⚡NIMITZ NEWS FLASH⚡

Markup on Pending Legislation

House Veterans Affairs Committee

May 14, 2026 (recording here)

BILLS CONSIDERED IN MARKUP

• H.R. 5634, the Veterans Flight Training Responsibility Act of 2026

• H.R. 7083, the CRUISE Act

• H.R. 7103, the Improving Emerging Tech Opportunities for Veterans Act

• H.R. 2283, the Recognizing Community Organizations for Veteran Engagement and Recovery Act

• H.R. 6993, the BEACON Act of 2026

• H.R. 6652, the U.S. Vets of the FAS Act

• H.R. 6444, the Blast Overpressure Research and Mitigation Task Force Act

• H.R. 7950, the VA Congressional Accountability Act

• H.R. 7683, the VA Fiscal Management and Modernization Act

• H.R. 8052, the VIP Act

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

• H.R. 3159, the Improving SCRA Benefit Utilization Act

• H.R. 5436, To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit an educational institution from withholding a transcript from an individual who pursued a course or program of education at such institution using Post-9/11 educational assistance.

• H.R. 5999, the Veteran Opioid Emergency Treatment Act

• *H.R. 8010, the VA Police Recruitment and Retention Act of 2026

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

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

• Lease Resolutions

OTHER INFORMATION

The VA Police Recruitment and Retention Act of 2026 (H.R. 8010) was not considered during the markup at the request of Rep. Tim Kennedy, the bill’s sponsor.

All other considered bills were reported favorably to the House. Only two Democrats voted against party lines on specific amendments and bills: Reps. Chris Pappas and Tim Kennedy.

OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE

• Chairman Mike Bost opened the hearing by describing 17 pieces of legislation under consideration, pointing to widespread veteran service organization and stakeholder support. He shared his hopes that the markup would be bipartisan and productive with those considerations in mind.

• Ranking Member Mark Takano opted to save his remarks for individual bills.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS ON H.R. 7683

• The Committee began its consideration of the VA Fiscal Management and Modernization Act (H.R. 7683), and Rep. Jack Bergman introduced an amendment in the nature of a substitute (ANS) that became the base text for markup. Rep. Bergman stated that the bill sought to modernize VA financial management by formally designating the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Budget as the department’s Chief Financial Officer and clarifying responsibilities for budget formulation, auditing, reporting, and compliance. He explained that the legislation also established deputy-level leadership positions and created a legislative and congressional budget information office intended to provide Congress with timely and certified budget information.

• The Chairman supported the bill and argued that the Biden administration had mishandled the VA’s nearly half-trillion-dollar budget. He cited concerns about the VA’s inability to complete monthly reconciliation reports and said the legislation would improve accountability, transparency, and financial discipline.

• Rep. Keith Self spoke on his concerns regarding the national debt and requested assurance that the legislation and amendments included offsets. Chairman Bost responded that staff had worked continuously to ensure offsets were included.

• Ranking Member Takano offered an amendment to the ANS to limit the number of political appointees within the proposed legislative and congressional budget information office. He argued that career VA employees provided institutional stability and expertise that political appointees could not replicate. The Ranking Member also expressed concern about increasing politicization within VA management and warned that the bill conflicted with another acquisition-related proposal, which could create implementation problems and conflicts of interest.

  • Chairman Bost opposed the amendment and argued that career officials had contributed to the VA budget shortfall controversy in 2024 by providing Congress with inaccurate information. He believed that Congress needed stronger accountability mechanisms rather than additional protections for career staff.

  • Rep. Bergman also opposed the amendment, arguing that the proposal would preserve what he described as a culture of unaccountability within the VA budget bureaucracy. He referenced the prior budget shortfall controversy and said the new office would improve Congress’s access to accurate financial information.

  • Rep. Self criticized the lack of Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scores for several Democratic amendments and argued that past CBO estimates had underestimated costs associated with Democratic legislation while overstating costs of Republican tax legislation.

  • The Committee rejected the Takano amendment by voice vote, and a recorded vote was requested. The amendment was rejected 10-12, along party lines.

• Rep. Delia Ramirez offered an amendment requiring the VA to provide attrition and deferred resignation program data disaggregated by facility and occupation. She argued that Committee oversight requests for staffing information had largely gone unanswered and contended that staffing reductions were already harming veteran care. Rep. Ramirez cited examples from Western New York where nurses had participated in deferred resignation programs despite assurances that mission-critical staff would be protected.

