[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING
=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                              BEFORE THE

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY 
                     ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2025

                               __________

                            Serial No. 119-8

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


                    Available via http://govinfo.gov
                    
                                __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
60-669                  WASHINGTON : 2025                  
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
                    
                     COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                     MIKE BOST, Illinois, Chairman

AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       MARK TAKANO, California, Ranking 
    American Samoa, Vice-Chairwoman      Member
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan               JULIA BROWNLEY, California
NANCY MACE, South Carolina           CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK, 
GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina        Florida
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas               DELIA RAMIREZ, Illinois
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona              NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
KEITH SELF, Texas                    TIMOTHY M. KENNEDY, New York
JEN KIGGANS, Virginia                MAXINE DEXTER, Oregon
ABE HAMADEH, Arizona                 HERB CONAWAY, New Jersey
KIMBERLYN KING-HINDS, Northern       KELLY MORRISON, Minnesota
    Mariana Islands
TOM BARRETT, Michigan

                       Jon Clark, Staff Director
                  Matt Reel, Democratic Staff Director

       SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS

                    MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas, Chairman

AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky, Ranking 
    American Samoa                       Member
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan               CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
NANCY MACE, South Carolina           MAXINE DEXTER, Oregon
KEITH SELF, Texas                    KELLY MORRISON, Minnesota

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public 
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also 
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the 
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare 
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process 
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce 
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the 
current publication process and should diminish as the process is 
further refined.
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2025

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Morgan Luttrell, Chairman..........................     1
The Honorable Morgan McGarvey, Ranking Member....................     2

                               WITNESSES
                                Panel I

The Honorable Jack Bergman, U.S. House of Representatives, (MI-
  01)............................................................     4

The Honorable Chris Pappas, U.S. House of Representatives, (NH-
  01)............................................................     6

                                Panel II

Mr. Josh Smith, Chief Executive Officer, Veteran Benefits Guide..     8

Lieutenant Colonel William "Bill" Taylor (Ret., U.S. Army), Co-
  Founder and Chief Operating Officer, Veterans Guardian VA Claim 
  Consulting.....................................................     9

Mr. Peter O'Rourke, President, National Association for Veterans 
  Rights.........................................................    11

Ms. Diane Boyd Rauber, Executive Director, National Organization 
  of Veterans' Advocates.........................................    13

Mr. Pat Murray, Acting Executive Director, Washington Office, 
  Veterans of Foreign Wars.......................................    14

                                APPENDIX
                    Prepared Statements Of Witnesses

Mr. Josh Smith Prepared Statement................................    33
Lieutenant Colonel William "Bill" Taylor (Ret., U.S. Army) 
  Prepared Statement.............................................    37
Mr. Peter O'Rourke Prepared Statement............................    50
Ms. Diane Boyd Rauber Prepared Statement.........................    55
Mr. Pat Murray Prepared Statement................................    70

                       Statements For The Record

Disabled American Veterans Prepared Statement....................    73
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Prepared Statement......    76
The American Legion Prepared Statement...........................    78
Trajector Medical Prepared Statement.............................    87
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Prepared Statement...........    98

 
                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2025

   Subcommittee on Disability Assistance & 
                          Memorial Affairs,
                    Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
                             U.S. House of Representatives,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m., in 
room 360, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Morgan Luttrell 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Luttrell, Bergman, Mace, Self, 
McGarvey, Pappas, Dexter, and Morrison.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF MORGAN LUTTRELL, CHAIRMAN

    Mr. Luttrell. Okay. The Subcommittee on Disability 
Assistance and Memorial Affairs will come to order.
    Before we start, I have just been told that one of our 
colleagues, Mr. Sylvester Turner, he is actually from Texas, 
was the former mayor of Houston, passed away. I am not sure if 
it was last night or this morning, but may we please have a 
moment of silence for our fallen colleague.
    Thank you. Our thoughts and prayers are extended to the 
Turner family. Not how I wanted to start my day off, but all 
right.
    Thank you all for joining us today. We are here to discuss 
three bills that would each reinstate criminal penalties for 
anyone who takes advantage of veterans who are filing claims 
for VA disability compensation. Last week, I personally heard 
from veterans' advocates testifying on the bad actors for 
charging $30,000 or more to assist veterans for filing their 
claims. I think we can all agree that veterans should never 
ever have to pay $30,000 or more for assistance filing a U.S. 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability claim 
compensation claim.
    I have also heard from veterans that they want the freedom 
to choose who helps them file their initial claims. Under the 
current law, companies are not allowed to charge a fee for 
assisting veterans with claims at the start of the claims 
process, limiting their options. At today's hearing, we will be 
discussing H.R. 1656, the Preserving Lawful Utilization of 
Services for Veterans (PLUS) Act, which would reinstate fines 
and jail time for companies that violate laws regarding 
representation of veterans pursuing VA benefit claims. The PLUS 
Act would also allow VA accredited agents and attorneys to 
charge a limited fee to assist veterans with filing their 
initial claims for VA disability compensation.
    Second, H.R. 1732, the Governing Unaccredited 
Representatives Defrauding VA Benefits (GUARD) Act, would 
reinstate fines for violations of the law regarding the 
representation of veterans before VA.
    Third, the Discussion Draft on today's agenda would 
reinstate fines and jail time for violating the laws governing 
the representation of veterans before VA. The Discussion Draft 
would also allow VA accredited agents and attorneys to charge a 
limited fee while assisting veterans with filings with filings 
on their initial VA benefits claims while prohibiting fees for 
certain types of initial claims.
    I believe that regardless of the bill anyone supports, we 
must ensure that the veterans is at the center of the changes 
we make. I look forward to a productive discussion today about 
the three bills on our agenda.
    We have not currently received VA's views on these bills. 
Secretary Collins has only recently began leading the VA, the 
second largest Federal agency in the Nation. In my opinion, he 
is still and currently getting his sea legs underneath him. 
Because the VA did not have its views cleared in time for our 
hearing, it was not in the best interest of everyone's time to 
have them come and testify. Because we do need VA's views, we 
will keep the record open for them. It is not uncommon for us 
to receive VA's views after hearings and I think the witnesses 
who have joined us today will understand.
    I now yield to the ranking member for his opening remarks.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF MORGAN MCGARVEY, RANKING MEMBER

    Mr. McGarvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also echo your 
initial sentiments for our colleague Sylvester Turner from 
Texas, for his family. Not only was he a distinguished Member 
of this body, also a very well-respected mayor across the 
country for his work there. A loss.
    Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you all having this hearing. 
Appreciate everybody for being here today. I am here for one 
reason today. It is not to protect turf in any turf wars. It is 
not to defend the status quo. It is not to whine and complain 
about things that do not matter for veterans' daily lives. I am 
here for one reason: to ensure that our veterans can access 
their earned benefits without delay and without being ripped 
off.
    Now, I want to get this right, which is why I think it is 
important to hear from everyone. However, I also want to point 
out that we have one critical absence day. Mr. Chairman, you 
mentioned the VA is not here and I understand that there is a 
new Secretary. We did, however, receive written testimony from 
them and I do not think it actually said all that much. It said 
they are reviewing their bills, they could not give their views 
at this time. Again, I know they are new, but it is hard to 
hold a legislative hearing without knowing where the VA stands 
on these bills.
    I think that is particularly important right now because 
they have been so supportive of the GUARD Act in the past. I 
hope their absence in reviewing this bill is not a signal that 
they are doing a 180. Because if the Trump administration is 
now going to support these companies who have been fleecing 
veterans out of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, money 
that is meant to help our veterans, then I do hope they will 
have--they will show up in front of this committee and tell us 
why.
    Now, let us get to the topic at hand. My goal, and I think 
one that is shared by all of my colleagues here, is to 
alleviate the circumstances that lead any veteran to feel as 
though they have to pay to access the benefits they have 
earned. We should strive for a process that does not 
necessitate paid assistance, that is simple to navigate, that 
is quick to deliver an outcome, and that results in a pro 
veteran decision. I think anything short of that is window 
dressing.
    Do not take that to mean, Mr. Chairman, that I am not 
interested in cracking down on those who are violating the law. 
Quite the opposite, in fact. It is clear that back in 2006, 
Congress made a mistake when it repealed penalties for 
assisting with disability claims without accreditation. I do 
not think anyone could have anticipated a cottage claims 
industry so brazenly flouting the law. That cottage industry, 
it is not so quaint anymore. In fact, we are talking about 
numerous large companies that are siphoning off hundreds of 
millions of dollars a year in veterans' benefits, companies 
that are attracting venture capital funding and working on Wall 
Street offerings, all to make a quick dollar on what has for 
decades been a free service.
    I understand we live in a country where everyone is trying 
to make a living and if people can find a way to make a buck, 
they will, even if that means profiting from veterans' 
disabilities. Unfortunately, these companies have deep pockets 
which they use to buy influence. We have been at a stalemate 
here for years between those who want to crack down on this 
illegal behavior and those who want to bless it.
    I think we are going to hear a lot about veteran choice and 
systemic capacity at today's hearings. I want to point out that 
there is a great deal of choice already with thousands of 
accredited representatives able to help, not to mention VA's 
longstanding duty to assist. Veteran Services Organization 
(VSO) capacity is robust and growing, especially with the new 
nontraditional VSOs coming on board, such as Tribes and labor 
unions. This is not about taking away veterans choices for me. 
There is a lot of choices out there. I want veterans to have 
their choice. I want veterans to be able to get, again, the 
benefits they have earned. These are earned benefits for our 
veterans in exchange for their services. This is about, for me, 
removing unaccredited, unregulated claim sharks who target 
veterans for those earned benefits.
    We will also hear that these companies assert they provide 
better, faster service to a veteran. In fact, that is one of 
their principal lures. Okay, I do understand that. I understand 
why that could be enticing to a veteran. One, the VA is 
processing claims faster. Two, let us make sure that these 
appeals are not so attractive anymore, that the veterans are 
actually able to access the benefits they have earned.
    There has been a lot of robust hiring at the Veterans 
Benefits Administration (VBA) facilitated by the The Sergeant 
First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address 
Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act. Let us make these claims 
easier to navigate. That is what we are all looking for here.
    I think most troubling, though, is we are going to witness 
some Olympic level displays of mental gymnastics today from 
those companies trying to rationalize how their activity is not 
illegal when it is and has been for decades. They have the 
option to be accredited, but have chosen not to do so, which, 
by the way, the accreditation is free. If the process is 
cumbersome, we should prioritize a finding a solution to 
streamline it, so we can offer more choices to veterans while 
keeping their earned benefits where they belong, with them. I 
agree with the chairman. It is ridiculous that a veteran is 
paying $30,000 to have somebody navigate a claim for them. I 
think it is ridiculous that the claims are too difficult to 
access, that veterans feel they need someone to help them. I 
think it is the job of this committee to help our veterans.
    I want to take a step back, actually work through what 
works best for them, absent of consideration of what works best 
for the companies who are purporting to support our veterans, 
but who are, in fact, taking tens of thousands of dollars, 
sometimes from each veteran and hundreds of millions of dollars 
overall.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. McGarvey.
    This morning we have colleagues who will be testifying from 
the dais about the bills they have sponsored. General Bergman, 
sir, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to speak on the PLUS 
Act.

                   STATEMENT OF JACK BERGMAN

    Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our 
witnesses for being here today, and to Chairman Bost and the 
entire VA Committee staff, for their work on the issue thus 
far.
    I would like to start by stating I firmly believe that 
everyone present today on both sides of the aisle have the same 
fundamental goal: to prevent and punish bad actors seeking to 
take advantage of veterans and to ensure that veterans are able 
to quickly and easily receive the disability benefits they 
deserve. Congress must take action to ensure that veterans 
looking for help navigating the VA disability benefits system 
are not defrauded or otherwise taken advantage of.
    However, this cannot come at the cost of removing veteran 
agency and choice. It would be unacceptable for Congress to 
push a heavy-handed ban on the entire industry of legitimate 
businesses, often veteran-owned, that have helped thousands of 
veterans get the claims they deserve. The PLUS for Veterans 
Act, which I introduced along with my friend Lou Correa from 
California, will preserve the right for veterans to get help 
from the private sector while preparing VA applications by 
incorporating these businesses into the VA accreditation 
system, all while imposing penalties on bad actors that seek to 
exploit veterans. By incorporating these businesses into VA 
accreditation, veterans will have protection against the abuse 
and recourse if they are taken advantage of, and VA will have 
the teeth it needs to punish bad actors.
    Contrary to what some have claimed, no veteran would ever 
be forced to pay a fee to obtain the benefits they have earned 
through their service under the PLUS Act. In fact, the bill 
creates new requirements for veterans to be informed of free 
options for getting assistance with their disability benefit 
applications, for instance, through the VSOs. This is on top of 
the new safeguards in the bill that prevent high fees, require 
informed consent in clear language, and prevent conflicts of 
interest between agents and doctors who provide medical 
evidence.
    There also has been new additions and improvements made to 
the bill text following constructive feedback we have received 
over the past 2 years. Most notably, the bill now establishes a 
system of provisional accreditation that will allow new agents 
to begin assisting veterans in a timely manner while ensuring 
the veteran remains protected from abuse. It also establishes 
steep penalties for any malpractice by agents with provisional 
accreditation, including a fine of up to $50,000. I remain open 
to constructive feedback and good faith dialog as we work to 
craft the best legislation possible.
    In regard to concerns related to the fee cap structure 
included in the PLUS Act, I would like to make the following 
points clear. First, any imposed caps on fees by accredited 
agents must be set at a level designated to protect veterans 
from abuse, not at a level that effectively sets the price for 
the entire market and forces out high-quality, good-faith 
businesses.
    Second, there is existing Federal precedent justifying a 
fee cap like in the bill. For example, the Social Security 
Administration's fee cap for assistance on disability claims is 
currently set at $9,200, and yet assisting with VA claims is 
far more complicated and time consuming than with Social 
Security. Social Security disability claims do not have to 
prove service connection. There is no 0 to 100 disability 
rating, like with the VA, and the requirements for obtaining 
National Social Security Advisor certification are far lower 
than that of the VA accreditation. It would be nonsensical to 
impose a cap at or below that of Social Security's given all 
the additional complications and costs involved in helping 
navigate the VA.
    Finally, the projections created through the PLUS Act, like 
providing information on free assistance options and 
incorporating all agents into VA accreditation, are 
fundamentally designed to provide veterans with a fair and well 
understood choice. If a veteran decides that they would like to 
pay a fee in order to get easier, faster, and more personalized 
assistance in filing their claims, who are we to tell them that 
they cannot? Veterans should be allowed to choose whatever 
option they decide to do in their best interest: filing on 
their own, going through a VSO, or through a private business. 
Adding overwhelmingly overly draconian fee caps will only limit 
the number of choices available to them.
    The PLUS Act for Veterans recognizes that veterans are 
capable of choosing what options are best for them when seeking 
assistance in obtaining benefits. Denying this right is not 
protecting veterans. It is, and this is a strong word, a lot of 
syllables for a guy like me, infantilizing, it makes them feel 
like little babies. How is that? How is that? I mean, you know, 
that is Marine and Navy speak, but I do not know if the Air 
Force did, but you get it, right? All right.
    I look forward--by the way, I am going to have to make sure 
that that is never in a speech again. I am going to have to 
look forward. Can I close now?
    Mr. Luttrell. You should let the enlisted men do that.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay. With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Luttrell. Yes, sir. Thank you, General.
    Mr. Pappas, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF CHRIS PAPPAS

