⚡NIMITZ NEWS FLASH⚡

Legislative Hearing

House Veterans Affairs Committee, Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee

February 3, 2026 (recording here)

HEARING INFORMATION

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

• Mr. James McCormick: Executive Director, Vietnam Veterans of America

• Mr. Paul Shipley: National Commander, AMVETS

• Mrs. Tanya Wilson-Thomas: Surviving Spouse and Former Caregiver, Gold Star Wives of America

• Ms. Nancy Springer: Associate Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States

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

• Ms. Jennifer Bover: Executive Director, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

• Mr. Glenn Powers: Deputy Under Secretary, Field Programs and Cemetery Operations, National Cemetery Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

• Mr. James W. Smith II: Deputy Executive Director, Policy and Procedures for Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

TOP-LINES TO SHOW YOU ARE IN THE KNOW

1. The hearing focused heavily on survivor equity, with bipartisan agreement that no surviving spouse should have to choose between finding love again and keeping the benefits their family earned.

2. Members were united around fixing survivor benefit gaps for ALS, pointing out that strict time-based rules simply do not match the reality of a fast-moving, fatal disease or the toll it takes on caregivers.

3. VA officials raised concerns about costs, coordination with other federal programs, and implementation challenges, which prompted sharp and sometimes frustrated pushback from Subcommittee leadership.

4. Transparency came up again and again, especially around appeals backlogs, how national cemeteries operate, report data, and how the VA identifies fraud in disability exams.

5. Veteran service organizations drove home that benefits are a promise to veterans and families, not a budget line item, and that bureaucracy should never stand in the way of care or dignity.

PARTY LINE PERSPECTIVES

OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE

• Chairman Morgan Luttrell called up nine bills for discussion regarding veterans and survivor benefits, explaining that the legislation affected these groups at critical moments in their lives. He mentioned that the bills were not yet offset and warned that without identified funding mechanisms, some proposals could not advance to full Committee consideration.

• Ranking Member Morgan McGarvey spotlighted the Susan E. Lukas 9/11 Servicemember Fairness Act (H.R. 5339), recognizing the bill’s namesake for her service and sacrifice, and described the need to address toxic exposures faced by Pentagon personnel after 9/11. He expressed support for the PRESUME Act (H.R. 4469) to help radiation-exposed veterans access benefits without unrealistic evidentiary burdens. The Ranking Member also endorsed efforts to address fraud in VA disability exams and supported the National Cemetery Administration Annual Report Act of 2026 as a commonsense transparency and oversight measure.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS (OTHER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS)

• Rep. Michael Turner urged support for the Dayton National Cemetery Expansion Act of 2025 (H.R. 2164). He explained that the cemetery was running out of burial space and that prior expansion plans threatened to take land from the Dayton VA Medical Center campus. He described working with local and county partners to secure adjacent land that would be donated to the VA at no cost. The bill would require the VA to accept the donation and would preserve the historic integrity of the campus while allowing families to continue burying loved ones locally.

• Rep. Dina Titus spoke in support of H.R. 4469. She described how atomic veterans and other service members at the Nevada Test Site and training range were exposed to radiation while their service records remained classified or incomplete. She argued that veterans should not be required to prove radiation dose levels when the government controlled the evidence, and records were unreliable or missing. Rep. Titus claimed that the bill would remove bureaucratic barriers, creating fairness for radiation-exposed veterans, and urged swift action due to the small number of surviving atomic veterans.

• Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick introduced the Justice for ALS Veterans Act of 2025 (H.R. 1685) and described it as a bipartisan, bicameral effort. He explained that ALS disproportionately affected veterans and progressed so rapidly that many did not live long enough to meet existing Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) eligibility requirements. Rep. Fitzpatrick stated that denying surviving spouses benefits based on an arbitrary time requirement violated the nation’s commitment to veterans. He asked the Committee to close this loophole while continuing broader efforts to improve ALS research and treatment access.

• Rep. Suhas Subramanyam advocated for H.R. 5339, describing how Pentagon employees returned to duty after the 9/11 attack and were exposed to toxins that later caused serious health conditions. He explained that the bill extended PACT Act coverage to those who reported for duty between September 11 and November 19, 2001, and highlighted Susan E. Lukas’s experience as evidence of the need for the legislation.

• Rep. Gabe Evans spoke in support of the Veterans Burial Allowance and Reimbursement Act (H.R. 6943). He shared his personal connection to military service and underscored the importance of honoring veterans at burial. He explained that the current law created a disparity where non–service-connected burial allowances were set to exceed service-connected allowances. Rep. Evans said that the bill eliminated this distinction by creating a single, equitable burial benefit for all veterans.

• Rep. Ryan Mackenzie introduced the National Cemetery Administration Annual Report Act of 2026. He stated that the NCA plays a critical role in honoring veterans and supporting grieving families, and that Congress requires clearer insight into its operations. The bill would require the VA to produce an annual, publicly accessible report detailing NCA performance, operations, and future planning. Rep. Mackenzie pointed to strong support from veteran service organizations and urged the Committee to advance the bipartisan measure.

