[Senate Hearing 119-35]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-35
HEARING TO CONSIDER PENDING LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 11, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-776 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
Jerry Moran, Kansas, Chairman
John Boozman, Arkansas Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut, Ranking
Bill Cassidy, Louisiana Member
Thom Tillis, North Carolina Patty Murray, Washington
Dan Sullivan, Alaska Bernard Sanders, Vermont
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii
Kevin Cramer, North Dakota Margaret Wood Hassan, New
Tommy Tuberville, Alabama Hampshire
Jim Banks, Indiana Angus S. King, Jr., Maine
Tim Sheehy, Montana Tammy Duckworth, Illinois
Ruben Gallego, Arizona
Elissa Slotkin, Michigan
David Shearman, Staff Director
Tony McClain, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
March 11, 2025
SENATORS
Page
Hon. Jerry Moran, Chairman, U.S. Senator from Kansas............. 1
Hon. Richard Blumenthal, Ranking Member, U.S. Senator from
Connecticut.................................................... 2
Hon. Tommy Tuberville, U.S. Senator from Alabama................. 11
Hon. Mazie K. Hirono, U.S. Senator from Hawaii................... 12
Hon. Bill Cassidy, U.S. Senator from Louisiana................... 14
Hon. Margaret Wood Hassan, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire....... 15
Hon. Angus S. King, Jr., U.S. Senator from Maine................. 17
Hon. Jim Banks, U.S. Senator from Indiana........................ 19
Hon. Ruben Gallego, U.S. Senator from Arizona.................... 20
Hon. Bernard Sanders, U.S. Senator from Vermont.................. 23
WITNESSES
Panel I
Mark R. Engelbaum, Assistant Secretary, Office of Human Resources
and Administration/Operations, Security, and Preparedness, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs accompanied by Al Montoya,
Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Veterans Health Administration,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Melissa Cohen, Acting
Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Oversight, Veterans
Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs;
Kenesha Britton, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Field
Operations, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs; and Kevin Friel, Executive Director,
Pension and Fiduciary Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs............ 5
Panel II
Cole Lyle, Director, Veterans' Affairs and Rehabilitation
Division, The American Legion.................................. 28
Ashlynne Haycock-Lohmann, Director, Government and Legislative
Affairs, Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors.............. 30
Patrick Murray, Director, National Legislative Service, Veterans
of Foreign Wars of the United States........................... 31
APPENDIX
Hearing Agenda
List of Pending Bills............................................ 47
Prepared Statements
Mark R. Engelbaum, Assistant Secretary, Office of Human Resources
and Administration/Operations, Security, and Preparedness, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs................................. 51
Prepared Statements (cont.)
Cole Lyle, Director, Veterans' Affairs and Rehabilitation
Division, The American Legion.................................. 103
Ashlynne Haycock-Lohmann, Director, Government and Legislative
Affairs, Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors.............. 122
Patrick Murray, Director, National Legislative Service, Veterans
of Foreign Wars of the United States........................... 146
Submissions for the Record
Senator Blumenthal:
The New York Times article ``Chaos at the V.A.: Inside the DOGE
Cuts Disrupting the Veterans Agency''........................ 161
Stakeholder statements; ``What the Veterans Community is
Saying''..................................................... 170
Joint Unions Opposing S. 124, ``Restore VA Accountability Act'' 172
National Fraternal Order of Police, Patrick Yoes, National
President.................................................... 174
Senator Moran:
The American Legion (TAL), Cole Lyle, Director, National
Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Division................. 175
Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC) Action, Andrew
J. Mangione Jr., Senior Vice President....................... 177
Black Veterans Empowerment Council (BVEC), Inc., Shawn L.
Deadwiler, Chairman of the Board and President............... 178
Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC), Inc.,
Travis R. White, President and CEO........................... 179
Gun Owners of America, Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal
Affairs...................................................... 180
Military Order of the Purple Heart, Robert Olivarez Jr.,
National Commander........................................... 182
National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), Marlene Sallo,
Executive Director........................................... 183
National Rifle Association of America (NRA), John Commerford,
Executive Director, NRA-ILA.................................. 185
National Shooting Sports Federation (NSSF), Lawrence G. Keane,
Senior Vice President, Government and Public Affairs......... 186
Turning Point Action........................................... 188
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Nancy Springer,
Associate Director........................................... 189
Vietnam Veterans of America, Jack McManus, National President.. 190
Questions for the Record
Department of Veterans Affairs response to questions submitted
by:
Hon. Marsha Blackburn.......................................... 193
Hon. Angus S. King, Jr......................................... 194
Statements for the Record
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), AFL-CIO...... 199
Gold Star Spouses of America, Inc................................ 216
Multi-Organizational statement................................... 222
Paralyzed Veterans of America.................................... 228
Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC, William C. Taylor,
LTC (Ret.), U.S. Army, Co-Founder, and Chief Operating Officer. 237
HEARING TO CONSIDER PENDING LEGISLATION
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:32 a.m., in
Room SR-418, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Jerry Moran,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Moran, Cassidy, Tuberville, Banks,
Sheehy, Blumenthal, Sanders, Hirono, Hassan, King, and Gallego.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
CHAIRMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Chairman Moran. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for your
presence and welcome.
We meet this morning to consider 15 pieces of legislation
sponsored by Senators from both sides of the aisle. I am
grateful to the sponsors of the bills on today's agenda for
their work and our witnesses for being here to offer their
perspectives on these proposals.
Before turning to our agenda items I want to address the
recent changes being considered at the VA in regard to
workforce. I think the VA needs reform. The status quo is
something this Committee spends its time trying to improve on.
We had hearings with veteran organizations two weeks ago, last
week, in regard to how do we make things work better. If the
status quo were working, we would not have spent those two
weeks hearing from VSOs and ways the VA needs to improve.
This is not a political statement. I am just kind of
outlining where I think we are.
However, changes that affect VA policy and personnel must
be thoughtful, transparent, carried out in close coordination
with this Committee, with our colleagues and with stakeholders,
including veterans and the VSOs who represent them here in
Washington, DC.
I am working on legislation that would require the VA's
workforce planning to follow that model, because Congress must
play a significant role in strategically shaping VA workforce
decisions, to achieve the right outcomes for veterans and their
families. I have personally conveyed this message to Secretary
Collins. The Secretary has committed to me that he will testify
before this Committee about his plans and how he intends to
eliminate waste and inefficiency and refocus resources to
improve delivery of health care and benefits to veterans, and I
look forward to being able to schedule that hearing.
That includes making certain that the VA remains well
staffed by a quality workforce and that efforts to right-size
that workforce are done in a responsible manner, and treat the
men and women who entered public service to care for veterans,
many of whom themselves are veterans, with respect and
gratitude.
Turning to today's agenda, these bills include legislation
that I have introduced, the Veterans' ACCESS Act, the Restore
VA Accountability Act, Love Lives On Act, and External Provider
Scheduling Act. Together, these bills will build on bipartisan
successes Congress has achieved in prior years to expand access
to care and benefits for veterans and survivors, remove
barriers to lifesaving mental health care, and root out poor
performers to strengthen the VA's workforce. I look forward to
hearing testimony on these and other bills on today's agenda.
With that I yield to Senator Blumenthal, and I decided it
sounded better to call him the Vice Chairman instead of Ranking
Member. So I yield to the Vice Chairman of the Committee for
his opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
RANKING MEMBER, U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Whatever my title, Mr. Chairman, I
thank you, and thank you for having this hearing. Thank you to
our witnesses today. Most of you are seasoned, experienced, and
dedicated civil servants, and I respect you greatly for your
service.
But I want to be very blunt: you are not the ones we should
be hearing from today. Seated at that dais should be Secretary
Collins, and I have expressed this view to my colleague and
friend, Chairman Moran, and I am glad to hear that he is in
informal talks with Secretary Collins. But he should be where
you are right now, so we can ask him about the chaos and
confusion, the apparent malevolent, cruel, and callous actions
that have been taken against the VA workforce, firing 2,400 VA
employees already with dire impacts on veterans, 80,000
additional VA employees that the Secretary plans to cut--he has
affirmed it in recent interviews, but not to this Committee; he
can talk to the press but not us--and how this effort will
effectively roll back the PACT Act that we worked so hard on a
bipartisan basis to pass. The PACT Act is a linchpin of modern-
day protection of veterans, and even as we speak, veterans are
asking questions about whether the benefits and care of the
PACT Act will be available to them because of these drastic,
draconian cuts.
And, of course, the cancellation of hundreds of VA
contracts, many of them central to patient safety. Ending the
research grants that, in the past, have proved breakthrough
advancements in care for veterans and for our general
population, in cardiac care, in prosthetics, in all kinds of
areas where the VA has been at the cutting edge of research
through these grants.
To respond to these kinds of really egregious actions, I
will be introducing later this week the Putting Veterans First
Act, and I invite my Republican colleagues as well as
Democratic Senators to join in this action to protect veterans,
protect veterans.
Number one, rescind all firings, all of them, of veterans
that have occurred so far, in any agency or branch of the
Federal Government. Put them all back to work.
Number two, all of the employees of the Veterans
Administration, whether or not they are veterans, rescind their
firing. Put them back to work.
Number three, establish a standard for any kind of
termination that occurs in the future, that is based on
performance, not on political rhetoric or bumper slogan Musk
declarations, or his algorithms, or AI formulas.
Number four, make sure that veterans who have been offered
this fork in the road, that they can terminate their decision
to end their employment right up to the day that they would
leave the government, because there is the vast potential for
unfairness. And as to any veterans who may be terminated, at
any point, give them an appeal process, an effective means of
appealing any action as to them.
Today's hearing would be welcome. There are some good
pieces of legislation on the table. You will be commenting on
them. I have read your testimony. But business as usual will
not get it at this moment in our history. The VA is in crisis.
It is literally a five-alarm fire for the VA. This legislation
may be well-intentioned and may have good effects, but it
constitutes rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic,
literally. That analogy is often overused, but in this instance
it applies perfectly. We are talking about rearranging chairs
on the deck of a sinking ship, and it is not an iceberg that
has been hit. It is a torpedo from Secretary Collins, Donald
Trump, and Elon Musk that has hit the VA and is sinking it,
purposely, relentlessly, dangerously for our veterans. And the
effects are already apparent. I am going to ask, Mr. Chairman,
that an article that appeared in The New York Times over the
weekend be entered into the record.
Chairman Moran. Without objection.
[The article referred to appears on pages 161-169 of the
Appendix.]
Senator Blumenthal. This article is factual and hard-
hitting. It is an account of the chaos and confusion at the VA,
confirming our urgent cries to stop the bleeding. That is a
quote from the VFW Commander in Chief--``Stop the Bleeding.''
And I commend the VSOs for their leadership and their
objections to what is happening at the VA, and I am going to
ask, Mr. Chairman, that excerpts from their past testimony be
entered into the record.
Chairman Moran. Without objection.
[The information referred to appears on pages 170-171 of
the Appendix.]
Senator Blumenthal. Veterans have been short-changed and
systematically betrayed by these cruel cuts in staff and
critical resources, resulting from the Trump-Musk-Collins anti-
vet policies. It is intentional malevolence or benign neglect.
Either way, we need to stop it, and that should be the purpose
of our hearing today. It is the purpose of the legislation that
I will introduce to stop the bleeding and sound the alarm and
make sure that we preserve veterans' benefits and care, as they
should be.
I hope my colleagues will join me in using this hearing as
an opportunity to sound the alarm. We cannot pretend that the
bills before us meet the moment. The fact that this
Administration is actively undermining and rolling back a
number of our recent bipartisan accomplishments, canceling or
proposing to cancel contracts critical to implementation of the
Dole Act or the Deborah Sampson Act, or simply firing thousands
of employees critical to the basic functioning of the
Department, from schedulers who connect veterans to care in the
community, to claims staff who process PACT Act claims, we
cannot ignore the ongoing ship sinking right before us.
And I will press for Secretary Collins to come before us
and answer these questions so that veterans can hear from him,
directly, and so that Members of our Committee are given the
respect that we deserve. To the VSOs on the second panel, thank
you for being here. I hope your testimony today not only takes
into consideration the merits of this legislation but also the
developments that are so deeply concerning.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to
speak in advance of the testimony.
Chairman Moran. I will now introduce the first panel.
Testifying today from the Department of Veterans Affairs is
Mark Engelbaum, the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Human
Resources and Administration/Operations, Security, and
Preparedness--there was a longer line than I realized in your
title.
He is accompanied by Al Montoya, the Deputy Chief Operating
Officer of the Veterans Health Administration; Melissa Cohen,
the Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Oversight at
the Veterans Benefits Administration; Kenesha Britton, the
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations at the
Veterans Benefits Administration; and Kevin Friel, the
Executive Director of the Pension and Fiduciary Service at the
Veterans Benefits Administration.
