Congressional Testimony
Congressional Testimony
Here's a look at documents involving congressional testimony and member statements
Featured Stories
Ferrovial Airports Global Corporate Development & Strategy Director Kinder Testifies Before Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, June 22 -- The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Border Management, Federal Workforce and Regulatory Affairs released the following testimony by Shawn Kinder, global corporate development and strategy director at Ferrovial Airports, from a June 10, 2025, hearing entitled "Match Ready: Oversight of the Federal Government's Border Management and Personnel Readiness Efforts for the Decade of Sports":* * *
Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Fetterman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Shawn Kinder, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 22 -- The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Border Management, Federal Workforce and Regulatory Affairs released the following testimony by Shawn Kinder, global corporate development and strategy director at Ferrovial Airports, from a June 10, 2025, hearing entitled "Match Ready: Oversight of the Federal Government's Border Management and Personnel Readiness Efforts for the Decade of Sports": * * * Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Fetterman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Shawn Kinder,and I am the Global Corporate Development and Strategy Director at Ferrovial Airports.
Ferrovial Airports is a leading global private airport operator and developer, with over 25 years of experience in the aviation industry. The company has managed more than 30 airports worldwide, including significant current projects like the New Terminal One at New York's JFK International Airport. Our prior portfolio has included being the majority owner of London Heathrow for more than 18 years, as well as various other airports in the United Kingdom, Europe, and Australia For the past 20 years, Ferrovial has developed and managed critical infrastructure projects in North America. We leverage our engineering capabilities and innovation to transform highways, airports, and energy infrastructure that connect communities across the country. We are building and managing toll roads in Texas, Virginia, and North Carolina, and we are currently developing the New Terminal One at JFK International Airport in New York. More than 80% of Ferrovial's equity value comes from North America, primarily the United States. With over $30 billion in market capitalization, we are North America's largest listed road and airport infrastructure company.
Ferrovial Airports operates as a trusted partner in the U.S. by focusing on long-term collaborations that enhance infrastructure, sustainability, and passenger experience. The company brings extensive experience in developing and managing airports, evidenced by its role in the New Terminal One project at JFK Airport. With a commitment to operational efficiency and cutting-edge technology, we work closely with U.S. airport authorities and stakeholders to drive innovation and improve airport capacity. Our approach emphasizes a commitment to both operational excellence and community engagement, making us a reliable partner in shaping the future of U.S. aviation.
Travel is a major economic driver in the U.S., contributing nearly $2.9 trillion annually and supporting over 15 million jobs across various sectors. It generates significant tax revenue at federal, state, and local levels, while also enhancing America's global standing through diplomacy and business. In 2024, international visitors contributed $181 billion to the economy.
Over the past year, I have had the privilege of serving on the U.S. Travel Association's Commission on Seamless and Secure Travel. Throughout our work, the commission has focused on modernizing the U.S. travel system to enhance both security and efficiency. As part of this effort, we have conducted field visits to major U.S. airports, including Washington Dulles International, Las Vegas and Atlanta, where we met directly with leadership from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and other stakeholders. These discussions have been essential in identifying operational challenges and opportunities for innovation and collaboration.
Additionally, we have traveled internationally to examine global best practices in airport operations, gaining valuable insights into how other nations are addressing similar challenges. Our recommendations aim to promote the deployment of critical security technologies, streamline travel processes, and modernize visitor vetting systems to ensure that the U.S. remains a leader in global travel while maintaining the highest standards in security.
Our comprehensive report, which we released earlier this year, synthesizes the insights gathered from these visits, meetings, and collaborations. It provides actionable recommendations that cover a wide range of areas, including travel-related economic development strategies, the adoption of advanced technologies, and the modernization of visitor visa processing. The report offers a clear roadmap for transforming the U.S. travel system to meet the demands of the future, ensuring that we not only strengthen security but also create a seamless, efficient experience for travelers.
* * *
Golden Opportunity with a Mega Decade of Events
Major events over the next four years such as the 2025 Club World Cup, the 2025 Ryder Cup, the 2026 FIFA World Cup, America's 250th anniversary, and the 2028 Olympics could contribute nearly $100 billion in economic activity and bring an estimated 40 million international travelers. With the 2025 Club World Cup starting this month and the 2026 World Cup just over a year from now, we are operating under an exceptionally compressed timeline. These global sporting events will place immense pressure on our nation's aging infrastructure, so we must ensure that we are ready to handle the increased demand. This means addressing key issues in safety, security, and efficient travel facilitation.
We are grateful for the Administration's action to establish the White House Task Force on the FIFA World Cup 2026, which will provide senior leadership and coordination across government to ensure the U.S. is fully prepared to accommodate the millions of travelers expected for the 2025 Club World Cup and the 2026 World Cup. By bringing together the necessary resources and expertise, the Task Force will provide the foundation for a transformative mega decade of events that will benefit not only the travel industry but the nation.
Through this effort, we have an opportunity to drive innovation, modernize infrastructure, and ensure America remains a premier destination for travel and business. With careful planning and strategic investments, we can leverage this moment to further strengthen our economy, enhance security, and showcase America's role as a global leader in the travel and hospitality sectors. The urgency of our situation cannot be overstated. While other nations have had decades to prepare for major international events, we are attempting to modernize our entire travel infrastructure in a much shorter period of time. This requires not just funding, but critical coordination, streamlined approval processes, and immediate action on proven solutions to ensure lasting reform.
* * *
Key Recommendations
In our report, we created a comprehensive blueprint for the future of American travel. Our proposed solutions focus on transforming the entire travel experience, from planning to arrival, to ensure a seamless and secure process for travelers. We encourage Congress and the administration to ensure a similar sustainable model that prioritizes travel policy and drives meaningful progress for decades to come.
Our full report and recommendations can be viewed at showcaseamericantravel.org and I have included an executive summary of the report as an addendum to my testimony.
I would like to highlight some key recommendations of the report that require immediate implementation to meet our rapidly approaching deadlines:
Biometrics. Accelerating the adoption of biometric technologies to enhance the efficiency and security of air travel is critical to meeting the travel demands of tomorrow. Given that we have just over a year to prepare for World Cup volumes, federal agencies must fast-track biometric deployment timelines and eliminate bureaucratic delays that could derail implementation. Supporting the widespread implementation of biometric screening at key airport touchpoints, including check-in, security, and customs, would streamline passenger processing and reduce wait times. Additionally, collaboration between federal agencies, airlines, and technology providers is essential to ensure interoperability and scalability across the national and international travel network. A coordinated effort to integrate biometric solutions into the traveler journey will bolster both security and customer experience, aligning with the Commission's goal of a more seamless, secure travel ecosystem. These are proven technologies that add efficiency to the processing, safety to the security ecosystem, and appropriately protect the personal security rights of travelers.
Artificial Intelligence. AI is critical to meeting the demands of the growth in travel, and its adoption should be accelerated to keep pace with increasing travel volumes. The current testing and procurement cycles are too slow for our compressed timeline--we need emergency authorization processes and expedited deployment schedules. AI-driven systems for checked baggage and carry-on luggage screening, for instance, can automate threat detection and enhance the accuracy and speed of screening processes--enabling officers to focus on areas of higher risk. By accelerating the deployment of these technologies, airports and security agencies can significantly reduce delays and improve passenger flow, ensuring a more seamless and efficient experience. With the continued rise in travel, accelerating the integration of AI is essential to maintaining security while meeting the evolving needs of the industry.
Scalable Solutions for All Airport Sizes. One critical lesson from our Commission's work is that technological solutions must be scalable across airports of all sizes. The upcoming global events will stress not just major international gateways, but also smaller and medium-hub airports that may experience unprecedented volumes--such as airports serving Oklahoma's softball and canoe slalom Olympic venues, or regional airports that become staging points for multi-destination itineraries or gateways to National Parks during America's 250th anniversary celebrations. Technology can be the great equalizer, allowing smaller airports to achieve efficiency and security standards comparable to major hubs without requiring massive infrastructure investments. At Ferrovial, we have successfully implemented scalable biometric and AI systems across our diverse portfolio--from Heathrow's 80 million annual passengers to Aberdeen's 3 million passengers annually. The same core technologies can be configured and deployed proportionally, ensuring that a traveler experiences consistent, seamless processing whether they're arriving at JFK or a regional gateway. This scalability is essential for maintaining security standards while accommodating the complex, multi-city travel patterns we expect during the mega decade of events.
A new P3 model for airports.
Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) offer a valuable approach to modernizing U.S. airports by leveraging private sector capital, operational expertise, and innovation. With growing travel demand and limited public resources, P3s can help accelerate infrastructure upgrades, enhance the traveler experience, and introduce new technologies--without relying solely on taxpayer funding. Importantly, privately funded airport development in the U.S. market is not a wholesale transfer of control. Rather, it is a strategic partnership in which the airport or airport authority retains regulatory oversight, while the private partner assumes responsibility capital investment or specific operational areas in the infrastructure.
P3s can make airports more agile and responsive to evolving needs--from deploying touchless identity systems to achieving environmental sustainability goals. These partnerships are not one-size-fits-all solutions; they are tailored strategies that unlock value when public objectives and private capabilities are aligned. Private-sector investment in these assets is a tool to deliver on a public mission--ensuring communities across America have access to high-quality, modern air service that supports economic growth and connectivity. The path to long-term competitiveness in the U.S. airport system may well lie in embracing partnerships with private sector innovators to advance the modernization of our national airport infrastructure--a goal this Committee has long worked to support.
The New Terminal One at JFK will welcome many of the athletes, teams, spectators, and international travelers attending the World Cup, the Olympics, and America 250 when it opens in the summer of 2026. We would like to thank U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Transportation Security Administration for their strong collaboration in helping us design operations that both facilitate traveler movement and uphold the global standard for border and aviation security. The success at New Terminal One--and in future projects--depends on continued partnership and close coordination with our federal and state and local regulators, air carriers, and traveling public to meet the long-term growth of global travel. Conclusion.
In conclusion, I would like to thank Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Fetterman, and the distinguished members of this Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today. With just over one year until the 2026 World Cup begins and less than three years until the 2028 Olympics, we have a narrow window to implement the infrastructure improvements and technological advances necessary to handle an unprecedented influx of international visitors. The economic opportunity before us--nearly $100 billion in activity and 40 million international travelers--demands immediate action. Drawing from both our global airport expertise and the Commission's comprehensive research, I can confidently say that the solutions exist. We have identified proven technologies, successful partnership models, and actionable implementation strategies. What we need now is swift coordination between federal agencies, strategic investment in modernization, and enhanced public-private partnerships that leverage industry expertise and private capital.
Time is our most critical but fleeting resource. I encourage the Subcommittee to support the recommendations outlined in our report and prioritize rapid deployment of biometric systems, AI-enhanced screening technologies, and expanded P3 models that can accelerate capacity building across airports of all sizes. These efforts will require unprecedented collaboration across the public and private sectors. Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify, and I stand ready to work with this Committee, federal agencies, and industry partners to ensure the U.S. is not just prepared but sets a new global standard for travel excellence during this transformative decade.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Kinder-Testimony.pdf
Elizabeth Dole Foundation Caregiver Fellow Benson Testifies Before House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, June 22 -- The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health released the following testimony by Caira Benson, a caregiver fellow at the Elizabeth Dole Foundation, from a June 12, 2025, hearing on the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs Children's Care Protection Act (H.R. 1404):* * *
Chairwoman Miller-Meeks, Ranking Member Brownley, Members of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, thank you for inviting me to testify today. As the wife and caregiver of a severely injured and ill combat veteran, it is my honor to speak to some proposed legislation ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 22 -- The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health released the following testimony by Caira Benson, a caregiver fellow at the Elizabeth Dole Foundation, from a June 12, 2025, hearing on the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs Children's Care Protection Act (H.R. 1404): * * * Chairwoman Miller-Meeks, Ranking Member Brownley, Members of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, thank you for inviting me to testify today. As the wife and caregiver of a severely injured and ill combat veteran, it is my honor to speak to some proposed legislationthat could lessen the burden each of our caregiving families face every day.
Veteran family caregivers are a group of people who have been tempered in the fires of a war many will never see and even fewer will understand. We are forged stronger every day we fight for appropriate care for our loved ones.
I care for my husband, Eric, deployed twice to Iraq between 2003-2006, spending roughly over 20 months in combat zones. I immediately noticed things were off upon his return home, but I was told not to worry. It was only "expected reintegration stress." By 2007, my husband's "reintegration stress" would ensure he couldn't feel his legs when he ran. He was quickly put on a permanent profile, meaning he was unable to carry out a mission due to medical conditions that had not stabilized, and, due to deployment readiness policies at the time, my husband was separated from the Army with no medical board and no financial security.
We would spend the next decade fighting for understanding of his injuries as well as proper diagnosis and treatment while often facing the worst-case scenario. Initial screens for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) were non-existent or misunderstood; the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) originally told me my husband's IQ was too high to have suffered TBI, despite all evidence to the contrary. By 2010, my husband needed full-time care, and I would have to step down from my position as an executive director at a non-profit. It would take us until 2018 to formally diagnose my husband's multiple TBIs, despite a clear record of evidence. It would take another year to figure out his case was complicated by toxic encephalopathic process, most likely due to chemical exposures. The two conditions, mingling together, started a path of neurological degeneration that cannot be stopped.
Today, Eric is considered by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) to be permanently and totally disabled and unable to work. He is wheelchair dependent, struggles cognitively, suffers from migraines and blackouts, and is visually impaired. I care for him full-time and am enrolled in the VA's Program for Comprehensive Assistance for Caregivers (PCAFC). His TBI care is considered complex enough it is managed by a university specialty neurological team.
You should know I am also mom to five amazing children, three of whom have needed specialized care over the years. The day my husband was awarded permanent and total status, my children and I became eligible for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veteran Affairs (CHAMPVA). CHAMPVA is medical coverage offered to dependents and survivors of eligible veterans, mainly those with 100% permanent and total disabilities. CHAMPVA is also offered to caregivers through PCAFC. I breathed a sigh of relief knowing that we, too, would have appropriate health care for our needs.
However, in 2021, one of my children began attending college prior to their 18th birthday and needed monthly medications. We mailed the certification paperwork, but, when I went to fill prescriptions, I found out CHAMPVA was inactive. I called CHAMPVA, sat on hold for 4 hours, and was told that CHAMPVA's central mail facility was 6 months behind opening mail. Because my child was on medications that would cause permanent damage if terminated without tapering, I was offered an expedited process to certify and activate the CHAMPVA coverage within 7 days via fax. We used the same method to certify coverage in 2022. However, in the fall of 2023, coverage lapsed again when certifications began to be required on a semester basis instead of a yearly basis, compounding the mail-in timeframe dilemma. Horrifyingly, CHAMPVA agents relayed to me that CHAMPVA had terminated the ability to expedite certifications in the fall of 2024.
