S-4646-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Sponsored by Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
What it does
This bill would make it a federal crime, punishable by fine or up to one year in prison, to charge veterans unauthorized fees for helping prepare, present, or prosecute VA benefit claims, and would bar violators from being recognized as VA agents or attorneys. It would also require the VA to improve online tools listing accredited representatives, add warnings about predatory practices and fee scams on VA websites and forms, require a review report on the accreditation process, and restrict robocalls to federal agency phone numbers.
Who benefits
Veterans filing benefit claims, particularly those targeted by unaccredited "claim consultants" or coaches who charge unauthorized fees; accredited Veterans Service Organizations and attorneys who compete fairly under VA accreditation rules; VA staff fielding fraud complaints who would gain a formal reporting tool.
Who is hurt
Unaccredited individuals and companies currently charging veterans for claims assistance, who would face criminal liability and exclusion from practice; the VA, which would bear new administrative and staffing costs to build online accreditation tools, issue warnings, and conduct rulemaking and reporting; state governments whose laws on fee agreements or representative recognition for VA claims would be preempted.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that unaccredited "consultants" have proliferated in recent years, charging veterans large upfront or ongoing fees for help that accredited VSOs provide for free, and that the 2006 shift away from criminal penalties left the VA without a strong deterrent. They contend restoring criminal penalties, combined with better online tools and warnings, would protect vulnerable veterans—especially those with disabilities or limited resources—from predatory fee schemes while preserving legitimate paid representation under sections 5904 and 1984.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that criminalizing unaccredited assistance could sweep in well-meaning helpers, family members, or informal advisors who lack the resources to become accredited, potentially reducing the pool of people willing to help veterans navigate a notoriously complex claims process. They contend that preempting state laws on fee agreements removes state consumer-protection flexibility, and that new VA administrative requirements—online tools with 99.9% uptime, quarterly updates, and rulemaking—impose costs and implementation burdens on an agency already facing claims backlogs.
Constitutional context
Congress has plenary authority under Article I to establish and regulate veterans' benefits programs, and the preemption of state fee-agreement laws relies on the Supremacy Clause (Art. VI, cl. 2) rather than any war-powers provision; no landmark case directly controls this narrow regulatory scheme.
Checks and balances
Congress sets the criminal penalties and preemption rule by statute; the VA (executive branch) implements accreditation, rulemaking, and enforcement, with courts available to review due process claims from individuals barred from practice.
Historical precedent
Congress previously repealed criminal penalties for unauthorized VA claims fees in 2006 when it began allowing paid attorneys and agents to represent veterans, a change this bill would partially reverse.