Thank you all for being here this morning, and Mr.
Engelbaum, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
PANEL I
----------
STATEMENT OF MARK R. ENGELBAUM, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF
HUMAN RESOURCES AND ADMINISTRATION/OPERATIONS, SECURITY, AND
PREPAREDNESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ACCOMPANIED
BY AL MONTOYA, DEPUTY CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, VETERANS HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; MELISSA
COHEN, ACTING DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLICY AND OVERSIGHT,
VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS; KENESHA BRITTON, ASSISTANT DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR
FIELD OPERATIONS, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND KEVIN FRIEL, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, PENSION AND FIDUCIARY SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Engelbaum. Good morning, Chairman Moran, Vice Chairman
Blumenthal, and other Members of the Committee. Thank you for
inviting us here today to present our views on bills affecting
VA's programs and veterans' benefits. As just mentioned,
joining me today is Mr. Al Montoya, the Deputy Chief Operating
Officer of Veterans Health Administration; Ms. Melissa Cohen,
Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Oversight,
Veterans Benefits Administration; Ms. Kenesha Britton,
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations, Veterans
Benefits Administration; and Mr. Kevin Friel, Executive
Director, Pension and Fiduciary Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration.
In general, VA offers support and is appreciative of much
of the proposed legislation before us today and looks forward
to working with the Committee to further refine and strengthen
it.
First, VA supports the Restore Accountability Act of 2025,
subject to amendments and the availability of appropriations.
The Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and
Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 provided the VA with
additional authorities to take disciplinary action against
senior executives and to take adverse actions against certain
VA employees.
Chairman Moran. Mr. Engelbaum, would you pull the mic
closer to your face?
Mr. Engelbaum. Sorry. That explains why it was so close to
me to begin with, so my apologies.
Chairman Moran. It is a compliment. We want to hear what
you have to say.
Mr. Engelbaum. And I appreciate that, sir. Thank you.
The Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and
Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 provided VA with
additional authorities to take disciplinary action against
senior executives and to take adverse actions against certain
VA employees. Unfortunately, the VA has faced significant legal
challenges implementing the act, and we welcome the opportunity
to address concerns with the Restore Accountability Act in
order to mitigate litigation risk and ensure that the
implementation issues of the 2000 Act do not resurface.
VA strongly supports the Veterans' Assuring Critical Care
Expansions to Support Servicemembers Act of 2025, or the ACCESS
Act, as it is known. This is a critical piece of legislation
designed to enhance access to essential health care services
for our veterans, and it aligns directly with the Department's
priorities. The bill would enhance VA's ability to provide
timely and effective care and provide high quality VA care both
in the community and in VA's direct care system.
VA also appreciates the Committee's interest and focus on
helping improve VA's scheduling systems. Most importantly, this
bill puts veterans first.
VA supports the draft External Provider Scheduling Program
bill but has concerns with Improving Veteran Access to Care
Act, and would appreciate the opportunity to work with the
Committee to ensure that enacted legislation does not
inadvertently impede the Department's ability to continue
ongoing efforts to enhance our scheduling capabilities.
VA also supports, with amendments and subject to the
availability of appropriations, the Aviator Cancers Examination
Study Act, also known as the ACES Act, the Representing VA with
Accuracy Act, the Veterans Mental Health and Addiction Therapy
Quality of Care Act, and the VetPAC Act of 2025, and Caring for
Survivors Act of 2025.
The VA looks forward to working with the Committee to amend
these bills to ensure we are providing the best possible care
and benefits to veterans, their families, caregivers, and
survivors.
The VA also supports the Second Amendment Protection Act,
subject to the availability of appropriations, but recommends
including language that would clearly exempt an individual
deemed incompetent for purposes of the VA fiduciary program
from being ``adjudicated as a mental defective,'' as defined by
the Department of Justice. Without this clarification, veterans
or survivors determined to need a fiduciary for VA purposes may
face criminal liability when transferring, receiving, or
possessing a firearm or ammunition.
The VA also supports Ensuring VetSuccess on Campus, subject
to the availability of appropriations, but it seeks amendment.
VA would like to work with the Committee to update the bill to
allow benefits counseling on campus to be provided by a VA
employee, such as a public contact or outreach specialist
rather than a vocational rehabilitation counselor.
VA generally supports the Servicemembers and Veterans
Empowerment and Support Act, or the SAVES Act of 2025, subject
to the availability of appropriations. The SAVES Act is aligned
in many ways with VA's substantial progress toward addressing
military sexual trauma, providing support through advocacy, and
developing targeted policies, procedures, and training
initiatives. Nevertheless, as written, the proposed bill
language is more limiting than the VA's current regulation,
which applies the use of alternative evidence to personal
assault. Additionally, there are several sections of the bill
that are duplicative of VA's existing efforts in the MST space.
We appreciate the Committee's leadership and would welcome
the opportunity to collaborate on the bill.
Lastly, VA is still reviewing potential impacts from the
Love Lives On Act, Veteran Fraud Reimbursement Act, and the
Veterans Claims Act of 2025, and is unable to provide views at
this time.
On behalf of the VA and the veterans we serve, thank you
for your support, and thank you again for the opportunity to
discuss legislation that will improve our service to our
veterans, servicemembers, and their families. My colleagues and
I would be pleased to answer any questions you or the other
Members of the Committee may have on these vital legislative
initiatives.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Engelbaum appears on pages
51-102 of the Appendix.]
Chairman Moran. Mr. Engelbaum, thank you for your
statement, your testimony. Thanks for your presence.
I want to talk a minute about your Love Lives On Act. I do
not know whether you want to direct the answer to the person to
answer it. I will ask this of you, Mr. Engelbaum, and you can
decide who should answer.
Current law prohibits surviving spouses to maintain certain
benefits from VA and DoD if they remarry before the age of 55.
However, in addressing this inequity, it has come to our
attention that if a surviving spouse remarries before 55, it is
on them, the spouse, to inform the VA so they can stop
disbursing disability and indemnity compensation benefits to
the survivor, and often it takes the VA months or years to
actually stop the payments, resulting in a debt on the survivor
that has to be paid back.
Can you explain why this takes so long for the VA to fix
this in your system, and why it is the survivor's fault that
the VA is providing them with overpayments? And what outreach
is the VA doing to inform survivors of current restrictions in
the law if a survivor does choose to remarry before 55?
[Pause.]
It was not who I thought you would choose.
Mr. Friel. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question, Senator.
As stated, we do not have views yet on the act itself, but as
far as the current and existing process, when we receive the
notification from a spouse we create a claim that needs to be
worked. And so it----
Chairman Moran. Could you also pull the mic closer?
Mr. Friel. Sorry. We create a claim that then needs to be
worked, and it goes into our existing inventory. We are working
on process improvement, so like a potential for automation of
some of these claims as well as the ability to expedite some
and make sure they move faster.
But as of this point, it goes into the existing backlog and
it gets worked in conjunction with all the other workload that
comes in that we have responsibility for.
Chairman Moran. Let me ask a follow up, a related question,
at least. Several provisions of the original Love Lives On
Act--and I know you are not prepared to testify about that
act--but several provisions have already been signed into law
in the last Congress with the passage of the Elizabeth Dole
Act. What outreach has the VA done to inform survivors of the
education benefits they are eligible for if they do remarry,
and which office within the VA is responsible for conducting
this outreach to survivors, in general, so that they are aware
of their benefits and eligibility requirements?
In other words, we made some changes in the law. Is anybody
actively making certain that survivors, who remarry, know that
they are now eligible for education benefits?
Mr. Friel. Sir, I am not from the education. I do not know
what they did as far as outreach. As far as within the DIC
space, when they are awarded their benefit we provide them
notification that if they remarry that they need to provide us
information. We also provide them what other potential benefits
they may be entitled to.
Additionally, every eight years we will provide for a
survivor who is under age 55, we will provide them a
notification, whether or not to provide information, whether or
not they remarried. And then if they have, we will take the
action. If they have not, and they reply that they have not, we
are good for the next eight years.
Chairman Moran. Let me ask the question this way. Would it
be true or untrue that after the passage of the Elizabeth Dole
Act that survivors are receiving any additional information
from the VA than they did before?
Mr. Friel. Within my department, sir, I----
Chairman Moran. How about within your department.
Mr. Friel. Within my department, what we have in the
Elizabeth Dole Act is more around the burial space, so we are
not providing any additional information to survivors.
Chairman Moran. Mr. Engelbaum, anybody else on your panel
for that question? Ms. Britton?
Ms. Britton. Yes, sir. Within the field of operations we do
have a comprehensive outreach program that does include a
survivors element. With those survivors' outreach events we do
have benefit tables where they talk about education benefits as
well as survivor benefits, and that does include those changes.
Chairman Moran. Thank you very much. Mr. Engelbaum, I
appreciate the VA's support of the ACCESS Act and the
Department's suggestions for technical and clarifying changes
that could make the bill stronger, better. Can you give me your
commitment that the VA will provide technical assistance to my
office following today's hearing?
Mr. Engelbaum. Senator, absolutely. We truly appreciate the
offer to do that, and we will take you up on that.
Chairman Moran. Thank you very much. Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Engelbaum,
can I count on you to support the protecting--Putting Veterans
First Act?
Mr. Engelbaum. Senator, I will be happy, once we see the
legislation, to do a thorough review along with the Agency. And
first and foremost, as the Secretary has stated, veterans
always remain at the forefront of everything we do at the VA.
It is why we exist, it is why we are here, and we will look
forward to looking at that legislation,
Senator Blumenthal. Okay, can you give me your reactions by
the end of the week if I get you a draft?
Mr. Engelbaum. I will definitely look at the draft, sir. I
can't guarantee by the end of the week. We will definitely
comment on that, sir, and return to you----
Senator Blumenthal. You are aware that the Secretary has
said that the VA is not making decisions to illegally fire--and
I emphasize ``illegally fire''--thousands of staff and
implement an ongoing hiring freeze without proper analyses. Do
you have those written analyses? Can you provide them to us? We
have asked for them. We have received no response.
Mr. Engelbaum. Senator, absolutely. In fact, I will offer
today, we are in the process of doing a very thorough analysis,
and Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman, I will be happy to come, to
personally come, and brief the Committee on our planning
process.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, we want the documents. We have
asked for the documents. You must have documents, right?
Mr. Englebaum. Yes. Senator, what is happening right now is
that a lot of stuff and information has come out in the news
with respect to a one-off, off of a news article, so for
example, the VA's cutting 70,000----
Senator Blumenthal. Well, I apologize for interrupting you,
but my time is limited.
Mr. Engelbaum. Yes sir.
Senator Blumenthal. I am asking for the analysis, the
documents, the metrics, the methodology. There is no apparent
methodology or metrics. It is by the seat of your pants, and it
is illegal. I want to make clear, by the way, I am in favor of
improving the VA. Every organization can be improved. Making it
better, to quote the Chairman, ``has to be a common
objective.'' But not with a chainsaw. Not with a meat ax, with
a scalpel. And I see no indication that there are written
documents--because we have asked for them--or analyses or
metrics or methodology. Can you confirm that you have them?
Mr. Engelbaum. Senator, very clearly, yes. What is
happening, to be clear, the 70,000 or 80,000 figure you see is
a planning factor. We have just commenced our actual analyses.
We have an ongoing analysis that is going to take place over
the next three to four months that is going to do a down to the
microlevel examination of our entire structure, mission,
management, across the board. That analysis is ongoing, and I
reiterate, sir, I will be very happy to come and brief you in
detail on what the VA is doing to make sure we refocus our
priorities on taking care of our veterans and righting that
ship, that you rightly said before, I would say is adrift.
Senator Blumenthal. So, you fired 2,400 people without
doing that analysis?
Mr. Engelbaum. Sir, what happened is--and I cannot go into
specific details because there is litigation--what happened is
we released approximately 2,400 folks out of 40,000
probationary employees----
Senator Blumenthal. And you implemented a hiring freeze
without any analysis?
Mr. Engelbaum. In order to actually shape and prepare for
what we need to do as an organization, we are preparing the way
so that we can rightly reorganize and reform the Department as
it needs to be done. We still continue to hire 300,000 critical
positions that we have identified. They are on the books. We
continue to do our mission and focus on taking veterans--taking
care of our veterans every day.
Senator Blumenthal. None of what you have said just now is
a plan. None of it is an analysis, a methodology, a metric. And
that is what we are asking you to do.
Let me ask you, how many employees have been removed or
resigned from the Office of General Counsel?
Mr. Engelbaum. Senator, I will have to take that for the
record. I do not have that number.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA Response: As of April 8, 2025, records indicate that since January
20, 2025, zero (0) employees have been removed and 12 have resigned
from the Office of General Council.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Blumenthal. You do not have that. How about from
the Equal Employment Opportunity staff?