  • The Chairman opposed the amendment, claiming that staffing reports were unrelated to the purpose of the bill, which focused on financial management structure. He suggested that the information could instead be requested through a joint letter to the VA.

  • Rep. Bergman also opposed the amendment, stating that workforce reporting requirements were outside the scope of the legislation and should be pursued separately.

  • The Committee rejected the Ramirez amendment by voice vote, and a recorded vote was requested. The amendment was rejected 10-12, along party lines.

• Following other recorded votes, the Committee approved the ANS to H.R. 7683 by a vote of 12 ayes to 10 noes.

• Rep. Van Orden moved that H.R. 7683, as amended, be favorably reported to the House. The Committee approved the motion by recorded vote, 13 ayes to 9 noes. Rep. Tim Kennedy was the only Democrat who voted for the bill to proceed.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS ON H.R. 6993

• Chairman Bost moved to consider the BEACON Act of 2026 (H.R. 6993), which focused on traumatic brain injury (TBI) treatment and research for veterans. Rep. Bergman introduced the bill and explained that it would establish two grant programs supporting clinical evaluations and independent research into treatments for mild TBI. He underscored that the bill sought to expand evidence-based care and address elevated suicide rates among veterans diagnosed with TBI.

• The Chairman supported the legislation and described it as a bipartisan effort to expand community-based brain injury treatment and research. He stated that the bill would supplement existing VA efforts and improve access to care for veterans suffering from traumatic brain injuries.

• Ranking Member Takano opposed the bill in its current form. He acknowledged the need for additional TBI research but raised concerns that the bill could divert existing PTSD and mental health funding toward the new grant programs. He also argued that portions of the bill improperly delegated inherently governmental grant administration functions to outside entities and failed to provide sufficient oversight and coordination with VA research programs.

• Rep. Derrick Van Orden entered two studies into the record regarding interdisciplinary outpatient treatment for TBIs and emphasized the growing recognition of TBI injuries among military personnel. He argued that expanding treatment facilities was necessary and urged bipartisan support for the legislation.

• Rep. Kelly Morrison offered an amendment to strengthen oversight requirements within the grant programs. She argued that the bill needed clearer reporting requirements regarding adverse events, follow-up care, and evaluation standards to ensure proper oversight of taxpayer-funded research.

  • Chairman Bost opposed the amendment, arguing that it would create unnecessary reporting burdens and that the bill had already been carefully developed with input from researchers and stakeholders.

  • Rep. Bergman also spoke in opposition to the amendment, saying that no universally accepted standard of care for chronic mild TBI currently existed. He argued that the amendment could discourage innovation and undermine efforts to establish future standards of care.

  • The Committee rejected the Morrison amendment by voice vote, and a recorded vote was requested. The amendment was rejected 10-12, along party lines.

• Ranking Member Takano next offered an amendment requiring grantees to share all clinical trial data with the VA. He argued that coordination with VA researchers and transparency regarding taxpayer-funded research were essential. He also criticized organizations that had supported the legislation for allegedly failing to publish complete research data in previous studies.

  • The Chairman opposed the amendment, arguing that the bill already contained sufficient reporting requirements and that additional mandates would slow implementation.

  • Rep. Morgan Luttrell questioned Ranking Member Takano regarding whether prior studies had disclosed inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the Ranking Member reiterated concerns that relevant data had not been fully published.

  • The Committee rejected the Takano amendment by voice vote, and a recorded vote was requested. The amendment was rejected 10-12, along party lines.

• Rep. Julia Brownley offered an amendment to remove provisions allowing the VA to fund the grant programs using existing PTSD and mental health budgets if Congress failed to appropriate specific funding. She argued that the bill risked diverting resources away from existing VA care and research programs. She also noted that the legislation already included offsets through extensions of the VA home loan fee authority.

  • Chairman Bost opposed the amendment, saying that the funding flexibility was necessary to allow rapid implementation of the grant programs and expand mental health support for veterans.

  • Rep. Bergman followed, stating that the bill only provided flexibility rather than requiring diversion of existing funds. He argued that delays in implementation would harm veterans suffering from chronic TBI, PTSD, and chronic pain.

  • The Committee rejected the Brownley amendment by voice vote, and a recorded vote was requested. The amendment was rejected 10-12, along party lines.

• Rep. Maxine Dexter offered an amendment to strike Section 3 of the bill, which established a grant program for studies and applied treatment methodologies for mild TBI. She argued that the language was overly broad and could divert research funding away from the VA National Center for PTSD. She also objected to the bill’s direction that the VA seek agreements with independent organizations to administer the grant program, asserting that grant administration was an inherently governmental function.