    Mr. Pappas. Thank you very much, Chairman Luttrell and 
Ranking Member McGarvey, for your opening comments, and General 
Bergman for yours as well on your legislation.
    I want to share with everyone today about information about 
my bill, the GUARD VA Benefits Act. This committee has heard me 
and many of my colleagues and veteran service organizations 
talk about this bill and reference the troubling increase in 
unaccredited representatives that are looking to profit off 
veterans' disability claims. They peddle a for-profit model 
that veterans can receive free of charge from veteran service 
organizations, like those who we will hear from today.
    One Navy corpsman we heard from paid a company $8,000 to 
help her access her disability benefits after she left the 
service. Another Navy servicemember said he was charged almost 
$10,000 for just 6 hours of virtual coaching that he later said 
he could have found online on his own. It is alarming because 
the more third parties that have a hand in a veteran's claim, 
the more potential exists for fraud and abuse, which I am sure 
we all agree we want to prevent.
    To provide veterans with qualified and competent help and 
protect them from individuals who may be targeting their 
benefits, VA has long operated an accreditation, discipline, 
and fees program to provide oversight of those who assist with 
fee preparation. Under current law, VA accredited 
representatives are the only individuals authorized to prepare, 
present, or prosecute VA claims on a veteran's behalf. 
Unfortunately, in 2006, Congress decided to strip VA of its 
ability to penalize those who violate the longstanding 
prohibitions on preparation, presentation, and prosecution of a 
VA claim before VA. Since then, the claims consultant companies 
have exploited this dangerous loophole to rake in millions of 
dollars from veterans across the country.
    This bill is simple. It will reinstate criminal penalties 
for unaccredited claims representatives, does not create new 
criminal acts, nor does it change the well-established 
definitions of preparation, presentation, and prosecution. To 
that point, I want to be clear. The gathering or development of 
third-party medical evidence has long been excluded from the 
definitions of preparation, presentation, and prosecution. The 
GUARD Act does not change that dynamic, nor would I propose to.
    I also want to address another argument that some have 
raised, that the GUARD Act would somehow limit the choices that 
veterans have with their claims. Some companies have even hired 
expensive lobbyists and lawyers to argue that this bill would 
violate First Amendment rights. Nothing could be further from 
the truth. This legislation does not ban a veteran from 
choosing whoever they want when seeking help with their VA 
claim. If veterans want options, they can talk to any number of 
professional, well-trained veteran service officers. They can 
seek help from VSOs like the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), 
the American Legion, and others. If veterans want a paid 
option, they are free to turn to agents and attorneys who are 
accredited for help. The difference is that all of these 
individuals are accredited. They go through that process. They 
are subject to the oversight of VA and the Office of General 
Counsel. It is exactly that oversight that for-profit claims 
consulting companies are seeking to continue to avoid.
    These claims consulting companies, they know what they are 
doing is beyond the scope of the law and they have spent 
thousands and thousands of dollars lobbying against this bill. 
They also know that there is nothing stripping them or 
preventing them from becoming accredited today except that they 
will not make as much money unaccredited if they become 
accredited.
    I just want to say that I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on developing a permanent solution to this. I think 
it must include ensuring that we reinstate criminal penalties. 
I look forward to hearing from folks on our panel about this 
and other bills under consideration today.
    I want to commend the continued support of veterans service 
organizations in assisting the veteran community and in 
speaking out strongly for this legislation. We have strong 
bipartisan support in the Congress. The bill has been 
reintroduced and I am looking forward to working with my 
colleagues on a solution that is going to protect veterans, 
make sure that they can keep their earned benefits, and ensure 
that we are moving forward in a way that is worthy of the 
service and sacrifice of so many in this room and across the 
country.
    With that, I yield back my time.
    Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Pappas. It is good to have you 
in here again, sir.
    It is our practice, We will forego a round of questioning 
for the members. Any questions may be submitted for the record.
    I now invite our second panel of witnesses to the table if 
they are present. Welcome, everyone. Yes, Mr. Smith. Colonel, 
go like this. It is on the record. It has got to be right. 
Apologies. Thank you, sir.
    Now, welcome and thank you for joining us today. Our second 
panel includes Mr. Josh Smith, chief executive officer (CEO), 
Veterans Benefits Guide (VBG); Lieutenant Colonel Bill Taylor, 
cofounder and chief operating officer of Veterans Guardian VA 
Claim Consulting; Mr. Peter O'Rourke, president of the National 
Association for Veterans Rights; Ms. Diane Boyd Rauber, 
National Organizations of Veterans' Advocates (NOVA); and Mr. 
Pat Murray, acting executive director, Washington Office, 
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.
    I ask all the witnesses, please rise and raise your right 
hand.
    [Witnesses sworn.]
    Mr. Luttrell. Thank you. Be seated. Let the record reflect 
that all witnesses answered in the affirmative.
    Mr. Smith, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir, to 
deliver your opening testimony.

                    STATEMENT OF JOSH SMITH

    Mr. Smith. Joshua Smith. I am the CEO and cofounder of 
Veteran Benefits Guide. I would like to thank Chairman Luttrell 
and Ranking Member McGarvey and other committee members for 
providing me this opportunity to share my perspective.
    I am testifying today in opposition to the GUARD VA 
Benefits Act and in strong support of the PLUS for Veterans 
Act. I want to thank Representative Bergman for introducing the 
PLUS Act and Representatives Mace and Self for cosponsoring the 
bill. VBG also supports the Discussion Draft that has been 
shared and believes it represents a reasonable compromise.
    While well intended, the GUARD Act would severely and 
unfairly limit choices veterans have in seeking assistance with 
their claims. Instead of only targeting bad actors, it would 
make illegal for veterans to get advice or assistance from any 
private services, including honorable companies, like VBG. We 
believe the veterans need more help in getting their benefits, 
not more limitations on their options and choices.
    In contrast, the PLUS Act and the discussion draft provide 
the right balance between establishing guardrails to protect 
veterans from bad actors and ensuring private companies are 
allowed to continue serving veterans. Each of these bills 
include strict disclosure requirements, fee caps, and privacy 
protections that we support.
    Opponents of the PLUS Act and the Discussion Draft 
inaccurately claim that organizations such as ours choose not 
to be accredited. This is false. VBG would welcome the 
opportunity to become accredited. The PLUS Act and the 
Discussion Draft legislation would resolve this issue by 
providing a pathway for accreditation, allowing VBG and other 
good actors to come under the oversight of the VA. The fact 
that VBG is not currently accredited does not mean we are 
violating Federal law. We provide specially trained case 
managers to guide veterans through the claim process, but we do 
not act as a veterans agent or representative and we do not 
present before the VA.
    We believe Federal legislation is needed now to resolve 
this issue. Different versions of the GUARD Act and Plus Act 
have been introduced in at least 30 states. Without a Federal 
solution, the result will be a chaotic patchwork of State 
legislation. Our Nation's veterans are being harmed every day 
by this chaos and gridlock is allowed to continue. This is not 
a partisan issue. In states where these bills are being 
considered we have heard from Democrats and Republicans 
expressing a desire to reach a compromise that both protects 
veterans and preserves choice.
    In addition to being the CEO of VBG, I am also a Marine 
Corps veteran and a former VA employee. At the VA, I witnessed 
firsthand that veterans were being denied benefits they earned. 
That is why I left the VA and with my wife Lauren created VBG 
to help guide veterans through this complicated process. We 
have grown our company and have now more than 200 employees 
with offices in Nevada and California. Roughly 80 percent of 
our employees are veterans or immediate family members of 
veterans, and we employ former VA personnel, like myself, 
helping to assure we keep up to date with VA regulations and 
training.
    It is clear that our service is needed. Despite their best 
efforts, veteran service organizations do not have enough 
manpower or resources to keep up with the demand for help. In 
congressional testimony, the National Association of County 
Veteran Service Officers acknowledged that they face 
disparities in staffing levels, technology, education, and 
outreach, and have become even more acute in recent years, and 
that they are scrambling to meet an influx of requests from 
veterans for support. In fact, more than 70 percent of our 
clients first navigated the process with the help of a VSO. 
They were either denied their full benefits or felt the process 
was taking too long continuing to submit claims. VBG's sole 
focus is getting on the getting the veteran's claim right the 
first time, avoiding the need of a lengthy and costly appeal.
    The value we bring to our veteran clients is best reflected 
in their own words. Leo, an Air Force veteran from Nevada, 
stated the following and I quote, ``There are some 
organizations out there that say do not go to these companies 
that have to pay for that you have to pay for. You should be 
doing it on your own. My argument is I did go on my own and try 
to file my claim and I did not get help. Many people, including 
VSOs, has promised to help me, but they did not actually help. 
It was not until I found VBG that I got the rating I deserve. 
If it is my money, it should be my choice what I do with it. I 
want every veteran to have the ability to make that choice,'' 
end quote.
    With reasonable guardrails in place, we believe that 
veterans should be free to contact with whom they wish for 
help. This was the guiding principle in 2006 when Congress 
loosened restrictions on veterans being able to pay for help 
with their appeal claims. It should be the same guiding 
principle today.
    Thank you for considering my testimony. I will be happy to 
answer any questions.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Josh Smith Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
    Colonel Taylor, you are now recognized for 5 minutes, sir.

                  STATEMENT OF WILLIAM TAYLOR

    Mr. Taylor. Good morning, Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member 
McGarvey, and members of the subcommittee. My name is William 
Taylor and I am the cofounder of Veterans Guardian, a West 
Point graduate, and a 23-year Army veteran with six operational 
deployments. I am proud to have served my country and cofounded 
one of the largest veteran-owned and operated companies helping 
veterans navigate the VA claims process. In my written 
testimony I have included a detailed description of my military 
service and my company. For now I would like to focus--dive 
right into the issues.
    The bottom line is we are veterans helping veterans. We 
provide a valuable service and are committed to serving 
veterans. Candidly, I am frustrated to have my integrity and 
honor regularly called into question by those who label me a 
claim shark simply because I use a different approach than the 
traditional model and that approach is often preferred by 
veterans. I have remained committed to finding a compromise 
that modernizes accreditation and ensures veterans have choice 
in claims representation. I once again extend an offer to all 
entities at this table to work together and find ways to 
compromise without resorting to mudslinging.
    The unfortunate reality is that many veterans face 
difficulties navigating the VA disability process. It cannot be 
ignored that there are currently over 935,000 claims awaiting 
adjudication by the VA. Contrary to the views under the Biden 
VA, the current systems do not meet the needs of veterans. 
Veterans need more options, not less. To address veterans 
needs, they should be able to pursue their claim in the manner 
that best serves them with full knowledge of all available 
options at any step in the process, including free and fee-
based options.
    I would like to address the allegations that my company is 
breaking the law. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
Section 5901 of Title 38 contains the foundational rule 
governing claims assistance. It states that, ``No individual 
may act as an agent or attorney in the preparation, 
presentation, or prosecution of any claim under laws 
administered by the VA unless such individual has been 
recognized for such purposes by the Secretary.'' The ``agent or 
attorney'' qualifier is also included in the statutory 
limitation on when fees may be charged for assistance under 
section 5904.
    Veterans Guardian does not act in either role. We do not 
employ attorneys, so that category can be set aside. Our 
employees do not act as agents. We provide advice to our 
clients, but we do not file claims. We do not interact with the 
VA on the veteran's behalf. We do not represent the veteran 
before the VA. For those reasons we are not acting as an agent 
or attorney as required to meet the Federal restriction on 
claims assistance.
    We also do not violate restrictions on assignment of 
benefits. Veterans Guardian never acquires a right to receive 
our clients' VA benefits' which is what the law prohibits. 
Rather, clients pay us a fee equivalent to five times the 
increase in monthly benefits obtained using our help. The fact 
that the amount a veteran pays Veterans Guardian is based on 
the increase in benefits does not mean that the company 
acquires the right to receive those benefits from either the VA 
or the veteran. A veteran can pay fees to Veterans Guardian out 
of sources that are completely segregated from benefits 
distributed by the VA. Once they start receiving benefits, they 
can pay our fees in a lump sum or on a flexible schedule that 
is independent from the VA's payment timeline. In other words, 
veterans pay a fee for our service. They do not transfer their 
benefits to us.
    Even though our business is compliant with current law, it 
has become clear to me that maintaining the status quo is not 
sustainable for all parties involved. Divisive debates over the 
years have not served veterans. Our focus should be on finding 
solutions that make the system work better for veterans. H.R. 
1656 introduced by General Bergman and Congressman Correa does 
just that. It would allow companies like mine to become 
accredited rather than legislating us out of existence. It 
improves oversight and ensures veterans are receiving competent 
assistance. It provides veterans the freedom to make informed 
decisions on how they want to pursue their claims.
    The House Veterans' Affairs Committee (HVAC) Committee 
Discussion Draft is also well-intentioned and a step in the 
right direction, and we have provided amendments for 
consideration that would enable our full throttled support.
    As for the GUARD Act, we support the intentions of the 
bill, but the execution is flawed and has failed to receive a 
markup in 6 years. Despite what some may allege, there is no 
sweeping momentum for GUARD-style bills in the states. GUARD-
style bills were defeated in 20 states in 2024. In the last 2 
years, only two states have passed laws that fully deny 
veterans the choice to use a private company: New Jersey in 
2023 and Maine in 2024. Both laws are being challenged in 
court. While Congress is certainly not bound by the 
developments in the states. I believe conveying what is 
factually occurring in the states is important.
    I look forward to a constructive discussion regarding the 
bills on today's agenda and how all of us should be working 
together to address the issues that veterans face and to 
provide veterans with more options and protections from 
predatory practices. I look forward to remaining engaged and 
working with you, your staffs, and the other parties as we 
address these important issues for our Nation's veterans.
    Thank you, and I am happy to take any questions.