Mr. Engelbaum. Senator, I do not have any specific
breakdown by office of specific employees. What we do have----
Senator Blumenthal. How many employees have been removed
from work on human resources?
Mr. Engelbaum. I do not have a specific breakdown by
independent organizations, Senator.
Senator Blumenthal. You have 600 to 800 exempted positions
currently backlogged on OPM's list, correct?
Mr. Engelbaum. I believe that is around 700 or so, sir,
that is my understanding. I am not sure about that.
Senator Blumenthal. And yet you are firing 2,400, and you
have a plan--that is the word of the Secretary--to fire at
least 80,000.
Mr. Engelbaum. Senator, as I mentioned before, we are in
the middle of a planning process. We are going to follow the
science. We are going to reform this agency to make sure that
it is focused on taking care of our veterans. You yourself
mentioned we take a look at it. We have 470,000 employees in
the Department of Veterans Affairs. We have increased over
80,000 in the last four years. We have increased our budget by
85 percent. The PACT Act is really important, sir, we
understand that, but----
Senator Blumenthal. Well, you are going to decimate the
PACT Act if you do not have the position filled for the people
who process the claims. You are going to have inexcusable
delays. You are engaged in indiscriminately decimating that
workforce. I do not know why you needed the Restore Act if you
are just willy-nilly firing people without a plan. Your
approach seems to be fire them now, plan later.
Mr. Engelbaum. Sir, despite the fact that we have increased
by 80,000 and our budget has increased by 85,000, our inventory
backlog has increased by over, from around 275,000 to over
935,000. Our claims processing time has increased; our accuracy
has decreased. So, we have hired about 48,000 employees for the
PACT Act. Sitting here today, I cannot tell you exactly--and in
some areas we do know where they went--we do not know where all
these employees are. We need to restore, you are right,
accountability. We need to make sure that the employees that we
hire are doing the valuable mission that they have been hired
to do, and part of that is putting them in those very areas
that you mentioned.
Senator Blumenthal. You have failed to provide this
Committee the documents or analysis that we requested. You
failed to do that analysis before you started firing people and
freezing hiring and ending contracts, canceling them illegally.
And I find that response unacceptable.
Mr. Engelbaum. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Moran. Senator Tuberville.
HON. TOMMY TUBERVILLE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALABAMA
Senator Tuberville. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
being here today. Largest health care system in the world. My
God, what a job you all have got, right?
You know, when I first got here, the first thing we did in
this Committee, we rehired 4,000 people the Trump
administration had fired because of costs. What did we do? We
hired them back and gave them back pay.
You know, this is about the veterans. I mean, this is not
about the dang workers. Now, we cherish our workers. Same thing
here. My job is to help people, and the same thing as yours.
I am a proud co-sponsor of Chairman Moran's Restore VA
Accountability Act. I mean, we have got to have good people.
And I know it is hard to hire people. It is really hard. I have
dealt with it all my life. But we have to take care of our
veterans.
We could pass a trillion-dollar bill today--a trillion
dollars--and give to the VA. It would be gone in a matter of
time, and it would not help anything. It is not about money. It
is about the right efforts of doing the right thing for our
veterans. I have got 500,000 veterans in my State of Alabama,
and it is growing. And we have got good VAs. We have got some
that are not so good.
But thanks for trying to do this, but again, we have got to
get good people in there, and I can understand what we are
trying to do.
The VA's inspector general recently highlighted several
failures within the fiduciary programs such as millions of
dollars of benefits being disbursed without oversight.
Unfortunately, bad actors have found their way to take
advantage of veterans, and we have to combat fraud. I do not
understand why, with all this AI now, that we do not have
companies that can come in and stop a lot of this fraud. Mr.
Engelbaum, do you agree with that?
Mr. Engelbaum. Yes, Senator. I think one of the things that
we are doing in our review is looking at what technology and
what systems that we can actually put in place and actually
reinvest to improve services to our veterans, to improve
accountability. We are hampered by some of the systems that we
have. In the limited time I have been with the VA, I have been
talking to our employees and our folks about what they actually
need to do the mission effectively. That is a big focus of what
we need to do.
We are not trying to recreate the past. We are trying to
prepare for the future. And part of that is refocusing our
efforts, as you just rightly said, on our veterans, getting the
systems that we need, and getting our focus right on that
mission.
Senator Tuberville. Well, I would hope that we would look
into a lot of these companies. I have had people come to me and
say, ``Coach, we have a program right now that could save the
VA $20 to $30 billion a month, but nobody will talk to us.'' We
need to open up our eyes to this and talk to people that can
help organize what the VA is doing and quit doing what we did
50 years ago. I mean, this is the 21st century. My God, we have
got to open our eyes.
So I would hope that we would be more competent on looking
at the things of the future. And again, anything that we can do
to help our veterans.
Are there ways that we can improve incompetency in
determining the process of all this fraud that is coming in,
that you have seen so far? And I know you have not been there
long.
Mr. Engelbaum. Yes, sir, I can also, but very quickly from
my perspective, absolutely. You know, it is about focus. It is
about getting our organization focused on the mission,
streamlining it, and making sure that we are laser-focused on
what we need to do, on what systems we need to do, on the
veterans.
Look, I love the VA. I love our employees. I came out of
retirement because I am passionate about serving our veterans
and improving their veterans care. But we need to do better,
and we can. When we talk about employees, this is a failure of
us, as leaders, to make sure that we organize properly, we are
focused, and then we drive the mission to accomplish what we
set out to do.
Kevin, did you have some comments on that?
Mr. Friel. Yes, sir, as it relates to the incompetency
decision. Part of what that IG report identified 311
individuals who did not have the right coverage or the right
oversight. That was because we did just that. We migrated from
an old legacy system to VBMS, where we have more insight, we
have better control of the data. And in that migration some of
the records were lost because of bad data in the old system.
We did review all 311 cases. We found no circumstances
where anybody had been taken advantage of their funds had been
misused or where there was any indication of fraud.
Senator Tuberville. Thank you. Mr. Engelbaum, if I send you
the names of these companies that are calling me consistently,
would you follow up on that, and in terms of fraud, trying to
get us in the 21st century of this AI, that we should be using
every day, especially in the VA?
Mr. Engelbaum. Absolutely, sir. I would be happy to do
that. Thank you.
Senator Tuberville. Thank you.
Chairman Moran. Senator Hirono.
HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing.
Of the number of bills that are on the agenda, three of them
are mine, and I am glad to say that the VA is in support of two
of them, with a request for more time for the third one. These
are the Rep VA Act, the VetPAC Act, which VA supports, and the
Veterans Fraud Reimbursement Act, which the VA says it needs
more time to review, even though the VA did testify in support
of this act in a House subcommittee.
The thing is, Mr. Chairman, that we can have all of these
bills, but if the VA does not have the manpower, does not have
the personnel to implement the various bills that we pass, what
are we doing here? So I share the Vice Chair's concerns about
what is going on with the VA.
Now, we know that Federal employees are being fired across
the board, in every department, not just in VA. Thousands of
Federal employees are being fired, 2,400 being fired from the
VA.
Mr. Engelbaum, were these initial firings based on any kind
of an analysis of competence? Any performance analysis that led
to the firing of 2,400 people from the VA?
Mr. Engelbaum. Senator, I cannot talk to specifics on the
actual analysis. One, as I mentioned earlier on, it is subject
to litigation right now. And the second----
Senator Hirono. Excuse me. You know, everybody knows that
these firings were across the board, and of course it is going
to lead to litigation. Do not use litigation as an excuse for
coming to tell us that you cannot talk about it. These were
across-the-board firings of people on probationary status. It
impacted not just the VA--and, by the way, another 80,000-plus
will be getting fired. Yes, those will lead to more litigation.
President Trump issued something like 26 Executive orders
on day one of his Administration. I would say that there are
probably lawsuits filed as to every single one of these, as
expected, because many of these EOs were totally illegal. But
we have an Administration that does not give a rip about the
rule of law. So do not come here and tell us that you cannot
talk about what the basis of these firings were. I think the
fact of the matter is that they were across the board.
I do not know how the VA is supposed to do its job when, on
the one hand, it is firing, by the time you are through, the
Administration is through, some 80, 90, 85,000 people from the
VA, and at the same time you are trying to hire some 300,000.
So on the one hand you are letting go all these people, not
based on any performance analysis, and on the other you are
trying to hire 300,000 or so people. I mean, who would want to
work for any of agencies with all this chaos going on?
So, Mr. Chairman, much as I support the legislation that we
have, I really wonder what is this exercise that we are
undergoing here, where many of these bills, including the three
that I introduced, all in a bipartisan way, and as I mentioned
earlier, this is one of the few committees where we are able to
get things done in a bipartisan way. So I would be very
supportive, except that we have an Administration that does not
seem to have its controls, its hands on the levers of control,
because we have an Administration that is continuing to sow
chaos, and litigation abounds. There are about 70 lawsuits that
are ongoing and numerous judges are saying to the
Administration, ``You can't do that,'' and we have to have
hearings on whether or not this Administration intends to even
follow court orders.
So, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Moran. Senator Cassidy.
HON. BILL CASSIDY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA
Senator Cassidy. Thank you all. First, on a lighter note,
they give us a little biography of each of you, and Ms.
Britton, I see that you write poetry. I do not know if I have
ever had that in somebody's kind of brief bio, that they write
poetry. So anyway, my mother is from South Carolina, and she
wrote poetry, so I feel a little connection there. Thank you.
You folks commented on our VetPAC Act. I will just say, as
a member of the Senate, it has been very difficult sometimes to
have an independent analysis of what is being done in the
Veterans Administration. And Senator Hirono and I entered this
as an imitation, if you will, of what MedPAC and MACPAC do,
giving Congress a lot of insights into how Medicare and
Medicaid work. So it is patterned after those.
In your testimony, you say that the commission could impede
the VA's ability to respond quickly to address veterans' needs
if it is requesting information or conducting investigations
while the VA is attempting to respond to a new problem. Can you
give me an example of how--could you give me this information
that would impact clinical care of a patient, of a veteran?
Mr. Montoya. Yes, sir. Thanks so much for that question.
And I think a great example of this would be our quadrennial
review process that is going on right now, which really takes a
look at all of our medical centers across the country and
determines where----
Senator Cassidy. Does the quadrennial review interrupt
patient care?
Mr. Montoya. It does not. It actually goes in conjunction
with it, sir.
Senator Cassidy. So the quadrennial review, of course, is
every four years, but let me ask, it does not--what I just
heard--it does not interrupt your capacity to address the
veteran's health care need. So why would an ongoing review,
looking at specific issues, such as MedPAC and MACPAC do,
disrupt patient care? I do not follow your criticism, since you
just gave me quadrennial review, which is more comprehensive
and it does not interrupt.
Mr. Montoya. Yes. So I think the bottom line is that we do
support this, Senator, and I think----
Senator Cassidy. Oh good, because I was under the
impression that you thought that it might not.
Mr. Montoya. Yes, we actually do support this bill. And so
one of the things that we do have concerns on is that there is
just a number of other initiatives that are overlapping with
it, so we just wanted to make sure that that does not interfere
at all.
Senator Cassidy. And in our vision, at least, we would be
including issues not included in the quadrennial review, for
example, the training of health care providers, which is not in
the quadrennial review.
So I am glad you like it. Once you get the answer you want,
you shut up. I yield.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Moran [Inaudible.]
HON. MARGARET WOOD HASSAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to you and
Senator Blumenthal for holding this hearing. A welcome to all
of our witnesses. Mr. Engelbaum, thank you for testifying
today. I have to give a shout-out to Al Montoya, who led the
Manchester VA Center with distinction a few years back, and it
is good to see you again, and I thank you for your work.
Look, this hearing is about legislation, and I want to talk
about some of the pending bills before us. But I, too, want to
talk about some of the Trump administration's recent actions
and how they have impacted the Manchester VA and I think the
system in general. Because look, as you were discussing fraud,
I could not help but say, but gee, the Trump administration
fired the inspector general, who is the guy in charge of
rooting out fraud, right, as they fired inspectors general
across government. There are 2,400 arbitrary firings just
because people were probationary employees at the VA, not
because there was any analysis of the kind of work they did or
why they were hired to do what they did.
I talked to a doc from the Manchester VA yesterday morning,
and you know what she had to do in the middle of a really
chaotic week, in the Veterans Administration? She is a busy
doctor. She had to send to Elon Musk a list of the things that
she did that week. Talk about bureaucracy.
So there are a lot of reasons we are concerned. I want to
drill down on those with you, Mr. Engelbaum, and then I hope to
get to a question about one piece of legislation.
As you know, the PACT Act became law in 2022, and it
greatly expanded eligibility for care and benefits for veterans
who were exposed to toxins. Since it became law, more than
200,000 veterans have enrolled for VA care under the PACT Act,
and more than 2.3 million PACT Act-related benefit claims have
been submitted.
