    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
                   H.R. 913; H.R. 980; H.R. 1364; H.R. 1458;
                  H.R. 1960; H.R. 1527; H.R. 1793; H.R. 1872;
                H.R. 1815; H.R. 1814; H.R. 1957; H.R. 1423; AND
                                    H.R. 1803

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2025

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 119-9

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        Available via http://govinfo.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    60-670                  WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                         MIKE BOST, Illinois, Chairman

    AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       MARK TAKANO, California, Ranking
        American Samoa, Vice-Chairwoman      Member
    JACK BERGMAN, Michigan               JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    NANCY MACE, South Carolina           CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
    MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK,
    GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina        Florida
    DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
    MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas               DELIA RAMIREZ, Illinois
    JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona              NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
    KEITH SELF, Texas                    TIMOTHY M. KENNEDY, New York
    JEN KIGGANS, Virginia                MAXINE DEXTER, Oregon
    ABE HAMADEH, Arizona                 HERB CONAWAY, New Jersey
    KIMBERLYN KING-HINDS, Northern       KELLY MORRISON, Minnesota
        Mariana Islands
    TOM BARRETT, Michigan

                           Jon Clark, Staff Director
                      Matt Reel, Democratic Staff Director

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

                     DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin, Chairman

    JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona              CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire,
    ABE HAMADEH, Arizona                     Ranking Member
    KIMBERLYN KING-HINDS, Northern       MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
        Mariana Islands                  DELIA RAMIREZ, Illinois
    TOM BARRETT, Michigan                TIMOTHY M. KENNEDY, New York

    Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
    hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
    published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
    official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
    both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
    of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
    unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
    current publication process and should diminish as the process is
    further refined.

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2025

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Derrick Van Orden, Chairman........................     1
    The Honorable Chris Pappas, Ranking Member.......................     2

                                   WITNESSES
                                    Panel I

    Mr. John Bell, Executive Director, Loan Guaranty Service, U.S.
      Department of Veterans Affairs.................................     3

            Accompanied by:

        Mr. Nick Pamperin, Executive Director, Veteran Readiness and
            Employment, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

        Mr. Thomas J. Alphonso, Assistant Director, Policy and
            Implementation, VBA Education Service, U.S. Department of
            Veterans Affairs

        Ms. Jill Albanese, Director of Clinical Operations, U.S.
            Department of Veterans Affairs

                                    Panel II

    Ms. Kristina Keenan, Deputy Director, National Legislative
      Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars..............................    16

    Ms. Julie Howell, Associate Legislative Director for Government
      Relations, Paralyzed Veterans of America.......................    17

    Ms. Elizabeth Balce, Executive Vice President of Servicing at
      Carrington Mortgage, Mortgage Bankers Association..............    19

    Mr. Tobias Peter, Co-Director of the Housing Center, Senior
      Fellow, American Enterprise Institute..........................    20

    Mr. Will Hubbard, Vice President for Veterans and Military
      Policy, Veterans Education Success.............................    22

                                    APPENDIX
                        Prepared Statements Of Witnesses

    Mr. John Bell Prepared Statement.................................    35
    Ms. Kristina Keenan Prepared Statement...........................    43
    Ms. Julie Howell Prepared Statement..............................    46
    Ms. Elizabeth Balce Prepared Statement...........................    50
    Mr. Tobias Peter Prepared Statement..............................    55
    Mr. Will Hubbard Prepared Statement..............................    82

                           Statements For The Record

    National Alliance to End Homelessness Prepared Statement.........    93

                              APPENDIX--continued

    BraunAbility and the National Mobility Equipment Dealers
      Association Prepared Statement.................................    95
    Freedom Mortgage Prepared Statement..............................    97
    National Consumer Law Center Prepared Statement..................    99
    National Association of Veterans Program Administrators Prepared
      Statement......................................................   102
    Student Veterans of America Prepared Statement...................   109
    Veterans Education Project Prepared Statement....................   116

                             LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
                             .
                   H.R. 913; H.R. 980; H.R. 1364; H.R. 1458;
                  H.R. 1960; H.R. 1527; H.R. 1793; H.R. 1872;
           H.R. 1815; H.R. 1814; H.R. 1957; H.R. 1423; AND H.R. 1803

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2025

          Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
                        Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
                                 U.S. House of Representatives,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
    room 360, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Derrick Van Orden
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Van Orden, Hamadeh, King-Hinds
    Barrett, Pappas, McGarvey, Ramirez, and Kennedy.
        Also present: Representatives Obernolte, and Meng.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF DERRICK VAN ORDEN, CHAIRMAN

        Mr. Van Orden. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
    order. Welcome to the witnesses and subcommittee members to
    today's hearing.
        As I have often said in the subcommittee, this is not a
    bipartisan committee. This is a nonpartisan committee. We owe
    that to those who have served our country. This legislative
    hearing will continue in that spirit.
        We have got 14 important legislative proposals to consider
    here today. It is important to note that not all of these
    proposals will move forward to the legislative process. We hold
    legislative hearings to learn from U.S. Department of Veterans
    Affairs (VA) and other groups about their views on the bills to
    ensure members are making, excuse me, informed decisions when
    they do or do not mark them up. We value the insight provided
    by these stakeholders and agencies as an essential part of this
    process. A number of these proposals seek to improve education
    programs for American veterans to ensure that taxpayers dollars
    are used responsibly. I specifically want to highlight three of
    my bills that are on today's agenda.
        My first bill will modernize the requirements for
    VetSuccess on Campus officers, or VSOCs, and allow employees to
    have a minimum of a bachelor's degree in the relevant field of
    study instead of a master's degree. This change will allow our
    VSOCs to serve more students and veterans on campus without a
    degradation of those services.
        Another bill that I have is Restoring the VA Home Loan
    Program in Perpetuity Act. This legislation would limit the
    number of direct loans VA is authorized to purchase back to
    what the VA had traditionally done before the creation of the
    VA Services Purchase Program, or VASP. I believe if we do not
    change VASP, this program will continue to be a trojan horse on
    VA's books that could ruin the VA Home Loan Program forever.
        Listen, the two greatest programs ever developed by this
    government are the GI Bill and the VA Home Loan Program, and I
    am not going to allow either one of those to fail. I have used
    my right as a--to get a home loan--excuse me, I have used my VA
    Home Loan Guarantee to buy homes several times. If the Biden
    version of VASP was allowed to continue, I fear that the home
    loan will not exist in the future for my fellow veterans. My
    bill is needed to change it to protect the benefit that has
    helped so many veterans since 1943.
        My final bill would provide an option for the waterfall for
    veterans going through the loss mitigation by establishing a
    partial claim program. This program would bring the VA Home
    Loan Program on par with other programs such as Federal Housing
    Administration (FHA), Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. Many of you
    have heard me express my concerns and frustration with the idea
    of VA taking responsibility for as many as 60,000 mortgages
    that would put American taxpayers on the hook when the
    foreclosures are to the tune of $16 trillion through VASP. This
    legislation would allow VA to provide limited assistance and
    includes mechanisms to encourage repayments as soon as veterans
    are able. I look forward to working with the minority to see if
    we can find a better way to help the veterans without
    destroying the VA Home Loan Program.
        Additional bills that we will consider will address the
    Veterans Readiness and Employment (VR&E) program, adaptive
    automobile equipment, GI Bill, and homeless programs through
    the VA. I have reservations about some of these proposals on
    the agenda today, and the witnesses' testimony and questions
    from the members will hopefully address some of these issues so
    we can make an informed decision about whether to move these
    bills forward through the legislative process.
        We look forward to hearing from the members who have
    introduced these proposals, as well as our witnesses on how we
    can continue to improve these bills and better the lives of our
    veterans.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRIS PAPPAS, RANKING MEMBER

        I now yield to my friend Mr. Pappas, the ranking member,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you to my friend the chairman for
    holding this hearing, and we all know that for agencies to be
    able to carry out their duties, our work here is critically
    important.
        I know we have several pieces of legislation that we will
    consider. Some of them are very strong pieces of legislation
    and I want to take this opportunity to highlight a few of them.
    On the agenda today, there are three bills that are intended to
    improve the VR&E program, including my legislation to improve
    the experience for VA and veterans, to ensure that each veteran
    has the best possible chance for a success outcome in the
    program. I thank the chairman for including this bill on the
    agenda.
        I think we all recognize that we can write whatever bills
    we want to with respect to VR&E, but if VA continues to
    terminate employees at the same rate it has over the last
    weeks, it will not matter. We are hearing from student veterans
    around the country who have seen impacts to the VR&E program
    following the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)
    firings. Now, in late 2024, this subcommittee held a hearing on
    VR&E where one of the main takeaways was that it is not
    employing enough counselors and support staff. We know this has
    been an issue for a long period of time. However, some of the
    DOGE firings were from the VR&E program from individuals who
    were just hired. Instead of making progress, we are going in
    the wrong direction. That has, undoubtedly, increased wait
    times for new student veterans to enroll, will cause delays for
    existing student veterans to get class materials. We need to
    hear more about this.
        I want to quote Chairman Bost, who said that he takes
    Secretary Collins, quote, ``at his word when he says there will
    be no impact to the delivery of care, benefits, and services
    for veterans with this plan.'' Let us be honest with ourselves
    and, frankly, taxpayers. We know there will be impacts. I urge
    Secretary Collins to grab the wheel from DOGE, change course,
    bring back the lost staff to VR&E and other critical areas
    within VA.
        Now, moving on to the rest of the items on the agenda, I am
    really thankful to Chairman Van Orden for including three more
    critical measures, the End Veteran Homelessness Act, the Guard
    and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act, and the Fair Access to Co-ops
    Act, in the agenda. There has been significant progress made
    during the last four Presidential administrations from both
    parties to end veteran homelessness. That includes a 52 percent
    reduction in veterans experiencing homelessness, according to
    U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The End
    Veteran Homelessness Act from Ranking Member Takano is a
    visionary bill that will be the final piece of this important
    puzzle. It will make more veterans eligible for the programs
    Congress has already authorized, closing gaps in eligibility.
        Next, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act introduced
    by our colleague Mike Levin, would finally provide GI Bill
    parity of benefits to our Guard and Reserve members. The bill
    is overdue. We simply depend on Guard and Reserve forces more,
    and it is time the benefit keeps pace with the demands.
        Finally, the Fair Access to Co-ops Act from Representative
    Meng. The VA Loan Guarantee Program, commonly known as VA Home
    Loan Program, is one of the best benefits that a veteran can
    utilize. The benefit is not able to be used for co-op housing.
    Many of us have co-op housing in our district. I hope we can
    continue to work on this legislation so veterans who are
    searching for housing are able to consider all options for
    their home purchases.
        Again, I want to thank the Chairman, our witnesses, and
    those who are watching for making this hearing happen. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Pappas. I will now introduce
    the witness panel.
        Our first witness is Mr. John Bell, the executive director
    of Loan Guaranty Services at the Department of Veterans
    Affairs. Mr. Bell is accompanied by Mr. Nick Pamperin,
    executive director of Veterans Readiness & Employment; Mr.
    Thomas Alphonso, education director of Education Services; and
    Ms. Jill Albanese, director of Clinical Operations.
        Will the witnesses please rise? Raise your right hand.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Van Orden. You may be seated. Thank you. Let the record
    reflect the witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
        All the witnesses will respect the 5-minute rule. Thank you
    very much, Mr. Bell. You are now recognized for 5 minutes to
    deliver your testimony on behalf of the Department of Veterans
    Affairs.

                         STATEMENT OF JOHN BELL

        Mr. Bell. Good morning, Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member
    Pappas, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
    us here today to present our views on several bills that would
    affect the Department of Veterans Affairs' programs and
    services. Joining me today are Nick Pamperin, executive
    director of Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Veteran
    Readiness & Employment Service; Mr. Tom Alphonso, assistant
    director of Policy and Implementation from VBA's Education
    Service; and Ms. Jill Albanese, the director of Clinical
    Operations and senior advisor to the executive director for the
    VA Homeless Program office at Veterans Health Administration
    (VHA). While VA's views on all of the bills are detailed in my
    written testimony, including areas of concern and support, I
    would like to highlight several bills in my opening remarks.
        First, VA supports the Modernizing Veterans Success on
    Campus Experience Act of 2025 as it would allow VA to hire
    staff to perform services that do not require a master level's
    counseling degree. This would improve veterans' overall access
    to services, including counselors with higher level degrees to
    support them in their educational and career goals. VA also
    appreciates this committee's efforts to expand veterans'
    opportunities for accredited independent study programs and, as
    such, supports the Vets Opportunity Act of 2025.
        The VA also supports the Draft Guard and Reserve GI Bill
    Parity Act, but we have concerns as to whether the U.S.
    Department of Defense (DOD) would be able to provide the data
    necessary for implementation. Further, if DOD has the data
    readily available, VA anticipates needing 18 to 24 months to
    take the necessary adjustments to our adjudication procedures.
        VA strongly supports efforts to end veteran homelessness
    and, as such, we support the End Veteran Homelessness Act of
    2025. However, we do not support the Homeless Grant and Per
    Diem Program Applications bill because we believe it to be
    unnecessary and overly prescriptive.
        Finally, VA supports the Automotive Support Services to
    Improve Safe Transportation (ASSIST) Act of 2025 subject to
    amendments. VA appreciates that the bill would allow VA to
    provide any medically necessary automobile adaptation for safe
    entry, exit, and operation of a vehicle. However, including
    nonarticulated trailers, which are separate conveyance, would
    significantly increase cost of VA and taxpayers without a clear
    benefit to veterans that is aligned with the program.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. We appreciate
    congressional intent and welcome the opportunity to work
    closely with Congress on all of the bills on today's agenda. My
    colleagues and I are prepared to respond to any questions on
    these bills that you or other members of the subcommittee may
    have.

