⚡NIMITZ NEWS FLASH⚡

“Legislative Hearing on: Discussion Draft, Governing Unaccredited Representatives Defrauding VA Benefits Act; Discussion Draft, Preserving Lawful Utilization of Services for Veterans Act of 2025; and Discussion Draft: To amend title 38, United States Code, to allow for certain fee agreements for services rendered in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of initial claims and supplemental claims for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes”

House Veterans Affairs Committee, Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee Hearing

March 5, 2025 (recording here)

HEARING INFORMATION

Witnesses & Written Testimony (Panel One):

• The Honorable Jack Bergman: Member of Congress, Washington D.C.

• The Honorable Chris Pappas: Member of Congress, Washington D.C.

Witnesses & Written Testimony (linked) (Panel Two):

• Mr. Josh Smith: Chief Executive Officer, Veteran Benefits Guide

• Lieutenant Colonel William "Bill" Taylor (Ret.): Co-Founder and Chief Operating Officer, Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting

• Mr. Peter O'Rourke: President, National Association for Veterans Rights

• Ms. Diane Boyd Rauber: Executive Director, National Organization of Veterans' Advocates

• Mr. Pat Murray: Acting Executive Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars

Keywords mentioned:

• Accreditation, fees, veterans’ choice, fraud/abuse, VA claims process, penalties, guardrails, transparency, oversight

IN THEIR WORDS

OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE

• Chairman Morgan Luttrell first took a moment of silence to recognize the loss of Rep. Sylvester Turner. He then turned to the discussion of three bills aimed at reinstating criminal penalties for companies that exploit veterans seeking help with VA disability compensation claims. He noted that some companies had charged veterans over $30,000 for this assistance, which he deemed unacceptable. The Chairman acknowledged that veterans wanted the freedom to choose who helps them file claims but believed that appropriate penalties must protect them. He voiced his disappointment that the VA had not yet provided its views on the bills but assured that the record would remain open for their input.

• Ranking Member Morgan McGarvey echoed the Chairman’s sentiments and claimed that his sole focus was ensuring veterans could access their earned benefits without unnecessary cost or delay. He expressed frustration at the VA’s absence from the hearing, noting that while the VA had provided written testimony, it lacked substance. Ranking Member McGarvey criticized companies that charged excessive fees to veterans and called for the removal of unaccredited and unregulated “claim sharks” from the system. He also highlighted that accredited veterans service organizations (VSOs) and the VA itself offered free assistance, making these predatory services unnecessary.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS (PANEL ONE)

• Rep. Jack Bergman expressed his belief that both parties shared the goal of protecting veterans from exploitation while ensuring they can access benefits efficiently. He argued that veterans should have the option to seek help from private companies, as long as those companies were incorporated into the VA accreditation system. He explained that the PLUS Act would allow for this accreditation while imposing strict penalties on bad actors and ensuring veterans were informed of free assistance options. Rep. Bergman also supported reasonable fee caps but warned against setting them so low that they drive out legitimate businesses providing quality services.

• Rep. Chris Pappas described how his bill, the GUARD VA Benefits Act, would reinstate criminal penalties for unaccredited individuals and companies who illegally prepared, presented, or prosecuted VA claims. He stressed that unaccredited claims companies exploited a loophole left open when Congress removed these penalties in 2006. He said that his bill would not limit veterans’ choices but would ensure that anyone assisting with claims was properly accredited and subject to oversight. Rep. Pappas condemned for-profit companies for spending heavily on lobbyists to fight the bill, arguing that their resistance was purely about profit, not veteran welfare.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS (PANEL TWO)

• Mr. Josh Smith testified in opposition to the GUARD VA Benefits Act and in support of the PLUS Act. He argued that the GUARD VA Benefits Act would unfairly restrict veterans' ability to seek assistance from private companies, including reputable ones like his own. Mr. Smith stated that his company does not violate federal law, does not present claims before the VA, and would welcome accreditation under a clear process. He went on to say that without a federal solution, veterans would face a confusing patchwork of state laws. He urged Congress to pass legislation that both protects veterans and preserves their freedom to choose their assistance.

• Mr. Bill Taylor claimed that his company, run by veterans for veterans, provides valuable assistance to those struggling with the VA claims process. He expressed frustration over being labeled a “claim shark” and argued that his company operates legally by offering advice without directly representing veterans before the VA. Mr. Taylor supported the PLUS Act as a balanced solution that would allow accreditation for companies like his while preserving veterans' right to choose their assistance. He criticized the GUARD VA Benefits Act, claiming it would eliminate legitimate options for veterans and lead to unnecessary delays and hardships.

• Mr. Peter O’Rourke framed his testimony around the importance of preserving veterans’ choices in how they seek assistance with their claims. He accused some traditional veterans groups of vilifying private companies and misleading lawmakers about their role. Mr. O’Rourke strongly supported the PLUS Act, arguing that it modernizes the system, creates needed oversight, and allows innovation to improve veteran services. He insisted that veterans were not being tricked into using private services but were actively choosing them after experiencing frustration with existing systems.

• Ms. Diane Boyd Rauber emphasized that under Title 38, only accredited individuals should assist veterans with claims, ensuring proper regulation and accountability. She supported the GUARD VA Benefits Act, particularly its reinstatement of penalties for unaccredited actors, while also supporting provisions of the PLUS Act that clarify federal preemption over state laws. Ms. Boyd Rauber opposed creating different tiers of accreditation, arguing that veterans should not have to change representatives midway through their cases. She rejected accusations that accredited attorneys deliberately delay cases for higher fees and stated that existing VA and state bar oversight already addresses misconduct.

