Congress
U.S. Congress
Here's a look at documents from all members of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate
Featured Stories
Article III Project Senior Counsel Chamberlain Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, April 10 -- The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights released the following testimony by Will Chamberlain, senior counsel of Article III Project, Raleigh, North Carolina, from a March 24, 2026, hearing entitled "Arctic Frost: A Modern Watergate":* * *
Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Durbin, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
On February 26, 2025, Reuters broke a remarkable story. They reported first that in 2022 and 2023, Jack Smith and the Biden Justice Department subpoenaed toll ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 10 -- The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights released the following testimony by Will Chamberlain, senior counsel of Article III Project, Raleigh, North Carolina, from a March 24, 2026, hearing entitled "Arctic Frost: A Modern Watergate": * * * Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Durbin, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. On February 26, 2025, Reuters broke a remarkable story. They reported first that in 2022 and 2023, Jack Smith and the Biden Justice Department subpoenaed tollrecords of calls from Kash Patel and Susie Wiles as part of the now-infamous Arctic Frost investigation./1
Both were private citizens at the time, and this surveillance continued while Wiles was co-managing President Trump's election campaign. This was troubling, but it sadly wasn't shocking; this committee has been investigating Smith's abuse of his subpoena power against a slew of Republican Senators alongside Judge James Boasberg's unlawful nondisclosure orders that hid the existence of the subpoenas from those Senators.
But Reuters, if anything, buried the lede. The article also revealed that in 2023 the Biden FBI had surreptitiously recorded a phone call between Susie Wiles and her attorney./2
This was a remarkable breach of attorney-client privilege. The Reuters article, relying on two FBI sources, claimed that Wiles' attorney had been aware of the surveillance on the phone call, which, if it were true, would have been a shocking ethical breach by Wiles' lawyer./3
The following day, however, Wiles' lawyer denied having consented to any such recording, stating correctly that "if [he] ever pulled a stunt like that [he] wouldn't--and shouldn't--have a license to practice law."/4
His denial is, in my view, credible: what lawyer in their right mind would secretly consent to law enforcement recording a privileged phone call with their client?
But the lawyer's denial raises more questions than it answers. Why, then, did two FBI sources tell Reuters that the lawyer had consented? Were the sources lying, or were they relying on false records created by FBI agents working with Smith? It wouldn't be the first time FBI personnel have falsified records in their pursuit of President Trump. Remember that Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer, pled guilty to intentionally falsifying information to obtain a FISA warrant in the Russiagate investigation./5
* * *
1 See Jana Winter, Exclusive: FBI obtained Kash Patel and Susie Wiles phone records during Biden administration, Reuters (Feb. 25, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-obtained-kash-patel-susie-wiles-phone-recordsduring-biden-administration-2026-02-25/.
2 See id.
3 See, e.g., Model Rules of Pro. Conduct rr. 1.4, 1.6, 1.7, 8.4(c) (A.B.A. 2025)
4 Emma Colton, Susie Wiles' lawyer denies approving FBI recording, says he'd lose license over 'stunt', Fox News (Feb. 27, 2026), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/susie-wiles-lawyer-denies-approving-fbi-recording-says-hedlose-license-over-stunt
5 See Eric Tucker, Ex-FBI lawyer admits to false statement during Russia probe, Associated Press (Aug. 19, 2020), https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-b9b3c7ef398d00d5dfee9170d66cefec.
* * *
The scandal isn't merely that this phone call was recorded; it's also about how the records of the recording were hidden. The FBI's primary digital case management system is called Sentinel.
Within it, investigators can apply a special designation to a file called "Prohibited Access"; files coded this way become completely invisible in standard Sentinel searches./6
If an agent runs a keyword search that should hit these documents, the system returns a false negative -- it reports "no responsive documents" even though they exist./7
While this "prohibited access" designation might make theoretical sense for files dealing with the most sensitive classified matters, it clearly does not make sense that records of Susie Wiles' phone call being surveilled would qualify. The agent who marked these records "prohibited" would have known that. If Wiles' lawyer had been aware of the recording, it would have constituted "consensual monitoring." Monitoring such a call would likely require DOJ approval, but it could be lawful./8
But if Wiles' lawyer did not consent to the recording, we are likely looking at an illegal wiretap/9 of a phone call between a Presidential campaign manager and her own lawyer, one where the agent or agents who conducted the wiretap lied about Wiles' lawyer's lack of consent and then coded it as a "prohibited file" in the hopes that no one would ever find out about it. This would be a more brazen FBI intervention into domestic politics than anything during the Russiagate investigation, which is certainly saying something.
We often hear liberal law professors complain about the Trump administration undermining the DOJ and FBI's "independence." Sophisticated listeners should immediately translate "independent" as "unaccountable." Illegal wiretaps and inappropriate prohibited file classifications are the fruits of an "independent" FBI that acted with impunity because it was not subject to the democratic accountability that our Constitution demands. The President is tasked with the responsibility to "take care" that our laws be faithfully executed,/10 not to submit to the FBI and DOJ transforming themselves into an unaccountable fourth branch of government. This body can help by providing essential oversight and scrutiny.
I welcome any questions.
* * *
6 See Hans Mahncke, New Docs Reveal How FBI Insiders Buried Evidence of Spygate Crimes, The Federalist (May 30, 2025), https://thefederalist.com/2025/05/30/new-docs-reveal-how-fbi-insiders-buried-evidence-of-spygatecrimes.
7 See id.
8 See Justice Manual Sec. 9-7.302 (U.S. Dep't of Justice).
9 See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(1)(a).
10 U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 3.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/e1cffedb-0b60-1a17-1c04-9c7b647eb4c0/2026-03-24_Testimony_Chamberlain.pdf
Chairmen Guthrie and Latta Announce Hearing on Department of Energy FY2027 Budget
WASHINGTON, April 10 -- Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Kentucky, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, issued the following news release on April 9, 2026:* * *
Chairmen Guthrie and Latta Announce Hearing on Department of Energy FY2027 Budget
Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman Bob Latta (OH-05), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, announced a hearing titled The Fiscal Year 2027 Department of Energy Budget.
"Under President Trump and Secretary ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 10 -- Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Kentucky, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, issued the following news release on April 9, 2026: * * * Chairmen Guthrie and Latta Announce Hearing on Department of Energy FY2027 Budget Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman Bob Latta (OH-05), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, announced a hearing titled The Fiscal Year 2027 Department of Energy Budget. "Under President Trump and SecretaryWright, the Department of Energy has worked hard to meet our nation's energy needs, strengthen the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, protect against cyber attacks, secure our electric grid, and maintain the nation's nuclear weapons deterrent," said Chairmen Guthrie and Latta. "As we look ahead to 2027, it is essential we continue to fortify American energy dominance while lowering prices for hardworking families. This hearing will offer a chance for our Committee to discuss what steps we can take to produce and generate baseload power that is both reliable and affordable, while ensuring the Department of Energy continues to carry out its mission on behalf of the American people."
Subcommittee on Energy hearing titled The Fiscal Year 2027 Department of Energy Budget.
WHAT: Subcommittee on Energy hearing to discuss the Department of Energy FY2027 Budget.
DATE: Thursday, April 16, 2026
TIME: 10:00 AM ET
LOCATION: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building
This notice is at the direction of the Chairman. The hearing will be open to the public and press and will be live streamed online at energycommerce.house.gov. If you have any questions concerning the hearing, please contact Seth Ricketts with the Committee staff at Seth.Ricketts@mail.house.gov. If you have any press-related questions, please contact Ben Mullany at
Ben.Mullany@mail.house.gov.
* * *
Original text here: https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/chairmen-guthrie-and-latta-announce-hearing-on-department-of-energy-fy-2027-budget
Chairman Crawford Joins Former Speaker Gingrich to Discuss U.S. Counterintelligence Reform
WASHINGTON, April 10 -- Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Arkansas, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, issued the following news release:* * *
Chairman Crawford Joins Former Speaker Gingrich to Discuss U.S. Counterintelligence Reform
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford (AR-01) joined former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich on his podcast, "Newt's World," to discuss the need to reevaluate how the U.S. approaches its counterintelligence (CI) posture to address threats from China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba, which are actively ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 10 -- Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Arkansas, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, issued the following news release: * * * Chairman Crawford Joins Former Speaker Gingrich to Discuss U.S. Counterintelligence Reform House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford (AR-01) joined former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich on his podcast, "Newt's World," to discuss the need to reevaluate how the U.S. approaches its counterintelligence (CI) posture to address threats from China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba, which are activelyengaging in espionage and intelligence operations within the U.S. homeland.
Chairman Crawford and Speaker Gingrich also discussed the House Intelligence Committee's efforts to reform the CI enterprise to build a posture that detects, disrupts, and deters activities from foreign intelligence services, instead of relying on a solely law enforcement approach.
Highlights
WEAKENED U.S. CI ENTERPRISE: "These threats are pervasive...counterterrorism is one thing, but counterintelligence and espionage are another. And I think we are probably in our weakest position from a counterintelligence perspective that we've been in since the Cold War. I think it's time to revisit our CI posture and [discuss] how we can augment the current CI enterprise."
U.S. HOMELAND IS CONTESTED SPACE: "I think one of the things that we're missing out on is that we don't want to have a conversation about the idea that our adversaries may be engaged in what we call operational preparation of the environment [OPE]. That is prepping the battlefield. If we are to have this conversation, we need to acknowledge that the United States, our homeland, is now a contested space. It stands to reason that our adversaries would be, in fact, engaged in OPE, prepping the battlefield for whatever operations they might want to undertake."
STATES ARE STEPPING UP: "We've really got to harden our targets and redouble our efforts to spread this CI enterprise across not only the federal level...There are numerous states that are now trying to stand up their own counterintelligence posture at the state level because they don't believe that the federal government is filling the gaps they see. That's a conversation we need to have, and it really comes down to domain awareness. But we need an all-hands-on-deck, whole-of-government approach to how we counter these intelligence threats across the homeland."
ENGAGING THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN CI EFFORTS: "China's whole-of-society is bearing down on us because they own everything. It's not a whole-of-government. It's their entire economy because the government controls and owns their economy. Whereas here in the United States, we can't compel the private sector to do anything. It's the private sector by definition. The only way we're going to be able to implement a whole-of-society approach is by being proactive and reaching out into the private sector to say, here are the threats that we see, here's what you can do to counter that, tell us about what you're seeing so that we can have better awareness of this problem, and discuss how we continue that communication upstream and downstream so that we're protecting not only our government assets, but our private sector as well."
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE FOCUSES ON THE "WHAT IFS:" "So when you think about counterintelligence, you're probably going to talk about the FBI. And the FBI is a law enforcement agency. You actually brought this point up to me. Counterintelligence assumes the worst. Law enforcement assumes the best. That's the world we live in because law enforcement is governed by constitutional protections and the assumption that you're innocent until proven guilty. All those are enshrined in our Constitution. Whereas with counterintelligence, you have to take the worst-case scenario and consider the 'what ifs."
CI AND LAW ENFORCEMENT HAVE DIFFERENT GOALS: "The other key difference is that law enforcement has a different end state. Law enforcement wants to arrest people, prosecute them, and throw them in jail. Counterintelligence is about detecting, disrupting, and dismantling intelligence networks as they exist, and determining what we can learn from those networks. The end state is not always the same. In fact, in many cases, we would be doing ourselves a major disservice by arresting someone that we could otherwise glean positive intelligence information from."
FOCUS ON THREAT MITIGATION: "I'm a former bomb tech. I always try to use this analogy. Anything to the right of boom is consequence management. So what we want is threat mitigation. We want to be left of boom. And how do we achieve that threat mitigation ability? It is by expanding and augmenting our CI enterprise to support what the FBI currently does. That doesn't always entail arrest authority... So in a sense, you have to have a much more aggressive counterintelligence attitude than you would have if you were law enforcement."
RIGHT OF BOOM: ARRESTS AREN'T THE ONLY SUCCESS METRIC: "But we don't know the backstory in many cases of how long they've been engaged in espionage against us, what targets they were working on, or what individuals they may have impacted or potentially turned. Because it's not just about collecting intelligence in the context of pictures and information. Sometimes it's about them turning U.S. citizens and having them work against us. How do we identify that and exploit those networks? I'm not saying the FBI can't do that. But what I am saying is we can probably augment what the FBI is doing and have better results."
BRINGING EVERYONE TO THE TABLE: "I want to identify who's the best we have available that I can put out on the field right now to address that problem set. And that centralized individual... is basically making that determination. For lack of a better term, I would call them a referee. We're going to put you here and we want you to get after this problem set as it applies to this particular target...[For example,] last September, during the UN General Assembly, there was an attempt to disrupt telecommunications through a SIM farm in very close proximity to the United Nations, and that was actually thwarted by the Secret Service. They were the ones who intervened on that one."
* * *
Original text here: https://intelligence.house.gov/2026/04/09/chairman-crawford-joins-former-speaker-gingrich-to-discuss-u-s-counterintelligence-reform/
CBO Issues Cost Estimate for Student Financial Clarity Act
WASHINGTON, April 10 -- The Congressional Budget Office issued the following cost estimate for the Student Financial Clarity Act (H.R. 6498).* * *
H.R. 6498 would require the Department of Education to update its College Scorecard website to provide more detailed data on each program of study at postsecondary institutions that receive federal student aid. The bill would require the department to establish a universal net price calculator for students to more easily compare the costs of academic programs at different postsecondary institutions. The bill also would require the department to assess ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 10 -- The Congressional Budget Office issued the following cost estimate for the Student Financial Clarity Act (H.R. 6498). * * * H.R. 6498 would require the Department of Education to update its College Scorecard website to provide more detailed data on each program of study at postsecondary institutions that receive federal student aid. The bill would require the department to establish a universal net price calculator for students to more easily compare the costs of academic programs at different postsecondary institutions. The bill also would require the department to assessthe usefulness of that calculator.
Based on the costs of similar activities, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 6498 would cost $3 million over the 2026 2031 period. Any related spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Leah Koestner. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel, Director, Congressional Budget Office
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2026-04/hr6498.pdf
CBO Issues Cost Estimate for Student Financial Clarity Act
WASHINGTON, April 10 -- The Congressional Budget Office issued the following cost estimate for the Student Financial Clarity Act (H.R. 6498).* * *
H.R. 6498 would require the Department of Education to update its College Scorecard website to provide more detailed data on each program of study at postsecondary institutions that receive federal student aid. The bill would require the department to establish a universal net price calculator for students to more easily compare the costs of academic programs at different postsecondary institutions. The bill also would require the department to assess ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 10 -- The Congressional Budget Office issued the following cost estimate for the Student Financial Clarity Act (H.R. 6498). * * * H.R. 6498 would require the Department of Education to update its College Scorecard website to provide more detailed data on each program of study at postsecondary institutions that receive federal student aid. The bill would require the department to establish a universal net price calculator for students to more easily compare the costs of academic programs at different postsecondary institutions. The bill also would require the department to assessthe usefulness of that calculator.
