H. Rpt. 119-349 accompanies veterans affairs legislation titled "Protecting Veteran's Claim Options Act". Veterans bills address VA healthcare, disability benefits, education assistance, home loans, mental health services, or military-to-civilian transition programs. The Veterans' Affairs Committee's report documents specific improvements to veterans' services, expansion of benefits, or responses to identified problems in VA programs. Veterans legislation frequently enjoys bipartisan support, though reports may still contain different views on implementation and funding.
Official report text. Use Ctrl+F / Cmd+F to search within the document.
House Report 119-349 - PROTECTING VETERAN'S CLAIM OPTIONS ACT
[House Report 119-349]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 119-349
======================================================================
PROTECTING VETERAN'S CLAIM OPTIONS ACT
_______
October 21, 2025.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bost, from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3834]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 3834) to amend title 38, United States Code, to
clarify the jurisdiction and certain rules of evidence of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the
bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Hearings......................................................... 4
Subcommittee Consideration....................................... 5
Committee Consideration.......................................... 5
Committee Votes.................................................. 5
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 6
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 6
Earmarks and Tax and Tariff Benefits............................. 6
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 6
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Estimate........ 6
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 10
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 10
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 10
Statement on Duplication of Federal Programs..................... 11
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 11
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 11
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Veteran's Claim Options
Act''.
SEC. 2. BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS: JURISDICTION; EVIDENCE IN CERTAIN
CASES.
(a) Jurisdiction Over a Supplemental Claim.--Section 7104 of title
38, United States Code, is amended, in subsection (a)--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``All questions''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) In an appeal of a decision under section 5108 of this title
regarding a supplemental claim under section 5104C(a)(1)(B) of this
title, the Board may not deny relief (including by denying review of
the merits of the claim) solely on the basis that the appellant did not
present or secure new and relevant evidence with respect to such
supplemental claim.''.
(b) Evidence in Cases Remanded to the Board by the Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims.--Section 7113 of title 38, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Cases Remanded by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.--
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), for cases remanded to the
Board by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the evidentiary
record before the Board shall be limited to the evidence previously
considered by the Board in such case.
``(2) The evidentiary record before the Board for cases described in
paragraph (1) shall include evidence submitted by the appellant and his
or her representative, if any, within 90 days following such remand,
which the Board shall consider in the first instance.''.
SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN LIMITS ON PAYMENTS OF PENSION.
Section 5503(d)(7) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``November 30, 2031'' and inserting ``January 30, 2035''.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 3834, the ``Protecting Veteran's Claim Options Act,''
was introduced by Representative Mike Bost of Illinois on July
23, 2025. The bill, as amended, would ensure that, if the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) agrees with a Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)
decision that a veteran did not submit ``new and relevant
evidence'' in their supplemental claim for benefits, the Board
would still review that veteran's claim on the merits and not
deny their entire claim, solely on that question of ``new and
relevant evidence.'' This bill, as amended, would also allow
veterans to submit additional evidence to the Board after a
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) remand of a
claim.
Background and Need for Legislation
Section 1: Short Title
This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Veteran's Claim
Options Act''.
Section 2: Board of Veterans' Appeals: Jurisdiction; Evidence in
Certain Cases
The Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of
2017 (P.L. 115-55) (AMA) was signed into law on August 23,
2017. The AMA provided claimants for VA benefits with three
avenues to dispute a decision by VA on eligibility for
benefits. One such avenue is supplemental claims. This option
allows veterans, after receiving a decision from the agency of
jurisdiction (AOJ), to submit new evidence on appeal so long as
that evidence is deemed to be new and relevant. These
supplemental claims, if submitted within a year after a
decision is rendered on the initial claim for benefits, allow
for effective date protection of one year and places the onus
on VA in its ``Duty to Assist'' veterans in developing their
supplemental claim.\1\ Effective date protection allows for a
claimant to receive ``past-due'' benefits for a favorably
granted decision, meaning that VA shall pay that veteran the
benefits they would have received from their granted claim
starting from the most advantageous ``effective date;'' which
is often the date the claim was first filed. The decision
makers for these claims are Veterans Service Representatives
(VSRs) and Rating VSRs (RVSRs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Veterans Benefits Admin., Dept' of Veterans Affairs, Manual M21-
5, Appeals and Reviews, Chapter 4--Appeals Modernization Act (AMA)
Control and Other Activities, (Updated Aug. 25, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be considered, supplemental claims require the
identification or submission of new and relevant evidence. VA
defines new and relevant evidence as information not previously
considered in a claimant's VA benefits claim or information
that proves, or disproves, something in your claim.\2\ In the
case of an unfavorable supplemental claim decision, claimants
have the option to request a Higher-Level Review, a Board
Appeal before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ), or file another
supplemental claim.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Dep't of Veterans Affs., VA.gov, Decision reviews and appeals,
Supplemental Claims, (Accessed Sept. 19, 2025).
