        Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is an always fatal
    neurodegenerative disease in which a person's brain loses connection
    with the muscles. People with ALS lose their ability to walk, talk, eat
    and eventually breathe. There is no cure, and the average life
    expectancy following diagnosis is 2-5 years.
        Military veterans, regardless of branch of service, the era in
    which they served, and whether they served during a time of peace or a
    time of war, are at a greater risk of dying from ALS than those who
    have not served in uniform. For this reason, the Department of Veterans
    Affairs has labeled ALS as a presumptive service-connected disease
    rated at 100 percent disability upon diagnosis because ALS never
    improves and, in all cases, leads to total body paralysis.
        While high-quality, multi-disciplinary care for ALS is provided by
    the Department of Veterans Affairs, military veterans living with ALS
    require care that extends outside of the clinical setting. Veterans
    living with ALS rely on their spouses, children, parents, and friends
    to provide the round-the-clock caregiving they need. The aggressiveness
    of ALS leaves many veterans totally incapacitated and reliant on family
    caregivers. It is an incredible price that veterans living with ALS and
    their loved ones pay as a result of their service to our country.

    Support for H.R. 1685 the Justice for ALS Veterans Act

        The ALS Association wholeheartedly supports H.R. 1685--Justice for
    ALS Veterans Act, to ensure families of veterans are supported after
    their loved one passes.
        The surviving spouses of veterans with a 100 percent disability
    rating are eligible to receive Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
    (DIC) payments from the VA after their loved one passes. However, to be
    eligible for the boosted DIC benefit, also known as the ``kicker,'' a
    veteran must live with a totally disabling condition for 8 years. With
    average life expectancy for ALS post-diagnosis ranging from 2-5 years,
    most veterans who have service-connected ALS will not meet the current
    criteria for the boosted DIC payment. This is a fixable injustice for
    veterans living with ALS who already have little time left with their
    loved ones.
        The bipartisan Justice for ALS Veterans Act, sponsored by
    Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Chris Pappas (D-NH)
    ensures fairness by eliminating the 8-year survival requirement for
    veterans with ALS.
        Families of veterans living with ALS who serve admirably as
    caregivers should not be penalized because of an ALS diagnosis that
    offers them less time with their loved ones than the current
    requirement stipulates. Ensuring this boosted benefit, which equates to
    little more than $300 a month for a surviving family, can make a marked
    difference.

                   Prepared Statement of The American Legion
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]