Based on the costs of similar activities, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 6498 would cost $3 million over the 2026 2031 period. Any related spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Leah Koestner. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel, Director, Congressional Budget Office
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2026-04/hr6498.pdf
Cantwell to Cruz: Committee Must Hear From Illegally Removed Democratic Commissioners at April 15 FTC Oversight Hearing
WASHINGTON, April 10 -- Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, issued the following news release on April 9, 2026:* * *
Cantwell to Cruz: Committee Must Hear from Illegally Removed Democratic Commissioners at April 15 FTC Oversight Hearing
U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, sent a letter to Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) calling on him to invite the unlawfully fired Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 10 -- Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, issued the following news release on April 9, 2026: * * * Cantwell to Cruz: Committee Must Hear from Illegally Removed Democratic Commissioners at April 15 FTC Oversight Hearing U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, sent a letter to Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) calling on him to invite the unlawfully fired Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioners, Rebecca Slaughterand Alvaro Bedoya, to testify at the FTC oversight hearing scheduled for April 15, 2026.
"Excluding Commissioner Slaughter and Bedoya from this hearing would serve only to obscure how this Administration's illegal effort to undo the safeguards Congress built into the FTC's structure will expose the American people to higher prices, increased fraud, more predatory scams, and less competition," wrote Sen. Cantwell. "The Commerce Committee should be shining a light on these dangerous risks--not acceding to them."
Congress created the FTC more than 100 years ago and charged it with protecting Americans from unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive business practices. The FTC was designed as an independent agency to protect it from undue political interference or retribution. The Supreme Court affirmed that independence 90 years ago, ruling that a President could not fire a commissioner without legal cause.
"But despite Congress's clear directive and the Supreme Court's clear precedent, President Trump is trying to unravel the FTC and commandeer unfettered control over its operations," continued Sen. Cantwell in her letter. "On March 18, 2025, Commissioner Slaughter and Commissioner Bedoya--the only two Democrats on the FTC--each received a message from the White House on President Trump's behalf purporting to remove them as Commissioners because their continued service was 'inconsistent with my Administration's priorities.' That is the only justification the President offered for their purported removals--which is clearly insufficient under the law."
A federal district court ruled that President Trump acted unlawfully in carrying out these dismissals. The case is currently before the Supreme Court, which issued a stay under its "shadow docket." Nevertheless, the district court decision remains the only ruling based on the merits of the case.
"The Supreme Court's shadow-docket order does not constrain Congress's constitutional oversight authority or otherwise limit this Committee's ability to call appropriate witnesses to testify on matters under its jurisdiction," Sen. Cantwell wrote. "To the contrary, given President Trump's ongoing effort to undo the structural protections Congress built into the FTC, we must conduct oversight over how these unprecedented actions undermine the FTC's ability to advance the interests of the American people--from combatting the skyrocketing costs of gas and groceries, to protecting the public from online scammers and other predatory fraudsters."
"Moreover, the issue of the proper structure of the FTC is one for Congress, starting in this Committee," she added. "We cannot fully meet our oversight responsibility at this pivotal moment for the FTC without hearing from Commissioner Slaughter and Bedoya."
Sen. Cantwell has been sounding the alarm about the Trump Administration's dangerous power grabs. In November 2025, Sen. Cantwell joined other House and Senate Democratic leaders in filing an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Trump v. Slaughter. She also filed an amicus brief to the U.S. District Court for D.C. in April 2025, opposing Trump's unlawful firing of the commissioners and his attack on independent agencies, and led a March 2025 letter calling on Trump to reverse the firings. In October 2025, Senator Cantwell led a letter to Senate Leader Thune and Chair Cruz opposing the White House's attempt to replace NTSB Vice Chair Alvin Brown, whom President Trump also unlawfully removed without cause.
The text of the letter can be found below and HERE (https://www.commerce.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/26.04.08-Cantwell-to-Cruz.pdf).
April 8, 2026
Chairman Cruz:
I am calling on you to invite Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and former Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya to the oversight hearing on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that you scheduled for April 15, 2026. Holding this hearing without these two witnesses--while pretending things are business as usual at the FTC--would conveniently sidestep one of the most pressing oversight issues impacting the Commission today: President Trump's dangerous power grab at the expense of American consumers. Excluding Commissioner Slaughter and Bedoya from this hearing would serve only to obscure how this Administration's illegal effort to undo the safeguards Congress built into the FTC's structure will expose the American people to higher prices, increased fraud, more predatory scams, and less competition. This dramatic change also would invite unpredictable regulation that changes with every new Administration and potential corruption arising from "pay to play" treatment. The Commerce Committee should be shining a light on these dangerous risks--not acceding to them.
More than a century ago, Congress on a bipartisan basis created the FTC as an independent, multimember commission to protect Americans from harmful business practices. In doing so, Congress made the deliberate decision to limit any president's ability to fire a Commissioner without "cause"--that is, without a showing they engaged in "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." The reason for this structure is well documented: By insulating the FTC from the immediate impulses of any given president, Congress wanted the Commission to focus on long-term economic growth and protecting the public without fear of political retribution. Congress also believed this degree of independence would allow the FTC's actions to be "more readily accepted as impartial and well considered" by the public. Given this Administration's demonstrated record of undermining public confidence in the neutrality of its actions, the wisdom of Congress's vision for the FTC has only been validated over time.
And the Supreme Court has approved this design. Two decades after Congress created the FTC, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that a president cannot fire a Commissioner without legal cause. In reaching that conclusion, the Supreme Court found "it plain under the Constitution that illimitable power of removal is not possessed by the President." Today, more than 90 years later, this remains the law of the land.
But despite Congress's clear directive and the Supreme Court's clear precedent, President Trump is trying to unravel the FTC and commandeer unfettered control over its operations. On March 18, 2025, Commissioner Slaughter and Commissioner Bedoya--the only two Democrats on the FTC--each received a message from the White House on President Trump's behalf purporting to remove them as Commissioners because their continued service was "inconsistent with my Administration's priorities." That is the only justification the President offered for their purported removals--which is clearly insufficient under the law.
Soon thereafter, a federal district court declared President Trump's attempted termination of Commissioner Slaughter to be "unlawful and without legal effect" and ruled that she "remains a rightful member of the Federal Trade Commission until the expiration of her Senate-confirmed term." The only reason the district court did not reach the same conclusion for Commissioner Bedoya is because President Trump's illegal removal forced Bedoya to resign from the FTC so he could secure a replacement income to support his family. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Trump Administration's request to block the district court's order, finding that the Administration's position "would have to defy binding, on-point, and repeatedly preserved Supreme Court precedent." Although the Supreme Court later intervened to stay this order under its "shadow docket," the district court remains the only court to rule on the merits of this case--and it ruled unequivocally that President Trump acted unlawfully.
The Supreme Court's shadow-docket order does not constrain Congress's constitutional oversight authority or otherwise limit this Committee's ability to call appropriate witnesses to testify on matters under its jurisdiction. To the contrary, given President Trump's ongoing effort to undo the structural protections Congress built into the FTC, we must conduct oversight over how these unprecedented actions undermine the FTC's ability to advance the interests of the American people--from combatting the skyrocketing costs of gas and groceries, to protecting the public from online scammers and other predatory fraudsters. Moreover, the issue of the proper structure of the FTC is one for Congress, starting in this Committee. We cannot fully meet our oversight responsibility at this pivotal moment for the FTC without hearing from Commissioner Slaughter and Bedoya.
This Committee needs to stand up against the Trump Administration's power grabs and put American consumers first. Inviting the unlawfully removed FTC Commissioners to join their colleagues at this oversight hearing is a good--and necessary--first step. I urge you to do so.
Sincerely,
* * *
Original text here: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/press/dem/release/cantwell-to-cruz-committee-must-hear-from-illegally-removed-democratic-commissioners-at-april-15-ftc-oversight-hearing/
Boyle Statement on February 2026 PCE Inflation Data
WASHINGTON, April 10 -- Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pennsylvania, ranking member of the House Budget Committee, issued the following statement on April 9, 2026:* * *
Boyle Statement on February 2026 PCE Inflation Data
Today, Pennsylvania Congressman Brendan F. Boyle (PA-02), Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, released the following statement after the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported an annual personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index of 2.8 percent for February 2026:
"Under President Trump and Republicans in Congress, hardworking families are paying more while billionaires ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 10 -- Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pennsylvania, ranking member of the House Budget Committee, issued the following statement on April 9, 2026: * * * Boyle Statement on February 2026 PCE Inflation Data Today, Pennsylvania Congressman Brendan F. Boyle (PA-02), Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, released the following statement after the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported an annual personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index of 2.8 percent for February 2026: "Under President Trump and Republicans in Congress, hardworking families are paying more while billionairespay less. The cost of essentials like food and electricity has risen on Trump's watch, and millions of Americans are losing their health care because of Republican cuts.
Even worse, today's report doesn't include the increased prices Americans are now paying at the pump due to Trump's disastrous war in Iran. Americans deserve leaders who are focused on making their lives easier, not on more tax breaks for billionaires and more wars overseas."
* * *
Original text here: https://democrats-budget.house.gov/news/press-releases/boyle-statement-february-2026-pce-inflation-data
Following Meetings With Top Treasury Official, Wyden Reveals Treasury Department Failed to Plan for Economic Fallout From Iran War
WASHINGTON, April 10 -- Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, issued the following news release on April 9, 2026:* * *
Following Meetings with Top Treasury Official, Wyden Reveals Treasury Department Failed to Plan for Economic Fallout from Iran War
Nominee for Asst. Secretary for Economic Policy, Currently Serving as Senior Advisor to Secretary Bessent, Told Committee Staff That He Knew of No One at Treasury Department Who Did Any Economic Planning Prior to Trump Launching Iran War
*
Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) revealed today ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 10 -- Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, issued the following news release on April 9, 2026: * * * Following Meetings with Top Treasury Official, Wyden Reveals Treasury Department Failed to Plan for Economic Fallout from Iran War Nominee for Asst. Secretary for Economic Policy, Currently Serving as Senior Advisor to Secretary Bessent, Told Committee Staff That He Knew of No One at Treasury Department Who Did Any Economic Planning Prior to Trump Launching Iran War * Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) revealed todaythat Sriprakash Kothari, a top advisor to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and nominee for Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy, told committee staff during recent meetings that he was unaware of any work done by the department to plan for the economic fallout of Trump's war in Iran prior to the start of the conflict. Kothari also disclosed that he was unaware of any coordination between the Treasury Department and other agencies on Iran-related economic policy. Senator Wyden wrote to Secretary Bessent seeking confirmation of Kothari's statements, which came during routine meetings in the process of vetting Kothari's nomination.
"The war with Iran began on February 28, 2026, following months of the United States carrying out its largest military buildup in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Mr. Kothari's statements suggest that leadership at the Treasury Department was conducting no work on important economic impacts of military intervention while news of potential conflict could be heard from Washington to Tehran," Senator Wyden wrote. "The American people are facing a rapidly-growing affordability crisis made worse by this deeply unpopular war, and it is unacceptable that Treasury may not have performed the most basic planning before it was launched."
The text of Senator Wyden's letter to Secretary Bessent is below and available for download here (https://www.finance.senate.gov/download/wyden-letter-to-bessent-on-lack-of-iran-conflict-preparationpdf).
Dear Secretary Bessent,
Following recent bipartisan Committee staff meetings with the nominee for Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, and current Senior Advisor to you since last September, I was alarmed to hear what appears to be a complete and total lack of preparation by Treasury in the lead-up to the war with Iran. During these meetings, Sriprakash Kothari, the nominee, repeatedly told my staff that not only did he not perform any work related to energy markets leading up to the war, but that he wasn't aware of anyone at Treasury who did. The war with Iran began on February 28, 2026, following months of the United States carrying out its largest military buildup in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Mr. Kothari's statements suggest that leadership at the Treasury Department was conducting no work on important economic impacts of military intervention while news of potential conflict could be heard from Washington to Tehran.
The American people are facing a rapidly-growing affordability crisis made worse by this deeply unpopular war, and it is unacceptable that Treasury may not have performed the most basic planning before it was launched. Every problem resulting from the conflict which we are seeing now was not only foreseeable but was predicted by the intelligence agencies, which reported as recently as last March that Iran was "capable of inflicting severe damage to an attacker" and of "disrupting shipping, particularly energy supplies, through the Strait of Hormuz."
As part of the nomination process, bipartisan Committee staff hold a series of meetings with nominees. During those meetings with Mr. Kothari, my staff asked what analysis or work related to energy markets the nominee performed preceding the commencement of hostilities, he replied that he had performed no such work "leading up to the conflict," but "subsequent" to the conflict he did. When later asked to clarify this response, he reiterated that he had not performed any analysis or work related to energy markets, or any other economic facet, in the lead-up to military action in Iran. He further told staff that the work he performed subsequently occurred after learning about the February 2026 strikes in the news. Mr. Kothari was then asked whether he was aware of anyone at Treasury performing analysis or work related to energy markets in the lead-up to potential military action in Iran, he responded that he was not aware of anyone performing any such work.
When asked about his "subsequent" work, and who at Treasury tasked him with finally assessing the economic effects of the conflict, he responded that "no one" had requested this work, and he was performing it "for himself." When asked if he was coordinating this effort with any other government agencies or departments, he responded "no." When asked what his "subsequent" analysis entailed, he replied that he was analyzing "oil prices" and "GDP numbers" but could provide no further details. Additionally, Mr. Kothari said that his assessment of the economic outlook was that the adverse economic effects we have already seen stemming from the conflict were only "going to get worse the longer it lasts."
Since the war with Iran began, we have witnessed the Administration fiercely deny reports that it was unprepared for Iran's response to the attack and the economic hardship the American people are feeling today as a result. According to your own Senior Advisor, those reports likely gave too much credit to the planning that this Administration undertook before it plunged the United States into another reckless and endless war.
As such, I request that you answer the following questions no later than April 16, 2026.
1. Are the statements outlined above made by your Senior Advisor correct?
a. Describe in detail what actions the Treasury Department undertook to determine the economic consequences of a war with Iran prior to February 28, 2026.
b. What specific analysis or work was performed by Treasury in the lead-up to the war related to the impact it would have on global energy markets?
c. If no such work was performed, provide a detailed explanation as to why your department failed to undertake preparations or analysis of the economic effects a war with Iran may have caused.
2. What office(s) within the Treasury Department were involved in analyzing and planning for the economic consequences of a war with Iran?
a. Describe the work of the office(s) in detail.
b. Was there coordination with any other governmental department or agency? Which, and to what extent?
3. Is it standard practice for high-ranking employees of the Treasury Department to undertake economic analysis or other Treasury related work for themselves as opposed to at the behest of or for the Department?
a. If so, what is your department's policy for handling any work product stemming from Mr. Kothari's, or similar high level staff's, independent effort?
b. If not, please explain why your Senior Advisor is performing post hoc analysis of a conflict whose ramifications span the globe and have a direct and pervasive effect on the Department and the nation on his own initiative and without direction from yourself or any other Principal Officer of the United States.
