PWVC Legislative Committee Primary Issues for 2026

5 December 2025

Legislative Committee

Chairman

Bob Gray (MOAA)

Members

Robert Hammaker (DAV)                                     John Getz (VFW)

Bernie MacDonald (AMVETS)                             Richard Hudzinski (VVA)

Douglas Church (TAL)                                         Charles Jackson (VFW)

Philip Arnold (MOPH)                                         Keith Beebe (MOAA)

ISSUES TO BE ACTIVELY PURSUED THIS LEGISLATIVE CYCLE

(based upon input from the delegates)

<<< THE SUMMARY >>>

… concentrate on these topics …

•       Increase the blind and amputee/paralyzed veterans pensions

•       Protect veterans against claims sharks using state legislation

•       Make veterans justice fairer

•       Bring attention to our needs in homelessness prevention

•       Fix the Act 66 of 2007 contracting cycle

•       Expedite survivor benefit processing

… as an opportunity presents itself, advocate on these topics ….

•       Increase veterans transportation network funding

•       Expand the disabled veterans real estate tax exemption

•       Issue a Global War on Terrorism Bonus

•       No change in Pennsylvania’s small dollar lending law.

<< THE DETAILS >>>

Increase the Blind and Amputee/Paralyzed Veterans Pensions

Course of Action: Get a $50/month pension increase for both the Blind and Amputee/Paralyzed pensions over the finish line before the end of the legislative session, December 2026.

Rationale: Both the Blind Veteran Pension and Paralyzed/Amputee Veteran Pension have not been increased for over two decades – making their real dollar value half of what they were two decades ago. An increase of $250 should be given, with a COLA for future years, to assist in keeping up with inflation. However, due to the budget balancing concerns of the Assembly, we will settle for $50/month increase to the current $150/month stipend and drop the COLA ask.

SB 534 (Ward) has been stuck in the Senate Appropriations Committee since May. However, it only offers a $30/month increase and “promises” to increase it on the floor, due to overall state budget balancing concerns. HB 1144 (Solomon), the preferred bill, has been stuck in the Senate VAEP since May as a consequence (?). The Administration has not stated its position on this issue affecting approximately 2,600 veterans.

The underlying question is: has an impasse been reached? The increase in VA benefits over the years has provided excuse not to act. Whereas our position is that most of these recipients are living on tight

budgets as a result of their afflictions due to military service and both the federal and state governments have a responsibility to them, one sometimes compensating for the other’s shortfall.

Protect Veterans Against Claims Sharks Using State Legislation

Course of Action: Prevent any business, for-profit or nonprofit, offering VA benefits counseling and initial claims application services to veterans for a fee through an amendment of Pennsylvania’s consumer protection statute.

Rationale: Of late there has been an increase of businesses not approved by the VA offering claims counseling and initial filings for a fee – essentially financially preying upon those veterans. While technically not allowed by federal law, there is also no penalty currently when they violate it – making a mockery of the law. All the more pity, since veterans can receive these same services free from VA-authorized VSO service officers, agents, and attorneys.

The previous VA penalty legislation has not been reapproved for violators since the expiration of previous legislation about three years ago.

The abuse includes both organizations charging veterans for information on veterans benefits and advising veterans on how to submit claims and those which also offer to file a claim. They have the veterans sign a contract agreement which charges high fees. Some have alleged arranged for medical professionals to support false claims of service-connected disability.

Previous federal enforcement, even when penalties existed, was weak.

At least four states have introduced legislation, but only two have passed legislation criminalizing actions by law firms or other organizations when assisting or filing claims for veterans in a manner not approved by federal law under Title 38. The two states which passed laws providing for enforceable penalties did so by modifying their Consumer Protection Laws.

State legislation is particularly required as the Congress has not reinstituted penalties; and enforcement by the state on the behalf of veterans as consumers seems needed even if a federal law exists to increase enforcement.

However, while HB 1918 (Delozier), introduced in October, is a start in the right direction, but limiting punishment to misdemeanor of the third degree is far too low considering the historical record of sums involved and this is not a practice of individuals as much as organized businesses. Furthermore, placement under 51 Pa. C.S., if with the intent of DMVA enforcement (it is not specified), burdens the DMVA with a duty it is not capable of properly enforcing. This is Attorney General territory.

Make Veterans Justice Fairer

Course of Action: Improve the management of justice for veterans in the state’s unified judicial system by:

(1)   Allowing sentenced veterans to apply for a post-conviction review of their sentences if Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) was incurred while serving their country.

(2)   Adding a requirement that every District Court of Common Pleas takes proactive, proof-positive steps towards identifying all veterans appearing before them; and, then, ensuring screening – and, if needed – a professionally-done, pre-sentencing assessment for PTSD and TBI to be used prior to sentencing.

