⚡NIMITZ NEWS FLASH⚡

“Legislative Hearing on: H.R. 6047, the ‘Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2025,’ H.R. 4077, the ‘GUARD Veterans’ Health Care Act’”

House Veterans Affairs Committee Hearing

December 3, 2025 (recording here)

HEARING INFORMATION

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

• Mrs. Sharri Briley: Surviving Spouse of CW3 Donovan ‘Bull’ Briley

• Mr. Edgar Edmundson: Father of Sgt (Ret) Eric Edmundson

• Ms. Kristina Keenan: Legislative Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)

• Dr. Brian Miller: Associate Professor of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University

• Mr. Tom Wheaton: National Treasurer, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA)

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

• Ms. Margarita Devlin: Principal Deputy Undersecretary for Benefits, Performing the Delegable Duties of the Undersecretary for Benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs

• Ms. Heather Ford: Acting Chief Financial Officer, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs

• Mr. Kevin Johnson: Director, Revenue Operations, and Office of Finance, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs

• Ms. Stephanie Li: Assistant Director, Regulations, Legislation, Engagement, and Training, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs

Keywords mentioned:

• Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC), Special Monthly Compensation (SMC), VA home loan, disabled veterans, caregiver support, Medicare Advantage, funding fee, survivor benefits, catastrophic disability

IN THEIR WORDS

OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE & OTHER MEMBERS

• Chairman Mike Bost introduced two bills: the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2025 (H.R. 6047) and the GUARD Veterans’ Health Care Act (H.R. 4077). He stated that H.R. 6047 would provide long-overdue increases to Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) and Special Monthly Compensation (SMC), describing how survivors like Sharri Briley and catastrophically injured veterans like Eric Edmundson would directly benefit. He defended the home-loan funding-fee offset as a realistic, PAYGO-compliant path to advancing long-stagnant benefits. The Chairman also criticized Democrats for refusing to negotiate and warned that inaction would leave families behind.

• Ranking Member Mark Takano agreed that increases to DIC and SMC were overdue but said that he could not support paying for them by charging disabled veterans new VA home-loan fees. He argued that the bill imposed an unprecedented “tax” on disabled veterans rated 70 percent or below, forcing millions to pay thousands of dollars to use an earned benefit. He contrasted H.R. 6047 with H.R. 4077, which he claimed recouped money from insurance companies rather than veterans. The Ranking Member pledged to find an alternative offset that honored both survivors and disabled veterans.

• Rep. Tom Barrett thanked the witnesses and emphasized that meeting with the Briley and Edmundson families underscored the urgency of long-overdue reforms. He argued that Congress too often defaults to the status quo and that advancing H.R. 6047 required difficult but necessary decisions to support the veterans and survivors most severely impacted by service. He expressed openness to working with Ranking Member Takano on offsets but insisted that the need for action should not be derailed by procedural or political hesitation. Rep. Barrett reaffirmed his commitment to ensuring families like the Brileys and Edmundsons receive long-promised benefits.

• Rep. Lloyd Doggett described H.R. 4077 as a bipartisan fix to a long-standing loophole allowing Medicare Advantage and Part D insurers to keep taxpayer-funded premiums while the VA delivers the actual care. He noted that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated at least $10 billion in annual savings and underlined that the VA only sought the same reimbursement authority it already had with private insurers. He referenced reporting showing insurers aggressively marketing to veterans, sometimes with cash incentives, because they could profit without paying for VA-provided care. Rep. Doggett rejected claims that the bill imposed a tax on Medicare Advantage plans and urged the Committee to move the legislation forward to strengthen VA resources and protect taxpayers.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS (PANEL ONE)

• Mr. Edgar Edmundson described how his son, Eric Edmundson, suffered devastating brain injuries after an IED strike in Iraq in 2005, leaving him unable to walk, speak, or live independently. He explained that the family has spent 20 years providing intensive, round-the-clock care that requires adaptive housing, specialized equipment, transportation, and respite support. Mr. Edmundson illustrated that catastrophic injuries become harder with time, not easier, and that families face lasting financial strain even after their veteran passes away. He urged Congress to work together on increasing SMC and DIC to protect severely disabled veterans and surviving families who have sacrificed alongside their veterans.

