⚡NIMITZ NEWS FLASH⚡

“Hearing on Pending Legislation”

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

June 24, 2025 (recording here)

HEARING INFORMATION

Witnesses (Panel One):

• The Honorable Tom Barrett: Member of Congress, Washington D.C.

• The Honorable Julia Brownley: Member of Congress, Washington D.C.

• The Honorable Chuck Edwards: Member of Congress, Washington D.C.

• The Honorable Jahana Hayes: Member of Congress, Washington D.C.

• The Honorable Timothy M. Kennedy: Member of Congress, Washington D.C.

• The Honorable Elise M. Stefanik: Member of Congress, Washington D.C.

• The Honorable David G. Valadao: Member of Congress, Washington D.C.

• The Honorable Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Member of Congress, Washington D.C.

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

• Mrs. Julie Guleff: Caregiver and Surviving Spouse of Stephen Guleff

• Ms. Candace Wheeler: Senior Director, Government and Legislative Affairs, Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS)

• Mr. Michael J. Wishnie: William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law and Director, Veterans Legal Services Clinic, Yale Law School

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

• Mr. Evan Deichert: Acting Deputy Vice Chairman, Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals, Department of Veterans Affairs

• Mr. Kevin Friel: Executive Director, Pension & Fiduciary Service, Department of Veterans Affairs

• Dr. Colleen M. Richardson: Executive Director, Caregiver Support Program, Department of Veterans Affairs

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

• Colonel Tiffany M. Wagner, USAF (Ret.): Clerk of the Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Keywords mentioned:

• Appeals, caregivers, survivors, DIC (Dependency and Indemnity Compensation), automation, data, courts, claims, training, access

IN THEIR WORDS

OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE

• Chairman Morgan Luttrell introduced 12 bills geared toward improving the VA benefits process for veterans, caregivers, and survivors. He claimed that the legislation would modernize the appeals process, provide rural access to exams, expand survivor benefits, and enhance the tracking of suicide data. He spotlighted his own bill, the Veterans Claims Quality Improvement Act (H.R. 3983), which would address recurring legal errors by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals and implement mandatory training and accountability measures. The Chairman emphasized that the current delays and deferrals in claims decisions were unacceptable and called for a VA system that learns from its mistakes and centers veterans in its operations.

• Ranking Member Morgan McGarvey praised the inclusion of the Veterans Law Judge Experience Act (H.R. 659) and reiterated support for legislation to improve the efficiency of both the Board of Veterans’ Appeals and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Ranking Member McGarvey voiced strong support for the Caring for Survivors Act (H.R. 2055), noting that Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) rates had not been adjusted since 1993 and that survivors deserve more than the current outdated compensation. He advocated for practical and compassionate reforms, distinguishing between cost and investment in those who serve.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS (PANEL ONE)

• Full Committee Chairman Bost expressed pride in introducing two bills on the agenda, including the Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act (H.R. 3835). He explained that his legislation would introduce legal tools like aggregation and class actions to help the Board of Veterans’ Appeals process claims more efficiently, rather than relying on additional staffing. Chairman Bost criticized the current backlog and delays in appeals decisions and advocated for modernization over bureaucracy. He also discussed the Protecting Veteran’s Claim Options Act (H.R. 3834), which would prevent veterans from getting stuck in appeal dead-ends and ensure they can submit new evidence when cases are remanded, ultimately aiming to provide final, fair decisions.

• Rep. Julia Brownley introduced her bill, H.R. 659, which would prioritize the hiring of judges with three or more years of veterans law experience. She stressed that experienced judges would reduce claim backlogs and improve the accuracy and timeliness of decisions. Rep. Brownley expressed disappointment in the VA’s opposition to the bill, calling it illogical to resist hiring judges familiar with the laws they would be applying. She stated that veterans deserve decisions made by knowledgeable and immediately capable judges.

• Rep. Tom Barrett presented his bill, the Veterans’ Caregiver Appeals Modernization Act (H.R. 3833), which would reform the Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers program. He explained that the lack of a unified application system at the VA leads to delays, denials, and confusion for caregivers. Rep. Barrett called for streamlining the process so caregivers can receive timely decisions and past-due benefits, especially in tragic cases where veterans die before their claims are processed.