        [The Prepared Statement Of John Bell Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Bell. The written statement
    of Mr. Bell will be entered into the hearing record.
        We will now proceed with questionings. With questioning, I
    ask all members to please respect the 5-minute rule. Again, if
    you want to go into a second round, more than happy to.
        I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Pappas, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Pappas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Pamperin, I wanted to see if I could start with you.
    Last week, members of the Student Veterans of America were on
    the Hill advocating for policy, also raising alarm bells
    regarding VR&E. Considering the legislation before us I want to
    gain a greater understanding of the health of the program and
    we sent over some questions last month, but wondering if you
    could answer a few of the questions contained in that letter
    today.
        Counselors were deemed essential and ineligible from the
    fork in the road, is that correct?
        Mr. Pamperin. I appreciate the question. Counselors were
    exempt.
        Mr. Pappas. Okay. Have any individuals within the VR&E
    programs, such as Vocational Rehabilitation Services (VRS)
    positions that support counselors and allow them to take on
    more cases, have they been removed by the recent--have any of
    them been removed by recent VA terminations?
        Mr. Pamperin. Respectfully, I will have to take that for
    the record, sir.
        Mr. Pappas. Is it correct that VR&E counselor positions are
    not exempt from the hiring freeze?
        Mr. Pamperin. I will have to take that for the record.
        Mr. Pappas. Okay. Have any VR&E counselors left the program
    voluntarily or involuntarily since the hiring freeze was put in
    place? If so, how many?
        Mr. Pamperin. I do not have a number as for how many have
    voluntarily left. I will take that for the record.
        Mr. Pappas. Do you have any sense if--you know, we had this
    hearing, as I mentioned in my opening last year, about the dire
    need to onboard more counselors to support this program. That
    is a game changer for veterans. Do you have any sense if we are
    moving in the right direction with respect to VR&E workforce?
        Mr. Pamperin. I feel I will have to take that for the
    record.
        Mr. Pappas. Okay. Last year, wait times were bad, in some
    cases 6 to 8 months. That was before recent actions have been
    taken, including a hiring freeze that was put in place. We
    heard from student veterans last week that were enrolled in
    VR&E that have reported longer wait times. Can you speak to the
    issue of wait times, if those have increased?
        Mr. Pamperin. Respectfully, sir, I do not have the numbers
    for the wait times at this time. I will have to take that for
    the record.
        Mr. Pappas. Okay. We are talking about basic information
    that impacts a critical program that provides for our veterans.
    We are talking about staffing levels, wait times. These are not
    new issues. These are issues that have been before this
    committee for some period of time and have elicited bipartisan
    concern. We did send a letter last month. We are really
    interested in your attention to these issues and await any
    response you can give us.
        I want to move to my legislation which is a draft bill to
    redevelop the individualized vocational rehab plan. I want to
    thank the chairman again for including this legislation in
    draft form. I am wondering, if employment outcomes currently
    are the only reason that a plan might be developed and what are
    other reasons why one might be changed?
        Mr. Pamperin. I appreciate the question, sir. There are a
    number of reasons why a plan may be redeveloped. If a veteran's
    disabilities worsen over time and that employment outcome is no
    longer viable, that is an option to redevelop a plan. If labor
    market conditions change for a track that a veteran is in, that
    is no longer a viable option. A plan can be redeveloped. We do
    support this legislation as it removes some what I will call
    squishy language, like ``if applicable,'' and really lays out
    much more defined conditions for when a plan can be
    redeveloped, making it a much more consistent decision.
        Mr. Pappas. Do repeated changes to an individualized plan
    impact counselor caseloads and does that result in longer wait
    times?
        Mr. Pamperin. It would not affect a counselor's caseload if
    they are already in a plan. That veteran is already captured in
    that counselor's caseload.
        Mr. Pappas. Mr. Bell, if I could turn to you. You know
    there is great support for the VA Loan Guarantee Program and I
    am wondering if you can provide some more information about the
    direction of this program. How many individuals are employed at
    the VA Home Loan Guarantee Office?
        Mr. Bell. I will have to take that for the record.
        Mr. Pappas. Okay. Similarly to my questions for Mr.
    Pamperin, have we seen any terminations in this office? If so,
    how many?
        Mr. Bell. I will take that for the record.
        Mr. Pappas. Any employees in that office take the fork in
    the road?
        Mr. Bell. I will take that for the record, sir.
        Mr. Pappas. It has been reported that tens of thousands of
    homeowners are at risk of foreclosure, could be eligible for
    VASP. I think this is a serious concern that we have got to
    focus on. There are roughly 35,000 homeless veterans on any
    given day. How many veterans are supported by VASP currently? I
    see my time is almost out.
        Mr. Bell. We have 15,000 veterans that are in the VASP
    program.
        Mr. Pappas. Look forward to follow up on those questions
    that I asked you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Van Orden. The gentleman yields.
        The chair now recognizes the gentlelady Ms. King-Hinds for
    5 minutes.
        Ms. King-Hinds. Thank you, Chairman Van Orden, and thank
    you to all the witnesses for being with us today.
        I am from the Northern Mariana Islands and, you know,
    throughout a series of these hearings, I have been talking
    about issues with access to services, right, and the limited
    opportunities for our vets to be--to avail of a lot of these
    programs and services. I want to ensure that when we have
    policy conversations that people in the territories and remote
    and rural areas are at the forefront of these conversations
    because they are heavily impacted.
        My question is to Ms. Albanese. All right. I know that this
    committee has heard concerns that urban Grants and Per Diem
    Program (GPD) providers have a significantly bigger support
    network than their rural counterparts, which has led to rural
    providers not being able to submit the applications correctly
    and creating a lack of transitional housing in rural
    communities. Would you know if this would be the case in the
    Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) if this
    program currently is available to the territories?
        Ms. Albanese. The GPD program, as well as many of our other
    homeless programs, are available throughout the country and in
    territories. You know, we do have a very competitive grant
    application process. We are happy to work with the committee on
    any concerns about the grant application process, but those
    grants would be available.
        Ms. King-Hinds. Okay. Are you seeing any challenges with
    regards to the lack of community organizations that the VA can
    work with to be able to administer some of these programs or
    issues with the fact that because of the thresholds, right,
    that are provided by law or by rule, which limits the
    opportunity for the territories to be able to participate?
        Ms. Albanese. I am not aware of any particular barriers to
    any providers that are trying to get grants. We have a wide
    variety of grantees that do receive grants through both our--
    all of our grant programs. Again, we would be happy to work
    with the committee on any concerns around barriers to
    applications.
        Ms. King-Hinds. Okay, thank you for that.
        My next question is to Mr. Pamperin. We have heard a lot of
    stories about how veterans basically are getting ghosted by
    their counselors, right, and have no way of reaching out to
    anyone. Do you believe there is a need for a hotline or
    available contact information for the VR&E program? Would this
    hotline be also available to areas like the territory and
    remote areas?
        Mr. Pamperin. I appreciate the question, ma'am. There is a
    piece of pending legislation to add the VR&E specific portion
    to the education call center, which we do support. As far as
    availability for the territories, just to agree, I would have
    to take that for the record. I am not quite sure I know the
    answer.
        Ms. King-Hinds. All right. That would be great.
        Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Van Orden. The chairman recognizes Mrs. Ramirez for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Ramirez. Thank you, Chairman.
        In the past 72 hours, I have received about 20,000 messages
    from constituents, veterans, and family members of veterans
    demanding that I do everything in my power to ensure that the
    VA and the services for our veterans are not destroyed. As I
    start my questions, I want to say clearly to all our veterans
    and to all the families who wrote to me, I have over 20,000
    veterans in my district and I need you to know that your
    message and your mission is received. I want to use today for
    some real talk about the impact of the Musk-Trump agenda on
    veteran homelessness.
        The VA and its staff provide services and programs that
    prevent and end veteran homelessness, which is precisely why I
    was alarmed by the VA's recent opposition to the End Veteran
    Homelessness Act of 2025. You would think that at a time when
    the administration's irresponsible firing spree is
    disproportionately impacting veterans and stripping veteran
    employees of the VA and other agencies of their gainful
    employment, we would be doing everything in our resource and at
    our disposal to ensure more veterans are placed into and
    retained housing.
        Ms. Albanese, I want to direct this question to you. Are
    there currently unutilized U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
    Development-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD VASH)
    vouchers that could be used to house veterans?
        Ms. Albanese. Yes, there are currently around 10,000 HUD
    VASH vouchers available for use.
        Ms. Ramirez. There is about 88,000 vouchers under lease and
    there are what over 24,000 unutilized?
        Ms. Albanese. We have over 90,000 veterans under lease in
    HUD VASH. We do set aside some vouchers for project-based
    developments and right now when we take the total available
    vouchers for use and then take away those set-asides, we have
    about 10,000 vouchers available for use.
        Ms. Ramirez. Okay. Let me ask you a follow-up question. Are
    there homeless veterans who cannot access the HUD VASH programs
    because they are ineligible?
        Ms. Albanese. There are eligibility restrictions for
    veterans, so yes.
        Ms. Ramirez. Your answer is yes, there are homeless
    veterans who cannot access the program because they are
    ineligible. Let me ask you a follow-up question. If there are
    about 24,000 unused vouchers, we would say, would the End
    Veteran Homelessness Act of 2025 bill address eligibility
    issues for veterans who currently cannot use HUD VASH to help
    us get those outstanding vouchers utilized? Yes or no?
        Ms. Albanese. Yes. The bill does broaden the eligibility
    for veterans.
        Ms. Ramirez. Therefore, it makes it possible for these
    veterans who are currently ineligible to get access, correct?
        Ms. Albanese. Potentially, yes.
        Ms. Ramirez. Let me ask you another question here. Will
    this bill allow veterans who are housed under another type of
    voucher, but need VASH case management to transfer into the HUD
    VASH program and free up their existing voucher for someone
    else in need?
        Ms. Albanese. It would allow the transfer, yes.
        Ms. Ramirez. I worked in homelessness, addressing
    homelessness for many years, so this is actually a very
    important issue to me. I have a couple more questions for you.
        Would this bill make it easier for public housing
    authorities to use other HUD VASH vouchers by allowing them to
    use administrative funds to incentivize landlords to rent to
    veterans?
        Ms. Albanese. We would need to work with our HUD colleagues
    on that. HUD directs the Public Housing Agencies (PHA), not VA.
    There are a variety of reasons why vouchers cannot be leased
    out through PHAs, but potentially it could help, yes.
        Ms. Ramirez. Okay. My last question to you is, would
    helping VA and HUD utilize all the HUD vouchers help
    communities end veteran homelessness, yes or no? Would it help?
        Ms. Albanese. Yes.
        Ms. Ramirez. Thank you. Ms. Albanese, based on what I am
    hearing, the End Veteran Homelessness Act of 2025 would go a
    long way toward solving some of the most critical barriers to
    housing for homeless veterans. Secretary Collins claims to care
    about getting veterans off the streets and into housing, but in
    opposing a bill that directly addresses how the HUD VASH
    program can be used to house unhoused veterans, we can see that
    this administration does not actually really care about
    addressing homelessness. I mean, how do you say you care and
    you are opposing this bill that would help so many veterans who
    currently are ineligible access these vouchers?
        Let me say this, Chairman, to Secretary Collins, not to
    you. I do not know how you can say that you care deeply and
    actually do the opposite. Everything the administration is
    doing will only result in more veterans and their families push
    into homelessness. Anyone who gives a damn about veterans
    should support the End Veterans Veteran Homelessness Act of
    2025.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Van Orden. The gentlelady yields.
        The chair now recognizes Mr. Barrett from the great State
    of Michigan.
        Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it.
        Mr. Van Orden. Directly across the----
        Mr. Barrett. Lake Michigan.
        Mr. Van Orden. Lake Wisconsin from----
        Mr. Barrett. Appreciate that. Thank you, sir. Thank you for
    joining us today.
        I am not sure, perhaps, Mr. Bell, I know you kind of gave
    the opening remarks. Would you be the best person to speak on
    the ASSIST Act and your Department's position on that?
        Ms. Albanese. That would be me.
        Mr. Barrett. Okay, very good. Well, thank you, ma'am, and
    appreciate you joining us today. I know that--and maybe you can
    help walk me through. I know generally the Department is
    supportive, but you had some questions or concerns about the
    issue about nonarticulating trailers. Could you kind of walk me
    through that?
        Ms. Albanese. Yes, correct. Basically, it is safety
    concern. These devices are not necessarily part of a vehicle
    modification. They are separate devices for the most part. The
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not signed
    off on safety for those. Therefore, we are not able to sign off
    on those either. We do have concerns about the safety.
        The other amendment, if I may, is that we do feel that it
    would be better to just define this more broadly as any medical
    necessary device. That way it would give us more flexibility.
    You know, technology changes all the time with prosthetics and
    such and so this would give us more flexibility in the future.
        Mr. Barrett. We do not want to work ourselves out of a job
    here. You know, someone has got to write the next bill for--no,
    I am just teasing you but appreciate that insight and I think
    that is helpful. Appreciate the general support from the
    Department as well.
        On the issue, though, of the nonarticulating trailers, it
    is my understanding that a number of veterans, and I have heard
    from veteran organizations about this, they use those for other
    mobility devices, that they would use a motorized, you know,
    automated wheelchair of some kind or another, a scooter device,
    something like that. They may not have any other way of
    transporting that equipment otherwise. What would be the
    Department's view or vantage point of figuring out a way to
    integrate that need into what we are trying to accomplish in
    this bill?
        Ms. Albanese. I may need to take that for the record, but
    it is my understanding there is other legislation that does
    allow for the non-articulating trailers. Again it would be best
    for me to take that for the record.
        Mr. Barrett. Okay. No, I appreciate your feedback and
    insight on that.
        The other question I had was about the GI Bill, National
    Guard and Reserve component, GI Bill. I am trying to find that.
    I think it is H.R. 1423. Who would be best to----
        Mr. Alphonso. That is me.
        Mr. Barrett. Very good. Thank you, sir. I understand that
    in the remarks you said that you were concerned, I believe,
    about the DOD transferring over records in relation to what
    that would require. Can you help me understand that better? I
    feel like, you know, I served in Reserve Guard component as
    well as active component like many of our Reserve component
    members do where they are activated for a period and then put
    back on, you know, a nonactivated status. I do not feel like
    those records should be difficult to transfer.
        Mr. Alphonso. Right. Our statement is that we currently do
    data transfers with the Department of Defense. It does not
    include this data. Our statement is we would first have to
    contact DOD. We do not--we are not saying the data is not
    available.
        Mr. Barrett. Okay.
        Mr. Alphonso. We are saying we do not know. We have to
    first confirm what is available through DoD, then confirm how
    can they be transferred. We have to update Memorandums of
    Understanding of the sort and then build the infrastructure for
    the data to be transferred and moved into our systems.
        Mr. Barrett. Okay. Well, I have a specific interest in VA
    technology systems, so I can look forward to working with you
    in that regard. I think it is something that certainly is
    within our capability of doing. I hope it is within the
    Department's capability of doing. Certainly happy to press the
    DOD on how we can do that because I think it is something that
    would make a big, significant difference for individuals who
    served, in many regards, on multiple deployments themselves,
    but may not have achieved the specific active component
    segmented time that would add up to their full benefits for the
    GI Bill. Look forward to working with you in that effort as
    well.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Van Orden. The gentleman yields back.
        The chair now recognizes Mr. Hamadeh for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Hamadeh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As an Army veteran and former intelligence officer, I
    understand the critical importance of ensuring our veterans
    have access to economic opportunities and the support they have
    earned through their service. Arizona is home to Luke Air Force
    Base and a growing number of veterans rely on programs like the
    VA Home Loan, Veteran Readiness and Employment, and education
    benefits which my bipartisan bill H.R 1893 seeks to address.
    Many of these bills we are discussing today directly impact the
    lives of thousands of veterans in my district and across
    Arizona.
        My first question is for you, Mr. Bell. As you may know,
    Arizona is experiencing rapid growth, economic growth, but also
    significant challenges in our housing affordability, like so
    many other states. Our veterans deserve stability and security
    in their homes. I am concerned about the VA's Veteran Affairs
    Servicing Purchase Program, VASP, potentially placing
    additional risk on taxpayers. Could you explain how the VA
    justifies servicing tens of thousands of mortgages through VASP
    as a better financial alternative than implementing a partial
    claims program?
        Mr. Bell. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. VASP was a
    last resort option through the time where we saw significant
    increase in interest rates. We had a majority of our portfolio
    that had lower interest rates. We were trying to, at the time,
    the VA was trying to help both reduce monthly mortgage payments
    as well as account for arrearages over a specified period of
    time. It is not the end-all, be-all program to help our
    veterans. We know that there is other loss mitigation options
    and tools that are available and we look forward to working
    with the administration to, one, evaluate where we currently
    are, and then as well come back and work with the committee to
    continue to expand those opportunities.
        Mr. Hamadeh. Well, now currently with President Trump in
    office, we have seen a lowering of the interest rates. Is there
    a plan for the VA to adjust to that?
        Mr. Bell. We continue to see strong performance from our VA
    portfolio. Matter of fact, we are up in every category from a
    loan guarantee standpoint. We are up a year over year in
    purchase and refinance as well as, you know, our comparative
    default ratios versus other programs. We are continuing to see
    VA perform very well against its competition.
        Mr. Hamadeh. Does VASP start limiting its usage when the
    home interest rates keep going down?
        Mr. Bell. Again, I do not want to get ahead of the
    administration and the administration goals as to the future of
    VASP or the future of the program. What I can say is it never
    was intended as the stop gap for all mortgages or a long-term
    program in the home loan guarantee.
        Mr. Hamadeh. Does the VA have the authority to implement a
    partial claim program?
        Mr. Bell. That is a great question, sir. I would say that
    through our current legal landscape, there is nothing in the
    statutory framework that expressly authorizes VA to do that.
    Under the original partial claim program that we had during
    COVID, that was we utilized the CARES Act and the emergency
    procedures that we had in place. Those currently do not exist.
    We would look forward to working with committee as well as, of
    course, with the administration to make sure that we are
    lockstep and how we are moving forward.
        Mr. Hamadeh. Thank you. Mr. Alphonso, regarding the Veteran
    Education and Technical Skills, or VETS, Opportunity Act, how
    will this bill specify specifically benefit veterans pursuing
    online education programs?
        Mr. Alphonso. Thank you. It does add additional--it removes
    some bars that currently exist in statute to some of the
    online. What it does add specifically provisions is that it
    must be--must engage with substantial interaction with an
    instructor. It opens up the opportunity and it adds some
    barriers, some guardrails.
        Mr. Hamadeh. I yield back.
        Mr. Van Orden. The gentleman yields.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from the great State
    of Kentucky, Mr. McGarvey, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McGarvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
    being here today.
        Look, it goes without saying we are in a housing crisis
    right now in this country and nearly half of our renter
    households. We talk about homeownership a lot. Let us talk
    about our people who rent for a second. Those households are
    ``cost burdened.'' That is a really nice term to say that they
    are spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing
    costs. It is really, really something that makes a change in
    their daily life.
        You know, home price has gone up. Supply is not keeping
    pace with demand. This is all to say the little guy is getting
    squeezed out. That is why the VA Home Loan Program is so
    important.
        We know what the GI Bill did to the middle class in this
    country. We know we are in a housing crisis. I think that the
    words ``homeless veteran'' should not exist. We need to do
    something big. We need to think of like a Marshall Plan for
    housing. Bold. We need to build. We need to make access easier.
    We need to help bring the cost down for people who want to own
    a home, for people who want to rent, in particular our
    veterans.
        The Federal backstop for so much of the lending market is
    what keeps this thing running. Today I want to make sure that
    we get these bills right.
        Mr. Bell, in December 2023, the VA issued an advance Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking related to the VA Home Loan Program,
    which to those at home just means the government puts out a
    request saying, hey, we are thinking of doing this. What are
    your thoughts? The VA wanted to gather ideas for how to
    simplify or update the minimum property requirements needed for
    properties to qualify for a VA home loan. That notice was
    December 2023, and I do not believe the VA has issued anything
    since.
        Mr. Bell, can you provide us what are the VA's plans to
    move forward with this process? Can you provide us a timeline?
        Mr. Bell. Thank you for this question. I will say that for
    someone who has utilized this program myself and would not have
    been able to purchase a home at the time that I was able to
    utilize the program, we continue to try to improve it. A lot of
    that has to do with how parental that we really need to be in
    that home-buying process. We want to make sure that we have a
    safe, sanitary, and secure environment that veterans can
    purchase in. We also do not want to step in and prevent
    veterans from being able to utilize a home loan when they need
    it.
        We did go out with an advanced Notice of Public Rule in
    December 2023. With that, we have received multiple responses
    as to how to better align ourselves with other programs like
    Fannie, Freddie, the conventional market space, so that VA does
    not stand alone. We are in the process of doing our due
    diligence through that reg making. The general gist of that is
    how do we help, when we can help, and not be as parental as we
    have been in the past.
        Mr. McGarvey. Appreciate that. In the time we have got
    left, just quickly turn to partial claims. We have talked
    about--this has come up a lot because there has been extensive
    discussion around the VA's authority to implement a partial
    claim program without congressional action. There are many in
    the mortgage and lending industry who strongly believe VA
    already has this authority under existing statute. Can you
    commit to providing a detailed analysis of VA's legal authority
    to establish a partial claim program within 60 days? What are
    your thoughts on this?
        Mr. Bell. Yes, sir, we will be happy to. I will take that
    back with the administration. Again, we are right now
    evaluating, making sure that our administration has all the
    requirements that they need in which to make the decision to
    move forward. We are in the process of doing that right now. We
    certainly can--we will come back with the committee and work
    with the committee on how to get more tools for veterans in the
    future.
        Mr. McGarvey. I appreciate that. You know, you and I have
    not really worked together before, but we get a virtually
    identical answer every time we have the VA here. What we
    really--we really do want the follow up. We really do want that
    analysis. We want it fairly quickly, too. Not to sit on a shelf
    and be studied and get a letter to us in 6 months. We
    appreciate it. Thanks so much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Van Orden. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Hey, this is--I always spout off and say this is not a
    bipartisan committee. This is a nonpartisan committee and you
    are about to find out that I mean what I say. I do not care who
    is occupying the White House, whether it be a Democrat or a
    Republican. We have an oversight responsibility to our
    veterans, not to you.
        Mr. Pamperin, you have been in that seat since 2021. Mr.
    Bell, you have been in that seat since 2022. The answers that
    you gave to my ranking member were wholly underwhelming. Like
    you managed to not answer any of the most softball questions
    you could possibly get. You are completely ill-prepared for
    this committee hearing. Completely. That is unacceptable.
        Let us just bring something up here. Mr. Pappas, I am going
    to apologize for these guys, too. I am not going to tolerate
    that type of behavior toward my ranking member. I do not care
    who is in the White House. Is that clear, gentlemen? You shall
    be prepared when you come to these hearings.
        To be very clear, let me ask you, Mr. Bell, to your
    knowledge, did any member of the DOGE Office direct who the
    Veterans Affairs Administration should release from employment?
        Mr. Bell. Sir, I will have to take that question for the
    record.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. That is what you said to him the whole
    time.
        Mr. Pamperin, to your knowledge, anyone from the DOGE
    Office direct the Veterans Affairs Administration who they
    should release from employment?
        Mr. Pamperin. I will also have to take that for the record.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. This is now going to be called the
    Pappas line of answers, I guess, so. That is just not okay,
    gentlemen. The answer is no. The DOGE office did not tell you
    guys who to release. You guys made that decision, and I do not
    think it was done well.
        Are either one of you aware of an avenue of recourse if you
    feel that someone has been released that is going to negatively
    affect veterans benefits? Are you aware? I am. There is. There
    is a way. If you guys feel for any member of this committee or
    any of your constituents, gentlemen and gentlelady, feel that
    there is someone that has been released from the Veterans
    Affairs Administration, it is going to have a detrimental
    effect on your constituents, just bring it up. There is a very
    clearly articulated way to get them back on board.
        I would like to talk about this VASP thing again because
    this truly is a nightmare. Mr. Bell, how many folks are
    utilizing the VASP program right now, to your knowledge?
        Mr. Bell. Fifteen thousand, around 15,000.
        Mr. Van Orden. Fifteen thousand one hundred and seventeen?
        Mr. Bell. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Van Orden. Then how much money is that?
        Mr. Bell. So, so far, that is about $4.8 million in just
    volume. Again, that is not taking into consideration our--the
    payments for monthly mortgage and interest.
        Mr. Van Orden. What was the original estimate for payment
    for the loan?
        Mr. Bell. I am sorry, sir, can----
        Mr. Van Orden. How much money did you think you were going
    to spend per loan that the VA bought up?
        Mr. Bell. Our average loan amount is around 320.
        Mr. Van Orden. Right. That is not what I asked you. I asked
    you what was the original estimate? It was $292,000, and it is
    actually $321,000. It does not seem like a lot of money, but if
    you run that by 17,000 cases, it turns out to be a lot of
    money.
        How many of these VA loans that you guys bought, how many
    folks have missed payments?
        Mr. Bell. Right now, there is 31.
        Mr. Van Orden. Thirty-one people?
        Mr. Bell. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Van Orden. What are you doing with that?
        Mr. Bell. They will be going through the foreclosure
    process in the particular states. Every State has different
    foreclosure requirements, so we are--again, this was a last
    resort option for our veterans.
        Mr. Van Orden. I understand the whole developmental
    process. It is moronic. You said that you do not know if the
    Veterans Affairs Administration has the statutory authority to
    do a partial payment, is that right?
        Mr. Bell. The original partial claim program, sir?
        Mr. Van Orden. Partial claim program.
        Mr. Bell. No, sir.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. There is something, it is called H.R.
    1815, and that is being introduced today. It is one of the
    bills we are supposed to be talking about instead of this other
    stuff. That is real clear, and I know it because we wrote it.
    This gives the Veterans Affairs Administration crystal clear
    authority for this partial claim. You have got to get aligned
    with the rest of these agencies.
        In my closing seconds here, I am going to say this one more
    time, you guys need to get on your game. It does not matter who
    is sitting at the White House. I know that President Donald J.
    Trump is the strongest supporter of veterans of any President
    in my memory and he expects more out of you. You will make sure
    that when my ranking member is asking you questions that you
    have them at your fingertips. I am going to go back and, you
    know, talk to Mr. Pappas later. It is wholly unacceptable.
        All right. You are excused. I hope you will stick around
    for the second panel. The committee will stand in recess for 10
    minutes to switch.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Van Orden. On our second panel we will hear from the
    following witnesses: Ms. Kristina Keenan, deputy director of
    National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW);
    Ms. Julie Howell, associated legislative director for the
    Government Relations Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA); Ms.
    Elizabeth Balce, executive vice president of Servicing at
    Carrington Mortgage on behalf of Mortgage Bankers Association
    (MBA); Mr. Tobias Peter, co-director of the Housing Center, and
    senior fellow, American Enterprise Institute; and Mr. Will
    Hubbard, vice president for Veterans and Military Policy,
    Veterans Education Success.
        I would now like to welcome the witnesses to our second
    panel and ask them to stand and raise your right hand.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Van Orden. Thank you. Let the record reflect that all
    witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
        Ms. Keenan, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to deliver
    your testimony.

