H.R: 6733, the “VISN Reform Act of 2025”; H.R.6580, the “VA National Formulary Act of 2025”; H.R.6755, the “Accountable Leadership for Veterans Act of 2025”; H.R.6599, the “Leasing and Infrastructure Act of 2025”; H.R.6583, the “Research Reform Act of 2025”; H.R. 6549, the “VA Contracting and Procurement Act”; H.R.6740, the “VA TRUST Act”; H.R. 6764, the “Veterans Affairs Advisory Committee Oversight Act of 2025”; H.R. 6904, the “Veterans Readiness and Employment Improvement and Accountability Act of 2025”; H.R. 6843, the “Establishing the Veterans Economic Opportunity and Transition Administration Act of 2025”; H.R. 6861, the “Consolidating Veteran Employment Services for Improved Performance Act”; H.R. 6833, the “Acquisition Reform and Cost Assessment Act of 2025”; H.R.2303, the “Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney Retention and Backlog Reduction Act”; H.R.210, the “Dental Care for Veterans Act”; H.R.3183, the “SAFE STEPS for Veterans Act of 2025”; H.R.5203, “To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to update directives of the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding the management of acute sexual assault, and for other purposes”; H.R.4114, the “EVEST Act”; H.R.3869, the “Every Veteran Housed Act”; H.R.1732, the “GUARD VA Benefits Act”; H.R.2722, the “VA Funding and Workforce Protection Act”; H.R.1391, the “Student Veteran Benefit Restoration Act of 2025”; H.R.4876, the “Reproductive Freedom for Veterans Act”; Discussion Draft, the “Get Justice-Involved Veterans BACK HOME Act”; Discussion Draft: the “Toxic Exposure Advisory Committee Establishment Act”; Discussion Draft, “To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish the Advisory Committee on Toxic Exposure of the Department of Veterans Affair”; Discussion Draft: the “Honor Vets Act”; Discussion Draft, “To provide for the modernization of the electronic health record system and other health information technology activities and systems of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Veterans' Affairs U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 1
Ranking member, you are now recognized for your opening statement. Did you lose your button?
Speaker 3
I did lose it. The button, that is. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Department of Veterans Affairs has announced numerous initiatives, plans, and regulations very publicly. But when we ask questions, the department has become very opaque.
When we manage to get VA witnesses before us for hearings, the responses to our questions have been inadequate. This has become deeply frustrating and unacceptable, and I don't know that this specific exercise proposed by the chairman will improve this, but I'm certainly willing to try. I welcome the effort by this chamber, by our house, and by this committee to reclaim its authority and reaffirm our article one powers by doing the real oversight that VA so desperately needs. The VA is the second largest federal agency, and it has a critical mission. VA's mission will continue to be underscored by every military action the US takes part in.
The Trump administration's choice to attack Iran has consequences for service members, veterans, and this committee. And as such, we need to ensure that VA is prepared to serve a new generation of veterans who will come through its doors. The process being undertaken by the committee starting today has been billed as something akin to the armed services committee's work on its annual national defense authorization. Now this would be a big undertaking for a committee that has never done anything like that before, and our timeline here is very compressed, given where we are in this Congress. As the chairman knows, the armed services committee must pass an annual reauthorization for three reasons.
First, to meet Congress' Article One, Section Eight responsibilities to, quote, unquote, raise and support the military. Second, to make sure that the department can continue to function. And third, because the armed services committee really only passes one bill a year, so it replaces all other authorized work for the year. Now if it is the chairman's intent to do that here, this process would signify a dramatic shift in how this committee functions. However, the more I review our agenda, the more questions I have regarding the next steps, not only for our witnesses, but for this committee.
Of the 27 bills we are reviewing today, none are strictly reauthorizations of existing programs. Many are wholesale rewrites of ongoing VA efforts or entirely new proposals. I think it is going to take more than just this hearing to get a sufficient understanding of the impacts and costs of these proposals and, fundamentally, whether they will improve care and services for veterans, which should be the guiding principle for the consideration of any piece of legislation in this committee. Furthermore, unlike our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, we don't yet have a chairman's mark to evaluate, and there have been no subcommittee hearings or markups. In fact, the only work this committee has done that reflects a larger annual reauthorization process is the joint VSO hearings held over the last month.
We heard directly from stakeholders about their priorities, and it will be important to compare what is on this agenda with those with the priorities enunciated by the VSOs. More importantly, we will need significant feedback from stakeholders on this agenda. And whether it is, again, meeting the guiding principle of improving care and services for veterans. I would like to believe we can still operate in a bipartisan manner and get things accomplished on behalf of veterans, but I'd also like to believe that we can still work together to hold VA accountable and to demand transparency about its outcomes, about its operations. Now we should not consume months of committee work with an exercise that does not result in real oversight or meaningful improvement for veterans.
Now I do have one bill on the agenda, and I'm also shepherding two discussion drafts that I'll speak on now. Now first, I am the sponsor of the Ensuring Veterans' Smooth Transition or EVEST Act, a bill that I've championed for many years. Now there's absolutely no reason that veterans who are eligible should be automatically enrolled in VA health care. None. Veterans earned this care through their service to our nation, and for us to gatekeep their access to that care does nothing to improve their medical outcomes.
Further, we know that months following the transition, all the military can be stressful, and risk factors are evaluated for mental health. Excuse me. Risk factors are elevated, including for mental health. Now VA's testimony claims that this legislation overlaps with existing efforts. I'm gonna say this right now, to the witnesses before us today.
This is frankly not true. Nothing in EVEST would inhibit VA's existing goals and efforts. That is why DAV, PVA, VFW, and many more VSOs are endorsers of this bill. The time for automatic enrollment is now. Second, I wanna call my colleagues' attention to two bills on the agenda related to toxic exposure and the unfinished work of the PACT Act.
Mister chairman, I hope we can all agree that almost 4 years after its passage, the PACT Act has been a success. Millions of veterans have received care and benefits because of its provisions. Its continued success depends on those responsible for its implementation. But sadly, under this administration, we have seen progress stall. Therefore, it falls to us to continue to legislate to improve implementation and our oversight of the PACT Act.
Now one of the administrations and Secretary Collins' very first acts was to dissolve the PACT Act project management office. This office was responsible for overseeing the department's implementation of the law. And to this day, we have no explanation for VA's decision to deemphasize the PACT Act. And that is why we have a bill to create a new office focused solely on toxic exposure and to evaluate the head of that office. Excuse me.
To excuse me. To elevate the head of that office to the rank of assistant secretary. Addressing a toxic exposure is simply that important. Now, mister chairman, it's also an unfortunate reality that this administration views communication and collaboration with veteran service organizations as an afterthought or an obstacle to be overcome. Time and time again, we've seen the voices of VSOs marginalized or outright ignored.
One-way communication that is shallow, perfunctory, and increasingly infrequent. And the results of that poor communication are numerous policy shambles. Secretary Collins continues to make. Now if the department can't see fit to elevate the voices of veterans, then we in Congress must mandate it. And to that end, we are proposing a bill to create an advisory committee on toxic exposure to help guide the department in its work on addressing this issue. The PACDAC created a framework to develop new presumptions of service connections for toxic-exposed veterans, but the department isn't using that process to its fullest extent, including listening to veterans about how to make continued progress on addressing toxic exposure.
This advisory committee would create a venue for veterans to be heard, and require their ideas to be taken seriously. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, ranking member Takano. And now we will turn to our witnesses testifying before us today. We have doctor or mister Phil Christie, chief at the acquisition office. Say that again.
Speaker 4
We're recognizing speaking with those first. We're recognizing members of speaking. So recognize, mister. We
Speaker 1
will be recognizing members to speak on their bills first. It wasn't in my script, but by golly, I'll get it straightened out now. Mister Barrett, you're recognized to speak on your proposal.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. And, to you and to the ranking member and all the members of this committee, I was proud to introduce HR 6833, the acquisition reform and cost assessment or ARCA act for short. It's no secret that acquisitions and contracting processes at the VA are often disjointed and lack congressional oversight, which is the main focus of this congressional hearing today. I've been privileged to chair for the last fifteen months or so the technology modernization subcommittee here in this room.
And I've routinely seen the large IT and medical system contracts acquired by the department ballooning costs while being riddled with delays and speed bumps. We've seen that with the EHRM rollout and other large projects that the department has taken on. This leads to congressional hearing after hearing, where it's clear that in the past, these systems often lacked accountability and necessary oversight from Congress. These inefficiencies at the VA directly and too often negatively affect the level of service and standards of care that veterans receive. On top of that, every dollar that we spend on overpriced and inefficient technology is a dollar that we're not spending helping the men and women who defend our nation transition back home to the greatest possibility that they have.
Meanwhile, delayed projects and failing IT systems are compromising the benefit in health care Americans expect from them. My bill would create a process at the VA for procurement and contracting under a newly established Office of Acquisition. This office would better define major acquisition programs at the VA, streamline oversight and contracting processes, increase congressional oversight, and enhance accountability through independent evaluations. This act is long overdue to streamline purchasing and strengthen accountability, so the VA can achieve its mission of putting veterans first while preserving taxpayer dollars. Look forward to hearing from the VA about my bill, and discussing how this legislation will better support our nation's heroes.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, I wanna be, I wanna speak briefly today about two pieces of legislation I've introduced, the Dental Care for Veterans Act H.R. 210 and Reproductive Freedom for Veterans Act H.R. 4876, and why advancing these bills is critical for the health and well-being of our nation's veterans. First, as many of you know, more than 9,100,000 veterans are currently enrolled in the VA health care system, yet only a fraction of those veterans are eligible for dental care. Over the years, Congress has taken steps to expand access. Last year, legislation I coauthored with Senator Sanders was enacted to extend dental coverage to veterans diagnosed with diabetes and heart disease.
