Legislative Hearing on: H.R. 1004

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, everyone. Thank you all for being here today and for holding this hearing. Looks like we got a full agenda, so I'm going to get right into things today, but just want to start by highlighting a few of the bills we're going to be hearing. I want to start by highlighting a bill from Representative Subramanyan, which is the Susan E. Lukas 9/11 Servicemember Fairness Act. I also want to recognize Susan herself, who I understand is with us here today. Thank you so much for your service, for your sacrifice, for being here. There you are. For being here and for, you know, for your bravery for the men and women alongside you that day. September 11th is a day that for those of us who were here will never forget. I can tell you what the temperature was like that day in the city where I was. And it brought our country together in a way that I don't think we see much right now. Everyone was focused on how we help each other out. You are emblematic of that. Of course, it did lead to two wars that lasted 20 years. That created millions of veterans. And so we now have to take care of those veterans on this committee. Thankfully, we have the PACT Act and other laws that are addressing a lot of exposure to toxic substances and addressing the particular needs of this new generation of veterans. But one of those groups is the servicemembers now, the veterans themselves, who were at the Pentagon that day. Who were at the Pentagon when it was struck. And they didn't get the attention, they didn't get the care, they don't have the same resources that other people exposed to toxic substances received, even though there was jet fuel and fire foam and everything else dripping from the walls in the Pentagon that day. So I'm glad to see that H.R. 5339 is here, is going to move out of this committee across the House floor, and ultimately we need to make sure this becomes law so we fix this glaring gap in coverage for people. We've also learned that some illnesses don't show up until years after someone is exposed. That's especially true for servicemembers exposed to radiation during their service. And that's why I'm really glad we're taking up Representative Titus's PRESUME Act today. It is a very straightforward bill. It's a straightforward way to make sure that radiation-exposed veterans can actually access the care and the benefits they've earned. Honestly, it's heartbreaking when you hear these stories and see the illnesses from veterans at the Nevada Test and Training Range that they're dealing with. And hopefully we can move this bill forward, finally get them those benefits. Their counterparts at the Department of Energy already receive these protections, so I think it only makes sense that our veterans receive the same level of protection. Today on the agenda we also have Ranking Member Takano's FRAUD in the VA Disability Exam Act, which tries to crack down on a familiar enemy of this committee, which is claim sharks and the disability benefits questionnaires mills. I'm also pleased that today we're discussing H.R. 7620, the National Cemetery Administration Annual Report of 2026 from Representative Mackenzie, a bill I'm happy to co-lead with him. This bill, simply put, it's good governance. Actually, when they came to me with the bill, I said, "They don't already do this?" And it requires the National Cemetery Administration to provide Congress with an annual report with basic statistical information about their activities and grants in the prior year and the projections for the year ahead. Now, I have absolutely no reason to believe that the NCA is doing anything other than amazing work, but if there is an agency in the entire federal government that is 100 percent mission-focused and dedicated to the families it serves, it's the NCA. That said, having a straightforward annual report to keep this committee and the American people informed, it just makes sense. It helps us do our job, it helps make sure taxpayer dollars are being used the right way, and I appreciate Representative Mackenzie for working on this important bill and making sure that it's done in the bipartisan way our veterans deserve. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. We've got a full agenda, but the agenda seems focused on what the committee does, which is making sure our veterans, we honor the promise we made to our veterans for their service to us. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McGarvey. I respectfully request and ask that each member hold their statements to three minutes. In accordance with committee rules, I ask unanimous consent that the following members be permitted to participate in today's subcommittee hearing: Representative Turner from Ohio, Representative Titus from Nevada, Representative Hudson from North Carolina, Representative Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania, Representative Evans from Colorado, Representative Mackenzie from Pennsylvania, and Representative Subramanyan from Virginia. Without objection, so ordered. It is our practice that we will forego a round of questioning for the members. I will now recognize the members for their testimony. Mr. Turner, you're now recognized, sir.

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

Thank you, sir. Ms. Titus, you're recognized for three minutes.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McGarvey, members of the committee. I appreciate very much being allowed to sit in with you today to talk about the PRESUME Act. In Nevada's 1st Congressional District, I hear every day from veterans who served honorably, returned home expecting to get fair treatment, and instead have encountered unnecessary barriers to the care and benefits they earned. Now, among them are atomic veterans, our Cold Warriors, and servicemembers who worked at the Nevada Test Site and Training Range. These are individuals whose missions were so highly classified that their presence has been effectively erased, even as they were exposed to toxic radiation. For decades, these veterans have suffered from cancers, pulmonary conditions, and other serious illnesses while being told by the system that they were never there because their records have been masked or buried behind classification. We know the military promises to leave no soldier behind, and Congress must live up to that same commitment. That's why I introduced the PRESUME Act, H.R. 4469. It would eliminate the unjust and nearly impossible requirement that atomic veterans prove a certain radiation dose before accessing VA benefits. Veterans were often exposed without their knowledge, and today they're asked to provide documentation that is controlled entirely by the government. This data has historically been incomplete, been unreliable, or been told, "Well, that was probably destroyed in the fire in St. Louis in '73." When the government controls all the evidence, veterans shouldn't bear the burden of proving the impossible. The PRESUME Act would remove those bureaucratic barriers and bring fairness and parity to radiation-exposed veterans. This bill has been endorsed by the Disabled American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, National Association of Atomic Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and other veterans groups. Now, there are only a few hundred of these atomic veterans left, so we need to act now before it's too late. These men and women played a critical role in securing our victory in the Cold War, but it was at great personal cost and with little public recognition. So it's past time that we honor their service. As we continue to build on the success of the PACT Act, I urge the committee to keep veterans who were in these atomic situations front and center. Their service was extraordinary, their sacrifice was honorable, and their delay in receiving care is just unconscionable. We can't change the past, but we can ensure that there's a future rooted in dignity, transparency, and justice. So I thank you for your attention to this and I urge you to include it in keeping those atomic veterans in mind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Titus. Mr. Fitzpatrick, sir, you're recognized for three minutes.

