Congressional Testimony
Here's a look at documents involving congressional testimony and member statements
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
National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare Director Adcock Testifies Before Senate Special Committee on Aging
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Senate Special Committee on Aging released the following testimony by Dan Adcock, director of government relations and policy at the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, from a March 25, 2026, hearing entitled "Experience Matters: Seniors and the Workforce":* * *
Dear Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Gillibrand:
On behalf of the millions of members and supporters of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, I thank you for inviting me to testify before you today for your important hearing titled: "Experience Matters: ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Senate Special Committee on Aging released the following testimony by Dan Adcock, director of government relations and policy at the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, from a March 25, 2026, hearing entitled "Experience Matters: Seniors and the Workforce": * * * Dear Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Gillibrand: On behalf of the millions of members and supporters of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, I thank you for inviting me to testify before you today for your important hearing titled: "Experience Matters:Seniors and the Workforce." Members of the National Committee come from all walks of life and every political persuasion. What unites them is their passion for protecting and strengthening Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the other programs that are so vitally important to older Americans.
Max Richtman, President and CEO of the National Committee, is sorry he could not join you this afternoon, particularly because he served as staff director for the Senate Special Committee on Aging.
In fact, as one of his first initiatives after joining the National Committee, he worked closely on the Senior Citizen's Freedom to Work Act with Senator John McCain, who spent decades advocating for and advancing legislation that would reduce the impact of the Retirement Earnings Test (RET) on seniors continuing to work. Mr. Richtman attended town hall meetings with Senator McCain in Phoenix and Tucson, and was privileged to be invited to the White House when President Bill Clinton signed the bill.
I also want to commend the Committee Chairman Rick Scott and Ranking Member Kirsten Gillibrand, in addition to all Committee members, for your commitment to operating this committee in a bipartisan manner. Bipartisanship has been a tradition of the Senate Aging Committee.
I am especially encouraged by this Committee's long-time focus on exploring ways to help older Americans remain active throughout their lives, whether through work, community engagement or other activities that may help seniors live their best, most purposeful lives. I think this is a goal we all share. I also believe that a single solution won't by itself achieve this goal, especially as it relates to workforce participation, because the decision of whether to continue working for older Americans is complex and varies for each individual. This decision first and foremost depends upon the older worker's health, but is also significantly influenced by their financial circumstances, the availability of jobs and ultimately, the willingness of employers to invest in older workers. It is important that Congress remove impediments older workers confront when deciding whether to continue working, while ensuring any changes do not inadvertently force seniors into the workforce because they simply 2 cannot afford to retire. It is one thing to "work until you die" because you enjoy working and it brings joy and purpose into your life, and an entirely different matter to be forced into working forever because you have no choice financially.
One piece of this puzzle is repeal of the Retirement Earnings Test. The National Committee supports Chairman Scott's repeal legislation in concept. However, before Congress enacts such a major change to the Social Security program, I believe this Committee should carefully explore three basic questions:
1) Will everyone benefit from repealing the RET, and if some workers end up worse off, are there ways to mitigate the financial impacts on these workers and their families?
2) Will repealing the RET actually increase the participation of older Americans in the workforce or are there other legislative changes that should be made to advance this goal?
3) What will the impacts of repealing the RET be on the Social Security Administration's ability to implement the change, and on the solvency of the Social Security Trust Funds?
I regularly participate in many town hall meetings and other gatherings of seniors, and I can tell you one thing without hesitation: repealing the RET would be extremely popular with most seniors. After the last amendments in 2000 which repealed the RET for claimants who reach their Full Retirement Age (FRA), many seniors who were not covered by the amendment complained that they had been left behind. In part, that is because the RET is extremely complicated, and tends to induce fear and uncertainty even in seniors who would never be affected by it. For those who are affected, the application of the RET is so complex that most seniors do not realize that Social Security benefits withheld due to the RET are ultimately re-paid to these same seniors through higher lifetime benefits.
Those who are unaware of this feature of the RET may find it difficult to fully weigh the impact on their own family's finances.
I have heard economists who label the RET a "tax on work" for seniors, which only adds to the confusion. In fact, the RET is a reduction in benefits that are eventually re-paid to the seniors and their families. This feature of the RET is largely responsible for the conflicting ways in which repeal would impact seniors. In effect, seniors are trading higher benefits today for lower benefits for the rest of their lives, which may well be an appropriate trade-off in some cases. Unfortunately, many seniors today are simply unaware that this is the choice they are making. Because repealing the RET would remove that choice from seniors' hands entirely, it is incumbent on Congress to fully understand these impacts and ensure the action you take is ultimately in the best interests of most seniors. If there are older Americans who will be disadvantaged by the repeal, it is the responsibility of Congress to explore ways that might help mitigate the negative impact for these seniors and their families.
The RET generally works as follows: anyone claiming Social Security benefits before their Full Retirement Age (FRA) (65-67 depending on year of birth) is subject to an early retirement penalty for each year before their FRA that they claim benefits. This reduction can be as high as 30 percent and continues throughout the beneficiaries' lifetime. It also applies to the benefits of spouses and minor children who are receiving benefits from the workers' earnings record. Workers who claim Social Security benefits prior to reaching FRA and are still working are additionally subject to a limit on how much they can earn without the amount of their Social Security benefits being further reduced. This reduction, however, is not permanent. Once the worker reaches their FRA, the reduction terminates, and any months in which the workers' benefits had been reduced are deducted from the benefit cut 3 they experience for claiming prior to their FRA. In effect, the RET reduces the benefit cut that results from claiming Social Security benefits early, and that smaller benefit cut continues throughout the claimants' life, and the lives of family members claiming benefits based on the workers' earnings record. In other words, the RET partly mitigates the reduced benefit that results from claiming benefits early. It is this feature of the RET that contributes to the challenge of projecting the positive and negative impacts of RET repeal.
I am not a researcher or an economist, so I cannot personally testify as to the impact of repeal of the RET either on beneficiaries, on the workforce and the economy, or on the Social Security system itself.
But I would like to bring to the Committee's attention issues that have been raised by researchers that I believe are important for you to consider. Some of the research was conducted after the amendments in 2000, so they are extrapolating from real-world impacts of eliminating the RET for those over their Full Retirement Age (FRA).
Some research concludes that repealing the RET is likely to have a larger impact on the age at which workers claim their Social Security benefits than it does on keeping seniors in the workforce. In effect, it would act as an inducement for some older Americans to claim their Social Security benefits prior to attaining their FRA, which they previously resisted because of the impact of the RET. This choice would leave them and their families with lower benefits over the course of their retirement.
The impact of repeal on auxiliary beneficiaries is one that Congress cannot dismiss. Any auxiliary beneficiaries who are receiving benefits based on that worker's earnings history will also end up with lower benefits than they would absent repeal. Widows, in particular, could end up suffering from lower benefits, an impact on a particularly vulnerable segment of our society that Congress needs to consider.
In addition, although disability benefits are not subject to the RET, some disabled beneficiaries also receive benefits as an aged spouse or survivor. They could be adversely impacted by repeal of the RET.
Although most of the research concludes repeal would have a minimal impact on poverty overall because most low-income beneficiaries are below the RET earnings limit thresholds and therefore would not be impacted at all by repeal, the possibility that poverty might increase for some groups of beneficiaries, especially if they represent the most vulnerable in our society such as widows, demands further investigation from Congress.
Considering my second point of the need to explore the impact of RET repeal on workforce participation, there is also mixed research. For example, there may be a subset of workers who would claim their benefits early and either reduce or completely terminate their employment, because they would end up with either the same total income, or in some cases, more total income, once they claim their benefits, and this reduces the earnings they need to maintain their standards of living. Because this Committee's goal is increased workforce participation by older Americans, understanding this dynamic is important to achieving your goals.
There are also age-related effects of repeal, as younger seniors appear to be more likely to increase their workforce participation than older seniors, which is not surprising considering the resistance older workers confront when in the workforce. In this respect, I would like to simply make one observation: while repealing the Social Security RET may result in some additional workforce participation by 4 seniors, nothing is likely to noticeably move the dial as long as employers continue to discriminate in hiring based on age. As you well know through the numerous hearings this Committee has held on the issue, especially the landmark hearing you held on September 3rd, 2025 titled "Protecting Older Americans: Leveling the Playing Field for Older Workers", despite the fact that age discrimination is illegal in the United States and Congress has taken numerous steps to eliminate it, it continues to be prevalent in the workforce, and has a significant impact on the ability of seniors to find and keep jobs, receive promotions and meaningfully participate in the workforce.
In your September hearing, Nancy LeaMond, Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer at AARP, reported on a survey her organization had conducted on attitudes toward seniors in the workforce.
AARP's survey of workers age 50-plus found that 22 percent of respondents felt that they were being pushed out of work, while an astonishing two-thirds (64 percent) reported seeing or experiencing age discrimination in the workplace. Of those who have seen or experienced it, nearly all (91 percent) believe age discrimination toward older workers is common, including 36 percent who said it is very common.
Your hearing highlighted options for reducing or eliminating this age discrimination, including your bipartisan legislation S. 2703, the "Protecting Older Americans Act of 2025", which the National Committee supports. This bill would eliminate the current practice of employers utilizing 'forced arbitration' to resolve age discrimination complaints, which would shift some of the leverage employers currently exert in these claims back to the workers themselves. In addition to this bill, the National Committee would draw your attention to S. 1820, the "Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (POWADA)", introduced by Senators Tammy Baldwin and Chuck Grassley, which would restore protections for older workers that were lost by the Supreme Court's decision to subject claims of age discrimination by older workers to a higher standard of proof than other protected classes.
Repealing the RET without further addressing the scourge of age discrimination not only risks undermining your goal of increasing workforce participation by older Americans, it also further risks placing these workers in a worse financial situation than if the RET had not been repealed. If workers cannot find jobs due to their age, but now claim their Social Security benefits before their Full Retirement Age because they no longer fear the RET, they will end up with deep cuts to their Social Security benefits that will follow them as long as they live, without the moderating effect of the RET.