But the reality is that most veterans still do not receive VA dental benefits, and private coverage is often prohibitively expensive, leaving far too many veterans without the dental care they need. My bill would correct this gap by authorizing the VA to provide comprehensive dental care to all enrolled veterans. Providing comprehensive care, including dental care, honors the commitment we make to every veteran who has served our nation. But this is not only a moral responsibility, it's also fiscally responsible. VA's own analysis found that expanding dental care would reduce overall health care costs, a policy that both improves health outcomes and reflects smart stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
Dental care is essential health care. It is inseparable from overall health care, and our veterans should not be forced to go without it. Another critical part of ensuring veterans receive comprehensive care is addressing reproductive health care. Women veterans are the fastest-growing population in the veteran community, and they deserve a health care system that fully recognizes and meets their needs. There is not a single medical condition affecting male veterans for which the VA denies care.
Yet when it comes to women's reproductive health, the VA imposes restrictions that are plainly discriminatory. Women veterans already face significant barriers to accessing care. Limiting reproductive health care only compounds those challenges, and puts their lives at risk. My bill would ensure that veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries have access to abortion services, counseling, and medication when medically necessary. The Trump administration's effort to restrict access to reproductive health care has left women veterans isolated and VA providers uncertain about what care they can legally provide, resulting in dangerous delays and unnecessary suffering.
All veterans deserve comprehensive, timely health care. Denying women veterans medically necessary care for ideological reasons is indefensible. Some have argued that these restrictions merely return the VA to prior policy, but past discrimination does not justify present discrimination. Just because inequities were tolerated before does not make them acceptable today. Women veterans deserve better.
We owe them action, not excuses. And I urge this committee to advance both of these bills now, and I thank you. I thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 7
I thank you, Mister Chairman, and Ranking Member Turkana for holding this hearing to review legislation that will help support our veterans. I'm thankful for the opportunity to testify on behalf of my bill, Get Justice Involved Veterans Back Home Act. Recent survey and research shows that veterans with mental health conditions, particularly PTSD, traumatic brain injury, and substance abuse disorders, are stemming from combat-related service and trauma, and they face significantly higher risks of entering or reentering the criminal justice system. Veterans with PTSD are 61 percent more likely to be involved with the criminal justice system than those without PTSD, and 59 percent are more likely to be arrested for violent offenses. And while the VA operates programs to support veterans in the community, there remains a critical gap in care for veterans already in the criminal justice system.
Since 1986, the VA has not provided health care to veterans when they are under the supervision of another government agency with the duty to furnish care, such as prisons or jails. My work would remedy this, my bill would work to remedy this issue and directs the VA to carry out a pilot program to furnish mental health care to incarcerated veterans, via telehealth if the facility has the necessary infrastructure or through other means determined as appropriate by the secretary, including a mobile health unit. VA is directed to prioritize veterans with service connected disability ratings related to PTSD, traumatic brain injury, or military sexual trauma, while ensuring these veterans are being seen by VA health providers. We know that VA health care providers are equipped with the knowledge needed to provide high quality care to our veterans. This has been shown over again.
In addition, this bill would bar the VA from collecting copays from veterans participating in the program and require that upon the date of their release, veterans who have had their disability compensation payments reduced while in custody will have their full payments restored automatically. By ensuring our veterans have access to strong mental health care during their incarceration, we can help set them up for success after their release, making it easier for them to succeed in other areas, such as securing employment, securing stable housing, and more. Our veterans need our support and assistance as they serve their time, and we must do right by them. We must enact legislation that will reduce recidivism and address the root causes of the issue. I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill.
I'm particularly pleased that congresswoman Luttrell is very much considering joining this effort that will help our invisible veterans, our veterans who are currently serving time at local, state, or federal prison to obtain the support they need to get their lives back on track. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Doctor Marson, you are recognized for three minutes for your proposals.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chair. An estimated 1 in 3 female veterans and 1 in 50 male veterans in the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system reported experiencing sexual assault or harassment in the military. For many veterans, military sexual trauma has profound physical and emotional effects, with symptoms, reactions, and long-term consequences that are difficult to navigate. Closely associated conditions like PTSD, depression, other mood disorders, and substance use disorders can further impact veterans as they navigate their personal lives, parenting, relationships, and employment. Understanding the risk veterans face for experiencing MST and the serious impact we know often follows MST, it's clear this is an important issue to address for every veteran.
While, by percentage, women are at greater risk. Nearly 40 percent of veterans who disclose MST to the VA are men. Having trained as a physician at a VA facility and cared for patients for over 20 years, I'm familiar with the excellence of VA's specialized care as well as the importance of certifying that your facility is prepared for the patients that may walk through the doors of your office. Recognizing that VA has many programs and resources for veterans impacted by sexual assault, there continue to be steps we can and should be taking to combat the prevalence of military sexual trauma, and guarantee veterans have access to the care they need. That's why I appreciate the committee's consideration of my bill, HR 5203, the VA Safe Care Act.
This critical legislation would strengthen the VA's guidance for treating veterans seeking care following sexual assault, ensuring that veterans, survivors of sexual assault, are protected and cared for. Specifically, the bill strengthens the referral process to community providers for facilities without a sexual assault nurse examiner on staff. It makes sure facilities with SANEs have a supply of rape kits, and it makes sure that veterans receive prophylaxis for STIs or pregnancy when appropriate. It improves mental health and law enforcement referrals, and it improves training for appropriate clinical providers and VA police. This bill recognizes the work VA is already doing to be responsive to acute sexual assault and MST, as well as VA's unique position to provide specialized veteran care.
The VA Safe Care Act is a tailored approach to ensuring the VA has the best practices and protocols in place to respond in the event a veteran is seeking care following an acute sexual assault. I look forward to hearing VA's perspective on this proposal, and I hope my fellow committee members can join me in pursuing the best resources and guidelines to care for those who sacrifice so much for all of us. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Representative McGarvey, you are recognized for three minutes on your proposal.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, I'm introducing a simple bill with a very clear goal, and that's to help the Board of Veterans Appeals make better decisions faster so that our veterans get those decisions and get the benefits they deserve. Right now, the BVA faces the same problem we see across the system for veterans. Its backlogs and long wait times. Veterans who have already waited months or years for an initial decision are then waiting even longer for their appeal, and the board cannot move faster if it cannot keep the attorneys who write the decisions.
HR 2303, the Board of Veterans Appeals Attorney Retention and Backlog Reduction Act, makes one targeted change to help fix that. It amends federal law to allow BVA to promote high performing non-supervisory attorneys to GS 15 level. That's it. One change. And it sounds like a lot of government speak, but it matters.
And it matters because these attorneys are the backbone of the board. They review the records. They research the law. They draft the decisions that veterans' law judges sign. And when we lose those experienced attorneys to other agencies that can pay more because they have GS 15 positions, then the board loses that speed, the quality, and the institutional knowledge.
But it's not the attorneys or the board who pay the price. It's the veterans who pay the price. Now VA has raised concerns. They argue that allowing GS-15 promotions for nonsupervisory attorneys doesn't align with OPM classification rules, that retention incentives have worked in recent years, and that there is no current operational need for GS-15 attorneys. They also point to budget pressures.
I appreciate these points. I disagree. I appreciate the points. I disagree, because here is the reality. The board is still losing experienced attorneys, and the backlog is still too big.
If we want better, faster decisions for our veterans, we need to make sure the board can compete for legal talent. Other federal agencies already use the GS-15 attorney positions to retain expertise, and veterans deserve a board that can do the same. This will call the cost to the VA a very small amount of money, but it's delay that costs so much more. Every month, a veteran waits for a decision is a month there without benefits. It's a month there without the benefits that they have earned and deserve.
This bill is about keeping the people who make the board work. It's about reducing the backlog, and it's about honoring the legal and moral promises we made to veterans when they raise their right hand to serve our country. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this bill forward. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. General Berkman, you're recognized for three minutes to discuss your proposal.
Speaker 2
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. At its core, my bill, the VA Contracting and Procurement Act, is about accountability, transparency, and ensuring the Department of Veterans Affairs uses taxpayers' dollars wisely while delivering the care and services our veterans rely on every day. It has been more than 25 years since congress last meaningfully updated key parts of the VA's procurement and contracting framework. A lot has changed since then. The VA's operations are larger.
Its purchasing is more complex. The stakes are higher, especially with procurement failures when they affect medical care, surgical procedures, and other critical services that the veterans depend on. But too much of the system is still operating under outdated rules. This is a disservice to veterans, and it is a problem for Congress because we have a duty to conduct oversight and ensure federal agencies are responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. My bill makes several targeted, common-sense reforms.
First, it modernizes how the VA procures prosthetic appliances and surgical implants. It requires a more standardized catalog, better alignment with the defense health agency, and more efficient processes for manufacturers to propose updates. It also improves how surgical implants are purchased and billed, reducing duplicate billing and allowing errors to be corrected in real-time. It also places guardrails on major VA contracts and agreements. Under the bill, the VA may not enter into a contract worth more than 50,000,000 dollars unless specifically authorized by law, preserving clear exceptions for national emergencies, major disasters, and public health emergencies.
This ensures the VA can act quickly when needed, but outside of emergencies. Congress is not cut out of major financial decisions involving taxpayers' dollars. Third, the bill strengthens procurement standards for health care items in the VA's emergency inventory by requiring compliance with domestic preference laws, unless doing so would threaten veteran health or safety. And if the VA must make that exception, it must notify Congress and explain why. This is not bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy.
This is basic accountability. This is a practical oversight bill. I could say a lot more, but practical oversight and allow us as members of the Congress and the Veterans Affairs Committee to do our job for better services to the veterans and not hamstring the bureaucracy, but also not let it become like weeds to a garden, and with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Representative Schiffliff McCormick, you are recognized for your proposal.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, I'm proud to introduce the health care oversight for network operators rendering veterans essential treatment, the Honor Vets Act of 2025. At its core, this bill is about a simple principle. If we trust someone to care for our veterans, we must ensure that they are prepared to do so. There are roughly 16,000,000 veterans in the United States today, millions of men and women who have served our country and now rely on us for high quality, informed care.
And, increasingly, that care is happening outside the VA through community providers. But there is a reality. Too often, those providers are not trained in the unique needs of our veterans, and this stake could not be higher. We know these statistics. One veteran takes their life every 65 minutes.