My child, who is in therapies and on daily medications, suffered from lapsed coverage between semesters--even over Christmas break--due to the way certification was completed. CHAMPVA's archaic mail system, often months behind in opening mail, complicated the ability to maintain coverage. Winter break and summer break became a mix of timing medication pickups prior to coverage loss and paying out of pocket for any therapies or doctor's visits. Indeed, until last month, my child, who was enrolled in school, had been without insurance since November 2025, had been paying out of pocket for meds and therapies, and had an unpaid ER bill sent to collections. However, it wasn't a miracle in the mail room that finally activated the CHAMPVA coverage; it was an executive inquiry within VHA.
I have another child who graduated high school this past May. With licenses and certificates in hand, my child desires to work instead of going to college. However, this child knows that within the next 6 months, their CHAMPVA coverage will disappear unless they enroll in college or trade school. Can you imagine the pressure on this 17-year-old who worked day in and day out to finish high school and attain a drone pilot's license within 3 years to meet their goals? This child who has given up so much to aid me in the care of their father, who has suffered the trauma of watching their father's degeneration, and who has been devastated over the lack of appropriate care for both their father and their siblings -- tell me, how do I tell my child that the system meant to help us has spectacularly failed once more?
Caregivers like myself and our families need CHAMPVA fixed and that begins with ensuring our children, who have already given so much, don't have to worry over loss of coverage upon their 18th birthday or suffer from lapse of coverage due to an archaic certification process by passing H.R. 1404, The CHAMPVA Children's Care Protection Act. This legislation would help alleviate these egregious situations by authorizing CHAMPVA eligibility automatically through age 26, allowing us to forgo the constant bureaucracy, which makes using the benefit a challenge. It also recognizes the true nature and sacrifice of these young caregivers by allowing them the support they need to transition from caregiving into adulthood while having their medical and mental health needs supported during key years. Allowing the younger dependents coverage until age 26 is crucial and aligns with not only private, civilian insurers but also the age limit CHAMPVA eligible dependents CHAMPVA must begin to use their VA Chapter 35 Dependent's Education Assistance.
I understand in VA's testimony to the Senate Veteran Affairs Committee on May 21, 2025, VA indicated they opposed this bill due to the nature of CHAMPVA, arguing that it is a medical service and not an insurance product.
However, the industry, the federal government, and, more often than not, VA treat CHAMPVA as an insurance product. For instance, like those covered by Medicaid, Medicare, or TRICARE, my family may not take part in the drug cost reduction programs offered to patients on fixed or low incomes due to our eligibility for CHAMPVA. If we choose to shop for insurance through the Health Care Marketplace, CHAMPVA enrollees are not eligible for either financial assistance nor advance premium tax credits. Every year, CHAMPVA enrollees receive a 1095-B attesting to the fact that CHAMPVA counts as minimum essential coverage under the Affordable Care Act. Finally, even VHA states that CHAMPVA is only available to caregivers enrolled in PCAFC when they have no other health insurance.
CHAMPVA provides explanations of benefits (EOB), approves and denies diagnostic codes, approves and denies medical treatment codes, and remits payment for enrollees to providers for approved services rendered by the medical community. CHAMPVA even has out-of-pocket maximums, deductibles, copays, and a medication formulary with tiered pricing. I admit I am a lay person, but this feels like every other insurance product I have ever received through an employer.
While I'm here to support extending CHAMPVA coverage to age 26, I also ask that this Committee use its oversight authority to improve the system itself so our families can find appropriate medical care.
To help you understand the challenges, let me explain what using CHAMPVA is like. In 2019, when one of our children was hospitalized and needed movement to a residential facility, I was told to find a facility that would take CHAMPVA, as there was no facility nor provider network available under CHAMPVA. I called over 20 TRICARE approved facilities to see if they had a bed available or could add my child to their waitlist. All but one turned me down immediately. The reason - prior authorizations under CHAMPVA since January of that year were taking upwards of 6-9 months. The one residential facility that did agree to treat our child had a stipulation - we were to sign a $110,000 promissory note upon admission in the chance CHAMPVA refused authorization and payment. Later during treatment, I would be told that CHAMPVA had ordered a discharge within 24 hours, even though our child had not completed their treatments. Only intervention by a VHA executive, finding the preauthorization form in the mail room, enabled necessary continued hospitalization approval.
Another of my children needed specialized therapy during 2020 and 2021. The physician didn't routinely take CHAMPVA, but, wanting to help us, agreed to see us and bill CHAMPVA. Our child completed her therapy in 2021. In 2023, I received a call from the physician's office. They had finally received payment from CHAMPVA with the exception of one therapy session, which I would have to pay for myself. I gladly paid and asked about the delay; the account manager relayed that she'd had to mail-in everything and simply wait. Because CHAMPVA has no provider contracts or a published fee schedule, the provider only had a ballpark estimate of what their payment would be until the claim was returned. Due to the mail-in claims system, lack of automation, and lack of published fee schedule, providers must wait inordinately long periods of time for payment, and that payment is a relative unknown until it is received. I can't think of a better scenario to discourage provider participation.
As I mentioned above, CHAMPVA has no contracted network of providers or facilities. It has no published fee schedule to share with potential providers. It processes the majority of claims using paper sent through a mail-in center, lengthening the time between physician or enrollee submission, claim processing, and enrollee reimbursement. CHAMPVA processes certifications, coverage additions, and changes of information through mail - using a single mail center in Colorado for all 737,000 enrollees. While an online portal currently exists for initial applications only, its functionality varies.
Providers who have agreed to take CHAMPVA often have mixed messaging - hospitals can file electronically, but most providers I've spoken to must file by mail. Some are told to file with the mail-in center in Colorado, while others are told to file directly with the local VAMC Community Care Network (CCN). Filing and retaining pay for services has become so cumbersome that the number of providers willing to file it in my area, which is last year's fastest growing county in the United States, dropped to 2 practices outside hospitals and urgent cares. Neither practice willing to file CHAMPVA contains a pediatrician.
Once again, I'm paying out-of-pocket for basic, routine, and pediatric care. I've stopped filing for reimbursement myself due to the burden of the process, including diagnostic codes which may or may not be covered and long pay times.
My understanding is that CHAMPVA falls under VHA's Office for Integrated Veteran Care (IVC), which also runs VHA's CCN. If that is true, why could VA not use the existing CCN structure to provide for network providers, a published fee schedule, and electronic claims submissions? It seems that it would be far more efficient, reduce the burden on VA and providers, and better meet the medical best interest of our veterans' dependents and caregivers.
As a wife and caregiver, I have fought every day for appropriate care for my husband and for my children. Yet, I know another fight looms on the horizon.
Not long ago, I firmly realized, like so many other caregivers, I would eventually become a survivor. Having given over a decade to being a sandwich caregiver, I am situated to outlive my veteran with almost no retirement, no active work credits, and almost no life insurance for my and my family's financial security.
Because we have fought so long for appropriate care and ratings, my family has financially suffered. I left my growing career in non-profit administration at the age of 30. What I had saved in retirement until that point was cashed out to pay for emergent medical care for my family. We have struggled, but survived, for over a decade on only disability income. The severity of my husband's injuries, like so many others, makes him uninsurable for life insurance.
I am not alone. Mozella Richardson Kamara, a 2025 Dole Caregiver Fellow from Delaware, studied for many years to become a civil engineer, but left her job to care for her veteran husband who suffers from many service-connected disabilities, both neurological and physical. Like myself, Mozella made this choice to ensure the immediate well-being of her husband, and, out of love, sacrificed her own long-term professional goals and retirement potential for the benefit of her family and service-connected veteran husband.
According to a recent RAND report, commissioned by the Elizabeth Dole Foundation and released in September of last year, military-connected caregivers save this nation billions in healthcare costs by providing a minimum of $119 billion in unpaid care. In exchange, we face this harsh reality -- when our caregiving ends, most of us will be financially destitute.
As this harsh reality was revealed, I started planning what I could. I used my Chapter 35 Dependents Educations Assistance to finish a terminal degree remotely, all while caring for both my husband and our children. Once I graduated, I overhauled my resume and began seeking any kind of contract work so that I had some earned income. That earned income allowed me to finally contribute some small amount to a retirement plan. It's too little, too late, but it is something more than 0.
With the growth of remote work, I eventually began searching for full-time work so that I could once again have work credits to pay toward Social Security and pay toward student loans. Employers are not designed to be caregiver friendly, even with their remote employees. I found an employer willing to be flexible with me, and I excelled at my job. Unfortunately, I had to resign recently because my salary would not entirely cover the cost of care for my husband while I worked. I loved my work, I had stellar performance reviews, but I was working at a net negative after expenses.
Like Mozella, I have once again put aside my own personal and professional goals to care for those who need me. But caregivers like Mozella and me, we need you to pass H.R. 2148, The Veteran Caregiver Reeducation, Reemployment, and Retirement Act.
This bill won't fix the entirety of the problem, but it is a valuable first step in ensuring caregivers can begin to establish safety-nets of their own. It will begin the process and hopefully eventually allow caregivers like Mozella and me to contribute to a retirement fund. More immediately, it will provide caregivers financial security by allowing for returnships, or other possible work-rentry program, and paying for re-licensure in careers like teaching and engineering, ensuring caregivers like Mozella experience fewer obstacles to returning to work.
It is a truth that one day, every caregiver will stop caregiving, either through the veteran's improvement or their passing. As a thankful nation, we should ensure veteran caregivers do not end up in poverty simply because they ensured their veteran had appropriate care due to the wounds, illnesses, and injuries sustained while serving their nation.
Again, I am honored to be here at the request of the Committee and the Elizabeth Dole Foundation. I am ever thankful that Senator Elizabeth Dole led the charge to build a remarkable non-profit that ensures caregivers like me are seen, accepted, supported, and encouraged. Senator Dole gave caregivers a voice so we are heard in places such as this Committee room. Every day, caregivers carry out the work of caring for, as President Lincoln said, those who have borne the battle. To support the veteran, we must also support the caregivers, survivors, and families who bear the burden of the war that continues to rage at home.
I thank you for your time and attention, and I look forward to your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR03/20250612/118376/HHRG-119-VR03-Wstate-BensonC-20250612.pdf
Deputy Assistant Under Secretary for Health for Patient Care Services Shappell Testifies Before House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, June 22 -- The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health released the following testimony by Antoinete V. Shappell, deputy assistant under secretary for health for patient care services at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Veteran Health Administration, from a June 12, 2025, hearing on veterans programs and services-related legislation:* * *
Chairwoman Miller-Meeks, Ranking Member Brownley, and other Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting us here today to present our views on several bills that would affect VA programs and services. Joining me today is Dr. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 22 -- The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health released the following testimony by Antoinete V. Shappell, deputy assistant under secretary for health for patient care services at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Veteran Health Administration, from a June 12, 2025, hearing on veterans programs and services-related legislation: * * * Chairwoman Miller-Meeks, Ranking Member Brownley, and other Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting us here today to present our views on several bills that would affect VA programs and services. Joining me today is Dr.Ilse Wiechers, Deputy Executive Director, Office of Mental Health.
* * *
H.R. 785 Representing our Seniors at VA Act
This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7315(a), which generally requires VA to establish a Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee (the Advisory Committee). The bill would require consultation with the President of the National Association of State Veterans Homes (NASVH) with respect to matters concerning such association. It would further require the Advisory Committee to include one representative of NASVH who holds a professional license in nursing home administration.
VA supports the intent of this bill but cites concerns.
VA fully supports the participation of a NASVH representative on the Advisory Committee, but we do not believe this bill is necessary because, in 2024, VA appointed a member of NASVH to the Advisory Committee. We also believe the bill, as written, creates unnecessary ambiguity regarding who (the Secretary or the Under Secretary for Health) is consulting with the President of NASVH and on what issues (on appointment of members generally, only on matters concerning NASVH, or on the appointment of members concerning NASVH).
We caution that legislating membership of the Advisory Committee could restrain VA's ability to adapt to evolving circumstances in the future. We also have concerns with the language that would apparently subject the appointment of all members of the Advisory Committee, at least with respect to matters concerning NASVH, to the consultation requirements of the NASVH President. While the term consultation is not defined, this could constrain the Secretary's authority to appoint members and would be inconsistent with other laws regarding Federal Advisory Committees.
VA revised the Advisory Committee's charter in 2024 to permit the Secretary to appoint a representative; the bill would restrict the Secretary's appointment flexibility to a NASVH representative whose skill sets may not provide the best fit for the Committee given its membership composition.
VA does not believe this bill would result in any appreciable costs.
* * *
H.R. 1404 CHAMPVA Children's Care Protection Act of 2025
This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1781 to allow a child to be eligible to receive medical care benefits under VA's Civilian Health and Medical Program (CHAMPVA) until the age of 26. VA's CHAMPVA program is primarily for dependent spouses and children of certain Veterans, provided they do not qualify for Department of Defense's (DoD) TRICARE program for dependents. In the absence of a CHAMPVA-specific definition, CHAMPVA relies on the definition of "child" that is codified in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 101 and applicable to other VA benefits available to a child. Generally speaking, a child reaches the age of majority when the child attains 18 years of age. Some exceptions exist, namely for a child who, before attaining the age of majority, became permanently incapable of self-support, or who after reaching the age of majority is pursuing a course of instruction at an approved education institution up until the age of 23 years.
VA does not support this bill.
VA is not subject to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as CHAMPVA is not a health insurance plan. Rather, it is a medical care benefit grounded in statute. No provision of the PPACA amends the title 38 definition of "child" which states that the age of majority is 18. Because CHAMPVA operates like a health insurance plan, there has been a lot of confusion and disputes over who can be covered.
This bill would extend a child's eligibility for CHAMPVA up until the age of 26, thereby aligning the age criterion for CHAMPVA eligibility with that applicable to health insurance dependent care coverage consistent with the PPACA. It would, however, be a greater benefit than found in plans covered by the TRICARE Young Adult Program because this extended eligibility would be regardless of a child's marital status.
CHAMPVA is required by law to provide medical care to CHAMPVA beneficiaries in the same or similar manner as that which is provided to TRICARE dependents, and subject to the same or similar limitations as TRICARE. TRICARE provides premium based (to offset the cost to DoD) extended medical coverage for a young adult up until the age of 26 (provided the child is unmarried and meets certain other requirements such as ineligibility for employer-sponsored health insurance based on the young adult's own employment). Nonetheless, an unmarried child between the ages of 18 and 23 who is pursuing a course of instruction at an approved educational institution is eligible for CHAMPVA medical benefits only up until the child's 23rd birthday. VA believes this benefit coverage up to age 23 is sufficient for our beneficiary population. VA is also concerned that the bill would require resources that could otherwise be used to support patient care.
The Department does not currently have a cost estimate for this bill; however, by providing coverage to dependents up to the age of 26 under CHAMPVA, this bill would significantly increase costs for VHA.