• Rep. Keith Self spoke in support of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals Annual Report Transparency Act (H.R. 6698). He explained that the Board’s current report tracked timeliness metrics without explaining the causes of delays or remands. He claimed that veterans, VSOs, and Congress needed detailed data to understand and address systemic problems in the appeals process. Rep. Self said the bill required the Board to identify and quantify factors contributing to untimely decisions and remands to improve accountability and oversight.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS (PANEL ONE)

• Mr. James McCormick introduced himself as the executive director of government affairs for Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) and a 22-year Army veteran with service spanning the Cold War, Gulf War, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. He described VVA’s origins in 1978 as an organization founded by Vietnam veterans seeking recognition and care, including acknowledgment of invisible wounds such as PTSD. Mr. McCormick explained that VVA now advocated for all veterans and future generations, guided by the principle that no generation should abandon another. He expressed strong support for the bills under consideration and urged Congress to reject divisive politics and instead ensure stability, access to care, and dignity for all veterans and their families.

• Mr. Paul Shipley of AMVETS testified that the bills before the Subcommittee addressed core issues of mental health, survivor equity, and accountability in the veterans benefits system. He expressed strong support for the Love Lives On Act (H.R. 1004), H.R. 1685, H.R. 5339, H.R. 4469, and H.R. 6698, claiming that current laws unfairly penalize survivors and radiation- and toxin-exposed veterans. He also supported the FRAUD in VA Disability Exam Act (H.R. 5723) if carefully amended to avoid harming veterans who relied on private providers. He called on Congress to strengthen fairness and accountability while ensuring fraud prevention did not become another barrier to earned benefits.

• Mrs. Tanya Wilson-Thomas introduced herself as a surviving spouse and member of Gold Star Wives of America and explained the organization’s long history advocating for military survivors and their children. She testified in support of H.R. 1004 and H.R. 1685, describing how both bills directly affected surviving spouses coping with loss, caregiving responsibilities, and long-term instability. Mrs. Wilson-Thomas shared her personal experience as the caregiver to her late husband, a U.S. Marine with service-connected illnesses, and described the lasting impact of his death on her family. She urged Congress to pass both bills as a moral obligation consistent with the nation’s promise to care for service members’ widows and families.

• Ms. Nancy Springer testified on behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and stated that the organization supported multiple bills under consideration, mentioning three in particular. She supported H.R. 1685, explaining that ALS’s rapid progression made existing DIC eligibility requirements unattainable for most surviving spouses. She also supported H.R. 5723 to address exploitation related to disability questionnaires while protecting honest veterans. She further endorsed H.R. 6698, arguing that increased reporting on delays and remands would improve oversight, accountability, and confidence in the appeals process.

• Rep. Self asked Mr. McCormick to elaborate on how H.R. 6698 would drive real change and who would ultimately benefit from it. Mr. McCormick explained that the bill would improve transparency, oversight, and accountability by identifying root causes of delays, such as training and quality issues, which would help reduce backlogs. Rep. Self pressed on whether or not veterans themselves would directly benefit, rather than the bill merely creating new processes. Mr. McCormick affirmed that the legislation would increase trust in the system and remove barriers that had long affected veterans, particularly Vietnam-era veterans.

• Rep. Chris Pappas thanked the witnesses and emphasized bipartisan support for H.R. 1685. He asked Ms. Springer to explain why maintaining the eight-year total disability requirement for enhanced DIC harmed survivors of veterans with ALS. Ms. Springer replied that the requirement was fundamentally incompatible with ALS because the disease typically resulted in death within two to five years, making the threshold unattainable. She explained that families often became full-time caregivers, lost income, and were unfairly denied benefits despite the veteran’s service connection and total disability.

• Ranking Member McGarvey asked Mrs. Wilson-Thomas to respond to the VA’s position that marriage restrictions under H.R. 1004 helped manage and allocate resources. Mrs. Wilson-Thomas said that framing survivor benefits as a budgeting exercise minimized the sacrifices of surviving spouses and failed to reflect the nation’s promise to care for families “on behalf of a grateful nation.” She explained that survivors were trying to rebuild stability after profound loss and that such language made them feel unsupported by the system. The Ranking Member agreed that DIC represented a moral and legal promise, not merely a payment, and criticized prioritizing other spending while denying survivor benefits.

• Chairman Luttrell expressed strong personal support for surviving spouses and shared the belief that benefits earned through service should not be taken away due to remarriage. He committed, alongside the Ranking Member, to advance H.R. 1004 to completion. The Chairman also reassured Mrs. Wilson-Thomas that the Subcommittee would continue fighting to ensure survivors received what they deserved.