• Rep. Tim Kennedy spoke in support of his bill, the Honoring Our Heroes Act (H.R. 2721), which would allow families of veterans who died before November 1, 1990, to receive headstones or markers through a new VA pilot program. He condemned the current policy, calling it arbitrary and rooted in cost-cutting rather than principle. Rep. Kennedy shared stories from families denied final honors for their loved ones and described the emotional toll of repeated denials and bureaucratic hurdles. He urged the Subcommittee to correct this injustice and honor veterans equally, regardless of their date of death.

• Rep. Elise Stefanik introduced her bipartisan bill, the Ernest Peltz Accrued Veterans Benefits Act (H.R. 3123), which would ensure that pre-approved pension benefits are delivered to veterans’ families even if the veteran passes away before receipt. She recounted the story of a World War II Navy veteran whose benefits were clawed back after a VA processing delay resulted in payment arriving posthumously. She criticized the bureaucratic error and underscored the emotional and financial burden it placed on the Peltz family. This bill would prevent similar injustices and ensure timely disbursement of benefits to surviving families.

• Rep. Jahana Hayes spoke about her bill, H.R. 2055, which has been introduced in multiple Congresses. She mentioned that current DIC benefits have remained unchanged since 1993 and are significantly lower than other federal survivor programs. Rep. Hayes’s bill would raise the DIC rate to 55% of a totally disabled veteran’s compensation and reduce the eligibility period from ten to five years, increasing monthly benefits and expanding access. She thanked survivors and VSOs for their advocacy and called for bipartisan support to pass the legislation and provide overdue financial relief to military families.

• Later in the hearing, Rep. Chuck Edwards spoke in support of his bill, the Justice for America’s Veterans and Survivors Act (H.R. 3627). He stated that the nation was failing veterans by lacking accurate data on suicide and causes of death. He cited research suggesting that the true veteran suicide rate may be closer to 40 per day. The bill would ensure comprehensive data collection, including deaths by suicide, overdose, and service-connected conditions, to better support survivors and guide policy. He urged the Subcommittee to act swiftly, framing the bill as a commitment to truth and accountability for veterans and their families.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS (PANEL TWO)

• Mrs. Julie Guleff, the surviving spouse of Vietnam veteran Stephen Guleff, testified in strong support of H.R. 3833. She recounted her experience as a full-time caregiver, describing years of financial hardship, emotional stress, and round-the-clock care for her husband as his health declined. Despite clear medical need and exhaustive documentation, their application for the VA’s caregiver support program was repeatedly denied and ultimately dismissed after his death, leaving her homeless and bankrupt. Mrs. Guleff urged Congress to pass H.R. 3833 so that other families would not have to suffer the same devastating consequences.

• Mr. Michael Wishnie, Director of Yale Law School’s Veterans Legal Services Clinic, testified in support of H.R. 3835. He explained that the bill would expand the Veterans Court’s ability to aggregate similar claims, a legal tool widely used in other federal courts to promote fairness, consistency, and judicial economy. He criticized a recent court decision that limited veterans’ access to aggregation, noting that it unfairly excluded similar cases still pending at the agency level. Mr. Wishnie also called for modest amendments to preserve judicial discretion and claimed that the bill would empower the Board of Veterans’ Appeals to adopt proven tools that have long benefited civilians.

• Ms. Candace Wheeler from the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS) testified on behalf of over 120,000 surviving military families. She voiced strong support for H.R. 2055, which would raise DIC payments by $454 per month and modernize eligibility to provide parity with other federal survivor programs. Ms. Wheeler also endorsed legislation to improve VA data collection, claims automation, appeals efficiency, and financial support for caregivers, arguing that survivors face compounding emotional and financial stress that current systems fail to address. She said that passing these bills would bring dignity, recognition, and vital support to the families of fallen and deceased veterans.

• Ranking Member McGarvey asked why TAPS believes the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimates for H.R. 2055 are too high. Ms. Wheeler responded that the VA initially overestimated the number of survivors eligible under the PACT Act by projecting 382,000, while only 37,000 applied. She explained that the original estimate was based on all survivors in the VA database, regardless of cause of death, which inflated projections. Ms. Wheeler argued that legislation to better track causes of death would help the VA and CBO produce more accurate scores, ultimately improving policy development.

• The Ranking Member then asked what the additional DIC increase of approximately $500 per month would mean to survivors. Ms. Wheeler said that it would provide critical financial relief, allowing families to pay bills, care for grieving children, and simply breathe easier. Ms. Huliff replied that $500 would have made a huge difference in her life, sharing that she was left homeless and destitute after her husband died. She explained that she had no income or savings due to years of caregiving and that the added funds would have helped immensely, especially for families with children.