                      STATEMENT OF KRISTINA KEENAN

        Ms. Keenan. Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Pappas, and
    members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of
    the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its
    auxiliary, thank you for the opportunity to provide our remarks
    on legislation pending before the subcommittee. The VFW's views
    on all the bills can be found in my written testimony. I will
    take the opportunity to briefly highlight four of them.
        VFW strongly supports H.R. 1423, the Guard and Reserve GI
    Bill Parity Act of 2025, to allow any day in uniform for which
    military pay is received count toward post 9-11 GI Bill
    eligibility. The sacrifices of Reserve component members have
    been overlooked for decades despite an increase in activations
    since September 11, 2001. Currently, eligibility is based on
    Active Duty service. For those in Reserve components, basic and
    initial skills training, annual training, and drill weekends
    are deemed nonqualifying service. Full-time National Guard and
    certain responses to national emergencies also do not qualify.
        I served 6 years in the Army National Guard. Between
    training, Guard service, and two deployments, which took me
    away from school and work, I had more than 2 years of full-time
    service. I only earned 60 percent of the full GI Bill benefit.
    Had every day been counted, I would have earned 70 percent of
    that benefit. The VFW urges Congress to pass this legislation
    to allow Reserve component members to rightfully earn GI Bill
    benefits for every day served.
        VFW supports H.R. 980, Modernizing the Veterans on Campus
    Experience Act of 2025, to remove the master's level education
    requirement for VetSuccess on Campus, or VSOC, counselors. A
    master's degree requirement is more appropriate for voc rehab
    counselors, VRCs, who provide specific casework and counseling
    for VR&E veterans. VSOC counselors are different. They work on
    college campuses and provide all student veterans and
    servicemembers with support to navigate their VA benefits and
    other resources to successfully complete their education. VA
    should have the flexibility to hire more VSOC counselors to
    assist veterans on campuses. Removing the education requirement
    enables more people, including veterans, to apply for these
    important jobs.
        The VFW appreciates the intent of the Veterans Readiness
    and Employment Transparency Act of 2025, and supports certain
    provisions to make improvements to the VR&E program. The VFW
    supports the provision to require counselors to provide
    veterans with in-person briefings about VR&E services, or
    virtually if the school is more than 150 miles from the
    assigned VA regional office. Student veterans tell us that they
    want more interaction and more information from VR&E counselors
    and this is a good step forward.
        The VFW supports the provision to require VA to provide an
    annual report on the number of veterans who request an
    extension of their VR&E program. This would provide important
    oversight. It could identify veterans who are not making
    progress and who may need to have their rehabilitation plans
    reworked. This reporting could help reduce waste and abuse of
    the program, safeguarding this benefit for veterans who truly
    need it.
        Last, VFW supports the End Veteran Homelessness Act of 2025
    to modify the joint Department of Housing and Urban Development
    and VA Supportive Housing Program, or HUD VASH. This program
    combines HUD's housing choice vouchers for rental assistance
    with VA case management and supportive services. This proposal
    would expand case management for homeless veterans and provide
    assistance with administrative fees, such as security deposits.
    The bill would establish an annual report on the HUD VASH
    program, including usage data, staffing, services provided, and
    barriers that prevent voucher use. It would include a
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the
    characteristics of homeless veterans served by the program.
    These reports would provide important information on the
    effectiveness of the program. Understanding the needs of
    homeless veterans can help us fill the gaps to ensure veterans
    do not face homelessness again in the future.
        Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Pappas, this concludes
    my testimony. I am prepared to take any questions you or the
    subcommittee members have.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Kristina Keenan Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Ms. Keenan. The written statement
    of Ms. Keenan will be entered into the hearing record.
        In accordance with committee rule 5-Echo, I ask unanimous
    consent that Representative Obernolte from the great State of
    California be permitted to participate in today's committee--
    or, excuse me, subcommittee hearing. Without objection, so
    ordered.
        Ms. Howell, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to deliver
    your testimony.

                       STATEMENT OF JULIE HOWELL

        Ms. Howell. Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Pappas, and
    members of the subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America
    appreciates this opportunity to share our views on some of the
    legislation being considered before the subcommittee today.
        PVA members or veterans who have incurred a spinal cord
    injury or disorder, or SCID, experience the breadth of VA care
    and benefits in unique ways due to their injuries and
    illnesses. While our written testimony discusses many of the
    bills before the subcommittee today in detail, I would like to
    use this opportunity to highlight a few that are of particular
    importance to PVA members.
        H.R. 1364, the Automotive Support Services to Improve Safe
    Transportation Act of 2025, or the ASSIST Act, would provide
    technical fixes to the Veterans Auto and Education Improvement
    Act 2022. PVA members worked tirelessly in the 117th Congress
    to secure passage of this important legislation to update the
    VA's Auto Grant Program and the Department's Automobile
    Adaptive Equipment Program, or AAE, to include certain vehicle
    adaptations in the VA medical benefits package to ensure all
    catastrophically disabled veterans can access necessary vehicle
    modifications.
        This is a critical benefit for PVA members. The AAE program
    allows veterans to live a more independent life, to get to
    work, to get to their VA appointments. It even allows them a
    couple times a year to drive to Washington, DC, and advocate
    for themselves and PVA, like several of our executive committee
    members did last week.
        Unfortunately, the current wording in the Veterans Auto
    Education Improvement Act unintentionally limits and, in some
    cases, prevents veterans from being able to make necessary
    modifications to their vehicles. The ASSIST Act fixes this
    language and it will help ensure veterans are able to receive
    this assistance in the way that Congress intended.
        Chairman Van Orden, we thank you for being receptive to
    stakeholder feedback last Congress in regards to H.R. 980,
    Modernizing the Veterans on Campus Experience Act of 2025. This
    bill would reduce the education requirement for a Veteran
    Success on Campus, or VSOC, counselor, which PVA believes is an
    important first step in overhauling the VSOC program. We look
    forward to working with VA and the subcommittee to transform
    the program into something more comprehensive, more accessible
    to more student veterans in the future.
        Finally, H.R. 1793 seeks to improve VA's outreach to VR&E
    participants and codify these efforts for VR&E staff. We
    commend the intent of this bill, but we believe its overly
    proscriptive language will create additional and unnecessary
    burdens for vocational rehabilitation counselors, or VRCs. The
    consensus is that the VR&E program is incredibly difficult to
    contact and nobody at this table will argue that fact. Before
    the COVID pandemic--excuse me, before the COVID-19 pandemic,
    the 1-800 number for each regional office had a prompt
    connecting veterans with the VR&E office. VA should return to
    this practice, which would ensure that staff answering phones
    have a solid understanding of the program and are able to
    answer the complex questions presented by veterans.
        As well-intended as the in-person outreach briefings
    required by this bill are, PVA believes that a majority of
    these could be held virtually. As of February 27, the VR&E
    program had around 1,000 VRCs working almost 183,000 active
    cases. This is well beyond the 1-to-125 ratio which has guided
    program staffing. The program has seen exponential growth in
    recent years and counselors are struggling to keep up with the
    workload. Adding several in-person briefings to their list of
    responsibilities will make it even more difficult for them to
    maintain the necessary communications and engagement with the
    veteran clients they serve.
        Furthermore, the bill says that only a VRC can provide
    these informational briefings even though support staff from
    the VR&E program are more than capable of offering such a
    resource. We would be happy to work with Congressman Hamadeh's
    office to ensure that this legislation fully addresses the
    needs of PVA members and all VR&E beneficiaries.
        In closing, each piece of legislation today can only be
    effectively implemented if VA has staff and the necessary
    resources to carry them out. With proper support, legislation--
    excuse me, without proper support, legislation designed to meet
    the need of veterans will likely miss the mark and could even
    fail. Veterans with SCID and other significant disabilities
    cannot afford to lose the support and services that promote
    their independence and well-being.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to share our views on
    some of the bills before the committee today. I am happy to
    take any questions.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Julie Howell Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Ms. Howell. The written statement
    of Ms. Howell will be entered into the hearing record.
        Now, is this--is it Balce? Okay. Ms. Balce, you are now
    recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH BALCE

        Ms. Balce. Thank you. Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member
    Pappas, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Mortgage Bankers
    Association. My name is Elizabeth Balce and I am the executive
    vice president of servicing at Carrington Mortgage Services. I
    am here in my capacity as a member of MBA. As a lender with
    extensive experience in servicing VA mortgages, I am honored to
    testify before this panel.
        MBA appreciates the subcommittee's commitment to preserving
    and strengthening the VA Home Loan Program, ensuring it remains
    an effective and accessible option for our Nation's heroes.
    Veterans have earned this benefit and it is our shared
    responsibility to help them achieve sustainable homeownership.
        A key priority for MBA and our members is ensuring that if
    a veteran homeowner faces financial hardship, they have loss
    mitigation options that are on par with FHA. Especially in
    today's volatile interest rate environment, veterans deserve
    the same level of protection as other federally backed
    borrowers. Unfortunately, the VA Home Loan Program lacks a
    permanent partial claim option, which is a widely used tool
    that allows borrowers facing temporary hardship to move missed
    payments to the end of the loan. This ensures stability within
    the burden of immediate repayment.
        A partial claim is a proven foreclosure prevention tool
    used by FHA. It would allow veterans to stay in their homes
    while VA and taxpayers remain protected because the funds are
    repaid when the veteran sells or refinances. Despite the
    introduction of the VASP program to address the current high
    rate interest environment--high interest rate environment,
    veterans should not have fewer loss mitigation options. A
    permanent partial claim program will protect veterans and the
    VA. MBA supports the partial claim program in the VA Home Loan
    Program Reform Act. However, several changes are needed to
    ensure the program is workable and provides maximum benefit to
    veterans.
        First, the bill must clarify that a partial claim does not
    reduce the VA guarantee on the first mortgage. If a partial
    claim is deducted from the 25 percent loan guarantee, lenders
    will be left with little to no remaining coverage, increasing
    risk and making VA loans less competitive in the market. This
    could reduce veterans' access to VA mortgages.
        Second, the bill currently requires veterans to begin
    repaying their partial claim within 3 years to maintain a 0
    percent interest rate with a 0.5 percent interest rate imposed
    if repayment is delayed. Veterans should not be subjected to
    unnecessary repayment burdens that could jeopardize the ability
    to remain in their homes. This is inconsistent with other
    government partial claims and would prove difficult to
    operationalize.
        Third, the bill sunsets the partial claim program on
    September 30, 2027. This would significantly limit its
    effectiveness. A longer effective window, such as 5 years,
    would ensure meaningful assistance for more veterans.
        Finally, shifting to VASP, this tool has provided critical
    relief to thousands of veterans whose loan payments became
    unaffordable in today's higher rate environment. While partial
    claims should be the first line of defense, VASP has been an
    essential safety net for borrowers who had no other options.
    Without VASP, VA would have foreclosed on tens of thousands of
    borrowers.
        MBA strongly opposes the Restoring the VA Home Loan Program
    in Perpetuity Act, which imposes an arbitrary cap of 250 loans
    per fiscal year. Rather than limiting VA's ability to assist
    veterans, Congress should focus on strengthening loss
    mitigation tools, like a permanent partial claim so that VASP
    becomes a tool of last resort, not the only option available.
        Another ongoing concern for the MBA is the VA funding fee,
    which has been repeatedly increased or extended to offset the
    cost of unrelated veteran benefits. We urge Congress to stop
    using the VA funding fee as a budgetary offset and ensure it
    remains aligned with the Home Loan Program's mission.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. MBA looks
    forward to working with you to establish a permanent partial
    claim program, improve and preserve VASP as a necessary tool,
    and ensure the VA Home Loan Program remains a strong and
    competitive option for veterans. I look forward to your
    questions.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Elizabeth Balce Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Ms. Balce. The written statement
    of Ms. Balce will be entered into the hearing record.
        Mr. Peter, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to deliver
    your testimony.

                       STATEMENT OF TOBIAS PETER

        Mr. Peter. Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Pappas, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today.
        The VA loan program consistently outperforms other
    government-backed mortgage programs in managing mortgage risk.
    For example, during the aftermath of the Great Financial
    Crisis, VA loans had default rates half the levels of FHA,
    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans after adjusting for
    differences in risk profiles. Even in recent years, VA's
    serious delinquency rates have been half of those of FHA
    despite serving borrowers with similar risk profiles.
        The VA's superior performance is due to several factors,
    including prudent underwriting that incorporates residual
    income requirements that ensure borrowers can afford their
    loans, a veteran-focused appraisal process that reduces
    inflated valuations, and the VA's 25 percent stop loss
    provision which, unlike FHA's 100 percent loan coverage,
    ensures alignment in interest between veterans, the VA, and
    services.
        Despite these strengths VA loan servicing is at a
    crossroads. While no one wants to see foreclosures, especially
    amongst veterans, a system that eliminates foreclosures
    entirely is unsustainable, much like religion without help.
    Furthermore, history shows that government programs often start
    small, but expand unsustainably, the Federal Student Loan
    Program being a prime example. The same risks exist in expanded
    VA loss mitigation efforts. They include short-term reductions
    in delinquency rate may be misleading as borrowers may continue
    to struggle and others that may not need the benefit take it
    up. Increased risk of looser lending standards and greater
    political interference, higher taxpayer exposures, greater
    Federal backing means eventual costs are borne by the public.
        The VA Servicing Purchase Program, the VASP program, has
    fundamentally altered the VA's role in lending in veteran
    housing finance, offering overly generous forms of relief which
    could create a moral hazard and it has shifted the VA from
    guaranteed loans to directly managing them. This represents
    significant risk. It could disrupt the alignment between
    private services, the VA, and veterans. It could disadvantage
    veterans in the long run as the VA lacks expertise in large
    scale loan servicing and it could lead to greater taxpayer
    exposure as VASP defers risk rather than resolving it.
        Similar pitfalls have already played out in the student
    loan program and in 2012 and 2010 the Federal Government
    eliminated private underwriting and put loans on its books,
    leading to uncontrolled borrowing and skyrocketing tuition.
    Then income-driven repayment plans and loan forgiveness shifted
    cost to taxpayers and increased the moral hazard. Remember that
    originally the student loan program was supposed to be a money
    maker for the Federal Government. VASP follows the same
    trajectory, turning VA lending into an entitlement-like
    program, weakening market discipline and increasing long-term
    costs. Given that the VA intends to serve over 40,000 veterans
    through this program, I commend the committee's leadership to
    eliminate expansion by capping VA loan purchases and exploring
    options for the sale of VASP loans to the private sector.
        The proposed loss mitigation option, the VA Home Loan
    Program Reform Act, by are a better alternative to VASP but
    still present significant challenges. Partial claims are
    treated as a last resort, but this could incentivize services
    to bypass traditional loss mitigation and shift risk to
    taxpayers. Front loans, partial claims against the 25 percent
    stop loss, potentially limiting future loss mitigation options
    for veterans, and the 2027 sunset provision helps curb taxpayer
    exposure, but there is no overall cap on the programs, so
    increasing the risk of moral hazard and strategic defaults.
        While this proposal is an improvement over VASP, it should
    not be seen as a long-term solution. The VA's overarching goal
    should be to promote sustainable homeownership without relying
    on government bailouts. The VA Loan Guarantee Program has
    consistently proven to be far more effective in managing risks
    than other Federal housing programs. Instead of diluting the
    VA's successful model to resemble less successful programs,
    other agencies should be learning from the VA's success.
        Furthermore, my research on over 1.2 million Government-
    Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) and VA loans originated in 2006,
    2007, just before the severe stress event of the global
    financial crisis demonstrates that prudent underwriting upfront
    can dramatically reduce default rates even under severe
    economic stress. Ultimately, the VA Loan Guarantee Program
    should protect both veterans and taxpayers while preserving its
    integrity and stability over the long run.
        Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Tobias Peter Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Peter.
        The chair recognizes Mr. Hubbard for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF WILL HUBBARD