* * *
H.R. 2068 Veterans Patient Advocacy Act
This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7309A to require VA to ensure that rural Veterans may access the services of patient advocates, including, to the extent practicable, with respect to assigning patient advocates to rural community-based outpatient clinics. VA would have to implement this requirement within two years of enactment. Not later than two years from enactment, the Comptroller General would have to submit a report to Congress evaluating this implementation.
VA supports the intent of this bill, subject to amendments and the availability of appropriations.
Over the last few years, the role of the patient advocate has expanded because of the enactment of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-198), the VA MISSION Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-182), the Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020 (the Isakson-Roe Act; P.L. 116-315), the Veterans COMPACT Act of 2020 (P.L. 116-214), and the Honoring our PACT Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-168).
VA's goal is to ensure the Patient Advocacy Program is responsive to Veterans' needs based on evidence of what those needs are and strongly recommends continued examination of data analytics from VA facilities to determine how best to proceed in this area. Currently, Veterans can contact a local patient advocate by phone at their local VA medical facility, including in rural areas. Veterans who wish to speak with someone in person can contact the Nursing Supervisor (or designee) to listen to and address their needs. VA also provides Nationwide service through the Ask VA online platform, which allows Veterans to access patient advocacy services at any time; the VA Hotline (855-948-2311) also remains available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Hotline staff document concerns and refer them to local patient advocates for review and resolution. VA believes these current options are sufficient to address patients' needs.
While the bill would provide VA 2 years to implement, it would also require the Comptroller General to report within 2 years of enactment on VA's implementation. Given the time it takes to draft and publish a report, the Comptroller General's report could very well reflect information that does not reflect VA's progress by the implementation deadline.
VA does not currently have a cost estimate for this bill.
* * *
H.R. 2148 Veteran Caregiver Reeducation, Reemployment, and Retirement Act
Section 2 of the bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1781, which authorizes the CHAMPVA program, to allow VA to provide medical care under CHAMPVA to designated primary family caregivers eligible for CHAMPVA during the 180-day period following the removal of such designation unless the individual was dismissed from the program for fraud, abuse, or mistreatment. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, individuals would not be eligible during this 180-day period if they were entitled to hospital insurance benefits under Part A of the Medicare program during that period.
VA supports this section, subject to the availability of appropriations.
Primary family caregivers provide extensive and direct care and support for Veterans with service-connected disabilities; many often face significant constraints that limit their ability to maintain regular employment and, consequently, employer-sponsored health insurance. The 180-day extension of CHAMPVA benefits, as proposed in this bill, would allow these caregivers a necessary transitional period to seek alternative health coverage without facing an abrupt interruption in their medical care.
VA does not have a cost estimate for this section.
Section 3 of the bill would make several amendments to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1720G, which generally establishes the Program of Comprehensive Assistance of Family Caregivers (PCAFC) under subsection (a). Specifically, section 3(a) of the bill would add a new subsection (e) to Sec. 1720G regarding employment assistance for individuals designated as a primary provider of personal care services under the PCAFC. VA would have to provide to such individuals reimbursement of fees associated with certifications or re-licensure necessary for such employment; no-cost access to VA training modules for purposes of gaining credit for continuing professional education requirements; and, in consultation with DoD and the Department of Labor (DoL), access to employment assistance under DoD's Military OneSource program, DoL's Veterans' Employment and Training Service if they are eligible, and such VA programs as VA determines appropriate. Such individuals would have access to this assistance while participating in PCAFC and during the 180-day period following the date on which the individual is no longer participating in PCAFC, unless the individual was dismissed for fraud, abuse, or mistreatment. The maximum lifetime amount that could be reimbursed for an individual for fees associated with certifications or re-licensure necessary for employment would be $1,000.
Section 3(b) would amend the benefits available to primary family caregivers to allow VA to use agreements (instead of only contracts) for financial planning services (including retirement planning services) and legal services. It also would make such assistance available during the 180-day period following the date on which the primary family caregiver is no longer participating in PCAFC, unless the family caregiver was dismissed for fraud, abuse, or mistreatment, such instruction, preparation, training, and support as VA considers appropriate to assist the caregiver in transitioning away from caregiving.
Section 3(c) would further amend the benefits that could be furnished through contracts or agreements to include assistance returning to the workforce upon the discharge or dismissal from PCAFC unless the family caregiver was dismissed for fraud, abuse, or mistreatment.
Section 3(d) would expand the counseling available to family caregivers (not just the primary family caregiver) to include bereavement counseling and support following the death of the eligible Veteran.
Section 3(e) would require VA, in partnership with DoL and no later than 1 year after enactment, to complete a study on the feasibility and advisability of conducting a returnship program for individuals who are or were designated as a primary family caregiver to assist such individuals in returning to the workforce. Not later than 180 days after completing this study, VA would have to submit a report to Congress on the study.
Section 3(f) would require VA, not later than 1 year after enactment, to complete a study on barriers and incentives to hiring individuals who were primary family caregivers at VA facilities to address staffing needs. Within 180 days of completing this study, VA would have to submit a report to Congress on the study.
VA supports this section in general, subject to the availability of appropriations, but cites concerns.
VA appreciates the Committee's interest in expanding support for caregivers of Veterans by offering assistance when they transition out of Caregiver Support Programs and into the workforce or retirement. VA also appreciates the ability to provide bereavement counseling after a Veteran dies, as this loss can be especially difficult for family caregivers who have dedicated their lives to caring for the Veteran.
VA supports some of the requirements under section 3; however, we do have concerns with certain provisions and would appreciate the opportunity to speak with the Committee to address them. We also recommend meeting with DoL as well.
VA does not have a cost estimate for this section.
Section 4 of the bill would require the Comptroller General to submit to Congress a report assessing VA's efforts to support family caregivers under the PCAFC in transitioning away from caregiving, either by assisting those individuals with retirement planning or returning to work.
VA defers to the Comptroller General on this section.
VA does not have a cost estimate for this section.
Section 5 of the bill would require VA, in consultation with the Department of the Treasury and the heads of other relevant entities, to submit to Congress a report on the feasibility and advisability of establishing an individual retirement plan (as defined in section 7701(a)(37) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or similar retirement plans) for family caregivers under the PCAFC or permitting such family caregivers to join an already established pathway to retirement savings.
VA supports this section, subject to amendments and the availability of appropriations.
Providing a pathway to retirement savings acknowledges the critical role that family caregivers play in the health and well-being of Veterans. It also demonstrates a commitment to supporting those who make substantial personal and financial sacrifices in the service of their loved ones. We appreciate the intent behind this section, but it would not grant VA any new authority. VA can already work with the Department of the Treasury and other entities to better understand the feasibility of establishing individual retirement plans for family caregivers under PCAFC. We would appreciate the opportunity to talk with the Committee about its intended outcomes to determine if legislation is needed.
VA does not have a cost estimate for this section, but as this would only require a report to Congress, we do not anticipate any appreciable costs.
* * *
H.R. 2605 Service Dogs Assisting Veterans Act (SAVES Act)
Section 2(a) of this bill would require VA, not later than 24 months after the date of enactment, to establish a 5-year pilot program under which VA would award grants, on a competitive basis, to nonprofit entities to provide service dogs to eligible Veterans. Section 2(b) would provide that, to be eligible to receive a grant, nonprofit entities would have to submit to VA an application at such time, in such a manner, and containing such commitments and information as VA may require. Applications would have to include a proposal for the provision of service dogs to eligible Veterans, including how the entity would communicate with VA to ensure an increasing number of service dogs are provided to Veterans; applicants would also have to include a description of training and services provided by the entity, as well as the qualifications of the entity (including documentation that the entity has experience in training dogs as service animals).
Under section 2(c), VA would have to award a grant to each non-profit entity for which VA has approved an application. VA and the entity would have to enter into an agreement containing such terms, conditions, and limitations as VA determines appropriate. The maximum grant amount VA could award to a non-profit entity under this section would be $2 million. VA would have to establish intervals of payment for the administration of each grant awarded under this section.
Under section 2(d), grantees would have to use the grant amounts to plan, develop, implement, or manage (or any combination thereof) one or more programs that provide service dogs to eligible Veterans. VA could establish a maximum amount for each grant awarded under this section to cover administrative expenses. VA also could establish other conditions or limitations on the use of grant amounts.
Under section 2(e), grantees would have to notify each Veteran that receives a service dog through the grant that the dog is being paid for, in whole or in part, by VA, and they would have to inform such Veterans of the benefits and services available from VA for the Veteran and service dog. Grantees could not charge a fee to a Veteran receiving a service dog through the grant.
Under section 2(f), VA would have to provide to each Veteran who receives a service dog through a grant a commercially available veterinary insurance policy for the service dog, and, if VA provides such a veterinary insurance policy to a Veteran, VA would have to continue to provide the policy without regard to the continuation or termination of the pilot program.
Under section 2(g), VA could provide training and technical assistance to recipients of grants under this section.
Under section 2(h), VA would have to establish oversight and monitoring requirements as appropriate to ensure grants are used appropriately, and VA could take actions as necessary to address any issues identified through the enforcement of such requirements. VA could require each grantee to provide reports or written answers to specific questions, surveys, or questionnaires as VA determines necessary.
Section 2(i) would define terms for purposes of this Act. The term "eligible veteran" would be defined to mean Veterans who have a covered condition. The term "covered condition" would mean any of the following: blindness or visual impairment; loss of use of a limb, paralysis, or other significant mobility issue, including mental health mobility; loss of hearing; posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); traumatic brain injury (TBI); and any other disability, condition, or diagnosis VA determines, based on medical judgment, that it is optimal for the Veteran to manage the disability, condition, or diagnosis and live independently through the assistance of a service dog. The term "service dog" would mean any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks that are for the benefit of a Veteran with a disability, condition, or diagnosis described above and directly related to the disability, condition, or diagnosis of the Veteran.
Section 2(j) would authorize to be appropriated $10 million for each of the 5 consecutive fiscal years following the fiscal year in which the pilot program is established.
VA supports this bill, subject to amendments and the availability of appropriations.
VA provides benefits for service dogs for eligible Veterans who have been diagnosed with a visual, hearing, or substantial mobility impairment (including mental health mobility) when the VA clinical team treating the Veteran for such impairment determines, based upon medical judgment, that it is optimal for the Veteran to manage the impairment and live independently through the assistance of a trained service dog. See 38 C.F.R. Sec. 17.148(b). VA provides a commercially available veterinary insurance policy for service dogs, as well as payments for travel expenses associated with obtaining a dog if the Veteran is eligible for beneficiary travel under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 111 and 38 C.F.R. part 70 and if pre-approved for such benefits.
While not involving the provision of service dogs, since February 2022, VA has been implementing the Puppies Assisting Wounded Servicemembers for Veterans Therapy Act (P.L. 117-37), which requires VA to conduct a pilot program to provide canine training to eligible Veterans diagnosed with PTSD as an element of a complementary and integrative health program for such Veterans. Service dogs provide essential support for many Veterans.
We appreciate that the bill generally focuses on creating a more direct connection in the legislation between grant funds and the provision of service dogs to eligible Veterans, but we believe this could be clearer. Specifically, in section 2(d), the bill would require grantees to use funds "to plan, develop, implement, or manage (or any combination thereof) one or more" programs that provide service dogs to eligible Veterans. Allowing the use of funds to plan a program that provides service dogs, but which ultimately does not provide service dogs, is not an ideal use of funds. We recommend the bill simply state that grantees would use funds to provide service dogs to eligible Veterans. In VA's experience, Veterans can wait between 1 and 3 years between when a dog has been recommended by VA and when a Veteran has been fully paired with a service dog that has graduated training. VA believes the grants provided under this authority could help increase the supply of service dogs to reduce this delay. In any grant program, but particularly in the case of service dog training, it is essential to ensure that funds are properly used.
Several provisions in the bill raise concerns. First, VA recommends clearly aligning the definition of service dog under this section with VA's existing definition in regulations. Second, VA is concerned about the list of disabilities that was presented in the bill. Specifically, the inclusion of TBI, for which a Veteran may already otherwise qualify based on having a significant mobility issue, and PTSD, as there is no substantial evidence to date that service dogs provide improvements in functioning and quality of life for Veterans with PTSD as compared to emotional support dogs. VA recommends striking these provisions. We note, similar to the discussion above regarding Veterans with TBI qualifying for a service dog when they have a significant mobility issue, Veterans with PTSD can receive a service dog on the same basis. Further, VA recommends including additional language that would ensure clear authority for the administration of a grant program. Finally, we note that the current bill expands eligibility to all Veterans (presumably those who meet the requirements of 38 U.S.C. Sec. 101), not just Veterans enrolled in VA health care. This would complicate administration of this program.
We also note that this proposal would likely require dedicated staff in a new office to administer this program.
VA does not have a cost estimate for this bill.
* * *
H.R. 3400 Territorial Response and Access to Veterans' Essential Lifecare Act (TRAVEL Act of 2025)
Section 2(a) would add a new 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7415, regarding traveling physicians. Proposed section 7415(a) would authorize VA to assign a physician appointed under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7401(1) to serve as a traveling physician for a maximum of 1 year. Such traveling physician(s) would provide health care to Veterans residing in the territories or possessions of the United States at Department facilities in such territories or possessions (including American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and any other U.S. territory or possession).
Proposed section 7415(b) would require the traveling physicians to coordinate with non-Department medical providers to the extent necessary to ensure high quality and coordinated care for Veterans receiving hospital care and medical services.
Proposed section 7415(c) would require VA to provide to the traveling physicians, in addition to pay under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7431 (which generally governs VHA physician pay), a relocation or retention bonus that is substantially similar to one offered under sections 5753 and 5754 of title 5, U.S.C., as the Secretary considers appropriate.
Section 2(b) would make a clerical amendment.
VA supports this bill, subject to amendments and the availability of appropriations.
VA supports section 2 if amended to modify the current text to reference VA's bonus authority under title 38 and remove the reference to retention bonuses offered under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5754.
VHA physicians are eligible to receive recruitment or relocation bonuses and retention allowances under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7410(a), which requires payment of these incentives in a manner consistent with the authorities described in 5 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 5753 and 5754. By aligning the incentive authority under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7410(a), these payments would be excluded from the total compensation limit in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7431(e)(4). A retention bonus may not be an appropriate incentive mechanism due to the statutory requirement for the agency to determine that an employee is likely to leave Federal service (or to take a different Federal position in limited cases).
Current VA policy in VA Handbook 5007, Pay Administration, allows for the authorization of relocation incentives for temporary workplace changes of 120 days or more, not to include when an employee remains in temporary duty travel status. In accordance with VA Handbook 5007, an employee must also have a rating of record of at least "Fully Successful" for the position held immediately before the temporary workplace change and physically relocate to a different geographic area to receive a relocation incentive. Edits to VA policy may be required to ensure traveling physicians would be eligible for relocation incentives. Service agreements would generally be required in accordance with policy and the proposed legislation as drafted.