• Mr. Pat Murray from Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) firmly supported the GUARD VA Benefits Act and described the VFW’s long-standing opposition to unaccredited and predatory claims companies. He mentioned that multiple states have already passed laws to enforce consumer protections, but a federal penalty is needed to fully hold bad actors accountable. Mr. Murray reiterated the VFW’s opposition to the PLUS Act, citing the VA’s own concerns over provisions allowing assignment of benefits and high fee caps. He underscored that veterans should not have to pay for assistance with initial claims, and he urged Congress to focus on strengthening free accredited assistance rather than legitimizing unaccredited companies.

• Ranking Member McGarvey asked if Mr. Taylor’s company engaged in actions that constituted claim preparation, such as advising veterans, gathering evidence, or helping complete forms. Mr. Taylor admitted that they assisted with preparation but insisted that they did not act as agents because they did not interact directly with the VA on behalf of veterans.

• The Ranking Member asked why Mr. Smith’s company had not applied for accreditation under the existing process. Mr. Smith responded that his company supported the PLUS Act to create a new pathway for companies like his to gain accreditation. Ranking Member McGarvey grew frustrated that Mr. Smith avoided answering the direct question about why they had not already pursued existing accreditation.

• Rep. Bergman asked if the PLUS Act would force veterans to pay for initial claims assistance. Mr. Taylor confirmed it would not, saying that veterans would retain the choice to seek free assistance through VSOs or pursue paid assistance if desired.

• Rep. Bergman asked whether Veterans Guardian supported the PLUS Act’s proposed changes to accreditation, including provisional accreditation. Mr. Taylor said they fully supported this and welcomed additional guardrails to ensure veterans were protected from predatory practices. Rep. Bergman followed up, asking how Veterans Guardian ensured their fees did not financially burden veterans. Mr. Taylor explained that they only charged fees after veterans successfully received increased benefits, and the fees were designed to come from new benefits, not existing income.

• Rep. Bergman turned to Mr. Murray, inquiring whether the VA accreditation system held representatives adequately accountable. Mr. Murray said the system could do better.

• Rep. Pappas asked about the training and accreditation process for VSO representatives. Mr. Murray explained that it involved 40 hours of training, a test, a background check, and ongoing education. Rep. Pappas then asked if there was enough capacity within the accredited VSO system to meet demand. Mr. Murray said no, but he emphasized that the solution was to invest more in the system, not to create workarounds with unaccredited companies.

• Rep. Pappas inquired whether pre-filing consultations constituted claim preparation. Mr. Murray agreed, saying gathering evidence and advising veterans clearly fell under preparation, even if the company did not physically submit the claim.

• Rep. Pappas turned to Ms. Boyd Rauber, asking what elements of the PLUS Act she supported. Ms. Boyd Rauber said her organization supported reinstating penalties and clarifying federal preemption over inconsistent state laws.

• Rep. Nancy Mace asked what percentage of a veteran’s benefits Veterans Guardian collects as fees. Mr. Taylor said that they charge a contingent fee equal to five times the monthly benefit increase. Rep. Mace then asked for the company’s annual revenue. Mr. Taylor declined to disclose the amount. Rep. Mace asked if the company would work with veterans under investigation for serious crimes, such as sexual assault. Mr. Taylor said that they would not knowingly work with such individuals.

• Rep. Maxine Dexter asked what Congress could do to make the VA claims process faster and easier. Ms. Boyd Rauber recommended improving accreditation, strengthening oversight, and ensuring representatives adhered to training and ethical standards.

• Rep. Dexter asked what risks veterans faced using unaccredited companies. Ms. Boyd Rauber warned that unaccredited companies lacked accountability, leaving veterans without recourse if something went wrong.

• Rep. Keith Self expressed optimism about the progress being made on this issue. He compared the debate over veterans' claims assistance to ongoing discussions about veterans' healthcare choices, claiming that veterans should have options beyond the VA system. Rep. Self stated that monopolies, whether in healthcare or claims assistance, needed competition to improve, and he spoke on his belief that veterans deserve as many choices as possible when seeking help with their claims.

• Rep. Kelly Morrison said that she believed veterans should not have to pay out-of-pocket to file claims for benefits they have earned. She then asked Ms. Boyd Rauber what risks veterans faced when working with unaccredited companies. Ms. Boyd Rauber responded that unaccredited companies operate in the shadows, leaving veterans without clear recourse if something goes wrong. These companies do not file power of attorney documents or formally represent veterans before the VA.

• Rep. Morrison also asked both Mr. Murray and Ms. Boyd Rauber for their recommendations to improve the process. Mr. Murray recommended investing in county and state VSOs and continuing to hire more VA employees to process claims. Ms. Boyd Rauber highlighted the positive impact of the 2017 Appeals Modernization Act and suggested that further refinements to that system could improve the process even more.

• Chairman Luttrell asked if veterans should pay for assistance with presumptive claims. Mr. Smith said no, as presumptive claims were relatively straightforward and should be handled for free. The Chairman asked what guardrails should be in place if Congress allows fees for initial claims. Ms. Boyd Rauber said that the current accreditation system provided sufficient guardrails, requiring fee agreements to be submitted for review and representatives to meet training and ethical standards.

• Chairman Luttrell asked why Veterans Guardian had not pursued accreditation under the existing process. Mr. Taylor said the current rules prohibited accredited agents from charging for initial claims, which conflicted with their business model focused on initial claims.

• Rep. Pappas reiterated his support for the GUARD VA Benefits Act, underlining the need to protect veterans from predatory companies while improving the VA and VSO systems to provide timely assistance.

• Chairman Luttrell stressed that the Committee’s goal was to protect veterans and ensure their quality of life while acknowledging the need for both strong oversight and meaningful choice.

SPECIAL TOPICS

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.