• Ranking Member McGarvey asked Mr. Wishnie how the various bills discussed in the hearing would operate together as a broader reform package. Mr. Wishnie responded that the bills addressed different parts of the system and did not conflict with one another. He said that each bill contributed meaningfully to building a more efficient and fair benefits process for veterans and families.

• Rep. Keith Self asked if H.R. 3835 would allow veterans to opt out of class actions by the Court or the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. Mr. Wishnie explained that the bill references opt-outs only at the Court level and that the Court currently does not have formal opt-out procedures in class cases, which are usually injunctive and don’t typically allow opt-outs. He added that the Board would likely develop its own opt-out policies, as other agencies have done.

• Rep. Self then asked why a veteran might choose to opt out of a class action. Mr. Wishnie stated that some veterans may prefer an individual, possibly faster, decision rather than waiting for a class-wide ruling, even though they risk a less favorable outcome. Rep. Self followed up about the advantages class actions provide. Mr. Wishnie cited a case in which 1,400 airmen exposed to radiation in Spain benefited from expert scientific testimony by a nuclear physicist that they could not have accessed individually. He underlined that class actions help veterans access expertise and ensure consistency in decisions.

• Rep. Self asked for clarification on how granting supplemental jurisdiction in writ cases might lead to unintended limitations. Mr. Wishnie replied that while the bill intends to extend supplemental jurisdiction to appeals, writs are governed by different authorities under the All Writs Act. He warned that including writs under the bill’s new jurisdictional rules might disrupt current, functioning processes and recommended limiting supplemental jurisdiction to appeals only.

• Chairman Luttrell asked Mrs. Guleff if she had primarily dealt with one VA facility or multiple during her caregiving period. Mrs. Guleff said that they initially received care in West Palm Beach but moved in 2018 to Volusia County, within the Orlando VA system. Despite the move, they continued driving over 200 miles to West Palm Beach because each VA facility operated as a separate system, and her husband did not want to start over with new providers.

• The Chairman asked if records transferred easily between VAs and whether West Palm Beach communicated with Houston. Mrs. Guleff reported that there was no communication between facilities, and she had to insist — and even be escorted by Houston Police — to access a virtual hearing at the Houston VA after being told that neither she nor her husband existed in their system.

• Chairman Luttrell asked about her experience testifying before a judge. Mrs. Guleff said that the judge was surprised that she had reached his level without legal representation and asked her to submit hundreds of pages of evidence. She complied but later learned that he was not allowed to review the documents due to the rule that once a veteran dies, the case becomes moot. She expressed frustration that, after years of struggle, the system simply outlasted her husband.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS (PANEL THREE)

• Mr. Evan Deichert highlighted the VA’s mixed views on the legislation under consideration, supporting the intent behind several bills but raising implementation concerns. He stated that while the VA supports H.R. 3627 in principle, the department has reservations about tracking data not currently collected and challenges associated with determining causes of death. He also opposed H.R. 659, arguing that it would undermine merit-based selection, and expressed conditional support for the Rural Veterans Improved Access to Benefits Act (H.R. 3951), recommending changes to licensure and reporting requirements.

• Ms. Tiffany Wagner testified on behalf of the judiciary. She stated that the Court could not comment on the merits of H.R. 3835 but offered technical observations on its potential legal implications. Ms. Wagner warned that unclear drafting could introduce jurisdictional ambiguities or inadvertently limit the Court’s current authority under the All Writs Act. She also cautioned that codifying “limited remand” authority might unintentionally restrict the Court’s existing discretion. Ms. Wagner reiterated the Court’s commitment to delivering fair and timely judicial review and expressed appreciation for being included in the legislative discussion.

• Ranking Member McGarvey asked whether the VA’s move toward automated claims processing would lead to workforce reductions at VBA. Mr. Kevin Friel responded that since automation began in 2014, no VBA employees had lost their jobs due to automation, though some had been reassigned. He emphasized that automation helped process over 320,000 claims this year, with some DIC claims completed in as little as nine hours, but confirmed that human staff remained essential due to claim complexity.

• Ranking Member McGarvey followed up by asking whether all current VBA staff would still be employed next year. Mr. Friel could not speak to broader workforce decisions, as they were above his pay grade, but reaffirmed that his focus was on delivering benefits to veterans as efficiently and accurately as possible.