VA welcomes the opportunity to work with the Committee on technical assistance to clarify such bonus eligibility and required coordination of care, as well as a technical amendment to clarify the traveling physician would not necessarily provide care in each and every possession or territory.
VA does not have a cost estimate for this bill.
* * *
H.R. 3643 VA Data Transparency and Trust Act
Section 2(a) of this bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7330B, which required VA to submit a report to Congress, between 2018 and 2022, including three defined elements. These reports were, on average approximately 40-50 pages in length. The proposed amendments would re-establish, for a period of 5 years, and significantly expand these reporting requirements by requiring VA to report on 24 distinct elements, many of which would contain a number of sub-elements. The bill would also require VA to develop and carry out a data sharing system to grant access to researchers who meet certain criteria regarding data security and protection established by VA in regulations. Data access by these researchers would be limited to aggregated, anonymized data for Veterans and individuals receiving health care furnished by VA. VA would have to consider the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Qualified Entity Program (also known as the Medicare Data Sharing for Performance Measurement Program) in developing the new data sharing system. VA would have to ensure that data available through such data sharing system includes each type of data available under the Medicare Data Sharing for Performance Measurement Program, data on enrolled Veterans, data on health care visits at VA facilities, and data on insurance claims submitted to VA for care furnished at non-VA facilities.
Section 2(b) would create a new section 7735 in title 38, U.S.C., that would require reporting of data in the Annual Benefits Report of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) on 15 elements for similarly detailed data as required by subsection (a) for VHA. Proposed Sec. 7735(b) would establish a similar data sharing system requirement as described above.
VA supports this bill, subject to amendments and the availability of appropriations.
While VA agrees with the transparency this bill would require, the level of necessary detail would make implementation very complex and resource intensive. Given the nuances of VA operations and data systems, VA recommends the bill focus on the desired topic areas for inclusion in the reports in lieu of mandating specific metrics that may not meet the drafter's intent.
VA also has concerns with a number of the specific reporting requirements in the bill. To satisfy some of these, VA would need additional and regular updates regarding income, education level, and military service for Veterans. Some of the provisions refer to VA as a health insurance plan or as receiving health insurance claims, which are not accurate. VA also recommends clarifying the requirement to provide data on the average amount of compensation paid to Veterans for non-service-connected disabilities; we believe this is intended to refer specifically to benefits under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1151, which authorizes VA to award compensation for a qualifying disability (as if the disability were service-connected) resulting from hospital care, medical or surgical treatment, or examination furnished by VA; VA may also award compensation if the disability was proximately caused by the provision of training and rehabilitation services provided by VA as part of an approved vocational rehabilitation training, or in compensated work therapy.
Further, VA is concerned about the availability of information technology (IT) systems necessary to facilitate the data exchanges required to satisfy all of the requirements of this bill, specifically with agencies whereby a data sharing exchange platform is not already established with VA. This could require additional time and resources before VA could implement. VA also recommends amending the requirement for data on re-evaluations of disability ratings to begin from the date on which the data are first available. Limitations in existing systems could present challenges in providing requested information more than 25 years old.
As written, this bill would mandate the release of granular data on Veterans' health and benefits to Congress and establish a system allowing eligible researchers to access anonymized individual-level data. While this initiative can hold great promise for fostering innovation and improving the quality of care and benefits for our Veterans, it also presents significant privacy challenges. While the bill intends to ensure data released would be anonymized, providing the detail required at an individual level makes robust anonymization very difficult. VA recommends the requirement for individual level data be removed, permitting the use of aggregated data that would provide detail without impacting Veterans' privacy. Retaining the individual-level data requirement would necessitate robust access restrictions to prevent users from deanonymizing the underlying data.
VA additionally requests that the bill include wording to acknowledge the expanded data sharing from other Federal agencies that would be required for this level of reporting, including details on income and dependents that would require expansion of data provided by the Department of Treasury.
VA has other technical amendments and comments on this bill.
VA believes this bill would result in significant additional costs, although VA does not have a cost estimate at this time. The resources needed to collect and report these data would divert from health care and benefits delivery.
* * *
H.R. XXXX Fisher House Availability Act of 2025
This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1708, which allows VA to furnish certain persons with temporary lodging in a Fisher house or another appropriate facility. Specifically, it would amend Sec. 1708(a) to remove the condition that temporary lodging be in connection with the examination, treatment, or care of a Veteran under chapter 17 or in connection with benefits administered by VA. It would also amend Sec. 1708(b), which defines which persons can receive lodging under subsection (a). It would add two new cohorts, both on a space-available basis: covered beneficiaries that must travel a significant distance to receive care or services at a non-VA facility, and members of the family of a covered beneficiary that provide the equivalent of familial support for such beneficiary. The bill would amend what is currently Sec. 1708(e) (but would be redesignated as subsection (d)) to require that VA's regulations would have to include provisions establishing criteria for persons considered to be accompanying a Veteran or covered beneficiary, and to establish criteria for providing access to temporary lodging facilities on a space-available basis to the two new cohorts of eligible individuals under Sec. 1708(b), as revised. Finally, the bill would define the term "covered beneficiary" to mean a beneficiary under chapter 55 of title 10, U.S.C., other than beneficiaries under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1074(a), which refers to certain members of the uniformed services (based on the definition of that term in 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1072(5) and 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1074(a)); it would also amend the definition of "Fisher house" to include a reference to the Fisher House Foundation, Inc., as well.
VA supports this bill, subject to amendments.
VA supports allowing Fisher Houses to provide lodging, on a space available basis, to Service members who receive care at VA facilities and their families. VA has adopted this posture through VHA Directive 1107, Department of Veterans Affairs Fisher Houses and Other Temporary Lodging (October 19, 2023), but current law is ambiguous in this respect, and the bill's proposed changes would not clearly include all Service members who may receive care at a VA facility. We are concerned that if Congress amended current law to include certain individuals, but not all Service members, this could create an adverse inference that providing lodging to other Service members is prohibited by law. We also recommend amendments to ensure the eligibility for lodging for dependents of both Veterans and Service members is the same or comparable.
We also note that the bill has technical issues that need to be addressed, particularly concerning the proposed amendments to section 1708(a), where the bill would refer to removing a phrase that appears in two different places without clearly stating which phase would be amended.
Additionally, we recommend the bill be amended to expressly authorize VA to provide lodging at Fisher Houses to Service members who receive care at VA facilities and their families. VA has adopted this posture through VHA Directive 1107, Department of Veterans Affairs Fisher Houses and Other Temporary Lodging (October 19, 2023), but we are concerned that if Congress amended current law to include other individuals, but not Service members, this could create an adverse inference that providing lodging to Service members is prohibited by law. VA would welcome the opportunity to provide technical assistance to address these concerns.
VA does not have a cost estimate for this bill.
* * *
H.R. XXXX Prohibiting Smoking in Facilities of the Veterans Health Administration
This bill would repeal section 526 of P.L. 102-585 and amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1715 to prohibit any person (including Veterans, patients, residents, employees, contractors, or visitors) from smoking on the premises of any VHA facility. The bill would prohibit the use of cigarettes, cigars, pipes, and any other combustion or heating of tobacco, as well as the use of any electronic nicotine delivery system, including electronic or e-cigarettes, vape pens, and e-cigars. The prohibition would apply to any land or building that is under VA's jurisdiction, under the control of VHA, and not under the control of the General Services Administration.
VA strongly supports this bill.
Legislation to prohibit smoking on the premises of any VHA facility will ensure that VA can provide a smoke-free health care environment. Currently, there are more than 4,000 local or State, territorial, or commonwealth hospitals, health care systems and clinics, and at least four national health care systems (Kaiser Permanente, Mayo Clinic, SSM Health Care, and CIGNA Corporation) in the United States that have adopted 100% smoke-free policies that extend to all their facilities, grounds, and office buildings. Absent this legislation, VHA patients, health care providers and visitors may not have the same level of enduring protection from the hazardous effects of secondhand smoke exposure as do patients and employees in these other systems. Currently, approximately 12.7% of Veterans enrolled in VA health care are smokers. Many of the non-smokers are also older Veterans who may be at higher risk for cardiac or other conditions that may make them even more vulnerable to the cardiovascular events associated with secondhand smoke.
As with other health care systems, VA believes its Veteran patients and employees have a right to be protected from secondhand smoke exposure when seeking health care or working at a VA facility. For Veteran smokers who are inpatients, nicotine replacement therapy is available. VA also offers tobacco cessation programs and resources for Veterans and employees. VA notes that it would support an exception for ceremonial uses of tobacco within limited parameters set by the Secretary in coordination with federally recognized tribes, consistent with Indian Health Service tobacco policy. VA recommends including an effective date to facilitate implementation.
VA estimates that this bill would not result in any costs because it is consistent with current policy.
* * *
H.R. XXXX Study on RNA Sequencing to Diagnose PTSD in Veterans
This bill would require VA, acting through the Center for Innovation for Care and Payment (CICP) and within 120 days of enactment, to conduct a study to determine whether ribonucleic acid (RNA) sequencing could be used to effectively diagnose Veterans with inflammation or cellular stress, symptoms of PTSD. VA would have to carry out the study in medical facilities in five Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISN). The study would have to terminate on September 30, 2027. Not later than September 30, 2028, VA would have to submit a report to Congress containing the results of the study.
VA supports the intent of this bill, subject to the availability of appropriations, but cites concerns.
VA supports efforts to expand work in this critical research area. However, VA cites concerns with this proposed legislation because, at the current time, such a study would be premature given the state of the science. There is not sufficient scientific evidence to indicate that clinically useful information would result from such a study. Additionally, we have concerns with codifying research approaches or methodologies, as this bill would do, and we note this research could be conducted with current authority. We also note the timeline for this bill would be too short to produce scientifically valid results. Further, the CICP would not be the appropriate entity to carry out this study. We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss current research efforts in this area and how legislation might support these.
VA does not have a cost estimate for this bill.
* * *
H.R. XXXX Providing for a Time Frame for Employment in VA of Participants in the Health Professionals Scholarship Program (HPSP)
This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7616 by adding a subsection (d) to require VA to appoint Health Professional Scholarship Program (HPSP) participants in a full-time clinical position at a VA facility within 90 days of course completion.
VA does not support this bill.
VA agrees with the intent to expedite the employment process for health care professionals. However, VA does not support the bill because it would not allow VA to consider the various hiring considerations inherent in health care occupations or current operational constraints.
The proposed 90-day timeframe does not accommodate the various requirements across health care professions. For instance, certain health care professions necessitate the completion of licensure, certifications, internships, or residencies before the health care professional can be appointed to their respective position. A one-size-fits-all approach does not reflect the variability in preparation and does not align with VA qualification standards across the various health care occupations.
There are many instances in which the hiring of individuals within 90 days of completing HPSP is not possible. For example, VHA Qualification Standards for Physicians require graduates to complete a residency training, approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, American Osteopathic Association, or other residencies which the local Medical Staff Executive Committee deems appropriate. Once residency training is complete, individuals must pass the United States Medical Licensing Examination or Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination. Upon receiving licensure, in some cases, VA requires an additional physician board certification for those overseeing medical students or physician residents (including fellows), or faculty status with an affiliated medical school. For registered nurses, VHA Qualification Standards require graduates to pass the National Council Licensure Examination and maintain an active, current, full and unrestricted license. Additionally, VHA Directive 1077, VHA Registered Nurse Transition-to-Practice Residency Program, requires those with one year of professional experience serve in a residency program for one year before they can operate in a full-time clinical capacity position. In each of these examples, VA would be unable to comply with the proposed 90-day hiring requirement due to critical mandatory steps to obtain requisite licensure, certification, and experience.
VA does not have a cost estimate for this bill.
* * *
H.R. XXXX VA Mental Health Outreach and Engagement Act
This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1167 related to mental health consultations to clarify that the current subsection (a) would refer only to initial mental health consultations. This statute requires VA, not later than 30 days after the date on which a Veteran submits to VA a claim for compensation under chapter 11 for a service-connected disability relating to a mental health diagnosis, to offer the Veteran a mental health consultation to assess the mental health needs of, and care options for, the Veteran. VA is required to offer such a consultation without regard to any previous denial or approval of a claim for a service-connected disability relating to a mental health diagnosis for the Veteran and to ensure the Veteran offered a mental health consultation can elect to receive such consultation during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the consultation is offered (although VA can provide a longer time period if appropriate).
This bill would insert a new subsection (b) that would require VA, not less frequently than annually, with regard to a Veteran who is receiving compensation under chapter 11 for a service-connected disability relating to a mental health diagnosis, to offer a mental health consultation to assess the mental health needs of, and discuss other mental health care options for, the Veteran. VA would also have to conduct annual outreach to each such Veteran regarding the availability of mental health consultations and other mental health services from VA. Current subsections (b) and (c) would be redesignated as subsections (c) and (d), respectively.
This bill also would make technical corrections to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1167 related to mental health consultations to instead be codified at 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1169. It would also make amendments to the table of contents to reflect this change.
Finally, the bill would require the Comptroller General to submit to Congress a report on the effect of the amendments made by this section. This report would need to include the number of Veterans who received mental health consultations under the newly-designated Sec. 1169(b)(1) and outreach under Sec. 1169(b)(2). It would also need to include whether Veterans reported barriers to seeking consultations and such barriers, if any.
VA supports this bill, subject to amendments and the availability of appropriations.
In particular, VA supports the technical corrections as this would provide clarity to the U.S. Code. However, VA only partially supports the substantive amendments this bill would make, subject to amendments and the availability of appropriations. VA currently offers an annual screening to enrolled Veterans for commonly occurring mental health conditions. Veterans who screen positive receive further evaluation and treatment, if they are willing to engage in care. In the first quarter of FY 2025, 73% of Veterans receiving compensation under chapter 11 for a service-connected disability relating to a mental health diagnosis were enrolled in VA health care and receive the annual mental health screenings described above.
Instead of requiring annual offers of mental health consultations to those Veterans receiving compensation as described above, VA believes it would be more appropriate only to conduct annual outreach to such Veterans advising them of VA mental health services and how to access them. Veterans who elect to enroll, or to seek care without enrolling (if eligible), would receive a mental health assessment as part of an initial appointment. If mental health needs are identified, the Veteran would also receive information about treatment goals and options. This would connect Veterans directly to existing mental health services, and every VA health care facility must screen Veterans requesting mental health services for urgent needs and immediately address them.
VA would appreciate the opportunity to discuss other technical issues with the Committee regarding current 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1167 (regarding mental health consultations) and section 2068 (regarding mental health consultations for Veterans entering Homeless Programs Office programs). VA has been working to implement these authorities since their enactment, but we believe Congress could facilitate this implementation with additional revisions to these statutes.
VA does not have a cost estimate for this bill.