• Mrs. Sharri Briley recounted the life and service of her husband, CW3 Donovan “Bull” Briley, who was killed in Mogadishu during the 1993 Black Hawk Down incident. She explained that DIC has remained largely stagnant for more than 30 years despite rising costs of living, leaving over 500,000 surviving spouses struggling to keep up. She stated that the bill’s proposed annual 1 percent increase would provide meaningful, tangible support and signal national recognition of surviving families’ ongoing sacrifices. Mrs. Briley asked the Committee to act now, claiming that survivors have waited too long and that strengthening DIC is essential to honoring the nation’s promise to military families.

• Mr. Tom Wheaton testified on behalf of Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) and expressed strong support for increasing SMC for the most severely disabled veterans and raising DIC for their survivors. He explained that the cost of living with catastrophic disabilities (such as home modifications, travel needs, equipment repairs, and daily caregiving expenses) far exceeds current SMC rates, which have not been meaningfully updated in decades. He shared personal concerns that his spouse would not be financially secure after his death, highlighting why DIC increases are vital for families like his. Mr. Wheaton stated that the bill’s proposed increases would offer long-overdue relief and hope for thousands of similarly situated veterans and survivors.

• Dr. Brian Miller stated that veterans should be able to fully access both their earned VA and Medicare benefits, but current law forces them to choose between programs. He argued that H.R. 4077 was not the correct solution because it would shift costs from the VA to Medicare rather than address the underlying issues of duplicative payment and poor benefits coordination. He noted that long-standing Government Accountability Office (GAO) findings show persistent problems with data sharing and coordination between the VA and Medicare, and that short-term fixes have not been implemented. Dr. Miller recommended a long-term strategy that includes new coordination offices and a Veterans Health Benefits marketplace to allow veterans to use both systems together.

• Ms. Kristina Keenan, testifying on behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, expressed VFW’s strong support for H.R. 4077 because it would allow the VA to recover costs from Medicare Advantage and Part D plans that currently receive taxpayer funds without providing the corresponding care. She stressed that safeguards and oversight would be needed to ensure insurers do not shift administrative burdens or copays onto veterans. Ms. Keenan then voiced serious concerns about H.R. 6047, arguing that extending the VA home-loan funding fee to disabled veterans rated at 70 percent or below would break an 80-year promise and create an unacceptable precedent of reducing benefits for one group of veterans to expand benefits for another. She believed that survivors and severely disabled veterans deserve increased support, but Congress must find offsets that do not come at the direct expense of disabled veterans who have already paid through their service and injuries.

• Chairman Bost asked Mr. Edmundson why Congress should address the bill now rather than wait for a future Congress. Mr. Edmundson answered that the issue had been ignored for too long and that severely injured veterans like his son Eric urgently needed the bill to ensure long-term care, stability, and the ability to support their families.

• The Chairman then asked Mrs. Briley to describe the aftermath of losing her husband and raising her daughter while relying on DIC. Mrs. Briley answered that she struggled financially and had to work several part-time jobs to provide for her family. She found that DIC was insufficient to compensate for the loss of three-quarters of her husband’s income and explained that the benefit had not allowed for a stable, healthy standard of living.

• Chairman Bost turned to Ms. Keenan and asked whether she understood that Congress must identify offsets for increases in mandatory spending. Ms. Keenan answered that she understood the requirement and stated that the VFW was open to working directly with the Committee to identify alternative offsets that would not harm disabled veterans.

• Ranking Member Takano challenged the Chairman for consistently placing the responsibility for offsets on VSOs and the minority when the majority proposed reducing one group of veterans’ benefits to expand another. He stated that he wanted to pass benefit increases this Congress. Chairman Bost responded that individuals who had met with the Ranking Member’s office had reported being told to “wait until next Congress,” and he emphasized that veterans had waited since 1993 for improvements. Ranking Member Takano reclaimed his time, disputing the claim and arguing that more generous bills existed but had not been brought forward by the majority.