  • The Chairman opposed the amendment and argued it would remove key portions of the new program before implementation and undermine accountability measures already built into the legislation.

  • The Committee rejected the Dexter amendment by voice vote, and a recorded vote was requested. The amendment was rejected 9-13. Rep. Chris Pappas was the only Democrat to vote against the amendment.

• Following other recorded votes, Rep. Van Orden moved that H.R. 7683, as amended, be favorably reported to the House. The Committee approved the motion, 13 ayes to 9 noes. Rep. Chris Pappas was the only Democrat to vote for the bill’s advancement.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS ON H.R. 6444

• The Committee then discussed the Blast Overpressure Research and Mitigation Task Force Act (H.R. 6444). Chairman Bost explained that the bill would create a task force dedicated to studying blast overpressure exposure injuries and treatments affecting service members and veterans. He shared that TBIs were often difficult to diagnose and argued that stronger partnerships with outside researchers and improved data-sharing would help identify treatment gaps and improve care for veterans suffering from PTSD and other blast-related injuries.

• Ranking Member Takano offered an amendment requiring the VA to begin the process of developing a presumptive service connection for conditions related to blast overpressure exposure. He described blast overpressure as a common but frequently overlooked occupational hazard for military personnel, particularly those in combat arms occupations who were repeatedly exposed to explosions during training and combat operations. The Ranking Member claimed that repeated exposure contributed to long-term health conditions, including hearing loss, cognitive impairment, migraines, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease.

  • The Ranking Member further stated that although his preferred approach would have directly created the presumption, his amendment instead instructed the VA to use the framework established under the PACT Act to evaluate the issue. He argued that blast exposure was an unavoidable occupational requirement of military service and that veterans deserved access to benefits and care related to those exposures.

  • The Chairman opposed the amendment and argued that the bill’s purpose was to advance medical research and treatment related to blast overpressure injuries rather than address disability compensation policy. He said that the VA already recognized TBIs for disability compensation purposes and was continuing to improve how those claims were evaluated.

  • The Committee rejected the Takano amendment by voice vote, and a recorded vote was requested. The amendment was rejected 10-12, along party lines.

• Rep. Van Orden then moved that H.R. 6444, as amended, be favorably reported to the House. The Committee approved the motion by voice vote.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS ON H.R. 7950

• The Committee then considered the VA Congressional Accountability Act (H.R. 7950). Rep. Self introduced an ANS, which became the base text for markup. He explained that the bill sought to establish clear standards for how the VA communicated with Congress. He argued that congressional oversight had been hindered by delayed or incomplete responses from the VA and claimed that the legislation would require prompt acknowledgments of congressional requests, production plans with estimated delivery dates, and accountability measures when deadlines were missed. Rep. Self underlined that the bill was intended to improve oversight and constituent services for veterans in a bipartisan manner.

• Chairman Bost supported the legislation and described it as a good-government proposal that would improve accountability and strengthen Congress’s ability to fulfill its oversight responsibilities.

• Ranking Member Takano acknowledged frustration with delays in obtaining information from the VA but expressed concern that the bill unfairly targeted career employees within the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs (OCLA) rather than political leadership. He argued that delays often resulted from review requirements imposed by VA Secretary Doug Collins and warned that the legislation could worsen staffing problems within OCLA.

• The Ranking Member then offered an amendment to the ANS requiring the VA to share information with both the Majority and Minority whenever requests were made through a Chairman’s letter. He argued that longstanding Committee practice required both sides to receive requested information, but alleged that recent changes had allowed the Majority to receive information without providing equivalent access to the Minority. He advocated for transparency and effective oversight.

  • Chairman Bost expressed support for the amendment, acknowledged that the Committee historically shared information obtained through Chairman’s letters, and agreed that transparency should remain nonpartisan.

  • Rep. Self asked whether acceptance of the amendment would lead Democrats to support the underlying bill. Ranking Member Takano responded that Democrats still opposed the legislation because they believed delays were caused primarily by political appointees and Secretary Collins rather than career OCLA employees.

  • The Committee adopted the Takano amendment by voice vote.

• Rep. Ramirez offered an amendment to the ANS that sought to hold Secretary Collins directly accountable for delays in congressional responses. She argued that OCLA employees primarily served as intermediaries and that the true bottleneck occurred because Secretary Collins required personal review of all responses sent to Congress. Rep. Ramirez described the internal approval process and contended that accountability should be directed toward leadership rather than career staff.