Thank the chair and the ranking member for allowing me to speak today on my legislation, H.R. 1685, the Justice for ALS Veterans Act. Mr. Chair, Mr. Ranking Member, this is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that ensures that surviving spouses of veterans who pass away due to ALS receive the full benefits that they have earned. As we all know, ALS is a fast-moving, aggressive, and fatal disease, and our veterans are twice as likely to be diagnosed compared to the general population. With an average life expectancy of only two to five years after diagnosis, our ALS veterans often do not survive long enough to meet the eight-year requirement for dependency and indemnity compensation, leaving their families without this benefit after their loved one passes away. Denying a surviving spouse of benefits because their loved one didn't live long enough to meet an arbitrary requirement, I believe, is a betrayal to our commitment of those who served. The Justice for ALS Veterans Act rights this wrong and ensures that the families of our brave servicemembers receive the support that they need and that they have earned. There is much more work to be done to accelerate research and treatment access for ALS veterans, and it's imperative that we close this loophole that has prevented surviving families from obtaining this support. So I want to thank this committee for allowing us to raise this issue of ALS that does plague our veteran community twice as more frequently than the general population. I look forward to working with you all to move this legislation forward to honor all of our ALS veterans and their families. With that, I yield back.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Subramanyan, you're recognized for three minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, sir. Mr. Evans, you're recognized for three minutes.

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

Thank you, sir. Mr. Mackenzie, you're recognized for three minutes.

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

Thank you, sir. I ask that the second panel please take their seats. Mr. Self, you're recognized for three minutes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of my bill, H.R. 6698, the Board of Veterans Appeals Annual Report Transparency Act. The current law requires that Board of Veterans Appeals to issue an annual report. Within this report is a performance measure titled "Timely Appeals Modernization Act Post-Hearing Decisions." This measure reports the percentage of AMA hearing decisions with a disposition of held that may have been decided within 180 days of the hearing, a benchmark that is established by the board. Unfortunately, the report does not require the board to explain why cases fail to be decided by the 180-day goal. Veterans and VSOs do not benefit from simply knowing that an appeal has exceeded the board's 180-day goal. Congress likewise cannot effectively conduct oversight or legislate improvements without understanding the underlying causes of those untimely decisions. The same gap exists with respect to remands. Remands are necessary, but they can also be one of the most significant drivers of delay in the appeals process. Yet the board's annual report does not currently require any systematic identification of the factors leading to a remand. This bill will close that gap. Specifically, it requires the Board of Veterans Appeals to identify in its annual report the factors contributing to untimely decisions under the modernized appeals system and to quantify how frequently each factor occurs. It also requires the board to identify the causes of remands for both legacy and modern appeals, again with clear data. This is not about assigning blame; it's about identifying patterns. Are delays and remands being driven by staffing shortages, incomplete medical exams, poor record development at earlier stages, changes in law, or some other procedural bottleneck? Without this information, neither Congress nor VA can target reforms effectively. This bill does not change veterans' rights, alter the standard of review, or interfere with the board's independence. It simply asks the board to report on what is already happening using data. Let me emphasize, using data. And do so in a transparent, standardized way. Clear and transparent reporting helps identify where investments and changes will have the greatest impact so that the recent progress within the Board of Veterans Appeals can be sustained. Ultimately, veterans deserve an appeals system that is not only timely but accountable. This bill is a modest but meaningful step toward that goal. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back. Thank you, sir. Good morning, everyone. Well-traveled, I see. Thank you for joining us today. I know that the weather's not playing nice, so again, thank you for making time. Our second panel, I'll make the introductions: Mr. James McCormick, Executive Director of Government Affairs at Vietnam Veterans of America; Mr. Paul Shipley, National Commander of AMVETS; Ms. Tanya Wilson-Thomas, surviving spouse and former caregiver from the Gold Star Wives of America; and Ms. Nancy Springer, Associate Director of National Legislative Service at Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Good to see you again, Ms. Springer, as always. I ask that the panel please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Thank you, and let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. You may be seated. Mr. McCormick, sir, you are recognized for five minutes to provide your opening testimony.

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

Thank you, sir. Mr. Shipley, you're recognized for five minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, sir. Mrs. Wilson-Thomas, you're recognized for five minutes.