\3\Dep't of Veterans Affs., VA.gov, Decision reviews and appeals,
Supplemental Claims, (Accessed Sept. 19, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under current law, if the claimant chooses to request a
Board Appeal and a VLJ finds that VBA correctly decided that
the claimant did not submit new and relevant evidence, the
Board will not review the evidence again within that claim for
errors on the merits. In a June 24, 2025, legislative hearing
of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial
Affairs, Mr. Evan Deichert, Acting Deputy Vice Chairman,
Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals, Department of
Veterans Affairs, testified on the issue that this presents
when weighed against the principles of the AMA:
``One of the fundamental tenets of the AMA is that VA
is not required to re-adjudicate a claim absent new and
relevant (NAR) evidence. On the other hand, the AMA
provides a general right of appeal to the Board. These
principles are in tension where a claimant receives an
AOJ (e.g., VBA) decision on the merits, files a
supplemental claim, and then the AOJ denies re-
adjudication for lack of NAR. At that point, the
claimant may still want to appeal the merits denial to
the Board without new evidence, but the only
determination available to appeal is the question of
NAR, because the merits decision has been superseded by
the NAR decision. The claimant, through a choice to
file a supplemental claim without evidence instead of
an appeal to the Board has lost the ability to appeal
the AOJ's merits decision to the Board.
This is sometimes referred to as the ``supplemental claim
trap.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Testimony of Department of Veterans Affairs (June 24, 2025),
HHRG-119-VR09-Wstate-DeichertE-20250624.pdf (House.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address this issue, this section would amend current law
so that the Board may not deny relief, including denying review
of the merits, to any appellant on a supplemental claim for VA
benefits solely because appellant did not present new and
relevant evidence on that supplemental claim. This section
would eliminate the ``supplemental claim trap'' and ensure
veterans can receive review of their appeal on a claim for
benefits, without falling victim to a legal loophole, which
would deny them the right to have the review they originally
sought.
Additionally, under current law it is unclear whether
claimants for VA benefits have the right to submit new and
relevant evidence to the Board following a remand from the
Court. This section would remedy that by providing that
following a Court remand, a veteran, survivor, family member,
caregiver, or another claimant for VA benefits may submit
evidence to the Board within 90 days. The Board would be
required to consider this evidence in the first instance. In a
June 24, 2025, legislative hearing of the Subcommittee on
Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, the National
Organization of Veterans' Advocates submitted a Statement for
the Record in support of this bill, stating that ``This
provision promotes efficiency for appellants and the system
overall.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Statement for the Record of the National Organization of
Veterans' Advocates (June 24, 2025), HHRG-119-VR09-20250624-SD006.pdf
(House.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believes that this section is important to
ensure that veterans receive Board decisions that are ``. . .
based on the entire record in the proceeding and upon
consideration of all evidence and material of record and
applicable provisions of law and regulation.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\38 U.S.C. Sec. 7104(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 3: Extension of Certain Limits on Payments of Pension
Under current law (38 U.S.C. Sec. 5503(d)), the amount of
VA pension paid to a veteran with no spouse or child, a
veteran's surviving spouse with no child, or a veteran's child
who are admitted to a VA or Medicaid sponsored nursing facility
is capped at $90 a month. This section would cover the costs of
the other sections of this bill by extending this pension
limitation by thirty-eight months to January 30, 2035. Because
they receive government-sponsored care in a nursing home, these
pension beneficiaries do not require the full amount of pension
to cover their cost of living. The Committee believes this
short-term extension of the current limit on pension payments
is a reasonable way to cover the costs associated with the
other sections of this bill.