To serve these veterans, the VA hired more than 60,000 new
employees to meet the increased demand for VA care and
benefits. Since President Trump has taken office, though, the
VA has fired 2,400 employees and now is planning to fire 80,000
more. Not only does this contradict the clear intent of
Congress, it really does a disservice to our veterans. When you
fire VA employees, veterans suffer. If you fire front desk
staff, veterans cannot schedule appointments. If you fire
maintenance and support employees, hospitals and equipment do
not get cleaned. If you fire Benefits Administration employees,
claims get delayed.
So Mr. Engelbaum, can you guarantee that if the VA fires
thousands more employees, it will not take longer for veterans
to get appointments and receive care?
Mr. Engelbaum. Senator, thank you. That is absolutely our
objective.
Senator Hassan. So can you guarantee it? Are you confident
now that firing people with an arbitrary number out there, you
are not going to impact their care?
Mr. Engelbaum. Yes. Thank you, Senator Hassan. We do not
have an arbitrary number, as I was trying to explain. There was
a planning factor out there. We have a detailed, about a four-
month process that we are undergoing in reviewing our complete
structure, our organization, in order to do just what you are
saying, to make sure that all our resources are focused on the
veteran and their care.
Senator Hassan. So I am going to hold you to this. You are
now guaranteeing that after you fire tens of thousands of
employees, it will not take longer for veterans to get
appointments and receive care.
Now let's go to, can you guarantee that if the VA fires
thousands more employees, hospitals and equipment, all those
things, the hospitals and equipment will remain clean and safe?
Yes or no.
Mr. Engelbaum. Senator, what I am guaranteeing is a
detailed, methodical look and review, a much-needed review of
our structure to ensure that our manpower and resources are
focused on our veterans and their care.
Senator Hassan. So you are not going to guarantee that. Can
you guarantee that if the VA fires thousands more employees,
benefits claims will not be delayed?
Mr. Engelbaum. Ma'am, I guarantee we are going to do a
detailed, thoughtful review, and focus our efforts on improving
our service to our veterans.
Senator Hassan. But that is not a guarantee, because you do
not know what is going to happen, but you are already naming
the number of employees you are going to reduce.
We are going to watch what you are doing, and I will echo
Senator Blumenthal's request for the written plan, the metrics
you are using, and the reasons you think that this kind of mass
firing is going to result in improved efficiency.
As you may know, New Hampshire does not have a full-service
VA hospital. In 2023, then candidate Trump visited New
Hampshire and promised a brand-new, state-of-the-art VA
hospital for the Granite State, saying that we would no longer
be without a full-service facility. Now it seems to me that if
you are building a new full-service hospital, you are going to
have to hire people to help provide new services.
So is the VA going to hire contractors and employees to
build and work in the new facility President Trump promised
Granite Staters, or is the plan to cut resources and hope that
we do not notice?
Mr. Engelbaum. The plan, Senator, is to ensure that we
focus all of our resources, as much as we can, on the direct
care of our veterans. We have grown exponentially over the past
decade or more. We have increased our budget immensely. But
our----
Senator Hassan. Right, because we are helping a lot more
veterans, and we have to stretch to reach that goal, and there
is work to be done. I am right with all my colleagues. This has
been a bipartisan effort. We want the best care possible and
the best services possible for our veterans. And we have work
to do. We need to invest in new systems, which by the way, it
has not always been easy to get bipartisan support throughout
the Federal Government for doing that.
But being arbitrary, and as the head of VFW said last week,
using a meat cleaver instead of a scalpel is not the way to do
this. So I am going to hold the President to his promise for a
new, full-service VA center in New Hampshire, I am going to
insist that it be properly staffed, and I am looking forward to
seeing written documentation and an analysis that indicates
that things will be better off after you take staffing back to
2019 levels, in spite of the new people we are helping with
PACT Act. I will be looking for that analysis, because right
now it is not adding up.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Moran. Senator King.
HON. ANGUS S. KING, JR.,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator King. I was struck when Senator Cassidy mentioned
poetry. So I asked ChatGPT to write us a poem about the firings
at the VA. Here is the poem, which I will provide for the
record:
``In a land where the eagle proudly soared,
where freedom's song was oft restored;
a shadow crept across the plains,
as whispers spoke of recent pains.
The halls, once filled with earnest care,
now echoed with a vacant air;
for hands that healed and hearts that served,
found futures tossed, their paths unnerved.
The veterans, with stories deep,
their guardians gone, their solace steep;
they wondered if the promises made,
were fading like the evening shade.
Oh, what of honor, what of trust,
when noble missions turn to dust;
yet in the hearts where courage burns,
the spirit of the warrior yearns.
For though the times are harsh and cold,
the tales of valor ever bold;
remind us, both young and old,
that some truths are worth more than gold.
So raise a glass to those who have stood,
in every field, through fire and blood;
and may we find in days ahead,
the wisdom to restore what has fled.''
Pretty amazing, and I think it captures what is going on
here.
By the way, firing 80,000 people will reduce the VA budget
by 1.2 percent. I think we ought to keep that in mind, because
people think, well, we are cutting the budget, we are saving a
lot of money, 1.2 percent. This is performance. This is not
policy. And it is 80,000 people. The memo of March 4th says,
``Our initial objective is to return to our 2019 end
strength.'' That is 83,000 people.
So I just do not know how anybody with a straight face say
that you are going to cut that many people and still provide
the same level of services. It just does not compute.
The second piece that I want to inquire about, and I will
ask you this question, is what about these contracts? I saw the
little video of the Secretary the other day, proudly saying we
have eliminated 600 contracts and we are going to save all this
money. I want to know what the contracts are, and we have been
asking that for a week, and we are getting no answers.
What are those 585 contracts for, because I fear that they
are for mental health counselors, or radiology technicians, or
maintenance? I mean, those contracts are for something. And it
is an insult to this Committee and to the United States Senate
that we have no transparency whatsoever on what these contracts
are. So that is a pretty simple ask. Will you take that
question back, Mr. Engelbaum?
Mr. Engelbaum. Senator, it would be my pleasure.
Unfortunately, I do not have a lot of information on the
specific contracts. That is handled under a different
mechanism. But I will take that for record and take that back.
Senator King. Well, somebody knows. And I do not expect you
to know, but somebody knows what those contracts are because
they made a decision to cut them, and I think that information
should be shared with this Committee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA Response: Because this same question is pending as part of a QFR
response and a separate letter response, we will provide the response
to this due-out once it has been cleared to share through the (formal)
QFR and letter channels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is hard for me to understand what is going on here
except a motivation to show that we are cutting the workforce
for relatively small returns in terms of the overall budget of
the agency. I think you [briefly turns to face Senator Hassan]
used the term ``meat cleaver.'' The operative term is
``chainsaw.'' That is what that grinning guy is using is a
chainsaw, instead of a thoughtful process.
So I would like to see, as I think has already been
requested, what the plan is for these 83,000 people. How are
you going to approach that? Who is going to do it? What is the
criteria? Because it is hard for me to believe. I understand,
and you said we have grown, for sure. But seven new bills have
been passed with regard to veterans' benefits since 2019, the
biggest being the PACT Act, which require a lot of people to
administer. So I just want to know how you are going to resolve
those kinds of issues.
I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for not speaking to these bills,
but these people had the good luck to be here today. Thank you
for your testimony, and we look forward to working with you on
these bills. This is a very bipartisan Committee. The PACT Act
passed by bipartisan majorities in both houses. So we want to
work on those things. But we need some facts, and I, for one,
believe that the Agency ought to be providing that information.
Mr. Engelbaum. Thank you, Senator. And as I stated
previously, it would be my pleasure to come and brief you and
this entire Committee on our plan and the thoughtful review
that we are undergoing right now, to get at what the ultimate
number will be, and what we should look like in the future for
success, to better serve our veterans.
Senator King. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I will submit my
poem for the record.
Chairman Moran. Senator Banks.
HON. JIM BANKS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Engelbaum, is
the VA too bureaucratic?
Mr. Engelbaum. I think the Federal Government as a whole is
the definition of bureaucracy.
Senator Banks. There are obviously places where we can
create efficiencies and deliver services to veterans better?
Mr. Engelbaum. There absolutely are. There absolutely are,
in any large organization, but especially--look, I came to the
VA because I am dedicated to the mission of our veteran. But I
know, and after speaking with a lot of folks, many of them--
employees, veterans--there is a lot of bureaucracy there. We
can do better. We will do better. We need to flatline our
management. We need to flatline organizations. We need to
streamline mission. We need systems that can do what we need
them to do. There is so much work that we have to do. And as we
have proven, more and more people, more and more money is not
the answer. It is not saying that we will not put the money
into people where we need them, but it is not the answer.
Senator Banks. Yes, I agree. How would the Restore VA
Accountability Act improve the VA workforce by giving
supervisors more authority?
Mr. Engelbaum. There is nothing more disheartening to our
workers themselves than having substandard employees around
them. There is nothing, as everybody knows, that brings down an
organization more by having employees that do not do what they
need to do, and you are unable to either remove them, take
disciplinary action, or it becomes so painful that they
continue to exist.
What happens is we rely more and more heavily on our top
performers, on our middle performers. And don't get me wrong--
we have so many dedicated employees in the VA, so many people
that have dedicated their lives to veterans, non-veterans,
spouses, you name it. The vast majority are good, hard-working
folks that want to do well. But we have those that do not. And
there is nothing that destroys an organization more. And those
employees, working next to them, know who they are.
Senator Banks. So is it a morale issue?
Mr. Engelbaum. It is a morale issue. It is a performance
issue. It is a workload issue. And we want to make sure that we
have due process. That is really, really important. But we
cannot stymie leadership and management. And I always remind
people, managers are part of that. They are employees too. We
need to hold managers accountable. It is not an ``us versus
them'' question. It is a matter of us, as a team, and
everybody, at every level, has to be held accountable.
Senator Banks. Mr. Montoya, Senator Moran has legislation
on the agenda to improve community care providers' scheduling.
And Senator Hassan has legislation to improve internal VHA
scheduling. Can you talk about how those two work together and
what improvements would veterans trying to get appointments see
if both of those bills were enacted?
Mr. Montoya. Yes. Thanks so much for the question, Senator.
I think, you know, I reflect on my time as a medical center
director at three different stations, as well as my most recent
experience in the field. And where I see external provider
scheduling working is that it reduces the amount of time that
it takes for a veteran to get an appointment scheduled in the
community.
So, for example, without external provider scheduling, it
takes roughly 30 minutes for a veteran to get scheduled in the
community, whereas with EPS it is actually about 7 minutes for
that to happen. So it allows our scheduling staff, our team, to
be more efficient as they are looking at the scheduling grids,
for other physicians in the community. So it really helps out,
and the two work together in collaboration, to make sure that
we are providing that care.
Senator Banks. Great. I hope we can get both of them done.
Mr. Friel, what problems are you having disciplining
veteran benefits claim agents today without any new legal
authority?
Mr. Friel. Yes, Senator. Thank you for that question. One
of the concerns we have is that, you know, we have all heard
the claim sharks and all of that. Right now, the only authority
we have is from the Office of General Counsel to send a cease-
and-desist order. We have no other ramifications outside of
that. You know, they just change their business model and come
back as someone new. So the ability to be able to actually
prosecute people and take action against people who are
basically defrauding our veterans and misusing----
Senator Banks [continuing]. Authority, other than a cease-
and-desist letter?
Mr. Friel. Cease and desist. Yes, sir.
Senator Banks. Okay. What are the most common rules that
claim agents or attorneys break?
Mr. Friel. One of the major rules is that for an initial
claim, there should not be any fees charged. And we have these
agencies that go in and they promise veterans that we will help
you get a good rating, and then they charge on the back end.
You know, they take a part of the retroactive payment, they
take part of what their change is over the course of a period
of time, and they take money from our veterans, who are
entitled to that because of their level of disability.
Senator Banks. It seems really gross, and I hope we can do
something to crack down on it. Thank you very much. I yield
back.
Chairman Moran. Senator Gallego.
HON. RUBEN GALLEGO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator Gallego. Well, in the spirit of Senator King I was
actually trying to write a haiku, but I could not get to the
last line. I will have to submit it for the record once I get
there.
But in the other area where Senator King was talking about,
one of the programs that has been identified, something that is
very personal to me, is the National Center for PTSD, which is
the world's leading research and educational center on post-
traumatic stress disorder. For us that have PTSD this is
extremely important because we know that it is an evolving
field of research that could also help not just us but also end
up saving us money in the long run if we find better treatments
for PTSD that are more effective, quicker, and also, in some
regards, cheaper.
But that is one of the contracts that was just terminated
recently. And this is really to Mr. Montoya. The VA said that
the terminations would not negatively affect veteran care,
benefits, or services, and that they were identified through a
deliberate, multilevel review.