They may expect earnings from work to help mitigate the early claiming cuts only to find the work environment is still stacked against them. This would place these workers in the worst of all worlds: permanent deep Social Security benefit cuts with little earned income to supplement the benefits. This is a result no one wants to see.
My last point involves implementation of any potential RET repeal and Trust Fund solvency. As you well know, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has undergone a dramatic downsizing as a result of Elon Musk's DOGE-inspired staff cuts. SSA was already at historically low staffing levels before the rounds of downsizing, and losing some 7,000 experienced staff at a time when over 10,000 baby boomers are turning age 65 every day has had foreseeable negative impacts on performance. The Agency is showing the strains of understaffing, despite current SSA Commissioner Frank Bisignano's assurances and his efforts to triage operations. According to the most recent annual survey we conducted of our own members, a full 94 percent reported that they or a friend or family member had 5 trouble accessing customer service at the Social Security Administration, either in person, online or on the phone.
When waiting times on the phone systems continued to be unacceptably long, SSA first changed the method it used for reporting wait times and then shifted staff from other positions to answer phones, requiring them to be trained for these new positions. Similar actions are taking place to cover severe staff shortages in many field offices. Replacing staff with Artificial Intelligence (AI) has had mixed success, as should have been anticipated when serving a customer base that is older and is less capable of conducting important financial transactions online due to lack of comfort using technology or minimal online infrastructure.
Many of the impacts of the staff shortages are visible today. Others may remain hidden from view for months or years, as the backlogs of work previously being completed by the staff that was shifted to other responsibilities may not be readily apparent to the public, especially considering the lack of transparency from this administration. While repealing the RET will ultimately reduce the Agency's workload, that is not necessarily the impact in the short term. SSA will be required to modify its computer programs to reflect the elimination of the RETs impact on early retirement reduction factors, change its educational material, both online and on paper, and staff - who are already buckling under the weight of existing responsibilities - will need to be retrained. All of this will take time and especially resources to implement effectively. I urge you to ensure SSA has sufficient additional resources to do this work so it is not forced to shift resources from its other operations, which are already severely underfunded.
That is also an issue that concerns us regarding S. 1504, the Claiming Age Clarity Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Senator Bill Cassidy. We fully support any effort to make the financial consequences of claiming Social Security benefits fully transparent to the American people, as anything that helps older Americans with the critical decision of when to claim benefits is welcome. However, we are concerned that unless Congress specifically provides sufficient resources for any additional workload expected of SSA, it will simply crowd out other critical work that is already having a negative impact on Americans' ability to claim their earned benefits.
Finally, it is critical for this Committee to be cognizant of the impact of repealing the RET on the Social Security Trust Funds. According to a letter by Stephen Goss, Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, to Representative Jackie Walorski regarding H.R. 2663, the "Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2019": "The initial effect of the proposal would be almost entirely additional benefit payments for individuals who, under current law, would have their benefits reduced or would have chosen to start benefits later. However, most individuals who would receive additional benefits under their NRA due to the elimination of the RET would, as a result, receive a permanent reduction in their monthly benefit level that would, on average, more than offset the value of the additional benefits over the course of their remaining lifetime. Therefore, over the long-range projection period, enactment of the proposal would reduce OASDI cost."
At the time this letter was written, Social Security's Trustees were projecting, under their intermediate assumptions, that the hypothetical Old Age and Disability (OASDI) Trust Funds would be depleted in 6 2035, only one year later than the most recent (2025) reports' projected depletion date of 2034. Note however, that in 2019 the depletion date was sixteen years away - well outside the short-term ten-year period for determining solvency. With today's projections for insolvency less than a decade away, it is incumbent on Congress to carefully consider any legislation that might further accelerate depletion of the Trust Funds in the short-term, as that could have catastrophic consequences on every single beneficiary.
As I mentioned earlier, I spend much of my time talking to seniors from all parts of the country and every political persuasion. I am often approached by people looking for advice on the optimum time for claiming Social Security benefits. In previous years, their concerns tended to focus on the adequacy of benefits at different claiming ages. More recently, I am approached by seniors worried about Social Security's impending insolvency, and asking whether claiming benefits early might help insulate them from benefit cuts if nothing is done before the Trust Funds are depleted. These Americans are well aware of the financial benefits they would enjoy if they delay claiming their benefits, and the lifetime cut in benefits if they claim early. They ask for advice on whether claiming benefits now might help them avoid the deep cuts that would result if Congress fails to act in time. They are willing to consider pre-emptively accepting lifelong reduced benefits for fear that waiting could result in even deeper cuts.
If Congress repeals the RET, this would clearly reflect the will of your constituents. However, ensuring Social Security's solvency without benefit cuts, either for today's beneficiaries or for their children and grandchildren, would also reflect the wishes of the American people. Poll after poll shows overwhelming majorities, irrespective of party, favor extending the programs' solvency by asking the wealthy to pay their fair share, rather than imposing benefit cuts. This is true not only for current beneficiaries, but also for future generations, as today's young people could well be even more dependent on Social Security than current beneficiaries as the bedrock of their income in case of retirement, disability or the death of a family breadwinner. Today, over one-half of seniors receive over half of their income from Social Security, and it provides about 90 percent of income for more than one-in-four seniors. Without Social Security, almost half of older Americans (40 percent) would live in poverty.
Today's younger generations are even less likely than their parents or grandparents to have access to traditional pensions, and their ability to save for emergencies, let alone having the resources to save for retirement, is severely constrained. Only about one-half of today's workers participate in retirement savings plans such as a 401(k) plan at work, and many enter the workplace burdened by significant college loan debt. The prevalence of gig work and similar flexible employment relationships also reduces opportunities for younger workers to regularly save for retirement.
Bills have been introduced that would extend solvency of the Trust Funds while also making important, long-needed benefit improvements to the program. Some of these improvements might help mitigate the long-term impacts of repealing the RET. For example, S. 770, the "Social Security Expansion Act" would extend the solvency of the Trust Funds by 75 years, while also increasing benefits and, most importantly, improving the formula by which the annual Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) is calculated, a change which has long been an important priority for National Committee members. We firmly believe that the current formula does not accurately measure the spending patterns of seniors and therefore underestimates the inflation they experience. We support improving the current formula by utilizing the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E), which we believe 7 more accurately reflects cost increases in the market basket of goods and services most important to seniors.
In conclusion, I want to thank you again for holding this important hearing and for inviting me to testify on behalf of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. We are confident that this Committee will find solutions to workplace participation by older Americans that will have a positive impact on seniors and their families. We look forward to working with you on this issue, and on other issues important to our Nation's older Americans.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.aging.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/d7ee5fbf-a00d-76ff-0096-d6069f7a1baa/Testimony_Adcock%2003.25.26.pdf
Federalist Senior Legal Correspondent Cleveland Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights released the following testimony by Margot Juliette Cleveland, senior legal correspondent at The Federalist from a March 24, 2026, hearing entitled "Arctic Frost: A Modern Watergate":* * *
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and Members of the Subcommittee, Thank you for the opportunity to testify concerning the grave constitutional violations inflicted as part of the Arctic Frost investigation.
After the 2020 election, an anti-Trump FBI agent named Tim Thibault attempted ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights released the following testimony by Margot Juliette Cleveland, senior legal correspondent at The Federalist from a March 24, 2026, hearing entitled "Arctic Frost: A Modern Watergate": * * * Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and Members of the Subcommittee, Thank you for the opportunity to testify concerning the grave constitutional violations inflicted as part of the Arctic Frost investigation. After the 2020 election, an anti-Trump FBI agent named Tim Thibault attemptedto use the justice department to destroy the President. Thibault's efforts led to the launch of Arctic Frost. Soon after, Merrick Garland tapped Jack Smith, a "hyper-aggressive prosecutor," known to "overstretch the meaning and intent of the law," to serve as Special Counsel.
Smith proved himself true to form, indicting Trump for allegedly violating a statute enacted in the aftermath of Enron, based in part on a theory of criminal liability the Supreme Court would later hold invalid. The Supreme Court would later halt Smith's efforts to prosecute Trump for actions that fell within the President's official duties.
Beyond being a partisan in his own right, Smith stacked his team with partisan Democrats, such as J.P. Cooney and Ray Hulser. Cooney and Hulser served as Smith's top deputies and in them, we see the clear double standard and political bias that permeated the DOJ and FBI.
Before joining Smith's team, Cooney crafted an outrageous sentencing memorandum that sought to send Trump advisor Roger Stone to prison for seven to nine years. Cooney's sentencing recommendations were so unhinged that then-Attorney General William Barr intervened. Cooney responded by spreading unfounded rumors that Barr and the Acting U.S. Attorney "were being improperly political," with media leaks furthering that narrative, eventually leading to an Inspector General's investigation: The IG cleared the Trump Administration but chastised Cooney.
Hulser, for his part, demonstrated his partisan proclivities when he headed up the Public Integrity Section and refused the FBI's request to open an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. But Hulser's partisan protection racket went further when he withheld a detailed six-page timeline of the Clinton Foundation investigation from the then-U.S. Attorney operating out of Little Rock, providing instead an abbreviated 2-page summary that "had omitted ALL references to interference from DOJ and FBI leadership."
In contrast, when the target was Trump, Hulser, along with Cooney, drafted a memorandum to justify subpoenaing the toll records of about a dozen members of Congress, notwithstanding internal email discussions acknowledging a clear Speech or Debate Clause problem. They then hid the details of these subpoenas by using the "prohibited access" functionality of Sentinel, which ghosts FBI records.