Hearings
On June 24, 2025, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs held
a legislative hearing on H.R. 3834 and other bills that were
pending before the subcommittee.
The following witnesses testified:
The Honorable Mike Bost, U.S. House of
Representatives; The Honorable Elise Stefanik, U.S.
House of Representatives; The Honorable Julia Brownley,
U.S. House of Representatives; The Honorable Chuck
Edwards, U.S. House of Representatives; The Honorable
Tom Barrett, U.S. House of Representatives; The
Honorable Tim Kennedy, U.S. House of Representatives;
The Honorable Jahana Hayes, U.S. House of
Representatives; Mrs. Julie Guleff, Caregiver and
Surviving Spouse of Stephen Guleff, Vietnam Veteran;
Mr. Michael J. Wishnie, William O. Douglas Clinical
Professor of Law and Director, Veterans Legal Services
Clinic, Yale Law School; Ms. Candace Wheeler, Senior
Director, Government and Legislative Affairs, Tragedy
Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS); Mr. Evan
Deichert, Acting Deputy Vice Chairman, Board of
Veterans' Appeals, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs;
Mr. Kevin Friel, Executive Director, Pension &
Fiduciary Service, Veterans Benefits Administration,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Mr. James W. Smith
II, Deputy Executive Director, Policy and Procedures,
Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits Administration,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Dr. Colleen
Richardson, Executive Director, Caregiver Support
Program, Veterans Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs; Colonel (Ret.) Tiffany
M. Wagner, USAF, Clerk of the Court, U.S. Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims.
The following individuals and organizations submitted
statements for the record:
The Honorable Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida;
Gold Star Spouses of America; Veterans of Foreign Wars;
Vietnam Veterans of America; National Organization of
Veterans' Advocates; Disabled American Veterans;
Quality of Life Foundation; Jewish Federations of North
America; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Administrative
Conference of the United States; Afikim Foundation;
American Legion; Shiron Collective; American Federation
of Government Employees; Republican Jewish Coalition;
Jonah Platt in their personal capacity; Shabbos
Kestenbaum in their personal capacity; John Ondrasik in
their personal capacity; Lizzy Savetsky in their
personal capacity; Aviva Klompas in their personal
capacity; Lee Trink in their personal capacity; Bethany
Mandel in their personal capacity; Iddo Goldberg in
their personal capacity; Liora Rezin their personal
capacity; Jason Greenblatt in their personal capacity;
Sarah Stern in their personal capacity; Nicole Neily in
their personal capacity; Adam Zimmerman in their
personal capacity.
Subcommittee Consideration
On July 23, 2025, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance
and Memorial Affairs was discharged from further consideration
of H.R. 3834.
Committee Consideration
On July 23, 2025, the full Committee met in an open markup
session with a quorum being present, to consider H.R. 3834.
During consideration of the bill, the following amendments were
offered:
An amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
3834 was offered by Chairman Bost to add a new section
that would fully offset the cost of this legislation.
This amendment in the nature of a substitute was
adopted by voice vote.
A motion by Ranking Member Takano of California to report
H.R. 3834, as amended, favorably to the House of
Representatives was agreed to by voice vote.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, no recorded votes were taken on
amendments or in connection with ordering H.R. 3834, as
amended, reported to the House.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portions of
this report.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance
goals and objectives of H.R. 3834, as amended, are to ensure
that veterans can submit new and relevant evidence to claims
for VA benefits after a Court remand and ensure the Board does
not deny relief solely on the basis that the veteran did not
present new and relevant evidence on a supplemental claim.
