Senate Veterans' Affairs: Hearings to examine the nominations of Maria Lopez

Noon. I'm going to be solo, at least for a while. Senator Blumenthal is expected to be here, but not at the start of the— of our hearing. And I will welcome him when he arrives. And we have other members who told us they will be here, but maybe not on time.

But this is not an unimportant hearing, and we're delighted and appreciative of you being here. We are here to consider the nominations of the Honorable Maria Lopez to be chair of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, and Robert Fleck, David Jones, Daniel Rendleman, and James Quinn to be judges for the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. I appreciate all 5 of these nominees being here today and discuss with them their interest in and qualifications for their roles. The Board of Veterans' Appeals and the Court of Appeals of Veterans Claims serve as a vital— serves a vital purpose to make certain that the VA is rendering fair and lawful decisions about the benefits that veterans and their families are entitled to in accordance with applicable statutes, regulations, and congressional intent. These institutions provide a critical avenue for the accountability and due process for veterans and their families nationwide.

In recent years, the volumes of appeals have increased significantly as more veterans and beneficiaries opt to use this resource to appeal decisions on their disability compensation claims, the GI Bill, survivors and caregiver benefits, and many other items as well. The men and women whose nominations are under consideration this afternoon each have extensive records in public service through serving in the military, the justice system, in the Executive Branch and in the halls of the United States Senate. I look forward to learning more about how these nominees plan to continue their service in these roles and, if confirmed, what they plan to do to achieve— what they plan to achieve on behalf of veterans and their families. I've long emphasized the importance of transparency in the appeals process, as well as the need to avoid unnecessary delays or burdensome steps that do not help advance a veteran's caregivers', or family members' cause. I look forward to hearing from the nominees this afternoon about how, if confirmed, they plan to improve the appeals process on each of those fronts and how they would make certain that veterans and their loved ones are equipped, uh, a thorough understanding of the status of their appeals and what they can expect as the appeal moves forward.

Uh, thank you again to your— to you all for being here and your willingness to serve if confirmed.

We'll take Senator Blumenthal's, Ranking Member Blumenthal's opening statement when he arrives. And let me see what the latest development is.

Okay. We are going to start with Ms. Lopez. Here he is. We're going to actually start with the Dr. Cassidy, who's going to introduce— you're going to, um, raise up as soon as, uh, as we, as we swear, uh, the witnesses in. Are we doing witnesses one at a time?

If you all would stand and raise your hands, please raise your hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. The record should note all said I do.

You may take your seats. Yes. Now I'd like to recognize Senator Cassidy for an introduction of someone he knows well. Talk about— it's my great privilege to introduce James Quinn, who happens to be my chief of staff. So I can say I know James pretty well.

James, you have my vote. And during my time in the U.S. Senate, I've had the privilege of introducing many people who are under active consideration for federal office. And I often begin by highlighting temperament, academic rigor, strength of character, and passion for public service. And these are important attributes. But Justice Felix Frankfurter stated that what makes for an effective judge, in simpler terms, A judge, he wrote, should be a lawyer, of course, but above all, a statesman.

James has all these qualities and many more. He has served alongside me as my chief of staff when I was in the House, now in the Senate, for a total of 17 years. And you get to know somebody pretty well. For nearly two decades, James has given wise counsel. I've relied on him to assemble a, a top-notch staff, uh, to be oil and water.

To make sure that things were happened on an even keel, and our country is better off for it. Remaining in public service, he helped marshal efforts in mind towards achieving wins for the American people and for the state of Louisiana, and much of that is taking shape on this committee. As I first joined this committee in 2015, Mr. Chairman, you and I have worked together on several bills to make the VA more accountable, transparent, and accessible to our nation's veterans. And Ranking Member Blumenthal and I introduced the Informing Veteran the VETS Act to help veterans with disabilities learn about the education benefits available to them, and often also work together to craft the Veterans Appeals Modernization 2.0 Act, which streamlines the appeals process for benefits.

Um, through all this, James has worked with me to make sure that all this takes place. Um, he has contributed to my work on this committee, to our work on this committee, and he has had his hand in some 2,000 constituent cases serving Louisiana veterans. A hands-on involvement in veteran casework and legislative process, which that casework informs, has prepared James well for service on the court that is charged with implementing this committee's work out in the world. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, I have great confidence that James is equal to the task of addressing our nation's veterans with care while giving effect to the laws that originate in Congress.

He'll make an excellent judge on the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. I fully support his nomination, and I don't stand alone. I'm pleased to share with the committee that I have my— have with me a letter in support of James's nomination written by my colleague Senator John Kennedy. And so I request unanimous consent that that be submitted in the record. Without objection.

With that, I yield. Senator Cassidy, thank you very much for the introduction. Uh, Senator Cassidy, you are a valuable and knowledgeable, experienced member of this committee, and you have credibility in your comments. But I'm also interested if he shares the support of your spouse, the other Dr. Cassidy. She is the reason that I hired James in the first place.

We had multiple people, and of course, once more, she was right. But that's why his original hire on my staff was her instigate— her, her kind of, yes, James is the guy. Well, Senator Hassan and Senator Duckworth, are present. But let me again thank you for your service on this committee. I expect us to be meeting, uh, for the— during periods of time for the remainder of your term, and I look forward to us congratulating you and wishing you well in the near future.

Thank you. Mr. Quinn, you're now recognized.

Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I want to thank the President for nominating me to be a judge on the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. First, I want to acknowledge several people who have guided and supported me throughout my career. With me here today is my wife Shannon, who is a caring and generous educator in the Arlington Public School System, and our two amazing children who got to have the afternoon off from school today. I love you very much.