As this Committee well knows--because many of you were the victims--Smith approved the subpoenas and obtained the toll records of Senators Blackburn, Graham, Hagerty, Hawley, Lummis, Johnson, Kennedy, Scott, Sullivan, and Tuberville. Only Senator Cruz escaped this invasion into his privacy and the violation of the Speech or Debate clause because his cell phone provider questioned the subpoena.
From this Subcommittee's January 7, hearing, you also know Smith's team sought a non-disclosure order from Chief Judge James Boasberg--apparently without informing him the subpoenas targeted members of Congress. I say "apparently" because, to date, Chairman Cruz's request that the nondisclosure application be unsealed has been ignored.
Here we see yet another double standard, as well as the political weaponization of the Courts: Judge Boasberg has still failed to order that Smith and his prosecutors show cause for why they should not be held in contempt for concealing that members of Congress were the subpoena targets. This fact should not be ignored--if you are to believe Smith and the Administrative Office of the Courts' testimony that Judge Boasberg did not know your identities, then it makes absolutely no sense that Boasberg would not enter a show cause order to hold Smith accountable for violating your rights, given Judge Boasberg's nearly year-long crusade to hold a member of the Trump Administration in contempt.
We know now that Smith's violations of the Speech or Debate Clause, rubber-stamped by Judge Boasberg, went further, and that the Arctic Frost team subpoenaed the toll records of the former Speaker Kevin McCarthy and House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, under cover of nondisclosure orders. Add to these subpoenas the hundred or more served on individual Republicans, including Trump's attorneys, as well as Republican organizations such as Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA--which sought not merely toll records but also bank records revealing their donor base.
The breadth of these constitutional intrusions is unprecedented, but to recap:
First, Smith was unconstitutionally named Special Counsel, in violation of the Appointments Clause.
Second, the subpoenas of Congressional toll records violated the Speech or Debate Clause. Third, the vast and unjustified subpoenas to Republicans and related organizations infringed on their First Amendment associational rights. The targeting of Trump's attorneys also implicates his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, while the fishing expedition raises serious Fourth Amendment issues.
And the use of "prohibited access" raises huge Due Process concerns because federal prosecutors cannot possibly provide defendants Brady material, if that material is invisible.
Smith and his team must be held accountable.
Thank you. I welcome your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/e1cffedb-0b60-1a17-1c04-9c7b647eb4c0/2026-03-24_Testimony_Cleveland.pdf
Ex-Va. A.G. Miyares Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution released the following testimony by former Virginia Attorney General Jason S. Miyares, partner at Torridon Law from a March 25, 2026, hearing entitled "Protecting American Citizenship II: Federalism, Sanctuary Cities, and the Rule of Law":* * *
Chairman Schmitt, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee --
I want to begin with a name.
Stephanie Minter.
She was 41 years old. A mother. From Fredericksburg, Virginia. Her family described her as -- and I want you to hear this --
"A Beam of Light in Dark Places"
On ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution released the following testimony by former Virginia Attorney General Jason S. Miyares, partner at Torridon Law from a March 25, 2026, hearing entitled "Protecting American Citizenship II: Federalism, Sanctuary Cities, and the Rule of Law": * * * Chairman Schmitt, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee -- I want to begin with a name. Stephanie Minter. She was 41 years old. A mother. From Fredericksburg, Virginia. Her family described her as -- and I want you to hear this -- "A Beam of Light in Dark Places" OnFebruary 23rd of this year, Stephanie was standing at a bus stop in Hybla Valley, Fairfax County. She was stabbed to death.
Her killer had been arrested more than thirty times. He was in this country illegally. A federal judge had issued a final order for him to be removed -- six years ago. An ICE detainer was lodged -- and Fairfax County refused to honor it. The police warned the prosecutor, in writing, repeatedly, that this man, a menace, would kill someone.
The Police were right.
Stephanie Minter should not have died. And, that is why I am here today.
But I need this Committee to understand something critical: Stephanie Minter is not an isolated tragedy. She tragically a but a recent and visible name in a documented pattern of preventable crimes committed against Virginians -- a pattern with a common cause.
In December 2025, a Fairfax County man was shot and killed in his own home -- one day after an illegal alien with seven prior charges, including a prior murder charge, was released from jail. The ICE detainer was refused. The charges were dropped. He was freed. And then he killed a man. The victim, an innocent Virginian, could have been spared with one simple and quick phone call from Fairfax to ICE. A shocking as this sounds, it is that simple - a quick phone call would have saved this man's life.
A woman was raped on a popular walking trail in Herndon -- days after her attacker was released from jail early by a prosecutor who had already reduced his felony assault charge without consulting police.
A four-year-old girl was nearly abducted in the middle of the night by an illegal alien who broke into her bedroom. The prosecutor progressively dismantled the charges over eighteen months -- down to a misdemeanor -- and then dropped them entirely when a judge called the plea deal inadequate.
And in the last few weeks alone -- girls as young as thirteen were groped repeatedly in the hallways of Fairfax High School by an illegal alien enrolled as a student. A child predator offered Roblox gaming currency to children under ten years old in exchange for explicit images -- he had already been arrested for public sexual misconduct and released without notification to ICE.
This all happened in the same county. The same prosecutor. The same policy. Over and over again and just a few miles away from here.
Members of this Committee -- this is not incompetence or coincidence. This is policy.
Fairfax County Commonwealth's Attorney Steve Descano published it on his own website. Let me read it to you:
"Wherever possible, Steve (Descano) will make charging and plea decisions that limit or avoid immigration consequences."
That is a formal, written policy giving criminal illegal aliens preferential treatment in the justice system. It is not discretion. It is discrimination -- against American citizens, in favor of those here illegally who commit additional crimes. And Mr. Descano and his accolytes are 100% committed to this malignant policy.
A citizen with thirty-plus arrests would not have gotten the same treatment Abdul Jalloh got, Stephanie Minter's depraved killer. A citizen who broke into a child's bedroom would not have had charges reduced to a misdemeanor. The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund has formally petitioned the Department of Justice to open a civil rights investigation into Descano's office -- arguing this policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They are right.
Let me be direct about the law.
Immigration is not a shared power with states. It belongs exclusively to the federal government. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization -- and that word, uniform, is not decorative. It means a patchwork of local non-compliance is exactly what the Founders sought to prevent.
Federal law -- 8 U.S.C. Section 1373 -- expressly prohibits state and local governments from restricting communication with federal immigration authorities. The Fairfax County Board of Supervisor's policy does exactly that. It is not passive noncooperation. It is a policy which affirmatively calls for the obstruction of federal law.
The anti-commandeering doctrine that sanctuary jurisdictions invoke says the federal government cannot conscript local officers as immigration agents. That is true. But it does not say you can release a man with thirty arrests and a federal removal order from your jail -- rather than let ICE take him. That is not non-cooperation. That is a choice to put a violent criminal back on the street, and that choice has time and again led to profound consequences.
We know what works -- because Virginia did it.
Governor Youngkin's Executive Order 47 created a state immigration task force. Within eight weeks, five hundred and twenty-one criminal illegal aliens were arrested -- including a hundred and thirty-two gang members. The East Coast leader of MS-13, living in Prince William County, was captured. ICE praised Virginia as a national model.
That model was dismantled in an instant by Governor Spanberger -- who signed an order ending state cooperation with ICE just nineteen days before Stephanie Minter was killed. Governor Spanberger right now has a Bill on her desk that prohibits all jurisdictions in Virginia from cooperating with ICE. What do you think she will do with that Bill? Odds are she will sign it into law.
This Committee has the power to change the equation -- permanently. Fund 287(g) agreements. Condition federal law enforcement grants on detainer cooperation and compliance. Strengthen Section 1373 with real enforcement teeth. Give families like Stephanie Minter's the right to hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable in federal court.
I served as Virginia's Attorney General because I believe government's first and most fundamental duty is to protect the people it governs.
Sanctuary policies represent a catastrophic and willful failure of that duty.
Virginians are paying the price.
And Stephanie Minter and her family are regrettably proof.
Thank you, Chairman Schmitt. I look forward to the Committee's questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/150abe42-c7cd-d0d2-6ea3-cd1bfc1e0813/2026-03-25-PM_Testimony_Miyares.pdf
Durham County (North Carolina) Sheriff Birkhead Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution released the following testimony by Durham County (North Carolina) Sheriff Clarence F. Birkhead from a March 25, 2026, hearing entitled "Protecting American Citizenship II: Federalism, Sanctuary Cities, and the Rule of Law":* * *
Chairman Schmitt, Ranking Member Welch, and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
My name is Clarence Birkhead, Sheriff of Durham County, North Carolina, and I believe that true public safety is built on a foundation ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution released the following testimony by Durham County (North Carolina) Sheriff Clarence F. Birkhead from a March 25, 2026, hearing entitled "Protecting American Citizenship II: Federalism, Sanctuary Cities, and the Rule of Law": * * * Chairman Schmitt, Ranking Member Welch, and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Clarence Birkhead, Sheriff of Durham County, North Carolina, and I believe that true public safety is built on a foundationof trust between local law enforcement and the communities they serve.
My career in public service started as a deputy sheriff in rural Randolph County, North Carolina in 1984. In those early days, it became evident that for me to be successful as a law enforcement officer, I needed to secure the trust and support of the community. Often working alone without having backup close by, relationships are what protected me as a young deputy. This focus on community trust has guided me throughout my career, from those beginnings to my time serving as a chief of police at Duke University and later the Town of Hillsborough, North Carolina, to serving as sheriff of Durham County, North Carolina, a position to which I was elected in 2018. Recognizing the value of community trust and strong relationships, I have never wavered from being public focused and community oriented in policing philosophy. That is one of the reasons I joined the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force (LEITF), a nationwide group of law enforcement leaders committed to immigration reforms that enhance public safety and community trust.
