[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
[email protected].
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]