        Mr. Hubbard. Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Pappas,
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today on behalf of Veterans Education Success. We are a
    nonprofit organization with the mission of working on a
    bipartisan basis to advance higher education success for
    veterans, servicemembers, and military families, and to protect
    the integrity and promise of the GI Bill and other Federal
    education programs.
        Before I turn to the legislation at hand, the news of
    staffing cuts at VA demands our attention. Echoing Chairman
    Bost's statement last week, we are anxious to understand the
    impact of these cuts on VA's ability to deliver services to
    veterans, especially the GI Bill, as well as the mental health
    impact on veterans who have been dismissed from Federal
    service. We urge the subcommittee to make inquiries to capture
    that data.
        Turning to legislation, we offer our strong support for the
    Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act and express our gratitude
    for the bipartisan, bicameral support of that long overdue
    measure. We do have concerns about three bills on today's
    agenda and the likely unintended consequences of each.
        First, we strongly oppose the VETS Opportunity Act as
    written. It poses very serious risk to taxpayers and veterans
    by opening up the GI Bill to fraud, waste, and abuse that
    Congress wisely excluded in an overwhelmingly bipartisan
    agreement when Section 3680-Alpha was last amended in 2017.
    Past congressional action on this issue was well founded. The
    purpose was to protect veterans from predatory programs that
    lack accountability and often deliver little more than YouTube
    videos disguised as instruction. One veteran told us they
    replayed free web seminars as training and used unqualified
    people to lead classes. Everything they did I could have done
    for free. This bill would open up the floodgates to such
    abuses. We encourage its reconsideration.
        Last, this bill is unnecessary because Section 3680-Alpha,
    subsection A, paragraph 4, already allows hybrid college degree
    and certificate programs at all types of institutions of higher
    learning, including for-profit schools.
        Next, we support the intent of the Reforming Education for
    Veterans Act to protect student veterans called to active
    service. However, these protections already exist under the
    Isakson and Roe Act and the Higher Education Opportunity Act,
    making this bill largely duplicative.
        More concerning, Section 3 would limit compliance surveys
    for multicampus institutions to just one per institution. This
    is a dangerous proposal given that some of the worst GI Bill
    abuses occur at chain schools. Our research showed that from
    2009 to 2017, 8 of the 10 schools receiving the most GI Bill
    funds were at multicampus chains, 7 of which faced law
    enforcement action for fraudulent recruiting and loan schemes.
    Less than 28 percent of their students graduated and only half
    earned more than a high school graduate. By definition, almost
    half earned less than a high school graduate.
        We do support Section 4, which ensures timely updates to
    school certifying officials and encourage its inclusion in
    future legislation.
        Finally, we oppose the current version of the Streamlining
    Aviation for Eligible (SAFE) Veterans Act, which removes key
    oversight measures for flight training under VA's VR&E program.
    Flight schools have a long history of GI Bill abuse. As former
    House Veterans Affairs Chairman Jeff Miller put it, the flight
    school loophole is so big you can fly a 747 through it. This
    bill removes safeguards without adding new protections,
    potentially leaving a veteran without a career path while
    wasting GI Bill funds. We urge the subcommittee to reconsider
    this legislation.
        Thank you for your time and commitment to these issues. I
    look forward to any questions that you or any members of the
    subcommittee may have.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Will Hubbard Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Hubbard. Both Mr. Peter and
    Mr. Hubbard's testimony will be entered into the hearing
    record.
        We will now proceed to questioning. I recognize Ranking
    Member Mr. Pappas for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pappas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hubbard, maybe I could start with you on that last bill
    that you mentioned, and appreciate you highlighting the long
    history of GI Bill abuse that exists and concern around
    removing safeguards. This SAFE Act would allow flight training
    programs that do not lead to a degree to be approved under the
    VR&E program. I certainly support the goal of getting veterans
    into aviation. I am sure you share that goal, but concerned
    about the consequences of this because if a veteran finishes
    the program, for whatever reason the veteran does not become a
    pilot, and there could be any number of reasons why that
    happens, would not these veterans sort of lose out on an
    opportunity to be prepared for a career? Should not the
    benefits for flight training come at least some guarantee that
    there is going to be a job at the end of the program?
        Mr. Hubbard. Thank you for the question, Mr. Ranking
    Member. We would agree and, ultimately, it is not just about
    inputs and outputs, but about outcomes. If a veteran is left
    with an experience that does not give them long-term career
    stability, ultimately, that does not succeed by the standards
    and the purpose of the GI Bill, which is to provide for long-
    term transition. We appreciate your question. We look forward
    to working with you and members of the subcommittee on that
    legislation.
        Mr. Pappas. Thank you. Ms. Howell, I do not know if you
    have any reflections on that particular bill, but I am
    wondering if you share the concerns that Mr. Hubbard raised on
    that legislation and if you can think of any ways that we could
    improve the legislation.
        Ms. Howell. Thank you for the question, sir. You will
    notice that bill is absent in our written testimony. We
    determined not to take an opinion on this, sir.
        Mr. Pappas. Okay. Well, thanks for that. I certainly do
    appreciate your feedback about VR&E generally, just how we have
    blown past the ratios that should be broadly accepted and the
    way that impacts the ability of individuals to get access to
    the support that they need. Certainly look forward to hearing
    more detail from VA on the questions that they failed to answer
    today that we will insist on getting the answers to because we
    know there is a lot more ground we have got to cover with
    respect to having the counselors in place and making sure the
    workload is distributed in an appropriate fashion so that that
    program succeeds.
        Ms. Balce, if I could turn to you next. Thank you very much
    for your comments. You think about VASP, we know that up to
    80,000 veteran homeowners are at risk of foreclosure could be
    eligible for the program. We heard on the last panel that there
    are 15,000 that are currently in VASP. My concern about this
    program, and you talk about this could be a tool of last resort
    here, but if it were to end tomorrow, you could potentially see
    these individuals in dire streets. What would happen to
    homeowners that are currently enrolled in the program were the
    plug to be just pulled altogether?
        Ms. Balce. As far as--I am going to bifurcate that. Thank
    you for the question. As far as, you know, homeowners that have
    qualified were certainly in the transfer program process to be
    a subservicer and I am sure they would move on their way. If
    the program was--VASP was stopped today, the veterans that have
    requested assistance right now their only option is, if they
    cannot do a short-term repayment plan, is modification. At this
    week's rate of 6.75 percent, even if they have got a 5 percent
    mortgage and you are taking care of any delinquency, even going
    out 40 years, you are going to increase that veteran's mortgage
    payment. That is where if we had the partial claim in the
    waterfall that is interest rate different. Right? Regardless of
    your rate environment, if you have got that partial claim as
    one of the first steps in your waterfall, someone gets 8 months
    behind, they can get caught up and resume their normal payments
    without going through the payment shock of a modification.
        Mr. Pappas. You mentioned disparities that exist between VA
    loans and other federally backed loans. Could you talk about
    some of those differences and features that could potentially
    be utilized to assist veterans? Would that, in your opinion, in
    any way be diluting the integrity of the program?
        Ms. Balce. Thank you. FHA has a partial claim program. U.S.
    Department of Agriculture (USDA) has, they call it the Mortgage
    Recovery Advance (MRA), but it is a similar partial claim
    program. Fannie and Freddie have deferrals. Every federally
    backed loan except VA loans have partial claims. When VA did
    release the partial claim program as an emergency method during
    an emergency program during COVID it was used very effectively.
    Yes, the other federally backed loans all have something
    similar. It is only VA that does not.
        Mr. Pappas. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Van Orden. The gentleman yields.
        The chair now recognizes Representative King-Hinds from the
    Northern Mariana Islands.
        Ms. King-Hinds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am very interested in, in H.R. 1423, which is the Parity
    Act, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act. I really support
    it. With just the number of people who are signing up in the
    military or the National Guard in the CNMI, you know, there has
    been a lot of conversation in our community. If you have been
    paying attention to what is happening here in Congress, there
    is a lot of consternation with regards to mandatory spending,
    right, and increasing--and just the cost of that program. I
    just kind of wanted to hear from the VFW because you are the
    voice of so many people who have served this country, what are
    different ideas or recommendations where we can look at this as
    an opportunity to have a win-win to be able to provide, you
    know, well-deserved benefits to those folks who have served our
    country?
        Ms. Keenan. Thank you so much, ma'am, for the question.
    This is about recognizing every day in service. The more that
    our Reserve component servicemembers serve in natural disasters
    domestically, border security, even security around the Capitol
    for certain events, it is to honor every day that somebody
    wears the uniform, that they are receiving military pay, to go
    toward these education benefits which are going to help them in
    the future. It is really safeguarding the future of veterans so
    that they are gainfully employed when they do leave the
    service.
        Ms. King-Hinds. Thank you for that. Speaking of education
    and because you are the voice of many veterans, this question
    is, you know, what are you--can you just elaborate a little bit
    more on the importance of the Veteran Readiness and Employment
    Transparency Act and your thoughts and its importance to
    student veterans across the country?
        Ms. Keenan. We provided testimony in the last couple of
    years of needed improvements to the VR&E program. Aspects of
    this bill we support as in having more interaction with VA
    counselors, the VR&E counselors and the VSOC counselors, and
    the school certifying officials, but also the veterans that
    they serve. These are things that the schools have asked more
    for and students have asked for that as well. We see some of
    these provisions as a step in the right direction.
        Ms. King-Hinds. I guess I just wanted to highlight or
    underscore, you know, this bill attempts to address a certain
    issue. I just wanted to underscore what those challenges are
    and what we are trying to fix. Thank you. Thank you for being
    here today.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Van Orden. The gentlelady yields back.
        The chair now recognizes Mrs. Ramirez from the great State
    of Illinois.
        Ms. Ramirez. Thank you, Chairman, from the generally good
    State of Wisconsin. Just kidding. Just kidding. Great State, a
    neighbor to Illinois.
        I want to jump right in. I want to talk specifically about
    H.R. 1814, Restoring the VA Home Loan Program in Perpetuity Act
    of 2025. Ms. Balce, thank you for letting us know how to
    pronounce your name, I appreciate it. Your testimony was very
    critical of the Home Loan Program in Perpetuity Act. You in
    your testimony expressed concern over limiting the Veteran
    Affairs Servicing Purchase, the VASP program, to 250
    individuals. I wanted to ask you directly a couple questions,
    if you can answer them together. Why is it so damaging to
    veterans? Are you aware how a figure like 250 borrowers was
    determined? Is there an appropriate cap?
        Ms. Balce. I will answer the second one, thank you for the
    question, I will answer the second one first, if that is okay.
    I do not know how 200--the number of 250 was come up with. It
    seems again, very, very low for the number of veteran
    homeowners we have in the United States. It is low for the
    number in Carrington's portfolio.
        As far as answering your first question, as far as
    underscoring----
        Ms. Ramirez. Why it would be so damaging to veterans.
        Ms. Balce. Yes. Right now, you know--look, before VASP was
    brought out, servicers agreed to a voluntary moratorium, most
    servicers did, because we were told a new loss mit program was
    coming out. If VASP had not been rolled out and there would
    have been no moratorium, VA would have foreclosed on tens of
    thousands of homeowners. Again, there is a limit to
    affordability and in a changing rate environment, if you are at
    3 percent going 6.75, it is just not workable for veterans even
    when they want to keep their home. I think with it as the last
    step in your loss mitigation waterfall, it is a needed step.
    Right now, it is kind of the only step.
        Ms. Ramirez. Yes, yes. I am going to skip over here because
    you actually just said what I was about to say here.
        Ms. Balce. I am sorry.
        Ms. Ramirez. We are thinking alike. Without VASP, the risk
    of veteran foreclosures, it is only going to grow. In response
    to this crisis of foreclosure and housing instability, my
    colleagues across the aisle proposed this legislation that
    would severely limit access to VASP. I have a follow-up
    question for you, Ms. Balce. Can you quickly explain what the
    potential consequences would be for veterans and their families
    if VASP was eliminated before a permanent partial claim program
    would be established? What would be the impact on these
    borrowers, the servicers, the overall stability of the VA loan
    program?
        Ms. Balce. Foreclosure. I mean, that is, you know----
        Ms. Ramirez. Period.
        Ms. Balce. Yes, period. That is really where it is going to
    come to. Some may choose to sell their home and may have equity
    depending on when they bought and if they did not use the
    hundred percent. The short answer is foreclosure.
        Ms. Ramirez. Thank you, Ms. Balce. I think it is really
    important to put that on the record and what we are trying to
    do is create housing stability for our veterans, not
    foreclosure. Thank you for that.
        I want to pivot real quick for the time that I have, in
    fact, left to talk a little bit about H.R. 1458. We know that
    it is equally important that we are looking at how veterans are
    being supported in pursuit of their education. In my work to
    restore GI Bill benefits for veteran students defrauded by
    educational institutions, I have heard about programs that
    exploit veterans' hard-earned GI benefits by charging them
    thousands of dollars, which I think Mr. Hubbard, you were just
    talking about, for content that they could have easily found
    for free online.
        Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hubbard, is not it alarming that some of
    these so-called educational programs are charging veterans
    thousands of dollars for nothing more than content they could
    find free on YouTube? I see you nod. I think you say yes. Let
    me follow up with a more direct question.
        Can you explain why a veteran's hard-earned education
    benefits should go toward a unaccredited, independent study
    program with zero quality control? I will let Ms. Keenan start
    because I know you have already shared some already.
        Ms. Keenan. Thank you. I appreciate the question. I mean,
    we are happy to work with your office on finding the right way
    to hold these schools accountable and to provide the best
    educational opportunities for veterans. How that is actually
    done so that it is not overly restrictive, I think there is a
    balance there. We definitely want to ensure that those hard-
    earned GI Bill benefits go toward education that actually helps
    veterans get jobs.
        Ms. Ramirez. Thank you. Mr. Hubbard, 5 seconds. Anything to
    add to that?
        Mr. Hubbard. I will be brief. When a veteran goes to a
    college or program, they expect quality and that is what they
    should be getting.
        Ms. Ramirez. Got it. Thank you. In my 10 seconds, my
    opinion, we need to make sure that we are standing up to these
    Trump agendas that are waging war on our veterans. The bills
    that we are asking to be considered feel deeply and serious if
    they are not actually creating more education opportunities and
    housing stability for our veterans.
        With that, I yield.
        Mr. Van Orden. The gentlelady yields.
        In accordance with committee rule 5-Echo, I ask unanimous
    consent that Representative Meng, Ms. Meng from the great State
    of New York, be permitted to participate in today's committee
    subcommittee hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
        The chair now recognizes Mr. Obernolte from the great State
    of California for 5 minutes, sir.
        Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
    like to thank you and the subcommittee for including my bill in
    this hearing, the Streamlining Aviation for Eligible Veterans
    Act, or SAFE Veterans Act. This important but very simple piece
    of legislation enables veterans, who qualify for vocational
    flight training through the Veteran Readiness and Employment
    Program, the ability to complete flight training through a
    flight school. This will increase flexibility for veterans
    seeking vocational flight training outside of a college degree
    program while simultaneously working to address the U.S.
    airline pilot shortage.
        As we all know, the VR&E program is an important component
    of veterans' benefits, providing services to eligible
    servicemembers and veterans with service-connected disabilities
    to help them prepare for, obtain, and maintain suitable
    employment or achieve independence in daily living. The program
    currently requires flight training programs to be tied to
    traditional 4-year college degrees to receive funding. However,
    most major airlines no longer require college degrees to enter
    the cockpit. The SAFE Veterans Act takes action accordingly to
    remove the VRE degree program requirement specifically for
    flight training programs, helping to put more veterans in the
    cockpit.
        While roughly two-thirds of airline pilots were veterans in
    1980, that number has dropped to only around 30 percent
    currently. Simultaneously, the United States has experienced a
    growing pilot shortage over the past decade that has been
    exacerbated in the post-COVID era. As a result, major airlines
    have resorted to canceling flights, parking regional planes in
    long-term storage and leaving travelers stranded. Increasing
    opportunities for veterans to return to the commercial airline
    cockpit through the SAFE Veterans act, will address the ongoing
    pilot shortage while dramatically increasing accessibility of
    vocational flight training programs for those who have served.
    That is why I am honored that my bill was included as part of
    this hearing, and I am looking forward to working with my
    colleagues on the subcommittee to get this bill to the
    President's desk. It is an honor to be hearing this legislation
    again. We had broad bipartisan support for it when it passed
    out of this committee last year.
        Just to address, Mr. Hubbard, your objections in your
    testimony. You asserted that the bill removes safeguards. I
    would vehemently disagree with that. This is a very simple
    bill. The operative part of the bill is a single sentence. All
    it does is remove the requirement that flight training programs
    include a 4-year degree. I would assert, since airlines are no
    longer requiring a 4-year degree, that removing that
    requirement makes perfect sense because it focuses the
    efficient use of taxpayer resources to get our veterans the
    vocational training that they need for the job that they are
    training for.
        Ms. Keenan, I appreciate in your testimony that the VFW
    supports the SAFE Veterans Act. Could you talk a little bit
    about how this bill brings parity to the flight training within
    the VR&E program?
        Ms. Keenan. Thank you for the question. Since this is an
    option for those using their GI Bill benefits, we think this is
    a reasonable expansion for VR&E recipients. Additionally, if
    between the veteran and their voc rehab counselor, if it is
    determined that this kind of education would be beneficial for
    their employment outcomes, then we see this as a reasonable
    addition.
        Mr. Obernolte. Thank you. I would agree, and I appreciate
    your support.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to
    testify. Thanks for including the bill in your hearing today. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Van Orden. The gentleman yields.
        The chair now recognizes Ms. Meng from New York for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Meng. Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Pappas, and
    distinguished members of the House Veteran Affairs'
    Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, thank you for allowing me
    to testify today. I would also like to thank Ms. Kristina
    Keenan from the VFW and Ms. Julie Howell from the Paralyzed
    Veterans of America for testifying in support of my
    legislation.
        I am honored to once again speak in support of my Fair
    Access to Co-ops for Veterans Act, which would finally allow
    veterans to purchase cooperative housing units, also known as
    co-ops, through the VA Home Loan Program. The VA Home Loan
    Program has been a transformative benefit for service members
    for over 80 years. This program cannot be fully enjoyed by New
    Yorkers who served in our armed forces. In New York City, about
    two out of three apartment buildings are co-ops. If you have
    seen New York, you know, that is a lot of co-ops. Co-ops on
    average are more affordable in New York than condos or homes.
    They offer a realistic way for working class New Yorkers to own
    their place and build equity.
        Currently, a veteran or servicemember can use their VA home
    loan to purchase a condo, a townhome, a mobile home, or a
    manufactured home, but not a co-op. Last year, a recently
    married servicemember in the New York Army National Guard
    reached out to my office asking why he could not use a major
    benefit like the VA Home Loan on New York's most affordable
    housing option. His story is typical amongst the roughly
    200,000 veterans that call New York home and countless other
    veterans in towns and cities across the country where co-ops
    are present, like Palm Beach, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, and
    Baltimore.
        It is our job to serve those who serve us. Let us serve
    them by increasing the accessibility of home ownership to more
    veterans. Let us expand the American dream that the VA Home
    Loan Program helped define over 80 years ago. Let us give
    veterans and servicemembers access to co-ops.
        I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking
    member to get this legislation over the finish line. Thank you
    again for your time and consideration of this matter. I ask the
    chairman, ranking member, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee to please support my Fair Access to Co-ops for
    Veterans Act.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Van Orden. The gentlelady yields back.
        The chair recognizes myself for 5 minutes.
        Okay. Let us talk about this VASP thing again here. Ms.
    Balce, you are representing mortgage brokers. Let us say Mr.
    Peter has a loan and he does not pay the loan back and Ms.
    Howell is the VA. I know, she just crinkled her nose. Let the
    record reflect that Ms. Howell crinkled her nose. Mr. Peter
    defaults on his loan and you are getting stiffed, right,
    because you are out of money. Then that loan is at let us just
    say 8 percent. Right? Then Ms. Howell goes, hey, I got a great
    idea. We are just sitting around here. Let us go ahead and buy
    the loan and reduce the interest rate from 8 percent to 2.5
    percent. Who pays the difference? Because you expect to get
    paid that you lent that money at 8 percent, you are expecting
    that money to come back, right, at 8 percent?
        Ms. Balce. Correct.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. Who pays the difference? Everybody in
    this room. As a mortgage broker, I would be like, yes, this
    VASP thing is the best thing ever because it makes you whole,
    it gets rid of the bum loan, and it passes it off to the
    American taxpayers.
        Let us be frank here, ma'am. If I were a mortgage broker, I
    would say this is the best thing ever because I get to lend out
    all this money and then I get rid of it, everyone else is going
    to pick up the slack. That is what is taking place here.
        Who administers this loan once Ms. Howell has taken it
    over?
        Ms. Balce. The VA subservicer that they have hired.
        Mr. Van Orden. Who is that?
        Ms. Balce. I believe it is PHH.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. What else does PHH do?
        Ms. Balce. They service loans for many other--they are a
    loan servicer.
        Mr. Van Orden. Like who?
        Ms. Balce. Various investors.
        Mr. Van Orden. What is the vig?
        Ms. Balce. Pardon?
        Mr. Van Orden. What is the vig? What do they get? No one
    does anything for free, ma'am.
        Ms. Balce. True. No one services loans for free, trust me.
    No, I do not--I am not privy to the terms of their contracts.
        Mr. Van Orden. The Veterans Affairs Administration is going
    to buy Mr. Peter's loan, make you whole, the delta between the
    interest rate agreed to and the interest rate it is going to be
    at now, and the VA does not know how to administer loans, so
    they hire somebody else out, probably the same people that were
    administering the loan to begin with.
        Ms. Balce. No. Look, I am not made whole. I am--servicers,
    if I am, again, the servicer here, I make money by servicing
    loans.
        Mr. Van Orden. No, you are not the servicer. It is your
    loan.
        Ms. Balce. Oh, I thought it was his loan.
        Mr. Van Orden. Right. He borrowed the money from you.
        Ms. Balce. Got it. Okay. Well, so it is my loan.
        Mr. Van Orden. Right.
        Ms. Balce. VA bought it at 2-1/2 percent, which, again, we
    modify loans in our portfolio back when interest rates were
    down to that all the time.
        Mr. Van Orden. Right.
        Ms. Balce. The difference there, the delta, is just part of
    doing business. His loan leaves me at Carrington, it goes to
    PHH.
        Mr. Van Orden. Right.
        Ms. Balce. I no longer have a loan to make money off of.
        Mr. Van Orden. You do not.
        Ms. Balce. PHH and the VA----
        Mr. Van Orden. You do not have a loan to make money off of,
    but you got the money because the loan has been paid.
        Ms. Balce. I was paid.
        Mr. Van Orden. By the----
        Ms. Balce. There are losses.
        Mr. Van Orden. That is my point, ma'am.
        Ms. Balce. I suffer from each loan that leaves my
    portfolio.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. My point is this. It sounds like this
    great altruistic program and it is not. If I was a mortgage
    broker and I just had a mortgage broker hat on, I would be
    like, let us keep this going. Let us keep it rolling. If I was
    just an American taxpayer, took my mortgage broker hat off, I
    would say this is a travesty. It is, and we are not going to do
    it.
        Mr. Peter, can you expand a little bit between this? I
    think it is very salient. The point that you brought up where
    the student loan program really sounded like a great idea. Can
    you kind of like draw the parallel hill, because we everyone
    can clearly identify, including the Supreme Court of the United
    States, who said that President Biden not have the legal
    authority to relieve these student loans. He said I am going to
    do it anyway. If everybody up and down the chain of command,
    except for the student who is getting this money for free,
    including the Supreme Court, says this is a bad idea, could you
    draw this parallel so that everybody understands the potential
    horrible ramifications for this?
        Mr. Peter. Yes, I mean, exactly. I mean once the Federal
    Government takes over a loan and puts it on its own books, as
    this happened with the student loans, but here happens with the
    VASP program where it becomes--from a private sector loan
    becomes a direct loan on the books of the, in the case of
    student loan, at the Treasury and now here in this case of the
    VA, the guardrails are gone. The Federal Government can just
    say, well, from now on we are going to reduce the payments that
    you have to pay or you just do not have to pay, you know, for a
    certain amount of time or after 15, 20 years your loan is
    forgiven. Once other--in the scenario that you outlined, you
    know, I may be talking to my other friends and realize that
    this is--that they can get the same deal, they may stop making
    payments on their loans as well.
        Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Peters, thank you. I want to be
    respectful of my colleagues time and my time has expired.
        I want to thank you all for attending this hearing and I
    appreciate the discussion today, I really do. There are several
    bills in here that are awesome. There are a couple that need
    some work on it. I want to thank all the members and the
    subcommittee staff for working on this.
        With that, I would like to yield to my ranking member, Mr.
    Pappas, for any concluding remarks he may have.
        Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
    comments and I thank the intention of all the sponsors of these
    bills for trying to think about ways that we can improve
    services and programs that benefit America's veterans. I agree
    with you. I think some of these bills are strong in their
    current form. Others are going to require us to sharpen our
    pencils. I am just really appreciative of this panel's feedback
    and we look to continue to engage with you all in the road
    ahead as we potentially head to marking up some of these bills.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Pappas.
        Just to be clear, I understand everyone's intentions are
    pure. I really do. I also understand that something is broken
    and in the history of when someone lent someone some seashells
    to buy a cave, there was never a VASP program. It just did not
    exist in the history of lending. Okay. I do not think that, you
    know, a couple guys cooking up some ideas during a worldwide
    pandemic maybe I think they may have missed the mark boldly.
        With that, I would like to thank you all for participating
    in this and I received a number of statements for the record,
    which will be submitted into the record as long as they may
    meet the submission requirements. I ask unanimous consent that
    all members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend
    their remarks and include any extraneous material. Without
    objection, so ordered.
        This hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