I also want to thank my parents, Patrick and Gail, who taught me to have a sense of public service and how important it is to extend a helping hand to those who need it. I also want to recognize my siblings, who I love and never get enough time to be in their company: Frank, Claire, Daniel, Spencer, and Ashton. I also want to mention my in-laws, Glenda and Jules, who are both veterans and have supported me through the years, even when I took their daughter from Louisiana to Washington, D.C. Finally, I would like to thank my home state senators. I especially want to thank Senator Cassidy, who introduced me today.

He took a chance on me and gave me the opportunity to work in Congress. So that we could try to make our state and country a better place. I will always be grateful. Senator Kennedy graciously sent a letter of support on my behalf. Thank you, Senator.

During my 17-year career as a congressional staffer, I've had the privilege of working on veterans issues. I've had the honor of supervising a casework team that has handled thousands of constituent claims for benefits. This has taught me how the VA claims process works. From initial filing for benefits, the choices the veteran has to make through the modern AMA system, and most importantly, how a veteran feels when they, when they believe they are not being treated fairly by a system that was designed to help them. The VA process can be daunting to someone who is unfamiliar with its internal procedures, but with patience and understanding, I believe I have made a difference in veterans' lives by learning the system myself.

There is no better feeling as a staffer than when you hear that a veteran is granted the benefits they deserve. I have also seen firsthand the laws that Congress has passed to transform the way VA handles claims. The passing of the AMA in 2017, that's implementation in 2019, has changed the way veterans apply for their benefits. The PACT Act has dramatically expanded the pathways for veterans to claim the benefits they are lawfully entitled to. I've had a front row seat and seen these bills pass the Veterans Committee of the Veterans Affairs Committee for the last 12 years, and in doing so have a unique and valuable knowledge on how Congress intended for these bills to be implemented.

These experiences have provided me with a strong foundation that I believe would allow me to quickly adapt to the court. If confirmed, I promise to do the work diligently, impartially, and with a sense of fairness to all I would encounter. Veterans and their families deserve judges that will go to work every day trying to hear cases timely and accurately. If confirmed, I intend to honor their sacrifice by being the best judge I can be. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Quinn, thank you very much. We'll now turn to Ms. Lopez, and you, ma'am, are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon, Chairman. I was going to greet the ranking member, but I will do that when he comes in.

And distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. It is a profound honor to be nominated by President Trump to serve today as the chair of the Board of Veterans' Appeals. I also want to thank this committee for its longstanding commitment to our nation's veterans and to strengthening the system that delivers the benefits they have earned through their service and sacrifice. Service to our country and to those who have worn the uniform is deeply personal to me and to my family.

I had the privilege of serving as an officer in the United States Army. My husband is also an Army veteran, and he continues to serve, continues his commitment to public service today as a law enforcement officer. And he was not able to join me today. So I want to take a moment to thank him for all the years of support. We've been married 26 years, and he supported me throughout my entire career.

So I wanted to take a moment to thank him. My niece also has followed in my footsteps in that she is a veteran of the United States Air Force. Like so many American families, service to our nation is woven into our lives, and we understand both the sacrifices made by those who serve and the promises that our country makes to them in return. I'm also the proud daughter of immigrants and a first-generation American. The opportunities that this country has provided to me and to my family are the embodiment of the American dream.

My life and career have been shaped by the values of hard work, service, faith, and gratitude to this great nation and the opportunities that it continues to offer me. Public service has always been my way of giving back to the country that has given so much to me and to my family.

Throughout my career, I have tried to honor those values through public service. As a federal prosecutor and then later as United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, I had the privilege of leading one of the largest United States Attorney's Offices in the country. I've also led in the Army, where I served as a judge advocate advising commanders and helping guide legal decision-making in complex and high-stakes environments. My experience at both the Department of Justice and in the United States Army taught me that successful stewardship of large mission-driven organizations requires principled leadership, disciplined processes, accountability, and most of all, respect for the people that are carrying out that mission. For a large share of my professional life, I've managed large teams responsible for legal decisions that profoundly affect people's lives.

I've also— I also understand that supporting a professional, motivated workforce is essential to ensuring those decisions are timely, consistent, and grounded in law. As both the United States Attorney, as an Army JAG officer, I was entrusted to exercise objective judgment based on the law and the facts. Without undue influence and to uphold the integrity of the institutions I served. My commitment has always been to the law, to the facts of each case, and to the people we serve. And that is exactly how I approach the role— this role as well, if confirmed.

In my view, these same principles are essential to the work of the Board of Veterans' Appeals. For many veterans and their families, the Board represents their final opportunity within the Department of Veterans Affairs to receive a full and fair review of their claims. Every appeal represents a veteran or family seeking a fair answer from the system created to serve them. They deserve decisions that are thoughtful, that are legally sound, and delivered without unnecessary delay. In advance of this hearing, I have become familiar with the substantial improvements to VA care— the VA care and benefits has happened during the first 18 months of this administration.

And also with your efforts. I know the Secretary, the VA leadership, and the Board are committed to doing even more. I fully recognize the value and importance of continuing efforts to improve the timeliness of the decisions while maintaining high standards of legal review that the veterans deserve, that our veterans deserve. If confirmed, I will commit myself to supporting continuous efforts to promote further efficiency, consistency in decision-making, and responsible stewardship of the Board's resources in ways that best serve the needs of veterans and their families that we are sworn to serve. As chair, I would also be committed to ensuring the board continues to operate as a fair and independent adjudicatory body while working collaboratively with the department, this committee, and the veterans services organizations that serve our— to serve our veterans effectively.