I am really concerned that these terminations will
negatively impact veterans' care, specifically something like
this. So can you explain what safeguards you have in place to
make sure this will not happen, and how you will restore
contracts that were incorrectly terminated? Because in my
opinion, if it was identified through deliberative, multilevel
review, I have no idea how someone could look at the National
Center for PTSD, which other countries actually talk and try to
get research from to help their veterans, how that came under
the purview of being cut?
Mr. Montoya. Yes, thank you so much for that question. I
think this is one that is near and dear to my heart, as I was
up in Vermont, and they do have the National Center for PTSD.
And I think there is a very deliberative process in looking at
the contract review to make sure that there is not any ill will
that occurs to our veterans.
There is also a process for us to reverse those, as has
been done in many, many cases. So I would be happy to look at
that particular contract that you are asking about and see what
it entails.
Senator Gallego. And then another contract that was listed
for cancellation was the VA's PACT Act Enterprise Management
Office, which supports the VA's ability to carry out the
benefits and health care delivery promised under the bipartisan
PACT Act, again, something very personal to me. I lived next to
a burn pit for almost a month. The men that I served with, some
of them have died, unfortunately, from toxic exposure, some of
them from very rare cancers, at young ages. So I am very
concerned that some of these reductions, while we are trying to
finally help these men and women, are actually going to be
impacted and actually we are going to be sliding backward.
Since the bill was signed, nearly 60,000 veterans in
Arizona have filed claims.
Can you, Mr. Engelbaum, can you please explain how the
cancellation of this contract will not impact those
beneficiaries who qualify for the PACT Act benefits and health
care? And there are still more men and women that actually are
jumping onto this, because we want them to actually get their
services and disability ratings because of the PACT Act.
Mr. Engelbaum. Yes, Senator. Unfortunately, I cannot
address that specific contract. I am happy to take that back.
You know, as I just stated, one of the things was, it is not
that we would stop doing something. So I do not know, for
example, the analysis, do we have a contractor doing something
for us that we could do internally? There are different things
that went into, I think, some of the deliberations. But
notwithstanding, as mentioned, we are committed to taking care
of our veterans. If we did not get it right, we will definitely
take a relook at it, and we will tap the focus on our veteran.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA Response: Two contracts providing administrative support to the PACT
Act Enterprise Program Management Office (EPMO) were terminated. This
will not impact PACT Act benefits for Veterans, their families,
caregivers, and survivors.
The PACT Act EPMO was a 3-year term organization aimed at integrating
systems, resources, and policies within the VA to implement the PACT
Act. As we approach its conclusion in August 2025, essential
requirements have been integrated, with other aspects still being
operationalized. The EPMO will phase out in August, and designated
business owners will fully assume responsibility for their respective
efforts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Gallego. My concern, again, is that we are
treating, I think, the VA much like we treat other parts of the
government, where there needs to be certain sensitivities.
Right now I am hearing reports of men and women having to do
their treatments and their PTSD therapy in cubicles, open-air
cubicles, where essentially some of the therapists are told to
get white noise and put ambient music in the background, while,
obviously, next door someone could be listening to these
veterans going through their therapy sessions.
As someone who has done PTSD therapy, you have to expose
yourself. You have to really let yourself go in order for you
to start real therapy. It is not going to be a really good
environment when these men and women feel like they are not
going to have a safe and secure environment to actually talk
about what happened to them, what they are feeling, or anything
else like that, if they are being forced to speak in this open-
air cubicle. And this is part of the problem when you force
people back to the office but there is not enough space for
these men.
Do you understand, or have you heard of this problem,
because I am actually hearing about this across the country
now.
Mr. Engelbaum. Senator, if there are any specific issues, I
am happy to look at them, as far as our veterans' care. As far
as back to the office, we do have a detailed plan in place. We
are making sure, so for example, that there are extensions
right now, pretty much a question if people do not have the
space to put people back. What we do know is that our clinical
providers have been showing up day in and day out, for years.
But mostly the support staff, the administration, they have not
been. There are some jobs that lend themselves to actually
being remote and we can better support, but the vast majority,
we work better together. We work better together. We
collaborate. We are part of a team. You develop esprit, just
like in the Army or wherever you were at. You are part of
something. You are part of a mission.
So we firmly believe that we are more effective, more
efficient, and better, for the most part, when we work together
and we call people back in. Like I said, our providers are
there on the front lines every day. We owe it to them to be
there to support them, as well.
Senator Gallego. Without a doubt. I just worry about the
situation where you are putting some of these men and women in
a compromised situation, because we are trying to overall
create a policy that might have some merit to it, but then is
creating this system where, again, it is not conducive to PTSD
therapy.
Mr. Engelbaum. We will definitely take that into
consideration, Senator. Thank you.
Senator Gallego. I yield back, Chairman.
Chairman Moran. Senator Sanders.
HON. BERNARD SANDERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VERMONT
Senator Sanders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
for being here today. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that in
the fourth quarter of 2024, there were over 30,000 vacancies at
the VA, including 3,400 schedulers, 1,200 custodians, 1,800
social workers, 2,400 doctors, 6,300 registered nurses. I heard
Mr. Engelbaum say, appropriately enough, that he wanted to do a
detailed and thoughtful review of the whole process.
Do you think arbitrarily laying off 2,500 workers and
planning to lay off another 83,000 is a detailed and thoughtful
review?
Mr. Engelbaum. Senator, thank you. As mentioned, the
initial thing that hit the news about the planning factor is to
lead and to force people to make hard decisions and
recommendations. We are in the process. I will come and brief
the Committee, sir, at your disposal, on how we are doing that
over the next three to four months, and what we are going to
review to make sure that we tailor the mission and the people.
Senator Sanders. But if we already have--and I should tell
you, and I think Mr. Montoya knows it. He is familiar with our
part of the world.
Mr. Engelbaum. Yes, sir.
Senator Sanders. In White River Junction, we have a very
well-functioning VA. I go around the state a lot. I talk to
veterans, and they are very proud of what is going on there. I
do not think any veteran in this country thinks that it makes
sense, at a time when we already have a significant shortage of
workers, to arbitrarily lay off 2,500 and threaten to lay off
another 83,000.
Now, Mr. Chairman, as I think you are aware--Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman? The VFW, Veterans of Foreign Wars, just stated
the other day, and I quote part of what their statement was,
``We now call upon VA to reconsider its planned reduction of
83,000 employees and thoroughly review any proposed cuts prior
to rolling out further announcement like this,'' end quote.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to introduce a resolution
supporting the VFW. I would hope that you can support that. All
that they are saying, which makes common sense to me, if you
want to make the VA more efficient, let's do it. You are right.
Is there bureaucracy? Yep. Let's deal with that. But do it an
intelligent plan, with the cooperation of the veterans
organizations who are on the ground, who better can come to
tell you that you have people who are not working well. All
right? But to arbitrarily say, hey, we are going to lay off
83,000 people, that makes sense to nobody.
On a more provincial point of view--so, Mr. Chairman, I am
going to work, and I would hope that we could have bipartisan
support here. We are simply saying, to quote Mr. Engelbaum,
``let's go forward in a detailed and thoughtful process.'' Work
with us. All right.
Do you believe that health care is a right for every
veteran in this country?
Mr. Engelbaum. Absolutely. I appreciate that.
Senator Sanders. Okay. That is fine. I agree with you. Do
you think we should do a better job in reaching out? One of the
problems I have been working on for years, with some success,
is letting veterans know about the benefits to which they are
legally entitled. I am not sure we do as good a job on that as
we should. Do you think we should do a better job in that area?
Mr. Engelbaum. I will turn it over. I know it is very, very
important to do so. I know we have made strides. I am not sure
there is anybody here that can really--do you want to address
that? But I always think we could always do better, Senator.
Senator Sanders. I recall--Excuse me. I do not have a lot
of time. I apologize. But doing a town meeting in Bennington,
Vermont, about the prescription drug benefits the veterans are
entitled to. A lot of veterans did not even know that.
But my point is, if you believe that every veteran--and I
am hearing you say that--is entitled to the health care that we
have provided them, if you are going to do aggressive
outreach--am I hearing you say that? Okay.--you are going to
need more staff, not less, to take care of our veterans.
All right. On a provincial note, we are on the list,
whatever that may mean, in Vermont to get two new state-of-the-
art CBOCs. One is in Chittenden County, and I do not know if
anybody is familiar with that. Ms. Cohen, are you familiar with
that? No, okay. Mr. Montoya, are you familiar with that?
Mr. Montoya. Very much so, sir.
Senator Sanders. Okay. Could you help me out here? We have
two on the list, one in Chittenden County, one probably in the
Keene area, in New Hampshire, which Vermonters in the southern
part of the state can utilize. Can you give me a status report
on that, sir?
Mr. Montoya. Yes, so I know, sir, I do not have it but I
will get it for the record for you and talk with your staff
members, as well. But I think this is one that is very
important to our veterans in Vermont and New Hampshire, to make
sure that they get the care.
Last I had on that is that they were going through the
acquisition process, but I want to be very detailed in my
response to you.
Senator Sanders. All right. Will you get back to me on
that?
Mr. Montoya. Absolutely.
Senator Sanders. I will give you a ring.
Mr. Montoya. A hundred percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA Response: The two Community Based Outpatient Clinics--one in
Chittenden County (Burlington, Vermont) and one in Keene, New
Hampshire--are in solicitation. However, we do not have a timeline for
completion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Sanders. All right. Look, the bottom line is this
is not complicated. I do not think there is anybody who does
not think there is too much bureaucracy at the VA. I assume
everybody wants to make it more efficient. I assume everybody
wants it do its best for veterans. I assume we all want
veterans to be able to take advantage of the programs that
Congress has passed to help them. You do not do it by
arbitrarily laying off tens of thousands. You do it by working
with the veterans organizations, by working with this
Committee.
Mr. Engelbaum, is there anything I have said that you
disagree with?
Mr. Engelbaum. No, Senator. I am looking forward to working
with the Committee, and I met some of the Representatives
behind me right before the meeting and invited them for some
conversations, and I look forward to discussions and working
together to better support our veterans.
Senator Sanders. Thank you.
Chairman Moran. Senator Blumenthal has another follow up,
or a request, in which I will recognize him, and then I am
going to have my follow up, and then we will change panels. And
we are going to recess at that point in time in which we
change, so that both Senator Blumenthal and I can hear the
witnesses in the second panel. But we have an 11:45 vote, so we
will run over to vote, come back, and we will restart. Senator
Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. For the record, Mr.
Engelbaum, I just want to expand on the number that was given
to you by Senator Sanders. As of the end of fiscal year 2024,
there were 36,000 vacancies in veterans' health care, there
were 2,751 in the VBA. And by the way, those health care
positions, they were 1,800 social workers, 693 psychologists,
2,092 doctors, 6,300 registered nurses, 3,400 health care
schedulers, and 1,200 custodians. Every single one of those
positions, vital to veterans health care.
So I would suggest, respectfully, that rather than focusing
on how to fire VA health care workers, which is what the
RESTORE Act seems to do and what Elon Musk and Donald Trump are
doing through Secretary Collins, that you would be better off
trying to figure out how to recruit to fill those positions.
What you are doing right now is going to discourage and deter
anybody who wants to be in the health care professional field
from joining the VA. Why would they, when your focus is on
firing them?
Let me also give you an opportunity to correct the record.
I think you contended that VBA claims processing times have
gone up since the PACT Act. That is untrue. The average number
of days to complete a pre-PACT Act claim were 166. The average
number of days to complete a claim in January 2025, after
passage of the PACT Act, is 148.
So actually, when you say we can do better, we will do
better, you were doing better. You were doing better. And now
you are going to do worse.
So again, to adopt the analogy that I had before, you are
sinking the ship basically, and we are talking here about
rearranging the chairs on the deck of that sinking ship. Call
it the Titanic or whatever you wish. But we do need bipartisan
cooperation to stop the bleeding, as the VFW commander in chief
told us.
Finally, I just want to say, I was remiss in not
specifically mentioning before, but we have worked with the
professionals who are before us here. I know that you intend to
do good things with the VA. I have worked with Al Montoya, for
example, in Connecticut. And we want to empower you. I know it
is difficult within the VA. But there are thousands and
thousands of dedicated VA workers right now. They deserve to be
elevated, not trashed or denigrated, as Elon Musk and Donald
Trump are doing. Our veterans are not suckers. They are our
heroes.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Moran. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Just a couple of thoughts and a question from me. First,
Senator Blumenthal, while I do not think he was diminishing the
value of the RESTORE Act overly, but I want to respond.
The Restore VA Accountability Act is about providing the
best care and quality opportunities for veterans. I think it
has a side benefit. It is great to work, it is better to work
in a place in which you do not allow people who misbehave,
commit fraud, negligent to the patient, to continue to work
there, or to just move them to another position as the VA has
done. And I am committed to trying to make sure that the
Restore Act is something we accomplish. It was overwhelmingly
supported in a bipartisan way in the past. It ran into legal
and regulatory kind of challenges. And we need to work to make
sure we get the law right.