• Ranking Member Takano then asked Ms. Keenan whether VFW agreed that increases to SMC and DIC were necessary. Ms. Keenan answered that VFW fully supported increasing both benefits. The Ranking Member additionally asked whether VFW would support allowing veterans to transfer the VA home loan benefit to dependents. Ms. Keenan answered that VFW had a resolution supporting transferability, especially for descendants of veterans who never used the benefit.

• Rep. Jack Bergman asked Dr. Miller whether allowing the VA to bill Medicare Advantage for virtually all care could shift financial burdens onto Medicare. He then followed up on how such costs would affect Medicare Advantage premiums, networks, and benefits. Dr. Miller confirmed the first question and answered that premiums would rise, supplemental benefits would shrink, and networks would narrow. He concluded that H.R. 4077 would move costs from the VA to Medicare and worsen Medicare’s fiscal stability.

• Rep. Bergman asked whether CMS had already adjusted Medicare Advantage benchmarks to account for VA spending. Dr. Miller said that it did, based on the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. Rep. Bergman then asked whether the VA and CMS could address remaining concerns administratively, and Dr. Miller answered yes, claiming that statutory changes were not needed.

• Rep. Bergman asked Ms. Keenan whether VFW would support legislation that strengthened front-end coordination between the VA and Medicare Advantage, such as data sharing and care integration. Ms. Keenan answered that VFW would be open to such discussions and supported common-sense solutions to improve coordination, consistent with VFW’s resolutions supporting the reimbursement process.

• Rep. Maxine Dexter asked Ms. Keenan what imposing a new VA home-loan funding fee would mean for disabled veterans’ daily and long-term financial stability. Ms. Keenan answered that such a fee would make homeownership less affordable by adding $13,000–$15,000 to typical loan costs, delaying equity build-up, and reducing financial security. She stressed that this would fundamentally reduce an earned benefit for disabled veterans.

• Rep. Dexter then asked about transferring the home loan benefit to dependents. Ms. Keenan answered that VFW strongly supported transferability to remedy historic inequities and strengthen intergenerational stability.

• At this point in the hearing, Mr. Edmundson interjected to respond to Ranking Member Takano’s prior comments. He pointed out that identifying offsets was the Committee’s responsibility, not the responsibility of veterans or their families, and that the tenants of the bill had been ignored for far too long. He urged the Committee to come together in a bipartisan manner to find a mechanism to pass the legislation now.

• Rep. Kimberlyn King-Hinds responded by expressing frustration at the tone of the debate and stating that discussions about preserving a “second home loan waiver” felt disconnected from the reality faced by veterans in her district, many of whom lacked even basic access to the VA services that others take for granted. She apologized to Mr. Edmundson and reaffirmed her support for the bill, stating that her priority was ensuring that veterans like Eric and families like Mrs. Briley’s received long-overdue assistance. She asked Mr. Edmundson to describe the daily realities of caring for Eric, reinforcing the urgency of congressional action.

• Rep. Nikki Budzinski said that she fully supported increasing DIC and SMC but could not support paying for these increases by imposing a new fee on disabled veterans using the VA home loan program a second time. She expressed deep disappointment that the Committee had reached a partisan stalemate on offsets, despite bipartisan agreement that the benefits needed to be increased urgently.

• Rep. Greg Murphy asked Dr. Miller to describe the short-term and long-term problems with H.R. 4077 and how it might create unnecessary bureaucracy similar to other federal health programs. Dr. Miller answered that the immediate problem was the lack of permanent data sharing between the VA and CMS, which allowed duplicative payments in both Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service Medicare. He stated that improving data integration and adjusting Medicare Advantage benchmarks would prevent plans from being overpaid for care that the VA already provides. He added that long-term reforms should focus on integrated benefits coordination rather than shifting costs between federal systems.

• Rep. Kelly Morrison asked Ms. Keenan why restricting the VA home-loan fee waiver for disabled veterans was particularly harmful now, given the high cost of living and rising housing prices. Ms. Keenan answered that housing stability was directly tied to veteran well-being and suicide-prevention outcomes, making home-loan benefits critical even though they were not disability-compensation benefits. She stated that reducing this benefit during a period of severe housing unaffordability would undermine veterans’ stability and contradict long-held policy commitments. She restated that VFW could not support any reduction in earned benefits, particularly at a moment of rising costs.