4. As stated above, your Senior Advisor said he was performing analysis on oil prices and GDP numbers, what is your assessment of the current state of oil prices and their impact to U.S. GDP?
a. Do you agree with your Senior Advisor's assessment that the longer the conflict in Iran endures the worse the outlook for oil prices and the U.S. GDP becomes? Explain.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.finance.senate.gov/ranking-members-news/following-meetings-with-top-treasury-official-wyden-reveals-treasury-department-failed-to-plan-for-economic-fallout-from-iran-war
Cruz, Klobuchar TAKE IT DOWN Act Leads to Conviction in Case Targeting AI-Generated Deepfakes
WASHINGTON, April 10 -- Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, issued the following news release on April 9, 2026:* * *
Cruz, Klobuchar TAKE IT DOWN Act Leads to Conviction in Case Targeting AI-Generated Deepfakes
Today, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chairman of Senate Commerce Committee, and U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) highlighted the first conviction under their bipartisan TAKE IT DOWN Act following the guilty plea of an Ohio man who used artificial intelligence to create and distribute non-consensual intimate images.
Sen. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 10 -- Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, issued the following news release on April 9, 2026: * * * Cruz, Klobuchar TAKE IT DOWN Act Leads to Conviction in Case Targeting AI-Generated Deepfakes Today, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chairman of Senate Commerce Committee, and U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) highlighted the first conviction under their bipartisan TAKE IT DOWN Act following the guilty plea of an Ohio man who used artificial intelligence to create and distribute non-consensual intimate images. Sen.Cruz said: "The TAKE IT DOWN Act, which I authored with Senator Klobuchar, is instrumental in ensuring that predators who weaponize new technology to post exploitative filth will rightfully face criminal consequences. Because of our work to make it the law of the land, Big Tech can no longer turn a blind eye to the spread of this vile material. I am thrilled to see our legislation in action with this first conviction. Let it be known that individuals who commit these acts will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
Sen. Klobuchar said: "Last year, we passed our major bipartisan legislation to take on the brutal sharing of nonconsensual sexual images, real or deepfake. Kids tragically commit suicide over the sharing of these images, and we knew we had to act. Now we have some good news: the first conviction under this law was secured of an Ohio man who victimized multiple people with his creation of pornographic deepfakes online. This conviction sends a clear message -- perpetrators of these heinous crimes will be held accountable."
The bipartisan TAKE IT DOWN Act criminalizes the publication of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII), including AI-generated NCII, and requires online platforms to implement procedures to remove such content within 48 hours of notice from a victim or their representative.
Klobuchar and Cruz introduced and passed the legislation which was supported by First Lady Melania Trump and signed into law by President Trump in May 2025.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/press/rep/release/cruz-klobuchar-take-it-down-act-leads-to-conviction-in-case-targeting-ai-generated-deepfakes/
Cassidy Touts Job Creation, Local Projects in Houma
WASHINGTON, April 8 -- Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, issued the following news release:* * *
Cassidy Touts Job Creation, Local Projects in Houma
*
WASHINGTON - Yesterday, U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) met with local business owners, educators, health care providers, and government officials at a roundtable discussion hosted by the South Central Industrial Association (SCIA) and COLAB. Cassidy discussed his efforts to support flood prevention and recovery, local projects, and job creation in the Bayou Region.
"We want the Bayou region to be a place where our children and grandchildren ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 8 -- Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, issued the following news release: * * * Cassidy Touts Job Creation, Local Projects in Houma * WASHINGTON - Yesterday, U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) met with local business owners, educators, health care providers, and government officials at a roundtable discussion hosted by the South Central Industrial Association (SCIA) and COLAB. Cassidy discussed his efforts to support flood prevention and recovery, local projects, and job creation in the Bayou Region. "We want the Bayou region to be a place where our children and grandchildrengrow up and raise their children," said Dr. Cassidy. "By lowering flood insurance rates and providing resources for ports, flood protection, and workforce development, together, we can make that happen."
Thanks to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and his work as one of the U.S. Senate's top appropriators, Cassidy has secured $615 million to support the Morganza-to-the-Gulf project. He also obtained over $170 million in total to support Conrad Shipyards and Metal Shark as they build vessels to be used by our military. Additionally, over $772,000 is coming from the IIJA for the Morgan City Harbor and Terminal District in March for equipment upgrades.
Additionally, Cassidy was a key supporter of the President's Working Families Tax Cuts Act. The legislation ended taxes on tips and overtime for workers and guaranteed at least two lease sales every year for 15 years in the Central and Western areas of the Gulf of America. Finally, Cassidy remains committed to ending Risk Rating 2.0 hikes and reforming the National Flood Insurance Program, and wrote an op-ed on this subject for the Lake Charles American Press in March.
Cassidy was welcomed by SCIA Executive Director Hillary Charpentier, M.Ed.
"We are honored to have hosted the Bayou Region Roundtable with Senator Bill Cassidy," said Ms. Charpentier. "Opportunities like this are vital in ensuring the voices of our local industries are heard. We are deeply thankful for the ongoing support of Senator Cassidy and the Louisiana delegation, for their continued efforts to secure critical funding opportunities that support the growth and sustainability of the Bayou Region."
***
Original text here: https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cassidy-touts-job-creation-local-projects-in-houma/
Cassidy Announces $2.6 Million for Louisiana Airport Improvements from His Infrastructure Bill
WASHINGTON, April 8 -- Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, issued the following news release:* * *
Cassidy Announces $2.6 Million for Louisiana Airport Improvements from His Infrastructure Bill
*
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) announced Louisiana airports will receive $2,550,111.00 in federal funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation through his Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The funding will support weather equipment, pavement markings, perimeter fencing, apron construction, runway lighting, and airport planning updates across the state.
"When you fly ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 8 -- Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, issued the following news release: * * * Cassidy Announces $2.6 Million for Louisiana Airport Improvements from His Infrastructure Bill * WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) announced Louisiana airports will receive $2,550,111.00 in federal funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation through his Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The funding will support weather equipment, pavement markings, perimeter fencing, apron construction, runway lighting, and airport planning updates across the state. "When you flyinto a town, the airport is the first impression," said Dr. Cassidy. "These improvements help Louisiana airports stay safe, updated, and ready to serve the people who depend on them."
Funding Amount Recipient Project Description
$950,000.00 City of Monroe This grant provides federal funding to rehabilitate existing pavement markings on Runways 04/22 and 14/32 at Monroe Regional Airport to extend their useful lives.
$427,500.00 City of Minden This grant provides federal funding to construct 10,460 feet of perimeter fencing to bring the airport into conformity with current standards.
$350,000.00 City of Springhill This grant provides federal funding to update the existing airport master plan study at Springhill Airport.
$257,651.00 Shreveport Airport Authority This grant provides federal funding to update the existing airport layout plan with master plan narrative at Shreveport Downtown Airport.
$224,960.00 Acadia Parish Police Jury This grant provides federal funding to reconstruct existing Runway 4/22 lighting at Le Gros Memorial Airport that has reached the end of its useful life.
$190,000.00 Avoyelles Parish Airport Authority This grant provides federal funding to construct a new 1,005-square-yard primary apron at Marksville Municipal Airport to bring the airport into conformity with current standards.
$150,000.00 City of Leesville This grant provides federal funding to acquire and install a new automated weather observing system to provide site-specific weather information.
***
Original text here: https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cassidy-announces-2-6-million-for-louisiana-airport-improvements-from-his-infrastructure-bill/
Carbajal Secures $6 Million in Federal Funding for Santa Barbara Harbor Improvements
WASHINGTON, April 8 -- Rep. Salud Carbajal, D-California, issued the following news release:* * *
Carbajal Secures $6 Million in Federal Funding for Santa Barbara Harbor Improvements
*
Today, U.S. Representative Salud Carbajal (D-CA-24) announced he secured $6.15 million for Santa Barbara Harbor's dredging project. The funding was secured through the Fiscal Year 2026 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Work Plan, an annual civil works initiative focused on infrastructure improvements.
"The Santa Barbara Harbor serves an important role in our local economy and emergency response services," said ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 8 -- Rep. Salud Carbajal, D-California, issued the following news release: * * * Carbajal Secures $6 Million in Federal Funding for Santa Barbara Harbor Improvements * Today, U.S. Representative Salud Carbajal (D-CA-24) announced he secured $6.15 million for Santa Barbara Harbor's dredging project. The funding was secured through the Fiscal Year 2026 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Work Plan, an annual civil works initiative focused on infrastructure improvements. "The Santa Barbara Harbor serves an important role in our local economy and emergency response services," saidRep. Carbajal. "This federal funding will ensure our harbor is deep enough to continue handling maritime commerce and tourism while providing the U.S. Coast Guard with the reliable channels for public safety and national security missions."
"Santa Barbara Harbor is the pulse of our community. Without regular federal maintenance dredging, the consequences for public safety, our local economy, and our way of life are severe. Securing $6.15 million in federal funding for dredging is an essential step toward ensuring that the harbor remains safe and navigable for everyone who depends on it. We are grateful to Congressman Carbajal for his tireless advocacy on behalf of Santa Barbara, and to the Army Corps of Engineers for delivering on this critical funding," said Santa Barbara Mayor Randy Rowse.
Santa Barbara Harbor serves as a critical hub for maritime commerce, tourism, and public safety operations. The dredging project will help keep the harbor at appropriate depths so that commercial vessels, recreational users, and emergency response ships can operate safely.
***
Original text here: https://carbajal.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3425
Calvert, Quigley Introduce Bill To Advance ALS Research and Keep Treatments Available
WASHINGTON, April 8 -- Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California, issued the following news release:* * *
Calvert, Quigley Introduce Bill To Advance ALS Research and Keep Treatments Available
*
This week, Representatives Ken Calvert (CA-41) andMike Quigley (IL-05) introduced the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Reauthorization Act (ACT for ALS Reauthorization Act) of 2026. The ACT for ALS Reauthorization Act will help people living with ALS continue to access promising treatments and further advance the scientific understanding of neurodegenerative diseases. Today, the ACT for ALS Reauthorization ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 8 -- Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California, issued the following news release: * * * Calvert, Quigley Introduce Bill To Advance ALS Research and Keep Treatments Available * This week, Representatives Ken Calvert (CA-41) andMike Quigley (IL-05) introduced the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Reauthorization Act (ACT for ALS Reauthorization Act) of 2026. The ACT for ALS Reauthorization Act will help people living with ALS continue to access promising treatments and further advance the scientific understanding of neurodegenerative diseases. Today, the ACT for ALS ReauthorizationAct was noticed for a hearing at the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee on April 15, 2026.
"The ACT for ALS was a landmark law that gave hope to Americans impacted by ALS," said Rep. Calvert. "It's now critical that Congress builds upon that milestone by passing the ACT for ALS Reauthorization Act to continue our progress in researching cures and treatments. The courageous and extraordinary ALS advocates who helped us pass the ACT for ALS are a source of inspiration and the reason we have reached this moment. I appreciate the leadership of my fellow ALS Caucus colleague Rep. Mike Quigley in sponsoring this bill and working together with me to advance these bipartisan solutions."
"Every dollar put towards ACT for ALS programs has improved our understanding of ALS and allowed people living with ALS to access promising treatments. We made great progress during the first five years of these programs, but ALS remains a 100% fatal disease. The federal government must continue supporting efforts to end this disease once and for all," said Rep. Quigley. "The passage of ACT for ALS was one of the greatest accomplishments of my career. I am proud to work alongside Congressman Calvert, Senators Murkowski and Coons, and the incredible organizations fighting neurodegenerative diseases to ensure this work continues."
Quigley and Calvert's legislation will reauthorize ACT for ALS programs for 5 years, codify the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) interpretation of Expanded Access Program eligibility guidelines, require a new FDA 5-year Action Plan, and require a new GAO report on the implementation of ACT for ALS programs in 2030.
In the Senate, the ACT for ALS Reauthorization Act is led by Senators Lisa Murkowski (AK) and Chris Coons (DE).
"ALS is a disease that takes from us: it steals movement, communication, and tomorrows," said Senator Coons. "ACT for ALS funds research to stop ALS from claiming more lives and futures, and to give hope and new treatments to those already fighting its cruelty. I am grateful to Senator Murkowski and Representatives Quigley and Calvert for their partnership on this bipartisan reauthorization bill."
"ALS is indiscriminate and devastating. It can strike any of us-and it will take all of us working together to support those affected and help end this terminal disease," said Senator Murkowski. "As an ALS Caucus Co-Chair, I'm honored to introduce the ACT for ALS Reauthorization, which will break down treatment barriers and accelerate the research and development of therapies for those living with ALS."
This legislation has been endorsed by I AM ALS, the ALS Network, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, and the ALS Association.
"This bill is urgent - because ALS doesn't wait, and neither can we," said Andrea Goodman, CEO of I AM ALS. "Since 2021, ACT for ALS has driven historic progress: unlocking critical funding, expanding access to promising therapies, and accelerating the path toward a cure. The ALS community united to pass this landmark legislation once, and together with partners and advocates nationwide, we will do it again. We are deeply grateful to the I AM ALS volunteer community and to Representatives Quigley and Calvert for their leadership in reintroducing the bill and their commitment to progress."
"Every day, we hear from individuals and families navigating the realities of ALS, where time is incredibly limited and options are few," said Sheri Strahl, MPH, MBA, president and CEO of the ALS Network. "Families do not have the luxury of waiting. ACT for ALS has already helped lay the groundwork for a more coordinated and effective approach to ALS research and for expanded access to investigational therapies for those who cannot participate in clinical trials. Reauthorization is essential to sustaining this momentum and ensuring that people living with ALS have every possible opportunity for progress while the search for breakthroughs continues. We are grateful to Representatives Calvert and Quigley for their leadership in advancing this critical effort."
"The ACT for ALS has become a real-world test of whether our research and regulatory systems can move at the speed our community needs. Early results are very encouraging, but reauthorization is necessary to truly fulfill its promise to our community. The legislation introduced this week is a chance to not only further accelerate our rare neurodegenerative disease drug development approach, but also to provide a blueprint for how rare disease innovation should work going forward," said Sharon Hesterlee, PhD, President and CEO, Muscular Dystrophy Association.
"ACT for ALS has already changed what's possible for people living with ALS - and our volunteers and staff fought to make this reauthorization even stronger. More accountability. Fewer barriers. Faster pathways to get promising treatments to the people who need them. This bill reflects what our advocates demanded and what people living with ALS deserve: a commitment from the federal government that matches the urgency of this disease," said Calaneet Balas, President and CEO of the ALS Association.
***
Original text here: https://calvert.house.gov/media/press-releases/calvert-quigley-introduce-bill-advance-als-research-and-keep-treatments
Boozman, Sheehy Introduce Veterans Health Administration Novel Therapeutics Preparedness Act
WASHINGTON, April 8 -- Sen. John Boozman, R-Arkansas, issued the following news release:* * *
Boozman, Sheehy Introduce Veterans Health Administration Novel Therapeutics Preparedness Act
*
WASHINGTON- U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-AR) joined Senators Tim Sheehy (R-MT), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) in introducing the bipartisan Veterans Health Administration Novel Therapeutics Preparedness Act to increase veterans' access to innovative health care and ensure the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is prepared to better care for veterans through emerging mental health therapies. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 8 -- Sen. John Boozman, R-Arkansas, issued the following news release: * * * Boozman, Sheehy Introduce Veterans Health Administration Novel Therapeutics Preparedness Act * WASHINGTON- U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-AR) joined Senators Tim Sheehy (R-MT), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) in introducing the bipartisan Veterans Health Administration Novel Therapeutics Preparedness Act to increase veterans' access to innovative health care and ensure the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is prepared to better care for veterans through emerging mental health therapies.