* * *
Conclusion
This concludes my statement. We would be happy to answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR03/20250612/118376/HHRG-119-VR03-Wstate-ShappellA-20250612.pdf
Center for Strategic & International Studies Senior Fellow Poling Testifies Before Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, June 22 -- The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Coast Guard, Maritime and Fisheries released the following written testimony by Gregory B. Poling, a senior fellow and director of the Southeast Asia Program and Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, from a June 12, 2025, hearing entitled "Finding Nemo's Future: Conflicts over Ocean Resources":* * *
Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Blunt Rochester, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to share my views with you on the topic of illegal, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 22 -- The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Coast Guard, Maritime and Fisheries released the following written testimony by Gregory B. Poling, a senior fellow and director of the Southeast Asia Program and Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, from a June 12, 2025, hearing entitled "Finding Nemo's Future: Conflicts over Ocean Resources": * * * Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Blunt Rochester, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to share my views with you on the topic of illegal,unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing as a national security threat. CSIS does not take policy positions, so the views represented in this testimony are my own and not those of my employer. In my testimony, I would like to reflect on the direct and indirect ways in which IUU fishing undermines national security, the scale of IUU - particularly by Chinese-owned vessels - in the Pacific, and the resources the U.S. has to confront this challenge.
IUU fishing is most often treated as an economic and environmental challenge but it is also an underappreciated nontraditional security threat. IUU fishing affects national security in two ways. First, it directly supports illicit networks engaged in the trafficking of narcotics, weapons, wildlife, and people, along with other maritime crimes. Second, IUU fishing deprives coastal and small island developing state governments of desperately needed revenue while undermining local livelihoods and food security. This combination creates more fertile recruiting grounds for piracy, organized crime, armed insurgency, and terrorism, and increases vulnerability to economic coercion and elite capture by depriving officials of viable economic alternatives. This is a particular concern in the Pacific, where China seeks to use economic leverage to increase access and affect local decision-making.
* * *
Support for Illicit Networks
IUU fishing supports, both directly and indirectly, non-state actors engaged in organized crime, piracy, and armed insurgency and terrorism. It has become a part of the portfolio of illegal criminal organizations, directly and indirectly supporting their other illicit activities. Since 2009, the UN General Assembly has expressed "concern about possible connections between transnational organized crime and illegal fishing."/1
This linkage between IUU fishing and other criminal activities has given rise over the last decade to the concept of "fisheries crime," or illegal fishing combined with "crimes such as tax evasion, human rights abuse, including human trafficking, drug, wildlife, diamond and arms smuggling, fraud and pollution."/2
Nearly a decade ago, Cathy Haenlein of the Royal United Services Insitute explained the inevitability of illicit actors becoming more involved in IUU fishing:
As demand increases and supplies dwindle, the corresponding rise in profits explains a further set of drivers...Indeed, the vastness of the high seas and law-enforcement capacity mean that the chances of being apprehended are low, while fish can be laundered easily into legitimate catches. Even where enforcement is effective, penalties are small...The result is a low-risk, high-reward environment perfectly tailored to the interests of criminal actors./3
* * *
1 UN General Assembly, Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 4 December 2009, A/RES/64/72, 19 March 2010, para 61.
2 Stop Illegal Fishing, 'FISH-i Africa," 13, cited in Cathy Haenlein, Below the Surface: How Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing Threatens Our Security (London: Royal United Services Institute, 2017), 14.
3 Haenlein, Below the Surface, 8.
* * *
One of the most infamous examples comes from 2016, when Italian authorities arrested a crime boss known as "Fish King" Franco Muto and 56 others for organized crime. Muto controlled most of the fishing vessels along Italy's Tyrrhenian coast but also engaged in drug trafficking, extortion, and robbery. And in 2014, TRAFFIC International alleged that coastal South Africa had "transformed from a network of small fishing communities, [t]o outposts of international organized crime battling for the opportunity to harvest and export abalone," which in many cases local gangs traded to Chinese triads for drugs, guns, and other contraband./4
The connection between IUU fishing and human trafficking has been widely documented and, while reliable statistics are impossible to come by, the scale of the problem is clearly enormous.
Modern slavery is pervasive and hard to combat among IUU fishing fleets because many vessels stay out at sea for months, illegally transferring catches without ever entering a port to avoid scrutiny, hide the source of their catches, and keep crews in often-brutal conditions without any hope of escape./5
The Thai fishing industry became the poster child for modern-day slavery in 2015 when the AP undertook a series of investigations into the Thai fishing industry, which earned the paper the Pulitzer Prize. The AP documented how Thai fishing vessels relied upon migrants from neighboring Southeast Asian states tricked on board with promises of productive employment and then kept in modern day slavery./6
The outcry from the AP investigations led to the eventual release of more than 2,000 slaves.7 The United States and European Union threatened sanctions against imports of Thai seafood unless authorities acted to crack down on human traffickers and better regulate the fishing industry, which proved a successful intervention as Bangkok has vastly improved oversight of its fishing industry and cracked down on abuses ove the last decade, though plenty of work remains to be done. Unfortunately the problem remains pervasive among global fleets, and especially China's distant water fishing vessels, as evidenced by Customs and Border Protection's recent banning of the Zhen Fa/7 from U.S. ports for forced labor abuses after a years-long investigation by Ian Urbina's Outlaw Ocean./8
IUU fishing vessels also play a significant role in other forms of trafficking, particularly of drugs. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the U.S. Justice Department have documented numerous cases of illicit fishing ships involved in trafficking cocaine from South American to the United States, as well as heroine and cannabis./9
In addition to organized crime, trafficking, and modern slavery, IUU fishing has been used to support insurgent and terrorist groups. For example, during the Sri Lankan civil war in the 1990s and 2000s, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which the U.S. government labeled a terrorist organization, used IUU fishermen who were already adept at avoiding the authorities to smuggle contraband through Indian and Sri Lankan waters./10
* * *
4 Kimon De Greef and Serge Raemaekers, South Africa's Illicit Abalone Trade: An Updated Overview and Knowledge Gap Analysis (Cambridge: TRAFFIC International, 2014), cited in Haenlein, Below the Surface, 28.
5 Haenlein, Below the Surface, 26.
6 Robin McDowell, Margie Mason, and Martha Mendoza, "AP Investigation: Slaves May Have Caught the Fish You Bought," AP, March 25, 2015, https://www.ap.org/explore/seafood-from-slaves/ap-investigation-slaves-may-havecaughtthe-fish-you-bought.html.
7 Haenlein, Below the Surface, 26.
8 Ian Urbina and Austin Brush, "Federal Authorities Take Action on China's Fishing Fleet," Outlaw Ocean, May 29, 2025.
9 UNODC, Transnational Organized Crime, cited in Haenlein, Below the Surface, 27.
* * *
Undermining Governance; Facilitating Threats
IUU fishing deprives governments in coastal and small island developing states of funds needed for social services, infrastructure, and other necessary spending./11
At the same time, it undercuts local livelihoods leading to economic displacement and desperation. The combination of these two effects directly undermines stability and security, and indirectly contributes to the spread of threats from non-state actors.
Tens of millions of people work in the fishing industry worldwide, mostly in developing Asia and Africa, and more than 1 billion people, clustered disproportionately in coastal regions, rely on fish as their primary source of animal protein. Communities that have traditionally relied on the fishing industry often have few options to replace their damaged livelihoods, leading to the kind of desperation on which pirates, criminal gangs, terrorist groups, and other nefarious nonstate actors thrive./12
An academic study of 2,600 piracy incidents reported to the International Maritime Bureau between 2004 and 2013 found that "states with reduced values of fisheries production are more likely to experience piracy," suggesting that "changes in labor opportunities in the fishing section--driven primarily by overfishing--increases the number of potential pirate recruits."/13
For example, a surge in illegal fishing by Chinese trawlers in the Gulf of Guinea since 2008 has made it difficult for local fishermen to make a living. Attacks on fishing boats, tankers, and cargo ships in the gulf soared in the 2010s and remain a persistent problem./14
Some studies have also suggested a more direct, and ironic, link between IUU fishing and piracy in the case of Somalia. According to a 2016 report from the U.S. National Intelligence Council, IUU fishing also contributed to the increase in piracy off Somalia in the 2000's because many Somali fishers, who had learned to seize vessels in order to prevent illegal fishing in their historic fisheries transferred these initially defensive skills to piracy, according to scholars. As Somali fishers' incomes decreased as stocks diminished, they applied their newfound ship-seizing skills to piracy./15
The Pacific Islands region is likely second only to West Africa in the proportion of seafood catch via IUU fishing, and this is driven almost entirely by distant water fleets. China is the predominant distant water fishing actor both globally and in the region, and is the worst offender for IUU fishing according to the Global Illegal Fishing Index. IUU fishing by Chinese vessels and to a lesser degree those of other states primarily take the form of illegal transshipment of catch. Transshipment vessels are large, refrigerated motherships which operate under flags of convenience and through which smaller vessels offload their catch to be shipped into port.
* * *
10 U.S. National Intelligence Council (NIC), "Global Implications of Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing," September 19, 2016, 14.
11 Haenlein, Below the Surface, 36.
12 NIC, "Global Implications of IUU Fishing," 9, 12, 14-15.
13 Ibid, 16.
14 Ibid, 16-17.
15 Ibid, 17.
* * *
Transshipment vessels are highly associated with IUU fishing, and provide an opportunity to bypass international and federal fisheries management, import, and trade regulations.
Transshipment is in most cases prohibited by the management guidelines of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), which covers the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and high seas of the Pacific Islands, focused primarily on the lucrative tuna fisheries.
Nevertheless, utilization of transshipment vessels via loopholes in the WCPFC rules has become the de facto method of distant water fleets landing their fish catch in the Pacific, as this allows the fish to be shipped into ports of convenience which have less regulatory and enforcement capabilities to comply with domestic and international law.
All transshipment vessels operating in the WCPFC area must be registered with the commission and report each time they take on catch from another vessel. But research by Pew has shown that far more transshipment occurs than is reported to the commission./16
This is particularly true in the high seas pockets between EEZs. These transshipment hotspots are vast and under the rules of the WCPFC responsibility for monitoring and enforcement within them is divided up among the neighboring small island states, which have little hope of enforcing the law within them. IUU fishing destabilizes the region, both in terms of sustainability and security. Many of these islands rely on their fisheries as a primary source of protein, therefore IUU fishing in these regions jeopardizes their fisheries management and food security.
The small-islands states of the Pacific are more reliant on well-regulated fishing than anywhere else on earth. For most, with the exceptions of Papua New Guinea and Fiji, local economies and government revenue rely overwhelmingly on tourism (including ocean tourism) and fishing or the sale of fishings rights to distant water fleets. Communities rely on fish catch for a huge proportion of animal protein. And Pacific Island governments view IUU fishing and fisheries crime as the second most important national security challenge they face, trailing but interconnected with climate change. This was codified in the 2018 Boe Declaration, in which the leaders of all Pacific Island states included human security, environmental and resource security, and transnational crime as top priorities.
The United States is a resident power in the Pacific Islands - the state of Hawaii and the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are home to millions of American citizens. Most of the U.S. EEZ and continental shelf are in the Pacific, including areas bordering on the WCPFC waters being pillaged by overfishing. The United States is a party to the South Pacific Tuna Treaty which was just renewed last year with the Pacific Island Forum Fisheries Agency, and the U.S. fleet follows the rules therein. The United States also has a unique and legally binding commitment to the defense of the three freely associated states of Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. The other major resident powers of the Pacific Islands - Australia, New Zealand, and France - are U.S. treaty allies, as is Japan, traditionally a major external partner and donor.
* * *
16 Pew Charitable Trusts, "Transshipment in the Western and Central Pacific," September 12, 2019, https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2019/09/report-finds-transshipments-in-western-andcentralpacific-likely-underreported.
* * *
China, by contrast, is a newcomer in the Pacific Islands. It has growing leverage thanks to its checkbook diplomacy and has used that for political ends, including peeling away several of Taiwan's remaining diplomatic allies in recent years (the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, and Nauru), and to seek logistical access as it builds out a blue water navy. The most worrying example of the latter is the Solomons, where a 2023 security agreement gives Chinese law enforcement and potentially military vessels access to the country's land and waters. China has also tried, so far unsuccessfully, to secure access to military or dual-use infrastructure in Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Vanuatu, and reportedly Kiribati, which approaches closest to Hawaii and in which foreign military access should be constrained by the 1979 U.S.-Kiribati Treaty of Tarawa. In each of these cases, China relies in part on elite capture, using economic inducements to leverage local government, business, and thought leaders to fulfill Beijing's wishes. This is effective in the Pacific Islands because of the severe resource constraints facing regional governments and societies; resource constraints that are made worse by the signicant IUU fishing, primarily by Chinese-owned vessels, across the region.
* * *
U.S. Tools to Meet the Challenge
The United States is not without considerable resources to confront the challenge of IUU fishing, especially in the Pacific. Three types of U.S. tools are of particular importance: military/law enforcement, diplomatic, and commercial.
The United States has the most advanced naval and coast guard capabilities in the world and has leveraged them particularly well in partnership with Pacific Island states. This is an enormous comparative advantage for the United States in the strategic competition with China. By supporting maritime domain awareness (MDA) and patrol capabilities in the region, the United States presents itself as a partner in what regional states have identified as one of their top national security challenges, and it allows those states to identify the bad actor, which tend to be Chinese vessels, thereby undermining trust in Beijing.
The U.S. has negotiated ship rider agreements with nearly every state in the region, allowing the U.S. Coast Guard to assist with fisheries patrols and interdiction by putting local law enforcement officers aboard USCG vessels on patrol. The Navy has also leveraged its assets through the Oceania Maritime Security Initiative, by which Navy vessels transiting the Pacific also take on shipriders and engage in fisheries patrol. And the United States has over the last decade invested considerably in the capacity of local partners through efforts like provision of the U.S. Navy/Department of Transportation's SeaVision platform for maritime domain awareness (MDA) and the deployment of U.S. MDA experts to Fiji and Papua New Guinea to assist local officials. The deployment of USCG national security cutters to Guam is further enhancing U.S. capabilities both within its own EEZ and those of its partners. But there is more that can be done. In particular, the effort to work with Australia, Japan, and India to provide more space-based MDA capabilities through the Indo-Pacific Partnership on Maritime Domain Awareness has so far produced little results in the Pacific Islands.
On the diplomatic front, the United States has been a champion of global efforts to combat IUU fishing, including by being an early adopter of the Port State Measures Agreeement (PSMA) and lauching the annual Our Oceans Conference. PSMA has been particularly important as the only global treaty specifically targeting IUU fishing, and today it has more than 100 party states (the European Union having acceded on behalf of all its members). The treaty reached a major milestone in April when China finally became a party. But there is reason to be skeptical that Beijing will fully implement the terms of the treaty. PSMA is mainly seen as a way to prevent foreign vessels from offloading illegally caught fish in port, but China's ports almost exclusively offtake fish from Chinese-flagged vessels, including much of its distant water fleet. PSMA does include provisions requiring flag states to investigate and punish their own vessels suspected of engaging in IUU./17
But China has not been proactive in enforcing its flag-state obligations, as evidenced by that fact that it still operates the largest IUU fleet in the world. The United States and partners should leverage Beijing's entry into PSMA to ratchet up the diplomatic pressure on China to get its own house in order.