    [The Prepared Statement Of William Taylor Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Colonel Taylor.
    Mr. O'Rourke, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF PETER O'ROURKE

    Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, 
members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to 
testify before you today. My name is Peter O'Rourke and I am 
the president of the National Association for Veteran Rights, 
NAVR; former acting secretary and chief of staff of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs; a veteran of the Navy and the 
Air Force. I am honored to be here to provide testimony 
addressing the legislation that your committee is considering 
today.
    For the past 4 years, I have been part of a critical 
conversation, one that should be centered on veterans' rights, 
yet instead became a battleground over whether they should have 
the freedom to choose alternatives outside the Department of 
Veterans Affairs or the traditional VSO model when seeking 
their service-connected disability benefits. In a world 
evolving at breakneck speed, it is truly astonishing to me that 
some would argue against applying technology, innovation, and 
new ideas to improve veterans' services. Here we are, clinging 
to outdated systems, resisting progress, and defending the past 
at the expense of the future.
    Over those 4 years, those who dare defend the notion of 
private sector assistance, many of whom are veterans 
themselves, have been vilified, slandered, and relentlessly 
attacked by the very institutions supposed to support and 
protect them. I have to ask, why do these groups believe they 
alone should dictate this conversation? Believe me, they do.
    I was there in the 2023 Hill Summit when these groups 
shouted down a veteran who was describing his long, agonizing 
struggle to obtain a correct disability rating. I read op-eds 
from the same veterans groups that shamelessly accused their 
fellow veterans of fraud, and even worse, wrongfully painting 
them as criminals, while simultaneously pushing legislation 
that would actually criminalize the assistance these veterans 
provide their fellow brothers and sisters. I have personally 
been accused of running a criminal organization by senior 
members of veterans groups that oppose our position, a position 
that simply stands for veterans choice. I have spoken with 
countless lawmakers across the United States who relay to me 
the lies, half-truths. and self-serving attacks that they have 
heard from those who want to maintain their monopoly over this 
process. Why?
    2021 brought the first signs of resistance to the industry, 
but the oldest of these companies had already been operating 
for nearly 7 years when the first version of the GUARD Act was 
introduced in the Senate. Some of these companies heard the 
rhetoric then and simply believed that there was a 
misunderstanding, that if they just explained why veterans were 
choosing to pay for these services, if they just told the 
stories they were hearing from veterans, all concerns would be 
alleviated. The companies never were given a fair chance to 
tell these stories.
    Unfortunately, opponents of veterans' choice, many of them 
are here today, have taken a divisive me first approach to 
debating this topic at the expense of a veterans first 
approach. The results have been predictably unproductive 
because both sides have fought to have an utter stalemate, and 
an unfortunate inaction forced honorable companies to take 
matters into their own hands. From this inaction, companies in 
the private benefits space created NAVR to fill the 
accountability void that remained from the ashes of this long 
and unrelenting fight.
    Despite all these efforts to destroy the industry, veterans 
are still utilizing these private companies. Veterans choose 
these companies because they are tired of being let down by a 
giant bureaucracy and they choose these companies because they 
are tired of hearing excuses. Many of these companies have 
helped tens of thousands of veterans and have thousands of 
positive reviews that describe the quality and satisfaction 
that veterans have with these companies. They are truly 
accountable to the veterans that they serve.
    Because veterans' choice has been resoundingly positive 
policy and because President Trump's agenda seeks solutions of 
tomorrow to solve the problems of yesterday, there is only one 
piece of legislation that will be discussed that meets this 
definition. The legislation is the PLUS Act, which preserves 
veterans choice, creates guardrails and commonsense rules that 
put veterans' needs first. This is why NAVR enthusiastically 
supports the PLUS Act.
    In closing, this industry has grown over the past decade, 
employing thousands of veterans, including many veterans, and 
has helped tens of thousands of veterans secure their correct 
service-connected disability rating. This did not happen 
because veterans are being misled or defrauded. Let me be 
clear. We are talking about veterans. They are not naive. They 
are not being fooled into seeking this help. No, veterans are 
making conscious, informed decisions to seek help outside the 
VA's current system, and no one should be outraged that they 
now have a choice. The real question is not whether these 
choices should exist. It is how we ensure that they work for 
veterans, not against them.
    My hope is that both sides of this debate can come together 
to pass common sense legislation like the plus act so that we 
can move forward, work as partners and take the next step of 
challenges facing our Nation's past and present warfighters.
    Thank you and I appreciate answering your questions.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Peter O'Rourke Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. O'Rourke.
    Ms. Rauber, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF DIANE BOYD RAUBER

    Ms. Rauber. Thank you, Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member 
McGarvey, and members of the subcommittee. NOVA appreciates the 
opportunity to appear before the subcommittee and share our 
expertise regarding VA accreditation and ethical representation 
of veterans.
    Our accredited members live, work, hire, and represent 
veterans, family members, survivors, and caregivers in your 
states and districts. Many are veterans, military spouses, or 
members of veteran or military families. Title 38 of the U.S. 
Code is clear that only accredited persons may assist Federal 
veterans with their claims and appeals. Moreover, only 
accredited individuals should be lawfully allowed to assist 
veterans because it provides for regulation of those 
individuals and recourse for veterans. Unaccredited claims 
consultants want you to codify the business model they have 
used for years in violation of Title 38. Today's hearing 
centers on whether the law should be changed to allow a veteran 
to hire a representative at the initial claim stage and, if so, 
what is the most veteran-centric way to do so.
    Since providing veterans with the right of judicial review 
in 1988, Congress has decided three times to expand the 
conditions under which veterans can hire accredited attorneys 
and agents for representation before VA. Each time, Congress 
amended the triggering event, but left the basic fee model 
intact. Most recently in 2017, when passing the Appeals 
Modernization Act (AMA), Congress declined to move the 
triggering event to initial claims. Why? VA has long maintained 
it must have an opportunity to decide an initial claim before 
paid representation is available. This is based on the 
statutory requirement that VA must assist the veteran in 
developing the evidence to support an initial claim, which is 
at the heart of the nonadversarial process.
    Should Congress conclude that the time is right to expand 
choices for paid assistance to veterans, the simplest option is 
to again move the line by revising 5904 to allow for charging 
at the initial claim stage. Such an amendment, discussed at 
length in our written statement, is most veteran-centric. NOVA 
does not support charging veterans prospective fees that would 
frequently result in a veteran owing more than they receive in 
their retro payment.
    NOVA continues to support GUARD and the return of penalties 
to the statute. We also support the provisions of PLUS and the 
Discussion Draft that emphasize Title 38 preempts the patchwork 
of disparate State bills currently under consideration that 
propose to regulate this area.
    NOVA does not support any system that would allow for 
unaccredited assistance or would create tiers of accredited 
representatives who handle only initial claims or only post 
initial decision work. Such a model would force a veteran who 
is completely happy with a representative to seek a new one for 
further assistance if VA does not fully grant the claim, which 
is a regular occurrence. This is inefficient, ineffective for 
veterans, and the opposite of choice.
    Unfortunately, we must again address absurd charges made 
against our members. These companies are attempting to distract 
you with uninformed and misleading accusations that attorneys 
and agents purposely delay cases to earn higher fees. Let us be 
clear, this is against VA's standards of conduct. VA can cancel 
the accreditation of anyone who delays a proceeding without 
good cause. State bars can discipline their members. Veterans 
who believe their accredited representative has violated 
standards or does not deserve a fee has due process and 
recourse through VA and through the State bars. There is 
currently no due process or recourse for veterans who have been 
harmed by unaccredited actors.
    Let us put the intentional delay myth to bed once and for 
all. The reality is the VA claims adjudication process takes 
time. According to testimony, these companies have been 
assisting veterans with claims for a decade. There has been, in 
fact, no appreciable reduction in the need for our members' 
assistance appealing adverse decisions and also no proof these 
companies' model or involvement has promoted greater accuracy 
or reduced any backlogs.
    NOVA has worked for many years with VA, Congress, and other 
stakeholders to improve the adjudication process. We push for 
quality and timely decisions for veterans and have appeared 
before this committee several times to offer information and 
solutions. We remain committed to continued collaboration on 
these efforts.
    Finally, NOVA will be holding a conference this September 
here in DC. We usually invite your staff to stop by and sit in 
on any sessions of interest. Please consider this an open 
invitation to all of you to come, meet NOVA members from your 
states, and hear firsthand about what they do to improve the 
lives of our Nation's veterans, family members, survivors, and 
caregivers at every level of the claims and appeals process.
    Thank you again for the opportunity today and I would be 
happy to answer any questions you have.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Diane Boyd Rauber Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ms. Rauber.
    Mr. Murray, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF PAT MURRAY