If confirmed, my priority will be to support the dedicated veteran law judges and the professional staff of the board in carrying out this critical mission, ensuring fairness, efficiency in the process, consistency in the application of the law, and respect for due process. Recently, our nation observed Memorial Day and commemorated the anniversary of D-Day and celebrated the 250th anniversary of our great country, reminding us once again of the extraordinary courage and sacrifices of men and women who have defended our freedoms across generations. Our veterans step forward when called upon to serve. If confirmed, it would be the honor of my life to step forward to serve them in return and help ensure that our nation keeps its promise to those who have worn the uniform. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I welcome your questions.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Moran. Ranking Member is not here. And distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today for your consideration to be a judge for the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. I would like to thank President Trump for nominating me for this consideration and thank Mr. Collins, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, for the support.

If confirmed, I will make every effort to provide veterans with the benefits they have earned in a timely manner. My professional and personal experiences have thoroughly prepared me for this role. Over my 46 years as an attorney and 30-year career in federal service, I've built a legacy of transformative leadership and unwavering dedication to advancing the interests of soldiers and veterans. I currently serve as Deputy General Counsel in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Over the course of my legal career, I've represented individuals, government entities, corporations, and federal government agencies.

I have handled complex litigation, administrative law, and veteran-related cases. These experiences have provided me with a deep understanding of legal processes as well as unique challenges veterans face. My qualifications enable me to approach each case with expertise and a strong commitment to justice. Recently, as Deputy General Counsel for VA, I've led efforts to improve medical care access for veterans and improve many systems serving veterans. As I stated, this will be my 30th year of government service.

Throughout my career, I have been guided by a singular focus: serving those who serve our country. I have a profound respect for those who have served our country. Working alongside soldiers and veterans has fostered in me patience and a strong sense of duty. These qualities, combined with my legal experience, drive my desire to serve as a judge and ensure fair outcomes for those who have dedicated themselves to our nation. I look forward to your questions, and thank you.

Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am honored and grateful that the President has nominated me to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. I am also humbled by the possibility of the great task before me. Ensuring that our nation meets its sacred responsibility to our veterans and their families. These are the individuals that have taken an oath to support and defend our constitutional republic, many of whom have, as President Lincoln described them at the end of the Civil War, borne the battle on behalf of our country.

I can think of no higher calling. I've had the privilege of serving my country for the past 20 years in the United States Army as a judge advocate. Both a soldier and a lawyer in a variety of assignments in a variety of locations. But my service was not mine alone. I've had the support of my amazing wife, April, who is with me here today.

Her tireless support and love for our family always inspires me, and I've admired and appreciated her own service and sacrifice for her country and community as a social worker, public school teacher, and civil servant. I've had the love and support of our 5 children. I'm thankful to have the youngest 3 with me today as my oldest son is away at college and my other son just reported to his first duty station in Portland, Oregon after graduating from Coast Guard basic training a few weeks ago. Regardless of what title I've held or will hold in my life, my family has given me the title I most cherish that of husband and father. I am extremely blessed and love them all more than anything in this world.

I've also had the privilege of growing up with amazing examples of selfless service to our country, starting with my dad, Senior Chief Retired William Jones Sr., who spent 30 years in the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard, and my mom, Joyce Jones, who faithfully supported his service while lovingly caring for a family of 6 children. They remain the greatest influences in my life. My three older brothers, who followed in our dad's footsteps and answered the noble call to serve their country by enlisting in the Coast Guard, Army, and Marine Corps out of high school. My brother Rob, the Marine, is here with me today. These examples of my family service extend beyond those wearing a military uniform, as my two sisters serve their communities as a teacher married to a police officer, and a nurse married to a firefighter.

The Jones family's love for our country and service to it makes me immensely proud. Their example has led me to where I am today, sitting in front of you. After serving my country for two decades in uniform, I am honored to be considered for continued service on the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. I thank you for your consideration, and I would be glad to answer any of your questions. Thank you, Mr. Rendleman.

Thank you, Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, distinguished members of the committee. It is my great honor to come before you as a nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. For that, I am grateful, grateful to the president for nominating me and thankful to this committee for inviting me here today. In truth, if I were to review my life and career thus far, Thankfulness is perhaps the only appropriate attitude for me to adopt. I was raised in the cradle of the Prairie State, where my loving mother and father not only bestowed upon me the blessings of American liberty, but taught me to appreciate the causes of that bounty.

I learned early on about the debt that I owed, a debt to the American servicemember who in every generation has fought and bled that such freedom may long endure. To the statesmen and patriots who, when the initial struggle for freedom and independence was won, carefully crafted our government's founding document, that sole source and guarantee of national freedom. To the countless American citizens who have added their voice and the work of their hands to the improvement of our republic. And of course, to that Providence, which once transplanted upon these shores the seed of limited government and to this day sustains it. A proper appreciation for the unearned blessings of my American birth led me to the United States Army, and that decision has determined my professional life ever since.

I commissioned as an Army aviator, learned tolerably well how to handle the AH-64 Apache helicopter, and deployed to combat in Afghanistan with the 1st of the 101st, Expect No Mercy Battalion, where my duty ultimately was the protection and success of the American soldier. The Army sent me to law school, and my office changed from a cockpit to a courtroom, but the guiding principle never changed. Whether serving as a prosecutor or advising a commander or defending a soldier accused at court martial, the welfare of the American soldier and the success of our arms has been at the forefront of my efforts. A judge's responsibility to a party coming to his court is quite different than that of a pilot providing air support, The veteran is ultimately best served by a judge who examines each case in turn objectively, without bias, and faithfully applies the law as promulgated by the political branches to the facts. If confirmed, I commit to doing just that.