Commercially, the United States has power courtesy of its vast market. U.S. consumers account for a significant portion of global consumption and that gives the United States leverage to set terms in the global seafood market. U.S. consumers would much rather purchase sustainably and legally caught seafood, but must be empowered to do so through clear tracing and labelling. This was the impetus for the Seafood Import Monitoring Program. And though that program has been criticized as ineffective, it can be built upon to ensure that U.S. consumers know what lands on their plates. Removing the profit motive from IUU fishing is ultimately the only way to solve the problem and secure U.S. economic and national security interests.
* * *
17 Elaine Young, "China Joins Treaty to Fight Illegal Fishing, a Major Milestone for Ocean Governance," Pew, April 17, 2025, https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2025/04/17/china-joins-treaty-to-fight-illegalfishinga-major-milestone-for-ocean-governance.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/D0ECD60F-46D4-460E-9F5E-A69912F97C66
American Legion Veterans Affairs & Rehabilitation Division Director Lyle Testifies Before House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, June 22 -- The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health released the following written testimony by Cole Lyle, director of the Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Division of the American Legion, from a June 12, 2025, hearing on veterans programs and services-related legislation:* * *
Chairman Miller-Meeks, Ranking Member Brownley, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of National Commander James A. LaCoursiere Jr., 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 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 22 -- The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health released the following written testimony by Cole Lyle, director of the Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Division of the American Legion, from a June 12, 2025, hearing on veterans programs and services-related legislation: * * * Chairman Miller-Meeks, Ranking Member Brownley, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of National Commander James A. LaCoursiere Jr., and more than 1.5 million dues-paying members of The American Legion, we thank you for the opportunity to offer our written testimony regardingproposed 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 resolutions-based organization, our positions are directed by more than 106 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. 785: Representing Our Seniors at VA Act
To amend title 38, United States Code, to include a representative of the National Association of State Veterans Homes on the Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Representing Our Seniors at VA Act modifies the membership structure of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee (GGAC). This committee, appointed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs upon recommendation from the Under Secretary for Health, is legally required to be composed of individuals "who have demonstrated interest and expertise in research, education, and clinical activities related to aging." Existing law also mandates the inclusion of at least one representative from a national veteran service organization. This bill will add to that framework by granting a seat on the GGAC to a representative of the National Association of State Veterans Homes (NASVH), selected in consultation with the President of the NASVH.
State Veterans Homes are long-term care facilities which provide a range of services to eligible veterans and their families. While owned and operated by individual states, these facilities are certified and partially funded by the VA. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), 14,500 veterans resided in 153 State Veterans Homes in 2021, which accounted for approximately half of VA long-term care facilities.1 As of 2024, all of the now 169 State Veteran Homes held membership in NASVH.2 These homes are a cornerstone of the nation's care infrastructure for aging veterans, and NASVH is well-positioned to speak on their behalf.
* * *
The urgency of strengthening geriatric care at the VA is clear. A 2021 VA care projection model (see figure below) illustrates the demographic surge of Vietnam-Era veterans. As shown in this figure, in 2025 the average (mode) age of the veteran population is 77 years old and this is the same age the National Center for Health Statistics reports to be the average age for residents of long-term care facilities.3 As these veterans age, the cost to care for them will continue to increase with projected costs doubling by 2037, and recommendations of the Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee will become more critical.4 The VA and the nation itself must be prepared to care for these heroes.
Through Resolution No. 20: Home and Community-Based Services and Veteran Choice to Age In Place, The American Legion supports veteran choice in where they age, and the only way to ensure this is a robust advisory system for VA Gerontology. The VA and the nation itself must be prepared to care for these heroes.
* * *
1 U.S. Government Accountability Office. VA Health Care: Improved Oversight of State Veterans Homes Would Help Better Ensure Quality of Care. GAO-23-105167. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2023. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105167
2 Harries, Ed. Statement of Ed Harries, President, National Association of State Veterans Homes, on Draft Legislation to Include a Representative of NASVH on the Geriatric and Gerontology Advisory Committee. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Health of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 118th Cong., 2nd sess., September 11, 2024. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR03/20240911/117591/HHRG-118-VR03-20240911-SD004.pdf.
3 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Post-acute and Long-term Care Study: 2020 Data on Nursing Home Residents by Age and Length of Stay. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/npals/NHresident-age-lengthofstay-2020-508.pdf.
4 U.S. Government Accountability Office. VA Health Care: Veterans' Use of Long-Term Care Is Increasing, and VA Faces Challenges in Meeting the Demand. GAO-20-284. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 2020. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-284.pdf
* * *
The American Legion supports H.R. 785 as currently written.
* * *
H.R. 2068: The Veterans Patient Advocacy Act
To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the assignment of patient advocates at medical facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
There are currently 4.7 million rural and highly rural veterans across the United States.5 The VA's Office of Rural Health (ORH) estimates that 2.8 million rural veterans are enrolled in and rely on the VA's health care system.6 The American Legion believes that patient advocates are vital in serving rural veterans and supports all efforts to ensure they are appropriately assigned and staffed. A September 2024 VA OIG report found a patient advocate failed to assist a veteran due to an overwhelming workload,7 and found VA needed to enhance the operation of the Patient Advocate Program, providing three recommendations to resolve the issue.
The American Legion applauds efforts to improve the assignment of patient advocates, as this directly impacts our membership. Legionnaires like Sergeant John Tedford in Arizona shared that despite his 90% service-connected disability rating, he waited over a year for a medical appointment due to the multitude of dead-end paths.8 Through the System Worth Saving Program visits, The American Legion has actively sought and provided recommendations to the VA regarding enhancements to the patient advocate program which align with the OIG's September 2024 recommendations.
The American Legion supports initiatives to advocate for veterans and improve access to care for rural veterans through better staffing and communication, as outlined in Resolution No. 75: Department of Veterans Affairs Rural Health Care. The American Legion believes that veterans deserve timely medical services regardless of where they live and should have access to advocates who can help them secure appropriate healthcare. Furthermore, the American Legion backs staffing measures ensuring patient advocates are present in all VA medical centers, as stated in Resolution No. 115: Department of Veterans Affairs Recruitment and Retention. Patient advocates are crucial for veterans, particularly those in rural areas, and the Legion supports the VA's efforts to develop and implement staffing models that address these needs.
The American Legion supports H.R. 2068 as currently written.
* * *
5 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, "Office of Health Equity" Access to Care Among Rural Veterans - Office of Health Equity, https://www.research.va.gov/topics/rural_health.cfm
6 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, "Office of Rural Health" "https://www.ruralhealth.va.gov/"Office of Rural Health Home, https://www.ruralhealth.va.gov/.
7 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General, Leaders Failed to Address Community Care Consult Delays Despite Staff Advocacy, June 2025, https://www.vaoig.gov/reports/hotline-healthcare-inspection/leaders-failed-address-community-care-consult-delays-despite.
8 American Legion. "Only Hope For Some." The American Legion, 2025. https://www.legion.org/information-center/news/your-words/personal-experiences/only-hope-for-some.2025.
* * *
H.R. 2605: Service Dogs Assisting Veterans (SAVES) Act
To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to award grants to nonprofit organizations to assist such organizations in carrying out programs to provide service dogs to eligible veterans, and for other purposes.
The SAVES Act would establish a grant program at the VA to allow Assistance Dogs International (ADI)-accredited nonprofits to competitively apply for awards to train more service dogs to assist veterans. This is a different approach than the PAWS for Veterans Therapy pilot program, as it inherently recognizes the dog itself as a mental prosthetic rather than the act of training as a therapy. This legislation appropriates money towards the program, and recognizes that more disabilities than PTSD can be positively affected with use of a service dog.
VA has provided service dogs to veterans since 1958, with the program originally created to support blind veterans.9 The program has been expanded over time to provide service dogs to veterans with a variety of physical and mental disabilities. The VA has approved organizations that they work through to provide service dogs for veterans, and a recent recipient of the SSgt. Parker Gordon FOX Grant Program is a service dog organization.
VA research shows that veterans who receive a service dog have an average 3.7-point drop in PTSD symptoms, and veterans who receive service dogs have less suicidal ideation and improved mental health than those paired with emotional support dogs.10 It was further identified that veterans with service dogs are noted to have lower depression, higher quality of life, and increased social functioning than veterans on the waiting list for service dogs.11 The American Legion supports the SAVES Act through Resolution No. 134: Service Dogs for Injured Service Personnel and Veterans with Mental Health Conditions. Many individuals suffering from PTSD and other mental health disorders refuse to seek treatment because of the stigma surrounding mental health, so it is critical that these alternative treatments are accessible. The American Legion further supports this bill through Resolution No. 262: Department of Veterans Affairs Provide Service Dog Allowance, which supports all maintenance requirements for the upkeep and care of service dogs.
The American Legion supports providing veterans who need a service or guide dog with the appropriate resources to support their healing process. Service animals are just as vital to veterans with physical and mental impairments as prosthetic body parts are heavily relied on by veterans for Activities of Daily Living. The American Legion supports this bill in order to ensure that veterans continue to receive the care that they deserve.
The American Legion supports H.R. 2605 as currently written.
* * *
9 Richard Weinmeyer, " Service Dogs for Veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder," AMA Journal of Ethics Health Law, June 2015, Accessed April 13, 2023, https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/service-dogs-veterans-posttraumatic-stress-disorder/2015-06.
10 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Letter Report on Review of Department of Veterans Affairs Monograph on Potential Therapeutic Effects of Service and Emotional Support Dogs on Veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26039.
11 O'Haire, M.E. & Rodriguez, K.E. (2018). Preliminary Efficacy of Service Dogs as a Complementary Treatment for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Military Members and Veterans. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5788288/
* * *
H.R. 3400: The Territorial Response and Access to Veterans' Essential Lifecare (TRAVEL) Act
To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to assign physicians of the Department of Veterans Affairs to temporarily serve as traveling physicians in the territories and possessions of the United States, and for other purposes.
In addition to the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, the VA provides benefits to veterans in the five U.S. territories, which includes the Pacific territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), as well as the Caribbean territories of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). Many veterans live in these territories, but VA care and benefits can be challenging to deliver for various reasons. In recent years, the Caribbean Island of Puerto Rico has faced multiple crises--including Hurricanes Maria and Irma--that devastated the infrastructure and threatened the island's public health system, and 50% of Puerto Rico's physicians have left the island since 2009.12 A 2024 GAO Report indicated that VA efforts have not sufficiently addressed veterans' access to care challenges in the territories. For example, due to VA's eligibility criteria for its travel benefits program, as of March 2024, freely associated states (FAS) and a large portion of territory veterans do not qualify for VA travel benefits.13 This critical need must be addressed with new and creative solutions.
The American Legion published an article on November 17, 2023, stating veterans in Puerto Rico deserve the same support as those living in mainland United States. Department Commander Carmen Rosario further stated, "The American Legion commits to bringing opportunities like town halls to veterans so they can receive the same treatment as their counterparts living in the States". 14 This legislation seeks to improve health care access, including specialized medical services, for veterans residing in U.S. territories and other underserved areas. This legislation will allow the Secretary to assign a physician to serve as a traveling physician for a period of not more than a year, at Department facilities in the American territories (Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States) and any other territory or possession of the United States. Moreover, the traveling physician shall help coordinate with non-Department medical providers to ensure high quality and coordinated care for veterans receiving hospital care and medical services. To help incentivize physicians to enter this program, the Secretary shall also provide a relocation or retention bonus like the relocation and retention bonus offered under sections 5753 and 5754 of title 5, respectively.
* * *
12 Howard, Jeannie. "Residency Programs Address Unique Access to Care Challenges." VA News, December 8, 2023. https://news.va.gov/126531/residency-programs-address-care-challenges/.
13 U.S. Government Accountability Office. Veterans Affairs: Actions Needed to Improve Access to Care in the U.S. Territories and Freely Associated States. GAO-24-106364. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office, May 23, 2024. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106364.
14 The American Legion. "Legion, VA and Congress Listen to Puerto Rican Veterans' Concerns at Town Hall." The American Legion, November 17, 2023. https://www.legion.org/information-center/news/veterans-benefits/2023/november/legion-va-and-congress-listen-to-puerto-rican-veterans-concerns-at-town-hall.
* * *
The opportunity for a short-term assignment outside of the continental US could be very attractive to current employees and improve retention, and could also be an incentive for recruiting new providers who are seeking the opportunity to work abroad or in underserved areas.
The American Legion supports this legislation through Resolution No. 46: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Non-VA Care Programs.
The American Legion supports H.R. 3400 as currently written.
* * *
DRAFT: To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit smoking on the premises of any facility of the Veterans Health Administration, and for other purposes.
To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit smoking on the premises of any facility of the Veterans Health Administration, and for other purposes.
According to VA Directive 1085.01, it is VHA policy that all VHA health care facilities be smoke-free for employees effective October 1, 2019. This includes eliminating all designated smoking areas for employees. The VA made these changes based on the security hazards related to smoking on VHA health care facility grounds, scientific evidence regarding the adverse health effects of secondhand and thirdhand smoke exposures, and their impact to patient safety and direct patient care.15 The tobacco epidemic is a major public health challenge that accounts for more than 8 million deaths worldwide annually. A quarter of these deaths are among nonsmokers who were exposed to secondhand smoke.16 This is concerning as three out of ten U.S. veterans use tobacco, a much higher rate than non-veterans across all age groups, and numbers are higher among active-duty service members.17 A comprehensive review of literature published by July 2022 concerning the adverse impacts of secondhand smoke (SHS) continues to cause harm to nonsmokers, who are disproportionately children and women. This review conservatively estimates that SHS increases the risk of heart disease by 8%, increases the risk of stroke by 5%, and increases the risk of both Type 2 diabetes and lung cancer by 1%.18 This legislation amends Section 1715 of title 38 to read that no person, including any veteran patient, resident, employee of the Department, contactor, or visitor may smoke on the premises of any facility of the Veterans Health Administration. This includes electronic or e-cigarettes, vape pens, and e-cigars. The term VA facility is defined as any land or building, including any medical center, nursing home, domiciliary facility, outpatient clinic, or center that provides readjustment counseling under the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
* * *
15 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. "Smoke-Free VA Health Care Facilities." Last modified August 14, 2019. https://www.va.gov/health/smokefree/.
16 Garg, Suneela, and Akash D. Sharma. "Secondhand smoke: an unintended public health concern." Indian Journal of Community and Family Medicine 8, no. 2 (2022): 81-85.
17 Brown, David W. "Smoking prevalence among US veterans." Journal of general internal medicine 25 (2010): 147-149.
18 Flor, Luisa S., Jason A. Anderson, Noah Ahmad, Aleksandr Aravkin, Sinclair Carr, Xiaochen Dai, Gabriela F. Gil et al. "Health effects associated with exposure to secondhand smoke: a Burden of Proof study." Nature medicine 30, no. 1 (2024): 149-167.
