AILegislative hearing on bills to regulate paid claims agents and unaccredited VA benefits consultants

Veterans Legislation MarkupsHouse Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs · 2025-03-05 · 119th Congress
The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs met to consider three bills addressing unaccredited companies charging veterans large fees to help file VA disability claims: the PLUS for Veterans Act (HR 1656), the GUARD VA Benefits Act (HR 1732), and a discussion draft combining elements of both. Begins at 0:08:32
Transcript
Highlights

Title

Legislative hearing on bills to regulate paid claims agents and unaccredited VA benefits consultants

Purpose

The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs met to consider three bills addressing unaccredited companies charging veterans large fees to help file VA disability claims: the PLUS for Veterans Act (HR 1656), the GUARD VA Benefits Act (HR 1732), and a discussion draft combining elements of both. Lawmakers, VA-accredited veterans service organizations, and private claims-consulting companies debated whether to reinstate criminal penalties for unaccredited representation, allow fees for initial claims, and how to define "preparation, presentation, and prosecution" of claims under Title 38. VA did not testify because Secretary Collins's views on the bills had not been cleared in time. Begins at0:08:32

Who spoke

Chairman Derrick Van Orden (referred to as Mr. Latrell/chairman in transcript)0:08:32: Opened the hearing, noted a moment of silence for the late Rep. Sylvester Turner0:08:32, and outlined the three bills, emphasizing that veterans should never have to pay $30,000 or more for claims assistance0:09:42.

Ranking Member Morgan McGarvey (D-KY)0:11:42: Said VA's absence made it hard to hold the hearing0:12:13, argued a 2006 repeal of penalties created a "cottage industry" now worth hundreds of millions of dollars0:13:43, and stressed there is already ample choice through VSOs and accredited agents0:14:44.

Rep. Jack Bergman (R-MI)0:17:15: Introduced the PLUS for Veterans Act, arguing it preserves veteran choice while creating provisional accreditation and penalties for bad actors0:18:46; compared VA's proposed fee cap favorably to Social Security's $9,200 fee cap0:20:46.

Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH)0:23:18: Presented the GUARD VA Benefits Act, citing a veteran who paid $88,000 and another charged nearly $10,000 for six hours of coaching0:23:48; said the bill reinstates criminal penalties without creating new definitions0:25:18.

Mr. Josh Smith, CEO, Veteran Benefits Guide0:30:33: Testified in opposition to GUARD and in support of PLUS and the discussion draft, said VBG would welcome accreditation0:31:04, and cited a client testimonial about being failed by VSOs before finding VBG0:33:36.

Lt. Col. William "Bill" Taylor, Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting0:34:37: Argued his company does not act as an "agent" under Section 5901 because it never represents veterans before VA0:36:38, charges a fee equal to five times the monthly benefit increase only after a successful outcome0:37:38, and cited over 935,000 claims awaiting VA adjudication0:35:37.

Mr. Peter O'Rourke, President, National Association for Veterans Rights0:39:40: Said opponents have vilified private companies and that Naver "enthusiastically supports" the PLUS Act0:43:42, claiming tens of thousands of veterans have been helped.

Ms. Diane Boyd Rauber, Executive Director, National Organization of Veterans' Advocates (NOVA)0:44:42: Said only accredited individuals should assist veterans0:45:12, opposed prospective fees and tiered accreditation0:46:44, and rebutted claims that accredited agents intentionally delay cases0:47:44.

Mr. Pat Murray, Director, National Legislative Service, VFW0:49:45: Said VFW supports GUARD and opposes PLUS0:53:18, cited a November 2023 VA letter calling a "five times monthly increase" fee structure potentially "unreasonable or worse predatory"0:52:16, and noted nine states already bar fees exceeding federal law0:50:16.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC)1:11:24: Pressed Colonel Taylor on his company's revenue (estimated at $90–100 million)1:12:24 and questioned whether the company would knowingly assist veterans accused of fraud or crimes against women1:14:28.

Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-OR)1:15:59: Said no veteran should pay to file a claim1:15:59, cited GUARD's 221 House co-sponsors last Congress1:17:00, and criticized reported plans to cut 83,000 VA jobs.

Rep. Keith Self (R-TX)1:20:01: Said he was encouraged by the discussion and favored giving veterans choices, without endorsing a specific bill1:21:02.

Rep. Morrison (D)1:22:03: Asked Ms. Boyd Rauber and Mr. Murray about consequences of continued congressional inaction1:23:03 and highlighted the 2017 Appeals Modernization Act's benefits1:25:05.

Key moments

McGarvey noted veterans have paid "$30,000 or more" for claims help and called such fees "ridiculous"0:16:44.

Pappas cited specific cases: a Navy corpsman paid $88,000 and a service member paid nearly $10,000 for six hours of virtual coaching0:23:48.

Taylor described Veterans Guardian's fee model — five times the monthly benefit increase, charged only after a successful outcome — and over 935,000 pending VA claims0:35:370:37:38.

McGarvey read VA's regulatory definition of "preparation" (consulting, gathering evidence, filling forms) and pressed Taylor on whether his company meets it; Taylor maintained his company is not acting as an "agent" under the statutory Triad0:55:48.

Murray quoted a November 2023 VA letter stating a fee of "five times or 500% of the amount of monthly increase" would likely be "unreasonable or worse predatory," and a flat $12,500 cap "seems excessive"0:52:16.

Chairman pressed Josh Smith on why VBG has not pursued VA accreditation despite it being free and available; Smith did not give a direct answer, prompting the chairman to say the response "didn't answer the question"0:58:19.

Mace questioned Taylor on his company's ~$90–100 million in annual revenue and pressed on hypotheticals involving fraudulent 100% disability claims and veterans accused of crimes against women1:12:241:14:28.

Chairman pressed Taylor on why Veterans Guardian remains unaccredited after operating since 2017, calling the company's justification into question directly1:28:07.

Murray noted nine states (Washington, Iowa, Michigan, New York, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Maine, Massachusetts) restrict fees beyond federal law, while Louisiana allows charging up to $12,500 for an initial claim0:50:16.

Boyd Rauber and Murray both stated that none of the proposed bills would make VA process claims any faster, since front-end assistance does not affect VA's adjudication speed1:09:23.

Metadata

Official titleLegislative Hearing on: Discussion Draft, Governing Unaccredited Representatives Defrauding VA Benefits Act; Discussion Draft, Preserving Lawful Utilization of Services for Veterans Act of 2025; and Discussion Draft: To amend title 38, United States Code, to allow for certain fee agreements for services rendered in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of initial claims and supplemental claims for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
CommitteeHouse Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs
Chamber / CongressHouse · 119th Congress
Date2025-03-05
TypeHearing
Witnesses
The Honorable Jack Bergman — Member of Congress
Mr. Josh Smith — Chief Executive Officer, Veteran Benefits Guide
Lieutenant Colonel William "Bill" Taylor — Co-Founder and Chief Operating Officer, Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting
The Honorable Chris Pappas — Member of Congress
Mr. Peter O'Rourke — President, National Association for Veterans Rights
Ms. Diane Boyd Rauber — Executive Director, National Organization of Veterans' Advocates
Mr. Pat Murray — Director, National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars
Videoyoutube
Transcript176 caption blocks · 15,337 words · 1:36:55 runtime
EventCongress.gov 117964