I would be remiss if I did not mention here one remaining cause of my gratitude. Katherine Rendleman, my wife, has spent the last 18 years supporting this particular service member, upending her world to move almost a dozen times and raising our 6 children who have never known any but an Army life. She, like so many others in her shoes, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman, and she has mine. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you all very much for your opening statement.

I'm going to turn now to the ranking member, Senator Blumenthal, for any comments he'd like to make before we have a round of questioning. Senator Blumenthal.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like my full statement to be entered in the record. Without objection. I'll condense it. Thank you, each of you, for your willingness to serve.

I'm just going to be very blunt. I'm gravely concerned that none of these nominees have any experience with veterans benefits law. Whatsoever, not as judges, not as lawyers, not as advocates for veterans. Uh, Ms. Lopez, if confirmed, you would be responsible for ensuring that the Board of Veterans Appeals makes accurate, timely decisions on veterans appeals. Uh, the board has been able to hire substantially more judges, attorneys, and staff thanks to bipartisan investments by Congress, but this administration has cut the board's budget, instituted a hiring freeze, and pushed out many of its employees and senior leaders.

I want to know from you that you will stand up for the interests and values that Congress has sought to implement here.

Turning to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, you will have a, an interest likewise in the public interest, Mr. Fleck. You were found by VA's Office of Inspector General to have engaged in nepotism when, as manager in the Office of General Counsel, you advocated for the employment of your wife in the same office. You will have to explain to the committee why the report done by the Office of Inspector General is not disqualifying. And, um, I appreciate the chairman's staff subsequently sharing the documents and information with us, uh, which should prompt all of us to have very strong concerns. And I intend to make further inquiries about this issue.

We have a constitutional duty of oversight. Mr. Rendleman, if confirmed, you would have the power to decide whether a veteran's claim for reproductive healthcare coverage or reimbursement is denied. The radical anti-abortion views that you've espoused call into question your ability to make impartial judgments on abortion-related claims. And I'd like to enter into the record, Mr. Chairman, a letter from 30 organizations, including the National Women's Law Center, Minority Veterans of America, the National Organization of Women, Common Defense, Physicians for Reproductive Care, and other organizations that have substantial numbers of veteran members or represent them concerned about Mr. Rendleman's nomination. Without objection.

Thank you.

I'm concerned that we're considering Mr. Quinn for a position that will not open until next Congress, which is, I think, unprecedented in this committee. In November, the American people will determine at the ballot which party should lead the Senate. Not prejudging what the outcomes will be, but the new Congress should provide advice and consent on positions that will open when there is another Congress. Uh, finally, Mr. Chairman, um, before we get started, I'd like to address a really urgent and critical topic. The VA recently raised the ceiling for its electronic health record contract with Oracle by $17 billion.

$17 Billion without any notice to Congress or taxpayers. That's more than, by the way, the $13 billion cost estimate for the Major Richard Starr Act, which some of my colleagues claim we can't afford without cutting benefits for other disabled veterans. I think we have bipartisan support for the Major Richard Starr Act, but $17 billion for Oracle to extend a deeply troubled contract, I think, demands inquiry from this committee. And so I'd like to formally request the chairman hold a hearing on implementation of the electronic health record contract. And I have a letter for the record signed by all Democratic members of the committee with that request?

Mr. Ranking Member, we have not— you and I at least personally visited about this topic of a hearing, but I have planned to have a hearing in our— upon our return in November on this topic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Anything further? Thanks, Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. We'll now turn to questions. Um, I'm interested in how the position that you have been nominated to fill came to you.

Ms. Lopez, what, what came into your life that caused you to, uh, agree or decide you wanted to pursue, uh, the job you've been nominated to do? Well, Senator, um, thank you for the question. How did the administration come to know you? Um, they came to recall my name because I served under President Trump under the 45th administration as United States Attorney. So his name, my name was refreshed to him through my colleague, the TJAG, the Judge Advocate General of the Army, who served as United States Attorney in Georgia.

So my name came through, through that, through those channels, and I literally was here in D.C. last October for for the National Association of Former U.S. Attorneys when I got the call from the White House about this position. Mr. Fleck, you are at the Department of Veterans Affairs. You would be known within the department. How did the administration decide, of all the people who work at the Department of Veterans Affairs, that you should be nominated for this position?

Mr. Chairman, I can't— I don't know how they came to ask me if I was willing to serve. But I was asked by the acting general counsel at that time to— would I be interested in serving? And that's how I was approached. Acting general counsel at the department? At the Department of Veterans Affairs, yes.

And Mr. Fleck, is there anything that I should have concerns about your ability to set aside your employment at the Department of Veterans Affairs, your relationships with people who work there, the leadership that has put you in your place in making decisions about veterans' cases that appear before you? No, sir. For 46 years as an attorney, I've always looked at the law and the facts and applied them accordingly. I haven't been, uh, just taken away from that course of action by public opinion or by a hostile client or a client wanting to do something differently or political pressure or political pressure, sir. Mr. Jones, you arrived here today because someone thought you worthy of this position.

Tell me how that happened. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In January of this year, I hit 20 years in the military. And so my wife and I, after lots of discussions and prayer, decided it was time to submit my retirement packet. And I was looking for continued opportunities to serve.

At the time, I was detailed to the White House Counsel's Office, a position I had been detailed by the Army in the first Trump administration. And so through those relationships, they asked me if I'd continue to serve in this position, if I'd consider it. I don't know that it's the same question that I asked Mr. Fleck, but I'm going to ask it if it's the same circumstances. Your ability to set aside your association with a White House, with an administration, and make decisions based upon the merits of fact, rendering justice in individual cases is impaired? Uh, absolutely, Mr. Chairman.