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

Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Springer, you're recognized for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Ms. Springer. Mr. Self, you're recognized for five minutes for your line of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCormick, I want to explore the 6698 with you. You said that it could drive real change. Can you elaborate on that?

Yes, sir. This of course is the Board of Veterans Appeals Annual Report Transparency.

Yes, sir.

Thank you very much. And what this does is it opens up an opportunity for more transparency. As we look at common sense approaches to number one, ensure that what we are doing is both monitored and overseen, we believe that an Annual Report Transparency Act of 2025 would help create that. It identifies root issues, training quality, and VVA frequently calls for appeals reform and transparency to reduce backlogs, delays affecting veterans, indirect benefits through pressure for improvements aligned with priorities and added to the workload is at risk.

Well, my real question is who benefits from this? Because we often talk about inputs here, you know, we love to set up new offices and talk about inputs. I want to know do the veterans themselves benefit from this? Because that should be the goal of what we are trying to do here.

Absolutely, I believe that is the intent here, sir, of this bill. And we believe that it would improve a level of trust in the system and also remove some additional barriers that have frequently plagued especially our generation of veterans, the Vietnam Veterans of America.

With that, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Self. Mr. Pappas, sir, you're recognized for five minutes.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to everyone on the witness panel for their testimony here today and for your service and commitment to our nation's veterans and their families. I appreciate that you all have spoken up loudly and clearly in favor of the Justice for ALS Veterans Act, and I appreciate my colleague Representative Fitzpatrick, who was here earlier to testify on behalf of that bipartisan bill that we introduced together. And Mrs. Wilson-Thomas, thank you for relating your own personal experience. I'm sorry for your loss, and I appreciate the way you talked about the moral obligation that we have on this committee to get it right for survivors and for families who have sacrificed so much for this great country. We know specifically with ALS that it's a devastating progressive disease. It affects veterans at a rate twice the rate of the general population, and we're learning more about ALS, but there's still so much we don't know about the disease, no known cause and certainly no cure for it. So veterans with ALS and their families deserve greater understanding and the kind of benefits that we strive to provide on an equitable basis to all those who wear the uniform. So I think updating current VA policy to better reflect the reality faced by veterans with ALS and their families is simple common sense, and it's the right thing to do, and it's the moral thing to do. So thank you for underscoring that. Ms. Springer, I appreciate you relating the personal experience of families that have struggled with ALS, and I think the current eight-year total disability requirement for enhanced DIC benefits simply doesn't align with the medical reality faced by ALS patients and certainly their families and survivors. So I'm wondering if you can just underscore for us why maintaining that eight-year disability requirement for benefits poses harm to survivors of veterans with ALS, even though that they already have this service connection and total disability is already recognized? Why do we need to change that eight-year window?

Because actually it's fundamentally inequitable and wholly incompatible with the realities of this disease. The lifespan of an ALS patient is between two and five years, as shown by my VFW colleague Major Mulholland, who lived fewer than eight years before his death. And without recognizing that, we're putting an unattainable burden on these survivors who have suffered so much to devastating disease. Their family members frequently become full-time caregivers, giving up their jobs, giving up their financial security, and we're asking them to attain something that they just cannot. So that's why we think that that is totally incompatible with the realities of this disease and totally unfair.

Well, thank you for those comments. I do think we need to give these families compassion and understanding. I think this bill does that, and so I hope that the committee can find a way to move this forward soon. So with that, I yield back.

Thank you, sir. A vote has been called in the House. Subcommittee will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. I expect to reconvene 10 minutes after the start of the last vote. So what that means, ladies and gentlemen, is that we have to go across the street to cast our votes and we will be back as quick as possible. Okay, thank you for giving us some grace. I forgot to gavel out, now I'm gavelling back in. We're good to go. [Gavel sounds.] It's the rules, I apologize. Are you ready to go right now? Okay, I'll recognize the ranking member for his opening line of questioning.

Thank you all so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this panel here today. Mrs. Wilson-Thomas, I want to start with you. First of all, thank you for being here. Thank you for your courage throughout this whole ordeal, not just in taking care of your husband and your family, but in being here to tell us that story. I'm not sure if you've had a chance to read the VA's testimony on the Love Lives On Act right now, but I hope you did because I want to get your reaction to it. And in particular, the VA says, and I want to quote what it says here, quote, "The existing marriage restrictions help manage and allocate VA resources effectively." Now, they tried to make that sound as bland as humanly possible, but to me, that's a lot of government speak for we're going to take this away from you. And I want to know, really and truly, and again, thank you for your courage and bravery in being here, but for you, for other survivors, what does it say to you guys when the VA boils your losses down to a budgeting exercise?

Thank you for that. First of all, when it is stated as such, it really means that we have to pay more attention to on behalf of a grateful nation. If we pay attention to that statement, on behalf of a grateful nation, our sacrifices were on behalf of a grateful nation, then the VA should not state it as such, but be very specific in how we are to be, how we should have access to resources. Because really and truly, we're working diligently to try to have some semblance of normalcy, have a life, rebuild a life after the rug was pulled out from underneath ourselves and our children. So Gold Star wives and husbands, we need the support of the government to provide resources to help rebuild the life. And when we hear that stated in such a way, it makes us understand that that is not really the goal, and that is not what we want to understand about our system.