That is about 17 to 18 lives lost every single day. Even more concerning about it is that 61 percent of those veterans were not receiving VA care in the year before their death. That means many of them were interacting with community providers, providers who may not have had the training to recognize the warning signs, understand military culture, or intervene effectively. We also know that the outcomes differ depending on where and how veterans receive care. Studies show that veterans engaged in VA care have significantly lower suicide rates than those outside the system, highlighting the importance of coordinated, informed, and veteran-specific treatment.
The Honors Honor Vets Act addresses this gap. It requires four targeted one-hour trainings covering military culture, opioid safety, and suicide prevention. These are not burdensome requirements. They are essential tools. Because when a provider understands issues like PTSD, traumatic brain injury, and lethal means safety, they are better equipped to identify risk, respond appropriately, and ultimately save lives.
This bill also ensures accountability. It creates a system to track compliance, increase transparency for our veterans seeking care, and establish clear consequences for providers who do not meet these standards. This is about raising the standard of care across the board, because when a veteran walks into any clinic in the United States, they should not have to wonder whether their provider understands them and understands what they've been through. They should know that their providers are ready. And with this, the Honors Vets Act, we can make that exception a reality.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure that the care our veterans receive is truly worthy of their sacrifice. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Representative Kennedy, you are recognized for three minutes for your proposal.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On 01/28/2025, the Trump administration sent more than 2,000,000 federal employees an email with the subject line fork in the road. A deferred resignation program with an ultimatum. Quit now with pay that may never come, or risk being forced out. Only about 4% accepted, so the strategy shifted from pressuring workers to leave to terminating their employment outright.
That shift hit the VA especially hard, where 30% of employees are veterans, continuing their service by caring for fellow veterans. These were not faceless bureaucrats. They were veterans delivering care to their brothers and sisters who've donned the military uniform. Our veterans deserve dignity and respect for their service. Yet despite their sacrifices, they were kicked to the curb by Secretary Collins and Donald Trump, even after answering the call to active duty and then serving fellow veterans and receiving their health care.
On May 15, Secretary Collins, in sworn testimony to this committee, assured veterans that mission-essential roles would be protected. That was a lie. In December, the administration made plans to eliminate 35,000 additional positions that month, on top of the 30,000 already lost over the last year. When I worked as an occupational therapist, I saw firsthand how the quality of care and patients' outcomes are impacted by understaffing. I know what it looks like when people don't receive the care they need.
And when people picture the VA system, they think of doctors and nurses, or maybe a claims processor working in the back office. The reality is that these cuts are also impacting mental health counselors treating veterans with severe PTSD, maintenance workers keeping the lights on, and therapists caring for combat veterans with traumatic injuries. To this administration, their numbers, but to our veterans and their families, their lifelines. My bill, the VA Funding and Workforce Protection Act, reinstates the veterans who were forced out of their positions at the VA since President Trump took office. It also prevents future hiring freezes that weaken the VA's ability to serve our nation's bravest, protects probationary employees from becoming targets during workforce reductions, and it ensures each dollar Congress appropriates to the VA stays there.
With nearly a third of VA employees being veterans themselves, starving the budget and privatizing veteran health care services hurts the people we're here to help, making it more difficult for veterans to receive the health care they've earned and deserve for serving our nation in uniform. This committee and congress exist for moments like these. It's time we stand up to this lawless administration. They've impounded funds. We've appropriated and decimated the workforce that supports our veterans.
Let's stand up for our veterans. I urge my colleagues to support my bill. Yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Representative Ciscamani, you are recognized for three minutes to talk about your proposal.
Speaker 12
Thank you, mister chairman, for holding this hearing on VA reauthorization, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I'm proud to have introduced HR 6843, the establishing the veterans economic opportunity and transition admissions administration act of 2025, because we must do a better job helping veterans transition into civilian life. Today, my many VA programs related to employment, education, and transition assistance are spread across multiple offices, making them difficult to navigate. This bill takes a practical approach by consolidating these programs into a more unified structure, reducing duplication, improving coordination, and making it easier for veterans to access the benefits that they have earned. This reform will lead to better outcomes.
Veterans will more easily connect with job training, education, and employment services, while the VA and Congress will have stronger tools to track performance and ensure accountability. As we consider VA reauthorization, this is the type of reform we should prioritize: improving efficiency, accountability, and results for our veterans. With that, I'd like to turn to maybe one or two questions here, whatever time permits. Mister Christie, I'll start with you on the implementation.
Speaker 12
Oh, excellent. Then with that, I yield back, mister chairman. Thank you. A minute.
Speaker 1
and forty-four. You're welcome. He yields back. Representative, the way, congratulations on winning your primary.
Speaker 13
Thank you. Appreciate it. Right back at you. Chairman and ranking member, I want to thank you for holding today's hearing. I also wanna thank our witnesses that are here today as representing our bills.
It is truly the honor of my life to represent Illinois' 3rd Congressional District. And as you just heard from the chairman, we had our primary elections last night. And I'm incredibly grateful for all of the constituents that I get to represent, including the 20,727 veterans that I serve, and ensuring that every veteran has access to the benefits that they earn and that were promised to them. Access to affordable quality education is one of those benefits that I've been talking about since I got here almost three and a half years ago. The GI Bill is a critically important policy that makes education opportunities affordable and accessible to veterans.
However, we know that in recent years, student veterans have been the target of bad actors, seeking to enrich themselves by exploiting veterans' GI Bill benefits. Those bad actors have reduced veterans to being just a tuition payment, and exploiting them to gain access to a dependable federal disbursement. I find that unacceptable. You see, when a student veteran is defrauded by predatory institutions, it is only right, only just, frankly, that the veteran has recourse or a way for them to get their benefits back. No student veteran should have to give up on or have to defer on their dreams of an education because they were a victim of fraud.
And that is why I'm proud to have reintroduced the Student Veteran Benefit Restoration Act of 2025, which would, in fact, restore the GI Bill benefits to students who have been defrauded. The bill that I passed as congress passed the House of Bipartisan Support, 406 votes in favor. But we also know that the bill moved us just a step closer to having a comparable restoration process to those that govern the federal benefits for nonveteran students. So we have more work to do today to protect our veterans from bad faith actors and to ensure that every opportunity that they have is truly meaningful, thriving, and joyful post-service. So I wanna thank you all, that have voted on this bill in the past, and I hope to work with my colleagues to see this bill through.
I have not slept much, by the way. Bill through and truly honor the service of our veterans with action. Thank you, I yield back.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Chair Boston and Ranking Member Tacano, for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to speak about my bill, the Every Veteran House Act. Ending veteran homelessness is a responsibility we all share, and I'm committed to working with this committee to meet that obligation with urgency and clarity. In Oregon and across the country, our communities understand something fundamental. Honoring service means ensuring every veteran has a safe and stable place to call home. That is the standard our veterans deserve, and it is the standard we must meet.
My every veteran housed act would expand the technical definition of veteran solely for the purposes of homelessness assistance and to streamline access to get more veterans into stable housing. In recent years, congress has expanded eligibility for the largest VA homelessness programs, most notably HUD VASH, but not others, creating arbitrary and unnecessary barriers to veterans accessing the full scope of homelessness services by the VA. Veterans with an other than honorable discharge, whose discharge may have been related to mental health or substance use challenges, currently can access HUD VASH, but not the health outreach program that would connect them to care. We gave veterans a key to the front door, but then left the gate locked. That approach does not reflect our values, and it does not reflect common sense.
My bill fixes that. It expands the definition of veteran for the purpose of homelessness assistance, so eligibility is consistent across housing, health outreach, legal, vocational, and rehabilitation programs. It ensures veterans can move through the system without hitting arbitrary roadblocks. This approach follows existing precedent within VA programs. It maintains clear boundaries by not extending services to individuals who were dishonorably discharged or court-martialed, and it ensures we are targeting resources where they are intended.
The bill also recognizes all who have served, including members of the National Guard and Reserve. Service takes many forms, and our commitment must match that reality. No veteran should be sleeping on the street in this country, not after service, and not on our watch. This legislation is a practical, targeted step that will help more veterans access housing, stabilize their lives, and reconnect with the support systems they need. It reflects a broader commitment to treating veteran homelessness as the urgent public health and moral issue it is.
We have made progress in recent years, and we know what works. Now it is on us to remove the barriers that remain, and ensure our systems are working for veterans, not against them. I look forward to working with all of you to advance this bill and to deliver on a simple promise. If you served this country, this country will ensure you have a place to call home. Thank you, Mr. Cherry.
Yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlewoman yields back. Now we will turn to our witnesses' testimony. Testify, find before us today, we have Mister Phil Christie. He's a chief acquisition officer, office of acquisition, logistics, and construction for the Department of Veterans Affairs. He's accompanied by Miss Margarita Devlin, acting undersecretary for benefits for Veterans Benefits Administration, and Doctor Thomas O'Toole, acting assistant undersecretary for health for clinical service Veterans Health Administration.
Mister Christie, I will swear you all in now if each if I want you will rise. Do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you for the and let the record reflect that witnesses have answered any affirmative. Now I would like to recognize Mister Christie for five minutes for his opening remarks.
Mister Christie, you are recognized.
Speaker 15
Good morning, Chairman Boast, Ranking Member Tacano, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 27 bills focused on various VA programs and benefits. Joining me today are Miss Margarita Devlin, principal deputy undersecretary for benefits, performing the delegable duties of the undersecretary of benefits, Veterans Benefits Administration, and Doctor Thomas O'Toole, acting assistant undersecretary for health or clinical services, Veterans Health Administration. My colleagues and I would like to thank the chairman's staff for engaging in a very productive working session with the VA before this hearing. The discussions we had on the proposed legislation were substantive, enlightening, and very helpful.
We are encouraged and hopeful that we can continue to hold these types of important engagements to work collaboratively on the legislation, so they can best serve veterans. Before I turn to the bills in this hearing, I would also like to address the motivation for many of these bills. VA strongly supports congressional oversight and engagement. However, the department is concerned about the reauthorization of VA programs much like the NDA and could cause serious disruption to VA benefits and services. VA believes that a clear accounting of programs and services could be achieved through additional avenues, such as additional requests for information, briefing requests, additional oversight hearings, or requiring additional justification materials in the annual budget request.