    ?

    =======================================================================

                             A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X

    =======================================================================

                        Prepared Statements of Witnesses

                                  ----------

                        Prepared Statement of John Bell

        Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Pappas, and other members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for inviting us here today to present our views
    on several bills that would affect VA programs and services. My VBA
    colleagues, Nick Pamperin, Executive Director, Veteran Readiness and
    Employment Service, Thomas Alphonso, Assistant Director of Policy and
    Implementation, Education Service, and from VHA, Ms. Jill Albanese,
    Director of Clinical Operations, Homeless Program Office are joining me
    today.

    H.R. 913   ``Streamlining Aviation for Eligible Veterans Act of 2025''
    (or the ``SAFE Veterans Act of 2025'')

        This bill would increase the number of available flight training
    rehabilitation programs; however, it would remove the requirement that
    flight training must be part of a degree program and would allow for
    the requirement of a certification only.
        VA is still reviewing and assessing the bill at this time and will
    therefore not provide views.

    H.R. 980   ``Modernizing the Veterans On-Campus Experience Act of
    2025''

        This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3697B(a) to, in effect,
    expand the qualifications for professionals who can provide on-campus
    educational and vocational counseling to Veterans. This change would
    allow other professionals in related fields, such as a benefits
    counselors or outreach specialists, beyond rehabilitation counseling,
    to provide these services. By broadening the eligibility criteria, this
    measure would increase the availability of counselors, improve access
    to services for Veterans, and ensure a wider range of qualified
    professionals who can support Veterans in their educational and career
    goals.

        VA supports this bill. However, VA suggests changing the reference
    to ``educational and vocational counseling'' to ``benefits counseling''
    in 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3697B(a) and in this statute's title. These changes
    would expand the pool of qualified individuals who VA may recruit for
    the VetSuccess on Campus (VSOC) program to perform work that VSOC
    counselors already conduct, such as conducting outreach, assisting with
    applications for benefits, and coordinating on-campus services.
        A cost estimate is not currently available.

    H.R. XXXX   ``Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025''

        This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3301(1)(B) to expand
    eligibility criteria for those who are on active duty to include
    active-duty service as defined in 10 U.S.C. Sec.  101(d), inactive-duty
    training as defined in 10 U.S.C. Sec.  101(d), or annual training duty.
    Under 10 U.S.C. Sec.  101(d), the term ``active duty'' is defined as
    those individuals who are on full-time duty in the active military
    service of the United States including full-time training duty, annual
    training duty, and attendance, while in the active military service, at
    a school designated as a service school by law or by the Secretary of
    the military department concerned.
        The proposed legislation would also amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.
    3301(1)(C) by expanding the eligibility criteria for those with active-
    duty service as a member of the Army National Guard or Air National
    Guard. Currently, such individuals are limited to those with service
    described in section 3301(1)(C) with full-time service: (i) in the
    National Guard of a State for the purpose of organizing, administering,
    recruiting, instructing, or training the National Guard, or (ii) in the
    National Guard under 32 U.S.C. Sec.  502(f) when authorized by the
    President or the Secretary of Defense for the purpose of responding to
    a national emergency. The amendment would now define ``active duty'' to
    include: (i) full-time service in the National Guard of a State for the
    purpose of organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or
    training the National Guard; (ii) full-time service in the National
    Guard when performing full-time National Guard duty as defined in 32
    U.S.C. Sec.  101, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air
    National Guard; and (iii) full-time service in the National Guard when
    performing active duty, as defined in 32 U.S.C. Sec.  101.
        Currently, Guard and Reserve service is only creditable for the
    Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit if its service in very limited circumstances:
    on active duty under a call or order to active duty under section 688,
    12301(a), 12301(d), 12301(g), 12301(h), 12302, 12304, 12304a, or 12304b
    of title 10 or section 712 of title 14; or in the case of a member of
    the Army National Guard of the United States or Air National Guard of
    the United States full-time service in the National Guard of a State
    for the purpose of organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing,
    or training the National Guard; or in the National Guard under section
    502(f) of title 32 when authorized by the President or the Secretary of
    Defense for the purpose of responding to a national emergency declared
    by the President and supported by Federal funds.
        The proposed legislation would be effective 1 year after the date
    of enactment. The amendments would apply to service performed on or
    after September 11, 2001.
        Finally, the time limitation under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3321(a) for
    using VA education benefits acquired from the expansion of eligibility
    for Reserve and National Guard members by this bill would apply as if
    the amendments had been enacted immediately after the enactment of the
    Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-252).

        VA supports the proposed legislation, subject to the availability
    of appropriations. However, VA cites concerns with implementation.
    Specifically, VA has concerns regarding data collection challenges
    associated with implementing the proposed legislation. VA would need to
    discuss the additional categories falling under the revised definition
    of full-time active duty and the sufficiency of data received under the
    current computer matching agreement for identifying individuals falling
    within those categories with the Department of Defense (DoD). VA has
    concerns regarding the availability of DoD data elements corresponding
    with information technology (IT) systems and adjudication rules;
    therefore, VA believes that significant collaboration between VA and
    DoD would be required to facilitate the data exchange needed to
    adjudicate automated claims. The proposed changes would require VA to
    make significant changes to the type of data currently exchanged
    between DoD and VA through the VA/DoD Identity Repository and displayed
    in the Veterans Information System. Additionally, the Digital GI Bill
    program would need new rules programmed to calculate eligibility based
    on the new categories of qualifying active-duty service. Based on the
    cumulative effect of these changes, VA estimates that it would take 18
    to 24 months from enactment of the proposed legislation to make
    necessary adjustments.
        Please note, this timeline is contingent on DoD first having the
    data available, compiled, and complete prior to VA implementing
    adjudication procedures.
        A cost estimate is not currently available.

    H.R. XXXX   ``Reforming Education for Veterans Act''

        Currently, members of the Armed Forces (including Reserve
    Components) who are enrolled in a course of education at an institution
    of higher learning using VA education benefits and who receive orders
    to enter active service, inactive duty training, or State active duty
    can withdraw or take a leave of absence from the course without
    suffering any adverse action, such as a failing grade or financial
    penalty.
        Section 2 of this bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3691A to add an
    additional protection that would allow a covered member, after
    receiving orders to enter a period of covered service, to enter into an
    agreement with the institution concerned to complete a course of
    covered education to the satisfaction of the institution. The covered
    member would be required to have completed at least one-half of the
    course of covered education.
        Section 3 of this bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3693(a) by
    requiring VA to ensure that any educational institution with multiple
    campuses is only required to complete one annual compliance survey if
    one school certifying official (SCO) certifies Veteran enrollment for
    all such campuses. This section would also change the timeline for VA
    or a State approving agency to provide notice to an educational
    institution before conducting a compliance survey to not more than 15
    days for an educational institution with a time stamp data base
    collection feature, and not more than 10 days for any other educational
    institution. Finally, section 3 of the bill would define the term
    ``school certifying official'' as an employee of an educational
    institution with primary responsibility for certifying Veteran
    enrollment at the educational institution.
        Section 4 of this bill would require VA to notify SCOs of updates
    to the SCO handbook not later than 14 business days after VA updates
    the handbook.

        VA does not support this bill primarily due to requirements
    outlined in section 3; however, VA supports section 2 subject to
    amendment and subject to the availability of appropriations, and VA has
    no objections to section 4.
        VA supports section 2, subject to amendment and subject to the
    availability of appropriations. While VA supports much of section 2, VA
    disagrees with the proposed limitation that would require the student
    to complete at least half of a course of education to be eligible to
    enter into an agreement with the school. VA believes the school and
    student should be allowed to enter into an agreement regardless of the
    amount of the course the student has completed. As such, VA recommends
    striking proposed section 3691A(d).
        VA does not support section 3. Compliance surveys are about more
    than simply checking that the SCO is keeping adequate records.
    Therefore, the limitation on surveys based solely on the campuses
    sharing an SCO for verification of enrollments creates a significant
    liability that should a campus fail to satisfy approval requirements,
    the deficiency would go unnoticed. Simply because a program satisfies
    all approval requirements at one campus, we cannot assume the same
    program administered by the same school and certified by the same SCO
    satisfies all approval requirements at a different campus. Approval
    requirements for educational institutions include adequate facilities,
    space, and equipment, which must be reviewed at each individual
    location. Therefore, there can be one campus which has adequate
    facilities, space, and equipment while a different campus of the same
    school may lack adequate facilities, space, and equipment. The failures
    of the campus may not be present at the time of initial approval and
    may be only discoverable through a compliance survey. For example, the
    equipment may break or the facilities may fall into disarray due to
    neglect. A compliance survey is necessary at each campus to make sure
    programs continue to satisfy approval requirements for the good of our
    GI Bill beneficiaries regardless of whether the SCO is shared across
    multiple campuses.
        VA has no objection to section 4. However, VA believes this
    provision should be codified in chapter 36 for reference purposes
    allowing schools to easily locate this requirement in the future. As
    drafted, this provision would not be included in the United States Code
    and should be. It would not be beneficial to require VA and schools to
    search for this requirement in Public Laws, if enacted.

    H.R. XXXX   Repayment to Servicemembers of Contributions Made Towards
    Post-9/11 GI Bill

        This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3327(f)(3) to remove the
    timing requirement for VA to refund the $1,200 Montgomery GI Bill-
    Active Duty (MGIB-AD) contribution with the last monthly housing
    payment under the Post-9/11 GI Bill (PGIB). The current requirement
    establishes that an individual must be receiving a housing allowance at
    the time he or she exhausts his or her PGIB entitlement to receive a
    refund of the MGIB-AD contribution. Under this bill, VA would be
    allowed to refund the $1,200 contribution at any time prior to an
    individual exhausting his or her PGIB benefits. The amendment would
    take effect on August 1, 2025.
        VA supports this bill, subject to the availability of
    appropriations. It would allow certain individuals to receive a refund
    of their $1,200 MGIB-AD contribution prior to exhausting their PGIB
    benefits and eliminate confusion regarding the refund of their MGIB-AD
    contributions.
        VA notes, however, that the bill would not remove the language in
    38 U.S.C. Sec.  3327(f)(1) that the refund be provided as an increase
    to the monthly housing allowance (MHA), meaning the earliest VA can
    refund the $1,200 MGIB-AD contribution is with the first monthly
    housing payment after the election to receive Chapter 33 benefits.
    However, some beneficiaries may never be entitled to MHA payments (for
    example, if they choose to enroll in programs such as flight training
    where MHA is not authorized, if they only pursue a program at half-time
    or below, or if they use all PGIB entitlement while on active duty),
    meaning these beneficiaries would never get their $1,200 refunded. If
    Congress intends to allow VA to refund the $1,200 MGIB-AD contribution
    to Veterans who do not receive a monthly housing payment as part of
    their PGIB benefits, which is possible, or to allow a refund prior to
    the next monthly housing payment, it should remove this requirement
    from section 3327(f)(1).
        Additionally, such a change would require VA to make significant
    modifications to its automated adjudication systems. As written, the
    proposed legislation would require VA to implement the policy change,
    effective August 1, 2025. However, VA would like to note that the
    Department would need significant time to implement such IT changes
    after enactment.
        A cost estimate is not currently available.

    H.R. XXXX   ``Veterans Education and Technical Skills Opportunity Act
    of 2025'' (``VETS Opportunity Act of 2025'')

        This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3680A to allow VA, for a
    quarter, semester, or term beginning on or after August 1, 2025, to
    approve enrollment of eligible Veterans in an accredited independent
    study program that leads to a certificate that reflects graduation from
    a course of study that requires regular and substantive interaction
    between students and instructors if it is offered by (i) a post-
    secondary area career and technical education school, (ii) a post-
    secondary vocational institution, or (iii) an institution of higher
    education that is approved to participate or is participating in the
    student financial assistance programs authorized by title IV of the
    Higher Education Act of 1965 (title IV). Currently, VA can only approve
    enrollment of eligible Veterans in an accredited independent study
    program that leads to a certificate if it is offered by (i) a post-
    secondary area career and technical education school or (ii) a post-
    secondary vocational institution.

        VA supports this bill, subject to the availability of
    appropriations. However, VA notes that this bill would affect approval
    of certain accredited non-college degree programs offered through
    independent study, but other important and invaluable prerequisite
    courses for admission into a degree program, such as online remedial
    courses, would continue to be barred from GI Bill approval. Thus, while
    the bill would increase training opportunities for Veterans, it perhaps
    does not go far enough in providing a pathway to GI Bill approval for
    valuable programs while safeguarding Veterans and beneficiaries from
    predatory actors. Moreover, because the bill would not require
    ``participation'' in a title IV program as a condition for approval, an
    educational institution that ``is approved to participate'' but is not
    ``participating in'' the program could avoid the additional oversight
    and protections afforded by the Department of Education.
        A cost estimate is not currently available.

    H.R. XXXX    VR&E Hotline and Outreach

        This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3104 by requiring VA to
    establish a telephone number within the Education Call Center for calls
    about Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E) services and requiring
    regional offices to include a phone number and email address for a VR&E
    point of contact on their website. This bill would also create a new 38
    U.S.C. Sec.  3123 requiring VR&E counselors to attend monthly question-
    and-answer sessions with SCOs. VR&E counselors would be required to
    offer in-person briefings about VR&E services to Veterans at schools
    within 150 miles of each regional office and virtual briefings for
    schools more than 150 miles from the regional office. Finally, VA would
    provide a report on extensions of periods of vocational rehabilitation
    programs, including the number of Veterans requesting an extension, the
    number of requests approved, and the number of requests rejected.
    Counselors would also have up to 30 days to determine if an extension
    could be granted following a Veteran's request.