The language is seemingly bland, the impact is absolutely devastating. It's devastating. And I appreciate you sharing your personal side of this because I'm also afraid that VA is trying to rewrite the story with the American public about what Dependency and Indemnity Compensation or DIC is and the purpose behind it. Yes, DIC, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, provides money to people whose spouses are killed because of their service. But this has never been just a check. It's always been more than that. This is an acknowledgment, as you said, when you say on behalf of a grateful nation, when you sign up, when you put that flag on your shoulder, when you put on the uniform, willing to sacrifice everything to serve us and keep us free, we make you a promise. That promise is a legal promise, that promise is a moral promise, and it says we're going to take care of you and we're going to take care of your family. Because the reality is, my brother's active duty right now, no service member serves alone. They have a team behind them. And your service, your sacrifice has to be recognized. This is especially true for families of disabled veterans. Their service does not end when the veteran passes away, and it certainly doesn't disappear if that spouse is fortunate enough to find love again. You told your story, and your husband was injured when you were 22? Pardon me, you told your story, your husband was...

He was 22 when he developed a blood brain hemorrhage at the age of 22. Excuse me, he was 23, I was 22.

You were 22, and then took care of him for eight years. Yes, I did. And you know, I just say this, like, that doesn't disappear. Your service doesn't disappear, especially if you're able to find love again and fortunate to find love again. And one of the reasons we're talking about this is it says cost. The Love Lives On Act is supposed to cost $2 billion a year. And look, I'm not saying that's not a lot of money, but let's look at where some of the other priorities are. Just this year, in the one big beautiful bill, there is a provision in it which cuts the tax off of firearm suppressors, silencers, over the same 10-year period that we are taking money away from our Gold Star spouses. We are giving it to make firearm silencers cheaper. That to me is not a trade that we should be doing. It's the same amount of money to pay for silencers, but they can't find money to pay for survivors' benefits. I appreciate you being willing here to testify, and I hope the VA will rethink its opposition to this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you. I was actually going to use the VA's testimony and ask something similar, Mrs. Thomas, so he beat me to that. Great job. Not really, but great job. I try to put myself in the situation, especially in this position of, because I've spoken to a lot of spouses, a lot of Gold Star spouses. I lost a lot of teammates over the two wars, and a lot of my friends lost a lot, gave it all, just like you did. And I try to appreciate the perspective, I try to appreciate the perspective that the VA is providing us. And then I ask them, have you ever had conversations with Gold Star spouses? Because a spouse's job is probably the most challenging job there is. I saw a pretty interesting t-shirt one time that said a Navy wife is the hardest job in the military. I'd agree with that. I don't understand why it's even a conversation that we have to have that you would take something from someone who walked that pathway alongside us, or those members that served. The functionality of the military through its men and women is successful because of a lot of things, but most certainly the family. Because the spouses, my spouse, looked at me every day and said, you're doing great things for our country and we're here for you. If something had happened to me and then my wife had gotten her benefits, in my opinion, that's something that she earned forever. And I wholeheartedly support the idea that you have earned those benefits, whether or not you get remarried again or whomever, under the age of 55. And as Mr. McGarvey said, I don't look at it as dollar bills, I don't. And as someone who works in Congress whose job is to spend money, I'm speaking as a veteran. That's something that you earned, and no one has that right to take that away from you, in my opinion. Thank you. The challenge is obviously getting there from here, in which we are working on a daily basis to make sure that that does happen. I think speaking to you, Mrs. Wilson-Thomas, is that I want you to know that he and I agree wholeheartedly. And since I'm the chairman and ranking member in this subcommittee, we will carry this all the way to the finish line or damn sure die trying. Thank you. I had a young lady, Mrs. Patsy Deets, sit in my office, and I've been friends with her for a long time. She's remarried to another friend of mine who's in the military. And I got to tell you, I was present when she lost her husband, and she came back last year to visit with me. And I looked at her in the face and I was like, you don't have to explain this to me. I understand. It's making sure that everyone else does. Because being in the military is a very small sorority or fraternity, but unfortunately that fraternity that you're a part of of losing someone is not one that anybody should have to be a part of. So we're doing our absolute to make sure that you get what you deserve and you keep it. Okay? Ms. Springer, when it comes to ALS, thank you. Yes, ma'am. When it comes to ALS, if we could understand how the brain works, that would be an amazing thing. And the window at which someone with ALS or any other neurological disease, it's kind of a rolling tide. And I think until we can understand exactly how this thing functions, we're kind of throwing darts at a dartboard. And I can appreciate that that eight-year window is substantially wrong. And the timeframe in which it was created to what we understand about the brain currently has changed. And I hate to say what does it look like or what is necessary or what is the sweet spot that we should pay attention to? And the one that you can give me is going to be argued amongst everyone. And then we have to make the decision, and that's the hard part about our job. We can't necessarily decide on who's right or wrong, we have to take a step forward. And this place loves to have problems, this place loves to talk about the problems we have, and it doesn't seem to be the place that wants to solve many problems. But on this committee, we do everything that we possibly can to solve those problems. So you may not have this answer for me, but I need, we if I may, sir, where is it? What is the next step? What is the timeline need to look like? What is most beneficial for those that are suffering from ALS and the families to put them in a place, you can't say put them in their comfort zone because there's nothing comfortable about this at all. And it's hopefully something that we can change as science shows up with medicine. But to now, to date, we have to pray to God every day that those that are suffering from this do their best to live in peace. And I don't know if you have an answer to what I just kind of threw at you, but...