(3)   Expanding accessibility to Veterans Treatment Courts as a matter of providing equal justice no matter where one lives.

(4)   Supporting increased use of medical parole efforts for senior Department of Corrections incarcerated veterans no longer deemed a threat to the community.

Rationale: The VA’s PTSD assessment protocol did not begin until 1980, and the TBI protocol not until about 2008. Not a few incarcerated veterans have been overlooked for treatment of these conditions while incarcerated or consideration of their effects during sentencing, consequently.

Access to Veterans Treatment Courts when appropriate – a specialty, diversion court of a District Court of Common Pleas — is still not statewide despite the effort having begun under federal grant funding in 2006.

Those facing felony convictions are in a worse situation. Pre-sentencing investigations (PSI) for the above conditions are not a routine consideration during the trial process, especially in an environment where there is an overwhelming use of plea deals. Lack of funding also affects their use.

These matters have received insufficient attention despite the DMVA’s, Administrative Office or the Pennsylvania Courts, and General Assembly’s awareness of the subject over the years.

Medical parole is a humane practice and, in addition, saves taxpayer dollars for better uses when one considers the high expense of incarceration. The state’s current compassionate release program has failed miserably, according to Rep. Kinsey. Veterans serving lengthy sentences are particularly affected by current practices. Improvement in the current system for paroling due to severe medical conditions is needed.

HB 458 (Hills-Evans), essentially HB 231 from last legislative session, is a limited step forward on the backend of the problem (postconviction relief) for military veterans who served in a combat or hazardous duty area. While we have been supportive of any advancement which allows for the consideration PTSD an TBI before final sentencing, it is the front end of the problem (a proper trial and disposition on the front end, i.e., before all Courts of Common Pleas).

The release of the SR 196 Report in September confirmed our positions and should aid in advancing our agenda. Rep. Solomon, chair of the VAEP has taken an interest in Nebraska’s recently enacted legislation on a veterans justice program (Slip Law Bill 253 of 2024) – a trend-setting initiative which substantially parallels our thinking on (1), (2), and (3) above. The timing could not be better.

HB 587 (Kinsey), which addressed the fourth and last issue (medical parole), failed last legislative session. Reintroduction as HB 150 (Krajewski) has occurred and as it is not dependent upon SR 196 findings or a veteran-specific bill, it can be pursued separately.

Getting 23 PA Code Rule 702 (Aids in Imposing Sentencing), which deals with the matter of pre-sentence investigations (a key component for fair trials when felonies are involved), administratively changed through the courts Criminal Procedural Rules Committee will continue to be pursued as part of an alternative strategy to find common ground with the courts. Adding a requirement that every District Court of Common Pleas takes proactive, proof-positive steps to identify all veterans appearing before it;

and ensuring screening – and, if needed – a professionally-done, pre-sentencing assessment for PTSD and TBI is appropriate.

Bring Attention to Our Needs in Homelessness Prevention

Course of Action: Campaign for a more coordinated effort at state government level is required to significantly reduce veterans homelessness, and homelessness in general, in the next two decades.

Rationale: More focus is needed on homelessness prevention. While the VA’s supposed gains in reducing chronic homelessness in a holistic manner are laudable, many transitioning veteran and the working veterans and their families are facing increasing pressures to make ends meet in this state.

Rents and mortgage payments are skyrocketing and incomes have not kept pace for the average citizen, of which veterans form a significant proportion in this state, still. As a result, overall, homelessness continues to rise in Pennsylvania. The situation also works against the retention and attraction of the necessary, able-bodied workforce to ensure a prosperous state that looks after its citizens.

Other states have taken a more aggressive, approach in this regard, compared to our veterans affairs system, which primarily relies on the VA and community resources alone. For examples:

•       California’s Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention Program (VHHP) offers long-term loans for the acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing for veterans and their families. It aims to ensure housing stability for veterans with extremely low incomes.

•       The Texas State Veterans Commission Housing and Utility Assistance Program offers rental assistance and housing resources for veterans in need.

•       The Massachusetts Executive Office of Veterans Services’ Chapter 115 Benefits Program and Office of Housing, Equity, Resilience, and Outreach Services (HEROS) provide affordable housing options and extended support services for veterans.

Meanwhile, our state’s Veterans Temporary Assistance program is on the verge of collapse, as a result of the failure of state government to urge and then provide funding to its original budgetary line item, which resulted, ill-advisedly, on an over-reliance on the Veterans Trust Fund – it is being severely depleted as a consequence for this and other reasons. A better management approach is needed. SB 146 is a first step in the right direction, but it is not the complete solution.