    Mr. Murray. Thank you. Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member 
McGarvey, and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the men 
and women of the VFW, thank you for the opportunity to provide 
remarks today.
    The VFW continues to lead the charge against unaccredited, 
unscrupulous actors we call claim sharks, who charge 
servicemembers, veterans, and survivors illegal fees. Our 
resolutions urge Congress to pass legislation that protects VA 
beneficiaries from predatory companies and individuals 
attempting to bypass the VA accreditation system and monetize 
the disability and death benefits of veterans and surviving 
families.
    Due to the stalemate in Washington DC, our members have 
worked to pass state-level legislation that installs consumer 
protection to enforce the Federal statute. Currently, nine 
states have laws that prohibit charging fees that are not 
allowed by Federal law and have various degrees of penalties. 
Washington, Iowa, Michigan, New York, Illinois, Nevada, New 
Jersey, Maine, and Massachusetts have laws that require anyone 
who charges fees to do so adhering to Federal law and 
regulation. Conversely, one State, Louisiana, allows charging 
up to $12,500 for an initial claim.
    The VFW has expressed to the committee our red lines 
regarding any accreditation bill put forth. Veterans should not 
have to pay future benefits, Active-Duty servicemembers should 
not have to pay for claims, and no one who prepares a claim 
should have any financial affiliation with medical examiners 
that could possibly affect the outcome of the claim. These are 
commonsense concerns that we insist be in any bill advanced by 
this committee.
    In fact, VA agrees that payments of future benefits are not 
allowed under current law. In a November 2023 letter from VA in 
a response to a bipartisan, bicameral congressional inquiry, 
the VA was asked, what is VA's official position on contracts 
in which a veteran agrees to pay a product of the increase in 
future benefits? The response was where a contract ties the 
existence and extent of a claimant's payment obligation to the 
award of VA benefits, it is logically construed as 
contemplating those benefits as the source of the payment.
    The statute allowing for the payment of fees to VA 
accredited attorneys and agents for the preparation, 
prosecution, or presentation of VA benefits claims from past 
due benefits is considered an exemption to the prohibition on 
assignments set forth in section 5301. Under current law, even 
this exemption does not go as far to allow for an agent or 
attorney to contract for the payment of fees from a claimant's 
future benefits.
    VA also stated, in addition, they have concerns that would 
heavily depend on the different fee structures that could be 
proposed. For instance, a fee based on a product of the monthly 
benefits award, such as 5 times or 500 percent of the amount of 
monthly increase of benefits, would likely be unreasonable or, 
worse, predatory. They go on to state further, a flat fee 
limit, such as a cap of $12,500 for services provided on an 
initial claim, seems excessive and thus unfair to veterans. 
These are VA's words, not the VFWs. Unfortunately, VA is not 
here to present those views, so I am doing that for them.
    The VFW strongly supports the GUARD VA Benefits Act that 
seeks to reinstate penalties. We assert that this legislation, 
which adds only one sentence to Title 38, is a sound policy 
proposal that simply institutes a penalty for breaking current 
law. Anyone who claims to be adhering to Federal law should not 
be opposed to being subject to penalties of said law. This 
would signify a substantial step forward, holding bad actors 
accountable to the intent of the law. In fact, VA has stated 
that in its budget request each year in its legislative 
proposal section, since 2018, when Mr. O'Rourke was the acting 
VA Secretary, they have asked for that legislative proposal in 
their budget request. We agree that that would be beneficial 
for veterans and survivors.
    The VFW opposes the PLUS Act because of the concerns VA has 
with the components of that proposal, such as allowing 
assignment of benefits and unreasonable fee caps. The VFW 
agrees with those concerns.
    Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and members of 
the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak on 
these bills. I am prepared to answer any questions you might 
have.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Pat Murray Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Murray.
    We will move to a line of questioning. Thank you for your 
opening testimony.
    Mr. McGarvey, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McGarvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate everyone 
being here today.
    I want to say one thing off this, off the bat. Mr. 
O'Rourke, you said that people are outraged that veterans have 
a choice, and I just want to correct that. I am outraged that 
veterans are feeling so desperate in getting their claims 
adjudicated that they are willing to pay tens of thousands of 
dollars to get those claims adjudicated. That is what makes me 
outraged. These are veterans who have earned these benefits, 
who have put on a uniform, who are willing to sacrifice 
everything for us, and they are feeling so stymied right now, 
they are willing to go to companies to pay this kind of money. 
That is what has me outraged.
    Let us get to the testimony. Colonel Taylor, page 6 of your 
testimony states ``the PLUS Act lifts the outdated prohibition 
on paid representation for initial disability claims.'' It 
lifts the outdated prohibition. That sounds like you and I are 
in agreement that charging for assistance on initial claims is 
currently not legal, not allowed.
    The Code of Federal Regulations states also that, quote, 
``No individual may assist claimants in the preparation, 
presentation, and prosecution of claims for VA benefits as an 
agent or attorney unless he or she has first been accredited by 
the VA for such a purpose.'' Now, I know in your testimony you 
said that you all do not act as an agent or attorney. Just to 
clear up some doubt, I just went to the Oxford Dictionary on my 
phone, an agent is described as, ``A person who acts on behalf 
of another person or group or a person or thing that takes an 
active role or produces a specified effect.''
    You can see behind me how the VA defines ``preparation'' 
from this, in particular, but I will read it for people around, 
``Preparing a benefits claim generally includes, but is not 
limited to, consulting with or giving advice to a claimant or 
potential claimant in contemplation of filing a benefits claim, 
gathering evidence in support of a benefits claim on behalf of 
a claimant or potential claimant, or filling out VA forms for 
their submission to the VA.''
    We know what ``preparation'' means. We know an agent is 
someone who acts on behalf of another person or a person or a 
thing that takes an active role or produces a specific effect. 
When you look at this definition, when you look at the 
definition of ``agent,'' Colonel Taylor, I just have to ask 
you, is your company doing any of these things?
    Mr. Taylor. We fundamentally do not believe that we are 
acting as agents or attorneys. We acknowledge that we are 
helping with preparation. That is definitely clear.
    Mr. McGarvey. Are you doing these things? In the 
preparation are you preparing a benefits claim generally 
includes, but is not limited to consulting with or giving 
advice to a claimant or potential claimant in contemplation of 
filing a benefits claim, gathering evidence in support of a 
benefits claim on behalf of a claimant or potential claimant, 
or filling out VA forms for their submission to the VA?
    Mr. Taylor. We are assisting with the preparation. We do 
acknowledge that.
    We do not believe that we are acting as agents. When you 
look at the definition of ``agency,'' agency typically requires 
three parties: the agent who is acting on behalf of the client 
and engaging with the third party, which in this case would be 
the VA. We never represent the client, we never engage with the 
VA, and we never represent before the VA. We do not meet the 
three pieces of that triad that define agency. We are acting as 
a consultant that helps the veteran prepare to navigate the 
system on their own behalf in their own name.
    When we talked about lifting the limitations within the 
current law, that was in reference to what accredited agents or 
attorneys can do. We believe that if we can change that, allow 
us to become accredited, we would like to work within and under 
the system with restriction.
    Mr. McGarvey. I appreciate that. What you are talking about 
is a belief, and what I am trying to talk about is a 
commonsense definition of how we are representing people in 
preparation of a claim, which it very much sounds like you are 
doing, whether you are helping veterans or not. That is not 
what I am asking. These are the current laws we have. It seems 
you are doing these things on behalf of these veterans, and 
that is not allowed under the current law.
    Mr. Smith, I have a question for you, and this is a very 
sincere question. We only have a minute. I am going to try and 
get through it very quickly. Right now, you could apply for 
free for accreditation to assist veterans. Instead, you are 
choosing not to do so. I do understand that the accreditation 
process can be time-consuming, so I am granting you that. I am 
even going to go so far as to say we should tweak that system, 
change the system. All right. Thousands of people have gone 
through it. My very sincere question to you is why have not you 
all?
    Mr. Smith. Yes, thank you for that question. That is 
exactly why we are here today, is to get a pathway for 
accreditation for companies, for our company to help veterans.
    Mr. McGarvey. There is a pathway for accreditation. It 
exists right now and thousands of people have used it.
    Mr. Smith. Yes. We are in full support of the PLUS Act or 
the Discussion Draft to create additional pathways.
    Mr. McGarvey. Why have not you gone through the pathway 
now? I mean, it is a very serious question.
    Mr. Smith. During my time at the VA, I was preparing claims 
for a decision and I was on the other side making the decisions 
for these claims. I spent years doing that. I have much respect 
for the VSOs doing it for free. I was a member of a VSO. They 
helped me with my claim along with the VA Home Loan and also 
with education.
    My experience at the VA, I saw a wide variety of quality 
from the VSOs are from veterans doing it on their own. It 
showed a big disparity between the training I received as a VA 
employee versus--and the expertise I know of the VA regulation 
to how they were being represented from VSOs. I saw a big need 
for veterans to have the type of knowledge and expertise that I 
had as a VA employee, which is why I started the company. I had 
no idea what it would turn into. For 5 years, it just grew by 
word of mouth. We have tens and thousands of happy veterans----
    Mr. McGarvey. Mr. Chairman, I know we are out of time, and 
all I am going to say is I appreciate people trying to help, 
honestly trying to help veterans. I asked you why you have not 
gotten any accreditation, and you just told me how good your 
company is, but that did not answer the question. That is 
something I want a sincere answer to the question to at some 
point.
    Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. Thank you.
    Mr. McGarvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Luttrell. Mr. Bergman, you are recognized, sir.
    Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can I take a point of 
personal privilege before my time starts?
    Mr. Luttrell. You may.
    Mr. Bergman. All right. I figured out why I could not 
pronounce infantilizing. It has got five syllables. I am 
limited to four. I just wanted to let you know that, so I 
apologize. I am going to make sure my note writers, we limit it 
to four syllables. Okay. I am ready for the clock to start.
    Let us get to the point very quickly. I heard my colleague 
talk about protecting veterans. When I think about protecting 
things, whether it be our country, our little children, or 
people who need assistance, we have to be very careful. I 
believe that when we try to protect someone, we do not limit 
their ability to become independent. I would suggest you we 
have to be very careful here as a committee and what we do in 
oversight and what we do as we look at things, do not let 
protect be the roadblock that enables independency on the part 
of the marketplace and the part of the veterans to interact 
with them.
    With that, Mr. Taylor, I will start with a simple question. 
Does any part of the PLUS Act force veterans to pay a fee to 
receive assistance in obtaining their disability benefits?
    Mr. Taylor. It absolutely does not. One of the things that 
we appreciate about the PLUS Act is that it maintains the 
veteran's freedom of choice. They can pursue a claim on their 
own. They can pursue it with the VSO from one of the veteran 
service organizations or a State or county employee or their 
congressional office. Or if they choose that those services are 
not meeting their needs, they can choose to use a private 
service like ours.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay. I do not think anybody in this room 
disagrees, you know, with the fact that we need to accredit 
anybody in any place. Doctors need to be accredited. You know, 
pick your--teachers need to be accredited. They need to show 
that they can do the job. Can you speak to the need for changes 
to the accreditation application system, for instance, through 
the temporary and provisional accreditation included in the 
PLUS Act?
    Mr. Taylor. Thank you, sir. We do agree with the 
requirement to be accredited. We do believe that accreditation 
needs to be open to allow people to help at any step of the 
process. That is really the limitation to becoming accredited 
right now.
    What is proposed in the PLUS Act would provide a 
provisional path to allow us to become accredited, to operate 
within the system, but also provides immediate protections that 
if we violate any of the rules, there is a heavy penalty that 
will be enacted if we do not act properly under the rules of 
the PLUS Act.
    Mr. Bergman. I know we are going to--because this is going 
to--I had a zillion questions for all of you, but we are going 
to stay focused on here. What steps, Lieutenant Colonel Taylor, 
what steps does Vets Guardian take to make sure veterans can 
pay the fees they agreed to without placing financial strain on 
them or their family?
    Mr. Taylor. We have developed a payment system that ensures 
that no veteran is financially disadvantaged from where they 
were when they started working with us. We do not believe in 
collecting fees until a veteran--we have validated that the 
veteran is getting their new benefits from the VA and that we 
believe that any benefits that are--any fee that is paid to us 
should be paid out of new benefits that the veterans are 
receiving. We would be happy to see additions to this bill that 
would codify some of those rules, require fees to be contingent 
on a successful outcome and require them to only be collected 
after the veteran is collecting their benefits.
    Mr. Bergman. You have developed your business model and how 
you are going to do this. Would you be open to adding 
additional guardrails? We do--part of what we are looking here 
to do is to create guardrails and guidelines. Would you be open 
to additional guardrails to PLUS, ensuring agents who charge 
fees take steps like what you just articulated?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes, absolutely. For the last--since I have 
been engaged in this process, we have been open to commonsense 
guardrails. We do understand there is predatory practices and 
that we need to protect veterans and we are open to anything 
that addresses those concerns.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay, thank you.
    Mr. Murray, got a couple of just, you know, yes or no 
questions. Does the VA accreditation system adequately ensure 
agents are held accountable to veterans and the VA?
    Mr. Murray. I wish VA was here to answer that.
    Mr. Bergman. Yes or no.
    Mr. Murray. I cannot say no. I cannot say no.
    Mr. Bergman. No, no, you are providing a perspective based 
upon your knowledge, your in-depth. I will repeat it. Does the 
VA accreditation system adequately ensure agents are held 
accountable to veterans and the VA?
    Mr. Murray. We believe the system can.
    Mr. Bergman. Does the VA accreditation system adequately 
insure agents, yes or no? You are looking at--you are very 
deeply into it. Or maybe simply, do you think it can do better?
    Mr. Murray. It can always do better.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay. Is it doing good enough now?
    Mr. Murray. I do not think so.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back 
whatever seconds.
    Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, General.
    Mr. Pappas, sir, you are recognized.
    Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you. I appreciate everyone's 
testimony and the conversation here, and I really do hope we 
can have a deliberative process as we move forward to figure 
out legislation that is going to address this issue.
    I started from this hearing about it from constituents, 
hearing about it from veteran organizations about the problem 
that does exist out there, where veterans are being charged 
exorbitant fees to get access to the benefits that they have 
earned. Many have talked about deceptive practices along the 
way. That is a problem that I believe this committee needs to 
work to address. We should do it by strengthening the 
accreditation program and passing my bill which would put in 
place those criminal penalties that were stripped out of the 
law in 2006.
    Now, we heard from companies and others have said that we 
do not, you know, participate in the preparation, presentation, 
and prosecution of VA claims. If that is the case, then there 
is nothing to worry about with respect to reinstating criminal 
penalties for those that are running afoul of the law. I think 
my bill is pretty simple and straightforward.
    Mr. Murray, I wanted to turn to you and just ask about your 
team and the work they do to get accredited and to do the work 
that they do. Just help us understand a little bit about what 
goes on in terms of your organization and assisting veterans 
with claims.
    Mr. Murray. Sure. Thank you for that question, Mr. Pappas.
    As VSOs, we have to go through 40 hours of training. A lot 
of it now can be done self-paced online. You need to pass a 
test, you know, with a certain percentage correct, and then 
pass a background check. That is just the process for veterans 
service organizations. The accredited attorneys and accredited 
agents have a different process as well.
    Mr. Pappas. Can you talk about the difference between pre-
filing consultations and claims preparation? We heard a little 
bit about this today. Companies are arguing that because they 
do not actually hit the send button on a veteran's application, 
they are not actually assisting in preparation. How do you view 
that issue?
    Mr. Murray. We view not physically mailing the claim 
itself, that is not the only part of preparing a claim. As VA 
stated, gathering evidence, contemplation of a claimant, 
providing assistance and advice, we believe that is also part 
of the preparation because you are preparing the entire 
package. I know that legally ``preparation'' has a certain 
definition. We feel that the whole part of that is preparation, 
as does VA.
    Mr. Pappas. Mr. McGarvey talked about frustrations that 
veterans have in terms of delays in getting claims processed, 
in getting their benefits. I think that is an issue we have 
been working on. We have to continue to address. Obviously, we 
have asked VA to do more in passing PACT Act and other 
legislation that has put a lot of pressure on the workforce at 
VA. I am wondering if you can talk about capacity within the 
VSO community, within the accredited agents and attorneys that 
are out there. Do we have enough capacity to deal with some of 
the new authorities that Congress has given VA?
    Mr. Murray. I do not think so. There are a lot of places 
where the entire system can get better. The VFW is not saying 
that we can do this on our own. We are supported by an entire 
network of county VSOs, State VSOs, our other partners like the 
American Legion and Disabled American Veterans (DAV), and 
accredited agents and attorneys. There are places all around 
this country that can invest more in helping with those 
services. Nothing that we are talking about today, whether it 
is the GUARD Act or the PLUS Act or the Discussion Draft, will 
make VA process these claims any faster.
    The backlog, you know, does exist. There are claims that 
are waiting for adjudication. Nothing on our front end is going 
to make that any better. A fully developed, fully prepared 
claim will, hopefully, get through correct the first time, but 
it is up to VA to process that. No one sitting at this table 
can speed up the actual process itself.
    Mr. Pappas. Yes, that is the other essential element in 
this conversation.
    Ms. Boyd Rauber, can I turn to you? I appreciate your 
reflections on the legislation before us today. You did say 
there were elements of the PLUS Act that you could support, and 
I am wondering if you could elaborate on that.
    Ms. Rauber. Well, we appreciate the fact that they want to 
put in the criminal penalties, just as you do in GUARD. We 
also, again, have seen this move in the states to pass these 
different bills, GUARD, PLUS. It is extraordinarily confusing 
for veterans. It is confusing for advocates. We absolutely 
think there has to be something in there that emphasizes that 
Federal law, this is a Federal area of disability benefits, 
trumps and preempts the State laws.
    Mr. Pappas. My time is up. I may have some other questions, 
but I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, sir.
    Ms. Mace, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a daughter of a 
veteran, most of my family serves, I know how important it is 
to correct--to protect, excuse me, our veterans. I applaud and 
thank all of our veterans. This is standing room only today. 
You men and women showed up, you served your country. You 
showed up to protect your benefits and get what you deserve. 
Thank you and God bless you.
    My mission in life and my mission on this committee and 
other committees I serve on is to protect veterans. It is also 
to protect women. I have some questions for Colonel Taylor, who 
is here today this morning. Thank you for being here. What 
percentage of the benefits a veteran gets, when they come 
through your company to get benefits, what percentage of their 
benefits does your company receive when working with veterans?
    Mr. Taylor. We do not work on a percentage basis.
    Ms. Mace. How do you work on--how do you get your funds?
    Mr. Taylor. We charge a contingent fee that is equal to 
five times the monthly increase. That fee is only charged if 
the veteran has a successful outcome and receives an increase 
in their benefits. We only invoice that fee once we validated 
that the veteran is getting their new benefits from that 
filing.
    Ms. Mace. What are your gross revenues for your company? 
How much money are you guys making every year?
    Mr. Taylor. We are a private company and we do make a 
profit, but when we look at our fee----
    Ms. Mace. Gross revenues?
    Mr. Taylor. I am--my compensation is not publicly disclosed 
because we are a private company.
    Ms. Mace. How much money is your company making every year?
    Mr. Taylor. I would be----
    Ms. Mace. Ninety million, 100 million, or more?
    Mr. Taylor. I would be prepared----
    Ms. Mace. More or less than $100 million?
    Mr. Taylor [continuing]. to discuss it offline. I am not 
prepared to discuss that here today.
