Legislative Hearing on: Discussion Draft, Governing Unaccredited Representatives Defrauding VA Benefits Act; Discussion Draft, Preserving Lawful Utilization of Services for Veterans Act of 2025; and 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.

House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs

2025-03-05

Loading video...

Summary

This meeting of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs addressed three legislative proposals: H.R. 1656 (the PLUS Act), H.R. 1732 (the GARD Act), and a discussion draft. The primary focus was on reinstating criminal penalties for entities exploiting veterans during VA disability claims, and exploring the controversial issue of allowing accredited agents to charge fees for initial claims. A moment of silence was observed at the outset for former Houston mayor Sylvester Turner, a colleague who passed away. [ 00:12:04 ] [ 00:12:06 ] [ 00:12:20 ]

Themes

Protecting Veterans from Exploitation and Regulating Claims Assistance

A central theme was the need to protect veterans from "bad actors" charging exorbitant fees, sometimes upwards of $30,000, for assistance with VA disability claims. [ 00:12:21 ] Speakers highlighted that Congress's 2006 repeal of penalties for unaccredited claims assistance led to a "cottage claims industry" that now siphons hundreds of millions from veterans. [ 00:21:25-00:22:12 ]

The GARD Act and the discussion draft propose reinstating fines and jail time for violations, reinforcing the long-standing prohibition against unaccredited individuals assisting with VA claims. [ 00:13:08 ] [ 00:13:22 ] The VA's official position, as relayed by Mr. Murray, suggests that contracts tying payment to future benefits are not allowed under current law and that high flat fees are excessive.

Veteran Choice Versus Strict Regulation

The discussion revealed a clear divide between those prioritizing veteran choice and those advocating for stricter regulation. Supporters of the PLUS Act, including private claims assistance companies, argued that veterans desire the freedom to choose paid assistance for initial claims, citing that the current system limits their options. [ 00:12:35 ] [ 00:12:41 ] They asserted that their services provide valuable, often faster or more personalized, assistance that VSOs cannot always meet due to manpower shortages. These companies also expressed willingness to be accredited but claim the current system does not allow them to charge fees for initial claims, which is their primary service model.

Conversely, advocates for the GARD Act and traditional Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) emphasized that only accredited individuals should assist veterans to ensure oversight, accountability, and recourse against malpractice. They contended that accredited representatives, including VSOs and attorneys, already offer free or regulated paid services, and that private companies operating without accreditation are exploiting legal loopholes to avoid oversight and maximize profits. [ 00:22:59 ]

The definition of "preparation" of a claim was debated, with regulators arguing it includes consulting and gathering evidence, not just filing.

The VA's Capacity and Modernization of the Claims Process

Several speakers acknowledged that the VA's claims process can be challenging and slow, contributing to veterans seeking outside help. [ 00:20:44 ]

[ 00:20:57 ] While VA's views on the bills were not yet available due to a new Secretary, its past support for the GUARD Act was noted. [ 00:13:51-00:14:05 ] [ 00:19:40-00:20:21 ] There was a consensus that improving VA's efficiency, strengthening the accreditation system, and providing more resources to VSOs could reduce the need for veterans to pay for assistance. [ 00:23:29 ] The discussion also touched on modernizing the accreditation process to allow for provisional accreditation, which could integrate more companies while maintaining safeguards. [ 00:32:17-00:32:22 ]

Tone of the Meeting

The meeting's tone was largely serious and concerned, particularly regarding the exploitation of veterans. [ 00:12:20 ] [ 00:19:23 ]

While respectful, there was contentious and divisive debate between proponents of veteran choice through private companies and those advocating for stricter regulation and enforcement of current laws. Speakers from both sides expressed frustration with the current "stalemate" and the negative impacts on veterans. [ 00:38:24 ] At times, the discussion became passionate and direct, with committee members challenging witnesses on their business practices and motivations. Despite the disagreements, there was an overarching sentiment of commitment to improving the lives of veterans and finding effective solutions. [ 00:30:59 ]

Participants

Transcript

Morgan Joe Luttrell

You ready, buddy? Okay. 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's actually from Texas, was the former mayor of Houston, passed away. I'm 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 want to start my day off, Thank you all for joining us today. We're 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 just firing 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 VA disability claim compensation claim. VA disability compensation claim. I've 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'll be discussing H.R. 1656, the PLUS Act, which would reinstate fines and jail time for companies that violate laws regarding representation of veterans pursuing VA benefit claims. 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.

Morgan Joe Luttrell

Second, H.R. 1732, the GARD 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. Discussion draft would also allow VA accredited agents and attorneys to charge a limited fee while assisting veterans 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.

Morgan 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'm here for one reason today. It's not to protect turf, any turf wars. It's not to defend the status quo. It's not to whine and complain about things that don't matter for veterans' daily lives. I'm here for one reason. to ensure that our veterans can access their earned benefits without delay and without being ripped off. Now, I wanna get this right, which is why I think it's important to hear from everyone. However, I also wanna point out that we have one critical absence today. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the VA is not here, and I understand that there's a new secretary. We did, however, receive written testimony from them, and I don't think it actually said all that much. It said they're reviewing their bills, they couldn't give their views at this time, And again, I know they're new, but it's hard to hold a legislative hearing without knowing where the VA stands on these bills

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.