But eliminating people, at any agency, that misbehave is a
good thing for the customers they serve and a good thing for
the people they work with.
A couple of my colleagues mentioned the inspector general.
Both Republican and Democrat colleagues mentioned the use of
the inspector general. I would add, for a second time, my
public voice to the importance of restoring an inspector
general to the Department of Veterans Affairs. And as we try to
figure out how to right-size the VA, the inspector general has
been our ally in finding ways to do things better or things
that happen at the VA that make no sense, are inefficient, and
inspector general is hugely important to the efforts that you
indicate you are trying to accomplish. So I just highlight
again the value of an inspector general.
And we also, we, the majority, but we, as the Chairman of
the Committee, have requested information from the Department
of Veterans Affairs. Some of it has been answered and other
components of our inquiries, some of the things you heard from
particularly the minority, the Democratic side of our
Committee, we are asking for that kind of information too, and
I highlight that for you to return to the VA to encourage the
answering of Members of Congress' questions. And that only
reiterates my view that this Committee will and should have
significant opportunities to participate in the decision-making
process about workforce at the VA.
And finally, Mr. Engelbaum, you have tried several times to
finish a sentence that I think is important, at least you think
it is important because you tried to say it a number of times,
and it has to do with the 83,000, or the 80,000. I think you
have tried to explain that is not necessarily the goal. And
that was certainly reported in press, and maybe was in a memo
at the VA, so I am not discounting it. Somebody may have come
up with this number.
But what is your goal in regard to--I am going to ask you
this question. Is it conceivable you would have the analysis
done at the VA and determine that in certain areas you need
more employees, not less? And is the goal to figure out how to
get rid of 80,000, or is it a different goal?
Mr. Engelbaum. It is the former, Senator. Obviously, we
want to be efficient, and we want to be lean. As I was trying
to get across, you have to start with something when you start
with the planning process. When we are talking about the
return, we are talking about a 15 percent is what we are
looking at when you are talking about over 470,000. And I will
be very clear, and I think the Secretary would be very clear on
this. We are going to do our review, we are going to let the
process fall out, and ultimately he will make a decision what
the final number would be, based upon that analysis that we are
conducting.
As you rightly said, we may, and we probably should, plus
up in other areas. We will take down other areas. We will also
look at what we are going to stop doing, as far as specific
mission, and as I mentioned, flatlining bureaucracies. Numerous
things that we want to take a look at. But if you do not start
with a goal, or start with some sort of planning factor,
aggressive planning factor to force people to think, and think
outside the box, and come up with options, then you are going
to go nowhere.
And so that is what really that is. That goal, that
planning factor enables us to start our in-depth analysis,
bottom-up review that we are conducting with the entirety of
the VA chain of command, in order to arrive at a recommendation
for the Secretary later on this year.
Chairman Moran. I wanted to give you the opportunity to
finish your sentence or your thoughts, your paragraph. I, too,
have indicated my concern with a number. The goal ought not be
a number. The goal ought to be to determine what the mission of
the Department of Veterans Affairs is, and how many people in
the workforce it takes to accomplish that mission in an
effective and efficient way. And that, I think, Members of this
Committee are seemingly willing to help the VA accomplish. The
80,000 number has really created the uncertainty, the
difficulty, the criticism that comes from those statements.
So we look forward to answers to our questions, and we look
forward to working to figuring out how to right-size the
Department of Veterans Affairs, but not in an arbitrary way.
And I thank you, and if you report that to your superiors--and
that is a poor word in today's world--if you would report that
to your colleagues, and particularly see about getting us
answers to our previous questions.
Mr. Engelbaum. Absolutely, Senator.
Chairman Moran. Thank you very much. We are going to recess
so that Senator Blumenthal and I can walk across the street and
vote. And the second panel, you are welcome to stay in your
seats or take maybe the thing so we are ready when we come
back, that you will be ready to take your chairs where these
witnesses are now seated.
Thank you for your testimony, and thank you for your
presence.
[Recess.]
Chairman Moran. Hello. Thank you for your patience. The
Committee will come back to order.
I want to ask unanimous consent to add to today's hearing
record letters of support for the Veterans 2nd Amendment
Protection Act from the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States, the National Disability Rights Network, Vietnam
Veterans of America, Black Veterans Empowerment Council, Gun
Owners of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart, National
Shooting Sports Federation, Firearms Regulatory Accountability
Council, AMAC Action--Association of Mature American Citizens,
and the Turning Point Action.
Hearing no objection, specifying the appropriate time to
ask that request, it is so ordered.
[The letters of support appear on pages 175-190 of the
Appendix.]
Chairman Moran. I now welcome our second panel, witnesses
at the table. Testifying is Cole Lyle, Director of Veterans'
Affairs and Rehabilitation Division for the American Legion;
Ashlynne Haycock-Lohmann, the Director of Government and
Legislative Affairs for the Tragedy Assistance Program for
Survivors, TAP; and Patrick Murray, the Director of National
Legislative Service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States. People we are all familiar with. Thank you for
your continued education of our Committee.
And let me yield now to Mr. Lyle.
PANEL II
----------
STATEMENT OF COLE LYLE, DIRECTOR, VETERANS' AFFAIRS AND
REHABILITATION DIVISION, THE AMERICAN LEGION
Mr. Lyle. Thank you, Chairman Moran, distinguished Members
of the Committee. On behalf of National Commander Jim
LaCoursiere, Jr., and more than 1.6 million dues-paying members
of the American Legion, we thank you for the opportunity to
offer our testimony for the record on pending legislation.
In good faith, we cannot consider these proposals today
without recognizing the implementation elephant in the room,
considering costs and staff demands of these bills with recent
policy and personnel actions. It is vital to acknowledge this
hearing comes at a time of uncertainty and widespread change.
I want to be clear, the American Legion has never shied
away from the responsibility of being a voice for veterans, and
we will not start now. To veterans listening, the Legion exists
for you. The VA exists for you. And we will continue to
advocate for an effective VA on your behalf.
On March 6, 2025, Commander LaCoursiere released a
statement expressing this sentiment and invited veterans to
share how these changes are impacting their lives. As of today,
we have received over 4,200 comments, and we look forward to
sharing the results with the Committee and will certainly flag
any mission-critical impacts we identify.
The American Legion supports many of the bills being
discussed today, having been drafted because of veteran
experience across the country. They are the results of
collaboration between the VSOs, Committee staff, and the VA. We
all have different jobs, but the same goal: to improve the
lives of servicemembers, veterans, and their families.
All of these bills are worthy of continued discussion, but
the big challenge will be forecasting how their implementation
will, if passed, be successful. The recent policy and personnel
actions make it more important than ever for veterans service
organizations to be a part of the legislative and regulatory
process, and we look forward to this Committee's inclusion of
Legionnaires' voices. The American Legion has spoken with
Secretary Collins, senior VA personnel, and Legionnaires on the
ground about the need for more transparency in the methodology
of these changes and plans to mitigate potential impacts.
We believe the voice of our membership can provide crucial
feedback to ensure no veteran goes without the care they need,
when they need it, to provide veterans the care they have
earned, keep veterans off the streets, and most importantly,
keep them from spiraling into a critical mass of despair that
drives them to make an irreversible decision.
This is the American Legion's number one priority for a
reason. The values and habits the military instills do not
disappear when we transition out. Eight percent of companies in
the S&P 500 are led by CEOs who served; 9.1 percent of U.S.
small businesses are veteran-owned, generating $1 trillion in
annual receipts and employing 5 million Americans; 25 percent,
roughly, of Federal employees are veterans, with more than half
a million employed by agencies around the world. Further,
according to the Department of Labor, veterans make up 10
percent of emergency medical technicians, 19 percent of
firefighters, and 25 percent of police officers.
Veterans have shown a willingness to donate their time and
money to aid disaster relief, mentorship, and other community-
based programs. In short, whether in public service, the
private sector, or volunteerism, veterans continue to display
unwavering dedication to their families, communities, states,
and indeed the country, long after they leave the service.
Cultivated during service, a veteran's unique set of skills
continues to pay tangible dividends to the American people. But
perhaps more importantly, servicemembers experience shared
adversity in pursuit of common goals from the moment they
arrive at boot camp to the day they get out, learning to work
together regardless of race, religion, or socioeconomic
background. They are bound together by an esprit de corps that
sheds preconceived notions and biases, forcing them to work as
a team.
Without the ability to look beyond our differences and work
together, the U.S. military would crumble. Government leaders
from both sides of the aisle would do well to emulate this
mentality, honoring the service of our Nation's veterans to
ensure they continue thriving. America will undoubtedly be
better for it.
Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, for the sake of
time, more detailed and thorough responses can be found within
our written testimony, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyle appears on pages 103-
121 of the Appendix.]
Chairman Moran. Mr. Lyle, thank you very much. Ms. Haycock-
Lohmann, you are recognized. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ASHLYNNE HAYCOCK-LOHMANN, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT AND
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, TRAGEDY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR SURVIVORS
Ms. Haycock-Lohmann. Thank you. Chairman Moran, Ranking
Member Blumenthal, and distinguished Committee members, the
Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors is grateful for the
opportunity to testify today on behalf of the more than 120,000
surviving families TAPS is honored to serve.
TAPS strongly supports the Love Lives On Act, and we thank
Chairman Moran, Senator Warnock, and our 22 original co-
sponsors for reintroducing one of our top legislative
priorities. Under current law, surviving spouses must wait
until the age of 55 to remarry or they lose most of their
benefits.
The average of the surviving spouse in this era is between
25 and 35 years old, forcing them to wait decades to remarry
and retain their benefits. Just over 500,000 surviving spouses
receive benefits through the VA, but barely 35,000 of them are
under the age of 55. That is less than 7 percent. Of those
35,000 surviving spouses, only 5 percent of them have chosen to
legally remarry.
But this is more than just a numbers issue. The Love Lives
On Act is equally about keeping our promise to our veterans.
When a servicemember takes the oath of office, they are making
the ultimate commitment, signing a blank check that is payable
with their very life. In return, our government makes an
unbreakable promise that if something happens to them due to
that service, their spouse and children will be taken care of.
Period. There was never a caveat that the commitment would end
because their spouse chose to find happiness again. Honor and
sacrifice do not come with an expiration date, and neither
should our Nation's support. This is deeply personal to every
single widow and widower who has accepted a folded flag.
This impacts survivors like Marcie, from Kansas, who is
waiting to remarry but was expelled from her church for living
with her fiance, forcing her to choose between financial
stability and rebuilding her life.
This impacts survivors like Kaanan, from Louisiana, who did
remarry because she wanted her five children to know that she
chose love over money, but is now viewed as her children's
fiduciary, not their parent, in the eyes of the law.
This impacts survivors like Rebecca, from North Carolina,
who never had the chance to start a family with her late
husband but chose to remarry because the sanctity of marriage
and having her son in wedlock mattered to her.
This impacts survivors like Linda, from Texas, who
remarried after 55, and is allowed to keep her benefits.
These are surviving spouses who have lived through the
unimaginable loss of their soulmate, and are choosing a chance
at happiness. They are more than just data points. All they are
asking for is the right to choose how they move forward and
pick up the broken pieces of their lives.
TAPS strongly supports the Caring for Survivors Act, and
thanks Ranking Member Blumenthal and Senator Boozman for
reintroducing this important bill. Raising DIC to 55 percent of
the compensation rate paid to 100 percent disabled veterans
will increase DIC by an average of $454 per month and provide
long-overdue parity with other Federal survivor benefits.
More than half a million survivors receive DIC from the VA.
The current monthly base rate is $1,653, but has only been
increased by COLA since 1993. As surviving spouse of Kansas,
Katie Hubbard, states, ``Increasing DIC would allow me to
afford groceries and childcare, medical expenses, and home and
car maintenance while just trying to survive.''
It is time we fixed this inequity. Our nation's surviving
families should not be receiving less than their civilian
counterparts.
TAPS strongly supports the Veterans Claims Act, and thanks
Senator Boozman for his leadership on this critical issue.
Since the passage of the PACT Act, TAPS has seen an influx of
predatory claims consultants targeting survivors. With over
30,000 additional survivors now eligible for benefits,
increased regulatory oversight is crucial to ensuring that
these survivors receive adequate representation throughout the
VA claims process.
TAPS is not an accredited veterans service organization
because current regulations require VSOs to serve any veteran
or survivor who requests their assistance. Instead, TAPS'
mission is dedicated to supporting all those who lost a loved
one due to military service, and we would be honored to become
accredited and make the process easier for them. But to be
clear, TAPS has never, and will never, charge for our services.