• The Chairman then turned to Ms. Springer, asking what the appropriate next step or framework should be for addressing ALS survivor benefits, considering the difficulty of setting arbitrary timelines. Ms. Springer explained that ALS was a rapidly progressive disease that caused severe emotional and financial harm to families and argued that no time limit should apply to enhanced DIC eligibility. She suggested staying aligned with medical science and data and focusing on the condition itself rather than rigid timeframes. Chairman Luttrell acknowledged that a condition-based approach could be a viable alternative and stated that follow-up discussions with the VA were necessary.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS (PANEL TWO)

• Ms. Jennifer Bover underlined the VA’s commitment to serving veterans, service members, families, and survivors with clarity, transparency, and modernized benefits. She stated that the VA supported H.R. 1004 and H.R. 1685, though the latter was subject to appropriations and potential amendments, particularly regarding defining high-mortality conditions. She explained that the VA did not support H.R. 5723 or H.R. 6943, citing concerns about fraud enforcement limitations and a preference to preserve longstanding distinctions in burial benefits.

• Rep. Kelly Morrison argued for H.R. 1004 and asked whether the VA would share the methodology behind its earlier cost estimate and work with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to reconcile major scoring differences. Ms. Bover replied that the VA was willing to work with the Committee but said that the department did not have a current cost estimate and would provide one when available.

• Rep. Morrison questioned why survivor “financial need” changed at age 55 and asked whether there was a moral imperative to protect benefits for those who remarried before that age. Ms. Bover responded that remarriage restrictions were not unique to the VA and raised concerns that the bill created inequities within VA programs and across other federal benefits. She followed up, saying the department remained willing to work with the Committee on a more holistic approach.

• Chairman Luttrell pressed Ms. Bover to explain what she meant by “other federal agencies” and asked how those agencies’ remarriage restrictions affected the VA’s position on H.R. 1004. Ms. Bover cited remarriage restrictions in survivor pension, TRICARE, the Survivor Benefit Plan, Social Security, and VA programs like the home loan guarantee, and she argued that the bill did not address the broader set of remarriage-related rules.

• The Chairman challenged why the VA raised these points only during the hearing, accused the VA of using other agencies as a rationale to avoid supporting the bill, and demanded a clearer justification focused on the department’s responsibilities to survivors. He repeatedly pressed Ms. Bover to provide cost information and directed her to deliver the requested information within 24 hours, pledging he would contact VA leadership if it did not arrive.

• Chairman Luttrell asked how the VA planned to manage the experience of hospital patients if cemetery expansion resulted in gravesites visible from hospital windows. Mr. Glenn Powers responded that many national cemeteries were historically co-located with VA medical centers and that the VA did not view co-location as an issue, citing Dayton as an example where both the cemetery and facility dated back to the post–Civil War era. The Chairman asked whether the VA planned to move cemeteries away from hospitals and whether space limitations were becoming a broader problem. Mr. Powers said that the VA did not plan to move cemeteries and reported that the NCA monitored burial depletion data and pursued expansion and land acquisition, as needed.

• The Chairman questioned how the VA collected and used cemetery operations data and how a public annual report would change current practice. Mr. Powers replied that the VA did not currently issue a formal annual report, but collected most of the required data and provided it to Congress when requested. The VA supported the intent of the annual report legislation and described it as good governance, while noting one minor reporting element that could be difficult to disaggregate.

• Chairman Luttrell asked whether the VA supported H.R. 5723. Mr. James Smith believed the bill duplicated existing VA efforts and raised concerns that mandatory notice to veterans when disability benefits questionnaires (DBQs) were merely suspected of fraud could confuse or unfairly implicate veterans. The Chairman asked how the VA identified potentially fraudulent DBQs and whether the process relied on human review or technology. Mr. Smith described indicators such as altered forms, missing signature-block information, and distance red flags. He mentioned that the VA was developing a Power AI tool expected to analyze over a million scanned public DBQs dating back to 2010 to flag potential issues more efficiently. He also said the department trained claims processors and coordinated with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) when suspected fraud warranted investigation.

• Turning to H.R. 5339, Chairman Luttrell asked why service members who reported to duty at the Pentagon after 9/11 were not covered under the PACT Act and asked how that omission occurred. Mr. Smith admitted he could not explain how the group was overlooked, but raised concerns that the bill’s listed presumptions were too broad, such as covering cancers in overly general terms. The VA desired more research to tie specific exposures to specific conditions. The Chairman responded that he believed the PACT Act framework already addressed exposure complexity and said he had only recently learned about the Pentagon gap, calling the situation unacceptable.

• Chairman Luttrell asked whether the VA supported H.R. 4469 and how Congress could address the situation of veterans whose records were classified or difficult to verify. Mr. Smith stated that the VA did not support the bill and that dose documentation was not required for service connection if two criteria were met: participation in a radiation-risk activity and diagnosis with a condition on the relevant presumptive list. The Chairman asked how the VA’s regulatory structure could address the specific concerns described by Rep. Titus. Mr. Smith said he was not a clinician, referenced VHA research, and acknowledged that the VA had not found definitive evidence tying the exposure to health problems based on what he had reviewed. He agreed to provide the referenced report to Committee staff.

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.