    Ms. Mace. Of course not. All right. What percentage of your 
cases are fraudulent?
    Mr. Taylor. I would say that 0 percent of my cases are 
fraudulent.
    Ms. Mace. Mm-hmm. I have a question for you, a couple 
questions for you. What is your company's position on people 
who serve--well, do not serve, people who maybe attend a 
college or an academy for a year or two but never graduate and 
never serve and get 100 percent disability? What is your 
position on that?
    Mr. Taylor. That is not a position that my company should 
determine. That is a position that is determined by the VA and 
their regulations and the law and how that is administered.
    Ms. Mace. Have you ever helped anybody who has not served 
like that, that maybe went to college or an academy for a year 
or two and got them 100 percent disability? Has your company 
ever done that?
    Mr. Taylor. I cannot speak on that. I would have to go 
back. I could come back to you with an answer on that question.
    Ms. Mace. I doubt you could. Would a football injury, 
someone who was at college or an academy for a year or two and 
got a football injury, deserve 100 percent disability, in your 
opinion?
    Mr. Taylor. In my opinion, no.
    Ms. Mace. What if it was, like, from a car crash? Would 
they deserve 100 percent disability?
    Mr. Taylor. Once again, that is not for my company----
    Ms. Mace. What if they just made it up and lied to get 
their 100 percent disability and they only attended college and 
academy for a year or two? What if they just completely 100 
percent made it up and lied?
    Mr. Taylor. That would be a fraudulent claim.
    Ms. Mace. If there was a fraudulent claim and there was an 
investigation, would you work with whoever's investigating it 
to ensure it does not happen again and to reverse the claim? 
Would you, I mean----
    Mr. Taylor. Absolutely.
    Ms. Mace. Mm-hmm. All right. I have some ethics questions. 
I understand your CEO, Scott Greenblatt, has a degree in 
criminal justice. Is that right?
    Mr. Taylor. I believe so, yes.
    Mr. Mace. What is your company position on rape?
    Mr. Taylor. We are fundamentally against it.
    Ms. Mace. What is your company position on voyeurism? Women 
who are filmed illegally without their knowledge, permission, 
or consent.
    Mr. Taylor. Completely against it.
    Ms. Mace. What is your company position on women who come 
forward to report rape?
    Mr. Taylor. We fully support that.
    Ms. Mace. Or voyeurism?
    Mr. Taylor. We fully support that.
    Ms. Mace. Would you work with anyone--would you work with a 
veteran who is accused of doing those things or something like 
it? Would your company ever want to affiliate with an 
individual like that?
    Mr. Taylor. We would not.
    Ms. Mace. You are saying you would not work with any 
students who try to get 100 percent disability who are at 
school for a year or two. Would your company ever work with any 
veterans who are being investigated for breaking the law?
    Mr. Taylor. I would--from a initial position, we should 
not. I cannot say categorically that we have not in the past, 
but we do not believe that someone was----
    Ms. Mace. If you knew someone was being investigated, would 
you help them get their benefits if they were being 
investigated for heinous crimes against women?
    Mr. Taylor. We should not be, no.
    Ms. Mace. You should not be.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ms. Mace.
    Dr. Dexter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Dexter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the ranking 
member for convening this hearing today. Thank you to our 
witnesses for coming and to our room full of veterans for 
standing up for your benefits. Thank you for being here.
    No veteran should have to pay to file a claim to access the 
benefits that they have earned, full stop. Could we improve the 
VA claim system to make it faster and easier? Absolutely. That 
is why I am here in Congress, to make sure that government 
works for Oregonians. You know what I am not here to do? Sit by 
while Elon Musk takes a chainsaw to veterans' services or hands 
a blank check to industries ignoring the law. I know that is 
true because I hold town halls and I listen.
    At my town hall on Saturday, the first person to speak was 
a Marine Corps veteran who was unjustly fired from the Veterans 
Benefits Administration. He had just taken a job. I know who I 
am fighting for, and that is why I support the GUARD VA 
Benefits Act. Last Congress, the GUARD VA Benefits Act had 
overwhelming bipartisan support, 221 cosponsors in the House, 
55 in the Senate, and backing from 44 bipartisan attorneys 
general, including those from every State and territory 
represented on this committee. Most importantly, it had the 
robust support from veterans and VSOs.
    Yet, instead of advancing this commonsense, bipartisan 
bill, we are here debating other proposals to put corporate 
profit ahead of veterans. A loophole that should not exist is 
being exploited. Instead of fixing it, we are entertaining ways 
to help companies continue to take from our veterans. To top it 
all off, the VA is not even here to weigh in.
    Ms. Boyd Rauber, I am sorry, I hope I said that right. Tell 
me, what does this committee need to do to make it faster and 
easier for veterans to file claims through the trusted 
accredited system that exists?
    Ms. Rauber. Well, I think that Congress has constantly been 
looking at ways on how to make the system better. We really 
strongly believe in accreditation and making sure that everyone 
who is representing veterans is accredited because that system 
requires people to become educated, to take the Continuing 
Legal Education (CLE). Agents have to pass an exam. VA has to 
oversee all of these things. In addition, for people who are 
charging fees currently under the system, they must submit 
every fee agreement that they sign with a veteran to the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, who always has the right to 
look at a fee and determine whether or not it is reasonable. We 
really think that those safeguards are very critical to 
protecting the system, protecting veterans.
    Ms. Dexter. Great. Ms. Boyd Rauber, what risks do veterans 
face when they file a claim with an unaccredited company?
    Ms. Rauber. Well, again, because someone's not accredited 
and to their points, they are standing in the shadows coaching 
a veteran, consulting, but they are not the person who is going 
to put their name on a power of attorney (POA) and represent 
themselves to VA and say, I stand for this veteran. I am the 
person you can contact when there is something wrong. I am the 
person who is going to reach out to VA and say this particular 
veteran needs to be advanced on the docket. We just see it as 
accountability to stand up and say, I am representing this 
person.
    Ms. Dexter. Very good. This administration claims it is 
tackling waste, fraud, and abuse. Again, they are showing their 
true colors, taking money from veterans to pad the profits of 
unaccredited, potentially predatory companies quite literally 
writes waste, fraud, and abuse into the law. I will not 
entertain bills that seem more interested in protecting a so-
called free market than ensuring veterans can access the 
benefits they have earned.
    Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ms. Dexter.
    Mr. Self, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am actually delighted to hear that we are making progress 
toward the, the PLUS Act or the Discussion Draft. I want to go 
back to a different situation and it is the case that we have 
in VA that we have debated now for 2 years, and it is veteran 
suicide. The VA wants to keep veterans in the big VA. There are 
veterans who want to go to a local clinic. There are veterans 
who want to go to peer-to-peer Non-governmental Organizations 
(NGO), counseling. They have choices. Here I think I have heard 
that we agree that the accreditation process is inefficient and 
changes need to be made. I always look to monopolies, need to 
have competition. I hope that we can reach agreement on 
whichever bill we can that will give our veterans choices 
because our veterans need choices.
    I am not sure I have a question for our panel, but I want 
to say that I am encouraged with the conversation here. I think 
that at the end of the day I will--and I look forward to our 
hearing, a true hearing on these bills because I want our 
veterans to have as many choices in every area as they can 
have. Veterans are different. They have different interests, 
they have different needs. I am actually encouraged here and I 
want to see whatever bill this committee eventually advances, 
Mr. Chairman, will give our veterans a choice.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Self.
    Dr. Morrison, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Morrison. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you for 
holding this hearing today and thank our witnesses for being 
here. I also want to thank my colleagues for putting forward 
their proposals. I appreciate hearing the views and 
conversation that we are having.
    As the wife of an Army combat veteran and the daughter-in-
law of a disabled Vietnam veteran, I know the VA claims process 
can be challenging to navigate. Since we are talking about 
benefits that veterans have earned, I think we need to make 
sure that we are helping them avoid paying out of pocket for 
what they are owed.
    It strikes me, too, that part of the challenge we are 
facing here is the increased and entirely appropriate need that 
the PACT Act is designed to meet. The news that was leaked last 
night, the administration plans to fire up to 83,000 more VA 
employees, is perplexing to me at best and designed to gut the 
VA at worst.
    My question is for Ms. Rauber. In your testimony you 
described the patchwork of State laws that have passed because 
of congressional inaction, frankly, on the issue. It seems like 
it is not for lack of support. I believe last Congress the 
GUARD VA Benefits Act was cosponsored by the majority of 
members in both the House and the Senate. My question for you 
is, what are some of the other consequences that might result 
from further congressional inaction on these issues?
    Ms. Rauber. Well, I think that there is just more growth of 
these companies. They perceive that they are outside the bounds 
of the law, which we do not agree with, because it would seem 
perplexing that Congress over all these years would have said 
we do not want veterans to be paying for initial claims and 
that by saying that they were somehow allowing for a loophole 
that would be this big. We really think that there has to be 
some kind of action to sort of get a grip on what has become a 
growing industry.
    Ms. Morrison. Thank you. This question has sort of been 
asked, but I am hoping, Mr. Murray and Ms. Rauber, that you 
could share some recommendations that you might have on how 
VA--what could VA be doing to make this process more efficient 
besides firing 83,000 people?
    Mr. Murray. We think that would be harmful. What they have 
been doing, as we have seen the backlog for claims cases, how 
long it takes, I believe it was about 146 days a week ago. It 
is slowly decreasing. The stories of claims taking 3 years to 
adjudicate is a thing of the past. We want to see that 
continue. Continuing to hire people at VA to review those 
claims to hopefully make it faster.
    We also would really appreciate things like adding 
additional resources to, like, our county VSO system. Right? 
There are plenty of states around the country that do great 
things. The Texas Veterans Commission is a great example. Not 
every State does that. We can here push out great resources to 
help other states do that, so that there are so many more 
resources for veterans to show up and get that help they need.
    Ms. Rauber. If I could add, in 2017, President Trump signed 
the Appeals Modernization Act. That was the product of a lot of 
collaboration between Congress, VSOs, stakeholders. It actually 
has made a lot of changes to the system that have greatly 
improved it. I know this subcommittee is looking at even 
further improvements to the AMA, some things that need to 
happen. We wholeheartedly support that and would love to maybe 
get some of these issues passed, so we can actually dig in on 
some of the meat of those.
    Ms. Morrison. I appreciate those answers. Thank you so 
much.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Dr. Morrison.
    Mr. Smith, do you believe that a veteran should be charged 
a fee for helping filing an initial claim for presumptive 
disability that VA assumes is related to their military 
service?
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chairman Luttrell, for that question. 
We do not believe that veterans should be paying for any 
presumptive claims. These are in the spectrum of complicated 
cases, VA claims, presumptives tend to be relatively simple 
and----
    Mr. Luttrell. Relatively simple. Do not ever say that again 
out loud.
    Mr. Smith. Regarding what it takes to be service-connected 
versus a nonpresumptive claim and the scope of that, there is 
not as many prongs that need to be met in order for a 
presumptive condition to be met. It is fairly automatic when 
you compare it to a disability you are claiming for military 
service. For presumptive claims, we do refer them to veteran 
service organizations and we refer all of our clients to any 
that there are free services. The majority of our clients have 
used them, such as myself.
    Mr. Luttrell. Ms. Rauber, as a trade association of law 
firms assisting veterans at no cost on initial claims, what 
guardrails do you think should be in place if Congress passes 
legislation that would allow charging fees on initial claims?
    Ms. Rauber. Well, we think that the current guardrails that 
are in place would be adequate if people are--if Congress 
decides that they are going to allow for some charging system, 
then what is under the accreditation system currently is 
adequate. Everyone has to file a POA on every veteran they 
represent. Again, to my earlier answer, because then you are 
showing that you are the person that is representing the 
veteran. You have to do CLEs. You have to, if you are an agent 
and you are not an attorney, you have to pass an exam. You have 
to submit all your fee agreements to the Department so they can 
look at them. The Department has the right to decide whether or 
not that fee is reasonable.
    We think that the guardrails that are in place are solid 
ones. It is the determination that you all have to make as to 
whether or not you want to take that next step and allow for 
veterans to pay for assistance with filing their initial 
claims.
    Mr. Luttrell. Mr. Murray, you were asked the question is 
the accreditation process, does it need to be changed, 
advanced, or moved forward? You said absolutely yes. Then you 
were asked what do you think about it actually? You are like, 
it is not good enough. My question to that is, if it is not 
good enough, is it worthwhile at all? You have members on 
this--you may have members in the hearing right now that do not 
have the accreditation.
    Mr. Smith, your answer was absolutely out in left field. 
You are in the people's house and we want answers. That was not 
one, sir.
    Colonel Taylor, I am going to ask you, because if the other 
companies are getting accreditation for accountability, 
responsibility, and to be held accountable, I seem to think 
that that is what the accreditation means. Do you have one?
    Mr. Taylor. We believe----
    Mr. Luttrell. Does your company have--is your company 
accredited?
    Mr. Taylor. We are not accredited right now.
    Mr. Luttrell. Okay. You are going to need to tell me why 
you are not. Because as the ranking member asked, there is a 
process and thousands of companies have gone through it. In my 
interpretation, it just means you do not want to be held 
accountable if anything happens, which the accredited agencies 
are going to be called to the carpet. Tell me why is the 
process skewed, flawed in a way that you have not done it? I 
have heard you say in your testimony that you plan on it. How 
long has your company been under active?
    Mr. Taylor. We have existed since late 2017.
    Mr. Luttrell. 2017, Okay. You may answer.
    Mr. Taylor. Yes. Under the current accreditation rules, we 
are obviously not allowed to charge a fee to assist with an 
initial claim. Our entire assistance model is focused on 
helping veterans with initial claims. When I look at a veteran, 
I am looking at three pillars.
    Mr. Luttrell. I heard you speak on the triad, which I think 
you are kind of skirting the line there a little bit, but go 
ahead.
    Mr. Taylor. Okay. Well, aside from the triad, I want to 
look for things that a veteran should have claimed that they 
did not. That is an initial claim.
    Mr. Luttrell. Are you telling these veterans to collect 
this information for you or you are actively doing it yourself?
    Mr. Taylor. The veterans have to provide the information to 
us, and then we help them develop it from there.
    Mr. Luttrell. Just over the phone. You are not touching 
anything. You are telling them you got a guideline you are 
reading off of like, hey, this is what you are going to do. I 
am trying to find out why you are not wanting to become 
accredited.
    Mr. Taylor. We want to become accredited, but----
    Mr. Luttrell. No, you do not. You do not, sir.
    Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Luttrell. Unless I am absolutely missing something, 
because the organizations that are sitting to your left are. In 
2017, as you said. Tell me why.
    Mr. Taylor. Because under the current accreditation 
limitations, we cannot assist with initial claims, and that is 
where we believe the veterans need the most assistance. For us 
to most effectively help our veterans and look at them 
holistically, I need to be able to assist them across the 
entire process, both of what accredited agents are allowed to 
do----
    Mr. Luttrell. Legislatively, there is a problem, 
apparently.
    Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Luttrell. That is something that you are asking us to 
fix?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Luttrell. Ms. Rauber, I would assume you would disagree 
with that statement or Mr. Murray?
    Ms. Rauber. Again, this is Congress' decision about initial 
claims.
    Mr. Luttrell. Congress listens to the people. We are 
elected by the people. We are here to do the people's work.
    Ms. Rauber. Our members are accredited and help veterans, 
typically after they have been denied. As I talked about 
earlier, there is an appeals process, so veterans have a lot of 
choices to make when they get a denial. That is typically when 
agents and attorneys have been involved in the process. A lot 
of our members do initial claims pro bono, for free. It is just 
a different way of representing veterans. Again, our members 
are accredited and are putting their names out there to say we 
represent this veteran and we will be held accountable for it.
    Mr. Murray. Mr. Chairman, I would--the VFW's position is 
exactly that everybody can get accredited. If Ms. Rauber and 
the other accredited agents and attorneys said we want to talk 
about extending fees within the current system, we are here for 
that. Right now, people who are operating outside the system, 
refusing to get accredited are saying you must change it before 
we start following the law. We do not agree with that.
    Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Murray. I apologize. I went 
over my time.
    Mr. Pappas, sir, we are going to move into closing remarks. 
Would you like to close out? Please do.
    Mr. Pappas. Our closing. Well, I want to thank our panel 
and certainly all the veterans that are in the room here today 
for this important discussion.
    I see this problem as one of veterans being taken advantage 
of in our country and us needing to insist on some basic 
guidelines here in Congress. Yes, to protect veterans and 
ensure that they are able to seek the help that they need and 
successfully obtain the benefits that they all deserve.
    Now, I think there are some in this room that we have heard 
from that think the problem is their company is not able to 
make as much money as they possibly can on the backs of our 
veterans. I just fundamentally believe that our veterans should 
not be a profit center. There should be penalties for those who 
are violating the law and ripping off our veterans. If 
companies believe that they are not violating the law today, 
then there is no reason why they should not welcome some 
additional teeth in the law and some oversight by VA. I think 
that the GUARD Act is pretty straightforward.
    I also think that there was a lot said today about choice. 
We should be taking steps to bolster the choice that veterans 
have. We can do that by encouraging the hiring of more county 
veterans service officers, by supporting VFW and other 
organizations in the work that they do, by strengthening the 
accreditation process to ensure that more can come into the 
system under that umbrella. Ultimately, and this came out 
today, working as hard as we can to strengthen VA's response 
times and their customer service for the end veteran to 
alleviate that frustrating process that so many endure.
    I think that we have got an ability to work this through 
and I hope that we will continue to engage the veteran 
community ultimately in the work ahead on this subcommittee. I 
just thank you for the opportunity to hear these bills today. I 
think this was really instructive for us.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Pappas.
    You know, the VA, it is not a perfect machine. It is not. 
It is big, it is bold, it is beautiful at times, and it fails 
at times. I do not mind wire brushing it and calling everything 
out. The VA, it is ours. I am looking at the 100-plus people 
sitting in the room with us today. It belongs to us. We dictate 
how it should be operated.
    Now, these two pieces of legislation are amazing. Yes, the 
veteran has every right to pick and choose exactly who moves 
their claims through. Colonel, Mr. Smith, 100 percent they do. 
They have that choice. They earn that right. They put that 
uniform on, they can make those choices because, yes, they do 
go to the VA. The VA has failed multiple times. We hear it 
every day. It is no secret. We are trying to build out that 
infrastructure in order to handle us. We are a very complicated 
group of individuals, especially the Marines. We will not let 
any organization take advantage of the most cherished asset we 
have in our country, which is those individuals on the dais and 
sitting behind you and amongst every other State in the 
country. I hope I am very clear on that.
    As we talk about this legislation, full committee, what we 
will do, because we should not be having this conversation. 
Now, whether if we messed up legislatively in the past, it is 
because we are listening to you and we are listening to you 
right now. Now it is our job on the subcommittee and the 
committee to fix this problem. Because what we want at the end 
of the day is for our veterans to be taken care of, their 
quality of life increased so they can be happy until the day we 
have to lay them down.
    I want you to know, yes, I will get aggressive with you 
because sometimes you deserve it. I can assure you I get my ass 
handed to me every day because I am voted in by the people and 
that is who I am speaking for, the 40,000 veterans in my 
counties. Okay.
    I would like to thank the ranking member again for this 
hearing and the other members of this committee. I ask 
unanimous consent that the statements for the record we have 
received today be entered into the hearing record. Hearing no 
objection, so ordered.
    I ask unanimous consent that all members have 5 legislative 
days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous 
material. Hearing no objections, this meeting is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    
=======================================================================