The department is happy to work with the committee on developing the best ways to provide Congress with more oversight and authority engagement with the VA. For the record, my written testimony has been transmitted to the committee. And due to its length, I will not attempt to capture all of its content in a verbal opening statement. I would like to affirm that my colleagues and I are pleased to be here and work with you and to answer questions you may have regarding the proposed legislation and to improve the services the veterans have earned. Of note, two legislative proposals, the Acquisition Reform and Cost Assessment Act and the Leasing and Infrastructure Act, represent well-developed efforts that the department supports.
Several other proposed legislations have strong intent, but we recommend additional coordination and stakeholder engagement occur. In closing, again, we appreciate the opportunity to discuss these important issues, and remain committed to working with the committee to advance solutions for veterans. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. The written test statement of Mister Christie will be entered into the hearing record. And we will now proceed to questions, and I will yield myself five minutes. Mister Christie, how would establishing a dedicated veterans leasing fund improve VA's long-term infrastructure planning and physical accountability?
Speaker 15
Yeah. This is the bill. Again, as I said in my verbal statements, this has a really positive benefit for veterans. And let me walk you through that independent fund or the entire bill in itself. Yes.
We need to work through some mechanical things, but what it does is it brings an independent authority to the VA. For those who aren't tracking, that is tied to the current GSA process. So there's a bunch of levels of coordination that must occur. The bill shortens those coordinations, brings independence. Dedicated funding, as you mentioned in the question here, that allows a lot more flexibility for the VA and Congress to act on those requirements and to get capabilities into veterans' hands quicker, faster, and just shortens down.
Speaker 15
a lot of efficiency. Also, with that is the risk sharing. When we do that calculation with that independent fund, construction versus a rental calculation, again, brings down risk, increases speed, allows a lot more flexibility for the VA and Congress to actually go from flash to bang on delivering real property solutions. And also part of that bill is the congressional oversight. I know a lot of the comments this morning were about the oversight.
That bill and that fund allow that. Congress will be in complete control of that, allocation of those funds in a single funding stream. And lastly, I just wanna hit one more beautiful point about this, the one-year timeline. So that's incorporated into the bill. This shortens, again, flash-to-bang time and delivery of a critical capability to VA and ultimately veterans.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Miss Devlin, if the department believes broader regulatory authority is needed to oversee entities providing claims assistance services, wouldn't it be more appropriate for VA to seek explicit statutory authority from Congress rather than continuing to use the Biden era guidance that goes beyond the scope of the existing statutes that are like section 55901 on title 38?
Speaker 16
Thank you for the question, and we appreciate the opportunity to continue to engage with you on conversations like this. We don't have an opinion to render right now on that specific recommendation.
Speaker 1
Doctor O'Toole, VA operations, operates one of the largest integrated health service systems in the world. Would establishing a centralized research data system improve oversight by allowing Congress and VA to track research projects, funding, and outcomes more effectively?
Speaker 17
Thank you, Congressman. And I think we have a lot. We have a tremendous research enterprise and, much to be proud of, but it is an enterprise and effort that can clearly be improved, that can clearly have more transparency associated with it. I think the issues involved extend beyond the dynamics of having a registry and more available registry and potentially looking also at our review process, looking at our data management sharing. It's something that we clearly would like to work with the committee further on to further refine and we think improve the bill.
Speaker 1
Mister Grifty, does VA currently have the ability to independently evaluate the full cost and performance risk of major acquisition programs before they're approved?
Speaker 15
So there's a lot of variability in this assessment, and I think this ties back to very specifically the ARCA bill where it's called out about having a centralized or an enterprise focused two independent verification and validation. At the moment, though, it is very fractured and, I'll say, not holistically managed for programs. It's an ad hoc, kind of status at the moment. But so ARCA does a really good job of bringing clarity to that function.
Speaker 1
So do you think it is needed to add the additional stat statutory structure?
Speaker 15
Yeah. I think there's a lot of value to both parties here, Congress and its oversight and the comments that have been made this morning, but also additionally at the VA. So we have that enterprise perspective on where these programs are, what should they be doing, and have they met their gates or have they met their independence, validating that they're achieving the capabilities and the things that they're called out to do. K.
Speaker 1
Got a few more questions, but we'll submit them for the record so we can get those answered. Ranking member, you're now recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doctor O'Toole, I would like to start with you. VA's testimony says it does not support H.R. 4114, the EVEST Act, quote, unquote, as written, and that VA is working with DOD to, quote, unquote, automatically register each transitioning service member rather than enroll them. Are registration and enrollment the same thing?
Speaker 17
Thank you, Congressman. And, first, this is important legislation, and I think it underscores the vulnerability and challenges for transitioning veterans. So we clearly appreciate the intent and goals to it. We have registration and enrollment are considered separate, and we are currently in the process of developing automatic enrollment processes and capacities, which clearly streamline automatic enrollment subsequent.
Speaker 3
To this. What I'm hearing is that enrollment and registration are not the same thing.
Speaker 3
My question is, does registration alone allow veterans to get VA health care?
Speaker 3
So it doesn't. So if someone is registered in VA's VHA systems, how many more steps does it take for them to be formally enrolled and able to access care?
Speaker 3
So, you don't see, you see no benefit to removing the administrative burdens for veterans to access their care?
Speaker 17
Well, sir, the automatic registration does remove several of the burdens to getting veterans.
Speaker 3
So I mean someone cares. So you do can see that there are tremendous benefits to removing these administrative barriers to actually getting health care to our transitioning. Yes, sir. Military. So you do.
As I noted in VA's testimony, there is a concern about the impact on the ACA tax credits. And I think a simple amendment would address this. If I were to make it clear that automatic auto enrollment doesn't affect access to ACA credits for veterans or their dependents, would this eliminate VA's main objections to the bill?
Speaker 17
It would definitely eliminate a major concern to it. The other dynamic that we would just need to be careful of is ensuring that we are able to use the, we have other concerns related to the priority groups and associated co-pays with this, and how automatic enrollment would potentially impact the different categories or priority status.
Speaker 3
Well, could I get your, you know, commitment to work with me in untangling and those concerns?
Speaker 17
Yes. Absolutely. We are strongly in favor of seeing something like this go forward and look forward to working.
Speaker 3
with you. Like to get to the place where we can automatically enroll, not just register veterans, so that about the transitioning service members so that they can get access to health care?
Speaker 17
With the concerns that we have noted in our testimony, absolutely, sir.
Speaker 3
Well, thank you. I appreciate that testimony. Doctor Atul, h r 676733, the vision reform act of 2025, which set forth in statute that VA can have eight visions and limit each vision to 50 full-time employees. It seems to me this bill hasn't accounted for how many vision level positions are already mandated by law or VHA directive. Do you have any sort of estimate on the number of positions?
Speaker 17
I don't have, thank you, sir. I do not have the specific number of vision positions right now within each vision particularly mandated. Although we can speak to the fact that we have several programs, for instance, that do have mandated roles, that are vision based, thinking specifically about our caregiver.
Speaker 3
It would seem to me that the chairman's bill is not in alignment with the reorganization VA is already carrying out. How would the rigid limitations within HR 6733 in terms of the number of visions and the number of vision level employees hamper VHA's ability to adapt to the evolving needs of veterans and VHA, and the VHA health care system?
Speaker 17
Well, thank you, sir. You know, as you know, we are currently undergoing a reorganization effort that includes the number of visions as well as the development of HSAs. I would note that when we start when I started in the VA, we had 23 divisions. We're now down to 18. Yep.
The actual number of visions that are needed and are optimized are driven by regional health care demands, the concentration of veterans in those areas, market forces, and so forth. And our preference is to be able to have the flexibility in determining the number of visits.
Speaker 3
So you would rather have the flexibility and not something rigidly defined in the chairman's bill.
Speaker 17
Again, we. Is that correct? Sir, we are more than happy and encouraged by the opportunity to work with the committee.
Speaker 3
With the chairman. But you just said you would prefer flexibility, not rigidity. Is that right?
Speaker 3
So you're basically in disagreement with the chairman's bill. You are. Is that a yes?
Speaker 17
I'm watching you and the chairman, and so I'm trying to thread that needle carefully, sir. But his bill.
Speaker 3
is rigid. You would prefer flexibility. So you're in disagreement. Thank you. I thank you for your testimony.
Speaker 1
And I thank you for being able to disagree without being disagreeable. So with that, General Bergman, you're recognized.
Speaker 2
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. It's always interesting. I feel like I'm watching some kind of a, you know, it's not a sitcom, but it's some lawyer show sometimes where, you know, which one of you is William Shatner? Just remember, Shatner led Star Trek. You certainly are, and I am not.
Okay. Enough. Mister Christie, I commend the VA prosthetic and sensory aids service office for working to implement a continuous product ad cycle. But I'd like to make it a permanent policy, not a goal. So, because improved technology improves patient outcomes.
And if we don't have an at the rate of change of technology, I think the VA, I know the VA can be more responsive to what's out there in the marketplace that is viable. So what is the department's objection, if any, to codifying a minimum of two annual submission windows for FDA-cleared prosthetics and medical implants, with a requirement to move to a continuous product add cycle within three years?
Speaker 15
General Bergman, thank you. That concept-wise, no problems there. And I think a lot of this was patterned off of the great work in the pharmacy space, where we have that almost identical formulary add. You have the group. You have the formulary, group that comes together and does that multiple times a year.
There's goodness in that. Right? Bringing a capability to the VA that can be used in veteran care. The faster we do it with the best products, there's good there. The one caution I would just put on the part of the prosthetics, part of the Contracting and Accountability Act, is resourcing.
Right? So there is gonna be require some resources to formalize that process and to execute that process. There are some things in the front part.
Speaker 15
Prosthetics, call out in that bill about, you know, directing a very pinpointed way of executing the contracts. Firm fixed price. And it does take away some of the flexibilities that are already in 8123. But, conceptually, this is a good thing. Bring products on, make sure providers have access to the best and greatest things to take care of the veterans.
So, conceptually, there's goodness in that. It's mechanically, how do we work it out? And I think maybe some more conversation on that.
Speaker 2
And a lot of prosthetics have mechanics in them. So the rate of improvement of prosthetics mechanics should motivate the VA to work through the mechanics of the evaluation and approval process. So, mister Christie, after a surgical procedure, the VA requires multiple purchase orders. One is issued by the local logistics office for certain items used in the procedure. One is issued by the local prosthetics office.