As the leading voice for the families of those who died as
a result of illness connected to toxic exposure, TAPS led
efforts to pass the bipartisan PACT Act, but we know that work
is far from done. TAPS strongly supports the Aviation Cancers
Examination Study Act and thanks Senators Cotton and Kelly for
reintroducing this critical legislation to address the
prevalence and mortality of cancer among the military aviation
community.
Finally, TAPS would like to express our support for the
Veterans Assuring Critical Care Expansion to Support
Servicemembers Act, and the VA Accountability and Whistleblower
Protection Act. We thank you, Chairman Moran, for your
leadership on both of these important issues.
TAPS appreciates the opportunity to testify today, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Haycock-Lohmann appears on
pages 122-145 of the Appendix.]
Chairman Moran. Thank you very much. Mr. Murray.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK MURRAY, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE
SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Murray. Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and
Members of the Committee, on behalf of the men and women of the
VFW and its Auxiliary, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to speak on these subjects.
On accountability, the VFW fully agrees the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs should have the ability to remove bad
employees from their roles. However, we do not want to see its
authority used to arbitrarily remove competent and capable
employees simply as a cost-cutting measure. Reduction-in-force
efforts should not be bluntly used to satisfy an arbitrary
budget goal. VA should always be fully staffed with competent
and capable employees to serve the men and women who have
earned their health care and benefits.
VA has recently dismissed more than 2,400 employees.
Nowhere in these messages did these actions explain what
warranted them. Members on this Committee regularly say VA
needs to weed out the bad actors, but the dismissal of these
employees was not done because it was warranted, instead, it
was done because it was easy. Before this Committee advances
this bill, we believe there should be proper oversight to
ensure the men and women who serve our veterans, caregivers,
and survivors are not being arbitrarily removed from their
crucial roles.
The VFW supports the ACCESS Act, which would provide
overall enhancements to the VA Community Care Program. Since
the passage of the MISSION Act, VA has not implemented this
program consistently across this entire network. Veterans
deserve consistency in their care, and this is a good step
toward providing that. While this proposal does not address VA
direct care, we would be remiss not to remind this Committee
that some of the reasons community care appointments and costs
are increasing is because VA cannot provide some of these vital
services. Care in the community is VA care, but providing
resources for care only in the community and not also for VA
direct care can lead to a less capable VA, which could be
detrimental.
VA direct care and community care can complement each other
to provide a full suite of services for veterans. Often, CCN is
used to relieve the burden of care, but providing additional
resources to only one side of that will exacerbate these
problems. We urge this Committee to fund community care
improvements but also continue to improve the direct care, so
this ``pressure relief valve'' is not overused.
The VFW supports the draft bill, VA Claims Act of 2025, as
written. We appreciate the Committee's efforts to provide a
compromise that provides necessary protections and allows for
the expansion of accreditation to certain individuals who seek
to provide claims assistance per a reasonable fee. This bill
provides necessary guardrails for claims preparation and
preserves veterans' choice when seeking a reasonable, free
market alternative to the current process.
The VFW has expressed our red lines regarding any
comprehensive bill put forth seeking our support. Veterans
should not have to pay future benefits. Active-duty
servicemembers should not have to pay for claims assistance
prior to transition. And no one who prepares a claim should
have any financial affiliation with medical examiners who could
possibly affect the outcome of that claim. We believe these are
commonsense concerns that we insist be in any bill that is
advanced, and we are grateful the Committee has listened to our
feedback and produced that exact bill.
To the VFW, this has never been about money. Accredited
agents and attorneys can make a healthy living operating within
the ethical confines of the established non-predatory fee
structure.
When payment comes from retroactive benefits, it is hard to
consider predatory since the veteran is guaranteed to be able
to settle that debt. Putting veterans in debt for accessing
their earned benefits is wrong, and we are grateful this
Committee agrees with that.
We would also recommend that this Committee consider a
reasonable fee cap added to this structure. We do not have a
specific amount to suggest. However, we would ask the Committee
to consider the factors contained within 38 CFR when making
that determination.
Chairman Moran and Ranking Member Blumenthal, this
concludes my testimony. I am prepared to answer any questions
you or the Members of the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murray appears on pages 146-
157 of the Appendix.]
Chairman Moran. Thank you very much [audio interruption] in
testifying before our Committee and following our work.
I have been working on key provisions of the ACCESS Act
over two Congresses now, and I am particularly burdened by the
VA's classification of mental health residential rehabilitation
programs for veterans who require a higher level of mental
health and addiction care. It is my view the VA should rely on
the Commission for Accreditation and Rehabilitation Facilities
and Joint Commission Accredited Programs in the community to
deliver this critical care closer to veterans' homes and close
to their support systems.
Could any or all of you describe for the Committee how this
negatively is impacting veterans your organizations work with,
and by this I mean the VA's positions or actions in regard to
residential care for those services. Mr. Murray?
Mr. Murray. Mr. Chairman, my wife went through this
program. About a couple of years ago she was trying to get into
one of these facilities that she found on her own, that
provided the exact care that she was looking for. Three
different times she was referred. Three different times those
referrals were rescinded. They tried to send her to VA
facilities that did not offer the services they wanted. They
were all-male facilities, or they were for substance abuse, but
that is not what she was looking for, or they were for eating
disorders, but that is not what she was looking for. She found
the one, but it was outside of Optum's third-party
administrator network, so it got denied again.
RRTPs, are, we believe, something that can actually save
lives. When veterans reach out and ask for that help, they
cannot get turned away because they might not come back again.
That is why these improvements are very important.
Chairman Moran. Thank you for your answer to your question
and your personal experience relayed to us. Again, I have been
broadly interested in community care for a long time, but this
particular issue strikes me as one in which it is life and
death. And we have heard and seen, in testimony after
testimony, and stories related to me by veterans and their
families, how important it is for that residential treatment
facility, and yet the VA is unwilling to provide that.
Either of you want to say anything more about that, or have
we got it covered?
Mr. Lyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just echo Pat's
comments and yours, that this is a crucial piece of the ACCESS
Act that will save lives.
Chairman Moran. Thank you. Ashlynne?
Ms. Haycock-Lohmann. I would also add that these are
lifesaving measures, that TAPS sees a very large number of
survivors who come to us that lost their loved one to suicide.
My mother is an Air Force veteran who died by suicide when I
was in college. But we were under the TRICARE system, and when
she wanted mental health treatment, she was able to get
inpatient fairly easily, even if it was outside of the official
providers through DoD. Of course, it did not, unfortunately,
save her life, but she was able to get that access that she
needed, when she asked for it. And we know that it is a very
different system for our veterans, and ensuring that they have
access to that means that more families are not coming to us,
and we do not ever want to have another family need to come to
TAPS.
Chairman Moran. Thank you, all three of you.
Mr. Lyle, thanks to you for the American Legion's support
of the Veterans ACCESS Act. I appreciate your acknowledgement
that failure to codify the existing community care standards,
as a minimum access standard, leaves them vulnerable to changes
that make it more difficult for veterans to understand their
rights under the MISSION Act. And clearly in recent times it
has been difficult, in too many instances, for veterans to be
told that their capability of finding or pursuing care in the
community. Under the MISSION Act, you indicate there is
potential for adding inconsistency and the VA staff working on
the program.
So I just wanted you to elaborate a minute about how
codifying the access standards benefit veterans and make it
easier for VA staff to understand and deliver that care in the
community.
Mr. Lyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, we have seen
evidence since the MISSION Act passed, because it was
regulatory and not codified in statute, that at the VISN and
the local VAMC level, you are right, there is a wide variety of
education efforts at those levels to inform veterans of their
options, and even if they are informed, oftentimes veterans can
get denied the referral or shortened on the authorization
approved time for community care. And it is vital to codify
these access standards so that the veterans' decision with
their provider is the number one priority, and the veteran
remains the center of what VA does.
Chairman Moran. Thank you. And Mr. Murray, I will not leave
you out. The VFW seems especially strong in its support for the
ACCESS Act. Again, I am pleased by that.
You have a story, though, in your written testimony about a
VFW member who gave up on seeking residential care from the VA
because the program this veteran needed was not in a VA
network. If you want to provide our office with more
information, we would be glad to be an advocate for that
veteran.
Mr. Murray. That was my wife.
Chairman Moran. Oh, it is your wife. So it is the same
story that you just described.
Mr. Murray. The same story. She was provided a referral to
a facility that was, I think the first one was in Utah, in the
VA network but under TriWest. We live in Maryland. It was
denied. She worked with someone else at DC VA to get a referral
to a facility I believe in either Arizona or New Mexico. Same
story. Nowhere could we find anywhere where, in law, it said
that.
We ended up trying to navigate the system and found
somewhere in Pennsylvania, but that was after, as I mentioned,
being referred to eating disorder clinics or substance abuse,
or things like that, and that is not what she was looking for.
Chairman Moran. And part of the reason this residential
programming is so important is for the location to be
approximate to where the veteran, his or her family, his or her
support system lives, and none of those places seem to close to
Maryland, to me.
Mr. Murray. No, they were not. But what we learned about
going through this is some of these facilities are secluded by
design. You know, you do not want one right across the street
here, next to Union Station. That is not the best environment
for some of that healing.
Chairman Moran. There is a medical and a care reason that
it is that way.
Mr. Murray. Yes. That is why when we talked about different
access standards for the RRTPs, they should probably be thought
about a little bit differently than the standard mental health,
because they are designed to be away from population centers
for the healing purposes. You know, the same drive time and
wait time standards may not be apples to apples with that same
type of mental health care.
Chairman Moran. I do not want my staff to hear this, but
thank you for educating me in something I did not know. I am
sure they told me and it did not register.
Finally, in this regard, the VFW recommends that the ACCESS
Act be amended to prohibit barriers to accessing community
programs, and I quote, ``available and commonly tailored to
veterans,'' end quote. What are you telling us?
Mr. Murray. Mostly it is falling back to that story. We
have heard from veterans who have tried to access, not just my
wife but others, who have tried to access care, and are denied
for seemingly arbitrary reasons. The standards are the
standards. That is why we support codifying them. They have
been the standard for half a dozen years. We want to make this
as easily accessible to veterans as possible so there is
transparency and they know. We believe that community care is a
great supplement to VA care, when used consistently and
appropriately.
Chairman Moran. Got it. Excuse me for asking the same
question of the same facts three times. Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Murray and all the members of the
panel, thank you for your service. Mr. Murray, in particular, I
understand that you are making a transition, and we will miss
you here if, in fact, you will be going on to another chapter.
But you have contributed immensely, and we thank you for your
service on the VFW.
Just to follow up the question that you were just asked.
Are you, or any of the others, in favor of substituting
community care for VA health care, in other words, privatizing
the VA?
Mr. Lyle. Thank you, Ranking Member Blumenthal. I think
community care is VA care. VA pays for it. VA is supposed to
coordinate it. It is a vital tool that the VA can use to ensure
we do not have another wait-list scandal like we did in 2014 in
Phoenix. There are certainly improvements to be made, I think
particularly in scheduling. We hear from veterans they like the
care that they receive at VA. Oftentimes it is a one-stop shop
for them. They like the care they receive in the community.
Oftentimes they are frustrated by the referral and scheduling
process. So I think that is another reason the American Legion
has supported the ACCESS Act, because it seeks--and a couple of
these bills--because it seeks to improve that particular
capability of the care coordination.
Senator Blumenthal. They are frustrated by delays in
community care, just as they are in VA health care, and they
should be given quicker care in both. Correct?
Mr. Lyle. You know, across the country there is a common
saying we have all heard, I am sure, that you have been to one
VA, you have been to one VA. There are experiences that vary.
Some VAs have really good community care referral processes.
Others do not. Some have the ability to absorb the demand in
their catchment area. Others do not, and see a higher level of
referrals into the community.
But you are absolutely correct. There are improvements to
be made in both areas, and a lot of veterans are happy with
both areas.
Senator Blumenthal. And they should be complementary.
Mr. Lyle. Absolutely.
Senator Blumenthal. Privatizing VA health care.
Mr. Lyle. It should serve as a relief----
Senator Blumenthal. Heads nodding, so I am going to take
that as a yes.
Let me ask you. Have any of you or your organizations met
with Secretary Collins about the plan to fire 80,000 or more VA
workers?
Mr. Lyle. We have met with Secretary Collins. That was
prior to the memo being released. But since that time we have
been in contact with the Secretary's office.
Senator Blumenthal. You have been in contact?
Mr. Lyle. Yes, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. And what have you told him?
Mr. Lyle. We just requested that during this review
process, before May--I understand that they are supposed to do
their full internal review before May, publish a report in June
that recommends the reduction-in-force by the end of the fiscal
year--we absolutely wanted to have the Legionnaires' voices
heard in that process, to ensure that there were no cuts in
mission-critical capabilities for health care or benefits at
the VA. So we expressed our desire to provide that feedback,
and we are happy to work with this Committee on that issue.