Today's hearing, entitled "Protecting American Citizenship II: Federalism, Sanctuary Cities, and the Rule of Law," presents a forum for discussing the limited and discretionary role of state and local law enforcement in federal immigration enforcement. In our constitutional system, power is divided between multiple levels of government: federal, state, and local. In my experience as a police chief and sheriff, I have found that leaders at the local level of government know their communities well and are focused on ensuring public safety. In their cities and counties, local law enforcement leaders are solely responsible for prioritizing enforcement against threats to the public in a manner that builds and maintains community trust, even when facing limited resources. Given this, I believe that federalism principles are best upheld when local jurisdictions are not impeded in determining how their limited resources can most effectively protect their residents.
1. Public Safety Depends on Community Trust
Effective policing is impossible without the cooperation of the public. Sir Robert Peel stated in his "Policing Principles," "[t]o recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect." My experience has been that when local law enforcement is perceived as an extension of federal immigration authorities, the trust we all work hard to secure and maintain is eroded. As a result, immigrant communities -- both documented and undocumented -- are more likely to fear engagement with local law enforcement and retreat into the shadows. When individuals fear engaging with law enforcement could cause their friends, loved ones, or themselves to be in danger of deportation, they are less likely to report crimes or participate in investigations. Victims of domestic violence hesitate to call 911; witnesses to violent crimes refuse to come forward and cooperate with investigations. Law enforcement's ability to address and solve crimes is severely diminished. This "chilling effect" makes our entire community less safe.
Since being elected to my first term as sheriff, I have advocated maintaining a clear distinction between local police and federal immigration agents, and I have strived to ensure that every resident feels safe engaging with the Durham County Sheriff's Office.
2. The 10th Amendment and Anti-Commandeering
The "Rule of Law" includes adherence to the 10th Amendment. Our nation is facing complex immigration issues that Congress and federal agencies have been trying to solve for decades. Faced with limited or insufficient resources, the federal government wants to mandate state and local law enforcement prioritize and enforce federal civil immigration law violations. Through the use of local taxpayer dollars and personnel, federal agencies would expand their ranks by deputizing local deputies and police officers.
However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the federal government cannot "commandeer" state and local officials to carry out federal regulatory programs. As stated by Justice Scalia:
The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Printz v. United States (1997).
Federalism requires "a proper respect for state functions." Younger v. Harris (1971). As explained by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, this: does not mean blind deference to 'States' Rights,' [but it] does represent . . . a system in which there is sensitivity to the legitimate interests of both State and National Governments, and in which the National Government, anxious though it may be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the States. Younger v. Harris (1971) (emphasis added).
Immigration enforcement has traditionally been a federal responsibility. Shifting some of this federal responsibility to state and local governments seems to be an easy and logical solution to our complex immigration issues. Forcing local officers to take on new immigration-related responsibilities diverts precious, limited local resources away from investigating local violent crimes and detracts from our mission of overall public safety for everyone. It is my position that these federal administrative tasks be left to federal officers. In accordance with the needs of their respective communities, state and local leaders may choose, but are not required, to assist in enforcing federal immigration law.
The Office of Sheriff pre-dates the founding of our country, in North Carolina it is created by our state constitution and represents the longest-standing elected office in the state.
The Sheriff has significant independence in charting policy to ensure public safety and well-being. As an elected office, the Sheriff is responsive to the local residents' opinions on public safety goals and priorities as expressed through votes and community engagement. In recent years, the North Carolina legislature has passed various state laws relating to state participation in immigration enforcement. For example, North Carolina sheriffs are statutorily required to verify the legal status of the people held in our jails.
Recent state legislation has created judicial processes for verifying legal status and reviewing ICE detainers. I am concerned that passage of this type of legislation - at both the state and federal levels - is often unnecessary and potentially undermines other needed public safety priorities.
3. Prioritizing local needs, issues, and concerns does not mean a locality is a "sanctuary city."
Public safety is not "one-size-fits-all." A sheriff in a rural North Carolina or a border town faces different challenges than a police chief in a major metropolitan hub, like Durham.
Listening to the concerns and values of our constituents informs resource allocation and public safety initiatives. These discretionary decisions may not be aligned with federal initiatives or the public safety goals of other communities.
While some critics are quick to label various policies welcoming immigrants or limiting engagement on specific areas of immigration enforcement as "sanctuary" policies, I'd note that the term "sanctuary city," the subject of this hearing, has not been defined in federal legislation. The absence of clarity over the term's meaning often obscures more than it illuminates. As a sheriff, I follow the law - local, state and federal.
North Carolina law prohibits "sanctuary" policies, barring cities and counties from adopting "sanctuary" ordinances that restrict or limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. N.C.G.S. 160A-205.2. Durham County is not a sanctuary county, and the Durham County Sheriff's Office follows state law. This includes presenting detainers to state judicial officials for review and following any related court orders. If ordered by our magistrates or judges, a person is held for forty-eight hours to allow ICE an opportunity to seize the criminal detainee. As required by state law, we notify ICE when the 48-hour clock starts.
As a law enforcement leader who must answer to the voters, I prioritize local public safety objectives above all else. Consistent with state and federal law, I determine whether or not to participate in the voluntary 287(g) program, or which federal law enforcement task forces Durham County Sheriff's deputies are assigned to, with the goal being to advance community trust and public safety. This also means that I work to ensure that the Durham County Sheriff's Office upholds core state and federal constitutional principles, including ensuring individuals' rights, due process, and civil liberties are respected.
4. Respecting Local Expertise
In law enforcement agencies across the nation - big cities, small towns, rural counties, and urbanized states - collaboration regularly occurs between local and state law enforcement leadership and the federal government. These efforts work best when there are open lines of communication between federal, state, and local authorities, and local input is valued. At the Durham County Sheriff's Office, I am eager to work with the federal government on efforts to combat public safety threats. I have deputies assigned to various task forces (TFOs) from FBI Safe Streets, U.S. Marshals, HSI, to DEA. These partnerships have proven successful in combatting drug trafficking and apprehending violent criminal combatants. When we allow local departments to focus on their core mission--protecting life and property--we strengthen the rule of law rather than weakening it.
As it relates to immigration enforcement, I am willing to find ways to work with federal authorities to help us locate and neutralize threats to public safety. This includes focusing enforcement resources on the U.S citizens and immigrants who commit violent crimes.
As a member of the Major Counties Sheriffs of America and the National Sheriffs' Association, I recently attended a conference, where I heard directly from "Border Czar" Tom Homan about his immigration enforcement priorities. Homan noted that his focus is on identifying known and violent offenders who are in communities across the United States and removing them. I agree with that approach. However, in North Carolina and beyond, we've increasingly seen people without criminal records who pose no threat to public safety get swept up in federal immigration efforts, to the detriment of community trust. If local law enforcement collaborates with the federal government on immigration issues, we must strike the right balance to target threats to public safety in a way that doesn't undermine trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement.
Conclusion
Protecting American citizenship and the rule of law does not require us to turn our local police officers or deputy sheriffs into immigration agents. It requires us to respect the expertise and autonomy of sheriffs and chiefs of police in our cities to serve as professionals in the best interest of their locality. We all want to keep our communities safe. We all want to identify and apprehend violent offenders, especially those committing gun violence, regardless of their immigration status. In that spirit of respect, I urge this Subcommittee to support policies that empower local law enforcement to build bridges, not barriers.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/150abe42-c7cd-d0d2-6ea3-cd1bfc1e0813/2026-03-25-PM_Testimony_Birkhead.pdf
Senate Special Committee on Aging Chairman Scott Issues Opening Remarks at Hearing on Seniors, Workforce
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- Sen. Rick Scott, R-Florida, chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, released the following opening remarks from a March 25, 2026, hearing entitled "Experience Matters: Seniors and the Workforce":* * *
The U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging will now come to order.
In December, this Committee highlighted the positive impact having a purpose and engaging with the community has on older Americans.
Witnesses shared powerful testimonies and firsthand accounts about how staying engaged - whether through volunteering, mentoring, or taking on new responsibilities ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 9 -- Sen. Rick Scott, R-Florida, chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, released the following opening remarks from a March 25, 2026, hearing entitled "Experience Matters: Seniors and the Workforce": * * * The U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging will now come to order. In December, this Committee highlighted the positive impact having a purpose and engaging with the community has on older Americans. Witnesses shared powerful testimonies and firsthand accounts about how staying engaged - whether through volunteering, mentoring, or taking on new responsibilities- - helped them live a happier, healthier life with a renewed purpose and goal for their next chapter.
Not only is this kind of activity enriching and beneficial to seniors, but it also helps their communities, too.
Witnesses spoke about the many, MANY ways older Americans strengthen the U.S. economy thanks to the expertise and perspective they bring to the job.
The truth is that retirement doesn't have to be the end of one's career. For many, it's the start of a new, purpose-driven chapter in their lives.
Seniors can and SHOULD use this time to chase and reach new goals and dreams.
Maybe try that new hobby they haven't had time for in the past, start a business doing odd jobs around their neighborhood, volunteer at their church, or even substitute teach at their grandkids' school!
In all of these things and more, seniors offer valuable insight because they have lived a life full of experiences and knowledge that can be passed on to the next generation.
However, in that hearing witnesses ALSO shared some of the challenges members of our aging community face when those goals and dreams involve continuing to work, or even going BACK to work, either full or part-time.
In today's hearing, we'll look more closely at what these challenges are and how government is making it worse...
The fact is, there are laws on the books that penalize older workers unfairly.
The Retirement Earnings Test is one of them.
This test punishes workers between the ages of 62-66 who start to claim their benefits - benefits they are entitled to and have earned. It essentially takes away $1 of their benefits for every $2 in benefits they earn once their income hits $24,000 a year.
The Retirement Earnings Test was passed during the Great Depression, SPECIFICALLY to push older Americans out of the workforce and free up more jobs for younger Americans.
But as we are all aware - it's not the 1930's anymore, and we shouldn't expect our seniors to be punished today by outdated policies passed then.