Well, Mr. Chairman, we really thank you for your concern about this matter. And I gave the personal story of one of my VFW comrades, Major Mulholland. I did not know him personally, but I do know people who did. And unfortunately, it's a very devastating, fast-moving disease. And people go from being essentially normal to being very incapacitated in a very short amount of time. And along the way, their family members often are the caregivers, so they have to leave their jobs, spouses or family members leave their jobs and watch that happen to their loved one, to their veteran. So there's a huge emotional toll on the family members and loss of financial security. So I would suggest that we stay plugged in with medical science and use data to determine if it's not eight years, where is it? We would say no time limit at all. This is such a devastating disease that once that person dies, and it's likely going to be between two and five years, that that surviving spouse does get that extra enhanced DIC. It's not a princely sum, but every little bit helps because that family's financial situation will have degraded tremendously from the time of diagnosis.

Should it be a timeframe more than a condition-based, a phase in which the conditions have become more exacerbated? Because you can't put a timeframe window because everyone's different. But if, and when it comes to science and medicine, and I speak on how academia is very siloed in gathering that information, may be more challenging than saying, hey look, if a certain individual has this systematic diagnosis, they have reached that specific time instead of a two, four, six, eight-year window. That's something we're going to have to figure out.

And that may be a very viable alternative viewpoint is to look at it from the basis of condition instead of time limit, a conditions-based, preface it on conditions-based.

If we haven't asked those questions, who in the VA do you deal with directly with this issue? I have not directly. All right, well I'm going to find out who that is and have this conversation. Well, it's just me and you guys in here today. Washington D.C. is a busy place. I wish we all had the answer for the problems that we not only presented here today but that live in the veteran space. It seems forever changing. And the problem when you inject politics and the government on top of something that's so sacred as our veteran community, we're the ones that get lost and we're having to wade through that. I'll close with thank you all for coming and sitting in on this panel and sharing this information. The chairman and ranking member and I will move on this. So with that, thank you. And you're excused. And the third panel, you may be seated. Mr. Smith, Mr. Powers, Ms. Bover, are you ready? Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Cemetery Administration. The lead witness for the VA is Ms. Jennifer Bover, Executive Director of Pensions and Fiduciary Services at the Veterans Benefits Administration. Ms. Bover is accompanied by Mr. James Smith, Deputy Executive Director of Compensation Services at the Veterans Benefits Administration, and Mr. Glenn Powers, Deputy Under Secretary for Field Programs and Cemetery Operations at the National Cemetery Administration. I ask that all witnesses please stand. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to provide is the whole truth, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you guys? Thank you, and let the record reflect that all witnesses have answered in the affirmative. You may be seated. Ms. Bover, you're now recognized for five minutes to present the department's testimony.

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

The written statement of Ms. Bover will be entered into the hearing record. We will now move to questioning. Dr. Morrison, are you ready to go? I'll hand it off to you if you'd like.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for holding this hearing. Thanks to the panel for being here. I also want to thank the gentleman, you, Mr. Chair, and the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hudson, for your partnership and leadership on the Love Lives on Act. I'm pleased to see that the bill is on the docket for today's hearing, and I want to use my time to continue making the case that we need this legislation. No surviving military spouse should have to choose between finding love again and keeping the benefits their family deserves. Ms. Bover, I'd like to turn to you for my questions. The Love Lives on Act was considered at a legislative hearing held by this subcommittee in April of 2024. During that hearing, VA provided a cost estimate of $327 million over 10 years for section two of the bill, which eliminates the remarriage penalty for DIC. CBO had a wildly different estimate, stating that it would cost around $2 billion. Is VA willing to provide the numbers it utilized to determine its score and work with CBO to provide a more accurate estimate?

So the VA is always happy to work with the committee on this topic. We do not have a cost estimate at this time, but we're happy to get that for you when it's available.

That would be great. So you'd commit to following up with my team on those numbers?

The department commits to transparently sharing the information that we have as soon as we can.

Thank you. VA's testimony states that disability and indemnity compensation payments are designated for individuals who have lost financial support due to a spouse's service-related disability or death. It also states that if the surviving spouse remarries before age 55, this financial need is no longer considered to exist, thereby altering the initial intent of the law. Ma'am, what changes at the age of 55 for a survivor to suddenly need this financial support? And how is this situation different from someone who's, say, 32 or 52?

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify our position. So the previous administration, you know, there's been a change in administration, and after reviewing the legislation, we've recognized that there's different complexities this may impose on surviving spouses for the benefits both within the VA and in other areas of federal agencies. So the remarriage restrictions are not unique to VA.