        VA supports this bill, subject to amendment, and subject to the
    availability of appropriations. VA is dedicated to strengthening
    communication and access to VR&E services and recognizes the importance
    of enhancing outreach efforts for Veterans. However, VA has concerns
    with language throughout the bill that would require a Vocational
    Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC) to perform activities not directly
    associated with executing Chapter 31 benefits. In addition, the bill
    would contain requirements that would be difficult to implement either
    due to staff turnover or resource availability.
        VA supports creating a call center within the Education Call Center
    specifically for VR&E participants. This would require additional
    resource allocation to execute the increased service demand of the call
    center and provide VR&E benefit-specific training to the
    representatives who answer the calls.
        VA supports each regional office publishing a telephone number and
    email address on its website for Veterans to access information about
    services. However, VA does not recommend including a name on a public
    website, as this could pose logistical issues associated with
    maintaining the website due to turnover and the availability of the
    specific employee as a single point of contact.
        VA supports a monthly question-and-answer session with appropriate
    SCOs. However, VA recommends amending the bill's language in proposed
    new section 3123(a) to require a representative from each regional
    office to participate in the monthly sessions rather than requiring
    every VRC to do so, which would significantly limit the VRCs'
    availability to serve Veterans and execute Chapter 31 benefits for
    Veterans currently enrolled in the program.
        VA supports providing informational briefings if the language in
    proposed section 3123(b) is amended to require ``a trained outreach
    specialist'' to provide these briefings rather than requiring every VRC
    to do so. Without this amendment, the bill would restrict the
    availability of a counselor to execute Chapter 31 benefits for Veterans
    currently enrolled in the program. This would significantly increase
    wait times for services and benefit delivery for Chapter 31
    beneficiaries. Outreach would not specifically require a trained VRC to
    provide the informational briefings. Additional resource and hiring
    authority for outreach specialists would be required to meet increased
    in-person briefing requirements.
        These proposed amendments would allow VA to utilize appropriate
    resources for this type of service, which would likely result in an
    overall cost savings when compared with using vocational counselors to
    perform these functions. VA remains committed to providing Veterans
    with high-quality counseling through a combination of in-person and
    virtual services, ensuring accessibility while maximizing efficiency.
        A cost estimate is not currently available.

    H.R. XXXX    Individualized Vocational Rehabilitation Plans

        This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3107 by modifying the
    conditions that must be met for VA and the Veteran to redevelop an
    individualized written plan of vocational rehabilitation. VA would be
    required to redevelop a plan if it determines that (i) achievement of
    the Veteran's long-range rehabilitation goals are no longer feasible
    due to changes in the Veteran's employment handicap or (ii) achievement
    of such long-range goals is more likely under a different plan. The
    bill would continue to authorize VA to disapprove redevelopment of such
    plan if VA determines that redevelopment is not appropriate.

        VA supports this bill, subject to the availability of
    appropriations. This bill would provide clarity and remove subjective
    language, such as requiring VA to redevelop the plan if VA determines
    that redevelopment ``is appropriate.'' It would delineate the reasons
    why VA would redevelop a plan to ensure justification and consistency.
        A cost estimate is not currently available.

    H.R. XXXX    ``Fair Access to Co-ops for Veterans Act of 2025''

        This bill would reauthorize VA to guarantee certain loans for the
    purchase of stock or membership in a cooperative housing (co-op)
    corporation and would require VA to prescribe new implementing
    regulations. It would also require Veterans to pay a fee of 3.25
    percent of the total loan amount for any co-op loan, including an
    assumption of a co-op loan, in addition to the standard statutory loan
    fee.

        VA does not support this bill. Section 2(a) of the bill would amend
    38 U.S.C. Sec.  3710(a)(12) to reauthorize VA to guarantee co-op loans.
    It would constitute a reauthorization because the initial authority
    expired in 2011. New implementing regulations would also be required,
    but section 2(f) would authorize VA to issue implementing guidance in
    advance of regulation. Section 2(b) of the bill would amend 38 U.S.C.
    Sec.  3729(b) to add a second funding fee to be paid by a Veteran who
    obtains or assumes a co-op loan, and section 2(c) would ensure that VA
    could guarantee a co-op loan for more than $144,000. Section 2(d) would
    amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  3704(c) and 3714 to require VA to treat the
    shares in a co-op as residential property, and section 2(e) would
    authorize VA to advertise the availability of co-op loans.
        The reason for VA's lack of support of the bill is rooted in the
    numerous differences between loans to purchase co-op shares and the
    more traditional home loans that VA guarantees. Where the traditional
    loan usually involves the purchase of a residential unit, including an
    interest in land, a Veteran seeking to live in a co-op buys stock or
    shares of the co-op's corporation. VA believes the differences would
    create challenges for Veterans and other stakeholders, risks for
    taxpayers, and concerns for VA that the bill could not be implemented
    as drafted.
        Although co-op housing provides a viable housing alternative in
    certain markets, the unique co-op housing framework is not in wide
    demand, and VA fears it would raise significant cost obstacles for most
    Veterans. Many residential co-ops require down payments or cash
    reserves to join, and when factoring in rising co-op prices, lower
    volume, higher interest rates, and the 3.25 percent funding fee on top
    of the standard funding fee a Veteran would pay for a VA-guaranteed
    loan, the cost of co-op loans could prove prohibitive.
        State-specific classifications of co-ops can also lead to extra
    cost burdens for Veterans. Although the bill would amend sections
    3704(c)(3) and 3714(i) to classify the shares as residential property
    for VA purposes, the new amendments would not pre-empt State laws. New
    York and Florida, for example, treat co-ops as personal property
    because buyers acquire shares in a corporation, receive a proprietary
    lease for their unit, and do not own the real estate directly. The
    state-specific laws can result in legal and administrative expenses,
    both upfront and ongoing, that do not arise in connection with more
    traditional types of home ownership.
        In addition to cost obstacles Veterans could face, they may have
    difficulties finding lenders willing to make co-op loans in VA's
    program, for two reasons. First, originating co-op loans require
    lenders to have more specialized expertise and to take on significantly
    more risk than with traditional home loans. Given the low volume VA
    would expect in VA's program--VA did not guarantee any co-op loans
    during the 5-year trial period that ended in 2011--lenders may simply
    find it too costly or too risky, or both, to participate. Second, and
    perhaps more influential in lenders' possible unwillingness to
    participate, is that the degree of secondary investor interest in VA-
    guaranteed co-op loans remains largely unknown, if not suspect.
    Cashflows for lenders originating VA-guaranteed loans generally derive
    from investors in mortgage-backed securities (MBS). The Government
    National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) is the principal entity that
    pools VA-guaranteed loans into MBS, and it is not clear whether Ginnie
    Mae would accept VA co-op loans into their MBS. Thus, without a clear
    investment vehicle for the loans, and given the complexities inherent
    to co-op lending in the first place, VA believes Veterans could
    struggle to find a co-op loan product that would work for them.
        Another challenge Veterans could face is a co-op corporation's
    default on the corporation's obligations. If, for instance, there is a
    lien against an underlying co-op building project, the shareholders
    take their shares subject to the outstanding corporate lien. The
    subordinate position jeopardizes the security of the shares, though,
    because the shares remain subject to the risk of corporate insolvency
    and foreclosure of the overall co-op building project. Notably, this is
    yet another reason why some lenders are unwilling to make co-op loans,
    as lenders must be able to evaluate and monitor the financial well-
    being of the corporation, and they must subordinate their own loans to
    the corporation's obligations. VA notes the subordination of a VA-
    guaranteed loan would not seem to clearly satisfy the lien priority
    requirements of current section 3703(d)(3)(A), which requires that
    ``[a]ny real estate housing loan (other than for repairs, alterations,
    or improvements) shall be secured by a first lien on the realty.''
        The challenges would not be limited to Veterans, however. The
    unique structure of co-ops would also place taxpayers and VA at risk.
    For example, the foreclosure of a co-op building project would, if the
    Veteran shareholder lost the right to the shares as a result, almost
    undoubtedly lead to VA having to make good on the guaranty. In other
    words, VA would have to pay a guaranty claim, not because the Veteran
    defaulted, but because the corporation did. Also, VA is uncertain how
    the liquidation, possession, and resale of the fractional corporate
    shares would fit within the prescribed procedures on default within
    current section 3732 (giving holders the legal option to convey the
    foreclosed property to VA), leaving it questionable whether VA would be
    able to realize any investment if VA were to acquire the property.
    Furthermore, at a more fundamental level, VA does not support the
    concept of the Secretary, an Officer of the United States, becoming a
    shareholder in co-op housing projects as this could lead to conflicts
    with that role.
        Finally, VA is concerned that the bill would fail to address the
    expertise and resources VA would need for implementation. VA has not
    had authority to guarantee co-op loans for over a decade. That fact,
    coupled with substantial changes in the housing market since 2011,
    means VA is not equipped with personnel who possess the experience and
    knowledge to provide the highest quality service that Veterans, other
    stakeholders, and even VA itself expect of the agency. Additionally,
    this bill would provide no funding to rectify this issue, essentially
    making it an unfunded mandate. Thus, VA believes the agency would not
    be able to succeed in implementing the bill, and this failure would
    come at the expense of Veterans, taxpayers, and VA's already limited
    resources.

    H.R. XXXX    VA Home Loan Program Reform Act

        This unnumbered bill would authorize VA to take certain actions to
    help Veterans who default on a VA-guaranteed loan, including clarifying
    VA's authority to purchase defaulted guaranteed loans. It would also
    require VA to prescribe loss mitigation procedures, establish a partial
    claim program, and report to Congress, not later than 90 days after
    enactment of the Act, on VA's strategy to ensure that a Veteran who
    seeks to purchase a home with a VA-guaranteed loan is not at a
    disadvantage when attempting to secure representation by a real estate
    agent or broker.

        The Department is still examining the legislation and is unable to
    provide comprehensive views at this time.

    H.R. XXXX    VA Servicing Purchase Limitation

        This bill would limit VA's loan purchases to 250 loans per Fiscal
    Year and require VA to report on a plan to sell acquired loans to the
    private sector.

        The Department is still examining the legislation and is unable to
    provide comprehensive views at this time.

    H.R. XXXX    ``Automotive Support Services to Insure Safe
    Transportation Act of 2025'' (``ASSIST Act of 2025'')

        This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1701(6)(I), which generally
    defines, among medical services VA is authorized or required to
    furnish, automotive adaptations. Current law includes the provision of
    medically necessary van lifts, raised doors, raised roofs, air
    conditioning, and wheelchair tiedowns for passenger use. The bill would
    amend this authority to include the provision of any medically
    necessary automobile adaptations, including ramp and kneeling systems,
    raised doors or lowered floors, raised roofs, air conditioning,
    mobility device lifts, non-articulating trailers, ingress or egress
    accessibility modifications, and wheelchair tiedowns.

        VA supports, subject to amendments, subject to the availability of
    appropriations. VA supports these proposed amendments, except for the
    inclusion of non-articulating trailers. If the language omitted non-
    articulating trailers, it would largely match with current VA policy
    (except for kneeling systems, which VA can currently prescribe but not
    actually provide) and would address concerns VA has identified with the
    current statutory language, which was enacted in section 22 of the
    Veterans Auto and Education Improvement Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-333).
    VA's concern is that the current statutory language is too narrow and
    does not provide VA clear authority to furnish other necessary
    adaptations, such as ramp and kneeling systems, lowered floors, and
    ingress and egress accessibility modifications more generally. The
    current statute also refers only to wheelchair tiedowns ``for passenger
    use.'' It does not include tiedowns for the driver's use. By modifying
    the language to refer more broadly to ``any medically necessary
    automobile adaptations,'' it also leaves VA room to include additional
    adaptations as they are developed and proven to be safe and appropriate
    for use.
        VA does not support including non-articulating trailers within the
    definition of medical services and medically necessary automobile
    adaptations. The bill would define ``automobile adaptations,'' and the
    rest of the services listed do modify or alter the vehicle itself.
    Trailers, however, are separate conveyances that are attached to the
    vehicle, often by a trailer hitch mounted to the vehicle. They are
    commercially available vehicles that are fully removable from a
    vehicle, and which require no modification or alteration to the
    vehicle. As a separate conveyance, rather than a modification or
    alteration to a vehicle, trailers as a class of motor vehicle also
    raise independent safety concerns that must be weighed against the
    benefits of transporting items. The Department of Transportation's
    national Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the United
    States' Government agency responsible for developing and enforcing
    automobile safety standards under United States Code title 49 and its
    implementing regulations. Consequently, VA refers to NHTSA and its
    expertise in developing and enforcing safety standards as established
    in regulation and considers it prudent to use NHTSA's established
    definitions to ensure that equipment and installations meet appropriate
    quality standards. NHTSA defines a trailer in 49 C.F.R. 571.3 to mean
    ``a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying
    persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.''
        We do note that Congress has already included non-articulating
    trailers under the automobile adaptive equipment (AAE) program by
    amending 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3901(2) through section 20 of the Veterans
    Auto and Education Improvement Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-333). VA's AAE
    program is a benefit program, by which eligible Veterans receive needed
    adaptive equipment for their vehicles to permit safe access to and from
    the vehicle and safe operation. VA first conducts a clinical evaluation
    of the Veteran, and the Veteran undergoes extensive training to ensure
    the Veteran can safely enter, exit, and operate the vehicle. NHTSA has
    authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor
    vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. VA is unaware of new
    guidance from NHTSA concerning non-articulating trailers and is open to
    discuss with NHTSA if information becomes available. Eligibility for
    the AAE program under chapter 39 generally is narrower than eligibility
    for medical services under chapter 17, so including non-articulating
    trailers under the definition of medical services would significantly
    increase costs to VA without a clear benefit to Veterans.
        VA is working on a cost estimate for the provision of kneeling
    systems.

    H.R. XXXX    Simplifying Veterans Assistance Act of 2025

        This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  2011(e), which generally
    establishes application requirements for entities seeking grants from
    VA's Homeless Grant and Per Diem (GPD) program. The amended language
    would require VA to make publicly available, on an appropriate VA
    website, guidance and best practices for entities seeking grants under
    this section. It would also require VA, after the announcement of a
    notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) and before the application
    deadline, to offer at least two online information sessions for
    entities seeking grants. Each information session would have to last
    for at least 1 hour, include the opportunity for participants to ask
    questions about the grant application process, include an explanation
    of the specific language in the grant application, and provide
    information about other sources of information about such grants and
    assistance in applying for such grants.
        VA supports with amendments, subject to the availability of
    appropriations, and has already incorporated many of the requirements
    this bill would establish.
        The requirement to conduct at least two sessions that last for at
    least 1 hour is also overly prescriptive, as there may not be
    sufficient demand or interest to warrant dedicating an hour or more of
    VA staff time on two separate occasions. VA recommends providing the
    Secretary discretion to cancel an information session if there is
    insufficient demand or interest.
        VA currently maintains two websites with information that includes
    guidance and best practices on the GPD program (https://www.va.gov/
    homeless/gpd.asp and https://www.va.gov/homeless/gpd--
    providerwebsite.asp). VA also maintains several email addresses that
    are prominently displayed to respond to questions about the GPD program
    in general, fiscal questions, and questions about Standard Form 425.
    VA's 2024 NOFO also provides one of these email addresses and notes
    that requests for technical assistance can be submitted by email, with
    responses provided within 3 business days. These current efforts seem
    more accessible to providers than a single 1-hour window during an
    information session. VA's NOFOs typically include much of the same
    information from year to year, and many of the awardees are the same
    from year to year. Additionally, VA tracks requests for technical
    assistance after each grant announcement and tailors future cycles
    accordingly.
        VA does not have a cost estimate for this bill.

    H.R. XXXX    ``End Veteran Homelessness Act of 2025''

        Section 2(a) of this bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  2003(b) to
    clarify that the number of case managers in the Veterans Health
    Administration (VHA) must be sufficient to ensure that every Veteran
    who is provided a housing voucher through the Department of Housing and
    Urban Development (HUD)-VA Supportive Housing (VASH) program and who is
    determined to require case management is assigned to a case manager. It
    would also require VA, in assigning case managers and providing
    services under section 2003(b), to prioritize vulnerable homeless
    Veterans, including Veterans who are homeless and who have disabilities
    (including chronic mental illness, substance abuse disorders, or
    physical disabilities).
        Section 2(b) would require VA, in coordination with HUD, to submit
    an annual report to Congress on the HUD-VASH program, which would have
    to include detailed information on Veterans and VHA case managers, as
    well as the program itself.
        VA cites concerns with this bill. VA strongly agrees with the need
    to solve Veteran homelessness, and VA is exploring all options to
    address Veteran homelessness. Section 2(a) would amend requirements for
    VA and HUD in the administration of the HUD-VASH program. We would
    welcome the opportunity to meet with the Committee to discuss how VA
    and Congress can work together to further reduce and eliminate Veteran
    homelessness.
        Section 3 would make several amendments to 42 U.S.C. Sec.
    1437f(o)(19), the core authority for the HUD-VASH program. First, it
    would rescind the outdated cap on the number of vouchers that could be
    provided in FYs 2007-2011. Second, it would remove the requirements
    that a participating Veteran has and agree to continued treatment of a
    chronic mental illness or chronic substance use disorder. Third, it
    would clarify that Veterans who are at risk of homelessness, and those
    receiving assistance under another housing assistance program if a HUD-
    VASH voucher would be more appropriate, would be eligible for this
    program. Fourth, it would require VA to provide case management to
    Veterans who are determined (by qualified employees or entities that
    participate in a centralized or coordinated HUD entry system) to
    require case management, but Veterans could refuse case management. For
    those Veterans, VA would have to make recurring attempts to engage and
    build a relationship with the Veteran to provide case management,
    solicit feedback, and promote the Veteran's housing stability and
    opportunities to access health care and other VA benefits and provide
    case management if the Veteran subsequently requested it. Fifth,
    neither HUD nor public housing authorities could revoke rental
    assistance solely based on the refusal of case management. Sixth, if a
    Veteran's case management was suspended for the health and safety of
    the Veteran or the case manager, owners could not evict or otherwise
    penalize the Veteran solely because of the suspension. Seventh,
    vouchers could be used for Veterans who are homeless or at risk of
    homelessness who do not require case management if such use is included
    in the notice of operating requirements for the program. Finally, funds
    would be authorized to be appropriated for administrative fee payments
    to public housing authorities for costs of administering vouchers and
    other eligible expenses (such as security deposit assistance and other
    costs related to retention and support of participating owners) as
    defined by notice issued by HUD.

        VA cites concerns with section 3 of the bill. As noted above, VA
    would welcome the opportunity to meet with the Committee to identify
    new ways to address Veteran homelessness.
        VA defers to HUD regarding some of the specific operational
    elements of this section that HUD would administer, as there may be
    programmatic issues associated with some of the specific language here.
        Section 4 of this bill would require the Comptroller General to
    submit a report to Congress containing demographic data on the HUD-VASH
    program and an assessment of various elements of the program.

        VA defers to the Comptroller General on section 4 of this bill.
    Because section 4 would require the Comptroller General to submit a
    report to Congress, VA defers to the Comptroller General. Section 4
    would result in no costs to VA.
        VA strongly supports efforts to end Veteran homelessness, and we
    appreciate Congress' efforts to bolster VA's work in this area.
    Particularly, we appreciate Congress' enactment of the Housing
    Oversight and Mitigating Exploitation Act of 2024 (title IV of the
    Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits
    Improvement Act; P.L. 118-210). While these new authorities are
    critical, 38 U.S.C. Sec.  2016 must be amended to increase the
    authorization of appropriations to ensure no Veterans are displaced
    because of modifications to per diem rate limits.
        We further recommend Congress make permanent the appropriations
    authority due to expire on September 30, 2025. VA proposes to authorize
    appropriations at the necessary amounts for the Supportive Services for
    Veteran Families (SSVF) program beginning in Fiscal Year 2026 and in
    perpetuity. SSVF is an integral component of VA's efforts to reduce and
    end homelessness among Veterans and has contributed significantly to
    cutting homelessness among Veterans in half since 2010. Permanent
    authority supports continuity of these essential services and supports
    local planning by local communities receiving SSVF funding.

    Conclusion

        This concludes my statement. We would be happy to answer any
    questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.

                     Prepared Statement of Kristina Keenan

        Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Pappas, and members of the
    subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign
    Wars of the United States (VFW) and its Auxiliary, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide our remarks on legislation pending before this
    subcommittee.