Aging Americans deserve better. That's why I've introduced the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2026.
This bill will get rid of the unfair Retirement Earnings Test so that seniors who want to stay in the workforce can do so without being punished or robbed of their hard-earned benefits.
But we need to do more than that. Even if we get the RET repealed, seniors still face mountains of administrative red tape to get information on how WHEN they retire impacts their benefits.
This same red tape also makes it hard for seniors to decide when they should start withdrawing their benefits - many Americans don't realize that WHEN they start withdrawing can actually impact how much they'll be entitled to!
This not only affects our seniors retiring today, but ALL Americans who are actively planning for their future.
We shouldn't be making it difficult for our seniors - or FUTURE seniors - to find the information they need to make the best choices for themselves and their families! We should be making it easy, straightforward, and transparent so all Americans can make the best decisions as they plan for retirement.
That is why I cosponsored the Claiming Age Clarity Act, which also has the support of two of my colleagues on this committee, Ranking Member Gillibrand and Senator Warnock. This bill would give seniors better and more straightforward information about how their Social Security benefits change based on when they retire and when they start claiming their hard-earned benefits.
The fact is, workers age 55 or older have been the fastest-growing age group in the labor force for more than two decades.
In 1994, they made up just 10% of the workforce. In 2022, they made up 24%!
People are living longer, staying healthier, and wanting to keep working and giving back to their communities and pursuing new goals and challenges.
If our seniors want to stay at work, we should be empowering them and giving them all the information they need so they know what that means for their future!
It is not government's job to tell Americans when they should stop working and when they should claim their benefits.
And it's definitely not the government's role to punish those who want to continue their careers later in life.
Government should be working FOR our aging population, not against it.
We should be providing them with transparent information and ample freedom to choose what is best for them.
We should not penalize hardworking Americans for continuing to work after they reach retirement age.
Because at the end of the day, it's older Americans who bring the experience and expertise necessary to get the job done!
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how we can get government out of the way, inject transparency, and make sure seniors have the information and freedom they need to make their later years their best years."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.aging.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/d7ee5fbf-a00d-76ff-0096-d6069f7a1baa/Opening%20Statement_Scott%2003.25.26.pdf
Senate Special Committee on Aging Chairman Scott Issues Opening Remarks at Hearing on Seniors, Workforce
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- Sen. Rick Scott, R-Florida, chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, released the following opening remarks from a March 25, 2026, hearing entitled "Experience Matters: Seniors and the Workforce":* * *
The U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging will now come to order.
In December, this Committee highlighted the positive impact having a purpose and engaging with the community has on older Americans.
Witnesses shared powerful testimonies and firsthand accounts about how staying engaged - whether through volunteering, mentoring, or taking on new responsibilities ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 9 -- Sen. Rick Scott, R-Florida, chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, released the following opening remarks from a March 25, 2026, hearing entitled "Experience Matters: Seniors and the Workforce": * * * The U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging will now come to order. In December, this Committee highlighted the positive impact having a purpose and engaging with the community has on older Americans. Witnesses shared powerful testimonies and firsthand accounts about how staying engaged - whether through volunteering, mentoring, or taking on new responsibilities- - helped them live a happier, healthier life with a renewed purpose and goal for their next chapter.
Not only is this kind of activity enriching and beneficial to seniors, but it also helps their communities, too.
Witnesses spoke about the many, MANY ways older Americans strengthen the U.S. economy thanks to the expertise and perspective they bring to the job.
The truth is that retirement doesn't have to be the end of one's career. For many, it's the start of a new, purpose-driven chapter in their lives.
Seniors can and SHOULD use this time to chase and reach new goals and dreams.
Maybe try that new hobby they haven't had time for in the past, start a business doing odd jobs around their neighborhood, volunteer at their church, or even substitute teach at their grandkids' school!
In all of these things and more, seniors offer valuable insight because they have lived a life full of experiences and knowledge that can be passed on to the next generation.
However, in that hearing witnesses ALSO shared some of the challenges members of our aging community face when those goals and dreams involve continuing to work, or even going BACK to work, either full or part-time.
In today's hearing, we'll look more closely at what these challenges are and how government is making it worse...
The fact is, there are laws on the books that penalize older workers unfairly.
The Retirement Earnings Test is one of them.
This test punishes workers between the ages of 62-66 who start to claim their benefits - benefits they are entitled to and have earned. It essentially takes away $1 of their benefits for every $2 in benefits they earn once their income hits $24,000 a year.
The Retirement Earnings Test was passed during the Great Depression, SPECIFICALLY to push older Americans out of the workforce and free up more jobs for younger Americans.
But as we are all aware - it's not the 1930's anymore, and we shouldn't expect our seniors to be punished today by outdated policies passed then.
Aging Americans deserve better. That's why I've introduced the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2026.
This bill will get rid of the unfair Retirement Earnings Test so that seniors who want to stay in the workforce can do so without being punished or robbed of their hard-earned benefits.
But we need to do more than that. Even if we get the RET repealed, seniors still face mountains of administrative red tape to get information on how WHEN they retire impacts their benefits.
This same red tape also makes it hard for seniors to decide when they should start withdrawing their benefits - many Americans don't realize that WHEN they start withdrawing can actually impact how much they'll be entitled to!
This not only affects our seniors retiring today, but ALL Americans who are actively planning for their future.
We shouldn't be making it difficult for our seniors - or FUTURE seniors - to find the information they need to make the best choices for themselves and their families! We should be making it easy, straightforward, and transparent so all Americans can make the best decisions as they plan for retirement.
That is why I cosponsored the Claiming Age Clarity Act, which also has the support of two of my colleagues on this committee, Ranking Member Gillibrand and Senator Warnock. This bill would give seniors better and more straightforward information about how their Social Security benefits change based on when they retire and when they start claiming their hard-earned benefits.
The fact is, workers age 55 or older have been the fastest-growing age group in the labor force for more than two decades.
In 1994, they made up just 10% of the workforce. In 2022, they made up 24%!
People are living longer, staying healthier, and wanting to keep working and giving back to their communities and pursuing new goals and challenges.
If our seniors want to stay at work, we should be empowering them and giving them all the information they need so they know what that means for their future!
It is not government's job to tell Americans when they should stop working and when they should claim their benefits.
And it's definitely not the government's role to punish those who want to continue their careers later in life.
Government should be working FOR our aging population, not against it.
We should be providing them with transparent information and ample freedom to choose what is best for them.
We should not penalize hardworking Americans for continuing to work after they reach retirement age.
Because at the end of the day, it's older Americans who bring the experience and expertise necessary to get the job done!
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how we can get government out of the way, inject transparency, and make sure seniors have the information and freedom they need to make their later years their best years."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.aging.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/d7ee5fbf-a00d-76ff-0096-d6069f7a1baa/Opening%20Statement_Scott%2003.25.26.pdf
University of Virginia Health System Sterile Processing Department Administrator Avila Testifies Before House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, April 8 -- The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations released the following testimony by Joseph Avila, administrator of the Sterile Processing Department at the University of Virginia Health System, on behalf of the Healthcare Sterile Processing Association, from a March 25, 2026, hearing on legislation to improve credentialing and training in sterile processing departments of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs:* * *
Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Ramirez, and distinguished members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 8 -- The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations released the following testimony by Joseph Avila, administrator of the Sterile Processing Department at the University of Virginia Health System, on behalf of the Healthcare Sterile Processing Association, from a March 25, 2026, hearing on legislation to improve credentialing and training in sterile processing departments of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: * * * Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Ramirez, and distinguished members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testifytoday on behalf of Healthcare Sterile Processing Association (HSPA) and the 60,000 sterile processing technicians across the United States, including the roughly 3,400 serving in positions within Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical facilities. As a veteran, and a sterile processing professional, I am honored to speak in strong support of legislation efforts to improve credentialing and training efforts within VA sterile processing departments.
Sterile processing is not widely understood by the average patient, yet it is the foundation of surgical safety and directly influences clinical outcomes. Sterile processing technicians are responsible for the disassembly, cleaning, inspection, sterilization, and reassembly of every surgical instrument used in patient care. Although many technicians do not hold advanced degrees, they are required to maintain deep technical knowledge of more than 37,000 surgical instruments and to perform their work with a high level of precision under mission-critical conditions.
A hospital with 15 operating rooms performs roughly 13,000 surgical cases annually, which translates to an average of 450 instrument-related steps per procedure or big picture 5 million instruments processed yearly. That level of complexity underscores the need for evidence-based standards, clinical risk mitigation, and high-reliability processes performed by certified professionals.
Many major hospital systems including, Memorial Hermann Health System where I previously served as Regional Director and University of Virginia Health System where I am currently serving as the Administrator of Sterile Processing, have voluntarily adopted credentialing requirements, and seven states require them at all hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers, however, these standards do not apply to federally operated hospitals like those run by VA.
While VA has made progress within the last couple of years by requiring certain staff, such as VA medical facility Sterile Processing Staff Chiefs, to obtain certification from an accredited institution within one year of appointment, the rest of the sterile processing technicians are only required to complete an online learning management training which can be compared to the online training with minimal oversight, similar to what many experience taking cybersecurity training. These modules lack the rigor, competency-based assessment, and third-party oversight provided by accredited certification bodies.
Chairwoman's Kiggans draft legislation requires certification from an accredited institution. Accreditation is an impartial, third-party that sets the standards for certification program practices and administration. By holding an accredited certification, you demonstrate to your employer, the community, and to yourself, that you have the skills and knowledge required to complete your job as defined by the leading authority in the credentialing industry.
Similar to many industries, the surgical industry is constantly evolving and so are the surgical instruments. Ensuring a culture of safety means staff are held to high standards like certification and resourced properly through regular on the job training. We believe all the sterile processing technicians within VA should be certified and trained on a continual basis, which is why we are supporting the legislation drafted by Chairwoman Kiggans.