"We owe it to veterans to ensure the VA can effectively facilitate access to new therapies and care upon FDA approval. Doing so will give them more options to improve their health, including recovering from the invisible wounds that represent a unique challenge to their well-being. I am proud of this bipartisan, proactive effort to meet the needs of our former servicemembers who have earned this support for all they have given to defend our nation and freedoms," said Boozman.
"After young Americans who signed up to fight for our nation and were willing to give up their own lives for others come home, we better make sure the VA is ready to care for them and that they have access to the best, most innovative care available. The VA's core mission is to care for veterans, and this bipartisan bill will help the hardworking men and women at the VA fulfill that critical mission," said Sheehy.
"Veterans suffering from invisible wounds like PTSD and depression deserve the same level of care from their VA as those with physical wounds, and it's past time we do more to ensure our VA is equipped and prepared to navigate these veterans' unique needs. Our bipartisan legislation recognizes that the VA is uniquely positioned to oversee and administer this care as our veterans' medical center home and would cut red tape and establish groundbreaking infrastructure to more quickly review and approve emerging therapeutics for our wounded warriors. Equally important, it would require annual reports to Congress on clinical outcomes, research and success from innovative therapies so we could evaluate what works and establish those best practices Department-wide. Our bill is about making our VA work better for our heroes, and that should always be a bipartisan matter," said Duckworth.
"When I got back from Iraq, I saw fellow Marines struggle in ways we weren't prepared to treat. There's no one way to address veterans' mental health, and for those who don't respond to existing treatments, we need to look at new ones. Emerging therapies like psychedelic treatment may offer real hope for veterans with PTSD when nothing else has. This bill makes sure we're exploring every option to support them," said Gallego.
This bill would establish a dedicated Office of Novel Therapeutics within the VA to ensure the department is prepared to safely evaluate and implement emerging therapies by establishing centralized governance, workforce readiness planning and clinical implementation infrastructure within the Veterans Health Administration.
Emerging therapeutic interventions, including certain psychedelic-assisted therapies currently under FDA review, may significantly change how conditions such as PTSD, treatment-resistant depression, substance use disorders, traumatic brain injury and chronic pain are treated. These therapies often require intensive clinical oversight, interdisciplinary care teams and structured preparation and integration that differ from traditional outpatient care.
The bill aims to ensure the VA is prepared to safely implement emerging mental health treatments as they become available; strengthen coordination between research, clinical operations, and workforce training within VA; position the VA to lead the responsible evaluation and implementation of innovative therapies for veterans with complex mental health and brain health conditions; and help ensure veterans can access emerging treatments within VA's integrated healthcare system rather than relying on costly or fragmented care externally.
The legislation is supported by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) and Disabled American Veterans (DAV).
"As innovation in alternative therapies accelerates and studies on their effectiveness show increasingly clear results, our healthcare system has not kept pace and veterans are the ones paying the price: physically, mentally, and too often, financially. After 20 years of war, the post-9/11 generation is still carrying invisible and visible wounds, and we owe them access to the most effective care available today, not years from now. We welcome the VHA Novel Therapeutics Preparedness Act, which lays the foundation needed to responsibly deliver breakthrough treatments to veterans effectively and efficiently. After two decades of war, we owe them more than promises -we owe them delivery. This legislation moves innovation into real access for veterans now and we applaud this meaningful action," said IAVA CEO Dr. Kyleanne Hunter.
"Veterans suffering from PTSD, treatment-resistant depression, and other complex mental health conditions deserve access to the most promising emerging therapies -and they deserve a VA that is prepared to deliver them safely and effectively. This legislation takes a critical step by building the necessary infrastructure, workforce capacity, and clinical standards before these therapies arrive -not after. We thank Sens. Sheehy, Boozman, Duckworth, and Gallego for their leadership on this important legislation, which will help ensure veterans can access cutting-edge treatments when they need them most -especially as they transition from the battlefield, rather than decades later," said DAV Washington Headquarters Executive Director Jim Marszalek.
***
Original text here: https://www.boozman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=0C42451F-A9CF-4B2C-A116-9757CFCE50B4
CBO Issues Cost Estimate for Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act
WASHINGTON, April 8 -- The Congressional Budget Office issued the following cost estimate for the Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act (H.R. 2130).* * *
H.R. 2130 would require the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to process and review mortgage packages involving property located on tribal land held in trust by deadlines specified in the bill. The bill also would establish a position within BIA to serve as an intermediary between the bureau and tribes, tribal members, and lenders.
In addition, the bill would require BIA to provide federal agencies and Indian tribes with access to relevant land ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 8 -- The Congressional Budget Office issued the following cost estimate for the Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act (H.R. 2130). * * * H.R. 2130 would require the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to process and review mortgage packages involving property located on tribal land held in trust by deadlines specified in the bill. The bill also would establish a position within BIA to serve as an intermediary between the bureau and tribes, tribal members, and lenders. In addition, the bill would require BIA to provide federal agencies and Indian tribes with access to relevant landdocuments from the Trust Asset and Accounting Management System. Finally, H.R. 2130 would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to report to the Congress about the digitization of documents related to mortgages on tribal land.
Using information from the Department of the Interior, CBO expects that the agency would need three employees at an average annual cost of $130,000 per employee in 2026. On that basis, and accounting for anticipated inflation, CBO estimates it would cost BIA $2 million over the 2026 2031 period to implement those requirements. Based on the costs of similar activities, CBO estimates that the cost to GAO to complete the report would not be significant. Any related spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
On May, 28, 2025, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 723, the Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act of 2025, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on March 5, 2025. The two bills are similar, and CBO's estimates of their budgetary effects are the same.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Julia Aman. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel, Director, Congressional Budget Office
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2026-04/hr2130.pdf
Blackburn, Cortez Masto Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Support Young Entrepreneurs
WASHINGTON, April 8 -- Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee, issued the following news release:* * *
Blackburn, Cortez Masto Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Support Young Entrepreneurs
*
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) introduced legislation to connect students enrolled in 21 st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) with mentors from the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) to develop their professional skills in entrepreneurship.
CCLC is a federal program that supports local afterschool and summer learning programs ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 8 -- Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee, issued the following news release: * * * Blackburn, Cortez Masto Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Support Young Entrepreneurs * NASHVILLE, Tenn. - U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) introduced legislation to connect students enrolled in 21 st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) with mentors from the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) to develop their professional skills in entrepreneurship. CCLC is a federal program that supports local afterschool and summer learning programsfor students with high potential at under-resourced schools. SCORE's more than 11,000 volunteer counselors - working or retired business owners - provide business advice to entrepreneurs. Research has shown that exposure to entrepreneurship during childhood increases the likelihood of becoming an entrepreneur as an adult.
"Tennessee is known for having a robust creative and entrepreneurial community," said Senator Blackburn. "The 21 st Century Entrepreneurship Act would ensure that Tennessee's entrepreneurs of tomorrow have someone to guide them today by encouraging entrepreneurship that results in the creation of new jobs, fosters economic growth, and improves quality of life."
"A child's zip code shouldn't determine whether they are exposed to the mentors that can help them develop the skills to become innovators and business owners," said Senator Cortez Masto. "This legislation will help young entrepreneurs in every corner of the Silver State get the advice and training they need to drive Nevada's future."
BACKGROUND
* The 21 st Century Entrepreneurship Act would require the Small Business Administration (SBA) to develop an entrepreneurship curriculum for CCLC and encourage SCORE volunteers to partner with local chapters to provide training and mentorship.
* It would also amend the Small Business Act and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to ensure these partnerships fall within the mission of each agency.
Click here for bill text.
***
Original text here: https://www.blackburn.senate.gov/2026/4/jobs/blackburn-cortez-masto-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-to-support-young-entrepreneurs
American Legion Director Lyle Testifies Before House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, April 8 -- The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations released the following written testimony by Cole Lyle, director of the Legislative Division at the American Legion, from a March 25, 2026, hearing on legislation to improve software management, fiscal oversight and employee benefits:* * *
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LEGISLATION ... POSITION
H.R. 6654: The Veterans Affairs Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act (Mace) Pg. 3 ... Support w/ Amendments
H.R. 7280: The Veteran DATA Act (Budzinski) Pg. 4 ... Support w/ Amendments
H.R. 7319: The VA Bonus ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 8 -- The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations released the following written testimony by Cole Lyle, director of the Legislative Division at the American Legion, from a March 25, 2026, hearing on legislation to improve software management, fiscal oversight and employee benefits: * * * EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEGISLATION ... POSITION H.R. 6654: The Veterans Affairs Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act (Mace) Pg. 3 ... Support w/ Amendments H.R. 7280: The Veteran DATA Act (Budzinski) Pg. 4 ... Support w/ Amendments H.R. 7319: The VA Bonusand Relocation Recovery Act (Self) Pg. 6 ... Support w/ Amendments
H.R. 7683: The VA Fiscal Management Modernization Act (Bergman) Pg. 7 ... Support
Discussion Draft: The Vets CLEAR Act Pg. 8 ... Support w/ Amendments
Discussion Draft: The Veterans Affairs Subcontractor Competition and Opportunity Network Act (King-Hinds) Pg. 9 ... Support w/ Amendments
Discussion Draft: To amend title 38, United States Code, to require that certain sterile processing technicians of the Veterans Health Administration hold appropriate professional certifications, and for other purposes (Kiggans) Pg. 11 ... Support w/ Amendments
Discussion Draft: To prohibit the downgrading of law enforcement positions in the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes (Budzinski) Pg. 13 ... Support
The provisions of the following legislation on the agenda fall outside the scope of established resolutions of The American Legion. As a member-driven and resolution-based organization, The American Legion takes positions on legislation based on resolutions passed by membership.
Therefore, we have no position on the following:
LEGISLATION ... POSITION
Discussion Draft: to amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the rate of pay for care or services provided under the Community Care Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs based on the location at which such care or services were provided, and for other purposes ... No Position
Discussion Draft: To establish an entitlement to a supplemental period of unpaid parental leave for employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs ... No Position
Discussion Draft: To deem certain individuals as parents of Department of Veterans Affairs employees for purposes of determining entitlement to certain family and medical leave for such employees ... No Position
Discussion Draft: To amend title 38, to establish the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs in the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes ... No Position
* * *
Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Ramirez, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of National Commander Dan K. Wiley and more than 1.5 million dues-paying members of The American Legion, we thank you for the opportunity to offer our written testimony regarding proposed legislation.
The American Legion is guided by active Legionnaires who dedicate their time and resources to serve veterans, service members, their families, and caregivers. As a resolution-based organization, our positions are directed by more than 107 years of advocacy and resolutions that originate at the post level of our organization. Every time The American Legion testifies, we offer a direct voice from the veteran community to Congress.
H.R. 6654: The Veterans Affairs Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act
To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish and implement a comprehensive policy for managing software assets throughout the Department, and for other purposes.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) uses a wide variety of software to support its daily operations, ranging from standard Microsoft Office products to the Oracle Cerner software modernized electronic health record (EHR) system suite. These software licenses, services, and systems cost VA, through the Office of Information and Technology (OIT), approximately $21 billion from fiscal year (FY) 2022 through 2024./1
A May 2025 VA Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found "For its most widely used software, VA didn't track the number of licenses in use to compare to the number purchased. As a result, VA could be buying too many or too few licenses and incurring unnecessary costs. VA did not have guidance for effectively managing the effects of restrictive licensing practices."2
In response to the GAO findings and the lack of oversight, the Veterans Affairs Management and Oversight of Software Assets (VAMOSA) Act seeks to save money in VA software spending by requiring VA to create a complete, thorough inventory of software and software licenses, as well as flag redundant purchases for elimination.
* * *
1 "Veterans Affairs: Actions Needed to Address Software License Challenges." US Government Accountability Office, May 19, 2025. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-108475.
2 Ibid
* * *
This will ensure that VA is not inadvertently overspending on licenses, allow VA Central Office (VACO) to be aware of the assets currently in their possession, and centralize software acquisitions through VA Chief Information Officer (CIO) to help reduce future redundancies. Annual training for VA employees involved in software procurement and management would be required, with a completed annual report provided to Congress outlining the program's costs and potential savings. Additionally, GAO must conduct an audit of the program within three years.
The implemented changes would require significant investment in staff time and administrative effort to effectively inventory software assets and eliminate redundancies before any resultant cost savings is realized. Therefore, it would be helpful to identify the most appropriate and efficient pipeline for this information to flow to the VA CIO's office. Based on The Legion's System Worth Saving (SWS) and Regional Office Action Review (ROAR) program site visits, it would be unwise to prescribe a specific title of individual at every location, due to differences in operational management, but the GAO report should include a detailed explanation of this effort to give Congress a best practice for such a large data pull at VA. Overall, the legislation would lead to long-term cost savings for VA, making the effort worth the staff investment.
The American Legion can support this legislation through Resolution No. 25: Reviews of the Department of Veterans Affairs Programs. Resolution No. 25 states in the interest of "minimizing fraud, waste, and abuse in [VA] programs, activities and functions" that The American Legion should monitor GAO reports and make recommendations.3 The American Legion believes the legislation reduces waste at VA and will benefit the veteran community.
The American Legion supports H.R. 6654 with amendments.
H.R. 7280: The Veteran DATA Act
To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from entering into a contract pursuant to which the contractor may sell sensitive personal information maintained by the Secretary and to ensure the protection of personal information in certain contracts of the Department.
Data privacy is a key concern among Americans in the information era. VA's data privacy standards are outdated, with the most important ones being from The Privacy Act of 1974 and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).4 Unfortunately, these have not kept up with the demands of the digital era. While VA has more modern data privacy guidelines in place, many of these guidelines are set by "Principles" and not codified into law.5 This creates a gap in oversight whereby a veteran's data could be shared with third-party vendors and subsequently transferred or commercialized beyond the original intent.
* * *
3 "Resolution No. 25: Reviews of the Department of Veterans Affairs Programs." The American Legion, 14 October 2015. https://archive.legion.org/node/3314
4 "What VA Is Doing to Protect Your Privacy." US Department of Veterans Affairs, October 2, 2025. https://department.va.gov/privacy/fact-sheet/what-va-is-doing-to-protect-your-privacy/#:~:text=Also%2C%20the%20HIPAA%20Privacy%20Rule,know%E2%80%9D%20is%20a%20privacy%2 0violation.
5 "Sec. 0.605 Ethical Framework Principles for Access to and Use of Veteran Data." Federal Register. Accessed March 12, 2026. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-38/chapter-I/part-0/subpart-A/section-0.605.