                         A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X

=======================================================================


                    Prepared Statements of Witnesses

                              ----------                              


                    Prepared Statement of Josh Smith

    My name is Josh Smith and I am the CEO and Co-Founder of Veteran 
Benefits Guide (VBG). VBG is a private company that assists Veterans in 
navigating the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability claims 
process.
    I would like to thank Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey 
and other Committee members for providing me this opportunity to share 
my perspective on how best to regulate the private benefit services 
industry and on the related bills now being considered by the 
Committee.
    On behalf of VBG and our Veteran clients, I am testifying today in 
opposition to the GUARD VA Benefits Act and in strong support of the 
PLUS for Veterans Act. I want to thank Representative Bergman for 
introducing the PLUS Act and Representatives Mace and Self for 
cosponsoring the bill. VBG also supports the Discussion Draft 
legislation that has been shared and believes it represents a 
reasonable compromise between the GUARD and PLUS bills.
    While well-intended, the GUARD Act would severely and unfairly 
limit choices Veterans have in seeking assistance with their VA 
disability claims. Instead of only targeting bad actors, it would make 
it illegal for Veterans to get advice or assistance from any private 
services, including honorable companies like VBG. We believe that 
Veterans need more help in getting the benefits they earned from their 
service, not more limitations on their options and choice.
    In contrast, the PLUS Act and the Discussion Draft legislation 
provide the right balance between establishing necessary guardrails to 
protect Veterans from bad actors and ensuring that honorable private 
companies like VBG are allowed to continue serving Veterans. Each of 
these bills includes strict disclosure requirements, fee caps, and 
privacy protections that we support. In most cases, we are already 
adhering to these terms.
    Opponents of the PLUS Act and the Discussion Draft legislation 
inaccurately insinuate that organizations such as ours choose not to be 
accredited. That is false. VBG would welcome the opportunity to become 
accredited but cannot because Federal law currently prohibits 
accredited entities from charging a fee for helping Veterans on an 
initial claim. The PLUS Act and the Discussion Draft legislation would 
resolve this issue by providing a pathway for VBG and other good actors 
to become accredited and come under the oversight of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs.
    The fact that VBG is not currently accredited does not mean we are 
violating Federal law. We provide specially trained case managers to 
guide Veterans through the claims process. But we do not act as the 
Veteran's agent or representative, and we do not present before the VA. 
Our Veteran clients file their own claims.
    We believe Federal legislation is needed now to resolve this issue. 
Different versions of the GUARD Act and PLUS Act have been introduced 
in at least 30 State legislatures since the beginning of the year and 
are making their way through the State legislative process. Without a 
Federal solution, the result will be a chaotic patchwork of State 
legislation, where Veterans will face no access at all to private 
services in some states, a carefully regulated industry in others, and 
a free-for-all for bad actors in others. Our Nation's Veterans are 
being harmed every day this chaos and gridlock is allowed to continue.
    I would also note that this is not a partisan issue. In State 
legislatures across the country where these bills are being considered, 
we have heard from Democrats and Republicans expressing a desire to 
reach a compromise that both protects Veterans and preserves choice.
    For example, at a hearing on the GUARD Act in the California State 
Senate last year, the Democratic Judiciary Committee Chairman, Thomas 
Umberg, stated:

        ``I do think we should create a system where Veterans have the 
        option of choosing someone who is accredited to be able to pay 
        them to help in this adversarial process that we all agree is 
        an adversarial process. And so rather than keeping Veterans at 
        a disadvantage, not allowing them to pay for the best 
        expertise, that we should put the Federal Government to their 
        proof... I think before this thing gets to the Governor's desk, 
        that we ought to make a point that California stands with 
        Veterans and would permit Veterans actually to pay for 
        expertise.''

    At the same California hearing, the sponsor of the GUARD Act there, 
Democratic Senator Caroline Menjivar, a U.S. Marine Corps Veteran, 
acknowledged that she herself had used a private service and had a good 
result, and expressed a desire to reach a compromise. She stated:

        ``Because I was one of those people. The 70 percent that used 
        the free service, and then I turned to a paid service. Because 
        just like Senator Wilk, I myself wanted to pay for it, and I 
        did get a good result... I will continue to find a way within 
        that box, there could be something I can change. Because you're 
        right, that is essentially what could happen, right? We're 
        addressing the bad apples and then the good apples go away... I 
        am committed to work alongside the opposition, which is made up 
        of Veterans, and the support, which is also made up of 
        Veterans, to find a common ground that elevates and supports 
        all Veterans.''