The lack of coordination across critical state and local agencies remains one of the most significant barriers to ending homelessness in the state. The Corporation for Supportive Housing and others called upon the Shapiro administration to establish a Pennsylvania Interagency Council to Prevent and End Homelessness; and the Administration, unbeknown to us, established an Interagency Council on Homelessness sometime in June. It remains a mystery to us, but of potential usefulness. A need for attracting Housing Development Corporations such as Tunnels to Towers to do more in Pennsylvania is probably advisable as an initial step on our part; and this new council may be a key player towards that.

A review of what DMVA is doing in this subject area of homelessness prevention is also advised to move along this effort. Being a resource coordinating center is helpful, but insufficient – and tends to dwell on the chronic homeless. Note how the Supported Service for Veterans Families has fallen short of ex-Secretary Shinseki’s original vision.

Fix the Act 66 of 2007 Contracting Cycle

Course of Action: Push for legislation or an administrative executive order that the appropriation amount available is known before award of the grant contracts; and pursue multi-year grants.

Rationale: The DMVA is awarding grant contracts with clauses entirely to its own advantage to detriment of its Act 66 awardees. One clause reads:

… The Department reserves the right to adjust the Grant Award and the payments thereof based upon the actual appropriation received for the FY   –                                                                              VSO grants.

The consequence has been perennially put the VSOs into unreimbursed debt situations to keep their operations on behalf of the state going until actually well after an annual appropriation bill is enacted because the DMVA is unable to hasten other state agencies’ reviews toward approving the final contracts and the release of funding.

This is not good business considering that the awardees are providing an invaluable service to state government that ultimately brings substantial cost savings by connecting veterans to their federal benefits, especially health, educational, and disability benefits. One should not award unless one has the funds on hand, in the first place. Nor does this seem to be done by the Administration’s other departments as a routine.

The award delays also cause another unnecessary complication. Veterans service organizations already contend with losing paid, experienced service officers to government agencies due to wage and benefit advantages. This state of affairs also adds perceived job stability to the equation.

Pursuing multi-year grants is allowed by management directive, but the DMVA has been unsuccessful in convincing the Administration to allow it to do so. It would also help reduce employee turnovers through strengthening wage reliability and job stability. In addition, it would reduce the state’s administrative costs for the program.

To summarize, after approximately four years of effort, the DMVA has been unable to secure the necessary funding needed to shift the award cycle or to enter into multi-year grant contracts. It is time for the PWVC to try to resolve the matter for the benefit of all but particularly towards reliable and consistent service to our veterans and their families.

Expedite Survivor Benefit Processing

Course of Action: Press the U.S. Department of Veterans affairs to ensure timely delivery of benefits to vulnerable survivors who have an immediate need for supplemental income following the death of a military veteran, whether it be DIC or a survivor pension.

Rationale: The Veterans Benefit Administration (VBA) has authority to pay Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) to a survivor for a veteran’s service-connected death under 38 U.S.C. § 1310 and 1311. VBA also has authority to pay DIC to a survivor for a Veteran’s nonservice-connected death if the veteran had a total service-connected disability for one of the periods prescribed in 38 U.S.C. § 1318.

Assuming it has not been rescinded, FAST Letter 13-04, 22 Mar 2013, provides instructions for expediting decisions for DIC cases. Specifically, it states:

For DIC claims where you already have evidence establishing that the Veteran had a service-connected disability that was continuously rated totally disabling, including a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability, for:

○ 10 or more years immediately preceding death, or

○ 5 or more years from the date of discharge, or

○ 1 or more years immediately preceding death if the Veteran was a former prisoner of war, then

Take immediate action on the claim by referring it to a rating team for a decision without further development regarding the cause of death.

The VA knows or should know the status of the veteran and his dependents and their status for a survivor compensation.

Therefore, in such cases above at the very least, why cannot the VA automatically process the DIC action needed upon notification of the death of the veteran, rather than the dependent (especially the surviving spouse) having to apply and then waiting months, even a year, before receiving award? The surviving family is often dependent on the income. Therefore, this particular step automatic processing takes on great importance.

The same situation applies for those spouses were in receipt of a disability pension, for they are indigent otherwise for the purpose of the award.

A new development recently occurred which may be of advantage to us in resolving the matter. On of 5 May, the VA announced a three-pronged approach to eliminate barriers and streamline the process for how eligible survivors and dependents of deceased Veterans and servicemembers apply for and receive VA benefits and services. Perhaps the most important of these is that the VA created a “white-glove” survivor outreach team to guide and assist eligible survivors through every step of the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) claims process (operating out of the Philadelphia VA Regional Office) with the goal of getting to “yes” on DIC claims decisions for eligible survivors.

Despite inquiries of DMVA and the VISN-4, who also has an interest in the subject, no answer has been given to automating of the process upon notification of the death of the veteran as opposed to providing better one-on-one assistance as described above. The VBA has said is that it will begin work to identify areas where automation can be used to make the DIC claims process easier to navigate for survivors.