I mean, I've served under, um, you know, for 20 years under 4 different presidents. My duty's always been in the Constitution. Thank you. Mr. Rendleman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know the full origins of how my name got recommended to the White House Counsel's Office, but my first contact was when they reached out to me. Mr. Quinn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After 17 years of working on veterans issues, I've grown a passion for this area of the law.

I've always been interested in it. I certainly want to continue public service. I had obviously been very aware of this court, especially after the passing of the AMA in 2017 and its implementation in 2019. I've been following it closely, and once I noticed there were some vacancies, I reached out to the White House Counsel's Office and let them know of my interest. Thank you.

I suppose only to be fair, I should ask you, you would assure me that you'll not be inappropriately persuaded or influenced by members of Congress for whom you served or worked with in reaching decisions before the court. I promise, Senator. Thank you. Let me turn to the ranking member for his questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Flack, you claim to have led VA's removal of veterans' records from the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System without assessing the dangerousness or underlying mental health conditions of those veterans. As I'm sure you know, firearms were involved in roughly 73% of male veteran suicide, 51% of female veteran suicide. Both far above the general population.

When advising the Secretary, how do you justify removing veterans from the NICS in light of the VA's own data on how disproportionately firearms are involved in veteran suicide? Sir, um, thank you. We—. And I recommended the, uh, We submit the names to the FBI to consider for removal from the NCIS. We do not remove them.

The FBI goes through other checks. But the reasoning for that is to—. How do you evaluate those individuals? You review medical records, you go case by case? No, sir.

We looked at how they were put forth to the NCIS. The only thing that the ones we recommended for removal The only thing they had on record was a box checked saying they were not able to handle their finances. And that was not any court of any judica— there was no court adjudication of mental incompetency as the statute requires. Well, it's not a question of mental incompetence. It's a question of mental illness.

How do you justify policies that deeply endanger veterans from suicide. Well, I think there's a balance between taking away someone's constitutional rights and having due process applied to do that with the adjudication as the statute requires. Let me ask you, the VA's Office of Inspector General found that you violated laws and regulations related to nepotism, conflict of interest, confidentiality, and making false statements to investigators. I want to give you the opportunity to respond because I understand you dispute the OIG's findings. So let me just ask you plainly, did you ever discuss the employment of your wife at VA's Office of General Counsel while you were employed as a supervisor in the VA's Office of General Counsel?

I had a— my supervisor at the time, Deputy General Counsel, asked me about my wife, and I said I have no comment on it. And then he asked me to send him, send him my, her resume. That's all the contact I did. So is it your testimony that you recused yourself from your wife's hiring? Yes, I did, on the first mention of her name.

Yes. Did you ever share sensitive VA data with your wife before she was an official employee? I share— uh, yes sir, I did. Uh, she was an Army attorney, and I don't think that's highlighted in the report, with a decade of experience as an Army attorney. And, uh, I shared it with her to prepare for the job after she had advised me she received the call that she was going to get an offer for employment.

Um, did the OIG ever reverse any of its findings that you violated these laws? No, no, sir. But the trial court judge has made some statements, and I'd like to quote one statement for you. The report you referred to was substantially discredited because the IG failed to perform its proper duties to investigate and consider materially significant exculpatory evidence brought to the IG's attention during the investigation. The trial court judge stated sufficient evidence of the IG's intent or willfulness was adduced to substantiate the allegation.

IG pursued its investigation only with an eye towards substantiating the allegations rather than providing a complete account. And that's at page 41 of the court's opinion. That was—. What's the date of that finding? March 31st, 2022.

I'd just like to enter a letter into the record from the VA OIG to the House VA Committee dated June 15, 2018, stating, quote, we've taken a fresh look at the nepotism report and the purportedly new information Mr. Fleck submitted. Based on this comprehensive review, we have concluded that the nepotism report findings and recommendations are fully supported by the law. Testimony of multiple witnesses and numerous documents. We will take whatever you would like to submit for the record so that we can have a full account. Mr. Rendleman, in 2017, you wrote an article for The Federalist where you stated, quote, abortion is murder and therefore by far the greatest moral failing of our time, uh, end quote.

As a judge on the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, you may consider appeals regarding a veteran's claim for abortion care. Do you think you can fairly administer the law in considering those appeals on the facts of the cases when they are contrary to your apparently deeply felt personal beliefs?

Sorry, yes. Senator, I absolutely do. The article that you're mentioning actually came from a desire to hear the deeply held beliefs of people who felt differently about me on this issue, and to sort of examine them on their own terms. I guess I'd also say that it is my belief and understanding of the role of the judge that, yeah, I'm not auditioning to have a— to design the VA benefits system as I would prefer it to be, or to impose my own policy perspectives. But rather to faithfully and unbiasedly apply the rules as promulgated by the political branches, uh, to the facts, uh, without regard to my own personal views.

My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Cassidy. I'll ask each of you. I'm not an attorney, so my questions will be more basic.

Uh, Ms. Lopez, um, I'll ask the same of each of you. There's a backlog in the courts. You don't want to just wave people through, but you have to give due consideration. How do you deal with that backlog? Senator, uh, thank you for the question.

And, um, if confirmed, my plan, as I did as United States Attorney when I took that, um, position, is to, um, go in and, and make an assessment of exactly what you're describing. Um, take 90 to 100 days to see what's going on, what is causing the backlog, what is causing— I understand remands are also a concern, and try to identify what the issues are, what is causing the delay, what is causing— but I also want to thank this committee with the implementation of the AMA and the successes that have— that the process has had since the implementation of the AMA in 2019. But I know we've confirmed I will look into that and and try to identify how we can further improve that, that efficiency that's already been identified by the implementation of the AMA. Mr. Fleck, I know some people move the docket quickly, some not. So how do you move a docket quickly but fairly?