* * *
We have seen evidence of companies allegedly exploiting systems that allow patient medical records to be shared across healthcare providers to claim they needed access to records for treatment purposes. Instead, the information was sold by a subcontractor for uses by the company. Further, AI has demonstrated an ability to identify specific names and associated records within anonymized data sets. A 2022 GAO report on data privacy in the US highlighted "The U.S. doesn't have a comprehensive privacy law governing the collection, use, or sale of personal data. Existing federal consumer protection laws may not be enough. Our past reports include recommendations for consumer data collection and associated growing privacy risks."6 More recently, a 2026 VA OIG report found that VA's National Cancer Prevention, Treatment, and Research Program had improperly shared a data file containing a "significant amount of data containing protected health information" with non-VHA investigators, further highlighting data privacy concerns at VA.7
Data privacy is an ever-evolving challenge, and VA must remain vigilant to protect veteran data against bad actors. The American Legion spoke to this subcommittee about this issue in June of 2025. In an exchange regarding the increased sophistication and complexity of scams against veterans, The American Legion replied with the following:
"...the FTC has noted a recent uptick in identity theft and other forms of financial crimes in the military and veteran communities. I will also just note that per the Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book, most recent report released this year, the military community lost 25 percent more by scammers for year 2024 than the year before, totaling up to a $584 million loss."8
The American Legion believes partnership with leading industry partners is essential to innovate and create better systems for improved access and quality of healthcare and benefits for veterans, but it should not be at the expense of the veterans themselves. The Veteran Data Accountability for Third-party Actors (DATA) Act protects medical data by requiring VA to update all contracts with vendors to include a clause that prohibits veteran data from being monetized, sold, or misused by any contractor. It also requires VA to establish guidelines for employees and contractors on how to identify breaches in this policy. Finally, it requires a report on the program by the VA Secretary to the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs committees.
The American Legion appreciates the intent of the proposed legislation. However, our underlying assumption was if VA enters into contractual agreements with companies there would have been a stipulation that clearly prohibits the use of veteran data and the trends discovered therein for monetary gain. If VA provides evidence these contracts include such protections under existing law, forcing VA to renegotiate all existing contracts to ensure compliance would be unnecessary.
* * *
6 "Consumer Data: Increasing Use Poses Risks to Privacy." US Government Accountability Office, September 13, 2022. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-106096.
7 "Review of Data Security and Oversight Processes of a Veterans Health Administration National Cancer Prevention, Treatment, and Research Program." Department of Veterans Affairs, January 29, 2026. https://www.vaoig.gov/reports/national-healthcare-review/review-data-security-and-oversight-processes-veteranshealth.
8 "Testimony of Cole T. Lyle, Director, The American Legion Hearing of the Committees on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, United States House of Representatives." Legion.org. The American Legion, June 11, 2026. https://www.legion.org/getmedia/9898caf9-ea48-4fa3-aca7-b57e15188f1b/20250611HVAC-OI-TAL-Testimony.pdf
* * *
The American Legion can support this bill through Resolution No. 15: Protecting Privacy of Veterans' Personnel Files and Records. Resolution No. 15 supports strict enforcement of all existing federal regulations and rights concerning data privacy.9 This legislation would codify VA internal rules and regulations to protect veteran data privacy.
The American Legion supports H.R. 7280 with amendments.
H.R. 7319: The VA Bonus and Relocation Recovery Act
To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to recoup amounts of awards, bonuses, and relocation expenses paid to former employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs under certain conditions.
Under Section 721 of Title 38, VA can recoup bonuses paid to employees if it later discovers misconduct or poor performance. However, the statute only applies to current VA employees.10 As a result, VA is unable to recover improperly awarded bonuses from employees whose performance or misconduct led to their termination. The statute also leaves VA unable to recover awarded bonuses from employees who voluntarily separate before the misconduct is known.
The VA Bonus and Relocation Recovery Act would amend Title 38 to make it clear that VA can recoup bonuses and relocation expenses from former employees. VA would have power to recoup relocation expenses or benefits from separated employees, so long as the Secretary has determined the previously made payment(s) would not have been made if the individual's misconduct or poor performance had been known at the time of the payments.11 The statute of limitations for VA recouping bonuses would fall under Title 28, which sets the limitation for such actions at six years.12
The American Legion is mildly concerned about the potential misuse of this authority, as there is no appeal mechanism or protection for the individual who received the bonus before being referred to Treasury Cross-Servicing for debt collection. The American Legion recommends amending the legislation to include clear and straightforward standards to ensure there is due process and appropriate protections for employees. Additionally, the six-year statute of limitation to adjudicate wrongdoing is unreasonably long. The American Legion recommends adding an amendment to clearly outline a more appropriate time restriction, such as two to three years.
* * *
9 "Resolution No. 15: Protecting Privacy of Veterans' Personnel Files and Records." The American Legion, October 12, 1966. https://archive.legion.org/node/2687.
10 "38 U.S. Code Sec. 721 - Recoupment of Bonuses or Awards Paid to Employees of Department." Legal Information Institute. Accessed March 12, 2026. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/721.
11 "H.R.7319 - VA Bonus and Relocation Recovery Act." Congress.gov, February 2, 2026. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1974/text/ih?overview=closed&format=xml.
12 "28 U.S. Code Sec. 2415 - Time for Commencing Actions Brought by the United States." Legal Information Institute. Accessed March 13, 2026. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2415.
* * *
The American Legion can support the proposal using Resolution No. 22: Department of Veterans Affairs Executive Bonus Accountability. Resolution No. 22 states VA should "revamp their executive bonus program, providing reasonable bonuses only for recruiting purposes or quantifiable improvements, including, but not limited to, improvements to veteran health, VA processes and for judicious allocation of resources."13 The American Legion also supports the legislation using Resolution No. 20: Improved Oversight, Accountability and Transparency of the Department of Veterans Affairs, which states that Congress should ensure proper oversight and accountability at VA, including holding employees swiftly accountable.14
The American Legion supports H.R. 7319 with amendments.
H.R. 7683: The VA Fiscal Management Modernization Act
To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify and expand the authority of the Assistant Secretary for Management of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
VA has historically struggled with financial management. For years, auditors from OIG and GAO have flagged material weaknesses in VA's financial statements, and Congress has grown increasingly frustrated with the quality and reliability of budget data produced by VA. A contributing factor to these challenges lies within the authority of VA's Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Under existing law, VA's CFO is limited to two statutory duties and is not provided with a formal organizational structure to operate.15 Legislation was passed to address these limitations in 2020, but key provisions were written to sunset, thereby undermining potential for meaningful reform.16
The proposed legislation officially names VA's Assistant Secretary for Management as the CFO, clarifying their authority and removing potential misinterpretation. The legislation expands the CFO's statutory authority from two duties to seven, adds two Deputy Assistant Secretary positions to the Office of Management, and creates a Legislative and Congressional Budget Office with fulltime staff. Perhaps most importantly, the legislation would require all lower-ranked CFOs VAwide to report directly to the VACO CFO, instead of reporting to the leadership within VHA and VBA.
A VA that cannot accurately track and report its own finances will keep falling short in planning and delivering the care and benefits that veterans have earned. It is vital that VA's CFO has the proper authority and resources to carry out its responsibilities and remain financially solvent.
Inaccurate budget data can lead to inadequate funding for programs that provide vital services for the veteran population. Real people rely on these resources, and it is imperative that Congress is operating from accurate data to equip VA to be effective and fiscally responsible.
* * *
13 "Resolution No. 22: Department of Veterans Affairs Executive Bonus Accountability" The American Legion, 8 October 2025. https://archive.legion.org/node/17166
14 "Resolution No. 20: Improved Oversight, Accountability and Transparency of the Department of Veterans Affairs" The American Legion, 8 October 2025. https://archive.legion.org/node/17164
15 "38 U.S. Code Sec. 309 - Chief Financial Officer." Legal Information Institute, n.d. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/309.
16 Public law 116-315--Jan. 5, 2021 Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D., n.d. https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ315/PLAW-116publ315.pdf.
* * *
The American Legion can support this legislation through three resolutions: Resolution No. 1: Department of Veterans Affairs Quadrennial Plan for Budget, Resolution No. 194: Department of Veterans Affairs Veteran Integrated Service, and Resolution No. 178: Assured Funding for VA Medical Care. Together, these resolutions call for careful and transparent management of the VA budget. A CFO with clearly defined statutory authority, a properly structured chain of command over subordinate financial officers, and a dedicated office to provide certified budget data to Congress form the institutional foundation necessary for VA to make accurate and reliable budget requests; and to ensure that assured funding commitments are meaningful.
The American Legion supports H.R. 7683 as written.
Discussion Draft: The Vets CLEAR Act
To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the efficiency of the recovery and collection of revenue for the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care Collections Fund, and for other purposes.
The VA Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF) is one of the primary mechanisms for VA to bill private insurance, third-party coverage, or collect copays for care provided to veterans. If a veteran with private insurance goes to a VA medical center for treatment regarding a non-serviceconnected injury, VA is authorized to bill the veteran's insurance to recover costs for services rendered. In FY2021, the fund had outlays that exceeded $250 million and ended the year with an unobligated balance of $56 million from these dual revenue streams.17 Since FY2021, the MCCF has maintained an unobligated balance of $16,860,735, which has been carried over to this year.18 Presumably, the Secretary had authority to use these funds under Public Law No: 116-136, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act or CARES Act of 2020, with sunset provisions in place disallowing the Secretary to obligate the approximately $17 million left in the MCCF.
The American Legion supports the intent of this legislation, and welcomes the inclusion of litigation settlements recouped into the MCCF, but the draft text leaves more questions than answers. Primarily, Section 2(c)(1) reads, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds directed to the 'medical services' account to reimburse such account for the costs of care provided under the following authorities may, at the discretion of the Secretary, be deposited in the Medical Care Collections Fund: (A) Section 1781 of this title. (B) Section 8111 of this title." The phrasing of this section could be interpreted in the following ways:
* * *
17 "Medical Care Collections Fund, Veterans Affairs." USASpending.gov, U.S. Department of Treasury https://www.usaspending.gov/federal_account/036-5287
18 Ibid
* * *
1. The costs for any medical care, services, or medications provided through CHAMPVA or TRICARE that could otherwise been covered through a third-party payer can be recouped and placed into the MCCF, or
2. The costs for any medical care, services, or medications provided through VA that could otherwise been covered through a third-party payer can be recouped, placed into the MCCF, and allocated specifically to CHAMPVA and TRICARE.
Additionally, the phrase "'medical services' account" in Section 2(c)(1) could be more clearly assigned to a specific program or medical services appropriations line item, such as general "Medical Services," or "Medical Community Care," and specify if the money will go to clinical staff salaries, pharmacy, prosthetics, or medical equipment. The American Legion highly recommends that the subcommittee clarify this section of the proposal so that there is no room for misinterpretation, considering recouped funds could exceed $100 million or more.
Another more concerning aspect of the proposal surrounds the seeming lack of authority to spend the additional revenue from Sections 1781 or 8111. The American Legion understands there is clearly a challenge in obligating funds from this account, since it has been sitting untouched for over five years, but we cannot surmise from the language provided how the proposal aims at solving the problem.
Again, The American Legion supports the intent of the proposal and want to ensure that VA has avenues to offset costs from services rendered but highly recommends amendments to the language to ensure that the aim of the proposal is clear.
The American Legion supports this legislation through three resolutions. Resolution No. 27: The American Legion Policy on the Department of Veterans Affairs Billing of Private Insurance, Resolution No. 138: Support Medicare Reimbursement for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Resolution No. 372: Oppose Closing or Privatization of Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System.
The American Legion supports this draft legislation with amendments.
Discussion Draft: The Veterans Affairs Subcontractor Competition and Opportunity Network (VA SUBCON) Act
To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish and maintain a database of certified veteran-owned small businesses and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses to assist the Department of Veterans Affairs in meeting its subcontracting goals, and for other purposes.
The American Legion supports the underlying intent of H.R. 7795, the Veterans Affairs Subcontractor Competition and Opportunity Network (VA SUBCON) Act. As noted in our March 2026 testimony, Congress must hold agencies accountable for meeting prime and subcontracting procurement spending goals. We recognize that prime contractors often need practical tools to formulate their required small business subcontracting plans, and this legislation seeks to help bridge that gap.
According to the FY 2024 Small Business Administration scorecard, the federal government awarded 5.14 percent of contracts to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs). 19 While this narrowly meets the newly raised 5 percent government-wide goal established by section 863 of the FY 2024 NDAA, The American Legion's National Commander, Dan K. Wiley, informed Congress during annual testimony that SDVOSB contracting performance remained uneven across federal agencies and that more consistent implementation was needed to ensure fair access to sole-source opportunities.20
The proposed legislation would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a database intended to improve visibility and use of veteran-owned and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses in VA subcontracting. The bill specifically contemplates making that database available to other than small business offerors on Department contracts, including subcontracts, at appropriate stages of the acquisition process so prime contractors can use it when formulating required small business subcontracting plans. Not later than 180 days after the database is established, the bill would also require a report on the use and outcomes of that database. In addition, the bill would exclude firms participating in mentor-protege programs or joint ventures, as well as firms that have not received at least two prime contracts with a rating of "satisfactory" or better in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The VA SUBCON Act proposes more than a simple directory; it would create a targeted, performance-screened database designed to give prime contractors a narrower pool of veteran firms for subcontracting. While that may improve confidence in the firms included, it may also limit access for newer veteran-owned businesses that have not yet developed a sufficient past performance record.
The American Legion supports this legislation with amendments to maximize its impact. We do not believe this tool should be housed with primary jurisdiction at VA. Instead, we urge the Committee to revise the bill so VA utilizes, and potentially augments, the Small Business Administration's existing database. As currently drafted, the bill is structured around offerors on Department contracts, so its practical use is limited to VA procurement unless Congress broadens the bill's scope. Since SBA already administers veteran business certification and maintains related contractor search and procurement infrastructure, this approach would reduce duplication and better align the bill with the current federal small business framework.
Finally, we must express our concern regarding the implementation requirements of the current draft. The bill directs VA to establish and maintain this new database using only existing personnel, systems, and funds, while prohibiting any additional appropriations. If the previously mentioned revision is not made, creating and maintaining a highly specific database is a significant undertaking, and this unfunded mandate may hinder the agency's ability to build and manage the system effectively.
* * *
19 U.S. Small Business Administration. FY24 Scorecard: Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) Factsheet. 2025.
20 "Testimony Dan K. Wiley, National Commander, The American Legion Joint Hearing of the Committees on Veterans' Affairs United States Senate and United States House of Representatives." Legion.Org. The American Legion, March 4, 2026. https://www.legion.org/advocacy/legislative/legislative-testimony.
* * *
We are also concerned that the bill's exclusion of mentor-protege participants, joint ventures, and firms without at least two satisfactory prime contract ratings may limit visibility for some veteran-owned businesses at the subcontracting plan development stage, which could in turn reduce their likelihood of being considered for future subcontracting opportunities. For that reason, we support the bill's intent, but believe targeted amendments are necessary to ensure the tool is effective, scalable, and inclusive.
The American Legion can support the legislation through Resolution No. 21: Support Reasonable Set-Aside of Federal Procurements and Contracts21 and Resolution No. 22: Federal Procurements and Contracts for Veteran-Owned Business.22
The American Legion supports the draft legislation with amendments.
Discussion Draft:
To amend title 38, United States Code, to require that certain sterile processing technicians of the Veterans Health Administration hold appropriate professional certifications, and for other purposes
The importance of sterilization in hospitals, especially surgical equipment, cannot be overstated.