• Rep. Herb Conaway asked what message it would send to disabled veterans if Congress imposed a VA home-loan funding fee on those with disability ratings up to 70 percent. Ms. Keenan answered that such a policy would signal that veterans’ earned benefits were no longer secure, raising fears that other benefits could be cut next. She also noted that the absence of a grandfather clause meant currently serving service members and veterans who had already used the program could face substantial new costs in future home purchases, undermining long-standing expectations.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS (PANEL TWO)

• Ms. Margarita Devlin testified that the VA supported the intent of Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act and welcomed the opportunity to refine the legislative language. She explained that the proposed increases to SMC would significantly strengthen support for veterans with severe service-connected disabilities and recommended technical adjustments, including rounding conventions and automatic cost-of-living adjustments to ensure consistency and timely updates. She also expressed support for expanding annual increases to DIC and outlined the VA’s position on cost recovery improvements and Medicare Advantage reimbursement under H.R. 4077.

• Chairman Bost asked Ms. Devlin how many surviving spouses currently receive DIC. Ms. Devlin answered that as of the end of November, there were 552,505 active DIC recipients and 12,000 pending claims.

• The Chairman then asked whether the size of the program made increasing payments difficult, and Ms. Devlin responded that it did not. When asked if DIC rates were reasonable today, she replied that survivorship expenses were significant but that the VA was still analyzing the legislation.

• Ranking Member Takano asked who typically uses subsequent VA home loans. Ms. Stephanie Li explained that “subsequent use” means any use after the first, often due to PCS moves for active-duty members. She clarified that VA loans cannot be used for vacation homes because the statute requires an intent to occupy.

• The Ranking Member asked whether a disabled veteran who is now a military spouse could be subject to the new fee. Ms. Li explained that spouses receiving DIC have their own exemption, but disability-rated veterans who are spouses would not automatically be exempt.

• Ranking Member Takano questioned the VA about months-long delays in Chapter 35 education payments. Ms. Devlin said the VA had reduced the backlog significantly, with an average completion time of 24.7 days, and expected remaining cases to be resolved by mid-month.

• The Ranking Member asked whether the VA supports cutting one veteran’s benefits to pay for another’s. Ms. Devlin replied that she had no position and underscored that the VA was not considering reductions in disability benefits. When asked why the VA removed male breast cancer from PACT Act presumptive categories, Ms. Devlin stated that the prior administration had incorrectly classified it as a reproductive cancer and that male breast cancer can still be service-connected on a direct basis.

• Rep. Bergman asked whether the $10 billion VA collections estimated under H.R. 4077 would reduce federal mandatory spending. Mr. Kevin Johnson answered that he did not know whether CMS budgets would be affected and would need to follow up.

• Rep. Bergman inquired whether requiring Medicare Advantage plans to reimburse the VA could discourage plans from enrolling veterans. Ms. Devlin said the VA had not yet analyzed that possibility but could do so.

• Rep. Bergman asked whether better front-end coordination between the VA, CMS, and MA plans would be more effective than after-the-fact billing. Ms. Devlin agreed that collaboration is beneficial but said it may not resolve every issue addressed in the bill.

• Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick noted rising home prices and asked what refinements the VA anticipated for the home loan fee section. Ms. Devlin said the VA was still analyzing impacts and would provide comments when ready.

• Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick questioned whether the VA analyzed how increased fees would affect the VA Home Loan program’s solvency. Ms. Devlin responded that the VA was still evaluating the issue and could not yet provide preliminary estimates.

• In his closing remarks, Ranking Member Takano claimed that rising costs demand action and that Congress should not require disabled veterans to “pay for” increases in SMC and DIC. He cited DAV and American Legion positions opposing offsets that cut one veteran’s benefits to increase another’s and advocated for a bipartisan alternative.

• Chairman Bost argued that the minority had delayed engagement since August despite repeated outreach. He stated that PAYGO is the law and must be followed and that the Committee intends to move legislation forward regardless of partisan resistance. He underscored that veterans remain his priority and expressed willingness to continue working toward a bipartisan solution.

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.