Earmarks and Tax and Tariff Benefits
H.R. 3834, as amended, does not contain any Congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as
defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
Committee Cost Estimate
The Committee adopts as its own the Congressional Budget
Office cost estimate on this measure.
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following is the cost
estimate for H.R. 3834, as amended, provided by the
Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The bill would:
Require the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA)
to consider additional evidence in appeals for
veterans' benefits
Prohibit BVA from denying certain appeals
for veterans' benefits solely because the appellant did
not submit new evidence
Extend the reduction of pensions that the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pays to veterans
and survivors residing in Medicaid nursing homes
Estimated budgetary effects would mainly stem from:
Paying additional VA benefits
Increasing the number of appeals that BVA
considers
Reducing VA pension payments
Areas of significant uncertainty include:
The number of additional claimants who would
receive VA benefits
Bill summary: H.R. 3843 would require the Board of Veterans
Appeals (BVA) to accept additional evidence from claimants when
the Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims (CAVC) remands
certain appeals for veterans' benefits. BVA is a component of
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that hears appeals on
matters affecting VA benefits. Further, the bill would prohibit
VA from rejecting appeals of claims for veterans' benefits
solely because the appellant does not submit new or relevant
evidence. Finally, the bill would extend the reduction of
pension payments for veterans and survivors who reside in
Medicaid nursing homes.
Estimated Federal cost: The estimated budgetary effects of
HR 3834 are shown in Table 1. The costs of the legislation fall
within budget functions 550 (health) and 700 (veterans benefits
and services).
TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 3834
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2026-2030 2026-2035
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCREASES OR DECREASES (-) IN DIRECT SPENDING
Estimated Budget Authority 2 3 6 8 10 12 -26 -32 -30 8 29 -39
Estimated Outlays 2 3 6 8 10 12 -26 -32 -30 8 29 -39
INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 18
Estimated Outlays 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R.
3834 will be enacted early in fiscal year 2026 and that outlays
will follow historical patterns for affected programs.
Direct spending: Provisions of H.R. 3834 would affect
direct spending by requiring BVA to consider additional
evidence in appeals for veterans' benefits, which CBO estimates
would result in an increase in the number of people receiving
disability compensation from VA.\1\ It also would reduce
pension payments to veterans and survivors who reside in
Medicaid nursing homes. In addition, the bill would require BVA
to hear certain appeals, which would increase that agency's
workload. (That provision also would affect spending subject to
appropriation.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Disability compensation is a monthly cash benefit paid to
veterans who have disabilities or diseases that VA determines are
connected to their military service. VA assigns a disability rating to
veterans depending on the severity of their condition. The ratings
range from zero to 100 percent and increase in increments of 10
percent; veterans with higher ratings receive more compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBO estimates that, in total, enacting the bill would
reduce net direct spending by $39 million over the 2026-2035
period (see Table 2).
TABLE 2.--ESTIMATED CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING UNDER H.R. 3834
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2026-2030 2026-2035
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Evidence:
Estimated BudgetPAuthority...................... 2 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 26 101
Estimated Outlays............................... 2 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 26 101
Pensions and Medicaid:
Estimated BudgetPAuthority...................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 -40 -48 -48 -12 0 -148
Estimated Outlays............................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 -40 -48 -48 -12 0 -148
Claims Workload:
Estimated BudgetPAuthority...................... * * 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 8
Estimated Outlays............................... * * 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 8
Total Changes:
Budget Authority................................ 2 3 6 8 10 12 -26 -32 -30 8 29 -39
Estimated Outlays............................... 2 3 6 8 10 12 -26 -32 -30 8 29 -39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* = between zero and $500,000.
Additional evidence: H.R. 3834 would allow claimants to
submit additional evidence when appealing certain decisions.
Claimants can appeal to the Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims (CAVC) if BVA denies an initial appeal of a VA decision
that denies a claim. Each year, CAVC remands about 7,250
appeals back to BVA. In many cases, CAVC directs BVA to
reconsider its evaluation of the original evidence submitted in
the claim. Under current law, appellants generally are not
permitted to submit additional evidence to BVA when it
considers a remanded case. Under the bill, appellants in such
cases may submit additional evidence to support their claims
within 90 days.