When reusable medical equipment (RME) is not properly cleaned between procedures, the consequences can be dire. One in 31 hospital patients have at least one Healthcare-Associated Infection (HAI), and in 2015 about 72,000 hospital patients with HAIs died during their hospitalizations.23 The US hospital system has had tremendous improvements in recent years in preventing HAIs, and in 2024, the rate of HAIs were reduced by up to 11 percent depending on the strain of infection.24 To address these serious risks, this draft proposal requires sterile processing technicians of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to hold independent professional certifications.
The modern VHA policies regarding sterile processing began in 2009 when it was discovered that VAMCs located in Murfreesboro, TN and Augusta, GA exposed at least 10,555 veterans to Reactive Infectious Mucocutaneous (RME) infections. Of those veterans, at least 17 contracted serious illnesses, including Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and HIV.25
The GAO report following the incident found systemic problems within the VA sterilization program stemming from a decentralized approach, allowing each VAMC to dictate their own standards.26 The lack of standardization led to inconsistent sterilization procedures within the VA system. GAO made several recommendations, including a centralized training program and oversight by the Under Secretary for Health.27 VA implemented all recommendations and developed the Office of Sterile Processing (OSP).
* * *
21 "Resolution No. 21: Support Reasonable Set-Aside of Federal Procurements and Contracts" The American Legion, 17 October 2018. https://archive.legion.org/node/3433
22 "Resolution No. 22: Federal Procurements and Contracts for Veteran-Owned Business" The American Legion, 4 May 2022. https://archive.legion.org/node/7913
23 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Data Portal: Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAI)." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/healthcare-associated-infections/php/data/index.html. Accessed 11 Mar. 2026.
24 Ibid
25 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, "VA Continues Notification Process for Veterans Affected by Reprocessing Issues," press release, April 3, 2009, https://news.va.gov/press-room/va-continues-notification-process-for-veteransaffected-by-reprocessing-issues/.
* * *
Through OSP, VA offers internal certification for Sterile Processing technicians, detailed in VHA Directive 1116(2).28 The directive requires non-entry level sterile processing technicians to obtain either internal VA certification or independent accredited certification. If implemented, the draft bill would require the VA to either eliminate their internal certification or seek external accreditation for the program. If VA does not pursue accreditation, the program could be salvaged as a training and standardization program.
Externally verified certification is important for three primary reasons: transparency, portability, and accountability. The current requirements of the VA certification program are not publicly accessible and require a VA login to view. In contrast, information on the leading accredited certification through the Healthcare Sterile Processing Association is freely available.29 In addition, VHA certification is non-transferable, and employees who rely on the certification for their employment can only be employed by VA. Finally, without independent review, it is not possible to confirm if the VHA program is consistent with current best practices.
Regardless of the need for sterilization staff, the reality is that the starting salary for sterile processing technician positions is $27,708 per year.30,31 It is unrealistic to require low-wage employees to fund the certification that is required upon employment and create a financial barrier to entry. While most VA facilities will reimburse certification, it is not required. In addition, this certification is not required by most states, and enacting a national requirement through VA will inadvertently reduce the candidate pool in areas with different certification requirements. Current VA directives provide new employees with a one-year period to obtain certification. These barriers to certification, combined with low salaries, are the primary reason VHA internal certification is necessary and should not be removed without careful consideration.
The American Legion strongly recommends the inclusion of the following amendments:
1. The Secretary shall pay, or reimburse expenses of, such certification under 5 USC Sec.4109: Expenses of training, or another identified mechanism, with an additional service requirement.
2. Certification shall be obtained within one year of employment, and not as a condition of employment.
* * *
26 "VA Health Care: Weaknesses in Policies and Oversight Governing Medical Supplies and Equipment Pose Risks to Veterans' Safety", GAO-11-391, May 3, 2011.
27 Ibid
28 "VHA Directive 1116(2): MANAGEMENT OF CRITICAL AND SEMI-CRITICAL REUSABLE MEDICAL DEVICES", Veterans Health Administration, July 17, 2023.
29 "Certification Overview", Healthcare Sterile Processing Association, accessed March 12, 2026, https://myhspa.org/certification/certification-overview/
30 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "Medical Supply Aide and Technician Series, 0622," General Schedule Qualification Standards, accessed March 13, 2026
31 General Schedule Salary Tables, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, accessed March 13, 2026
* * *
Sterilization technicians are a critical and necessary part of modern medical care, and the practice deserves as much attention as other healthcare positions which require professional accreditation.
The American Legion can support this legislation through Resolution No. 20: National Standards of Practice which requires the evaluation and application of NSPs to be consistent with providing the best care possible to veterans.
The American Legion supports the draft legislation with amendments.
Discussion Draft:
To prohibit the downgrading of law enforcement positions in the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes
VA has struggled with the recruitment and retention of critical employees across multiple veterans' healthcare administration (VHA) facilities. The Office of Inspector General's (OIG) 11th report, identifying occupational staffing shortages found that VHA facilities reported 2,959 severe occupational staffing shortages in fiscal year (FY) 2024./32
Of the top five occupational VHA shortages, law enforcement positions rank third, with a 43% Shortage rate in 2024./33
VA has seen a rise in safety-related incidents. Most recently, a VA employee was tragically killed during a shooting at the VA Clinic in Jasper, GA. Law enforcement was critical in responding to the scene, neutralizing the shooter, and preventing further loss of life. VA has also seen an increase in incidents of violence, sexual harassment, and sexual assault on campus.34 In 2023, The American Legion testified before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation in support of legislation mandating increased reporting on safety incidents at VA, specifically citing severe staffing issues related to VA police.35 At the time, a 33 percent vacancy rate for police officers across 70 medical facilities was a major cause for concern.36
The draft legislation will prohibit any attempt to propose, initiate, or carry out a position downgrade for VA positions that carry out law enforcement functions. This includes, but is not limited to, a reduction in salary or grade to better align with the Office of Personnel and Management's standards for a comparable equivalent. VA facilities are struggling to compete with comparable private sector law enforcement positions and any reduction to VHA law enforcement salary would only further exacerbate ongoing recruitment and retention challenges. Should VA be forced to eventually rely on local municipalities or counties for security, it would likely cost VA more money, and those authorities would not have the same level of training or the authority to intervene with veteran patients in the same manner as VA police. If VA wants to remain the center of care for the veteran community, it needs to be a safe and welcoming environment. VA police, most of whom are also veterans, provide expertise and professionalism essential to creating such an environment. VA police save lives and need Congress's investment now more than ever.
* * *
32 VA OIG Determination of Veterans Health Administration's Severe Occupational Staffing Shortages Fiscal Year 2023, 12 August 2025. https://www.vaoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2024-08/vaoig-24-00803-222.pdf.
33 Ibid
34 Annual Report to Congress on Reporting and Tracking Harassment, Sexual Assault Incidents, and Other Safety Incidents Occurring in Facilities of the Department. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. March 2024 https://drive.google.com/file/d/199GA44WhRRQMEUMPF61BDAKpocSSggys/view
35 The American Legion, Legion Voices Heard In New Congress, April 03, 2023, Accessed March 18, 2026. https://www.legion.org/information-center/news/legislative/2023/april/legion-voices-heard-in-new-congress
36 VA OIG Determination of Veterans Health Administration's Severe Occupational Staffing Shortages Fiscal Year 2023, 12 August 2025. https://www.vaoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2024-08/vaoig-24-00803-222.pdf.
* * *
The American Legion supports this legislation through Resolution No. 20: Oppose Efforts to Downgrade Low-Level Wage Positions within the Department of Veterans Affairs.37
The American Legion supports this legislation as currently written.
CONCLUSION
Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Ramirez, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, The American Legion thanks you for your leadership and for allowing us the opportunity to provide feedback on legislation.
The American Legion looks forward to continuing this work with the Committee and providing the feedback we receive from our membership. Questions concerning this testimony can be directed to Bailey Bishop, Deputy Legislative Director, at b.bishop@legion.org.
* * *
37 "Resolution No. 20: Oppose Efforts to Downgrade Low-Level Wage Positions within the Department of Veterans Affairs." American Legion - Digital Archive, n.d. https://archive.legion.org/node/3351.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR08/20260325/119102/HHRG-119-VR08-Wstate-LyleC-20260325.pdf
Acting Deputy Assistant Under Secretary for Health Wiechers Testifies Before House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, April 8 -- The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations released the following testimony by Ilse Wiechers,acting deputy assistant under secretary for health for patient care services at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration, from a March 25, 2026, hearing on VA programs and benefits legislation:
* * *
Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Ramirez, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 12 bills focused on various VA programs and benefits. Accompanying me today are Mr. Rondy Waye, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 8 -- The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations released the following testimony by Ilse Wiechers, acting deputy assistant under secretary for health for patient care services at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration, from a March 25, 2026, hearing on VA programs and benefits legislation: * * * Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Ramirez, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 12 bills focused on various VA programs and benefits. Accompanying me today are Mr. Rondy Waye,Executive Director for Human Capital Programs, the Office of Human Resources and Administration, and Mr. Jeffrey Neill, PMP, CFCM, Associate Executive Director, Technology Acquisition Center, Office of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction.
H.R. 6654 The Veterans Affairs Management and Oversight of Software Assets (VAMOSA) Act
Summary: Section 2(a) of this bill would amend title 38, United States Code, by adding a new section 534 titled, "Department-wide software asset management policy." New section 534 (a) establishes that the VA Secretary shall ensure coordination between the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and such other officers as the Secretary considers appropriate to establish and implement a comprehensive policy for managing software assets.
New section 534 (b) provides for minimum policy elements, including: (1) maintaining a comprehensive inventory of software assets; (2) assessing interoperability and license restrictions with respect to those assets; (3) identifying and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, by regularly comparing the inventory maintained under (b)(1) against purchase records, subscription records, vendor billing records, and contract files to identify discrepancies, overprocurement, redundant purchases, unauthorized use, and under-utilized licenses; (4) requiring that the CIO coordinate with the relevant VA officials regarding any significant acquisition of a software asset; (5) adopting cost effective licensing strategies including enterprise-wide agreements where practicable; and (6) measuring and enforcing compliance with license terms.
New section 534 (c) requires that the CIO, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and any other appropriate VA officials, review and update the policy not less than once every 3 years.
New section 534(d) details a training requirement, in that the Secretary shall ensure that each VA employee responsible for acquiring, managing, or implementing software assets receives training no less often than annually on matters relevant to their duties. Such duties include: (1) negotiating contract terms to minimize vendor-imposed restrictions on deployment, data access, and transferability; (2) the differences between acquiring commercial software and custom software development; and (3) evaluating cost models for seat-based, consumption-based, enterprise, or scalable license structures.
New section 534 (e) requires that existing personnel, systems, and funds are used in implementing this Act. This section does not authorize additional appropriations or the establishment of a new program, office, or organizational entity.
New section 534 (f) details an annual reporting requirement to Congress under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 529. The annual report will contain: (1) a description of any substantive updates to the policy made during the preceding year; and (2) an estimate of cost savings realized from implementation of the policy during the preceding year.
New section 534 (g) provides definitions for the terms "comprehensive inventory of software assets" and "software assets." 'The definition for comprehensive inventory of software assets includes (A)(i) the comprehensive inventory of software licenses required by section 2(b)(2)(A) of the Making Electronic Government Accountable By Yielding Tangible Efficiencies Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-3 210; 40 U.S.C. 11302 note) and any directive issued by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under that Act; and (ii) a comprehensive inventory of all other software assets (as defined in this section); and (B) reflects all accounts, subscriptions, tenants, deployments, and associated license or usage entitlements. The definition of 'software asset' means any software, software-as-a-service product, cloud-based service, platform service, or application programming interface service for which VA incurs a cost to acquire, license, subscribe, operate, or maintain, whether hosted on Government-managed or vendor-managed infrastructure. The term includes any associated software license, subscription, usage right, seat entitlement, capacity allocation, or consumption-based entitlement that governs access to or use of such software functionality.
New section 534 (h) provides a sunset period, in which the requirements and authorities of section 534 shall terminate on the date that is 5 years after the date the VAMOSA Act is enacted.
Section 2(b) would amend the Table of Sections by adding the title ''534.
Department-wide software asset management policy," after section 533.
Section 2(c) contains a Government Accountability Office reporting requirement for the Comptroller General to submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. The report will evaluate: (1) VA's implementation of section 534; (2) the cost savings achieved and duplication reduced; and (3) the degree of operational independence and conflict avoidance in any contractor support used to perform inventory management or entitlement reconciliation.
Position: VA supports the intent of this bill but cites the following concerns.
The intent of this act is already accomplished by the Making Electronic Government Accountable by Yielding Tangible Efficiencies (MEGABYTE) Act of 2016 as well as VA Notice 20-09-Interim Policy on Complying with the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) & Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) (2020) and memorandum titled, "Modernizing Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Information and Technology (OIT) Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) Procedures (February 2026). The MEGABYTE Act requires each agency CIO to establish a comprehensive
inventory of software licenses, track and maintain such licenses, analyze software usage to make cost-effective decisions, provide software license management training, establish goals and objectives of the agency's software license management program, and consider the software license management life cycle phases to implement effective decision-making and incorporate existing standards, processes, and metrics. Given the directive of the MEGABYTE Act, VA implemented VA Notice 20-09-Interim Policy on Complying with FITARA & SOP (2020) and memorandum titled "Modernizing Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Information and Technology (OIT) Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) Procedures (February 2026). The existing policy accomplishes the inventory, training, and reporting goals of the proposed legislation.
H.R. XXXX The Veteran Data Accountability for Third-Party Actions Act or the Veteran DATA Act
Summary: This bill would amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the VA Secretary from entering into a contract pursuant to which the contractor may sell sensitive personal information maintained by the VA Secretary and to ensure the protection of personal information in certain contracts of VA.
Section 1 of this bill provides that this Act may be cited as the ''Veteran Data Accountability for Third-party Actors Act'' or the ''Veteran DATA Act.'' Section 2 of this bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5725 to require VA to: (1) change the heading, by striking ''for data processing or maintenance'' and inserting ''involving sensitive personal information''; and (2) add a new subsection at the end titled (d) PROHIBITION OF SALE OF SENSITIVE PERSONAL INFORMATION.--The Secretary may not enter into a contract that permits the contractor to sell (or otherwise disclose for consideration) sensitive personal information to another entity.''
Section 3(a) of this bill would require VA to: (1) ensure that each covered contract either includes, or is modified to include, a clause prohibiting covered information from being monetized, sold, or otherwise misused by any contractor, including any subcontractor or affiliate thereof, or other non-VA entity; and (2) issue a directive or other policy providing guidance to employees and contractors of VA on how to identify the monetization, sale, or misuse of covered information in order to ensure contractors are in compliance with clauses in covered contracts. These aforementioned measures must be completed no later than 1 year after the enactment of this Act.
Section 3(b) contains a reporting requirement for the VA Secretary to submit to the appropriate Congressional committees, which are defined in Section 3(c)(1) as the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The report will be submitted no later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act. The report will include (1) a copy of the contract clause required by subsection (a)(1); (2) the guidance required by subsection (a)(2); and (3) a summary of any other actions taken to comply with subsection (a).