Leaving aside the financial need and earning potential, we're also talking about people who've suffered unimaginable loss, right? This is about following through on the promise we made to our service members, veterans, and their families. We owe survivor benefits to men and women who have tragically lost their loved ones in service to their country, and it's not right that we take them away if they find love again too soon. Ms. Bover, beyond the economic factors, do you think there's some moral imperative to protect survivor benefits for those who remarry before age 55?

So VA supports survivors getting remarried. The when we reviewed this legislation, what we found was it created inequities not only within our own programs within VA, but also across other federal agencies. And I think it's important to know that, you know, I myself am a veteran, and the VA supports taking care of survivors and their families. I've been in this role about three months, and just in those three months, I have made an effort to understand the issues that face survivors. I've set up meetings with the offices of survivors assistance, the tragedy assistance program, and just since this fiscal year, we have decreased the inventory of DIC claims by 34 percent and our average days pending by 40 percent. We are making survivors a focus, and with this legislation, we would be happy to work with the committee to address this more holistically while considering the secondary effects this legislation would have if enacted.

One final question. In previous testimony, VA supported the Love Lives on Act with amendments. This Congress, the bill was amended to include some technical fixes identified by VA in 2024. What has changed for VA to go from supporting the removal of remarriage restriction requirements for surviving spouses to now opposing the bill outright?

With the change in administration, again, after we reviewed the legislation, we found that there would be some inequities caused within some of our own survivor programs within the VA and also across other federal agencies. So for example, survivors pension, if a survivor remarries at any age, they lose that benefit. And it also affects other federal agencies such as TRICARE, the survivor benefit plan, social security. So those remarriage restrictions are not unique to the VA.

It's disappointing to me, but in spite of our disagreement, I do hope that we can work together, find a path forward, because I believe we owe it to survivors and their families to get this done. Thank you, and Mr. Chair, with that, I yield back.

Thank you. Ms. Bover, you answered Dr. Morrison's two questions with the exact same answer, which means I think you're either reading it or you had that memorized before you walked in. And you say as far as Love Lives on, it's not unique just to the VA and that other federal agencies are touched. I want you to expand on that for me.

Absolutely. So our survivors pension program has remarriage restrictions as well. So if a survivor in our pension program remarries...

I'm aware of that. That's what we will be changing. But what when you say other federal agencies?

Absolutely. So other federal agencies, so Social Security Administration has a remarriage restriction act, survivor benefits plan has a remarriage restriction act, TRICARE has a remarriage restriction act, so many other...

What do you mean TRICARE has a? Explain.

Absolutely. So with TRICARE, if a survivor remarries at any age, they lose that benefit.

Okay. Social security, they lose that benefit. Is that what you're telling me?

For social security, if the survivor remarries after the age of 60, they lose that benefit.

So because other federal agencies, social security and TRICARE, have this legislative requirement, the VA as a whole is stating that it will not support a young lady or a young man remarrying under the age of 55 and keep their benefits because other federal agencies have that legislation or have that regulatory clause?

So VA definitely supports survivors remarrying at any age.

No, that's not what I'm asking. That's not what I'm asking at all. It's we want the age to be under 55. But from what I understand from the VA's testimony is because other federal agencies, because it's not unique to the VA, it seems like you're playing a chess game with me and the VA's going to use that social security and TRICARE to get out of this.

Even within our own department, again, with the survivors pension program, it would cause an inequity, and then also with our home loan guarantee program, it would also cause an inequity within our own department.

Explain, explain.

So sure. So the survivors pension program, if a survivor remarries at any age, they would lose entitlement to that benefit. And then there's also a remarriage restriction on home loan guarantee, so they wouldn't be eligible for that VA-backed loan for that benefit if they remarried.

But if we go under the age of 55, they would be eligible.

This particular bill only addresses does not address those other instances of benefits within our program.

Okay, so then why'd you bring it up?

Because we need the bill to holistically consider the impact of other benefits within our own department.

Okay, so if we add all that in there, the VA would be okay with us taking the age of 55 away?

The VA is definitely willing to work with the committee.

Then why didn't the VA come to the committee and say, hey, this is the best way forward, instead of waiting until now? Because here's the issue that I have. It seems like the VA is using its latitude to say because other federal agencies don't have the same opportunity that we do, or have the same opportunity that we do, we're not going to change this piece of legislation. I don't care about everybody else because I'm the chairman of this committee, and my sole responsibility is taking care of the veterans and the veterans' spouses. And the VA's trying to sidestep this landmine saying that we're not going to do that. And you're throwing all this political BS at me that you're digging up from God knows where, thinking that I'm going to be okay with it. And I can assure you, ma'am, I am not. So in conversation with you from this point forward, I want to know why the VA, because you will not use other federal agencies and it's not unique to the VA, it is the VA. The reason that we sit in here today and the country exists is because of our veterans and their loved ones. So I want a great explanation of why you're not going to do this.

So the VA supports veterans and survivors and their families passionately, and even within our own department, it would cause...