This is duplicative, inefficient, and is not consistent with good health system practices. My BILD VA Contracting and Procurement Act does not seek to restrict how items are procured, but rather improve the back-end business process on how the VA processes and pays the purchase orders. Will the department commit to working towards a single purchase order, preferably processed and paid by the central prosthetic and sensory aid service office, and shift all prosthetics procedure purchasing to the local prosthetics office?
Speaker 15
Again, concept is we want everyone to do this. We want people to get paid immediately. We don't wanna handle things twice. We don't have companies. We don't want them to not get paid.
I think mechanically and some of the financial payment rules we need to work through. Conceptually, though, onboard with this to make it more efficient for industry, the prosthetics team, and the acquisition team to clear the waves for a much simpler process.
Speaker 2
Thank you. And in the end, if the VA moves forward with this, I would suggest that that veteran receiving that prosthetic will have a better quality of life more quickly. But, also, the companies doing the research, development, sales, maintenance of all of those things will be more motivated to extend extra effort to the VA. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you members of the administration and the VA for presenting yourself to us today. In 2016, it's estimated that some 107,400 veterans are serving time in state or federal prison. They combat exposure, I'm sorry. Combat exposure and associated mental and physical health problems such as post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, traumatic brain injuries, TBI, mood disorders, and substance use disorders are associated with greatly increased likelihood of involvement with the criminal justice system among veterans.
A study suggests that PTSD is 61 percent more likely to be involved. Veterans with this disorder are 61 percent more likely to be involved with the criminal justice system than those without PTSD, and 59 percent are more likely to be arrested with violent offenses. Doctor Atul, what mental health services does the VA currently provide to veterans who either have traumatic brain injuries, PTSD, or have experienced military sexual trauma? And does the VA provide those same services to justice-involved veterans who find themselves in the criminal justice system?
Speaker 17
Thank you, congressman, and thank you also for this bill. It's an important dynamic, and you're absolutely correct in highlighting the mental health issues and concerns when veterans are incarcerated. By statute and by authority, the provision of medical and mental health care when somebody is incarcerated falls to the Bureau of Prisons in terms of their care. And so, by statute, we as a VA are not providing care to somebody during their active incarceration. We do obviously work closely through our veteran treatment courts and through our veteran justice coordinators to try to facilitate either diversion or post incarceration, ensuring that they're plugged into care as quickly as possible.
But while incarcerated, we do not provide that care.
Speaker 17
Provide that care? Well, you know, I think that the challenge point to it is whether that care is integrated, whether that mental health care is integrated with other care needs they have and not creating fragmentation and isolation. And that, quite honestly, is a driving concern we have with the legislation is that focused specifically on mental health treatment, it does create the risk for isolated risk for fragmenting that care and not coordinating it with the rest of the health care needs that that veteran may be having.
Speaker 7
Well, a coordinated care is obviously very important, the physicians and other service providers who would be providing these services, through the VA, do that in their regular course of how they operate and caring for patients. As this pilot program is set up, as directed by this bill, that concern that you have will certainly be addressed because that is the professional, that's what professionals do when they're providing services. And so I would just that's my response to what you said, but I appreciate what you have brought in terms of your thought about the bill at this time. And, of course, we're at the start of a process, to be able to produce a legislative project product, that will serve those who are critically in need, so that we can get them back on their feet, back home and integrated in a society. The telehealth program really allows veterans to access services, as you know, remotely.
People are housed under the bill. They have to be housed in separate areas within the prison if that occurs. We certainly wanna address those veterans, whether they're in urban or rural areas, to receive the care that they need. But I look forward to working with you on fixing this bill up, getting it as well or as right as we possibly can to make sure that we're not leaving veterans behind and that indeed we can do better than that, reintegrating them back into their family life, into the life of the community, so that they can achieve their goals, many of which will be likely continued service to our fellow countrymen. So thank you for presenting yourself here today and answering these questions.
Speaker 4
Thank you, chairman. I'm sorry I wasn't here to make my comments, but, miss Dublin, you and I both read the bill. So I'll go directly to questions on HR 6764, the Veterans Affairs Advisory Committee Oversight Act. I understand that you have concerns with it. So let's start with, do you do periodic reviews of the committees that are operating, whether or not they should continue, whether you need to reformat them, or whether they should be terminated?
Do you do periodic reviews?
Speaker 16
Thank you for that question. They are set forth in statute. So we do reviews of their work and their recommendations, and we provide them with feedback. But any recommendations to Congress on changing statute would go through the budgetary process.
Speaker 4
Had when's the last time you made a recommendation to terminate one of the many advisory committees?
Speaker 4
Please do. So how many of those authorized under title 38 have not met regularly or produced the reports that they are supposed to?
Speaker 16
I don't manage all the committees. I will tell you the ones under my purview have met regularly and produce reports with recommendations to the secretary.
Speaker 4
Okay. So, if you think the proposal is too broad, the proposed act is too broad, what specific subject areas do you think could reasonably be addressed within the broader structure outlined in this bill? How would you, what are your recommended changes?
Speaker 16
Thank you for that question. First of all, I'd like to say we always appreciate looking at ways to gain efficiencies in our processes, and that would include things like our advisory committees. Some of the issues or concerns that we have with the bill is some specific definitions, for example, around what do we mean when we're talking about marginalized veterans, a little bit more specificity around that. There were some eliminations of things that we thought were still important to keep. For example, the specific needs of combat veterans, that is something that our disability committee looks at now.
And this merging of committees, committee infrastructure, eliminates some important things like that, which we can work with you and your staff on to make sure we don't lose the intent of some of these specific things. For example, one of the committees is designed to provide feedback on vocational rehabilitation, but it doesn't set forth any individuals with that specific expertise. We also had a concern about the overlap between the existing committee's sunset date and the new committee's start date. It wasn't really clear whether there would be overlap or whether we would have time to implement the new committees and close out the old committees without there being some overlap.
Speaker 4
So all of that sounds like we could work together to make this new structure work.
Speaker 4
Okay. Then you raised a concern about less subject matter expertise. Could you talk to me more about that?
Speaker 16
Yes. So some of the committees as structured now are very specialized. So we invite people with subject matter expertise in specific areas such as combat, such as women veterans, such as tribal affairs. And to try to encompass all of that area of expertise into a smaller group with fewer people can present some challenges.
Speaker 4
I'm not sure I understand that because you can invite whoever you choose to, but I accept the premise. If we work together to do this, how often should you report to Congress? Because these advisory committees are important to reaching those efficiencies. I think they're important to reaching those efficiencies that you spoke about.
Speaker 16
Yes, sir. We would invite the opportunity to discuss that in terms of reporting to Congress. I'd have to go back and look at what the statute currently says, but we welcome opportunities to share and be transparent, and give you information about what recommendations we're getting from the committees and our responses to those recommendations, including which we seek to incorporate and implement and which perhaps we can't because they require statutory changes.
Speaker 4
Okay. So I'm gonna be submitting these for the record, and I appreciate your responses, because we do need to get this right. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is my sincere intention for my bill to VA Safe Care Act to be a complimentary strengthening effort that integrates updates and best practices in the protocol VA currently pursues when a veteran presents to their facilities following an acute sexual assault. As I shared in my opening statement, I'm eager to hear VA's more detailed perspective on this proposal. In that spirit, Doctor O'Toole, can you walk me through the current policies that govern VA's response to a veteran seeking care following an acute sexual assault?
Speaker 17
Thank you, Congresswoman. And first, thank you also for introducing this in your advocacy audit. It's extremely important. I don't have the specific details on that. I'd have to take it for the record.
And of note, our congressional team is still reviewing the legislation, and we'll have a formal opinion as well to be able to forward back to the committee, following our review.
Speaker 8
Okay. Thank you. Are you able to share when the protocols were last updated?
Speaker 17
I'll have to, we'll have to get back to you on that. Unfortunately, I just don't know.
Speaker 8
And could you give us just a general sense of when you might be able to get back to us?
Speaker 8
Okay. Thank you. In my district, I have a veterans advisory council made up of vets and community leaders who help keep me up to date on the most important issues facing our veterans in Minnesota. We meet regularly, and one issue that always seems to come up is claim sharks. I strongly support representative Papas' bill, the Guard VA Benefits Act, which would reinstate penalties for predatory actors who charge unauthorized fees to veterans filing their disability claims.
As we kick off this process to begin consideration of a comprehensive VA reauthorization bill, I hope to reiterate my support for this bipartisan legislation, and hope it gets strong consideration by this committee. Miss Dublin, VA's testimony states that it is conducting a comprehensive review of its claims accreditation regime and will be able to provide more information on its views about the bill once it is complete. Is the proliferation of unaccredited claims consultants part of the review VA is conducting?
Speaker 16
Thank you for the question. We are reviewing everything top to bottom on our process of accrediting agents. I will say that, there was a JR report in March 2024, and we've engaged with MITRE to help us perform this assessment. And we will have more information once we've concluded the assessment.
Speaker 16
We're reviewing everything within our authorities to operate in terms of accrediting agents, making sure that we're providing timely service in the accreditation process, that we're doing right by veterans in that process of accreditation.
Speaker 8
I appreciate that. So there's not necessarily a specific review of this ClaimShark problem?
Speaker 8
Okay. I have also seen both as a physician and a legislator the impact of EHA's pursuit of its mission to support research to benefit veterans and the public. I've met dozens of constituents personally impacted by the critical, cutting-edge research that VA has pioneered. They've emphasized the VA's impact in their leadership in medical research that changes lives. Earlier, I spoke to the importance of my proposal, the VA Safe Care Act being a tailored approach well suited to integrating into the existing infrastructure of VA's resources and support for military sexual trauma.
As a physician, I'm aware of just how important it is for policy and practice changes to consider existing realities as it relates to VA authorities. In your testimony, you raised concerns about proposals that do not align with or would conflict with existing authorities, appropriations law, and operational requirements. So for HR 6583, the VA research reform act of 2025, can you expand on what existing VA authorities and operational requirements this bill would conflict with?