CBO estimates that, under the bill, about 1,000 veterans
each year would submit additional evidence related to claims
for disability compensation to BVA, and that about 100 would
have their claims decided in their favor. Using information
about the disability ratings of appellants, CBO estimates that
about 25 veterans would newly receive disability compensation
each year at an average annual amount of $16,000. CBO estimates
that the remaining 75 veterans would have their disability
rating increased and receive an additional $18,800 per year. In
total, considering additional evidence during appeals would
increase direct spending by $101 million over the 2026-2035
period, CBO estimates.
Pensions and Medicaid: Under current law, VA reduces
pension payments to veterans and survivors who reside in
Medicaid nursing homes to $90 per month. That required
reduction expires November 30, 2031. Section 3 would extend
that reduction for 38 months, through January 30, 2035. CBO
estimates that extending that requirement would reduce VA
benefits by about $10 million per month. (Those benefits are
paid from mandatory appropriations and are therefore considered
direct spending.) As a result of that reduction in
beneficiaries' income, Medicaid would pay more of the cost of
their care, increasing spending for that program by about $6
million per month. Thus, enacting section 3 would reduce net
direct spending by $148 million over the 2026-2035 period.
Claims workload: As discussed below under the heading
``Provisions that Affect Spending Subject to Appropriation and
Direct Spending,'' CBO estimates that BVA's workload would
increase as a result of the bill's requirement to hear each
appeal on the merits of the claim, even if new and relevant
evidence is not submitted. Some of the cost of that additional
workload would be paid from the Toxic Exposures Fund, a
mandatory appropriation. Direct spending for that requirement
would total $8 million, CBO estimates.
Provisions that affect spending subject to appropriation
and direct spending: H.R. 3834 would require BVA to consider an
appeal for VA benefits in cases where the appellant does not
submit new evidence to support the claim. Under current law,
applicants for VA benefits who receive an unfavorable decision
on their initial claim from the VA may appeal by filing a
supplemental claim in which they submit additional evidence to
VA to support their appeal. The submitted evidence must be
considered new and relevant; otherwise, VA denies the appeal.
Claimants may then appeal the decision directly to BVA.
However, BVA typically also denies appeals in cases where a
claim lacks new and relevant evidence.
The bill would require BVA to consider an appeal on the
merits of the claim, regardless of whether new and relevant
evidence is submitted. CBO anticipates that requiring BVA to
consider such appeals would not affect the outcomes because
claims would include the same information that resulted in the
initial decision. However, considering those appeals would
increase BVA's workload. Using information on the number of
claims that are denied for lack of new and relevant evidence,
CBO estimates the additional workload would be equivalent to
that of 50 full-time attorneys. Those attorneys would receive
an average total compensation of about $250,000, for a total
cost of $26 million over the 2026-2035 budget window, CBO
estimates.
CBO expects that some of the costs of implementing the bill
would be paid from the Toxic Exposures Fund (TEF) established
by Public Law 117-168, the Honoring our PACT Act. The TEF is a
mandatory appropriation that VA uses to pay for health care,
disability claims processing, medical research, and IT
modernization that benefit veterans who were exposed to
environmental hazards. Additional spending from the TEF would
occur if legislation increases the costs of similar activities
that benefit veterans with such exposure. Thus, in addition to
increasing spending subject to appropriation, enacting the bill
would increase amounts paid from the TEF, which are classified
as direct spending.