Currently it seems limited to improving the automation of the claims payments or adjustments themselves and making application entries. But the VA has also stated it will be identifying additional areas where automation can be used to make all benefits delivery processes easier to navigate for eligible surviving dependents.

Therefore, the timing is right to resolve the matter through a formal request with follow-up through our congressmen, as necessary, to escalate a solution to a problem affecting many survivors – if it is not already in the making.

Increase the Veterans Transportation Network Funding

Course of Action: Increase the awareness in state government of the importance of Veterans Transportation Network, and pursue an increase to the DMVA’s “Disabled American Veterans Transportation” line-item appropriation.

Rationale: This little understood, DAV-VA partnership program provides a major portion of Pennsylvania’s VA Veterans Transportation Service. It is particularly crucial to those veterans where the VA hospital’s advanced services are distant from them, particularly in more rural areas of the state.

However, far too many of the vehicles are overaged, over-mileage or unsafe.

The general aging of the veterans population, the enactments of the Mission and PACT acts and the resulting expansion of VA benefits and service, and the efforts of both Act 66 and county service officers have put increasing pressure on upgrading the fleet.

The DMVA, the Governor and the General Assembly have neglected a standing appropriation line-item which partially helps towards the sizing and management of the fleet. Additionally, a misunderstanding of how the program is managed and dependent on VA decisions exists. This has led significant underfunding of the program. Consequently, the state contribution has not increased in the last two to three decades — and is now worth about half of its original value in real dollars.

The DAV has made strides in improving management of their contribution to the VA’s Veterans Transportation Service (VTS) system. PWVC efforts have led to the VA establishing replacement standards and the hiring of a statewide VTS coordinator in 2025. This is gradually leading to a better managed and responsive fleet of driven by paid and unpaid (volunteer) employees and the vehicles they use. The VA’s efforts, which includes implementing a nationally mandated VetRide reporting system, is in its infancy, but will lead to a more statewide approach in resource management of all its available transportation assets.

Meanwhile, at state DAV urging, National DAV’s contribution to funding led to a threefold surge of replacement vehicles in 2024 – demonstrating nonprofit alertness to the problem. Now it is time for state government to show the same level of alertness to the problem.

In summary, the most immediate issue lies in convincing the state government to help contribute to the funding needed to purchase more replacement vehicles and to pay a fair wage to the patient transport coordinators, if the VA using a new trip management system, requires them. The increased appropriation ask is not expected until later next year.

Expand the Disabled Veterans Real Estate Tax Exemption

Course of Action: Press for a state constitutional amendment to expand the Disabled Veterans Real Estate Tax Exemption (RETX) provision by including these changes: (1) delete the war clause, (2) add veterans with a permanent, individual unemployability rating; (3) add un-remarried spouses of servicemembers either killed in the Line of Duty, missing in action (MIA), or made prisoners of war (POW); and (4) the exemption applies even if the veteran is living in a long-term care facility if his dependents are occupying the home.

Rationale: The RETX program currently provides for an exemption from the payment of all real estate taxes on the primary residence only for:

•       honorably discharged or released veterans who served during war or armed conflict and are deemed 100 percent service-connected disabled (total and permanent disability) and

•       any unmarried surviving spouse residing in the commonwealth who demonstrates a financial need.

However, the current constitutional provision has forgotten those who sacrificed the most by giving their lives.

Any change definitely requires a change to the Constitution of Pennsylvania (Article VIII, Section 2(c)) being put forth to the people. It will take two legislative sessions to accomplish. Progress on this issue is years behind schedule. Outside influences have created problems for progress on this issue.

HB 1257 (Probst), introduced in April 2025, was a clean and simple plain-English bill which we supported in its original form but was unexpectedly amended in June to mandate that those with 50% disability or higher shall be exempt in proportion to their disability. Our letter of 15 July 2025 to the Majority and Minority Chairs of the House Veterans Affairs and Emergency Preparedness Committee clearly stated our resulting concerns.

The PWVC has continued to counsel against this type of thinking to prevent opposition by county commissioners, municipalities and school districts which rely upon property tax revenues in large measure, especially as income and VA disability rating do not necessarily have direct correlation in all cases. Nor has a compensation scheme been offered to these entities, since the proposal would dramatically increase the number or participants. However, ultimately it is a matter for the legislature to decide. The most important thing is to have them address our Course of Action above, finally and conclusively.

SB 1006 (Miller), introduced in September has the same verbiage as HB 1257. It sits in the State Government Committee. In essence, it is a companion bill.

SB 133 (Bartolotta), introduced eight months prior, tweaks the eligibility to allow inclusion of those killed in action and their surviving spouses alone. It also sits in the State Government Committee.

Hopefully, we will be able to help move this actin to completion, but time and effort have been wasted.