Speaker 17
Holding up my notes here on it. Excuse me, ma'am. The VA supports the overarching intent. One of the challenges that we have or that we see with legislation is related to overlapping requirements that we follow related to the common rule act as well as HHS registrations, and making sure that that would not create any confusions. You know, as you know, it's, you know, VA does a tremendous job in the research enterprise.
It's something I'm very proud of I've participated in. VA publishes almost 13,000 journal articles a year based on this research and has been cutting-edge, as you noted. We also know, though, based on NIH analyses and others, it takes about 17 years for something to go from research to practice. And we can always do better, and we can be more transparent, and we can do everything in our power to facilitate it. So, again, we would like to work with you.
We would like to work with the committee on how we can potentially improve and not create, you know, any potential roadblocks or obstacles to being able to do this important work.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Doctor Atul. I see that my time has expired, so I yield back. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is what I was trying to get to earlier today. Now I'm in the right setting and the right time. So, mister Christie, we'll start with you. And I think you remember the remarks that I just said a little bit about ago about my bill, HR 6843, the establishing the veterans economic opportunity and transition administration act of 2025.
This is related to many VA programs related to employment, education, and transition assistance that are spread across multiple offices, making them difficult to navigate. So we wanna make sure that we tackle that issue, this bill does exactly that. So let me ask you regarding that. And HR 6843 would create a more unified structure within the VA for transition and economic opportunity programs. From an acquisition and operations standpoint, what challenges or efficiencies do you foresee in standing up this type of centralized administration?
Speaker 15
So I think we do want to make sure Margarita gets a chance in here, but you put the acquisition spin on it. So this is something I love to talk about. If we also, Representative Barrett's introduction to Arca, a lot of the things, if those pass in there, and if that were to happen, we're moving to an enterprise approach on everything. So regardless of where the mission sets from an acquisition layer or an acquisition strategy, it's irrelevant if there are 10 organizations or two organizations from an acquisition perspective. But I do need to make sure Margarita weighs in on what I would call the operational impact.
But acquisition, and if we get ARCA pass, and if that were to pass, we're able to execute that from an enterprise.
Speaker 16
Thank you for the question. I would say operationally, it is incredibly challenging, and we want to make sure we don't negatively impact the veterans. But take pulling apart what is currently an integrated regional office operation, for example, where every one of our 57 regional offices has disability compensation and VR and E. Those are two that are in every office, and then some have special missions. We would now have to divide up the reporting structure.
We would have to create an additional leadership structure. You couldn't have one director report to two different under secretaries. That's just one of the pieces. Also, pulling apart all of the system integrations that we've built between disability compensation and VR and E and LGY. All of those eligibilities are so intertwined that we've done so much work to integrate those systems to create less bottlenecks, less complications in the process for veterans, and we would be placing those integrated systems at risk.
Speaker 12
Can you elaborate a little bit on that, looking ahead and the reforms that you're talking about here at the bill, and then help ensure veterans are not just set up not just for short term success, but for the long term economic mobility as well?
Speaker 16
Yes, sir. Thank you for that question as well. We are actually working with the Department of Labor and other entities to make sure from the long-term success standpoint that we equip our veterans who are pursuing education through the GI Bill or pursuing their VR and E benefits with information about the jobs that are in highest demand. Right now, our country is in need of specific types of skilled labor. Our country is in need of veterans continuing to serve in occupations like defense, industrial-based occupations.
We need to make sure our counselors and our veterans are equipped with that knowledge so that they know it also intersects with things like geography, where veterans live, and where those
Speaker 16
So we wanna make sure that they're training and using their benefits for occupations that'll get them a positive, sustaining occupational income and that meet demand of our country, right?
Speaker 12
That's highly important for me, for my district. I have roughly about 80,000 veterans in my district. It's a high veteran population, and I so this is one of the most important things that I can do here in congress. So thank you for that, as they transition or retire. It's important I have two military bases in the district.
Mister O'Toole, we'll close with you from your perspective. How important is it that transition programs account for a veteran's physical and mental health when determining successful outcomes?
Speaker 17
Thank you, sir. It is extremely important, obviously, and we need to make sure that, you know, no veteran is being left behind in that transition to care and that we are able to connect them to the appropriate health care services as quickly as we can and as seamlessly as we can.
Speaker 12
Thank you. That's highly important for us as well. I have asked a number of my district as well as rural, and that, you know, access at any geographic location is important to us. And, mister chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 2
You're welcome. You know, time flies. So the second gone, Mister McGarvey, you're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all very much for being here today and for offering your feedback on my bill, the Board of Veterans Appeals Attorney Retention and Backlog Reduction Act. I'd like to dig into a few points that the VA has raised. I appreciate you guys pointing out that in the VA, the attrition rates have improved between fiscal years 19 and 24. That is something every single person appears probably happy to hear.
But I also believe the picture you painted is a little more rosy and a little less reality than what's going on. So I have a question. Did that statistic include the attorneys who were in their probationary period when they left the BVA? Miss Delano, I know we don't have a BVA witness, but ask you the question.
Speaker 16
Thank you for the question. And, we don't have a Board of Veterans Appeals, witness here, and I'm sorry. I don't have that information.
Speaker 9
Okay. And, you know, I would like to dig into that with you all soon. Those numbers are in the written testimony you guys provided here today. So I wanna figure out how you came up with those numbers and how they're not reflecting what we're hearing and what we're seeing on this committee. I've seen recent OPM data right now that shows BVA's total staffing numbers went from 1,468 employees in January 2023 to 1,303 in January 2026.
Decision-making attorneys, that's who gets the veterans their benefits. They make up more than 70% of the BVA staff. So when we see reductions like that, it is clear that dozens of attorneys left the BVA in 2025. I've heard even more reports that attorneys have left since January. So what are the current staffing levels at BVA?
And is it now under 1300?
Speaker 16
Thank you again for the question, and we're happy to work with you on your bill and also on the outcomes that we want for veterans. The outcomes we want for veterans is that they get decisions quickly, that they get the benefits that they've earned as quickly as possible. I know that the secretary is watching over all of the VA, including the Board of Veterans Appeals, and that we're looking at ways to make sure that those decisions get made more timely. I am not the expert on the board, and I don't have all the staffing information that you're looking for. But we are definitely happy to work with you and your staff to dig into this a little bit more.
Speaker 9
Okay. I mean, because every day we wait here is a day that we are putting veterans off from getting their benefits. That's why this matters. And I do think we share that same goal. I really do.
Now you talked a little bit about the numbers and that sort of thing and how you're working on it. I understand that. But the testimony makes it sound like creating this GS 15 position at BVA prevents some insurmountable hurdle. And to me, that claim rings hollow, and here's why it rings hollow. Setting aside the fact, and this is no small fact, but setting aside the fact that Congress has final say on personnel matters regardless of OPN policy, the VA already has non-supervisory GS 15 attorneys in the Office of General Counsel.
They're there. So we know that it works because some of the attorneys are leaving BVA and going to that spot because they can get promoted, and they can get paid more. I said in my opening that this bill starts from a simple premise. You said it. Veterans should get decisions more quickly.
They should set higher quality bars to get those higher quality decisions. And I think the secretary does agree with at least the first part, and that's why he imposed higher production quotas for the BVA attorneys after joining the department. But you don't get faster decisions or higher quality decisions just by raising quotas, and especially not if those quotas mean that board attorneys who are already stretched thin are looking for somewhere else in the federal government to go work. So to me, this is not just, this is more than just a quota. This is getting the veterans what they need.
So how do you get not just faster decisions, but faster and better decisions? That's what we're looking for here. And you do that by making sure your most experienced and most skilled employees stick around. A chance at a promotion and a $5,000 raise is one way to do that. We know those promotions to GS 15 matters to VA attorneys because the best GS 14s at BVA consistently leave the BVA for those GS 15 slots at the Office of General Counsel within the VA.
The Board of Veterans Appeals is not a big office. We are talking about the smallest part of the smallest part of the VA. A small raise for a few dozen hardworking public servants, the very best we have with the most experience, so that our veterans can have the peace of mind that they will get every single benefit they have earned and they deserve is what we should do. This is not the place to pinch pennies because we shouldn't be nickel-diming our veterans. That's what we have to do.
Mister chairman, you'll bet.
Speaker 13
Thank you, chairman. Well, doctor Azule, miss Devlin, and mister Christie, I wanna thank you for being here today as we're examining today's bills. Look. As the ranking member of oversight and investigation for this committee, I take my responsibility of carefully weighing the impacts of every single piece of legislation very seriously, especially as we're talking about advancing out of committee and certainly with the hope that it's in fact going to help and benefit our veterans. And so as the secretary of VA and the administration doubled down on their promise to reduce the federal workforce and to begin dismantling the VA, it really feels hypocritical for me that we're discussing bills that attempt to address workforce issues while we're seeing the dismantling of the VA.
I wanna talk to you specifically about one bill, H.R. 6740. It's called the VA Transparency and Reform of the Upper Senior Tenure Trust Act, and it authorizes the secretary to directly set pay for all senior executive positions across the agency within the limits of the federal executive schedule and the limits delineated in Title Five. Now the reason I wanted to bring this bill up is because considering secretary Collins' track record, the testimony he has brought into this committee, and the data itself from the VA. I'm not confident that he would wield the authority consistently necessary, and I'm concerned about the precedent this would set for our civil service workers. Miss Devlin, I hear my colleagues' concerns that this bill is meant to try to help with recruitment challenges and to help address some of these pay disparities.
My question to you is, if implemented, how do you see the trust act helping the recruitment of civil service employees, specifically in the rural areas?
Speaker 16
Thank you for that question. We don't have a witness here today, unfortunately, from our human resources, who would be probably the better person to answer that question.
Speaker 13
Got it. So I gotta make sure that some of these questions are on the record. I'm gonna go through a number of them to follow-up. But these are some of those questions I have. Because, Miss Devlin, over the past year, we've seen almost a revolving door of senior leaders in the VA programs.
And I am concerned that this, in fact, is not addressing the recruitment issues we have, but also the issues of a number of our leadership staff within the VA that are, in fact, leaving. So I wanna make sure that I have another question on the record. How does removing pay stability for some of these leaders create better outcomes for veterans? Specifically, if in fact you can answer this, what material changes would our veterans see with this bill?