• The Ranking Member then asked if the VA had collected data on whether veterans supported automated claims systems. Mr. Friel said that feedback from VSOs and organizations like TAPS had been positive, especially for automation that delivered benefits without requiring an application. Mr. James Smith added that automation allowed claims processors to focus more on complex decision-making by reducing administrative burdens.

• Rep. Self inquired whether class action aggregation had helped the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ensure consistency in decision-making. Ms. Wagner replied that she believed aggregation had improved consistency, reporting that the Court had received 26 class certification requests, of which five had been granted. She said that the Court's concerns were not about expanded authority, but rather the ambiguous language in the proposed legislation. Ms. Wagner affirmed that aggregation would increase efficiency in the appeals process.

• Chairman Luttrell asked what happens to a caregiver’s appeal if the veteran dies during the process. Dr. Colleen Richardson responded that as long as the VA had enough information, decisions could be made retroactively, but appeals would be denied if eligibility criteria had not been fully met prior to the veteran’s death.

• Chairman Luttrell asked whether VA caregiver program data flowed seamlessly between facilities. Dr. Richardson said that the VA used a system called JLV to access health records across sites, but Chairman Luttrell expressed skepticism based on caregiver experiences. He then asked if caregiver program evaluators received the same training as VBA adjudicators. Dr. Richardson replied that VHA had its own appeals and application teams and provided standardized training across decision-makers, including centralized eligibility and appeals staff.

• The Chairman inquired whether a caregiver was eligible to receive unpaid stipends after a veteran's death. Dr. Richardson confirmed that they were, provided the VA had the necessary information, but clarified that missing any eligibility requirement at any point could result in denial. She noted that denied applicants were still eligible for VA’s general caregiver support services. She then reported that 86% of applications were processed within 90 days, while most clinical appeals were resolved in under 45 days.

• Chairman Luttrell questioned whether the VA appeals process had become too complex for veterans and caregivers to navigate. Dr. Richardson did not directly answer but acknowledged the system’s complexity and the VA’s obligation to ensure accuracy and fairness.

• The Chairman continued, asking Mr. Deichert why there was a discrepancy between the Board of Veterans Appeals' reported 95% quality rate and the Court’s finding that 83% of appeals were returned due to legal errors. Mr. Deichert explained that cases often change significantly between the Board and the Court stages, particularly because veterans typically gain legal representation at the Court level, which changes the depth and quality of the case presentation.

• Chairman Luttrell asked if better attorney access earlier in the process could reduce errors. Mr. Deichert said that the number of attorneys representing veterans at the Board level was increasing and acknowledged that attorney-prepared cases looked “fundamentally different” and were easier for judges to evaluate accurately.

• Rep. Hayes asked if the VA could better estimate the number of survivors likely to apply for DIC under H.R. 2055, pointing out that current cost estimates were based on outdated PACT Act data. Mr. Friel responded that while the VA had mailed over 300,000 letters about PACT Act eligibility, actual claim submissions had been much lower. He supported the DIC rate increase to 55% but needed clarification on the bill’s language regarding partial DIC awards and eligibility timelines to more accurately estimate costs. He welcomed the opportunity to work with Rep. Hayes and her staff to refine projections.

• Rep. Hayes urged the VA to provide scenario-based cost modeling and disaggregated data to help Congress better assess the bill’s fiscal impact. Mr. Friel agreed to work on this, reiterating the need for clearer legislative intent to create precise cost estimates.

• Ranking Member McGarvey returned to question Mr. Deichert about a May 27 bulletin from the VA’s Chief Human Capital Officer extending the probationary period for Board employees hired after March 2024. Mr. Deichert claimed that he did not know whether the Board had been consulted on the decision but would follow up. He acknowledged that the extension applied regardless of employee performance and noted that veterans’ preference employees were exempt.

• The Ranking Member asked bluntly whether this policy indicated an intent to reduce staff at the Board. Mr. Deichert stated that he was unaware of any plans to reduce staff and stated his preference was to retain well-performing employees, especially given the investment in their training. Ranking Member McGarvey criticized the policy, claiming that it undermined morale and retention, ultimately hurting veterans.

• Chairman Luttrell asked who was responsible for ensuring that Board decisions and remands were fair, accurate, and timely. Mr. Deichert stated that the responsibility ultimately lay with each individual Veterans Law Judge. He explained that quality reviews covered about 5% of the Board’s 118,000 annual decisions and were conducted by a small team of six staff. Chairman Luttrell implied that a team of six was too small to ensure broad accountability.

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.