I know, yes, ma'am, you've said that many times. And you know also, Ms. Bover, you're a veteran, and I probably would guess that you probably agree with me, but because of the role of responsibility you have inside the VA, you can't. And that's sad. Please continue.

So even within our own department, it would cause inequities, and so we are happy to work with the committee to look at this holistically.

Give me a dollar sign on that.

I'm sorry, sir?

Give me a dollar sign on that. It's all about money. At the end of the day, you break it down to the lowest common denominator, we're talking about dollar bills. And I have to look all the constituents in the face and all the spouses that lost their loved ones like, hey, you're not worth it. So you're going to have to convince me that I need to do that.

We do not have a cost estimate at this time, but we would be happy to get that for you.

Over the last Congress, which this thing showed up, to this Congress in the second year, the VA doesn't have a cost estimate on this? How is that even possible?

We would be happy to get you that information, sir, as soon as we can.

Is that going to be coming from you or is there a secretary I need to talk to?

The VA is committed to transparency, and as soon as they have that information, they will get it to you.

Okay, you got 24 hours. Does that sound doable? I want all that information in 24 hours from the second that you guys walk out of here. Because if I don't tell you to do that, I won't get it until next year, and unfortunately, I won't be here. So you got 24 hours. Or you can call the secretary and have him call me directly. Okay?

The VA will get you the information as soon as they can.

I gave you 24 hours. Period. I'm going to keep going and talk unless Ms. Morrison, you got anything you want to jump on?

You're doing great.

Okay, I'm going to keep going. Mr. Powers, how does the VA plan to manage the comfort of VA hospital patients who will now see gravesites from their hospital window if VA moves forward with existing expansion plan?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. We have a great deal of cemeteries...

Turn the microphone on, sir. Use the mic.

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. We have over 20 national cemeteries that are located co-located with VA medical centers. It's a historical in most cases, it's a historical element that goes back to the 18th the 19th century to after the Civil War.

Okay. Keep going.

We don't feel that that's an issue. Those cemeteries started almost at the same time that those facilities started, particularly in the case of Dayton, they both started, I think, in 1867. So as soon as the Civil War veterans passed away in the...

Is the VA planning on moving cemeteries away from our VA hospitals? I guess that's a better way to ask you that question.

No, we are not.

Just going to keep them right there on the same spot?

Historically, it's been no issue for us to have our national cemeteries co-located with the medical centers or the the what preceded the medical centers, which were disabled soldiers' homes for Civil War veterans and veterans of other conflicts.

They're running out of space for our cemeteries, though, aren't they? As far as location in the hospitals?

We proactively, National Cemetery Administration, look at our burial depletion data. We have policies to make sure that we are expanding and replacing cemeteries where necessary and going through the criteria to determine how to get more land so that we can continue to serve veterans the way we do throughout the country.

Let's shift gears to let's see here. How does the VA currently collect and use data related to national cemetery operations, and how would a public annual report change this process?

And how often does a report currently come out? We don't issue, as has been thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman, we don't issue a report right now as has been pointed out. So this bill would would have us issue issue an annual report, and we support the intent of the bill. It clearly does what what's needed, what many people think is good government. The proposed topics, which are benefits administration, customer satisfaction, cemetery maps, burial options, interment activity, that is data that we currently have almost in almost in every aspect that the bill requires, except one that we pointed out in the testimony we would have to work on. But we collect that data, we provide it to Congress when asked for, but we never did it in a annual report. So...

How long have you been how long have you been at the Department of Veterans Affairs, sir?

I've been with 19 years.

In this same spot? Something similar?

In the National Cemetery Administration for the entire 19 years, 15 years basically.

Would it be more beneficial for an annual report to come out or?

Oh, we support it. We support the intent. There's just one slight thing in the in the bill that we said we would have a problem disaggregating along one minor minor part of the bill. But we support the intent of this bill for the reasons stated in the bill.

Are we for or against the FRAUD in VA Disability Exams Act, Mr. Smith?

Thank you for that question. The way that it's written, it really is duplication of efforts that we currently have in place, sir. And it also uses language that would potentially confuse veterans, but where it specifically says that we would be required to notify veterans when DBQs are suspected of fraudulent activity is is problematic just because there's a possibility that a DBQ would be fraudulent does not necessarily mean that it is. So...

Explain to me when you say a fraudulent DBQ.

Yes, sir, thank you for that question. Kind of walk me kind of walk me through how we've come to that. So this is specifically for public-facing DBQs. So those that are on the web that can be downloaded. Through research, we've determined that there are telltale signs that a DBQ could potentially be fraudulent, such as you could see where the DBQ may have been altered, or the information that's required in the signature block is missing, or the examiner's address is, say, greater than 100 miles away from where the veteran lives. So looking at those potential signs that a DBQ could be fraudulent, VA...

Is there a language model inside of our computational system that picks this up or is this still human touching this?

That's that's a great question. So we've developed a Power BI tool that should be ready this year that's going to be able to analyze a little over a million DBQs, public-facing DBQs that have been scanned going all the way back to 2010. So we have a repository, when public DBQs come in, those are scanned and there should be a tool that's available this year that will allow us to with greater fidelity to be able to quickly identify potential problem cases.