Uh, thank you. Uh, in my current position as a leader of approximately 750 attorneys, we have many, uh, ways to work through things and change processes, always looking to improve the process to go through it. I will work collegiately with my colleagues on the court to see what improvements could be. In addition to that, for my own chambers, I will set procedures and time limits to try to move things along, and in a deliberate and decisive manner. Mr. Jones?

Thank you, Senator. The numbers are daunting, right? VA heard 3 million— had 3 million claims last year. The court had 10,000 appeals in one year. 6 Judges, 10,000 appeals.

So the numbers are daunting, but the court needs to remember its statutory mandate. If confirmed, I will remember my statutory mandate, which is to move as quickly as practicable. There is a sense of urgency in the statute that we need to move on these cases. With that said, speed is not the same as accuracy. We know that.

I'm reminded of my time working in an operation cell in Afghanistan where we're planning operations, and time was always of the essence. And the Deputy Chief of Operations would always tell me, Jones, we're not going to rush to failure. And I think the most important thing for the judge is to get it right, to get it right the first time. But realizing you have to move at a deliberate pace. That's what I would do.

Mr. Underwood.

Yes, Senator, the most important thing is to be right on the law. It doesn't help if we are moving cases quickly but inaccurately and the veterans are not getting the benefits that they have earned or are entitled to. So obviously my first priority is to decide cases correctly. After that, I think as my fellow nominees have said, the key is to jump in with both feet first with efficiency and vigor, looking at both what you can do on the chambers level, leading a team of clerks, and also what you can do working with, if I'm fortunate to be nominated, my fellow colleagues, in terms of procedures and policies of the court as a whole, anywhere that we can move to make these cases move expeditiously while remaining accurate. Mr. Gwynn.

Thank you. There's no substitute for hard work. I think you got to get in there. You have to understand what's going on. What's going on and maybe make adjustments going forward.

I certainly agree with the other panelists. The accuracy is the most important thing. What you don't want to do is rush to it and then it becomes this, you know, cycle where you go back and forth between the VBA and the Court of Appeals. So making sure that you come to the right decision the first time may take a little more time, but you got to make sure that it's done correctly. But I do also think there's probably a lot of room for improvements.

I certainly commit before this committee, if I identify those improvements and they do require some sort of congressional oversight or congressional implementation, to come back and share those thoughts with the committee so if they choose to, they can make improvements on the process. I yield.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fleck, thank you for being here, and also to the other panelists. But Mr. Fleck, in March, the VA Department of Justice entered into an agreement that empowers VA attorneys to initiate and participate in state court guardianship or conservatorships proceedings for veterans. This agreement covers veterans in VA's acute care facilities who no longer require inpatient acute care, but who have been deemed by their VA clinician to be incapable of making medical or placement decisions and have no families or other surrogates to decide for them. The unprecedented agreement between the VA and DOJ creates a pathway for stripping veterans of their civil rights, including the right to make medical decisions, to decide where to live, and under a full guardianship, to manage their own finances.

This is an inherent conflict of interest. The VA, the agency responsible for caring for veterans, is now also the agency empowered to ask a court to strip veterans of their legal autonomy. Mr. Fleck, you've said that as Deputy General Counsel at VA, you established this process. Is that correct? Yes, I led the establishment on it.

Yes. Okay. But not—. When, when coming up with this plan, were you aware of the risk to veterans under guardianship? I've handled in my years of practice many guardianship cases, Senator, and in all the cases, the courts are very concerned about how guardianship would be applied.

And they also look at the testimony of medical doctors and clinicians. And it always is a public hearing, and the alleged incompetent can also testify if possible. Okay, so for— let's, let's do an example. Um, were you aware of abuse and exploitation of veterans under guardianship, such as in the case of Stephen Striker? Are you familiar with that case?

No, I am not, ma'am. Um, okay, well, let me, let me tell you what happened to Stephen Striker. Stephen Striker was a Navy veteran whose guardian was appointed at the request of the hospital treating him. To get him into an assisted living facility, his guardian, uh, um, had his feeding tube capped, a step that the hospital staff testified had no medical benefits. So she did that against the advice of the hospital staff.

She also signed a do not resuscitate order, or a DNR, against his wishes and refused to withdraw it even though his family objected and a psychiatrist who examined him believed he could decide for himself that he wanted to live. He choked to death in a Tampa hospital in 2019. His guardian said she preferred quality of life versus quantity of life in making her decision on whether or not he should live or die. Unfortunately, Mrs. Stryker was not an outlier. A judge later removed her from nearly 100 cases, and she was convicted of felony elder neglect.

Mr. Flecht, if confirmed, you will be responsible for reviewing VA's decisions on veterans benefit claims. But you orchestrated a process that could put hundreds of disabled veterans at risk for losing their rights, being robbed of the benefits they earned, or even dying at the hands of a guardian. Why should the American people trust that you will make decisions with veterans' best interests in mind?

That the decision that we put in, in the process we put in place, was to make the best interest for the guard, for the veteran. Conflict of interest for the VA, which is charged with caring for the veteran, would also be the entity that is going to, uh, also petition to have that veteran civil rights removed. The—. That's only after— and that's different than the case you also stated. In that case, you said there was family members.

This would be after a thorough search for family members and other relatives or friends that would be willing to step forward to handle. And in that case, the hospital The nursing— the hospital medical staff said that having his feeding tube capped was not necessary as well. And it's still— and the guardian still moved forward with it. I understand that guardianship is common, but that fact alone is a problem because guardianship should be the very last resort, not something that is common. Congress has provided the VA with authority to and resources to ensure veterans are receiving care in the most appropriate setting.