Mr. Murray. Senator Blumenthal, we saw some of the impacts
for the 2,400 that were dismissed in the past few weeks. We are
concerned that 80-some thousand will also have impacts on care
and benefits. We expressed that to the Secretary. He assured us
that it will not, but we are skeptical, because of what we saw
already.
We know that there are ways to improve this via technology,
other ways to make improvements at VA. But there needs to be a
plan in place first. As we heard in the first panel, they are
going to develop a plan, but they already started letting
people go. A plan should not be the fourth step in the process.
It should probably be the first. That is what we want to see.
We want to see transparency in this. We want to make sure that
no decisions are being made that have unintended consequences.
That is what we want to make sure of.
Senator Blumenthal. Ms. Haycock-Lohmann?
Ms. Haycock-Lohmann. We have not met with the Secretary
yet.
Senator Blumenthal. You know, your Commander in Chief, Al
Lipphardt, was probably the most powerful critic, I have heard,
in his testimony, and your organization in its statements. Stop
the bleeding. Use a scalpel to extract the shrapnel, as was
done for Mr. Lipphardt when he was wounded in combat. Do not
cut off the arm. That is what we are seeing here, a chainsaw
cutting off the arm. I am asking both of your organizations, no
matter how you talk to Secretary Collins, to be as vocal and
vociferous as you possibly can be, because it is your voices
and faces that will make the difference, not ours. We can be as
vehement as can be, but at the end of the day it is our
veterans who have to save VA health care, VA benefits, the PACT
Act. And I am just telling it straight to you.
Mr. Lyle. Sir, if I may follow up real quick. In our
opening remarks I wanted to highlight that our National
Commander released a statement. That included a survey to allow
Legionnaires and veterans, their families, to provide feedback
on any impacts that may have occurred to them or their
immediate family as a result of recent policy personnel
actions. As of this morning, I think we received 4,200,
approximately, responses, with a response rate of 60 percent
said no impact, and the other 40 percent at least had minimal
impact. And we are still in the process of sifting through that
data. Some of it is hard to frankly tell if it is a result of
normal VA issues versus this specific issue, but we are happy
to follow up with you and provide that feedback.
Senator Blumenthal. I would appreciate your following up. I
have not submitted my questionnaire yet, as a member of the
Legion, but I will make a point of doing so. And let me just
point out, these cuts are literally occurring in real time. It
will be days, maybe weeks, before you see an impact. That New
York Times story is capturing the initial impacts. Again, to
analogize it to the combat wound suffered by Mr. Lipphardt,
this is the point in the wound where it has just been inflicted
and you have yet to see the shock, the bleeding, and the
effects in real life, but they are occurring in real time.
So your questionnaire may fail to adequately capture the
impact, not to mention the 80,000 who have not been fired yet.
And so far as I can determine from you, and from the prior
testimony, there is no plan. And Mr. Murray is absolutely
right. It should be plan first, fire later, not fire first and
aim later, plan later.
Let me ask each of you. I have described very briefly in
outline form the legislation that I am introducing, Putting
Veterans First. I do not know whether you were here when I
outlined it, but I am going to ask for your reaction,
essentially requiring that all veterans who have been fired
from their Federal employment be restored to their positions,
all veterans, regardless of the agency, and all VA employees,
whether or not they are veterans, a standard for termination in
the future that involves analysis of performance, not just
taking the probationary workers and firing them. A standard and
a process for appeal, mental health services, respect for
spouses and survivors, and restore them, as well, to
employment. I think that will be important to your
organizations. Maybe you can give me some initial reactions.
Mr. Murray. Senator, we would be happy to take a look at
that when you produce a draft for that, and we will follow up
with your staff. But hopefully that will let us know who they
actually let go and what they all did, so we can start talking
about who needs to come back. That is part of the unknowns
right now, who the employees were, what their roles were, and
what they are looking at. That would be very helpful.
Ms. Haycock-Lohmann. I echo what Pat said. We really do
want to take a look at it, but also figuring out if that gives
us access to who was let go and what the impacts were, what
agencies. That is the critical piece that we feel like we have
been missing in this entire process. We hear numbers, but we
are not seeing the exact data of what departments, what
decisions, what agencies, what contracts were terminated, the
things that we really need to see all of the information before
making a decision on.
Senator Blumenthal. And I should make clear that the
legislation will include military spouses and survivors.
Ms. Haycock-Lohmann. Fantastic. Thank you.
Mr. Lyle. Thank you, sir. First of all, I love the name,
Putting Veterans First, but similar, we would have to review
the legislation. We are a resolution-based organization, to
ensure that we are aligned on that piece of legislation.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, I hope for your support, and
equally, I hope for your constructive suggestions, if you think
there are ways to improve it. We are trying to be as
comprehensive as possible. There are a lot of different ideas
floating around, a lot of different legislation with good-
sounding names. We want this to be not just good sounding but
effective.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask, if
there is no objection, that a series of letters from some of
our labor organizations, partners like the Fraternal Order of
Police, be submitted to the record.
Chairman Moran. Without objection.
[The letters referred to appear on pages 172-174 of the
Appendix.]
Chairman Moran. Senator Blumenthal, anything else?
Senator Blumenthal. That is it.
Chairman Moran. I am going to ask one more question, and
this time Ms. Haycock-Lohmann, a couple of questions. Thanks
for the work you do. You are a surviving child yourself, and
your work is important. I thank you for your help that you
provided to me and Senator Warnock in getting pieces of the
Love Lives On Act across the finish line last Congress.
Since its original introduction last Congress, can you talk
about how many surviving spouses have come forward to speak
about why this bill is needed, especially those that have
previously been scared to speak out, or getting remarried for
fear of being penalized.
Ms. Haycock-Lohmann. Yes. So passage of the Dole Act really
was absolutely changing the way that survivors felt comfortable
speaking about moving forward after their loss. One of the
provisions in there, Section 303, basically stated that a
surviving spouse was a spouse who had not remarried or held
oneself out to be married, which was a very arbitrary clause
that led to people turning them in for living with another
person or sharing a joint bank account, or having a child out
of wedlock. Anyone could have just turned them in for whatever
reason, and unfortunately, VA's response to that is to
essentially turn off their benefits and then open an
investigation, where they sent people into your home and your
community. They interview your employer, your children's
teachers, your neighbors, and tell them you are being
investigated for Federal fraud.
So they have so much fear about someone turning them in for
no reason, despite the fact that they were living with a new
significant other.
The passage of Section 303 in the Dole Act means that
nobody is going to be living through these weird witch hunts
ever again, and that they can at least be open about the
relationship they are in, while we wait to pass the rest of the
Love Lives On Act, and the provisions that, you know, we know
so many more surviving spouses will chose remarriage once we
pass more of the financial pieces.
But we were also hearing heavily from the surviving spouses
who have remarried that are trying to use the education
benefits now, that they are excited to get their military ID
cards back in October, when that goes into effect.
So already such a huge impact on the community, and they
are very excited to continue to work. And I am sure many of the
congressional offices whose staff are in here have been on the
receiving end of many emails about the importance of this,
because we are hearing from thousands of survivors who are very
active, very engaged, and are really excited to see the rest of
this move, but grateful for all of the things we have already
accomplished.
Chairman Moran. Would you point out, remind me, remind the
Committee, why there has been pushback and concern that we have
heard from some that if a survivor remarries they no longer,
quote, ``need'' to receive certain benefits from the VA and
DoD, since their so-called contract with the government has
been fulfilled. Who says those kinds of things, and what is the
consequence?
Ms. Haycock-Lohmann. The pushback has primarily been from
the Armed Services Committee. They seem to not agree
necessarily with the amazing work you guys have done over here.
That has just been. I am not quite sure why they feel that way,
but the part that they are missing is that surviving spouses
are military spouses first. You know, we talk so much,
extensively, about military spouse under- and unemployment. It
is one of the biggest problems in the military community. It
impacts recruitment and retention. And surviving spouses were
military spouses first.
So they are making that transition. They have now lost
their spouse. Many of them have young children that they have
to raise. They do not have an established career. And then all
of a sudden they are starting over at 40, 45 years old, after
raising their children, in an entry-level career. They view
that military retirement as the family's retirement. Most
military spouses will never invest in their own retirement, and
that goes the same for surviving spouses. Survivor benefit
plan, in particular, over at DoD is a purchased annuity, in
most cases. So this is something the family bought into but we
are breaking our promise by saying yes, you bought this
program, but we are not going to let you keep that benefit.
Chairman Moran. You heard me question the Department of
Veterans Affairs officials about the slowness and then the debt
collection. Anything you want me to know why that should
matter, why that is a valid question?
Ms. Haycock-Lohmann. The biggest problem that we see there
is that a surviving spouse, when they remarry and turn in that
paperwork, believes that if they have turned the paperwork in,
they have done their due diligence. We know that survivors tend
to be uneducated on their own benefits, especially if they have
children in the home and there are portions that are the
spouse's portion, the children's portion. It is all comingled.
And so they believe if they turn in their paperwork that the VA
will stop their portion of the benefits, and whatever continues
to be sent to them is their children's portion.
They do not ask the right questions because they trust that
the VA has done the right thing in that regard. And then, all
of a sudden, they get these debt letters, stating, ``We never
processed your paperwork,'' or ``It took us two years to
process your paperwork,'' or ``You never notified us,'' and
that they are wanting that money back. But what it comes down
to, they trust that the VA, if they turn their paperwork in to
the VA, they have done the right thing, and then they get these
huge debt checks, because they do go back into the queue. There
is not a button somebody pushes, okay, they remarried--click.
It goes back into being processed, and it can take months and
years. We have seen cases take three to four years, where the
survivors have had to fight to get them to turn it off. And
oftentimes they do not have the money to immediately repay
those benefits.
Chairman Moran. Senator Blumenthal, for your final
question.
Senator Blumenthal. Yes, I do not have a question. I just
have a thanks, again, to each of you. I neglected, Mr. Lyle, to
mention my thanks for your work on military working dogs,
service dogs, which has been exemplary and very important to
the Committee and to me, personally. We still have work to do.
And Ms. Haycock-Lohmann, you have been at this advocacy for
quite a number of years after losing your parents, who I know
are still very much in your memory. But the issue of veteran
suicide still needs to be addressed, and I know you are
continuing that advocacy.
And again, to Mr. Murray, my thanks to you for your
longstanding service.
I want to thank the VA, members of the previous panel, who
have stayed. Mr. Engelbaum, thank you for remaining. I want the
record to reflect that he and Mr. Montoya and others have
stayed to listen to you, and I hope that they will listen to
our veterans. And again, I hope our veterans will be vocal in
their advocacy. Thank you.
Chairman Moran. Senator Blumenthal, thank you. There are no
other questions, so I want to once again, as Senator Blumenthal
did, thank our witnesses, in this case our second panel of
witnesses, the three of you, and for our audience and their
presence here, as well. It is always nice to see the VA
witnesses stay to hear the next panel that follows them.
And I, too, want to express my gratitude and thank you to
Patrick Murray for his significant contribution to the VFW, and
more broadly to veterans across the country. I hold veterans--I
do not know what the level you can have, but the highest regard
for people who served our country. And maybe there is just a
slight increase in that respect for veterans who serve other
veterans. And there is absolutely no question that you, in your
career, and the things that you have been doing for the VFW
have been hugely valuable to me and my team, but more
importantly, hugely valued to your comrades in arms. And just
great gratitude and best wishes as the next step occurs.
Senator Blumenthal. Semper Fi.
Chairman Moran. Senator Blumenthal never--yes, that is a
good idea.
[Applause.]
Chairman Moran. I had this contest with the Senator from
Montana, Senator Tester, about who always got the last word in,
and Senator Blumenthal, unfortunately, has picked up this
habit. It is me.
[Laughter.]
Senator Blumenthal. You have just gotten the last word.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Moran. Well, not if you keep saying that.
So again, while we move to lighter things, I do not want
that to take away from the seriousness of the compliment and
the seriousness of the best wishes and the gratitude that was
expressed by everybody in this room. You represent a very
important and valuable ally for veterans and for this
Committee, and thank you for your service.
The Committee--well, let me say a few other things.
Chairman Moran. I look forward to working with my
colleagues in the VSO community and the VA as we try to move
these bills forward. Senators who would like to submit
questions for the record to today's witnesses, or make an
additional statement, have a week to do so. And our witnesses,
please we would ask you to respond to those questions from my
colleagues in a very timely manner.
This is the first legislative hearing we have had in the
new Administration, but we have had lots of challenges over a
long period of time in getting quick responses to our
colleagues and to our requests from our staff. So another thing
you can take to the VA, we would appreciate timely action on
the part of the Department.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:04 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Hearing Agenda
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statements
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Submissions for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Questions for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statements for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]