CBO projects that the proportion of costs paid by the TEF
will grow over time based on the amount of formerly
discretionary appropriations that CBO expects will be provided
through the mandatory appropriation as specified in the
Honoring our PACT Act.\2\ CBO estimates that over the 2026-2035
period, implementing the bill would increase spending subject
to appropriation by $18 million and direct spending by $8
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\For additional information about estimated spending from the
TEF, see Congressional Budget Office, ``Toxic Exposures Fund--January
2025 Baseline'' (January 2025), https://tinyurl.com/3xjr6d3h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncertainty: CBO's estimate of the bill's costs is subject
to uncertainty about the number of veterans whose appeals would
be adjudicated in their favor because they were able to submit
additional evidence to the Board of Veterans Appeals. Costs
could differ if the number of veterans who become eligible for
benefits is greater or less than CBO estimates.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those
pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in Table 1.
Increase in long-term net direct spending and deficits: CBO
estimates that enacting H.R. 3834 would not increase net direct
spending by more than $2.5 billion in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2036.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3834 would not increase
on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2036.
Mandates: The bill contains no intergovernmental or
private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Logan Smith; Mandates:
Brandon Lever.
Estimate reviewed by: David Newman, Chief, Defense,
International Affairs, and Veterans' Affairs Cost Estimates
Unit; Kathleen FitzGerald, Chief, Public and Private Mandates
Unit; Christina Hawley Anthony, Deputy Director of Budget
Analysis.
Estimate approved by: Phillip L. Swagel, Director,
Congressional Budget Office.
Federal Mandates Statement
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded
Mandate Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) is inapplicable to H.R. 3834,
as amended.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act would be created by H.R.
3834, as amended.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that H.R. 3834, as amended, does not
relate to the terms and conditions of employment or access to
public services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
Statement on Duplication of Federal Programs
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that no provision
of H.R. 3834, as amended, would establish or reauthorize a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation
Section 1. Short title
This section would establish the short title of the bill as
the ``Protecting Veteran's Claim Options Act.''
Section 2: Board of Veterans' Appeals: Jurisdiction; Evidence in
certain cases
This section would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7104(a), by adding
a new paragraph (2) that would stipulate that an appeals
decision made on a supplemental claim may not be denied Board
relief (including review of the merits) solely because that
appellant did not present or secure new and relevant evidence
on that supplemental claim.
This section would also amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7113 to add a
new subsection, which would require the Board shall consider
evidence submitted by the appellant and their representative
within 90 days of a remand by the Court. This section specifies
that the Board shall consider evidence submitted in the
provided time frame in the first instance and shall limit the
evidentiary record to the evidence submitted in such cases and
the record previously considered by the Board.
Section 3: Extension of certain limits on payments of pension
This section would extend the limitation of pension payable
to certain veterans, their surviving spouses, and their
children as established in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5503(d)(7), from
November 30, 2031, to January 30, 2035.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART IV--GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 55--MINORS, INCOMPETENTS, AND OTHER WARDS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5503. Hospitalized veterans and estates of incompetent
institutionalized veterans
(a)(1)(A) Where any veteran having neither spouse nor child
is being furnished domiciliary care by the Department, no
pension in excess of $90 per month shall be paid to or for the
veteran for any period after the end of the third full calendar
month following the month of admission for such care.
(B) Except as provided in subparagraph (D) of this paragraph,
where any veteran having neither spouse nor child is being
furnished nursing home care by the Department, no pension in
excess of $90 per month shall be paid to or for the veteran for
any period after the end of the third full calendar month
following the month of admission for such care. Any amount in
excess of $90 per month to which the veteran would be entitled
but for the application of the preceding sentence shall be
deposited in a revolving fund at the Department medical
facility which furnished the veteran nursing care, and such
amount shall be available for obligation without fiscal year
limitation to help defray operating expenses of that facility.
(C) No pension in excess of $90 per month shall be paid to or
for a veteran having neither spouse nor child for any period
after the month in which such veteran is readmitted for care
described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of this paragraph and
furnished by the Department if such veteran is readmitted
within six months of a period of care in connection with which
pension was reduced pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of this
paragraph.