Section 3(c) provides definitions for the terms "appropriate congressional committees," "covered contract," and "covered information." The definition for "appropriate congressional committees" means the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The definition for covered contract means a VA contract that provides for the handling of covered information and is entered into--(A) after the date of the enactment of this Act; or (B) before the date of the enactment of this Act and does not expire before the date of the enactment of this Act. The definition of covered contract means (A) protected health information or personally identifiable information, including such information that has been anonymized; and (B) includes information protected under-- (i) 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a; (ii) 38 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 5701 or 7332; (iii) 45 C.F.R. Parts 160, 161, and 164; and (iv) any other provision of law, as determined by the Secretary.
Position: VA's evaluation of this bill is ongoing but cites the following concerns.
VA believes that the proposed legislation is duplicative because the Department of Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulations (VAAR) clause 85.20471 already covers the DATA Act and is scheduled to be strengthened in the Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul. While the Veteran DATA Act is specific in its prohibition of the sale of sensitive and personal information, the VAAR Clause 85.204-71 does, in fact, cover data custodial requirements by limiting use of such information only for the contract purpose and stipulating that it may not be used in any other way without prior approval (VAAR 85.204-71(f)(1)). The DATA Act includes a provision that requires training on helping employees to identify the monetization of sensitive information, which presents a future revision to be included in the FAR Overhaul.
H.R. XXXX The Reinvesting in Our Veterans Health Act
Summary: To improve the efficiency of the recovery and collection of revenue for the VA Medical Collections Fund.
Position: VA supports this bill but cites the following concern.
VA supports this bill as it closely aligns with one of VA's legislative proposals included in the fiscal year (FY) 2026 President's Budget request, specifically section 105 of the Veterans Health, Benefits, and Administration Programs Act of 2026, as submitted by VA to Congress in December.
Consolidating collections under this authority directs all reimbursed funds into clinical care, enhancing service quality for Veterans and aligning with core goals of health, housing, and economic well-being. Streamlining financial workflows will allow VA to improve fund allocation and better honor its commitment to Veterans.
Placing all collections into the Medical Care Cost Recovery Fund (MCCF) will improve tracking, reporting, and accountability, supporting data-driven decisions and operational excellence.
The proposed amendment to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1729A would authorize VA to deposit funds collected under the 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3711 and 31 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 3729-3733 known as the False Claims Act, into the MCCF to the extent that recoveries are based on medical care, services, or medication provided or paid under this chapter. The amended language also authorizes VA to deposit funds recovered for the costs of care under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veteran Affairs (38 U.S.C. Sec. 1781) as well as amounts reimbursed to VA for care provided to TRICARE beneficiaries by the Department of Defense under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 8111.
The amended language provides that the Secretary's authority to deposit amounts associated with care provided under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1781 and 38 U.S.C. Sec. 8111 would expire on September 30, 2028. VA would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the rationale for including an expiration date for these specific authorities.
H.R. XXXX The VA Bonus and Relocation Recovery Act
Summary: The bill amends 38 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 721 and 723 to explicitly grant the Secretary the authority to recoup awards, bonuses and relocation expenses from former VA employees and establishes authority to collect these monies.
Position: VA's evaluation of this bill is ongoing but cites the following concerns.
Current statutes (38 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 721 and 723) allow the Secretary to recoup awards, bonuses, and relocation expenses from VA employees under certain circumstances. VA policy and Office of Personnel Management regulation related to the appeals process already provide for awards, bonuses, and relocation expenses to be recouped from former VA employees as this interpretation is consistent with the application of other statutory language. For example, certain provisions of title 5 reference the right of employees to file an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board and provisions of title 38 reference the right of certain employees to obtain judicial review of major adverse actions. However, these statutes do not specifically include the term "former employees" despite the provision applying to those employees who have been removed from Federal service and are categorized as former employees. Therefore, while VA has no position on this bill, VA is concerned that this bill may have unintended impacts for former employees in other contexts.
The amended statutes also provide a method by which VA can collect monies from former employees for whom a determination is made that an award, bonus, or relocation expense should not have been paid. The amended language allows VA to collect these monies as it would any other type of debt due to the United States. VA does not need this bill to collect debts due to the United States by former employees. VA has and uses current authorities and processes already in place (including referral to the Department of Treasury for delinquent debts).
VA has concerns whether section 5302 is the relevant section for preventing the Secretary from waiving recovery of a debt due to the United States, as that section applies specifically to benefits under any law administered by the Secretary. Waiving overpayments of pay, allowances, travel, transportation, or relocation expenses is generally covered under title 5 section 5584. Other statues and regulations may require revision, particularly travel regulations to conform with the authority in this bill.
Once a debt is created, the individual has 10 days to repay the debt or respond to the notice of indebtedness before VA will initiate collection. The person can respond to the debt letter by paying the debt (in full or in installments), requesting a hearing (if applicable), or seeking a waiver or compromise through established processes for employee debts. The preclusion of waiver is a departure from applicable law and existing debt recovery processes, and VA would appreciate the opportunity to work with Congress on these changes.
H.R. XXXX Veterans Care Protection Act
Summary: Section 2(a) would create a new 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1730D, which
would generally address VA's authority to seek guardians or other
representatives for health care decisions for certain Veterans. Specifically, proposed section 1730D(a) would authorize VA, if a Veteran admitted to a VA medical center lacked the capacity to give informed consent under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7331 and lacked a guardian or other representative with authority to provide such consent, to bring an appropriate action in a court of appropriate jurisdiction to obtain the appointment of a person to serve as a guardian or representative.
VA could incur necessary court costs and other expenses incident to such actions. Proposed section 1730D(b) would require VA to authorize VA attorneys to bring such actions; it would also authorize VA to acquire the services of nonVA attorneys to bring such actions. The activities of attorneys in bringing such actions would be subject to the direction and supervision of the Attorney General and to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. Nothing in this subsection would derogate from the Attorney General's authority under 28 U.S.C.
Sec.Sec. 516 and 519 to direct and supervise all litigation to which the United States or an agency or officer of the United States is a party. Proposed section 1730D(c) would authorize VA, in an action described in subsection (a), to disclose the identity of the Veteran and any other information about the Veteran necessary to facilitate the determinations to be made by the court, without regard to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7332 (generally addressing the confidentiality of certain medical records) or any other provision of law.
Position: VA strongly supports the intent of this bill, subject to amendments and the availability of appropriations.
VA strongly supports this bill, subject to amendments and the availability of appropriations. The bill is very similar to one of VA's legislative proposals from the FY 2026 President's Budget request, specifically section 302 of the Veterans Health, Benefits, and Administration Programs Act of 2026, as submitted by VA to Congress in December 2025. VA recommends amending the bill to match its legislative proposal, while including appropriate protections for Veterans that ensure the appointment of a legal guardian or conservator is necessary and that safeguard their information from misuse.
Some Veterans in receipt of VA care lack a legal guardian or conservator, which is necessary in cases where a legal decision maker is required for postacute transitions of care or decisions about medical care not otherwise covered by 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7331. VA lacks clear authority to petition state courts to appoint a legal guardian or conservator for these patients. This proposal would allow VA, through its attorneys or those contracted to perform this function, to petition courts for the appointment of a legal guardian or conservator of the person for qualified Veteran patients in cases where a legal decision maker is required for certain post-acute transitions of care or decisions about medical care.
VA would appreciate the opportunity to work with the Committee to amend the bill to match VA's proposal with appropriate protections for Veterans.
H.R. XXXX The Veterans Affairs Subcontractor Competition and Opportunity Network Act or the VA SUBCON Act Summary: The SUBCON Act directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, acting through the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU), to build and maintain a database of Small Business Administration certified small business concerns owned and controlled by Veterans, clearly distinguishing between Veteran Owned Small Businesses (VOSB) and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB).
The database is intended to help VA meet statutory small business contracting goals under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 8127 and to support existing review mechanisms, thereby enhancing transparency and accountability in VA small business subcontracting performance.
The bill focuses the database on independently performing, proven small business subcontractors by excluding firms in mentor protege programs (MPP) or joint ventures, and those without at least two past prime contracts with Satisfactory or better Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings. It requires that the database be made available to other than small offerors at appropriate acquisition stages so they can develop more robust and compliant small business subcontracting plans, potentially increasing demand for qualified VOSBs and SDVOSBs. The Act also mandates a report to the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees within 180 days of database establishment and sunsets the authority on December 31, 2028, limiting long term budget exposure while allowing assessment of effectiveness before any consideration of permanent authority.
Position: VA supports the overall intent of this legislation but cites concerns.
The SUBCON Act establishes a targeted and time limited database that seeks to advance VA's statutory Veteran small business contracting goals while relying on existing personnel, systems, and funds rather than creating a new program or requiring additional appropriations. The bill's goal is to enhance transparency, improve prime contractors' ability to identify qualified VOSB/SDVOSB subcontractors, and strengthen oversight of Veteran small business participation in VA subcontracting.
VA supports the intent of the SUBCON Act because it aligns with VA's mission to expand opportunities for VOSBs/SDVOSBs; however, VA has concerns on the drafted legislation.
The Small Business Administration is responsible for tracking SDVOSB/VOSB vendors, through the VetCert program. In addition, VA contracting officers currently work with VA's OSDBU to ensure compliance with limitations on subcontracting. Furthermore, the bill, as written, is not clear regarding the intent to exclude certain businesses. For instance, there does not appear to be a logical reason to exclude small business concerns of an MPP or any joint venture, or a small business that has not had at least two past prime contracts for which the concern received an evaluation rating of "Satisfactory" or better. Additionally, companies may form a joint venture for one specific acquisition without being part of the MPP. The bill's current text reads if a company has ever been part of a joint venture, even if for one isolated acquisition, then they would be excluded from the database. It is not clear if that is the true intent behind this exclusion.
Lastly, the limited inclusion of ratings to qualify for inclusion in the small business database is also a concern. During the life of an acquisition, a company may receive 15 or more ratings within CPARS (3 or more elements rated per year for up to 5 years of performance). As the bill reads, the small business would only need to receive two "Satisfactory" or better ratings to be included in the database, meaning that all other ratings for that acquisition could be below "Satisfactory." In sum, a small business can have multiple poor ratings, but as long as the company has two "Satisfactory" ratings, it is included on the list. One of the goals of this database is to assist large businesses in finding quality subcontractors for the purposes of meeting the limitations on subcontracting clause, which this bill, as currently drafted, fails to do.
H.R. XXXX Sterile Processing Technicians Certifications
Summary: This bill aims to amend title 38 of the United States Code to mandate that sterile processing technicians within VHA must hold appropriate professional certifications. Specifically, the bill requires that individuals appointed to the position of sterile processing technician (excluding entry-level positions as determined by the Secretary) must be certified by an accredited institution that offers sterile processing technician training.
Additionally, for current sterile processing technicians employed by VHA on the enactment date of this legislation, the certification requirement will not apply until 2 years after the enactment date. This provision allows current employees time to obtain the necessary certification.
Position: VA supports the intent of the bill, but legislation is not required.
Views: The Medical Supply Technician (MST) (Sterile Processing) occupation is a hybrid title 38 occupation under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7401(3). The Secretary of VA has authority under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7402 to prescribe qualifications for occupations identified in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7401(3).
VA supports the intent to ensure high quality sterile processing practices and recognizes the value that nationally accredited certification can bring to workforce competency, patient safety, and standardization across facilities.
However, legislation is not required to achieve these outcomes. VA already possesses the authority to establish and enforce certification or training requirements for sterile processing technicians through internal policy. The Office of Sterile Processing does offer nationally, internally recognized VA sterile processing certification that is available for all sterile processing staff. In addition, per VHA Directive 1116(2), Management of Critical and Semi-Critical Reusable Medical Devices, VA medical facility Sterile Processing Service (SPS) Chiefs, Assistant Chiefs, and those in SPS Supervisory positions, must obtain a VA-recognized sterile processing certification no later than 1 year after appointment and annually maintain VHA SPS Certification by completing continuing education units or obtain annual certification through a nationally recognized sterilization organization. This allows VHA to strengthen professional standards, align with accreditation expectations, and promote technician development without mandating statutory changes that may limit the Department's ability to adjust requirements as clinical practices, workforce needs, and industry standards continue to evolve.
Moreover, implementing a legislative mandate would introduce several challenges that are better addressed through administrative action. Certification fees, pay disparities with the private sector, variations in facility capabilities, and the need for transitional pathways for current staff all require careful workforce planning and resource assessment. VA is already able to evaluate these factors and institute additional certification expectations as needed in a phased, equitable, and operationally feasible manner. Retaining policy control ensures that VHA can tailor implementation to local conditions, maintain flexibility in hiring and staffing, and adapt quickly as the sterile processing field advances-- capabilities that a statutory requirement could inadvertently constrain.
H.R. XXXX Supplemental Period of Unpaid Parental Leave for Department of Veterans Affairs Employees
Summary: This bill would provide VA employees with an additional 4 administrative workweeks of leave without pay (LWOP) for the birth or placement of a son or daughter during the first 12 months following the date of birth or placement.
Position: VA's evaluation of this bill is ongoing but cites the following concerns.
VA supports employees taking the time needed for childbirth and placement for adoption or foster care. However, VA is concerned about the establishment of an additional blanket entitlement to unpaid absence beyond existing statutory and negotiated frameworks due to the impact on mission readiness, staffing, and loss of management flexibility, especially in a 24/7 healthcare delivery environment.
VA is concerned that creating an additional LWOP entitlement without defined parameters may adversely affect mission readiness and service delivery.
Under current law, employees are already entitled to 12 weeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), including paid parental leave, without undue operational disruption because the unpaid entitlement already exists.
An added entitlement increases the likelihood of extended, job-protected absences across critical occupations (such as nursing, pharmacy, police, and imaging) in VHA which may result in coverage and scheduling gaps in hard-to-fill roles. This bill would likely result in an increased reliance on overtime, premium pay, contract staffing, and temporary details to provide the coverage necessary for maintaining continuity of care. It may indirectly affect access to care and increase wait times.
VA employees have access to 12 administrative workweeks of job-protected leave for qualifying events under FMLA, paid parental leave authorities (such as the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act) where applicable, plus existing leave options such as sick leave, annual leave, donated leave where eligible, and other forms of paid time off. Adding 4 additional weeks of LWOP could extend absences to nearly 6 months within a calendar year, creating significant workforce gaps, increased workload for remaining staff, and potential overtime costs to maintain service levels.
VHA must often evaluate requests for extended absences with respect to unit staffing conditions, clinical coverage risk, local recruitment realities, and impact on small services or single-incumbent positions. Expanding an entitlement to additional leave results in the approval no longer being a management decision, even when a service is at a critical staffing threshold.
The bill also does not establish sufficient guardrails to mitigate operational risks. Specifically, VA would continue to pay the Government's share of health insurance premiums during the additional LWOP period, with no repayment requirement if the employee does not return. Further, the bill does not require mutual agreement for intermittent use of additional 4 weeks of LWOP, unlike existing FMLA provisions for birth or placement, potentially limiting supervisors' ability to effectively plan staffing and workload coverage.