    With the remainder of my remarks, I will detail a bit more about 
who we are as a company, why we were formed and what we do, and why the 
problems inherent in the VA disability claims system call for more 
choices for veterans, not fewer.
    In addition to being the CEO of VBG, I am also a Marine Corps 
Veteran and a former VA employee. At the VA, I served as a Rating 
Veteran Service Representative, where I reviewed disability 
compensation applications and assigned disability ratings, determining 
the amount of benefits Veterans would receive. In that role, I 
witnessed firsthand that the VA's disability compensation benefits 
process is inefficient and often running counter to the agency's 
mission of helping Veterans.
    While we were certainly helping some Veterans, far too many were 
being denied benefits they earned due to an absurdly complicated 
system. Through no fault of their own, Veterans were receiving lower 
disability ratings than they deserved or were simply waiting years to 
receive final determinations on their benefits.
    That is why I left the VA and, with my wife Lauren, created Veteran 
Benefits Guide to help guide Veterans through the process and ensure 
they receive the full benefits they earned from their service in a 
timely manner. Much like a tax service provider, we help Veterans 
travel through a confusing bureaucracy to get what they are owed.
    We have grown our company and now have more than 200 employees, 
with offices in Nevada and California. Roughly 80 percent of our 
employees are Veterans or immediate family members of Veterans. And we 
employ former VA personnel, like myself, helping to ensure we keep up-
to-date with VA regulations and the practice of the VA disability 
compensation system.
    I am proud of our record and the service we provide to Veterans. We 
have an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau and consistently have 
perfect or near-perfect ratings from our clients on Google and 
Facebook. We have been recognized as a Military Times ``Best for Vets'' 
employer, named as a finalist for the Better Business Bureau ``Torch 
Award for Ethics,'' and ranked as one of the ``Best Places to Work in 
San Diego'' by the San Diego Business Journal.
    It is also clear that our service is needed. As the Committee is 
aware, the VA still faces a backlog of more than 250,000 claims and a 
claims inventory of almost one million. Despite their best efforts, 
Veteran Service Organizations do not have enough manpower or resources 
to keep up with the demand for help.
    Many VSO representatives simply do not have the appropriate amount 
of time to spend on each case. These representatives are also 
volunteers with differing levels of expertise who are supported with 
limited State resources and must often rely on archaic technology and 
infrastructure. The result is that many Veterans have been misguided in 
filing their claims, requiring them to accept lower benefits than they 
deserve or undertake a costly appeals process.
    In 2023 congressional testimony, the National Association of County 
Veteran Service Officers acknowledged that they face ``disparities in 
staffing levels, technology, education and outreach'' that ``have 
become even more acute in recent years,'' and that they are 
``scrambling to meet an influx of requests from Veterans for support.''
    In fact, more than 70 percent of our clients first tried navigating 
the VA benefits process with the help of a VSO representative. They 
were either denied their full benefits or felt the process was taking 
too long.
    To help address this problem, we provide specially-trained case 
managers to guide Veterans through the claims process. Up to six of our 
benefits specialists review and assist on each case. And our staff are 
often more knowledgeable of the VA process than VSO representatives.
    Our Veteran clients also receive thorough and timely medical exams 
from a trusted nationwide network of more than 150 independent medical 
service providers. To be selected for our network, providers go through 
a rigorous credentialling and due diligence protocol that mirrors the 
credentialling process conducted by the VA. In fact, our company has 
previously served as a subcontractor to the VA to provide medical 
personnel to conduct exams.
    Following these exams, our Veteran clients submit fully developed, 
accurate claims to the VA, which helps avoid the need for appeals and 
speeds up the final benefits decision. Our role in the process helps 
cut back on VA paperwork and labor needs, and reduces the VA case 
backlog.
    VBG's process, from the time a client comes to us until the VA has 
decided on their claim, typically takes about 6.5 months. In 
comparison, an attorney or agent appealing an incorrect rating at the 
Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) will typically take more than 3 years 
to achieve the same result, on top of the time spent by the Veteran 
filing their initial claim.
    It is important to recognize that attorneys may only be paid to 
assist Veterans during the appeals process, which provides a perverse 
incentive for them to offer uneven or incomplete help at the initial 
claims stage. And attorneys are then incentivized to drag out appeals, 
since they are paid up to 33 percent of the Veteran's back pay. The 
longer an appeal takes, the more the attorney is paid.
    In congressional testimony in 2023, Kenneth Arnold, the Vice 
Chairman of the BVA, also noted that a small number of boutique law 
firms are getting paid millions of dollars while their Veteran clients 
see no increase in benefits. He stated:

        ``The courts clerk annually approved 6500 to 7300 attorney fee 
        requests each year, almost all for remanded cases. This 
        generates $45 to $50 million in attorneys' fees each year, with 
        the majority going to a small number of boutique law firms, but 
        relatively few Veterans receiving any increase in their monthly 
        compensation from a new board decision post-remand.''

    BVA's 2023 Annual Report further noted that some attorneys cancel 
or postpone BVA hearings at the last minute, allowing them to profit 
from bigger backpay while harming other Veterans waiting for hearings. 
The report stated:

        ``[S]ome Veterans are represented by accredited 
        representatives, who sometimes after waiting years for a 
        requested hearing, waive the requested hearing or seek a 
        postponement once it finally gets scheduled. Crucially from the 
        Board's perspective, nearly half of the scheduled hearings that 
        are ultimately canceled or withdrawn are done so with 
        insufficient time for the Board to fill that empty slot with 
        another patiently waiting Veteran. In these cases, the Board's 
        judges have spent precious time reviewing case files and 
        preparing for hearings not held, where that time could have 
        been better utilized reviewing, editing, and signing draft 
        decisions to resolve appeals for other waiting Veterans.''

    BVA's report found that 31.5 percent of hearings were canceled, 
withdrawn or postponed by attorneys in 2023, representing more than 
32,500 cases where another Veteran was unfairly delayed in receiving 
consideration of their own claim.
    In contrast, VBG's sole focus is on getting the Veteran's claim 
right the first time, avoiding the need for a lengthy and costly 
appeal.
    In exchange for our service, we are paid a one-time nominal fee, 
but only if the Veteran receives an increase in their disability 
benefit. We charge no upfront fees.
    VBG advises Veterans up-front in writing about the availability of 
free services and how to locate those services. We have never taken a 
Veteran to court to collect unpaid fees and we automatically write off 
10 percent of fees due.
    To date, we have guided more than 45,000 Veterans through the 
claims process. These Veterans have received an average increase in 
monthly benefits of $1,300, benefits they would not have received 
without our help.
    The value we bring to our Veteran clients is best reflected in 
their own words.

    Leo, an Air Force Veteran from Nevada, stated:

        ``There are some organizations out there that say, `Don't go to 
        these companies that you have to pay for. You should be doing 
        it on your own.' And my argument is I did go on my own and try 
        to file my claim, and I did not get help. Many people, 
        including VSOs, promised to help me, but they didn't actually 
        help. It wasn't until I found VBG that I got the rating I 
        deserve. If it's my money, it should be my choice what I do 
        with it. I want every Veteran to have the ability to make that 
        choice.''

    Lynn, a Navy Veteran from Arizona, stated:

        ``I have used both a VSO and VBG. The VSO did an adequate job, 
        but what I loved about VBG is that they were upfront and guided 
        me through the process. They told me how it works and explained 
        what they were doing...[T]hanks to VBG's help, I can 
        realistically look at retiring. I won't be rich, but I can get 
        by and be comfortable. This service also allows Veterans the 
        right to choose how we file our benefits, and I think that, in 
        this country, is so important. If I want to pay, I'll pay. If I 
        want to use a free service, I will. This option should be 
        available to everybody.''

    Sam, an Army Veteran from Florida, stated:

        ``Companies like VBG fulfill a service that we desperately 
        need. We're thrown to the wolves when we come home. We're 
        expected to be subject matter experts on our own benefits. I 
        had no clue how to file my disability benefits claim and was 
        basically flying blind . . . I thought about going through a 
        VSO, but I knew that I could write my claim just as well as 
        they could... VBG was honest, and their contingency model is 
        far more clear than an attorney who blanket-states that they're 
        going to take 30 percent of your backpay. I paid less than VBG 
        initially quoted me, and I thought what they quoted me was 
        perfectly fair. I didn't realize how easy it could be.''

    I want to close by emphasizing again that we need a Federal 
resolution to this issue. Veterans are being disserved by the chaotic 
patchwork of State legislation that is emerging. They are being 
disserved by confusing legal arguments as to what is or isn't permitted 
under Federal law. We need a Federal law like the PLUS Act or the 
Discussion Draft that will ensure trustworthy companies meeting 
standardized guidelines are allowed to continue serving Veterans, while 
driving bad actors out of the marketplace and protecting Veterans from 
fraud.
    Veterans are mature enough to navigate the choices available to 
them for claims assistance. And they understand that, with reasonable 
guardrails in place, they should be free to contract with whom they 
wish for that help. That was the guiding principle in 2006 when 
Congress loosened restrictions on Veterans being able to pay for help 
with their claims. It should be the same guiding principle today.
    Thank you for considering my testimony as you deliberate about this 
significant legislation impacting our Nation's Veterans. I do have 
technical and clarifying suggestions on both the PLUS Act and the 
Discussion Draft, but would be happy to work with the subcommittees 
members and staff on those items at your later convenience. And I would 
be happy to answer any questions or provide the Committee with 
additional information.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                  Prepared Statement of Patrick Murray

    Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey, and members of the 
subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars of the United States (VFW) and its Auxiliary, thank you for the 
opportunity to provide testimony with regard to this pending 
legislation.
    The VFW continues to lead the charge against unaccredited, 
unscrupulous actors we call Claim Sharks who charge service members, 
veterans, and survivors illegal fees. Our resolutions urge Congress to 
pass legislation that protects Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
beneficiaries from predatory companies and individuals attempting to 
bypass the VA accreditation system and monetize the disability or death 
benefits of veterans and surviving families.
    Due to the stalemate in Washington DC., our members have worked to 
pass state-level legislation that installs consumer protection to 
enforce the Federal statute. Currently, nine states have laws that 
prohibit charging fees that are not allowed by Federal law and have 
various degrees of penalties for violating its State law. Washington, 
Iowa, Michigan, New York, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Maine, and 
Massachusetts have laws that require anyone who charges fees to do so 
adhering to Federal law and regulation. Conversely, only one State, 
Louisiana, allows charging up to $12,500 for an initial claim.
    The VFW has expressed to the committee our redlines regarding any 
comprehensive bill put forth seeking our support. Veterans should not 
have to pay future benefits, active duty service members should not 
have to pay for claims assistance prior to transition, and no one who 
prepares claims should have any financial affiliation with medical 
examiners that could possibly affect the outcome of the claim. These 
are commonsense concerns that we insist be in any bill advanced by this 
committee.

Discussion Draft, To amend title 38, United States Code, to allow for 
certain fee agreements for services rendered in the preparation, 
presentation, and prosecution of initial claims and supplemental claims 
for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs, and for other purposes.

    The VFW does not support this legislation as written. We appreciate 
the committee's attempt to provide a compromise, but this bill is still 
slightly off target. There are portions of this draft bill that we do 
support and believe could provide necessary protections for veterans. 
However, the major redline we cannot support is the fee of five times 
future benefits for claims preparation.
    We support the provision in this draft to ensure veterans are fully 
informed of their options when filing a claim. Notifying veterans of 
all the choices they have to assist them in filing a VA claim would 
hopefully result in more veterans accessing the care and benefits they 
have earned. Additionally, requiring VA to maintain a system through 
which a claimant may report unaccredited entities charging illegal fees 
is positive. Currently, the staff at the VA Office of General Counsel 
(OGC) is inept at dealing with this issue and needs assistance to 
perform this basic task. We urge this committee to provide that office 
with additional resources so it can be adequately staffed with 
competent employees who have 21st century tools to accomplish their 
day-to-day tasks.
    We also support VA providing warnings to veterans in order to make 
them aware of unaccredited entities who are in violation of the law. 
The VA OGC has sent numerous cease and desist letters to individuals 
and companies, including two of the witnesses at this hearing, but 
never bothered to follow up with any further actions. That office and 
the staff who work there abdicated responsibility for the past decade 
concerning this issue. The OGC has been unhelpful and unresponsive 
about this aspect of accreditation. We believe the responsibility for 
overseeing and maintaining accreditation should be removed from OGC, 
and instead placed under the authority of the Veterans Benefits 
Administration and tasked to an appropriate office that can competently 
carry out this mission.
    We support individuals seeking accreditation to be allowed a 
conditional and temporary status that may be extended if necessary. The 
inefficient staff at OGC cannot process accreditation applications for 
agents in a timely manner. Providing flexibility would allow upstanding 
individuals seeking to become accredited agents the ability to still 
work with claimants under the law while they await the process to be 
completed.
    We support extending accreditation to employees of non-profit 
organizations who are seeking to assist veterans, caregivers, and 
survivors but do not primarily work with VA claims. The VFW has worked 
with other organizations to provide accreditation under our authority 
so they can also assist people filing claims. The VFW extended 
accreditation to case workers from Wounded Warrior Project before they 
were able to do so on their own. We have also offered a similar dynamic 
to our partners from Student Veterans of America and the Tragedy 
Assistance Program for Survivors. There are numerous organizations that 
could benefit from having accredited staff on board to help with claims 
assistance for the beneficiaries they represent. This proposal would be 
a step in the right direction.
    We fully support the portion of this draft bill that would prohibit 
charging service members for claims through the Benefits Delivery at 
Discharge (BDD) process. BDD claims are processed separately and faster 
that other VA claims. Additionally, the claimants are still on active 
duty, so the conditions applied for are mostly incident to service and 
would automatically be service connected.
    We support protecting veterans' legal option to terminate the 
representation agreement prior to a decision being rendered to the 
claimant. This is similar to the protection afforded to veterans who 
work with accredited agents and attorneys, and this is important to 
maintain. The VFW has worked with too many veterans who had severed 
relationships with Claim Sharks only to have them reappear years later 
seeking fees for work they did not perform. Additionally, we support 
prohibiting charges for existing claims and work that was not directly 
performed by said individuals.
    What we do not support in this draft bill is the prospective fees 
of 5 months of future benefits. Charging fees from future benefits is 
illegal and predatory, and has the potential of putting veterans in 
debt. We will never support a paradigm that could put veterans in debt 
simply for accessing their earned benefits, and neither should this 
committee.
    Charging future benefits is called ``Assignment of Benefits'' and 
it is prohibited by VA and the Social Security Administration. It is 
also prohibited in civil court case claims such as tort, workers' 
compensation, mesothelioma, and asbestos. According to VA, under Title 
38 of the United States Code (U.S.C), Section 5301(a), a contract with 
a claimant generally may not obligate that claimant to pay fees from 
their VA benefit payments. The only legal option for charging fees in 
these cases is from payments for retroactive benefits.
    The reason for allowing fees only from retroactive benefits is 
because it is guaranteed the claimant has the money in hand to pay the 
bill. Every VA claim comes with a retroactive payment based on how long 
it took to process the claim. The current processing time for a claim 
is 146 days, which means a veteran would receive an average of 146 
days' worth of benefits. If a claimant is charged a future amount of 
benefits, that individual might not have enough money to cover that 
cost when they are billed.
    Veterans Guardian states that its average time to complete a claim 
is approximately three months. That means a veteran who works with 
Veterans Guardian would receive retroactive payment for 3 months of 
benefits from VA, but then get charged a fee of 5 months of benefits by 
Veterans Guardian. Consequently, veterans could be in debt for 2 months 
of benefits to companies such as this, in addition to late fees and 
penalties for not paying the full amount that some of them charge. This 
prospective fee structure is illegal, predatory, and could lead to 
veterans being in debt.
    A percentage of fees charged out of the retroactive payment is the 
only guaranteed method to ensure the veteran has enough money to cover 
whatever fees may be assessed for services. Accredited agents and 
attorneys are allowed to charge 20 percent of a retroactive payment if 
VA processes the payment, and 33 percent of the retroactive payment if 
the client is billed directly by the accredited agent or attorney. This 
is the fee structure the VFW has been amenable to with other accredited 
individuals, and this is what we believe would be reasonable for 
initial claims as well. Putting veterans in debt is the last thing this 
committee should propose, and the VFW and our allies would oppose any 
bill that financially harms veterans.
    The VFW questions how this discussion draft arrived at 5 months of 
future benefits and $10,000 as a reasonable fee. VA regulation--Title 
38 Code of Federal Regulations 14.636-- currently outlines nine 
specific factors that determine whether a fee is reasonable, including 
factors of the complexity of the case; the level of skill and 
competence required of the representative in giving the services; the 
amount of time the representative spent on the case; the level of 
review to which the claim was taken and the level of the review at 
which the representative was retained; or the rates charged by other 
representatives for similar services.
    To be frank, when considering factors like skill and complexity 
coupled with VA's statutory duty to assist, we cannot ascertain how 
this fee structure could ever be considered reasonable. Instead, we see 
this as just a rehash of what the Claim Sharks have lobbied for in 
states around the country. This is what these companies want to charge, 
so this is all they will accept.
    To the VFW, this has never been about the money. Accredited agents 
and attorneys can make a healthy living operating within the ethical 
confines of the established, non-predatory fee structure. When payment 
comes from retroactive benefits, it is hard to consider it predatory 
since the veteran is guaranteed to be able to settle the debt.