Contaminated equipment /instruments expose veterans to dangerous pathogens, costly follow-up care, and lengthy delays at a facility when contamination incidents occur. Here are a couple of examples of outbreaks of dirty surgical instruments at VA facilities across the country:
* In January 2022, OIG found that 4,500 veterans who underwent surgical procedures at Carl Vinson Hospital in Georgia in 2021 may have been exposed to HIV and Hepatitis due to improper sterilization procedures./i
In a follow up report, the OIG found that "Significant training and competency failures existed in the [Sterile Processing Staff] SPS."/ii
* Residue was discovered on reusable surgical equipment at the Roudebush VA Medical Center in Indianapolis, Indiana, in April 2024./iii
A 3-month shut-down of on-site sterilization ensued, resulting in significant reduction in procedures. OIG found 468 veterans were affected by subsequent delays and cancellations./iv
* Similarly, in May 2024, residue was found on reusable medical equipment at the VA Medical Center in Aurora, Colorado, leading to a surgery stoppage./v 608 procedures were postponed or referred to other hospitals and surgeries did not fully resume until mid-August./vi
Veterans deserve to have confidence that they are receiving the best care, and their equipment is properly sterilized and serviced. On behalf of sterile processing technicians, I would like to once again thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
I look forward to your questions.
* * *
Footnotes:
i https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/improper-sterilization-veterans-affairs-hospital-exposed-thousandshiv-hepatitis
ii https://www.vaoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2024-03/vaoig-22-01315-90.pdf
iii https://www.wthr.com/article/news/investigations/13-investigates/indianapolis-va-hospital-delays-surgeriesconcerns-over-sterilization-of-surgical-instruments/531-185e3014-7142-4fc5-9a73-5d766a6a0c06
iv https://www.wthr.com/article/news/investigations/13-investigates/indianapolis-va-hospital-patient-surgeriesresume-normal-sterilization-problems-fixed/531-db2fc9d1-8e3b-44e6-8aee-783b91a98d31
v https://www.9news.com/article/news/health/residue-surgery-equipment-va-hospital-aurora-colorado-surgerieshalted/73-441db8e5-0e9d-45c3-80e5-a62ab3356799
vi https://www.cpr.org/2024/08/09/aurora-rocky-mountain-regional-va-medical-center-resumes-surgeries/
* * *
Original text here: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR08/20260325/119102/HHRG-119-VR08-Wstate-AvilaJ-20260325.pdf
Economic Policy Innovation Center Executive VP Madni Testifies Before House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, April 8 -- The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations released the following testimony by Brittany Madni, executive vice president of the Economic Policy Innovation Center, from a March 25, 2026, hearing on legislation to improve U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs fiscal position:* * *
Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Ramirez, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today.
I am here today as an expert witness on the federal budget and to provide analysis of certain bills that should improve the fiscal position of the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 8 -- The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations released the following testimony by Brittany Madni, executive vice president of the Economic Policy Innovation Center, from a March 25, 2026, hearing on legislation to improve U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs fiscal position: * * * Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Ramirez, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am here today as an expert witness on the federal budget and to provide analysis of certain bills that should improve the fiscal position of theU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
While I come to you as a budget expert, I am also the proud wife of a soldier in the United States Army. This legislation is personal to me. You have an opportunity and responsibility to improve the functionality of the VA for those who have served and sacrificed. I am here to work with you so that this rare opportunity is not squandered.
The Current Debt Picture
Before we discuss the legislation at hand, we must first acknowledge the current fiscal situation of the nation. We are running a $1.9 trillion deficit this year, and continuing on the trajectory of spending beyond our means./1
We are $39 trillion in debt./2
To put this into context, our debt translates to approximately $289,000 per household across America. When you add in the unfunded liabilities across Social Security and Medicare, and the added debt service costs, that total burden grows to $875,000 per household.
This is wildly unsustainable, and our debt continues to grow at an alarming rate.
A massive federal debt has real impacts now, not just in the future. It raises interest rates on Americans, is a drag on economic growth, and results in transfer payments that place upward, inflationary pressure on key sectors, including health care, which is of particular note to veterans given the strain on the Veterans Health Administration. All of these challenges are not simply relevant to the budget hawks and our spreadsheets. This negatively impacts American families, especially those like our veterans who heavily rely on government services and benefits they have earned the hard way.
* * *
1 Congressional Budget Office, "Budget," https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget (accessed December 2, 2025).
2 U.S. Department of the Treasury, FiscalData, "America's Finance Guide: Debt," https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-debt/ (accessed March 23, 2026).
* * *
Veterans Spending by the Numbers
While federal spending on veterans is not the largest portion of the federal budget (comprising about six percent of projected outlays in fiscal year (FY) 2026), it is certainly an important subset.
Every dollar spent in this function should be scrutinized to ensure it is indeed being used for veterans and not lost in a bureaucratic morass or wasted where it is not needed. Because the need is most certainly apparent given the multitude of simultaneous challenges our veterans face, from mental health struggles to homelessness, from job transition needs to civilian life re-entry.
In order to assess the legislative proposals before us, we must first examine relevant spending and question whether it matches Americans' priorities.
Since FY 1977,/3 total actual outlays for veterans benefits and services has grown from $18.04 billion to $377.22 billion in FY 2025.
* * *
3 1977 is the first full year following the switch to the current fiscal year cycle. By 1977, the U.S. military had also fully transitioned to an all-volunteer force, making the data more consistent with the current service environment.
* * *
As you can see from the chart provided, the rate of growth is notable in the previous 10 years, and the rate of increase only gets more extreme in the Congressional Budget Office's projections for the coming decade.
Of course, spending on veterans is directly impacted by spending on defense, with an observable lag time between active duty-related outlays in the defense budget and the shift to the veterans affairs budget./4
Given the likely increase in defense spending due to the Iran conflict, it would be prudent for Congress to rein in unwarranted excess spending now, in preparation for veterans' potential needs in the coming years.
* * *
4 In most cases, this lag time is approximately four years, which is the average contract length. However, there are some notable exceptions, such as impacts from ending the Stop Loss program, high casualty environment years, and the Budget Control Act of 2011 drawdown.
* * *
The Global War on Terror started in the final weeks of FY 2001. Just 25 years later, FY 2026 outlays are projected to be 867 percent higher. The deployment height of the Iraq War during the 2007-2008 surge explains veterans outlay increases in the subsequent four years as soldiers returned home, particularly following the end of the Stop Loss program in 2010. However, after that, outlays continued to surge and are now well outpacing inflation. They also continue to grow even as the veteran population declines./5
Source: Author's chart using OMB historical tables and CBO baseline data.
* * *
5 Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, using Current Population Survey Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Sizing Up the Ranks of America's Veterans," November 2023, https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2023/november/sizing-up-ranks-america-veterans (accessed March 23, 2026).
* * *
I am not suggesting that all outlays are misspent dollars. To the contrary: many of the programs in the VA's budget are essential for the wellbeing of America's heroes, such as ensuring critical access to mental health for veterans, including those in rural areas who have long been abandoned./6
That is where tax dollars - a finite resource - should be going.
The Need for Oversight
Unfortunately, as outlays increase, there is a higher risk of fraud, waste, and abuse. There is also simply a higher chance of tax dollars being directed toward misaligned programming that neither matches the priorities of the American people nor best serves those veterans most in need of benefits and services. One example of this is the $1 million expenditure by the VA on forcing ferrets to consume alcohol in a "forced binge," as uncovered in Senator Rand Paul's annual Festivus Report wastebook./7
A major part of the problem is that the mandatory (or, "autopilot") spending side of veterans outlays has grown to 69 percent for fiscal year 2026. That means Congress as a whole is only reviewing (through the appropriations process) 31 percent of what it spends in taxpayer money each year for veterans services.
* * *
6 Once example of an essential service that should be funded is programming under the Sgt. Ketchum Rural Veterans Mental Health Act of 2021. This bipartisan law was championed in the 117th Congress by Congresswoman Ashley Hinson (R-IA-01) and Congresswoman Cindy Axne (D-IA-03). The law is named in honor of Sergeant Brandon Ketchum, an Iowa Marine who served two tours of duty overseas and later took his own life after being turned away from a local VA hospital when he sought treatment for PostTraumatic Stress Disorder.
7 Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, "The Festivus Report 2025," December 2025, https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/FESTIVUS-2025-FINAL.pdf (accessed March 23, 2026).
* * *
The VA only comprises six percent of the entire federal budget, but it is responsible for the fourth highest outlays to designated susceptible programs behind the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Social Security Administration, and the U.S. Department of War. In FY 2025, the VA's susceptible program outlays totaled $201 billion to its seven susceptible programs./9
Of this, $157.5 billion falls into the compensation bucket for VA employees. In FY 2025, the VA had $866.59 million in known improper
payments for compensation across the agency./10
This does not include those payments for compensation that are technically not improper but still problematic.
No wonder there are challenges within the Department and concerns about the agencies not supporting veterans properly while simultaneously hemorrhaging taxpayer dollars. Oversight - regular oversight - must be a core component of any funding.
* * *
8 Congressional Budget Office, 10-Year Budget Projections, March 2026, https://www.cbo.gov/data/budget-economic-data#3 (accessed March 23, 2026).
9 The VA's susceptible programs are: Purchased Long Term Services and Supports, Supplies and Materials, Pension, VA Community Care, Beneficiary Travel, Compensation, and Medical Care Contracts and Agreements. PaymentAccuracy.gov, https://paymentaccuracy.gov/agencies-and-programs (accessed March 23, 2026).
10 PaymentAccuracy.gov, https://paymentaccuracy.gov/resources?fiscal-year=2025-data (accessed March 23, 2026).
* * *
Failure to Focus on Core Mission
As the VA's budget grows, you might expect to see significant improvements in veterans' quality of life, access to care, and health outcomes. That is not what has happened.