    H.R. 913, Streamlining Aviation for Eligible (SAFE) Veterans Act of
    2025

        The VFW supports this proposal to provide parity for students
    seeking flight training at certain institutions through the Veteran
    Readiness and Employment (VR&E) program. The law allows student
    veterans utilizing the GI Bill to attend flight training through
    educational programs that do not provide a degree. This proposal would
    allow the same permissions for veterans utilizing Chapter 31 VR&E
    benefits to pursue flight training at similar institutions.

    H.R. 980, Modernizing the Veterans On-Campus Experience Act of 2025

        The VFW supports this legislation that would remove the education
    requirement for VetSuccess on Campus (VSOC) counselors. VSOC counselors
    provide all student veterans and service members on a college campus
    with support to navigate the full range of Department of Veterans
    Affairs (VA) benefits, and the resources to successfully complete their
    educational programs. VA should have the flexibility to hire more VSOC
    counselors to assist students on campus. Vocational Rehabilitation
    Counselors (VRC) who provide counseling and employment services
    specifically for students using VR&E benefits would continue to have
    education requirements. Because of the nature of their counseling work,
    we see this as appropriate. Removing the education requirement for VSOC
    counselors enables more people, including veterans, to apply for these
    important jobs.

    H.R. XXXX, Automotive Support Services to Improve Safe Transportation
    (ASSIST) Act of 2025

        The VFW supports this legislation that would clarify language in
    statute that defines VA automotive support services. This amendment
    would modernize the law and ensure veterans receive the medically
    necessary automotive adaptations for their specific needs.

    H.R. XXXX, Veterans Education and Technical Skills (VETS) Opportunity
    Act of 2025

        The VFW supports the intent of this proposal to require independent
    study programs that lead to a certificate of graduation from a course
    of study to include regular and substantive interaction between
    students and instructors. While this sounds like appropriate guardrails
    for independent study programs, particularly ones that are conducted
    completely online, we would like clarity on the intended full impact of
    this legislation. Input from VA could also provide useful feedback.

    H.R. XXXX, Reforming Education for Veterans Act

        The VFW supports portions of this legislation to make certain
    improvements for student veterans and the educational institutions that
    serve them. First, it would provide students who are called to active
    duty a third option in addition to withdrawing from a course or taking
    a leave of absence. A veteran who has completed at least half of the
    course would have the option of entering into an agreement with the
    school to complete the course. The VFW would support this added
    flexibility as long as it is clarified that the choice would be for the
    student to make, not the institution. This would ensure that the
    veteran could utilize the best option to fit the individual situation
    considering all factors including the anticipated length of the
    activation.
        The VFW supports the provision in this proposal to require only one
    compliance survey from schools that have multiple locations and to
    extend the time to complete surveys from ten to 15 days. This would
    ensure that schools have enough time to complete the surveys and reduce
    duplicative work.

    H.R. XXXX, Veterans Readiness and Employment Transparency Act of 2025

        The VFW appreciates the intent of this proposal and supports
    certain provisions to make improvements to the VR&E program. The
    legislation would require VA to establish a dedicated phone number
    within its education call center to address veteran questions about
    VR&E. Many of the questions that veterans have about the program
    pertain to eligibility for the benefit, program approvals, supplies and
    equipment approvals, and housing needs. VR&E eligibility is assessed
    after a veteran applies for the benefit and a counselor has examined
    the specific case, including the employment barriers experienced. A
    national call center would be able to provide only general information
    about where and how to apply for VR&E, which is easily found online.
    Questions about VR&E should be answered by the veteran's counselor who
    knows about the individual's specific disabilities, employment goals,
    and vocational rehabilitation plan. More resources for counselors,
    including additional administrative support, would enable them to spend
    the appropriate time on counseling. The VFW recommends focused efforts
    to ensure counselors can be more responsive to their veterans.
        We support the provision to require that VR&E counselors attend
    monthly question and answer sessions with school certifying officials.
    VFW members who work at institutions of higher education tell us that
    this would be helpful. School officials want meaningful and regular
    interactions with counselors to ask questions. We recognize that this
    would add more work to the counselors' already heavy workload, so
    administrative support would be necessary for them to have adequate
    time to prepare and conduct these sessions.
        The VFW supports the provision to require counselors to provide
    veterans in-person briefings about VR&E services, or virtually if the
    school is more than 150 miles from the assigned VA regional office.
    Student veterans tell us that they want more interaction and
    information from VR&E counselors, and this is a good step forward.
        The VFW supports the provision to require VA to provide an annual
    report on the number of veterans who requested an extension of their
    VR&E program, the number of requests approved, and the number rejected.
    This would provide important oversight of the program. It could
    identify veterans who are not making progress and who may need their
    rehabilitation plans reworked. This reporting could help reduce waste
    and abuse of the program, safeguarding this benefit for veterans who
    truly need it.

    H.R. XXXX, To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that the
    Secretary of Veterans Affairs repays members of the Armed Forces for
    certain contributions made by such members toward Post-9/11 Educational
    Assistance

        The VFW supports this proposal to provide individuals who paid into
    the Montgomery GI Bill during their military service and then use their
    Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to receive a repayment of their
    contributions. For those students who qualify, this could mean $1,200
    paid back. This would provide greater financial stability to recipients
    while they pursue their education or training. We ask for congressional
    oversight regarding how this could impact those for whom the Rudisill
    Supreme Court decision would also apply.

    H.R. XXXX, End Veteran Homelessness Act of 2025

        The VFW supports this proposal to modify the joint U.S. Department
    of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and VA Supportive Housing
    program (VASH), or HUD-VASH program. HUD-VASH combines HUD's housing
    choice voucher rental assistance with VA case management and supportive
    services. This proposal would expand case management for homeless
    veterans, and provide assistance with rent and administrative fees such
    as security deposits. The bill would also establish an annual report on
    the HUD-VASH program including usage data, staffing ratios, services
    provided to veterans, barriers that prevented voucher use, and
    characteristics of voucher use. Last, the proposal includes a
    Government Accountability Office report on characteristics of homeless
    veterans served by the HUD-VASH program. These reports would provide
    important information on the success of the program and would assist in
    identifying where specific improvements should be made.

    H.R. 1423, Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025

        The VFW strongly supports this legislation to allow any day in
    uniform for which military pay is received to count toward Post-9/11 GI
    Bill eligibility, creating parity for National Guard and Reserve
    members. Currently, Post-9/11 GI Bill eligibility is based on active
    duty service for at least 90 days. For those in the reserve components,
    initial skills and training periods are deemed non-qualifying service.
    Also, full-time National Guard service and certain responses to
    national emergencies do not qualify.
        The sacrifices of these reserve component members have continued to
    be overlooked for decades despite an increase in deployments since
    September 11, 2001. Though they have served alongside active duty
    service members during increasingly frequent activations both domestic
    and abroad, they do not always earn their VA education benefits at the
    same rate. This inequity has been highlighted during the frequent
    activations due to natural disasters, the COVID-19 pandemic, and border
    security missions as National Guard and Reserve members have stood on
    the front lines administering relief and services. The VFW strongly
    urges Congress to pass this legislation to allow reserve component
    members to rightfully earn GI Bill benefits for every day served.

    H.R. XXXX, To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the
    conditions under which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is required to
    redevelop the individualized vocational rehabilitation plan for a
    veteran, and for other purposes

        The VFW supports this proposal to modify the conditions under which
    VA is required to redevelop a veteran's individualized vocational
    rehabilitation plan. Veterans using VR&E benefits may experience
    challenges with service-connected disabilities while pursuing education
    or training as part of their approved plan. This legislation would
    require VA to review the rehabilitation plan annually with the veteran
    and together redevelop the plan if it is no longer feasible due to the
    veteran's employment challenges or if the goals are assessed to be more
    feasible under a different plan. Some of this guidance can be found in
    regulation, but this would codify these provisions into law and add the
    annual review. Veterans using VR&E benefits should be able to redevelop
    their rehabilitation plans at any point in the process, if and when
    needed, to ensure successful employment outcomes upon completion.

    H.R. XXXX, Fair Access to Co-ops for Veterans Act of 2025

        The VFW supports this draft proposal to extend the VA Home Loan
    Guaranty program to veterans seeking to purchase residential
    cooperative housing units (co-ops). Since the program does not
    currently include co-ops, veterans who live in cities where these
    housing options are prevalent are disproportionately affected. New York
    City is the prime example. In that city alone, co-ops comprise almost
    two thirds of all multi-family housing, for which veterans cannot use
    VA home loans. Veteran home ownership in New York City is significantly
    lower than the rest of the country, which is concerning. Other cities
    where co-ops are prevalent are Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami,
    Minneapolis, Newark, Palm Beach, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and
    Washington, DC. Expanding the VA home loan program to co-ops would help
    fix an equity issue for veterans who live in these areas, and provide
    long-term housing stability.
        Chairman Van Orden and Ranking Member Pappas, this concludes my
    testimony. I am prepared to answer any questions you or the
    subcommittee members may have.

    Information Required by Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives

    Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the VFW has
    not received any Federal grants in Fiscal Year 2025, nor has it
    received any Federal grants in the two previous Fiscal Years.

    The VFW has not received payments or contracts from any foreign
    governments in the current year or preceding two calendar years.

                       Prepared Statement of Julie Howell

        Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Pappas, and members of the
    subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) appreciates this
    opportunity to share our views on some of the legislation before the
    subcommittee today. PVA members - veterans who have incurred a spinal
    cord injury or disorder (SCI/D), experience the breadth of VA care and
    benefits in unique ways due to their injuries and illnesses. We welcome
    the chance to share how some of these bills might impact our members.

    H.R. 980, the Modernizing the Veterans On-Campus Experience Act of 2025

        At the end of the last Congress, PVA testified during an oversight
    hearing held by this subcommittee about the effectiveness of VA's
    Veteran Readiness and Employment Program (VR&E). During that hearing,
    we stressed the importance of modernizing the Veteran Success on Campus
    (VSOC) program. For example, education requirements for VSOC positions
    should be reduced. The current statute requires VSOC counselors to have
    a master's degree in vocational rehabilitation counseling. This limits
    the number of people who can perform in this critical role while also
    reducing the number of Veteran Rehabilitation Counselors (VRC)
    available to perform complicated casework for VR&E clients. PVA would
    like to thank the Chairman for listening to various stakeholders about
    how best to accomplish this change, which in turn led to the
    development of this legislation. We strongly support this bill and look
    forward to its passage.

    H.R. 1364, the Automotive Support Services to Improve Safe
    Transportation Act of 2025 (ASSIST Act)

        Many PVA members rely on VA's Automobile Adaptive Equipment (AAE)
    program, which allows eligible veterans to make necessary accessibility
    adaptations to a traditional vehicle. The Veterans Auto and Education
    Improvement Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-333) allowed catastrophically
    disabled veterans to receive an additional automobile allowance, as
    well as codifying certain vehicle adaptations. The ASSIST Act will
    provide technical fixes to P.L. 117-333 to ensure access to the types
    of vehicle adaptations needed for veterans with catastrophic
    disabilities. PVA is a strong supporter of this legislation and urges
    its swift passage.

    H.R. 1423, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025

        PVA supports the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025.
    Today, serving in the military looks a lot different than it did 20 or
    30 years ago. Our guard and reserve uniformed services are being called
    up to serve more frequently; however, they are often locked out of the
    GI Bill due to limited time on Title 10 orders. This legislation would
    allow those serving in the Reserve Components to count their drill
    time, annual training, military training schools, and State level
    orders toward their Post-9/11 GI Bill eligibility.

    H.R. 1793, To amend title 38, USC, to provide for outreach requirements
    for Department of Veterans Affairs training and rehabilitation programs
    for veterans with service-connected disabilities, and for other
    purposes.

        PVA supports the intent of this legislation, but recommends changes
    be made to the text to ensure it can be implemented as Congress
    intends. The general consensus is that the VR&E program is incredibly
    difficult to contact, even if a veteran is assigned a VRC. As the
    program's popularity grows, the active caseloads and administrative
    burdens have been increasing for VR&E counselors across the country.
    Ensuring staff within the Education Call Centers can answer complex
    questions about the VR&E program would be a great first step in
    assisting veterans as they search for answers to a myriad of questions.
    Training and additional resources would likely be needed to ensure VA's
    existing call centers can fill this role.
        In the alternative, prior to the COVID pandemic, every Regional
    Office (RO) had a prompt on the 1-800 menu which allowed veterans to
    connect directly to VR&E staff within the RO. VA could return to this
    policy which would help veterans to more easily connect to their
    counselors.
        Although the VR&E program is supposed to be more than counseling,
    nothing in statute says that VRCs, or the VR&E program is required to
    engage in outreach. To be clear, we support codifying engagement and
    outreach activities for the VR&E program, but we believe the language
    within this draft bill falls short. Over the years, the VR&E program
    has proactively conducted outreach to assist veterans, with much of
    this being done by counselors, support staff, and other VA staff
    familiar with the program. The narrow and prescriptive language within
    this draft bill would only increase the work expected by a VRC.
    Additionally, requiring each VRC to hold monthly meetings with school
    certifying officials (SCO) would further reduce the time available to
    spend with veteran clients. Finally, the phrase ``providing
    counseling,'' limits the types of staff that could potentially hold
    these information sessions. By removing the word ``counseling'' from
    the legislation, other support staff from the VR&E program could offer
    informational sessions to interested veterans.
        Understanding the intent of this legislation, we foresee another
    situation that may arise in the future that should be addressed. The
    VR&E program, when appropriately staffed and funded with sufficient
    resources, would likely hold more information sessions than set out in
    this legislation. In the outreach requirements paragraph, we recommend
    removal of ``each employee,'' again removing the phrase ``providing
    counseling,'' and replacing ``monthly'' with ``quarterly.'' Veterans
    should not be receiving personal counseling in a public forum and most
    of the VR&E staff can answer questions on an informational call. We
    further believe that information sessions held for SCOs should be held
    by VR&E national program staff to ensure the stakeholders on the call
    are able to get answers from the experts. These should be virtual
    briefings and advertised well in advance to guarantee maximum
    engagement.
        As it's currently written, the section in this bill addressing
    informational briefings expects VRCs to hold in-person briefings for
    every educational institution located within the geographic area of
    jurisdiction for each RO, and they are only allowed to offer virtual
    briefings to campuses located more than 150 miles away. Meanwhile, VA's
    website lists more than 3,700 approved schools and as of February 27,
    there are almost 183,000 active cases for approximately 1,000 VRCs.
    That is well outside of the recommended 1:125 ratio for counselors and
    clients. Veterans service organizations and VA have repeatedly
    expressed concern with the workload for VRCs. They already have limited
    time to engage with their veteran clients, so it seems unreasonable to
    expect them to add in person briefings for every school within a 150-
    mile radius. Again, because the draft specifically assigns this task to
    a counselor, only a VRC can provide such a briefing, even if other VR&E
    staff might have the bandwidth and knowledge to offer informational
    briefings.
        PVA would be happy to work with the subcommittee to resolve each of
    the identified concerns so this bill can reach its full potential.

    H.R. 1458, the Veterans Education and Technical Skills (VETS)
    Opportunity Act of 2025

        The Veterans Education and Technical Skills (VETS) Opportunity Act
    of 2025 would change language related to independent study courses as
    per 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3680A, ``Disapproval of enrollment in certain
    courses,'' by adding language that a program must ``require regular and
    substantive interaction between students and instructors.''
        PVA supports this legislation, and we believe this change would
    help protect veterans from predatory schools and empower the VA to
    disapprove programs that serve no benefit to veterans. It provides VA
    with additional causes for disapproval, particularly when courses are
    found to be nothing more than a series of videos or other delivery
    means without any instructor engagement. This could be particularly
    important for SCI/D veterans who may only be able to access schools
    virtually but who deserve the same opportunities and access to quality
    education as veterans who can attend in person. Increased oversight
    would be required to ensure schools are adhering to the law.

    Discussion Draft, to modify the conditions under which the Secretary of
    Veterans Affairs is required to redevelop the individualized vocational
    rehabilitation plan for a veteran

        PVA agrees that veterans should not languish in the VR&E program,
    but we have concerns that the bill as written will do little to address
    that issue. As drafted, the language states a change in employment
    handicap could make rehabilitation more likely. This would open the
    door to additional requests for changes in the veteran's vocational
    rehabilitation plan. PVA would suggest that any changes in the
    vocational goal be based on the veteran's service-connected disability,
    a finding by the VRC that the initial occupational goal is no longer
    suitable based on the veteran's employment handicap, or changes in the
    labor market which make it difficult for veterans to complete the
    essential job functions of their employment. PVA would recommend
    removing ``or'' at the end of (2)(A)(i) and replacing it with ``and''
    before (ii).

    Discussion Draft, the End Veteran Homelessness Act of 2025

        PVA supports the End Veteran Homelessness Act of 2025, which offers
    additional tools to help reduce veteran homelessness. In partnership
    with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the VA
    Supportive Housing (VASH) program offers rental assistance grants
    through the HUD-VASH Program. Section two of the draft bill allows for
    VA caseworkers to prioritize case management for vulnerable homeless
    veterans, including those who have disabilities like chronic mental
    illness, chronic substance use disorder, or chronic physical
    disabilities. It also allows a veteran who is experiencing homelessness
    to receive a voucher if they do not require case management. Not all
    veterans experiencing homelessness require case management and this
    change will lead to increased voucher utilization in areas with excess
    unclaimed vouchers, helping to reduce the number of at-risk veterans,
    particularly those who may have been formerly incarcerated. Currently,
    if an incarcerated veteran is released, they must become homeless in
    order to receive a HUD-VASH voucher, which seems like an unnecessary
    risk for already at-risk veterans. Existing data suggests that this
    change would lead to a decrease in veteran recidivism rates.
        This draft legislation would also authorize payment of
    administrative fees to the public housing agencies (PHA) who administer
    vouchers locally. This would authorize appropriations, determined by
    Congress, for necessary administrative fee payments to PHAs for costs
    associated with administering the voucher program and other costs, such
    as security deposits.
        Finally, the bill requires the Government Accountability Office to
    submit a report on veterans served by the HUD-VASH program. This
    requirement would increase transparency of the program and the veterans
    served by it.

    Discussion Draft, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
    provide guidance to applicants for grants and comprehensive service
    program for homeless veterans.

        Currently, all grants available for comprehensive service programs
    for homeless veterans are required to be published in the Federal
    Register, but searching for them can be a tedious effort. PVA supports
    this bill which requires VA to maintain a single website that provides
    relevant and up to date information related to grants for stakeholders
    who are supporting homeless veterans. Historically, VA has provided
    information sessions for Grant and Per Diem recipients which helps them
    understand changes in the programs. This information is available on
    the VA website, but that site needs to be updated, modernized, and
    maintained to meet the needs of providers.

    Discussion Draft, the Fair Access to Co-ops for Veterans Act of 2025

        The housing market has undergone major changes in recent years and
    affordable housing across the country is becoming harder to find,
    particularly for many Post-9/11 veterans. Co-ops are increasing across
    the country, and they provide an important alternative to traditional
    single-family homes. Co-ops are often cheaper, especially in larger
    metropolitan areas around the country. Allowing the VA home loan to be
    used to purchase co-ops would help many veterans find suitable and
    permanent housing that meets their needs.

    H.R. 1814, to provide for limitations on the authority of the Secretary
    of Veterans Affairs to purchase certain loans guaranteed by the
    Department of Veterans Affairs to avoid default.