H.R. XXX, Governing Unaccredited Representatives Defrauding (GUARD) VA 
Benefits Act

    The VFW strongly supports this legislation that seeks to reinstate 
penalties against unaccredited representatives who charge unauthorized 
fees for aiding veterans filing for VA disability compensation claims.
    Prior to the enactment of Public Law 109-461 on December 22, 2006, 
Title 38 U.S.C. included criminal penalties against the involvement of 
unaccredited representatives in the claims process. Unfortunately, the 
elimination of these criminal penalties so that accredited attorneys 
and agents could charge fees for appeals provided a loophole through 
which unaccredited representatives could illegally charge for claims 
preparation without penalty. This problem was exacerbated following the 
increase in claims attributable to the passage of the Honoring our PACT 
Act of 2022.
    The VFW asserts that this legislation, which adds only one sentence 
to Title 38 U.S.C. is a sound policy proposal that simply institutes a 
penalty for breaking current law. It would signify a substantial step 
toward holding these unaccredited representatives accountable to the 
intent of the law and to ethical practices.

H.R. XXX, Preserving Lawful Utilization of Services (PLUS) for Veterans 
Act of 2025

    The VFW does not support this legislation that seeks to implement a 
fee structure for providing initial claims assistance under the guise 
of veteran choice.
    Chairman Luttrell and Ranking Member McGarvey, this concludes my 
testimony. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Information Required by Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives

    Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the VFW 
has not received any Federal grants in Fiscal Year 2025, nor has it 
received any Federal grants in the two previous Fiscal Years.

    The VFW has not received payments or contracts from any foreign 
governments in the current year or preceding two calendar years.

                       Statements for the Record

                              ----------                              


            Prepared Statement of Disabled American Veterans

    Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member McGarvey and Members of the 
Subcommittee:

    DAV (Disabled American Veterans) is grateful to provide testimony 
for the record for this legislative hearing concerning different pieces 
of legislation pertaining to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
accreditation. DAV is a congressionally chartered and VA-accredited 
veterans service organization (VSO). We provide meaningful claims 
support free of charge to more than 1 million veterans, family members, 
caregivers and survivors.
    To fulfill our service mission, DAV directly employs a corps of 
benefits advisors, national service officers (NSOs), all of whom are 
themselves wartime service-connected disabled veterans, at every VA 
regional office (VARO) as well as other VA facilities throughout the 
Nation, including the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board).
    First, we draw attention to the unique, veteran-centric 
relationship between the VA and veterans of all generations. As 
promised by VA Secretary Doug Collins, the veteran is at the center of 
all VA programs. In order to qualify for compensation benefits, and a 
majority of other VA programs, such as health care and employment 
assistance, veterans must apply for and be found eligible for service 
connection for one or more service-related illness or injury. During 
the process of deciding service connection, the VA is bound by law to 
assist the veteran in application completion, evidence gathering, and 
medical examinations. VA is also bound by law to resolve all reasonable 
doubt in all instances in favor of the veteran.
    For the VA to ensure veterans receive responsible, qualified 
representation and assistance when applying for VA benefits, Federal 
laws were created requiring anyone who assists them in preparing, 
presenting, or prosecuting those claims to be properly accredited 
through the VA Office of General Counsel (OGC). Those same laws govern 
whether, when, and how much veterans can be charged for that 
assistance.
    In 2006, the criminal penalties for violating those laws were 
removed, leaving the VA OGC virtually powerless to enforce the law 
against anyone except those who voluntarily followed those laws and 
became accredited. That left the door open for unaccredited, often 
unscrupulous, actors to target veterans and illegally charge them for 
claims assistance.
    A warning from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, dated 
February 15, 2023, states: ``Unfortunately, there has been an influx of 
predatory advertisements, which purport to help veterans often through 
the guise of `medical consulting' or `benefits coaching' submit their 
initial claims to the [VA] for a fee. But unauthorized assistance in 
claim preparation is illegal.'' We have been advised and in fact have 
seen that they have contracts the veteran signs showing they are going 
to take six times the amount of a veteran's increased benefits.
    As these predatory companies operate outside of accreditation, they 
do not fall under the OGC's oversight. Additionally, these entities are 
not required to have employed individuals take VA training, follow VA's 
required code of conduct, nor undergo background checks. We are 
concerned that the OGC's purpose to protect veterans and their families 
has been intentionally circumnavigated, thus placing veterans at risk 
of financial exploitation.
    The Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 was 
signed into law (Public Law No. 115-55) on August 23, 2017, which 
allows VA-accredited attorneys or claims agents to charge fees for 
representation in the case of; a supplemental claim and higher level of 
review or after a notice of disagreement has been filed after an 
initial final decision on a specific claimed issue.
    There is already a clear path for these individuals to become VA 
accredited and provide assistance. If these companies are solely 
concerned with assisting veterans, they would already be accredited; 
however, this path does not allow them to charge exorbitant fees for 
merely filling out paperwork. We must hold all of these predatory 
companies accountable for their knowingly illegal actions and take 
appropriate action to ensure they are not allowed to further exploit 
our Nation's ill and injured veterans.

 The Governing Unaccredited Representatives Defrauding VA Benefits Act 
                        or GUARD VA Benefits Act

    By amending 38 U.S.C. Sec.  5904 (2023), the GUARD VA Benefits Act 
would reinstate criminal penalties on individuals for soliciting, 
contracting for, charging, or receiving any unauthorized fee or 
compensation with respect to the preparation, presentation, or 
prosecution of any claim for VA benefits.
    In August 2023, the National Association of Attorneys General sent 
congressional leadership a letter of support for The Guard VA Benefits 
Act. They point out that these unaccredited claims predators are 
financially exploiting veterans and their families. This letter was 
signed by 44 State Attorneys General.
    In accordance with DAV Resolution No. 324, DAV strongly supports, 
the GUARD VA Benefits Act, which will help ensure disabled veterans 
receive VA-accredited representation while deterring predatory 
practices that seek to pick the pockets of our Nation's heroes of their 
earned benefits. DAV vehemently believes that no one should be charged 
to file a claim in a non-adversarial process.
    For many of our Nation's disabled veterans, VA disability 
compensation can be the difference between making ends meet and more 
severe outcomes such as homelessness. That's why it is so vitally 
important that veterans are properly represented by accredited 
individuals and institutions when applying for VA benefits.
    Some opponents of the GUARD VA Benefits Act argue that it impinges 
upon a veteran's right to choose their own representative. We believe 
the GUARD VA Benefits Act simply removes unaccredited, unregulated, and 
often unscrupulous actors who target veterans from entering the 
process. Unfortunately, veterans who do not understand the veteran-
centric promise made by VA Secretary Collins fall victim to constant 
advertisements, primarily on social media, making unrealistic and 
baited promises. The passage of the GUARD VA Benefits Act holds bad 
actors accountable to the law and allows for redress when veterans find 
themselves victims of those bad actors.
    In the 118th Congress, this legislation had over 220 bipartisan co-
sponsors. We urge members of the House to again protect veterans and 
their families and focus on Secretary Collins' vision of placing 
veterans in the center of all things VA.

 Preserving Lawful Utilization of Services for Veterans ACT of 2025 or 
                              the PLUS Act

    This legislation alleges that the administration of medical 
examinations and the writing of related reports do not constitute the 
preparation, presentation, or prosecution of claims.
    DAV takes great exception to the deliberate blurring of the 
definition of what constitutes preparation, presentation, and 
prosecution of claims by those who claim to be completing a report. The 
deliberate blurring of the definitions clearly displays that those who 
are unwilling to be accredited in accordance with the current law, are 
knowingly, willingly, and consistently breaking the law, should not be 
allowed into any current or future accreditation model, and should be 
held accountable once the GUARD VA Benefits Act, or similar 
legislation, is passed.
    Additionally, the bill introduces a 90-day deadline for the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to recognize agents or attorneys applying 
for VA accreditation with automatic recognition if qualifications 
cannot be verified within this period.
    The VA has no obligation to provide manpower, resources, or funds 
to assist those seeking accreditation especially when they are 
knowingly breaking current law. An arbitrary 90-day waiting period is 
of no advantage to veterans seeking benefits they have earned as free 
assistance is available.
    The PLUS for Veterans Act would revise fee structures for 
representation, capping fees at $12,500, adjustable annually based on 
the Consumer Price Index, and would stipulate that fees are contingent 
on favorable claim outcomes. It would reinstate penalties for charging 
unauthorized fees, with fines or imprisonment for violations, effective 
1-year post-enactment.
    DAV strongly supports current law, which clearly outlines what 
steps are necessary to become accredited and when it is appropriate to 
charge fees. We find it egregious to charge any amount for assistance 
in filing claims, but a charge contingent on favorable outcomes is 
particularly degenerate. This practice means that those veterans who 
fell prey to predatory practices, and who are ultimately found ill or 
injured in service to our Nation, are not only paying the salaries of 
predatory claims employees, but they are also paying for the 
examinations and claims preparation of those veterans who use the 
predatory service but do not ultimately meet the criteria for service 
connection. What a veteran has earned through blood and sacrifice to 
our Nation belongs to them; any redistribution is unacceptable. Based 
on DAV Resolution 324, we oppose this legislation. No veteran should be 
charged any amount for filing a claim, especially unjustified fees of 
thousands of dollars.

  Discussion Draft, to allow for certain fee agreements for services 
 rendered in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of initial 
claims and supplemental claims for benefits under laws administered by 
                   the Secretary of Veterans Affairs

    This discussion draft attempts to be a compromise but in reality, 
it favors these predatory claims companies being allowed into the VA 
system to further exploit veterans. For example, it would introduce a 
180-day deadline for the VA Secretary to recognize agents or attorneys 
applying for VA accreditation with automatic recognition. If 
qualifications cannot be verified within this period; it would grant 
them temporary conditional recognition for a year.
    Regardless of a 90-day or 180-day deadline, the VA should have no 
obligation to provide manpower, resources, or funds to assist those 
seeking accreditation, especially when they are knowingly breaking 
current law. An arbitrary 90-or 180-day waiting period is of no 
advantage to veterans seeking benefits they have earned as free 
assistance is available.
    This proposed legislation would allow the VA Secretary to charge an 
assessment for accreditation and impose $50,000 fines and banish an 
individual for a year. However, many of these predatory companies are 
taking millions of dollars from veterans and a $50,000 fine is not much 
of a deterrence.
    Additionally, we take umbrage with this proposed legislation's 
requirement that VA cannot hold against these claim companies, the fact 
they are/were illegally charging fees prior to the potential enactment 
of said legislation. If they are/were knowingly breaking the law, they 
should not be rewarded by allowing them in the VA system.
    These companies have broken current law, exploited disabled 
veterans, and received hundreds of millions of dollars as a reward. It 
is abundantly clear that the current law means nothing to the companies 
who seek to gain from veterans' sacrifice and any change in law to 
accredit them will last only as long as these bad actors can generously 
profit. Once the process is no longer lucrative enough, we can surmise 
they will again break the law and then seek to legitimize their new 
business model as they have done here.
    DAV opposes this discussion draft in accordance with DAV Resolution 
324, as it would reward companies that have been breaking the law and 
taking millions out of the pockets of veterans and their families.
    In closing, Mr. Chairman, we thank you for the opportunity to 
submit a statement for the record addressing our concerns on the bills 
being considered by the Subcommittee.

     Prepared Statement of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 [all]