According to the VA's Office of Suicide Prevention, veteran deaths by suicide rates significantly increased from 2001 to 2023./11
In 2001, there were 23.2 veteran suicide cases per 100,000 veterans. By 2023, this had jumped to 35.2 per 100,000. Even at height of the Global War on Terror, that rate never rose above 30. This is, quite frankly, an unacceptable failure.
Another failure is the considerable wait times veterans must deal with before getting care at all. Right here in the National Capital Region, the Fort Belvoir VA Clinic has a 60 day wait time for a mental health appointment. That pales in comparison to the Greenville VA Clinic in Texas, where Congressman Self's constituents would have to wait 105 days for mental health care.
Every single one of those veterans and their families would be appalled to learn that employees fired for bad behavior (particularly bureaucrats based in DC) are still able to keep their bonuses, or that VA employees who were supposed to relocate to help push down wait times - particularly in rural communities - instead retired and kept the relocation money, even while those who served are stuck in line, unable to access critical care.
Legislative Proposals
This brings us to today's bills. While several of the bills would improve the operations of the VA, I will focus my analysis on four:
* * *
11 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Suicide Prevention, 2001-23 National Suicide Data Appendix.
* * *
1. H.R. 7319, the VA Bonus and Relocation Recovery Act (Rep. Self)
2. H.R. 7683, the VA Fiscal Management Modernization Act (Rep. Bergman) 3. H.R. 7950, to establish OCLA in the VA (Rep. Self)
4. Discussion Draft, to modify the rate of pay for care or services provided under the Community Care Program (Rep. Miller-Meeks)
VA Bonus and Relocation Recovery Act. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the VA was assessed as being at high risk for improper payments in the compensation category for both FY 2024 and FY 2025. There is no room in the compensation account line item for additional failures. As demonstrated already in my testimony, it is unreasonable for VA employees to be provided with bonuses or relocation pay and then fail to follow through on those commitments and contracts. This commonsense legislation would close an important loophole that enables the government to recoup those dollars, which can then be spent to ensure providers are available to care for veterans in need of services. If these payments are not recouped, those dollars are lost and there is an opportunity cost given that there is no replacement employee pay available to incentivize relocation or reward good behavior.
VA Fiscal Management Modernization Act. Given the VA's track record of fiscal mismanagement and inability to improve veterans' outcomes or quality of life, it is prudent to establish a function to address these issues and advise the Secretary on financial management. With a Chief Financial Officer installed at the VA, this committee should finally have a productive partner with whom to work on improving the Department's budgetary health. This bill will complement the bill the establish OCLA.
To Establish OCLA. It is unreasonable that this committee, other committees of jurisdiction, and the Congressional Budget Office are unable to gain access to necessary budgetary information from the VA in a timely manner. Establishing the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs (OCLA) has become necessary to ensure that the executive is responsive to the needs of legislators as they perform their constitutional responsibilities. Providing for a dedicated office will complement the VA Fiscal Management Modernization Act. Any stand-up expenses associated with this activity should be quickly offset by Congress once OCLA provides requested information on programs that require reform.
To Modify Community Care Rates. This bill is a fiscally responsible measure to prevent the VA from overpaying for medical services and costs under the Community Care program. Site neutral reimbursement rates are not only a fiscal saver, but also help veterans by promoting consistent access to care and reducing out-of-pocket expenses. Stopping unfair billing will be particularly meaningful in rural communities, in communities with high wait times for appointments at VA clinics, and in times of high population need (such as when there is an increase in post-active conflict stress).
Each of these bills would make notable improvements in the fiscal state of the VA and improve access to information for Congressional oversight purposes, while simultaneously prioritizing veterans over non-essential spending. None of them should increase deficits over the window; they will likely all reduce direct spending to a measurable degree whether immediately (like with bonus recoupment and site-neutrality) or over time (with improved fiscal management and the establishment of OCLA).
Conclusion
I encourage you to consider not only the legislation before us today, but any serious effort to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse at the VA. This is not simply on behalf of taxpayers across the country - this is to focus the Department on the priorities and mission of serving our veterans more effectively and efficiently.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR08/20260325/119102/HHRG-119-VR08-Wstate-MandniB-20260325.pdf
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.
* * *
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.
* * *
Assistant Secretary of State for Educational & Cultural Affairs Nominee Dillon Testifies Before Senate Foreign Relations Committee
WASHINGTON, April 4 -- The Senate Foreign Relations Committee released the following testimony by Catherine Dillon, President Trump's nominee to be assistant secretary of State for educational and cultural affairs, from a March 26, 2026, confirmation hearing:* * *
Thank you, Dr. Foxx, for your kind introduction. I am incredibly grateful for your mentorship.
Chairman Hagerty, Ranking Member Merkley, distinguished Members of the Committee, it is truly an honor to appear before you today as President Donald J. Trump's nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs.
I ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 4 -- The Senate Foreign Relations Committee released the following testimony by Catherine Dillon, President Trump's nominee to be assistant secretary of State for educational and cultural affairs, from a March 26, 2026, confirmation hearing: * * * Thank you, Dr. Foxx, for your kind introduction. I am incredibly grateful for your mentorship. Chairman Hagerty, Ranking Member Merkley, distinguished Members of the Committee, it is truly an honor to appear before you today as President Donald J. Trump's nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs. Iam deeply grateful to the President and to Secretary Rubio for entrusting me with leading this vital component of our country's foreign policy. I would like to thank my parents, John and Diane, and my boyfriend, Andrew who are seated behind me.
I would also like to thank my sister, Alexandra, and many friends watching from the audience and at home. Without your unconditional love and support, I would not be here today.
My professional experience has focused on ensuring complex organizations deliver on their promises. From Chief Clerk and Finance Director in the House of Representatives to a Director for the 2024 Republican National Convention, I have led in environments where success is not theoretical. It is measured in disciplined execution and meaningful strategic outcomes. During my time at the Department of State, I have applied that discipline to ensure State's vast personnel and resources serve the President's agenda and the American people.
If confirmed, I will bring that same rigor and clarity of purpose to the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs by leading with four core priorities.
First, Strategic Alignment: Every ECA program and initiative must clearly advance America First priorities and our strategic national interests. In this period of great power competition, our exchange programs cannot be treated as legacy institutions running on autopilot. They are strategic assets, they are instruments of national power, and they are critical tools for advancing the interests of the American people. They must be administered as such.
Second, Fiscal Stewardship: I am experienced at managing high-stakes budgets. I will continue to apply fiscal scrutiny out of respect for the American taxpayer in my leadership of ECA to ensure efficiency and impact of every dollar spent. If a program is not delivering an adequate return on investment for the American people, we will reform it--in accordance with all applicable laws.
Third, Championing American Excellence: As we approach our nation's 250th anniversary and other major milestones like the FIFA World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympic Games, ECA is uniquely positioned to tell the American story.
We will capitalize on these historic opportunities to showcase American excellence in innovation, education, and culture.
Finally, if confirmed, I commit to prioritizing the safety and welfare of our American exchange participants abroad, and to working at every level from our U.S. embassies to our interagency partners to guarantee that our foreign exchange participants are selected with intention and merit, vetted for our security, and are as respectful of our country as guests, as we are as hosts.
Mr. Chairman, I also remain committed to ensuring the bureau is cooperative with this body and responsive to your inquiries.
I am honored by this opportunity and humbled by the trust that President Trump and Secretary Rubio have put in me to ensure our exchange programs are at the core of advancing our national interests. I stand ready to begin achieving that vision on day one.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/4de7d09e-f913-58f2-e349-6bf3ebe95b63/032626_Dillon_Testimony1.pdf
AFGE Local 3511 VP Guerrero Testifies Before House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, April 4 -- The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations released the following testimony by Dennis 'Sarge' Guerrero, vice-president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 3511 at the Audie L. Murphy Memorial Veterans' Hospital in San Antonio, Texas, from a March 25, 2026, hearing on legislation affecting the VA workforce:* * *
Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Ramirez, and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) to participate in today's Subcommittee Hearing on "Pending ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 4 -- The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations released the following testimony by Dennis 'Sarge' Guerrero, vice-president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 3511 at the Audie L. Murphy Memorial Veterans' Hospital in San Antonio, Texas, from a March 25, 2026, hearing on legislation affecting the VA workforce: * * * Chairwoman Kiggans, Ranking Member Ramirez, and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for inviting the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) to participate in today's Subcommittee Hearing on "PendingLegislation." My name is Dennis "Sarge" Guerrero, and I serve as the Vice-President of AFGE Local 3511 at the Audie L. Murphy Memorial Veterans' Hospital in San Antonio, TX. I am a 20-year U.S. Air Force Security Forces Combat Veteran who proudly served our country during Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Desert Fox, and in Albania providing security for Kosovo refugee camps. For the past 18 years, I have continued to serve our nation and my fellow veterans as a VA police officer having attained the rank of sergeant.
On behalf of AFGE and its National Veterans Affairs Council (NVAC), representing over 800,000 federal and District of Columbia government employees, 325,000 of whom are proud, dedicated Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees, it is a privilege to testify today. Specifically, I plan to focus my testimony on legislation affecting the VA workforce, including thousands of VA police officers serving across the nation.
H.R. 8010, the "VA Police Recruitment and Retention Act"
AFGE and the NVAC strongly support H.R. 8010, the "VA Police Recruitment and Retention Act" introduced by Rep. Kennedy (D-NY). If enacted, this legislation would prohibit the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the VA from downgrading the positions of VA police officers, retroactive to October 1, 2025.
OPM's actions to downgrade the positions of police officers, which is the bureaucratic way of saying pay cuts, is counter the VA's mission "[t]o fulfill President Lincoln's promise to care for those who have served in our nation's military and for their families, caregivers, and survivors."