  • The Chairman opposed the amendment, arguing that tying accountability measures to the Secretary’s ability to travel or respond during emergencies would improperly interfere with the leadership of the VA healthcare system.

  • The Committee rejected the Ramirez amendment by voice vote, and a recorded vote was requested. The amendment was rejected 10-12, along party lines.

• Rep. Ramirez then offered another amendment to the ANS, which would have required quarterly hearings with the Assistant Secretary for OCLA to examine delays in congressional responses and identify bottlenecks in the information-sharing process. She said that members from both parties had experienced delays lasting months and argued that Congress needed a clearer understanding of how OCLA and the Secretary’s office handled requests.

  • Chairman Bost opposed the amendment and claimed that Congress should not legislate mandatory hearing schedules for specific offices. He said that while delays were a bipartisan concern, statutory quarterly hearings would amount to performative oversight rather than addressing the underlying problem.

  • The Committee rejected the Ramirez amendment by voice vote, and a recorded vote was requested. The amendment was rejected 10-12, along party lines.

• The Committee approved the ANS to H.R. 7950 by a recorded vote of 13 ayes to 9 noes. Rep. Tim Kennedy was the only Democrat who voted to approve the ANS.

• Rep. Van Orden moved that H.R. 7950, as amended, be favorably reported to the House. The Committee approved the motion by recorded vote, 13 ayes to 9 noes. Rep. Tim Kennedy was the only Democrat who voted to advance the bill to the full House.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS ON H.R. 6698

• The Committee next considered the Board of Veterans’ Appeals Annual Report Transparency Act of 2025 (H.R. 6698), previously amended at the Subcommittee hearing. Rep. Self introduced the bill and explained that it sought to improve transparency within the appeals process by requiring the Board of Veterans’ Appeals to identify causes of delays, remands, and backlogs. The bill also required the Board to publish weekly docket activity information online so veterans could better track the status of appeals.

• Chairman Bost supported the legislation and connected it to the Appeals Modernization Act of 2017, claiming that the bill would further improve transparency and accountability for veterans navigating the appeals system.

• Rep. Kennedy offered an amendment related to collective bargaining agreements for VA employees, particularly attorneys at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. He argued that collective bargaining agreements protected employees who raised workplace concerns and advocated for veterans. He referenced a recent federal court order requiring the VA to restore collective bargaining agreements affecting nearly 300,000 employees represented by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE).

  • Rep. Kennedy went on to say that despite the court order, the VA had failed to fully restore certain negotiated agreements, including memorandums of agreement affecting Board attorney performance standards. He claimed that attorneys were being pressured to process more cases rapidly, increasing the likelihood of errors affecting veterans’ claims. His amendment required the VA to restore agreements that had already been approved through the grievance process before March 2025.

  • The Chairman opposed the amendment, saying that while he supported unions generally, he trusted Secretary Collins to determine appropriate labor arrangements at the VA. He argued that the issue was already being addressed through ongoing litigation and that Congress should allow the legal process to proceed. Chairman Bost also described the amendment as a poison pill that could jeopardize passage of the bill.

  • Ranking Member Takano strongly supported the amendment and accused the Board of Veterans’ Appeals of circumventing court orders by refusing to fully restore workplace agreements negotiated with unions. He argued that rushed production quotas harmed both employees and veterans by increasing the risk of mistakes in appeals decisions.

  • The Committee rejected the Kennedy amendment by voice vote.

• Rep. Van Orden then moved that H.R. 6698, as previously amended, be favorably reported to the full House. The Committee approved the motion by voice vote, and the bill was ordered favorably reported.

SUMMARY OF H.R. 2283

• Chairman Bost then considered the Recognizing Community Organizations for Veterans Engagement and Recovery (RECOVERY) Act (H.R. 2283). The Chairman offered an ANS, which became the base text for markup. He shared that the bill sought to address veteran suicide and expand access to mental health care through a three-year pilot grant program supporting outside organizations specializing in mental health services for veterans and their families. He emphasized that the legislation was intended to supplement, not replace, VA mental health care by supporting organizations that offered personalized treatment approaches and family-centered care.