(D) In the case of a veteran being furnished nursing home
care by the Department and with respect to whom subparagraph
(B) of this paragraph requires a reduction in pension, such
reduction shall not be made for a period of up to three
additional calendar months after the last day of the third
month referred to in such subparagraph if the Secretary
determines that the primary purpose for the furnishing of such
care during such additional period is for the Department to
provide such veteran with a prescribed program of
rehabilitation services, under chapter 17 of this title,
designed to restore such veteran's ability to function within
such veteran's family and community. If the Secretary
determines that it is necessary, after such period, for the
veteran to continue such program of rehabilitation services in
order to achieve the purposes of such program and that the
primary purpose of furnishing nursing home care to the veteran
continues to be the provision of such program to the veteran,
the reduction in pension required by subparagraph (B) of this
paragraph shall not be made for the number of calendar months
that the Secretary determines is necessary for the veteran to
achieve the purposes of such program.
(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) shall also apply to a
veteran being furnished such care who has a spouse but whose
pension is payable under section 1521(b) of this title. In such
a case, the Secretary may apportion and pay to the spouse, upon
an affirmative showing of hardship, all or any part of the
amounts in excess of the amount payable to the veteran while
being furnished such care which would be payable to the veteran
if pension were payable under section 1521(c) of this title.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section or
any other provision of law, no reduction shall be made in the
pension of any veteran for any part of the period during which
the veteran is furnished hospital treatment, or institutional
or domiciliary care, for Hansen's disease, by the United States
or any political subdivision thereof.
(c) Where any veteran in receipt of an aid and attendance
allowance described in subsection (r) or (t) of section 1114 of
this title is hospitalized at Government expense, such
allowance shall be discontinued from the first day of the
second calendar month which begins after the date of the
veteran's admission for such hospitalization for so long as
such hospitalization continues. Any discontinuance required by
administrative regulation, during hospitalization of a veteran
by the Department, of increased pension based on need of
regular aid and attendance or additional compensation based on
need of regular aid and attendance as described in subsection
(l) or (m) of section 1114 of this title, shall not be
effective earlier than the first day of the second calendar
month which begins after the date of the veteran's admission
for hospitalization. In case a veteran affected by this
subsection leaves a hospital against medical advice and is
thereafter admitted to hospitalization within six months from
the date of such departure, such allowance, increased pension,
or additional compensation, as the case may be, shall be
discontinued from the date of such readmission for so long as
such hospitalization continues.
(d)(1) For the purposes of this subsection--
(A) the term ``Medicaid plan'' means a State plan for
medical assistance referred to in section 1902(a) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)); and
(B) the term ``nursing facility'' means a nursing
facility described in section 1919 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1396r), other than a facility that is a State
home with respect to which the Secretary makes per diem
payments for nursing home care pursuant to section
1741(a) of this title.
(2) If a veteran having neither spouse nor child is covered
by a Medicaid plan for services furnished such veteran by a
nursing facility, no pension in excess of $90 per month shall
be paid to or for the veteran for any period after the month of
admission to such nursing facility.
(3) Notwithstanding any provision of title XIX of the Social
Security Act, the amount of the payment paid a nursing facility
pursuant to a Medicaid plan for services furnished a veteran
may not be reduced by any amount of pension permitted to be
paid such veteran under paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(4) A veteran is not liable to the United States for any
payment of pension in excess of the amount permitted under this
subsection that is paid to or for the veteran by reason of the
inability or failure of the Secretary to reduce the veteran's
pension under this subsection unless such inability or failure
is the result of a willful concealment by the veteran of
information necessary to make a reduction in pension under this
subsection.
(5)(A) The provisions of this subsection shall apply with
respect to a surviving spouse having no child in the same
manner as they apply to a veteran having neither spouse nor
child.
(B) The provisions of this subsection shall apply with
respect to a child entitled to pension under section 1542 of
this title in the same manner as they apply to a veteran having
neither spouse nor child.
(6) The costs of administering this subsection shall be paid
for from amounts available to the Department of Veterans
Affairs for the payment of compensation and pension.
(7) This subsection expires on [November 30, 2031] January
30, 2035.