VA police officers have a critical and unique role in protecting the safety of veterans, their families, and VA employees every day. As AFGE has highlighted to this committee during previous hearings, VA police officers receive training at the Law Enforcement Training Center and additional specialized and tailored training in crisis intervention to help prevent veterans from harming themselves or others. Moreover, as 90 percent of officers are veterans themselves, these officers can tap into their own experience when both communicating with and policing veterans, building relationships with the veterans they serve, and understanding the nuances of the physical facilities where they police. As a fellow VA officer from the Great Lakes Region recently articulated to me:
"VA medical centers are complex environments that present unique law enforcement challenges. Officers respond to violent incidents, mental health crises, domestic disputes, narcotics activity, and threats against staff and patients."
This unfortunately happens across the country. Officers frequently interact with veterans armed with guns and knives or under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
This was tragically put in stark relief this month, after a VA social worker Nicholas Crews was murdered at a VA clinic in Jasper, Georgia, demonstrating not only the bravery and dedication required of VA police officers as well as the broad scope of their responsibilities.
The plan to downgrade VA police officer positions in the 0083 series is even more dire when considered in conjunction with the significant staffing shortage facing the VA Police Force. A VA OIG report entitled "OIG Determination of Veterans Health Administration's Severe Occupational Staffing Shortages Fiscal Year 2023"/1 noted that 73 facilities had a severe shortage of VA Police in the 0083 series, with more common shortages found for only seven positions./2
* * *
1 "OIG Determination of Veterans Health Administration's Severe Occupational Staffing Shortages Fiscal Year 2023," August 22, 2023. VA OIG 23-00659-186.
* * *
An updated 2024 version of the report noted that VA police shortages "were reported by at least 20 percent of facilities since FY 2018."/3
This has further worsened in the current FY 2025 report, as the VA OIG states:
"In FY 2025, the OIG found that 58 percent of facilities (80 of 139) designated Police as a severe occupational staffing shortage, making it the most frequently reported
nonclinical shortage occupation and most frequently reported of all occupations. The Police occupation was among the top five most frequently reported nonclinical shortages in each year since 2019, when VHA first made official designations for clinical and nonclinical occupations, and the seventh most frequently reported shortage among all occupations in 2018."/4
On the ground in VA facilities, the shortages referenced by OIG also hinder the ability of officers to perform their duties. In some facilities, expensive new security screening equipment sits unused as there are not enough officers to operate this equipment. There are other facilities where only one or two officers are available to respond to emergencies. In some cases, short staffing in 1A facilities limits response to one emergency at a time. The staffing problem is also acute for Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) where the nearest officer is often miles away.
Short staffing and inadequate pay harms officer morale. One officer recently told me, "[m]orale across VA is low. [D]owngrading people only pushes more people to leave." Additionally, with the staff shortage at the level it is, VA facilities must further rely on extensive use of overtime, which often leads to the denial of annual leave for officers, leading to further burnout of the officers that remain.
* * *
2 Id at 8.
3 "OIG Determination of Veterans Health Administration's Severe Occupational Staffing Shortages Fiscal Year 2024," August 7, 2024. VA OIG 24-00803-22 at 10.
4 "OIG Determination of Veterans Health Administration's Severe Occupational Staffing Shortages Fiscal Year 2025," August 12, 2025. VA OIG 25-01135-196 at 9.
* * *
This is particularly problematic when VA police officers have other opportunities to serve in other federal agencies or in state, county, or local police forces that pay starting salaries significantly higher compared the planned downgraded GS-5 salary. For example, in Buffalo, NY, a GS-5 Step One makes $42,597 annually,/5 while an entry level City Police Officer (Step 1) earns $57,453./6
Similarly, a GS-5 Step one makes $41,341 in the Virginia Beach Region,/7 while a Police Recruit at the lowest level of the pay scale makes $54,863 in the City of Hampton, Virginia./8
Severe staffing shortages, low retention, and poor morale require attention and solutions, not downgrades in positions and pay.
The VA should do everything in its power to recruit and retain its police force. While AFGE is pleased that the planned downgrades have been "paused," AFGE still fully supports H.R. 8010, the "VA Police Recruitment and Retention Act," as it is a necessary first step to stem the tide of departures from the VA Police Department. AFGE strongly encourages the swift passage of H.R. 8010 to prevent any future downgrades from OPM and looks forward to working with the committee to pass this bill. AFGE welcomes the opportunity to work with the committee on other legislation that would support the VA Police force, including increased hiring, addressing higher wages, and granting VA Police Officers Federal Law Enforcement Officer retirements, commonly referred to as "6(c) benefits," and thanks Chairwoman Kiggans and Representative Kennedy for co-sponsoring H.R. 3226, the "Law Enforcement Officers Equity Act" to achieve that goal.
* * *
5 See GS Salary Table 2026-BU. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salarytables/26Tables/html/BU.aspx
6 See City of Buffalo, "Department of Police Recent Salary Figure FY2026" at 176 (10 of 23 on linked PDF) https://www.buffalony.gov/ImageRepository/Document?documentId=14525
7 See GS Salary Table 2026-VB. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salarytables/pdf/2026/VB.pdf
8 See City of Hampton Virginia Police Department Step Plan Effective January 10, 2026. https://www.hampton.gov/DocumentCenter/View/48497/Police-Division-Step-Plan-PDF
* * *
H.R. 7948, the "VA Employee Family Care Expansion Act"
AFGE supports H.R. 7498, the "VA Employee Family Care Expansion Act" introduced by Ranking Member Ramirez (D-IL). If enacted, this bill would codify the ability for a VA employee to utilize the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to care for the parent of a spouse.
AFGE and the NVAC had previously negotiated this right into its Master Collective Bargaining Agreement, which is currently the subject of litigation.
While no VA employee would ever wish to be in the position to use FMLA to care for someone, it is unfortunately something that many of us, including myself, have had to do. Sadly, this month, my father of blessed memory passed away, and I used FMLA to take care of him and be with him in his final days. Having the ability to use this leave was a relief to me and my family and didn't force me to make a choice between being a son and being a VA police officer serving my fellow veterans. Had it not been my father, but one of my in-laws in this situation, not being able to use this leave would have been devastating and forced a cruel choice for me and my family.
Passing this legislation and restoring this right to VA employees is a commonsense policy that would allow VA employees to better serve our nation's veterans and improve recruitment and retention. AFGE urges its swift passage.
Draft legislation to establish an entitlement to a supplemental period of unpaid parental leave for employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs
AFGE supports the draft legislation being considered by this subcommittee to establish entitlement to a supplemental period of unpaid parental leave for employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs. If enacted, this bill would codify a VA employee's right to four additional weeks of Leave Without Pay (LWOP) for the purposes of parental leave following the birth or adoption of a child. AFGE and the NVAC had previously negotiated this right into its Master Collective Bargaining Agreement, which is currently the subject of litigation.
Passing this legislation and restoring this right to VA employees is a commonsense policy that would allow the dedicated workers who take care of our nation's veterans, many of whom are veterans themselves, the ability to stay home with a new child, if they choose, for an extra month with no pay. Enacting this policy will help VA stay competitive with other employers who offer similar or more generous options and improve recruitment and retention.
AFGE urges its swift passage.
Draft legislation to establish a professional certification requirement for certain sterile processing technicians of the Veterans Health Administration
Chairwoman Kiggans' draft legislation would amend Title 38 to prospectively require that sterile processing technicians attain a certification from an accredited institution prior to working at the VA and gives incumbent sterile processing technicians up to two years to earn this certification. The bill also does not apply to positions the Secretary of Veterans Affairs considers as entry level.
AFGE appreciates Chairwoman Kiggans' intent in improving the training of Sterile Processing Technicians at the VA. However, the current version of the bill raises several questions that require clarification before AFGE can take a position on this legislation.
First, the bill neither defines which certification is required, nor which institutions are accredited. Further, it does not consider whether the VA can offer this certification in-house instead of relying on private companies. Currently, these technicians take an internal certification course called the VA Certified Registered Medical Supply Technician (VA-CRMST).
Technicians must finish the certification within their first year at the VA and complete 400 hours of work prior to testing. Additionally, there are 12 hours of continuing education requirements for these employees. VA has standardized the VA-CRMST for VA technicians and allows it to be completed during the workday with no individual expense for VA employees. What is the extra benefit to VA and its employees to further require, for example, the Certified Registered Central Sterile Technician (CRCST) certification, recognized by the Healthcare Sterile Processing Association?
Second, what is the uniformity of the programs recognized by the Healthcare Sterile Processing Association? Do all these companies and their programs cover the same material, or is there variation in the programs and curriculum? Further, are any of those programs currently tailored for employees at the VA, as the VA's VA-CRMST program is?
Third, who will bear the cost of attaining the CRCST certification? Asking incumbent technicians who are between GS-3 and GS-6, making a starting salary of $36,745 to $51,442 in Washington, DC to pay for a certification costing thousands of dollars is cost prohibitive, especially when it can be done in-house. Moreover, while new employees would be required to have this certification prior to employment, the burden placed on current employees and earning this certification after hours is significant and may hurt with retention of these employees.
AFGE looks forward to learning more about this bill as it is considered by the subcommittee.
Draft legislation to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to recoup awards, bonuses, and relocation expenses paid to former employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs under certain conditions Rep. Self's draft legislation would allow the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to recoup bonuses and relocation expenses of former employees of the VA. AFGE opposes this legislation as it is an extension of the powers granted to the Secretary under the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 (Accountability Act). The VA has abused the powers of the Accountability Act since its inception almost nine years ago. In turn, AFGE has justifiable concerns as to how the bill would be implemented. Granting this power to claw back money from former employees since the law was enacted on June 23, 2017, poses problems for former employees who, after potentially almost a decade, do not have the ability to rebut the VA's claims. AFGE urges the subcommittee not to advance this bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and present AFGE's views on these bills. I look forward to answering your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR08/20260325/119102/HHRG-119-VR08-Wstate-GuerreroS-20260325.pdf