For most federal employees, Paid Parental Leave is administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the statutory provisions are regulated in 5 CFR part 630 subpart Q. The bill creates a carveout for VA resulting in a disparity in access to parental leave benefits between VA and other Federal agencies. Given the complexity of the Federal leave administration under title 5, coordination with OPM is recommended to ensure alignment with existing FMLA and parental leave regulations.
H.R. XXXX FMLA Expansion for VA Employees
Summary: This bill would amend 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6382(a)(1)(C) to provide that, for VA employees, a parent of an employee's spouse shall be deemed to be a parent of the employee for purposes of determining eligibility for leave under FMLA.
Position: VA defers to the Office of Personnel Management.
The bill defines "parent" using the definitions provided in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6381, which is defined as "the biological parent of an employee or an individual who stood in loco parentis to an employee when the employee was a son or daughter." This definition does not include the parents of an employee's spouse.
VA notes that the sick leave regulations, as issued by OPM, already include a provision for employees to use sick leave to provide care for a family member with a serious health condition. Under these regulations, the definition of family member is expanded and includes a spouse's parents.
OPM is responsible for the regulations and administration of FMLA for Federal agencies under the title 5 leave system. By creating a carveout for VA, this bill would create a disparity in the application of FMLA between VA and other Federal agencies. Given OPM ownership of the regulations and broader Government-wide policies for FMLA and the title 5 leave system, VA defers to OPM regarding this bill.
H.R. XXXX VA Police Recruitment and Retention Act of 2026
Summary: This bill aims to prohibit the downgrading of law enforcement positions within VA. The bill would prohibit any official in VA, OPM, or any other Department or agency from proposing, initiating, or carrying out a "position downgrade" for any "covered [law enforcement] VA position." Additionally, it bars the use of Federal funds to support any such downgrades.
The bill also includes section 2(b), a retroactive clause, that would nullify any position downgrades that were proposed, initiated, or carried out between October 1, 2025, and the enactment date of this legislation. If enacted, any positions downgraded during this period would be restored to their prior status, and any employees impacted would be compensated for any loss in pay they would have otherwise received. Section 2(c)(1) defines a "covered VA position" as one carrying out law enforcement functions within VA, whether permanent, temporary, full-time, part-time, or intermittent, and without regard to funding source. Section 2(c)(2) defines "position downgrade" broadly, including various classification actions that may result in a lower grade or pay associated with a position or set of positions, and without regard to any entitlements to retained grade or pay.
Position: VA does not support this bill.
The proposed bill creates a direct and significant conflict with title 5 classification and pay frameworks. As drafted, the bill conflicts with core principles of chapter 51 (classification) and chapter 53 (Federal pay rates and pay systems) and requires coordinated conforming updates to statute, regulation, and VA policy. These updates are necessary to codify the bill's statutory protections, preserve the integrity of the Federal classification system and ensure compliance with the "equal pay for substantially equal work" requirements in 5 U.S.C Sec.Sec. 5101 and 5301.
VA, following OPM instruction based on prescribed legal requirements, has proposed, initiated, and carried out numerous downgrades across a wide range of occupational series over several years, and the work is ongoing. This bill should clarify how long VA is prevented from following OPM prescribed legal requirements, for how long this work should be paused, and how downgrades prior to October 2025 should be handled. This bill creates a significant disparity within VA and across the Federal Government on how legally mandated and prescribed classification reviews and the outcomes of those reviews are carried out. Is this bill intended as a carve out from classification standards for certain occupations at VA? If so, which occupational series are receiving the carve out, for how long, and why?
Without clear direction, VA risks inconsistent application of classification decisions, running afoul of OPM oversight responsibilities and the risk of losing classification authority, conflicts with the statutory equal-pay framework, and commission of prohibited personnel practices reportable to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC).
VA Handbook 5007 governs pay administration, including how downgrades trigger or end grade and pay retention under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5301 and related provisions.
The bill's requirements to restore downgraded positions to their prior grade and pay create a conflict with title 5 statute and regulation and VA policy; specifically, the following questions need to be addressed before enactment:
* How will grade and pay retention rules operate when downgrades are prohibited or reversed?
* How should retroactive pay restoration be calculated and administered, including interactions with locality pay, special salary rates, and retention rules and the Back Pay Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 5596)?
Without clear guidance, VA may face inconsistent pay outcomes, overpayments, or audit vulnerabilities.
Recommendations:
The draft bill does not provide legal authority to establish classification and/or qualification standards for law enforcement positions to overcome the statutory inconsistency with title 5. The bill, without conforming changes to statute, would create a conflict in law as written and would result in VA committing prohibited personnel practices, OPM reporting VA to OSC, and VA losing its delegated classification authority because the agency would knowingly pay employees above the grade for the work they perform.
VA recommends clarifying the timeframes of applicability and that the bill explicitly state that covered positions remain subject to chapter 51 and 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5101. This ensures VA can continue to classify positions based on actual duties and protects the core principles of equal pay and consistent grading across the agency.
VA recommends the bill more clearly define "covered position" and "position downgrade," which VA law enforcement positions are protected, and which types of downgrade actions are restricted under 5 U.S.C. Ch. 51. This will help avoid unintended effects on other pay or staffing actions governed by chapter 53 and 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5301.
The bill should specify how restored grades and pay should be calculated including treatment of locality pay, special salary rates, and grade/pay retention as well as treatment of employees hired into properly graded positions as a result of consistency review outcomes being implemented.
This bill should clarify the restricted periods and must address how OPM-directed classification actions apply during the restricted period. Because OPM holds Government-wide authority for consistency reviews and binding
classification decisions under chapter 51, the bill should clarify whether OPM downgrade decisions are also suspended and how VA must respond if OPM identifies classification discrepancies during the restricted period.
VA would welcome an opportunity to collaborate with the Committees on legislation to support VA's police force efforts.
H.R. XXXX Clarify and Expand Assistant Secretary for Management Authority
Summary: The bill would amend title 38, United States Code, to add sections 309 and 729.
Section 309 would establish the Office of Management (OM) and clarify and expand the authority of the Assistant Secretary for Management (ASM) of VA. The Secretary would be required to designate the ASM as the VA CFO.
Section 309 would also establish the duties for the position of ASM/VA CFO and create two Deputy Assistant Secretary positions: the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management for Financial Strategy and Budget and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management for Financial Operations and Internal Controls. VA would also be required to create a Legislative and Congressional Budget Information Office (LCBI), with no more than 15 full-time employees (FTE) assigned to the LCBI office.
Section 729 would establish the requirement that CFOs of VA administrations or Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISN) report directly to the ASM/VA CFO. Further, the Secretary may not establish positions performing functions similar to the LCBI outside of the office.
The Secretary would have to execute the requirements in sections 309 and 729 within 180 days of enactment.
The bill also includes a technical amendment to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 308 that increases the total number of Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary positions in VA to accommodate the ASM and Deputy Assistant Secretary positions.
Position: VA supports the intent of this bill, subject to amendments and the availability of appropriations. VA is unable to assess the impact to budgetary resources and therefore will follow-up with the Committee once this evaluation is complete or CBO has provided a score.
The authorities and duties of an agency CFO are established in 31 U.S.C. Sec. 902, "Authority and functions of agency Chief Financial Officers." External stakeholders, including Congress and the VA Inspector General, have repeatedly criticized the Department for the VA CFO holding accountability for budget and finance but not holding the responsibility or authority to manage the related resources including its budget and finance employees. VA proposes stronger language to explicitly state that all employees performing budget and finance functions in the Department, irrespective of where they reside and how they are funded, shall be aligned under, and shall report to, the VA CFO. The proposed section 729 should be modified to explicitly state that "all employees performing functions under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 902 will report to the VA CFO irrespective of how they are funded and the administration or staff office where they reside." Additionally, to prevent the creation of shadow CFO budget and finance functions, administration and staff offices should be precluded from hiring or performing 31 U.S.C. Sec. 902 functions unless explicitly approved by the VA CFO.
VA recommends modifying the bill for the titles of Deputy Assistant Secretary positions from Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management for Financial Strategy and Budget to Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Financial Planning and Budget, and from Deputy Assistant Secretary for Financial Operations and Internal Controls to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Infrastructure Management. VA is fully supportive of establishing LCBI within OM with modification of FTE assignment from 15 to 6.
H.R. XXXX Modifying the Rate of Pay for Care or Services Provided under the Veterans Community Care Program
Summary: Section 1(a) would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1703(i), which generally sets forth requirements for payment rates for care and services under the Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP). Specifically, this bill would amend section 1703(i)(1) to require VA, not later than January 1, 2027, to establish rates for payments to providers of care or services that would be specific to the following sites of service at which the care or service was actually provided (regardless of the physical location of the provider): (1) a hospital outpatient department (OPD); (2) an ambulatory surgical center; (3) the office of a physician; or (4) such other sites as VA may deem useful. VA would have to ensure that a claim for payment included a separate unique health identifier that identified the specific site of service of the provider. In the case of "OPD services" (as defined in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1395l(t)(1)(B)), that are provided on or after January 1, 2027, by a provider that is an off-campus outpatient department of a provider (as defined in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1395l(t)(21)(B), disregarding clauses (ii) and (iv) of such subparagraph and as though those clauses did not exist), VA would have to ensure that such department was treated as a subpart of such provider and assigned a unique health identifier. Further, VA would have to ensure that such provider included such identifier on any claim form it submitted, and that the provider could not hold a Veteran liable for such items or services unless the care or services were billed using the separate unique health identifier established for such department. VA would be required to reduce by 30%, from the applicable Medicare rate, a payment amount for outpatient department care or services provided by a dedicated emergency department that is an off-campus outpatient department of a provider and is located six or fewer miles from another hospital, critical access hospital, or rural emergency hospital (including the parent hospital of such emergency department). Nothing in this paragraph could be construed to prevent VA from determining the appropriate amount of a facility fee, and nothing in this paragraph could be construed to require VA to pay an independent physician the same amount as it would pay a hospital-based physician, or to pay a hospital-based physician less than it would pay an independent physician, for the same item or service.
Section 1(b) would state that the amendments made by subsection (a) would take effect on January 1 of the first calendar year beginning after the date of enactment.
Position: VA cites the following concerns.
VA has no position on this bill but has significant concerns with this bill as written. First, the bill seems to misunderstand how VA pays for care and services under VCCP. Under VCCP, VA authorizes eligible non-VA providers to furnish care and services to eligible Veterans pursuant to contracts and agreements.
These contracts and agreements may be directly between VA and the provider or may be with a third-party administrator (TPA), which in turn has contracts or agreements with health care providers. Under all situations, though, the contracts or agreements set forth the payment rates and payment rules. These rates and rules are consistent with the requirements of section 1703(i). The bill appears to assume, instead, that VA simply reimburses providers for care and services. To implement any change to section 1703(i), VA would need to renegotiate or enter into new contracts or agreements with all participating providers (and with the TPAs, who would likely need to modify their contracts or agreements with their providers); literally thousands of contracts and agreements would need to be renegotiated. Additionally, VA would need significant time to develop the necessary new rate schedules, upgrade its information technology systems and to amend or recompete the Community Care Network (CCN) and CCN Next Generation Contracts, while also preparing detailed policy guidance and educating hundreds of thousands of community providers. This would present a significant risk to payment timeliness and network stability if not matched by sufficient implementation resources and time. Amending and recompeting the CCN and CCN Next Generation contracts would involve significant delays in the procurement timeline and would likely result in significant additional costs. VA's current community care payment environment would need significant upgrades to support the bill's requirements that each service be tied to a specific site of service with a unique identifier and be priced using a corresponding, site-specific schedule. This would include (but not be limited to) enhancing provider systems to properly maintain every off-campus emergency department, updating the system to create and track new identifiers based on both code and specific site, and creating new reporting tools that could identify mislabeled sites and ensure Veterans are not liable for bills that do not follow the new requirements.
Consequently, VA urges caution in any effort to modify payment rates given the logistical work and costs that would be involved.
Second, the specific rules and requirements this bill would establish are very complicated, overly prescriptive, and unclear. For example, the bill would require VA to require that providers include certain information, but it is unclear whether failure to include that information would require VA to deny claims for payment or if some other consequence (or if no consequence at all) would result.
The bill would also require VA to reduce payments by 30% in certain situations if a hospital is located six or fewer miles from another facility, even if these other facilities are not part of VA's network (they do not have a contract or agreement with VA or a TPA to furnish care under VCCP, for example). The bill is also unclear as to how these rules would work for telehealth care, as it is not evident where such care "is actually provided," as it could be the provider's location, the provider's assigned facility, the patient's location, or some other location. These specific rules and requirements could easily result in absurd outcomes that might result in providers leaving VA's network and reducing Veterans' access to quality care.
Third, in further specifying and detailing payment rates, and particularly in requiring VA pay certain rates simply based on the setting in which care was furnished, the bill would thwart VA's and Congress' efforts to adopt value-based payment rates. Since the enactment of the VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-182), which established VCCP, Congress has authorized VA to incorporate value-based models to promote the provision of high-quality care. More recently, in section 107 of the Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act (the Dole Act; P.L. 118-210), Congress required VA to establish a working group on value-based care, develop a strategic plan to implement value-based care, and to carry out a pilot program to implement certain elements of that strategic plan. Section 109 of the Dole Act required VA to submit to Congress a report on the use of value-based payment models under VCCP. The bill's focus on payment simply based on the setting in which care is furnished would run counter to these efforts and could actually result in perverse incentives that could reduce access to care for Veterans if providers chose to not furnish certain services at locations that might be more accessible to Veterans, but where VA would pay lower rates.
Fourth, the bill creates unnecessary uncertainty that could result in a dramatic shift in how VCCP operates. Specifically, the bill includes language stating that providers "may not hold a veteran liable for such item or service unless such care or services are billed using the separate unique health identifier established for such department" (emphasis added). Currently, Veterans are not liable to providers for care or services under VCCP; VA is solely liable (although Veterans may owe copayments to VA, and VA may be able to collect from third parties for certain care). As written, the bill seems to authorize providers to bill Veterans for charges in certain situations. This would represent a dramatic break in law and practice, and it would also conflict with section 1703(k), which prohibits an eligible Veteran from paying a greater amount for receiving care or services under VCCP than the amount the Veteran would pay for receiving the same or comparable care or services at a VA medical facility or from a VA health care provider. VA opposes making Veterans liable for care under VCCP.
Finally, the bill is unclear as to the effective dates. Several places in the bill clearly establish a requirement that certain requirements would apply beginning January 1, 2027, but section 1(b) states the amendments would take effect on January 1 of the first calendar year beginning after enactment. If the bill were not enacted by January 1, 2027, this would create an internal conflict in the bill language as to which effective date would control. Further, and as noted above, VA would need to renegotiate contracts and agreements to give effect to any change in payment rates, which could further delay implementation.
Requiring renegotiation by a certain date would weaken VA's negotiating position and could result in higher costs to VA as a result. The January 1, 2027 implementation date would not provide enough time to make such consequential changes to VA's systems, contracts, and processes.
Conclusion
VA appreciates the opportunity to present its views on these bills. I am happy to answer any questions.
* * *