Speaker 16
Thank you for the question. First of all, I just wanna say thank you for your interest in recruitment of senior leaders. It's very important to the administration that we have good leaders in place to run our programs for veterans. Pay is, of course, one factor. I think the mission drives typically who comes to VA to work, why they work there, and why they take on senior leadership positions.
These jobs are hard, and they're meaningful. So pay is certainly part of it. I think we could work with you on some technical amendments to the bill. For example, it talks about senior leaders, but it's unclear in some places if we're talking just about the senior executive service or some of our regional offices, for example, have GS 15 leaders because of their size.
Speaker 16
So we wanna make sure that there's some clarity in some of the aspects of the bill.
Speaker 13
I appreciate that, Miss Devlin. And, look, I think I absolutely want to work with you on some of the aspects of this bill. Our policies have to be data-driven. I think that's how we're able to ensure that the agencies are using all of the aggregate or annual SCS performance award data in order to ensure that we are creating the right systems for this recruitment. And that includes, for me, being able to look at a decade's worth of data that we don't have around some of the performance awards.
So one of the things that I would wanna ask is if we could be working together and getting to the committee some of this aggregate and annual SCS performance information since FY 2016 to the committee before we advance the reforms on SCS pay. So let me ask you, would you be willing to commit to providing this data to the committee as we're working through this bill before we advance this reform?
Speaker 16
Yes, ma'am. In fact, I believe we already report to Congress all of our performance award bonuses for senior executives in the VA.
Speaker 13
What we don't have is the aggregate information of the annual SCS performance award. We don't have that for the last 10 years. It would be helpful to get that. So I do appreciate you getting that to us. So let me wrap up and say to you, I think it's important that we're having this conversation.
I actually look forward to this data and that we use every single piece of data as we're looking at identifying recruitment opportunities to be able to bring more employees into the VA in these leadership positions. But I also wanna note that it's also important to retain the ones we have to ensure that we're doing everything we can so that there isn't hostility, there aren't tensions. Because I do agree with you, Miss Evelyn. Leader senior leadership, but all staff that come to work at the VA come in because they care deeply about the mission and want to be able to retain them. So, with that, I look forward to working with you.
And, chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 2
Doctor Dexter, you're recognized for five minutes as we change seats here.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr. Christie, Miss Devlin, and Doctor Atul for being here today and for your work on behalf of our veterans. As far as the every veteran house bill goes, I do want to take the opportunity to revisit that with you. I recognize the technical edits you raised, and we will work to square them with the significant technical assistance this bill had already received from the VA to ensure we had met our stated goals. We are aligned, I have to assume, on the urgency of ending veteran homelessness.
I appreciate your willingness to explore all options and to stay focused on solutions that meet the scale of the crisis. When this legislation came before the economic opportunities subcommittee in June, the VA raised similar concerns around coordination, review, and the resources required to move forward. Those are real considerations, and they are solvable. So I want to be direct, doctor Atul. If we share the commitment to eliminate veteran homelessness, how much time will it take to complete this assessment and move those changes forward?
Speaker 17
Well, first, Congresswoman, thank you for advancing this legislation. It is the priority of our agency to end veteran homelessness. And having worked in this space for all of my career, I am thrilled to see, you know, this legislation and others moving forward as important venues and avenues. I would just say, though, as you know, yourself and your own background, you know, it's not just housing. It's also making sure that we're providing the wraparound services, the clinical services that veterans need both to be able to expedite their leaving homelessness, but also how do we keep them housed.
And, so we're very much looking forward to working with you further on this, and please view this as a priority for us.
Speaker 14
No. I appreciate that. And as I stated in my opening comments, like, the eligibility is in conflict contradiction in some of those things for exactly those reasons. So we just wanna get it in alignment, so we can deliver the services. And if the barrier is funding, which I did not hear you say, but it is always a barrier here, let us name it and work together to meet it.
What resources do you need to assess what is needed to implement this bill?
Speaker 17
I know you often hear from us. We'll take it on the record. I'm not entirely sure. Obviously, we need to be conducting further analyses, as well as ensuring there are not any second or third order consequences to this that might not help a veteran or create further fragmentation in their care and services. So, you know, again, I just wanna make our commitment very clear that we wanna work with you, your staff, the committee to really get this bill moving forward and being able to get the best legislation forward for our veterans who aren't housed.
Speaker 14
I appreciate that. And I'm sure that the term analysis paralysis is not new to you, and I do worry that sometimes we study things and rather than just trying to see what works. And I do wanna make sure that we're centering the veterans as we move things forward. I do wanna take just a minute to ask some questions about the VA National Formulary Act of 2025, which was wrapped forward. Doctor O'Toole, the VA has had a national formulary for over 30 years.
It was a joy to practice with. GAO has found that the VA pays on average about 54% less than Medicare Part D for the drugs it purchases. In your testimony, VA states doctor Miller Meeks' bill, HR 6580, is unnecessary and could worsen care outcomes. Doctor Otoufull Otouul, from your perspective, is VA currently doing what this bill aims to achieve? Why or why not?
Speaker 17
Well, I think we are. And, first, thank you for the question. And this is an important bill, and I think the rationale and basis for trying to codify some of the things that we already have in place, makes a lot of sense. I think the concerns we have, particularly in relation to procurement of medications and being able to best use the taxpayer dollars in acquiring medications, is one where we do have concerns that there may be, we would lose some of the flexibilities in that space. But, again, we very much welcome the opportunity to work with the committee to be able to advance the best bill forward.
We appreciate the importance of codifying what needs to be codified and providing transparency and clearly sharing the intent, but with the concerns that we noted in our testimony.
Speaker 14
I appreciate that. And I certainly also know that science changes, formularies need to be able to adapt. I'm worried that putting things in statute, we here don't do things very quickly, and sometimes we need our clinicians to be able to pivot more quickly than congress may allow by having too many oversight challenges there. I know, I'm already over. So thank you, Mr. Cherry.
Yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentleman yields back. Representative Buzinski, who also won her primary last night.
Speaker 18
It's very kind of you. Thank you. I appreciate it. And thank you to our ranking member. And I'm hoping to just use my time to speak to my two bills before the committee.
First is the safe steps for Veterans Act and a draft authorization bill for the electronic health record modernization program at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Safe Steps for Veterans Act is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that will help protect older veterans from avoidable and often devastating falls by strengthening falls prevention across the VA. Falls are one of the leading causes of injury for older adults, and veterans often face even greater risk because they are more likely to live with chronic conditions and service-connected injuries. This bill will establish an office of falls prevention within the Veterans Health Administration, creating a dedicated coordinator to lead these efforts, improve screening for veterans at risk of falling, and better connect home modification programs with evidence-based falls prevention services. I wanna thank my colleagues on the committee, General Bergman and Congresswoman Kiggins, as well as representatives Frank Frankel and Bilaracus for their bipartisan support of this bill.
My other bill that I wanted to highlight would reauthorize or would authorize, excuse me, the VA's EHRM program, which actually has never been authorized by the committee. It has been almost 8 years since the first Trump administration imposed this $10,000,000,000 sole source contract on the department. In that time, VA has only managed to deploy the system at 6 hospitals. The program has been plagued by delays, patient safety concerns, and dramatic impacts on veterans' access to care, among other issues. It's time that we establish guardrails and expectations for the department, and on this program itself.
My bill would require that the department create a baseline of clinical and business workflows as well as technical requirements to ensure the standardization of VA practices and systems. No longer will they be able to say, if you've seen one VA, you've seen all VA. It would also require the VA to establish quality metrics for the program to be based on VA's strategic analytics for improvement and learning, sale, value model. It also improves public and congressional reporting and requires the VA to create a plan for sunsetting EHRM if necessary. Finally, my bill would require that the department perform an independent verification and validation of all major IT projects and systems, including the EHR.
The bill would also put conditions on which firms could participate in these contracts, to ensure quality and prevent conflicts of interest. The IVNV report must be made available to the committees on veterans affairs of the house and the senate. I hope all my colleagues will support this critical piece of oversight legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yield back. We're gonna start our second round of questions for the ones that are here. General Burke, are you okay?
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I'm trying to, you know, Bill's saying, you can't tell the players without a program. It's tough to tell who's on the field if you don't have a program that states it. So you kinda guess sometimes. So this is an effort to begin to understand who's on the field and who's in the game here.
Miss Devlin, under current law, accredited agents and attorneys generally cannot charge a fee for helping with an initial claim. Is that correct?
Speaker 2
Okay. So if it isn't true that the current framework effectively blocks many private companies that assist veterans with initial claims from becoming accredited even if they want to operate in a regulated environment if they can't be involved with an initial claim?
Speaker 16
Thank you for the question. I'm not sure why that would prevent them from becoming accredited if they met all of the accreditation standards and could assist veterans with their appeals or supplemental claims.
Speaker 2
So but it, so they can become accredited, but they can't, they gotta come in after something didn't go right for the veteran in the initial, because if the initial claim was, you know, there was no reason to appeal, does it bring in the, does it put the cart in front of the horse?
Speaker 16
Sir, thank you for the question, and this is, you know, something we can certainly talk more about. The accredited agents can, if they do not charge a fee, can help veterans with their initial claims. There are many organizations that do so.
Speaker 2
Okay. Well, if a veteran is, you know, they're trying to go through whatever options are available to them for an initial claim. Is it are we helping the veterans, by eliminating certain parts of the marketplace from being able to help those veterans initially?
Speaker 16
I'm glad you asked what we're doing to help veterans in this regard because one of the things we should be thinking about is how do we simplify the claims process so that it's not so complicated, so that it's not so hard. And we are working on doing that. We've got some initiatives that we're working on to simplify the application process for disability compensation, to just make it easier.
Speaker 2
So if you simplify it and thank you for trying to do that because, you know, if one step is good, then two steps must be better, you know, in any process. We know how that works. But wouldn't it make sense to allow folks who want to make it better along with the VA for the veterans to help in the initial process to help the VA? Because I lost my tablet here. But in the earlier, your response to a question, you mentioned that veterans need help making civilian career choices.