So there's medical foster homes, community living centers, caregiver support. The VA has many options to free up hospital beds without sending veterans in need of care off into the realm of state court-appointed guardianship with no plans to ensure that the veterans are safe. And I still cannot understand why the VA, in the department's responses to our request for more information, would not commit that VA attorneys would monitor cases and instead confirm that oversight remains solely with the state court under this agreement. So basically, the Trump administration's decision is to wash its hands of responsibility for veterans' welfare. And I don't think this is some clever efficiency hack.

It's a dereliction of duty. And because of this and other major concerns, I cannot support your confirmation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Lopez, I wanted to ask some questions about the, the board itself.

And what's concerning me is that I understand there's a report from the Board of Veterans' Appeals predicting a 21% increase in appeals it expects to receive in this fiscal year. And yet at the same time, the VA's request— budget request calls for a $12 million decrease in the board's funding despite the increase in workload. It also requests a 10.5% decrease in staffing. I don't understand the logic of a board that acknowledges that it's overworked sitting still for a significant diminution of its staff and budget. Explain that to me.

Thank you for the question, Senator, and it's nice to see you again. We met back in June, and thank you for the time for the meeting. Senator, again, I'm As I mentioned when we met, I am not at the board. I understand that those are things that I would need to look at if confirmed, if I'm honored to be confirmed. That would be something that I would look into within my first 90 to 100 days in an assessment to identify the staffing situation, the budget situation, the financial situation.

I've had to address those same types of issues before as a United States Attorney when I first came in, addressing staffing and budget needs and those kinds of things, and raised those to, in that situation, to the Attorney General and the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys. And I will do that if I find in my assessment that there needs to be an address of that in terms of the shortage of staff that you identify and budget considerations, I will raise those with the attorney. I hope you will pursue that actively because the— there was a survey of BVA attorneys, 97%— a third of them, I'm sorry. 97% Said current performance standards increase the likelihood of factual errors.

93% Said there's not enough time to review each case de novo. 92% Said the standards sacrifice quality legal analysis. So I think you've got your work cut out for you. I, I welcome the challenge, and I'm honored to be asked to serve our veterans. I, I've been retired for 5 years, but it's an honor of a lifetime to have the opportunity to address concerns and issues that affect our veterans.

Mr. Riedelman.

Riedelman, Senator. Your voice, your position on abortion is clear. Let me ask a slightly different question. If an appeal comes to you involving a veteran's access to contraception, can you handle that case fairly and objectively, given your rather strong views going back to Griswold? Yes, absolutely, Senator.

I would consider myself bound to unbiasedly, in a fair and objective manner, apply the laws and regulations and the binding precedent, including Griswold, that applies to the Court of Veterans Claims. Even though you believe that to be morally deficient? Eh, Senator, absolutely. I think if I was motivated to— I'd say first, I'm not gonna take a position on contraception being morally deficient. But I'm not attempting to sit in your shoes and set policy for the Department of VA or position in the executive branch doing the same thing.

I, I am excited about the role of, uh, taking the law not as I would prefer it to be, but as it comes to me, uh, and applying that to the facts as the cases come to me. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Jones, Assistant General Counsel for Ethics in the White House, January 25th, 2025 to the present. Um, have there been any ethical violations in the White House since you've been in that position? Senator, just a point of clarification.

So I was detailed till June of this year, so I'm not currently at the White House. Okay. I was misinformed. But you were there. You were there for a year and a half.

That's correct. Similar to the first Trump administration, where I was asked to detail from my agency. This currently it's the CFTC. Any violations of ethics during the year and a half that you were there? Senator, it's my experience that the individuals at the White House that I work with, that I've advised on, comply with their ethics rules.

Do you think it's ethical for the President of the United States to trade stocks when he also can make comments about those stocks, as he did with Dell, that would increase the value of his holdings? Is that an ethical— is that ethical? Senator, just to provide some context to your question, so the role of an ethics advisor is to comply on the lawful or to advise on the lawfulness of a course of action, right? Did you advise that that was a law— that was lawful for the President of the United States to trade in stocks which he can then comment on in public and therefore affect the value of the stock. Did you say that that was okay?

Senator, as I'm sure you know, I can't get into the content of any legal advice I've given at the White House. It's protected by privilege. Do you think that's okay from an ethical point of view? That's my question. Again, giving context to your question, ethics is— it's a rules-based compliance system.

Does it comply with the rules? Does it comply with statute and regulation? And as I mentioned, during my time at the White House, I believe employees do follow their ethics rules. That's my experience. And so you have no opinion on my question, which is not a hypothetical, it's a factual question.

I don't— I'm quite— I don't understand your answer. Is it ethical for the President of the United States to make thousands of trades in stocks, many of which involves companies in which he has made public statements affecting the value of that stock? That's a pretty straightforward question for a guy who claims he's an ethical Assistant General Counsel for Ethics. Is that ethical? Senator, there's actually some nuance to that question, right?

Again, in ethics—. I'd like to hear the nuance, please. Yes, Senator. So an ethics counsel advises on the lawfulness of a certain action. It's not my personal opinion on whether or not I think something is appropriate or ethical, morally right or morally wrong.

That's not what I'm doing. Similar to what I would do on the bench. It's not my personal opinion. So there was no— there's no law or regulation that would that would impact the president's trading in stocks that he can then affect through his public comments? There's nothing that would cover that in any way, shape, or form.