• Ranking Member Takano strongly opposed the legislation and argued that the bill created an unnecessary carveout grant program for community mental health providers that could already furnish care through existing VA community care authorities. He said that the VA itself had raised significant concerns about the bill and argued that the grant structure lacked adequate oversight and accountability. He further warned that the legislation could enable providers to “double dip” or “triple dip” by receiving grant funding while simultaneously billing the VA, Medicare, or private insurers for the same care without sufficient mechanisms to prevent duplication or monitor treatment quality.

• The Committee approved the ANS to H.R. 2283 by voice vote, and a recorded vote was requested. The ANS was approved by a vote of 14 ayes to 8 noes. Reps. Chris Pappas and Tim Kennedy voted for the ANS.

• Rep. Van Orden then moved that H.R. 2283, as amended, be favorably reported to the House. The Committee approved the motion by recorded vote, 14 ayes to 8 noes. Again, Reps. Chris Pappas and Tim Kennedy voted for the bill’s advancement.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS ON THE FIRST EN BLOC

• The Committee next considered an en bloc package containing H.R. 3159, H.R. 5436, H.R. 5634, H.R. 7083, H.R. 5723, H.R. 7103, and H.R. 8052. Each bill included an ANS, which was adopted as the base text for consideration.

• Rep. Jen Kiggans spoke in support of the Veteran Infection Prevention (VIP) Act (H.R. 8052). She said that the bill required sterile processing technicians employed by the Veterans Health Administration to obtain proper professional certification for cleaning medical equipment at VA medical centers. She believed that improved certification standards would reduce the risk of infections for veterans following surgery or medical procedures.

• Rep. Tom Barrett spoke in support of his CRUISE Act (H.R. 7083), which sought to centralize payments within the VA’s Adaptive Automotive Equipment Program. He stated that the bill aimed to reduce payment backlogs for vendors providing mobility modifications to veterans’ vehicles and warned that continued delays could reduce the number of available vendors serving veterans.

• Ranking Member Takano expressed support for legislation ending the practice of withholding student veterans’ transcripts, describing it as a long-overdue reform. He also supported legislation improving awareness and utilization of protections under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The Ranking Member mentioned policy concerns with H.R. 7083 and said that the legislation was not fully offset. However, he acknowledged that the Majority had agreed to continue negotiations on the bill before floor consideration and announced that he would support the en bloc package with the expectation that future revisions would occur.

• The Committee approved the amendments in the nature of substitutes included in the en bloc package by voice vote.

• Ranking Member Takano then moved that all bills included in the en bloc package, as amended, be favorably reported to the House of Representatives. The Committee approved the motion by voice vote, and the bills were favorably reported.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS ON THE SECOND EN BLOC

• The Committee then discussed a second en bloc package consisting of H.R. 6652, H.R. 5999, and H.R. 7260, none of which included amendments.

• Rep. Morrison spoke in support of the Veteran Opioid Emergency Treatment Act (H.R. 5999), which expanded access to Naloxone for veterans without requiring prescriptions or copays. Drawing on her experience as a physician who trained within the VA system, she underscored the elevated overdose risks faced by veterans and argued that reducing barriers to Naloxone access would save lives.

• Ranking Member Takano also supported H.R. 5999 and praised Rep. Herb Conaway’s leadership on the issue. He stressed that easier access to Naloxone could prevent overdose deaths among veterans struggling with substance use disorders. He additionally expressed support for H.R. 6652, legislation improving access to VA care for veterans living in the Freely Associated States. He highlighted the military service contributions made by citizens of those nations and emphasized the need to address barriers to VA healthcare access.

• Rep. Herb Conaway thanked colleagues for bipartisan support of the legislation and praised the collaborative work on the bills included in the package.

• The Ranking Member moved that the bills in the second en bloc package be favorably reported to the House. The Committee approved the motion by voice vote, and the bills were favorably reported.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS ON THE LEASE RESOLUTIONS

• The Committee finally considered VA fiscal year 2026 lease resolutions in en bloc fashion. Chairman Bost explained that the leases involved new VA facilities requested in the prior year’s VA budget and already included within the enacted fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill.

• Ranking Member Takano supported the lease resolutions and stated that they would improve care access for veterans in Fort Worth, Austin, and Harlingen, Texas. However, he also criticized unresolved differences involving a separate Plano, Texas, lease resolution, arguing that the Committee’s failure to reconcile competing versions had delayed construction of a needed facility.

• The Committee approved the lease resolutions by voice vote.

JOIN THE NIMITZ NETWORK

Enjoying our updates? Don’t keep it to yourself — forward this email to friends or colleagues who’d love to stay informed. They can subscribe here to become part of our growing community.