* * *
Existing Executive Order 13058, "Protecting Federal Employees and the Public from Exposure to Tobacco Smoke in the Federal Workplace," bans smoking in front of air intake ducts and allows agency heads to evaluate the need to restrict smoking to protect workers and visitors from environmental tobacco smoke. Furthermore, EO13058 bans smoking in courtyards and within 25 feet of doorways on GSA-controlled properties.
As the overwhelming body of research concludes use of tobacco products and secondhand exposure to tobacco is detrimental to the health and wellness of veterans, and this bill would codify existing norms, the American Legion supports the bill via Resolution No. 377: Quality of Life.
The American Legion supports the draft legislation as currently written.
* * *
DRAFT: The VA Data Transparency and Trust Act
To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the annual reports submitted to Congress with respect to the Veterans Benefits Administration and the Veterans Health Administration, and for other purposes.
The VA Data Transparency and Trust Act aims to enhance the annual reports submitted to Congress by the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The bill also mandates the underlying data used in these reports be available to independent researchers certified by the Secretary. For a period of five years, this bill expands the reports to cover major chronic conditions, the service era and branch of affected veterans, as well as disaggregated data by age and gender and various costs associated with such care.
This legislation builds upon the existing high-quality reports produced by VBA and VHA, including the Annual Benefits Report (ABR) and the National Veteran Suicide Prevention Annual Report, which have provided congress and Veteran Service Organizations (VSO) with insight into the health of veterans. These reports promote accountability and foster more rigorous oversight and collaboration with Congress and the veteran community. The Data Sharing System proposed by this legislation would allow a new level of scientific collaboration, yet unseen in veterans' policy or health research.
While this legislation takes significant steps to improve transparency and collaboration, further enhancements would strengthen its impact:
Recommendation 1
This bill proposes a significant expansion to public VA reporting that results in both transparency and increased administrative burden. To reduce duplication and administrative burden, VA should be explicitly authorized to incorporate existing data from active products such as The Annual Report on the Steps Taken to Achieve Full Staffing Capacity, The Agency Financial Report, The Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans Annual Report, and other various Advisory Committee reports.
Recommendation 2
Section Sec. 7330B(b)(14)(A)(iii)-(v) seeks to quantify veterans who are "reliant" on VA care, but the term "reliant" is not defined within the bill and may be interpreted in multiple ways. For example, veterans with complex chronic conditions may be reliant due to the specialized care the VA provides, while others may be considered reliant simply because the VA is their sole health care provider. Still others may rely on the VA for specific services, such as polytrauma care. We recommend this section be amended to clarify the category of reliance whether volume of care, exclusivity, severity of care, clinical dependency or some other metric.
Recommendation 3
Considering the current conversation around VA staffing and the prospect of a reduction in force, The American Legion strongly supports the bill's requirements to report on physician staffing, including their specialties, pay, and bonuses.19 While the VA Workforce Dashboard currently captures portions of this information, additional physician-specific reporting on an annual basis would enhance transparency. We recommend that the report also include the functional role of the physicians, such as whether they provide direct care in specialty or primary care, or serve in vital non-clinical roles such as policy, research, education, or administration.
Recommendation 4
The proposed legislation pertaining to major chronic conditions should be further disaggregated by type of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Each cancer experienced by a veteran is personal and unique, and broad categories do not reflect the diversity of veteran health needs. While it is impractical to report every possible subtype, a prioritized list of conditions determined by the Secretary in consultation with relevant advisory councils could ensure reporting is meaningful and feasible. As independent bodies representing the veteran community and clinical experts, these councils should have a meaningful role in determining which conditions are reported.
Recommendation 5
In addition to the four chronic conditions listed, a fifth category should be added:
a. "(E) Any additional chronic condition identified by the secretary that;
i. disproportionally affects the veteran community; or
ii. has a major effect on the veteran community;"
This language would encourage flexibility by the report authors to bring attention to emerging issues.
Recommendation 6
The rates of chronic conditions reported in Sec.7330B(b)(2) should be contextualized through comparison to the rates of such conditions experienced by the US veteran population versus the rates experienced by the US civilian population. A comparison to the general veteran community and the civilian population will not only better direct VA and community care but also illuminate which conditions should be studied further for possible connection to service.
* * *
19 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. "Reduction in Force." Workforce Optimization Hub. Accessed June 5, 2025. https://department.va.gov/workforce-optimization-hub/reduction-in-force/.
* * *
Recommendation 7
While state of residence is included in the ABR, this data is not currently mandated, and no rurality metric is reported, yet the VA reports drive time accounts for 51% of community care referrals.20 To better direct care, it is recommended State Level Data and some metric of rurality be included in the VBA report expansion.
Recommendation 8
The VA's mission includes caregivers and survivors, yet current VBA reporting excludes these groups. The same demographic data collected for veterans should be reported for:
* Survivors receiving Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC)
* Disaggregation by age is particularly important for survivor data, as survivors who are 55 and older are eligible to marry without loss of benefits.
* Caregivers enrolled in the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC).
* Caregivers enrolled in the Program of General Caregiver Support Services (PGCSS).
* For DIC recipients the cause of the veteran's death (e.g., enemy action, cancer, accident, cardiovascular event, suicide) should be included.
* For PCAFC and PGCSS participants, the service-connected conditions of the veteran they support should be reported.
Recommendation 9
For all benefit programs, data on reason for severance from the program would benefit both advocacy and delivery of services. When the reason for severance is death of the veteran, as is often the case for PCAFC and PGCSS, data should be further separated by cause of death.
The improved demographic collection produced by this bill is supported by The American Legion Resolution No. 6: Minority Veterans and Resolution No. 147: Women Veterans. The suggested changes to geographic data collection are supported by Resolution No. 119: Support More Service Programs Benefiting the Rural Veteran. Improved data collection for caregivers is supported by Resolution No. 18: Comprehensive Supports for Caregiver Support Program. Improved collection of survivor demographics is historically supported by The American Legion, including recent testimony by Executive Director Mario Marquez on similar legislation, such as the Honoring Our Promise Act.21 The disaggregation of cancer and cardiovascular conditions, and the proposed Data Sharing System, is supported by several resolutions including Resolution No. 239: Support Research about Breast Cancer & Resolution No. 127: Prostate Cancer Research and Treatment.
* * *
20 Peabody, Hillary, and Michael A. Pappas. VHA Community Care Growth Trends. Presented in March 2024 by the Office of Integrated Veteran Care, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Acting Assistant Under Secretary for Health (AUSH) and Acting Deputy AUSH for Integrated Veteran Care, respectively.
21 Marquez, Mario. "Statement for the Record." Testimony before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, March 29, 2022. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR09/20220329/114539/HHRG-117-VR09-Wstate-MarquezM-20220329-U1.pdf
* * *
The American Legion applauds the VA for its leadership in producing high-quality, evidence-driven reports and commends Congress for seeking to expand the VA's tools for transparency, collaboration, and scientific partnership.
The American Legion supports this draft legislation with amendments.
* * *
DRAFT: To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study to determine whether RNA sequencing can be used to effectively diagnose PTSD in veterans.
To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study to determine whether RNA sequencing can be used to effectively diagnose PTSD in veterans.
This draft legislation directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, through the Center for Innovation for Care and Payment, to study the feasibility of using RNA sequencing to diagnose post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) within five Veteran Integrated Service Networks.
The American Legion recognizes the advancements in PTSD diagnosis as a critical component of our Be The One mission to prevent veteran suicide. As part of our commitment, The American Legion has interviewed experts on RNA expression as a diagnostic tool for PTSD and is cautiously optimistic on the implications of this emerging technology.
Unlike DNA, which remains constant throughout an individual's life, RNA can change based on lived experiences. Trauma, particularly from combat and other life-threatening situations, can alter RNA expression, changes which may result in the persistent re-experiencing of traumatic memories which interfere with daily life. Recent studies suggest these molecular changes can be detected through RNA sequencing, making them no less measurable than other wounds of war.
RNA sequencing only requires a small vial of blood and is no different than a cholesterol test from the perspective of a patient.22 RNA degenerates quickly but can be used if stabilized within 72 hours at a medical facility, making this technology possible for home care without specialized equipment.23 Beyond diagnostics, RNA-based detection offers additional innovations. By identifying the physiological contributors of PTSD, new targeted therapies could be developed. In addition, emerging research suggests RNA diagnostics may be used as a leading indicator for symptoms, offering clinicians real-time feedback on the effectiveness of treatment even before symptoms improve or worsen.24 The VA has been an industry leader in the biological markers of PTSD, with groundbreaking studies at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center,25 the Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center,26 and the William Jennings Bryan Dorn Veterans Medical Center, among others.27 This bill would bring a concerted and collaborative effort for the VA to not only pursue RNA as a diagnostic tool, but produce a report to congress to improve follow-up legislative efforts.
* * *
22 The American Legion and IXpressGenes. Meeting to Discuss PTSD Diagnostic Research Using RNA Sequencing. April 28, 2025.
23 Ibid
24 Dean, Kelsey R., et al. "Multi-omic Biomarker Identification and Validation for Diagnosing Warzone-Related Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder." Molecular Psychiatry 25 (2020): 3337-3349. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-019-0496-z 25 Ibid
* * *
As with any emerging technology, concerns of potential misuse must be included in development and implementation. Even if research proves RNA sequencing to be a valuable diagnostic tool, it should never be used as the sole basis for determining service connection for PTSD. The psychological impact of military service is holistic and cannot be reduced to a single biologic marker. This technology may be most appropriately applied to track ongoing treatment, or in cases where traditional diagnostic methods yield inconclusive results, such as when a veteran is reluctant to engage with a clinician or presents atypical symptoms.
Another potential misuse could be denying claims on the basis a veteran is predisposed to PTSD. This could occur if blood tests are completed both before and after service, showing biological markers for PTSD existed before the trauma. While individuals who experience traumatic events in childhood may be susceptible to developing PTSD in adulthood, trauma related to service only occurs because our country has asked these brave men and women to step into harm's way.28 The presence of predisposition does not diminish the real, service-related nature of their suffering.
The American Legion supports this legislation through Resolution No. 16: Furthering Research Pertaining to Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTC), and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
The American Legion supports the draft legislation as currently written.
* * *
DRAFT: To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a time frame for the employment in the Department of Veterans Affairs of participants in the Health Professionals Scholarship Program, and for other purposes.
To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a time frame for the employment in the Department of Veterans Affairs of participants in the Health Professionals Scholarship Program, and for other purposes.
The recruitment and retention of medical providers has always been a struggle in the VA medical system. 96% of the nation's medical schools including 151 of 157 Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME)-accredited allopathic schools and 35 of 37 Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation (COCA)-accredited osteopathic medical schools are affiliated with VA.29
* * *
26 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. "Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)." Office of Research & Development. Last updated June 24, 2022. https://www.research.va.gov/topics/ptsd.cfm.
27 Bam, Marpe, Xiaoming Yang, Elizabeth Ellen Zumbrun, Yin Zhong, Mitzi Nagarkatti, Prakash Nagarkatti, and others. "Dysregulated Immune System Networks in War Veterans with PTSD Is an Outcome of Altered miRNA Expression and DNA Methylation." Scientific Reports 6, no. 1 (2016): 31209. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep31209.
28 Herika Cristina da Silva et al., "The Role of Childhood Cumulative Trauma in the Risk of Lifetime PTSD: An Epidemiological Study," Psychiatry Research 336 (June 2024): 115887, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2024.115887 29 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Academic Affiliations, Health Professions Education Statistics: Academic Year 2021-2022 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2022), https://www.va.gov/oaa/docs/OAACurrentStats.pdf.
* * *
Medical professionals learn critical skills at VA facilities during their medical education, and they take these skills to the public sector and flourish. The VA has developed many programs that will encourage medical professionals to remain and work at the VA upon graduation.
This bill would ensure medical professionals in certain fields of critical need, determined by the Secretary, would be guaranteed employment at VA for one year of every year in the HPSP. Acceptance into the program is based on limited eligibility requirements and successful completion by participants would fill critical gaps in areas of high demand for VA. Further, it provides a measure of predictability for HPSP participants to make financial and logistical preparations before their first job with VA.
The American Legion has consistently supported the VA's recruitment and retention measures. The Health Professionals Scholarship Program Improvement Act of 2025 is endorsed through Resolution No. 115: Department of Veterans Affairs Recruitment and Retention, which supports recruitment and retention challenges that the VA has who are providing direct health care to our nation's veterans. The American legion further supports this legislation through Resolution No. 237: The American Legion Policy On Nurse Recruitment and Retention, which supports education assistance programs for nursing staff.
The American Legion supports the draft legislation as currently written.
* * *
DRAFT: The Fisher House Availability Act
To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make temporary lodging facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs available for certain TRICARE beneficiaries on a space-available basis, and for other purposes.
The Fisher House Foundation was created by Zachery and Elizabeth M. Fisher in 1990.30 The original project cost 20 million dollars to provide temporary, comfortable homes for families of hospitalized military personnel, the most notable of which is at Walter Reed Medical Center in Bethesda, MD.31 When one of these homes reaches capacity, the Fisher House Foundation has an additional resource called Hotels for Heroes, providing accommodations for service members, family, and close friends closer to a medical facility.32 Taken together, these programs house 1,400 military and veteran families on a nightly basis in the U.S. and abroad.
This bill seeks to expand this capability by making temporary lodging facilities on VA campuses available to certain TRICARE beneficiaries when the covered beneficiary must travel a significant distance to receive care at a non-VA facility. This will be given on a space-available basis. Military and veteran family members with patients that are being treated at a military or VA hospital are currently eligible to stay at a Fisher House or utilize the Hotels for Heroes program.33
* * *
30 Zachary Fisher - Builder, Philanthropist, Patriot - Fisher House Foundation https://fisherhouse.org/about/our-history/zachary-fisher/.
31 Fisher House Foundation, "Fisher House Foundation is On the Road to 100." Sept 28, 2022. https://fisherhouse.org/stories/articles/fisher-house-foundation-is-on-the-road-to-100/.
32 Fisher House Foundation, Hotels for Heroes. https://fisherhouse.org/programs/hotel-for-heroes/.
* * *
This bill codifies this directive into law and will help to ensure the Fisher House programs are allowed to help veterans, service members, and their families as originally intended. The American Legion supports this legislation through Resolution No. 18: Comprehensive Supports for Caregivers Support Program.
The American Legion supports the draft legislation as currently written.
H.R. 1404: The CHAMPVA Children's Care Protection Act
* * *
To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the maximum age for children eligible for medical care under the CHAMPVA program, and for other purposes.