Senator, the law that would apply would be 18 USC 208, the conflict of interest statute, which specifically excludes the president and vice president. So those laws do not apply to the president. So why do you have an ethics office in the White House if the president's excluded from ethics concerns? That's one statute. Seems to me that's like a being a Maytag repairman?

Senator, that's one statute. There are plenty of statutes that do apply to the president and vice president, and there are a host of other employees there at the White House and the National Security Council that I've interacted with. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator King.

I'm going to ask, I think, one more question, and then I'll see if Senator Blumenthal has a second question or second round of questions. I just want to get to this, this problem of increasing cases. And maybe it's not a problem, uh, although the backlog and time frame in which decisions are made is clearly important to a veteran or his or her beneficiaries. But what I'm told is that over the last several years, the court's caseload has remained substantial. While incoming appeals averaged 2,600 per year during the court's first 15 years— I'm talking about the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans claims.

So in the first 15 years of the court's existence, it received 7,000 appeals per year. In FY '25, the court received 10,449 appeals, which was the highest number of appeals in the court's history and represented a 17% increase over the prior year. Uh, I think I left out the first sentence, at least I didn't say it the second time I talked about this. Incoming appeals averaged 2,600 per year during the court's first 15 years. Now it's routinely 7,000 appeals per year.

And in FY25, just a year or two ago, we had a 17% increase from that. And also, I suppose it's important to know how many court cases were disposed. But my question really is about what's the cause. Why is the, the US Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims receiving so many more, uh, cases to be adjudicated? Uh, and is there something in the system that's causing this, or is this just the increasing volume of veterans we have in today's, um, America that, um, are eligible to to have a case.

Ms. Lopez, is there— so what's the systemic problem or reason? And let's not— I don't need to be pejorative. What's the reason cases keep increasing? Senator, thank you for that question. And I completely empathize with what you're saying in terms of the number of claims and appeals.

Again, I'm not at the board, so I'm not able to identify specifically what the reason is. But it is something that I will prioritize when I— if I am confirmed and I am able to step in as chair and take care of and take a look at this. It is important. I understand that, as I mentioned earlier, that there have been significant improvements under the AMA, but what is causing them and what the root cause is or what kind of trends there are that are are causing this, I will definitely look into it and I will be happy to come back and share that information with this committee. Any of you other nominees have an idea of anything that is going on or not going on that you will be engaged in that would reflect the reason for that increase or those increases?

Senator, um, I think there's a lot of— there's several reasons and probably too many to get through today. But one of the things, as a board judge, we can look at the process to improve, to cut the backlog of cases to be decided. To any other improvements would be out of our realm of doing things to do it. But I think the recent enactment of the AMA, the PACT Act, has increased the number of claims coming into the Veterans Benefits Administration. And pro rata, that probably increases the number of denials that go to the Board of Veterans' Appeals, and then you get some— a certain percentage of those go forward.

So as the numbers go up, you still get pretty close to the same percentage of appeals. So the number of cases may, as a percentage of the number of opportunities for appeal, may not change. We just have more opportunities. That's one thing that's—. That's—.

It's— I think that's a big part of it, but I can't speculate too much about certain other facts. Certainly the PACT Act was expected to have a consequence in this regard. Yes, and additional funding was provided to handle those claims, and those claims are coming as expected. So, Senator Blumenthal, just a couple of questions. Ms. Lopez, as you may know, the Board of Veterans' Appeals until recently has maintained a liaison with the accredited veterans advocates, the Veterans Service Organization, and the Chairman of the Board has had regular engagements with them.

If confirmed, will you commit to reinstating the VSO liaison position and to hosting quarterly engagements with VSOs? Senator, thank you for that question. And if, if confirmed, I will definitely look into that. I will just let you know that in pending this hearing, I have spent a lot of time in Florida with our local VSO organizations and with congressional personnel that handle veterans issues. This is very important to me personally.

I'm a veteran, and I commit to definitely looking into that and consulting with this committee on that issue. I'm glad to hear that because the veterans service organizations often have insights and data that is important to decision-making by the Board of Veterans' Appeals and all aspects of the VA. They gave me a lot of information to— in preparation for this position, so I look forward to that continued relationship with them. Senator Cassidy and I have a bill to address issues with evidence submission, docket efficiency, and the board's workflow. Flow management system, which address the backlogs that concern all of us.

If confirmed, do you commit to working with the committee on this legislation and others to address these issues? I look forward to the, to the collaboration with this committee. I, I appreciate your oversight and your partnership in that. I look forward to it. Thank you.

You were a U.S. Attorney in the Middle District of Florida. Yes, sir. For 3 years? For 3 years, yes, sir. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator King? Mr. Chairman, I would just add, you noted in your comments the increase in the workload. For next year, the projection is it will go up another 21%. At the same time, the budget decreases for this agency $12 million and a 10.5% decrease in staffing.

So there's a mismatch there that I hope we can address. You know, I, I, in, uh, in regard to the, the budget requests, uh, it is Congress that will determine the amount of money that will be made available to, to the courts, and we need to do our jobs well to make sure that we're adequately funding. Um, the president is making a recommendation. We need to do our jobs well. Amen, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Um, is there anything any of you would like to add or detract from what you said, uh, in your testimony? Uh, anything that you want to make sure we hear before I conclude the hearing?

You're supposed to give me time to find the words that allow me to conclude the hearing.

And there they are. Uh, if there are no other questions, and there were We're not. I want to thank our committee members, the nominees, and our audience for being here today. Any member who would like to send questions for the record to one of the nominees should do so as soon as possible. That means members of this committee have the opportunity to inquire of you, uh, in writing, and we would expect and appreciate a timely response if that occurs from each of the nominees.

And with that, uh, this hearing is adjourned.