* * * * * * *
PART V--BOARDS, ADMINISTRATIONS, AND SERVICES
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 71--BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7104. Jurisdiction of the Board; decisions; notice
(a) (1) All questions in a matter which under section 511(a)
of this title is subject to decision by the Secretary shall be
subject to one review on appeal to the Secretary. Final
decisions on such appeals shall be made by the Board. Decisions
of the Board shall be based on the entire record in the
proceeding and upon consideration of all evidence and material
of record and applicable provisions of law and regulation.
(2) In an appeal of a decision under section 5108 of this
title regarding a supplemental claim under section
5104C(a)(1)(B) of this title, the Board may not deny relief
(including by denying review of the merits of the claim) solely
on the basis that the appellant did not present or secure new
and relevant evidence with respect to such supplemental claim.
(b) Except as provided in section 5108 of this title, when a
claim is disallowed by the Board, the claim may not thereafter
be readjudicated and allowed and a claim based upon the same
factual basis may not be considered.
(c) The Board shall be bound in its decisions by the
regulations of the Department, instructions of the Secretary,
and the precedent opinions of the chief legal officer of the
Department.
(d) Each decision of the Board shall include--
(1) a written statement of the Board's findings and
conclusions, and the reasons or bases for those
findings and conclusions, on all material issues of
fact and law presented on the record;
(2) a general statement--
(A) reflecting whether evidence was not
considered in making the decision because the
evidence was received at a time when not
permitted under section 7113 of this title; and
(B) noting such options as may be available
for having the evidence considered by the
Department; and
(3) an order granting appropriate relief or denying
relief.
(e) After reaching a decision on an appeal, the Board shall
promptly issue notice (as that term is defined in section 5100
of this title) of such decision to the following:
(1) The appellant.
(2) Any other party with a right to notice of such
decision.
(3) Any authorized representative of the appellant or
party described in paragraph (2).
(f)(1) The Secretary may provide notice under subsection (e)
electronically if a claimant (or the claimant's representative)
elects to receive such notice electronically.
(2) A claimant (or the claimant's representative) may revoke
such an election at any time, by means prescribed by the
Secretary.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7113. Evidentiary record before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(a) Cases With No Request for a Hearing or Additional
Evidence.--For cases in which a hearing before the Board of
Veterans' Appeals is not requested in the notice of
disagreement and no request was made to submit evidence, the
evidentiary record before the Board shall be limited to the
evidence of record at the time of the decision of the agency of
original jurisdiction on appeal.
(b) Cases With a Request for a Hearing.--(1) Except as
provided in paragraph (2), for cases in which a hearing is
requested in the notice of disagreement, the evidentiary record
before the Board shall be limited to the evidence of record at
the time of the decision of the agency of original jurisdiction
on appeal.
(2) The evidentiary record before the Board for cases
described in paragraph (1) shall include each of the following,
which the Board shall consider in the first instance:
(A) Evidence submitted by the appellant and his or
her representative, if any, at the Board hearing.
(B) Evidence submitted by the appellant and his or
her representative, if any, within 90 days following
the Board hearing.
(c) Cases With No Request for a Hearing and With a Request
for Additional Evidence.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(2), for cases in which a hearing is not requested in the
notice of disagreement but an opportunity to submit evidence is
requested, the evidentiary record before the Board shall be
limited to the evidence considered by the agency of original
jurisdiction in the decision on appeal.
(2) The evidentiary record before the Board for cases
described in paragraph (1) shall include each of the following,
which the Board shall consider in the first instance:
(A) Evidence submitted by the appellant and his or
her representative, if any, with the notice of
disagreement.
(B) Evidence submitted by the appellant and his or
her representative, if any, within 90 days following
receipt of the notice of disagreement.
(d) Cases Remanded by the Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), for cases
remanded to the Board by the Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims, the evidentiary record before the Board shall be
limited to the evidence previously considered by the Board in
such case.
(2) The evidentiary record before the Board for cases
described in paragraph (1) shall include evidence submitted by
the appellant and his or her representative, if any, within 90
days following such remand, which the Board shall consider in
the first instance.
* * * * * * *
[all]