I've kind of switched gears here. Okay. The okay. And who is best qualified to help veterans make those next career choices? People who work in an ecosystem, if you will, that may or may not be aware of all the career choices and how the veteran might navigate that system?
Or would we want to have in the military, we have career counselors. Okay? And in most cases, their first goal is to try to get the marine or soldier, sailor, airman, or whoever to reenlist. Once they fail that, you know, the person says, no. I've served honorably.
I'm ready to move on. I wanna get out. But I think we need to have the best people regardless of background available to help veterans on the front end because the veterans administration is an entity that is not really connected necessarily to the everyday civilian market as it changes. I just think there's options here going forward that enable better outcomes, initial outcomes for veterans by broadening those who can help them. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yield back. Ranking member, you're recognized for your second round of questions.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doctor O'Toole, you're the executive director and executive sponsor of Project Safe Harbor, an initiative to develop a guardianship model at VA for veterans experiencing homelessness. Is that correct?
Speaker 3
Thank you. Is it true that Project Safe Harbor is an initiative that was developed to align with the president's executive order on, quote, ending crime and disorder on America's streets, end quote, which essentially criminalizes homelessness?
Speaker 3
Oh, this document here titled Safe Harbor Guardianship Pilot Program Placement says that Project Harbor is a high-priority pilot program aligned with the executive order ending crime and disorder on America's streets. Further, this document says that this program is targeting veterans at risk of or experiencing homelessness. Now the purpose of this program is to seek guardianship of these veterans. Now, doctor Atul, you told congressional staff that VA lacks the legislative authority to petition the state courts for guardianship of veterans. Is that correct?
Speaker 3
Okay. And in fact, VA submitted to Congress a proposal to provide that authority. Correct?
Speaker 3
So I'm a little troubled by this next thing that the VA did. Isn't it true that you decided not to pursue seeking that authority? To go around Congress and get Attorney General Pam Bondi to sign off on a plan to deputize VA's own attorneys to go into state courts and seek guardianship of veterans?
Speaker 17
Well, sir, I appreciate the question, and I appreciate the graphics. And the issue that we are trying to address with this, and if there was a preliminary document, an internal document that misrepresented that, I apologize, but it was an internal document. The issue that we are trying to address, sir.
Speaker 3
Can you just address my question, sir, about whether or not you've abandoned the effort to seek authorization from Congress for this authority, and instead went and urged the secretary to enter into an MOU with Secretary Bondi?
Speaker 17
I'm gonna need to defer to my OGC colleagues on that strategic approach, sir. So I would have to take that on the record. And I know we do, we are meeting with your staff, with the four corners next week to be able to discuss that in further detail.
Speaker 3
Tell me, sir, what population of veterans is the VA targeting for guardianship under this MOU?
Speaker 17
Thank you, sir. The population that we are targeting with this effort are those veterans who are hospitalized and who are boarding in an acute care bed in a VA facility because they do not have the mental capacity for decision making. And right now, that constitutes about 700 veterans who are currently in the inpatient facility. It is not intended for outreach. It is not intended as a homeless initiative.
Speaker 3
Mentioned, then why do all these documents about Safe Project Safe Harbor state that at-risk and homeless veterans we're talking about the 700 veterans. Will be targeted for guardianship, including homeless veterans who are not even connected to VA programs. Again, these are documents, internal VA documents.
Speaker 17
Yeah. That is erroneous. And, you know, that should never and is not the case or the intent of this initiative.
Speaker 3
My concern here, sir. Disability rights advocates, clinicians, medical mental health experts, and attorneys all agree guardianship is the last resort and should be an extreme measure. If VA is going to take away the rights of veterans, VA needs to be transparent about which veterans will lose their rights and why. It is clear from these Project Safe Harbor documents that homeless veterans are the target. Forcing homeless veterans into guardianship and civil commitment won't solve their homelessness.
Homeless veterans need housing and robust services. My time is running out. So you're saying that these documents are erroneous, and this is your opportunity to correct the record. I'm urging you strongly to rethink how VA will use the MOU with DOJ. And I also urge VA to abandon Project Safe Harbor entirely.
And so I'm asking, if these are erroneous, I would like to get that in writing, sir, that what is the intent? As I say, I think we should abandon Project Safe Harbor entirely.
Speaker 17
On the record, sir, those are erroneous. Of the 700 veterans that are currently boarding in an acute care bed, about half of them are homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness. All that Safe Harbor does is to provide legal support and representation for a veteran so that they can proceed through state court proceedings on receiving a guardian so that they can move to a safer environment that is commensurate with their needs. These are patients, sir, who are profoundly demented with advanced Alzheimer's who do not have a next of kin. And because they do not have a next of kin for decision making, they are forced to stay in an acute care bed for their safety.
Speaker 3
So before I review back, mister chairman, I would like to enter these documents, these internal DVA documents that state that actually Project Safe Harbor was targeting homeless veterans and veterans that are not actually within the VA's health care system. I'd like those to be, you know, ask consent to enter these into the record.
Speaker 3
And, sir, I would ask in writing as well, you know, the scope of Project Safe Harbor. And, again, I would urge you to abandon it. And, so, anyway, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Mister Christie, I'm gonna take my five minutes right quick, and then we still have mister Connor doctor Conway that will have his five. Mister Christie, the committee has heard concerns, current VA, GAS, GSA leasing processes can delay the delivery of needed medical facilities and clinics. Would you grant, would granting VA independent leasing authority enable you to build infrastructure more efficiently and quickly? Absolutely.
Doctor O'Toole, the effectiveness of VA depends heavily on strong leadership. Would changing the undersecretary for health and undersecretary for benefits to a presidential appointee position strengthen transparency and congressional oversight of these critical departments?
Speaker 17
Sir, I the undersecretary of health is currently a senate confirmed position, and, you know, we believe that's appropriate.
Speaker 1
K. Thank you. Mister Evelyn, and this is my last one, but how could the BR and E improvement and accountability act improve oversight on the high cost of expenditures and ensure the safety of the employees?
Speaker 16
Thank you for the question on that bill and for the focus that this committee has on improving the V R and E program. We share that commitment. There are a few things that are helpful in the bill, establishing a cap of 250,000. Currently, I think less than 1% based on the last data I have of veterans in the program, do we spend that much money on. So that's not a challenge for us.
What is the challenge is that the bill language indicates it would include all federal funds that a veteran was in receipt of, and we think the intent was to capture the chapter 31 funds. So some language adjustment there would make it more accurate and help ensure appropriate implementation. We do have concerns, technical concerns, on the bill. I think the intent is there, that we can appreciate. But, for example, the 25 mile stipulation that a veteran, you know, we have to look at whether they're 25 miles from the school that they're attending.
They live in Woodbridge, and they're attending a school in DC. They could be beyond 25 miles. And I don't think that it's the intent of congress that VR and E counselors have to do calculations of the miles. So happy to work with you and the committee.
Speaker 16
On improving this bill so that it achieves the intent, without adding challenges for veterans.
Speaker 1
Which is why we're having this hearing, so we can talk back and forth on.
Speaker 1
With that, I yield back. Doctor Conway, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for teeing up my comments on HR 6755, the Accountable Leadership for Veterans Act. As I understand the bill, the senior executive workforce would be expanded not by people who are qualified as current law requires, but would open up that workforce to political appointees. Yet, while they'll have to go through senate confirmation, the requirements for expertise in their particular workstations will be very much watered down. It's hard for me to understand how reducing your requirements for such an important position would be better for the functioning of the VA.
Doctor Atul, how many senior executive service positions does the VA currently have across its enterprise?
Speaker 17
I do not know off the top of my head, sir, and we'd have to take that for the record.
Speaker 7
And so, ex not surprised about that, but I wanna put that question on the record and ask, not only, with respect to the VA itself, but also within the VHA. And, Miss Devlin, I'm gonna save you the trouble. I'm gonna ask also about the VBA as well. Although if you happen to know those numbers, I'd be very happy to hear them now.
Speaker 16
I know around us, but sir, I wouldn't wanna give an inaccurate number on the record.
Speaker 7
So, you'll ask that you do provide that information to the committee. And as my other colleagues have asked as well, could you suggest the timeline by which we might be able to receive that information?
Speaker 7
Good. Thank you very much. I want to, and to either of you and from his, Devlin, doctor Atul. Do you have a concern about a change in the qualifications for those who are going to undertake the position of under secretary of health? And just let me put some more close on this.
Currently, the undersecretary of health has been appointed without regard to political affiliation or activity, on the basis of demonstrated ability in the medical profession, health care administration, and policy formulation or health care fiscal management. And, also, on the basis of substantial experience in connection with the programs of the VHA or programs of similar content and scope. The bill, section three in particular, of the legislation in question here that is H.R. 6755, would remove all qualifications currently described in the code and replace them with language simply requiring that under secretaries for health be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the president. Do you have the concern for the ability of and the important work that these executive officers provide, will be diminished by removing these very important qualifications and experiential qualifications from those who might, well be appointed, to the role of undersecretary?
Speaker 16
So thank you for the question. I will point out that neither doctor O'Toole nor I am involved in the selection process for undersecretary positions. And we stated in the department stated in views that we support the intent of the bill, but do have some concerns. But I would have to defer the department.
Speaker 7
I can guess what the concerns are. And, Doctor Tooley, do you care to comment further?
Speaker 7
With that, I'll leave it there and look forward to an answer to some of the questions I've posed to, and appreciate, again, you're putting yourself before us to answer questions on the legislation this committee is considering. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yield back. Well, I wanna take the time to thank the witnesses for joining us here today and for their testimony. Today's discussion underscores why the committee's work is so important. The laws that the government VA shape how care is delivered, how benefits are administered, and how resources are used. When those laws fall behind the needs of the veteran, it is Congress's responsibility to review them and make the necessary updates.
The proposals discussed today reflect that responsibility. They aim to strengthen accountability, improve transparency, and ensure that VA remains focused on serving veterans. This committee will continue its oversight and legislative work to make sure the department has the tools and structure needed to meet the needs of our veterans today and in the future. I look forward to continuing this discussion as we evaluate these proposals and consider the path forward. With that, I ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extensive material.
Hearing no objections, so ordered. This hearing is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.