Children of 100% service-connected disabled veterans qualify for a 75%/25% cost-sharing health plan known as the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA). However, 38 U.S.C. Sec.101 mandates that a dependent (other than a helpless child) covered under CHAMPVA loses eligibility if (a) the dependent turns 18, unless enrolled in an accredited school as a full-time student; (b) the dependent, who has been a fulltime student, turns 23 or loses full-time student status; or (c) the dependent marries.34 This legislation seeks parity with DOD's TRICARE Young Adult plan (TYA), by extending coverage to age 26 regardless of marital status. Additionally, notwithstanding the subsection c(i) and (iii) of section 101(4)(a) of title 38, proposed bill language goes further to seek parity with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), by also extending eligibility regardless of student status.
As such, The American Legion supports H.R. 1404 through Resolution No. 21: Expanding Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA) Coverage, which urges Congress to enact legislation which seeks parity between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs programs when providing services to widows and dependents to include making health-care coverage available for a dependent child until 26 years of age, regardless of the dependents' marital status.
The American Legion supports H.R. 1404 as currently written.
* * *
33 Lange, Katie, U.S. Department of Defense," Fisher Houses Offer Free Stays, Comfort to Ailing Families, Vets" May 10,2023. https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/3391501/fisher-houses-offer-free-stays-comfort-to-ailing-military-families-vets/ 34 U.S. Library of Congress. CRS, Health Care for Dependents and Survivors of Veterans: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions. April 21, 2021, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RS22483.pdf.
* * *
H.R. 2148: The Veteran Caregiver Reeducation, Reemployment, and Retirement Act
To expand medical, employment, and other benefits for individuals serving as family caregivers for certain veterans, and for other purposes.
The Veteran Caregiver Reeducation, Reemployment, and Retirement Act provides essential follow-on support for caregivers enrolled in the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC). This bill recognizes the sacrifice of family caregivers, many of whom leave their careers to care for critically ill veterans and offers a path to reenter the workforce with dignity after their service.
Section 2 continues health care coverage for caregivers who lose eligibility for the program because their veteran has either improved and is no longer in need of the program or has passed away. This provision allows a six-month transition period while the caregiver seeks healthcare through employment or the marketplace.
Section 3 establishes a modest stipend of $1,000 for caregivers to fund professional re-licensure or continuing education. PCAFC caregivers often provide 24-hour support for their veterans, in some cases delivering over 80 hours per week of care.35 This level of responsibility greatly hinders career prospects, with 16% of veteran caregivers reporting a reduction in work hours or leaving the workforce entirely.36 This stipend ensures caregivers seeking gainful employment, many of whom have professional experience and in positions of public trust, are able to smoothly transition into their next chapter of life.
Sections 4 and 5 require follow-up reports to assess the effectiveness of transitional and reemployment support and to identify additional interventions to improve the caregiver program.
Although there is no formal Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score for this legislation, these provisions are likely to modestly increase the PCAFC expenditures. More importantly, it may increase enrollment by reducing financial hurdles for professionals considering the program.
According to the CBO, CHAMPVA coverage for typical caregivers cost approximately $2,700 per year in 2017, or about $1,350 for a six-month extension.37 If extended to all 57,000 caregivers enrolled in PCAFC, this would represent a meaningful expansion to the program.38 However, without additional VA data on caregiver turnover and healthcare utilization, a precise cost estimate of this expansion is not possible.
* * *
35 Ramchand, Rajeev, Sarah Dalton, Tamara Dubowitz, Kelly Hyde, Nipher Malika Andrew R. Morral, Elie Ohana, and Vanessa Parks. Hidden Heroes Emerging from the Shadows: America's Military and Veteran Caregivers. RRA3212-1. RAND Corporation, 2024. www.rand.org/t/RRA3212-1
36 Ibid
37 Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate for S. 2921, Veterans First Act (Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, October 24, 2016), accessed May 16, 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/costestimate/s2921.pdf 38 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2023 Annual Report: Caregiver Support Program (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2024), accessed May 16, 2025, "https://www.caregiver.va.gov/docs/2024/CSP_Annual_Report_2023-Final.pdf"https://www.caregiver.va.gov/docs/2024/CSP_Annual_Report_2023-Final.pdf.
* * *
In contrast, we can assess the value of PCAFC relative to institutional care. The PCAFC, including stipends and caregiver healthcare, cost an average of $18,300 per year for 2015 and 2017 according to the CBO.39,40 While this information is dated, there is no evidence recent changes to the program via the Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act and the MISSION Act have raised costs to a level comparable to institutional settings. By comparison, in 2017 VA reimbursed State Veterans Homes at a rate of $397 per day for severely disabled veterans,41 which cost the VA $145,000 per veteran, per year. That same year, the average daily cost of VA-operated nursing homes was $1,222, or $445,000 per veteran annually.42 While not direct comparisons, PCAFC is more cost effective than institutional care and veterans prefer it. Enhancing the program's attractiveness to licensed professionals by covering the modest cost of re-credentialing will help more veterans remain at home at a fraction of the cost of institutionalization in long-term facilities.
The American Legion supports this legislation through Resolution No. 18: Comprehensive Supports for Caregiver Support Program, where the members of American Legion specifically called for follow-on supports for caregivers transitioning out of caregiver support programs, and Resolution No. 20: Home and Community-Based Services and Veteran Choice to Age In Place, which calls on improvements to programs which enhance a veterans choice of where to age.
This legislation is a fiscally prudent investment in veteran health and caregiver reintegration, and it honors the service and sacrifice of both veterans and those who care for them.
The American Legion supports H.R. 2148 as currently written.
* * *
DRAFT: The VA Mental Health Outreach and Engagement Act
To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to furnish annual mental health consultation to certain veterans, and for other purposes.
This legislation amends section 1167 of Title 38, directing the Secretary to reach out to veterans who are receiving compensation for a service-connected disability relating to a mental health diagnosis no less frequently than once per calendar year, with no presumption the consultation necessitates a reevaluation of the disability compensation determination.
The bill requires a GAO review outlining the implementation of the program and, most importantly, list any barriers to veterans seeking mental healthcare from VA.
* * *
39 Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate for H.R. 5674, VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018 (Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, May 14, 2018), accessed May 16, 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/hr5674.pdf
40 Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate for S. 2921, Veterans First Act (Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, October 24, 2016), accessed May 16, 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/costestimate/s2921.pdf
41 Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate for H.R. 5674, VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018 (Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, May 14, 2018), accessed May 16, 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/hr5674.pdf.
42 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, HERC Inpatient Average Cost Data, Health Economics Resource Center, accessed May 16, 2025, https://www.herc.research.va.gov/include/page.asp?id=inpatient
* * *
The American Legion supports this legislation through Resolution No. 17: Continuum of Care and Mental Health Supports which calls for VA to conduct a consistent follow-on continuum of care in any setting for any veteran suffering from mental health illnesses, and for the Department of Defense and VA to better coordinate and collaborate their mental health outreach programs to address the stigma in seeking mental health care.
The American Legion supports the draft legislation as currently written.
* * *
CONCLUSION
Chairman Miller-Meeks, Ranking Member Brownley, 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 Logan Barber, Legislative Associate, at lbarber@legion.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR03/20250612/118376/HHRG-119-VR03-Wstate-LyleC-20250612.pdf
Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers President Prout Testifies Before Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, June 22 -- The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Coast Guard, Maritime and Fisheries released the following testimony by Gabriel Prout, president of the Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers, from a June 12, 2025, hearing entitled "Finding Nemo's Future: Conflicts over Ocean Resources":* * *
Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Blunt Rochester, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the devastating impact of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) crab fishing and unfair trade practices by ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 22 -- The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Coast Guard, Maritime and Fisheries released the following testimony by Gabriel Prout, president of the Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers, from a June 12, 2025, hearing entitled "Finding Nemo's Future: Conflicts over Ocean Resources": * * * Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Blunt Rochester, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the devastating impact of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) crab fishing and unfair trade practices byRussia on American crab fishermen and coastal communities. I also want to thank both Senators Sullivan and Cantwell for their longtime support of independent crab harvesters. My name is Gabriel Prout, and I am the president of the Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers (ABSC), representing the majority of the quota and vessel owners who harvest king, snow, and bairdi crab in the Bering Sea.
I am also a third-generation commercial fisherman from Kodiak, Alaska-- a seafood powerhouse that is known for the 100s of millions of pounds of product that come across its docks each year. For nearly two decades, I have worked in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska alongside two of my brothers, continuing the livelihood passed down from our father and grandfather. In recent years, the collapse of the snow and red king crab stocks has hit our community hard. Boats sat tied to the dock, crews were out of work, and families like mine were left facing deep uncertainty. This fishery is not just our livelihood--it is our identity. Today, I am happy to report that crab stocks appear to be making a recovery, but more is still needed to be done to help protect small fishing families like mine and those that I represent in the Bering Sea crab fleet, especially when it comes to IUU.
* * *
IUU Impact on U.S. Fishermen
The scale of economic losses from IUU fishing on American fishermen is staggering. U.S. fishermen are losing $1 billion in revenue per year due to illegal seafood imports. This represents approximately 20% of what American fishermen should be earning under fair market conditions.
For over two decades, Russian IUU crab fishing has undermined the economic foundation of America's legitimate crab fishing industry. The economic impact on Alaskan crab fishermen has been enormous. A 2021 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission estimated that in 2019, 20.8% of U.S. Imports of both snow and king crab in the Russian Far East were a product of IUU fishing. Thankfully, due to the trade embargo which began under President Biden and continued under President Trump, the U.S. imports of Russian crab has essentially ceased. This also was made possible by Senator Sullivan's work to close the loophole that allowed Russian seafood to enter the U.S. through China.
Despite Port State agreements aimed at curbing illegal fishing that Russia signed a decade ago with several trading partners, enforcement has been inconsistent and IUU fishing is still occurring according to recent media sources inside Russia. Russian fishing operations continue to impact global markets with illegally harvested crab, suppressing prices and creating unfair competition for law-abiding American fishermen who follow strict quotas, safety regulations, and sustainable fishing practices.
* * *
Unfair Trade Practices, Forced Labor, and Market Manipulation
Russia has engaged in systematic unfair trade practices and human rights abuses that go far beyond traditional IUU fishing. Russia has significantly increased government subsidies for its seafood industry as part of a deliberate strategy to undercut American competitors. These subsidies allow Russian producers to sell seafood below fair market prices.
Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia began to flood the international market with underpriced seafood, including crab, to help fund its war effort. Fishermen have suffered amid cratering prices due to Russia flooding markets with artificially cheap seafood. This is a major contributing factor to unprecedented challenges faced by the Alaska seafood industry in recent years including an estimated $1.8 billion in losses in 2022-2023.
According to a 2023 Financial Transparency Coalition report, Russia also ranked among the top countries with fishing vessels accused of forced labor. Forced labor in Russian fishing also represents a significant component of broader human rights abuses and another way in which the Russian fishing industry engages in IUU fishing.
* * *
National Security Concerns
There are numerous national security implications involving Russia's involvement in IUU fishing. Particularly concerning is the use of North Korean smuggling networks to launder Russian crab into global markets. North Korea has extensive experience in sanctions evasion, including seafood trafficking through China. These established smuggling routes and networks are now being exploited to move Russian crab through North Korea to China, where it can be reprocessed and relabeled as "product of China" before entering the global market.
The North Korean connection is particularly troubling because it involves collaboration between two sanctioned regimes to undermine trade restrictions. This represents a direct threat to U.S. national security interests beyond just economic competition.
Russian fisheries also present a significant national security threat through their dual-use capabilities that blur the lines between commercial fishing and state-sponsored espionage operations. Recent actions by a major Russian fishing company exemplifies this threat as its vessels exhibit suspicious movement patterns inconsistent with normal fishing activities, instead repeatedly loitering near critical infrastructure and military installations in the North and Baltic Seas. These activities are part of a broader Russian surveillance campaign that weaponizes civilian fishing vessels for espionage missions targeting both civilian and military infrastructure, potentially facilitating future sabotage operations. The vessels have been equipped with specialized technology for intelligence gathering, with at least one vessel banned from Dutch ports due to espionage concerns.
* * *
Recommendations
Based on years of experience witnessing the impact of Russian IUU fishing on Alaskan crab fishermen, I respectfully urge the following actions:
1. Strengthen Import Controls and Traceability
The Administration and Congress should mandate comprehensive seafood traceability systems that track crab products that include:
* Enhancing the capabilities of the Seafood Import Monitoring Program and ensuring that it only apply to the most at-risk species of IUU fishing.
* Enhanced screening for products from known transshipment routes, particularly those involving China.
* Mandatory country-of-origin labeling that applies to cooked crab and cannot be circumvented by processing in third countries.
2. Expand Economic Sanctions and Trade Restrictions
The Administration and Congress should expand economic and trade restrictions on Russian seafood and include:
* Continuing the prohibition on all Russian seafood imports, including those processed through third countries.
* Imposing secondary sanctions on entities that facilitate Russian seafood transshipment schemes.
* Imposing Section 301 tariffs on Russian seafood in the event that the Russian seafood ban is lifted.
3. Increase International Cooperation and Enforcement
Congress should authorize and fund:
* Enhanced satellite monitoring of fishing activities in the Bering Sea and other shared waters.
* Intelligence sharing agreements with allied nations to track vessel movements and identify smuggling networks.
* Support for international bodies combating IUU fishing.
4. Provide Economic Relief for Affected Communities
Congress should establish:
* Emergency economic assistance for fishing communities impacted by unfair competition, similar to the Seafood Trade Relief Program.
* Loan programs to help fishing operations modernize and improve competitiveness.
* Market development initiatives to promote American-caught seafood.
5. Strengthen U.S. Fishery Legislation to Combat IUU Fishing
Congress should:
* Pass S. 688, the Fish Act, a bill that would direct the Administration to address IUU fishing in international agreements, establish an IUU vessel list, and develop new technologies to combat IUU fishing, among many other important provisions.
* Direct and fund the U.S. Coast Guard to increase efforts to combat IUU fishing.
* * *
Conclusion
For more than two decades, Russian IUU crab fishing has undermined American fishermen who play by the rules, invest in sustainable practices, and support coastal communities across Alaska. The economic losses documented by industry analysts represent more than statistics--they represent lost livelihoods, struggling communities, and an industry fighting for survival against unfair competition.
As more countries around the globe move to ban Russian seafood and implement seafood traceability systems, they are looking to the US as a global leader. Congress has the opportunity to lead by example, protecting American fishermen while promoting sustainable fishing practices worldwide.
The time for half-measures has passed. American fishermen deserve a level playing field, and American consumers deserve confidence that the seafood on their tables was harvested legally and sustainably. I urge this Committee to take decisive action to address IUU fishing. The Committee has an opportunity to support the hardworking men and women who make their living from America's marine resources.
Thank you for your attention to this critical issue affecting thousands of American fishing families. I look forward to answering your questions and collaborating with the Committee to develop effective solutions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/C256A5F4-995C-4E64-93CA-4E42DA42C2EE