So then this particular legislation, it seems to me it would make sense if we had that capability.

Yes, sir.

Okay, so we're just as far as technology goes, we're not there for implementation of this.

We should that makes that makes sense. I can have that conversation with the committee if you're supporting what I just said. I believe that I am supporting what you just said, unless my colleague kicks me under the table, but I I think that the the electronic piece should be available in '26, so in this fiscal year.

Okay, because this showed up for a reason. But if amplifying information will always help us navigate these waters.

I think and I'm not sure how wires may have gotten crossed, but VA's been proactive in this space. We recognize that there are some problem players out there, but we've developed training that the claims processors are required to take so that they can understand their responsibility to potentially identify fraudulent DBQs, as well as a defined process for them to report suspected fraudulent DBQs up. As an organization, we work with the Office of Inspector General if we run into issues or cases where we feel that there's some type of investigation required.

Let's talk about H.R. 5339 for a second. I was unaware that service members in the or in the Pentagon didn't fall underneath the PACT Act. Explain to me how that how that happened.

I appreciate that question. I I cannot explain how that location was overlooked or that group was overlooked. With the respect to how this rule is written, our issue with it is that the conditions are listed in a manner that's too broad. So for instance, cancers of any type or cancers of I don't know, neck, something of that nature, whereas we could be more specific with the conditions that could potentially have been caused by whatever toxics may have been present in that space. So as an organization, we support identifying those exposures and making sure that we're taking care of veterans. However, there needs to be more research in this particular area so we could determine if there is causation. Isn't what the PACT Act covers or explains that very well? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And as far as types of and not to go down a rabbit hole here, but if we're if we're going to try to unpack this suitcase, I don't think anybody can in as far as research goes, I don't think anybody can put their finger on exactly what chemical combinations create what cancers on anybody, especially if you're after an attack of such magnitude. And this is I total truthfulness is I had no idea that they weren't included until a week ago when this was brought to my attention. I would be honest and say that I wasn't aware either, sir. So in preparing for this hearing, you know, do my due diligence and reached out to our partners in VHA who identify the cohorts of of veterans and they track them and do the research, but this particular cohort has not been defined. So again, who's responsible for that? It falls under VHA, but there is an office, VHA Home Health Outcomes Medical Exposures, they are the research point that partners with VBA in the presumptive disability process. Has this specific issue been brought to the VA's attention in the past? Not to my knowledge, sir. No, sir. Okay. I expect movement on this one. This this is absolutely ridiculous, first and foremost. But as far as global war on terror, they were the first ones to feel it, short of the towers falling. And for them to not be included, that makes it sounds like we're on the same page, though. Yes, sir. Okay. Ms. Bover, are you for or against the PRESUME Act? That is under the oversight of Mr. James Smith, so I'm going to pass it to my colleague. Okay. With the I guess as it's written now, no, we cannot support that. For the presumptive disabilities, dose requirement is dose is not required for us to grant service connection as long as there are two criteria that are met. One is that the service member participated in a radiation risk activity, and two, that they be diagnosed with a condition that's listed in 3.309 or the presumptive conditions that were part of the PACT Act. Okay. So this particular group that Ms. Titus was is speaking about specifically, how do we because of the VA regulations, how do we fix this problem? Because you can't argue that this happened and that they were there. And I I understand classification levels and and everything that happens in between. What's the best way to fix this from the VA's perspective? So I appreciate that question, sir. I'm not a clinician, I'm not a researcher, speaking to counterparts at VHA, there's been research looked at this area and again, I I can't speak to the research in and of itself. However, in partnership with DOD SMEs, there's there's no way for them to or there's no been definitive evidence, I'm just reading now, no definitive evidence of health problems as a result of radiation exposure. I asked someone to send me that report, but I think that's the issue is that as it stands, they've looked at this area but for whatever reason they've not been able to determine causation. If there is a report that you find, would you send that over to committee staff so we can see it too, please? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I thank the Department of Veterans Affairs for your time today. I appreciate it. As far as this legislation goes, I think that we are I think we disagree with each other. And it's a shame it happen has to happen in this hearing, which you know, if we could have had a roundtable discussion and you could have come to my office and reached out to the committee and said, hey, we'd like to sit down and discuss this with with you before you show up, I think it would have been a lot more productive instead of me being on send and you on receive. Because at the end of the day, it's you. It's not me. You touch the veterans. You do. And thank you all for your service. And I can wire brush you all day long, yell and scream and ask you, and don't sit up here and just throw this at you. These are conversations that I have with those who put me here. So it is my job to do that. Period. And when we walk out of here, you can either forget the fact that I asked you to do what I asked you to do in 24 hours, you're going to have that report for me, and I will be calling you tomorrow asking for that report. And you're going to give me the same answer I've gotten since the three years and two months I've been here. And then I'm going to go home and tell the veterans exactly what you told me. And that's a damn shame. Okay? Veterans should not be caught up in the political bureaucracies of this place. Period. And their loved ones. So thank you for your time.

I ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material. Hearing no objections, so ordered. [Gavel sounds.] This meeting is adjourned.