        In the aftermath of the COVID pandemic and VA's termination of the
    Partial Claim Payment (PCP) program, many veterans fell behind on their
    mortgages and are still struggling to catch up. The VA home loan lacks
    protections available in other federally backed mortgage products and
    thousands of these veterans have been enrolled in the Veteran Affairs
    Servicing Purchase (VASP) program to help them avoid foreclosure. This
    draft legislation would cap the amount of loans that could be approved
    by the VASP program in the future. While PVA is not opposed to capping
    the number of future homeowners able to access this program, we do have
    some questions about the effect of the legislation. Specifically, the
    legislation references 250 loans per fiscal year. Would this be 250 new
    loans annually or would only 250 total loans be in the program at any
    one time? We believe additional clarity is necessary so we can avoid
    jeopardizing veterans currently benefiting from the program.

    Discussion Draft, to ensure that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
    repays members of the Armed Forces for certain contributions made by
    such members toward Post-9/11 Educational Assistance

        Many servicemembers paid into the Montgomery GI Bill by agreeing to
    have $100 withheld from their pay during the first 12 months of their
    service. This draft legislation would authorize a student veteran using
    the Post-9/11 GI Bill to receive an additional $1,200 to their final GI
    Bill payment as a means of repayment since they did not elect to
    utilize the Montgomery GI Bill. PVA supports this legislation, but we
    have questions about the effect of last year's Supreme Court decision
    in the case of Rudisill v. McDonough. Specifically, if student veterans
    receive additional education under this ruling due to the forfeiture of
    their Montgomery GI Bill, would they be eligible for this repayment
    option? This committee should work with the VA to determine how the
    Rudisill decision may or may not impact this legislation.
        PVA would once again like to thank the subcommittee for the
    opportunity to present our views on some of the bills being considered
    today. We look forward to working with you on this legislation and
    would be happy to take any questions.

      Information Required by Rule XI 2(g) of the House of Representatives

    Pursuant to Rule XI 2(g) of the House of Representatives, the following
    information is provided regarding Federal grants and contracts.

                                Fiscal Year 2025

    Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of National Veterans Sports
    Programs & Special Events--Grant to support rehabilitation sports
    activities--$502,000.

                                Fiscal Year 2023

    Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of National Veterans Sports
    Programs & Special Events--Grant to support rehabilitation sports
    activities--$479,000.

                                Fiscal Year 2022

    Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of National Veterans Sports
    Programs & Special Events--Grant to support rehabilitation sports
    activities--$ 437,745.

                         Disclosure of Foreign Payments

    Paralyzed Veterans of America is largely supported by donations from
    the general public. However, in some very rare cases we receive direct
    donations from foreign nationals. In addition, we receive funding from
    corporations and foundations which in some cases are U.S. subsidiaries
    of non-U.S. companies.

                     Prepared Statement of Elizabeth Balce

        Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Pappas, and members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf
    of the Mortgage Bankers Association (``MBA'') \1\ My name is Elizabeth
    Balce, and I am the Executive Vice President of Servicing at Carrington
    Mortgage Services.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) is the national
    association representing the real estate finance industry, an industry
    that employs more than 275,000 people in virtually every community in
    the country. Headquartered in Washington, DC, the association works to
    ensure the continued strength of the Nation's residential and
    commercial real estate markets, to expand homeownership, and to extend
    access to affordable housing to all Americans. MBA promotes fair and
    ethical lending practices and fosters professional excellence among
    real estate finance employees through a wide range of educational
    programs and a variety of publications. Its membership of more than
    2,000 companies includes all elements of real estate finance:
    independent mortgage banks, mortgage brokers, commercial banks,
    thrifts, REITs, Wall Street conduits, life insurance companies, credit
    unions, and others in the mortgage lending field. For additional
    information, visit MBA's website: www.mba.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I am appearing here today in my capacity as a member of MBA and a
    member of its Veterans' Affairs (VA) Home Loan Working Group. I am
    here, presenting MBA's views, which do not necessarily reflect those of
    Carrington Mortgage in every instance. As a lender with extensive
    experience in originating, securitizing, and servicing VA Home Loan
    Program mortgages, I am honored to testify before this panel.
        MBA appreciates the Subcommittee's commitment to preserving and
    strengthening the VA Home Loan Program - ensuring it remains an
    effective, accessible choice for our Nation's heroes. As such, MBA
    believes the program must continue to offer strong loss mitigation
    options comparable to those available via other Federal housing
    programs. MBA also wishes to reaffirm our industry's strongly held
    belief that the VA funding fee should not be used as a budgetary offset
    for policy-related needs unrelated to the Home Loan Program.
        MBA continues to support the need to establish a permanent partial
    claim program, which is a proven foreclosure prevention tool that
    aligns VA loss mitigation options with FHA and housing Government
    Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) programs. Partial claims help borrowers
    facing temporary financial hardship by allowing them to move missed
    payments to the end of their loan term, ensuring stability without
    requiring immediate repayment. The partial claim funds are eventually
    repaid, either at the sale of the home or the conclusion of the
    mortgage term. Unlike almost every widely utilized mortgage product,
    the VA Home Loan Program currently lacks this critical tool to help
    borrowers avoid foreclosures.
        MBA values its relationship with members of this subcommittee (and
    full committee) - and the House Veterans' Affairs Committee staff (on
    both sides of the aisle) - and appreciates the opportunity to work
    collaboratively with you to augment and improve the VA's loss
    mitigation and partial claim policies. Our association is grateful for
    the progress that has been made through these discussions to date, and
    we are pleased to offer recommendations today to further strengthen the
    proposed legislation that has been noticed for this hearing. It is
    important to recognize that the VA may require additional resources
    appropriated by the Congress to successfully implement the program
    improvements being proposed. MBA is committed to working with this
    Subcommittee, the full Committee, the full House and Senate, the VA,
    and other key stakeholders to develop bipartisan, practical solutions
    that uphold the integrity of the VA Home Loan Program. We look forward
    to playing a constructive role in these ongoing discussions.
        As noted in prior MBA testimony before this panel, MBA member firms
    that originate and service VA loans continue to maintain a strong
    relationship with the agency. The VA Home Loan Program continues to be
    among the most significant benefits earned for Veterans and their
    families through our heroes' service to, and sacrifice on behalf of,
    our Nation. Accordingly, I am pleased to offer recommendations aimed at
    improving the proposed legislation noticed for this hearing.

    The VA Home Loan Program Reform Act (H.R. 1815)

        Though MBA believes the VA already has the existing statutory
    authority to implement a partial claim program, our association
    supports legislation that explicitly establishes a permanent partial
    claim program for the VA Home Loan Program. A partial claim is a
    straightforward and effective solution to help prevent foreclosures and
    is already available to borrowers that utilize other Federal housing
    programs. This option allows borrowers who have overcome a financial
    hardship to move their missed payments to the end of the loan term
    after a period of forbearance through a secured second lien payable to
    the VA. Veterans can stay in their homes with a partial claim while the
    VA and taxpayers remain protected due to the eventual repayment of the
    partial claim when a veteran sells or refinances. By using this tool,
    borrowers can resume their regular monthly mortgage payments or seek a
    modification for a more affordable payment plan.
        Despite the introduction of the VA's Veterans Affairs Servicing
    Purchase (VASP) program to address today's high-interest rate
    environment relative to prior years, MBA believes Veteran homeowners
    facing temporary financial hardship deserve access to a partial claim
    option to reinstate their loan and remain in their homes. Veterans
    deserve a loan program with the same options and protections as other
    government-backed loan programs.
        Access to both solutions--partial claim and VASP--will offer
    Veteran homeowners a more comprehensive set of loss mitigation options,
    ensuring homeownership remains stable and affordable during financial
    difficulties or periods of interest rate fluctuation.
        MBA appreciates the bill's recognition of the need for a partial
    claim but is concerned that certain provisions may have unintended
    negative consequences for Veteran homeowners, the VA, and mortgage
    servicers. Therefore, our association suggests the following
    improvements to the bill in priority order are:

            1. Clarify that a partial claim shall not diminish the amount
            of a loan guarantee to the lender. Section 3 should specify
            that a partial claim is not a claim against the guaranty of the
            existing loan. As drafted, the bill states that a partial claim
            will not affect the guaranty of a new loan. If enacted in this
            form, the bill would create confusion and increase the risks to
            the VA program associated with the application of the guaranty.
            MBA strongly supports the need to amend Section 3 of the bill
            for the following reasons:

                      The loan guaranty is a fundamental statutory
                    protection that mitigates default risk for lenders at
                    loan termination and insures up to a maximum of 25
                    percent of the loan balance, while the balance of 75
                    percent is borne by the lender. The bill, as drafted,
                    defines a partial claim as a purchase of a portion of
                    the indebtedness to resolve a default, in line with
                    VA's existing purchase authority. However, paying the
                    guaranty portion before loan termination - that is,
                    attributing a 20 percent partial claim to the 25
                    percent guarantee to the lender - could negatively
                    impact credit losses for lenders and servicers, thereby
                    increasing the cost to service, constraining
                    affordability for borrowers, and make the VA program
                    less attractive for lenders to participate in. In this
                    case, an initial partial claim paid against the VA
                    guaranty would leave little to no guaranty to the
                    lender to cover future losses in the event a borrower
                    redefaults.

                      Additionally, by reducing the guarantee
                    coverage of a VA loan, a claim against the loan
                    guaranty will also render a loan ineligible for Ginnie
                    Mae pooling in strict violation of Ginnie Mae's
                    Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) guide.\2\ Without
                    clarity that a partial claim will not diminish a loan's
                    full VA guarantee of 25 percent, the lender would be
                    required to repurchase assets from the MBS and hold the
                    loan in their portfolios without an ability to
                    redeliver loans back into a Ginnie Mae security in the
                    future. Independent mortgage banks, which originate 80
                    percent of VA loans, do not have large balance sheets
                    to hold portfolios of whole loans, and could exit the
                    VA program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Ginnie Mae 5500.3, Rev. 1, Chapter 24: For a VA-guaranteed loan
    to be eligible for pooling, the following additional requirements
    apply: The amount of cash down payment and/or equity, plus the amount
    of available VA guaranty must equal at least 25 percent of (i) the
    purchase price of the property or (ii) the Certificate of Reasonable
    Value (CRV), whichever is less. The guaranty fee charged by VA must not
    be included in this calculation.

            Together, these risks will ultimately limit Veterans' access to
            affordable financing. Therefore, MBA recommends that the bill
            affirmatively state that the guaranty cannot be used to fund a
            partial claim and, instead, that it constitutes a direct
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            purchase of a portion of the indebtedness.

            2. Remove the requirement that Veterans repay partial claims
            with interest. The bill currently requires Veterans to begin
            repaying their partial claim within 3 years to maintain a 0
            percent interest rate, with a 0.5 percent interest applied if
            repayment does not begin within that timeframe. MBA urges
            alignment of the VA partial claim with the partial claims
            allowed by FHA and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (two of the
            housing GSEs), structuring partial claims as non-interest-
            bearing junior liens repaid only upon refinance, sale, or loan
            maturity. These changes may be motivated by a desire to
            generate revenue from a partial claim through interest income,
            but the VA will recoup the initial outlay in most cases without
            such an anomalous feature.\3\ Because repayment terms -
            including minimum payment requirements - remain undefined, this
            provision is not in the best interest of Veteran borrowers and
            introduces unnecessary risk. By definition, a repayment plan
            requires a borrower to pay more than their contractual payment,
            which challenges a borrower's ability to sustainably afford
            their mortgage.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ The average life of a mortgage loan is under 7 years, which
    will fluctuate with market interest rates.
        \4\ An interest penalty - while nominal--also creates the risk of
    negative amortization creating a greater financial burden to the
    Veteran than underlying delinquency itself.

            Additionally, creating a repayment plan raises complications
            regarding the treatment of the otherwise performing first lien
            mortgage if the borrower becomes delinquent on the repayment
            plan. The VA would also need to fund and manage a complex
            payment processing operation to collect interest payments on
            partial claims, which could significantly reduce the revenue
            generated under this approach. To avoid these issues, MBA
            recommends defining a partial claim as a subordinate, non-
            interest-bearing junior lien that does not require repayment
            during the mortgage term, similar to FHA's partial claim or the
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            GSEs' payment deferral.

            3. Tie the termination of the partial claim to a period after
            enactment of the bill. As proposed, the bill sunsets the
            partial claim program on a specific date, September 30, 2027.
            Even if the bill were enacted, a sunset date after less than 2
            years limits the utility of a partial claim program to Veterans
            currently in default. Instead, more time is appropriate to
            allow distressed Veterans to maximize the partial claim
            program. MBA recommends the bill sunset the partial claim
            program five (5) years after enactment.

            4. Increase the available amount of partial claim to 30 percent
            of the unpaid principal balance. As stated, MBA supports
            ensuring parity with other Federal loss mitigation programs to
            provide maximum protections to Veterans borrowers while
            creating a consistent loss mitigation review experience.
            Capping protections at 20 percent undermines this goal.

            5. Allow multiple partial claims for borrowers impacted by a
            natural disaster. Currently, the VA can make only one partial
            claim per loan under the bill, which could inhibit borrowers
            affected by a natural disaster from receiving assistance
            quickly to provide borrowers with the space to pursue repairs
            to the affected property. Borrowers who previously received a
            partial claim should not be barred from future assistance if
            funds remain available. Therefore, MBA recommends providing an
            exception for borrowers that have been impacted by a natural
            disaster.

            6. Require notice and comment to implement partial claim
            regulations. The bill permits the VA to issue administrative
            guidance to implement a partial claim for borrowers currently
            in default without following the regulatory process outlined in
            the Administrative Procedures Act. While the intention to
            assist Veterans quickly is commendable, transparency is
            required in the policy development process. Mortgage servicers
            should be provided the opportunity to opine on the operational
            impact of the new rules to their daily processes. Therefore,
            MBA suggests the VA propose renewed regulations within 180 days
            of enactment.

        MBA appreciates your consideration of the recommendations for
    improvement to the bill outlined here. Our association - and its
    members that originate, service, and securitize VA Home Loan Program
    mortgages - look forward to continuing to work with members of this
    subcommittee (and full committee), the VA, and other key stakeholders
    on the VA Home Loan Reform Act.

    Restoring the VA Home Loan Program in Perpetuity Act (H.R. 1814)

        MBA strongly opposes H.R. 1814, which imposes an arbitrary cap on
    the number of loans the Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase (VASP)
    program can acquire and mandates a study on selling these loans to non-
    government entities. This legislation, as proposed, undermines critical
    foreclosure prevention efforts for Veteran borrowers and limits VA's
    ability to effectively manage its loan portfolio.
        Capping VASP loan purchases at 250 per Fiscal Year will render the
    program ineffective. The VA Home Loan Program serves a large and
    diverse population of Veteran homeowners, some of whom face financial
    hardship due to economic downturns, service-related disabilities, or
    unexpected life events. Given current delinquency rates, this cap is
    far too low to provide meaningful relief to the expected population of
    struggling borrowers. Instead of ensuring Veterans can remain in their
    homes, this bill, if enacted, would force the VA to deny assistance to
    many Veterans who would otherwise qualify for relief under the current
    guidelines.
        As this Committee knows, mortgage servicers have worked diligently
    with the VA to help Veteran homeowners navigate rising interest rates
    since March 2024. Through VASP, and following the expiration of the
    voluntary foreclosure moratorium, mortgage servicers have provided
    relief to thousands of distressed Veterans through the VASP program. VA
    should continue working with their industry partners to ensure that
    performing borrowers whose loans have already been purchased by VA can
    successfully transfer to the VA's contractor. Any disruption to those
    efforts will undermine assistance to the very Veterans the VA and
    servicers are committed to protecting.
        Rather than restricting VA's authority, MBA believes that Congress
    should prioritize strengthening the agency's set of foreclosure
    prevention tools. A more constructive approach (in keeping with our
    prior comments) would be to establish a permanent partial claim
    program, which is a more effective and widely used foreclosure
    prevention tool available in other Federal loan programs, ensuring that
    VASP or similarly structured programs would be tools of last resort.

    Fair Access to Co-ops for Veterans Act (H.R. 1803)

        MBA appreciates the intent of H.R. 1803, which seeks to expand
    homeownership opportunities for Veterans by permanently authorizing VA-
    backed cooperative (co-op) loans. Ensuring Veterans have access to a
    broad range of housing options is an important goal, and our
    association's members recognize that co-ops are a viable homeownership
    model in many markets. The bill's removal of the outdated $144,000 loan
    cap is a necessary improvement that will help make this benefit more
    widely utilized.
        However, MBA remains concerned about several key provisions that
    could limit lender participation and borrower access. The bill imposes
    an additional 3.25 percent funding fee on VA-backed co-op loans,
    significantly increasing costs for Veterans. MBA urges the subcommittee
    to reconsider this fee, as it could discourage use of the program and
    make co-op loans less competitive.
        Unlike traditional VA loans, co-ops do not provide direct title
    ownership in real estate. The bill does not resolve how VA will handle
    foreclosures, co-op project failures, or competing liens that may take
    priority over a Veteran's interest. MBA recommends further statutory
    clarity to ensure both borrowers and lenders are protected. This bill
    also does not address whether Ginnie Mae will securitize VA-backed co-
    op loans, which would impact lender participation. Without this
    clarity, the law's enactment may fail to provide meaningful benefits.
        While MBA does not oppose expanding co-op eligibility for Veterans,
    our members would encourage Congress to refine the bill as it moves
    forward to address these outstanding concerns. Our members appreciate
    the opportunity to provide input on this proposed legislation.

    Other Potential Policy Options

    VA Funding Fees

        MBA remains concerned about the repeated use of VA home loan
    funding fee increases to pay for non-housing related Veterans'
    benefits. As Congress considers several wide-ranging pieces of
    legislation that would expand or alter Veteran benefits across a range
    of programs, I want to make clear that MBA opposes legislation that
    increases or extends VA funding fees to offset the costs associated
    with new and/or unrelated expenditures.
        Simply stated, these funding fee increases and extensions are not
    tied to the actual credit risks of Veteran homebuyers. If that were the
    case, the actual funding fee would be a fraction of where it currently
    sits today, meaning that far more Veterans would be able to qualify to
    purchase a home. As a result of prior funding fee hikes for unrelated
    non-housing benefits, many Veterans cannot afford homeownership today.
    Those who can access the benefit today are paying far more - in the
    midst of a housing affordability crisis - to help subsidize other
    Federal programs.
        MBA feels strongly that these continued increases and extensions of
    previous increases severely threaten the VA home loan program. While
    any individual funding fee increase may be small, the cumulative impact
    of the many hikes and extensions over the past decade is worrisome and
    significant. Our members recognize that in many instances the funds
    diverted from the home loan program fund worthy and important
    initiatives, but firmly believe that Congress should fund that work
    separately rather than diminish the strength of the home loan program
    to achieve those ends.
        MBA urges Congress to work with the Trump administration to ensure
    that VA funding fees are set at levels commensurate with the default
    risks associated with VA-guaranteed home lending. Congress should
    conduct appropriate oversight and analysis of past funding fee
    increases before simply defaulting to the practice of levying further
    increases or extensions.

    NAR Litigation Settlement Impacts on VA Borrowers

        The National Association of Realtors (NAR) entered an agreement to
    settle numerous class action lawsuits alleging violations of antitrust
    law. The terms of NAR's settlement agreement that were implemented last
    August and approved by the court in November included industry practice
    changes that impacted the setting and payment of buyer-agent
    commissions. In some transactions, sellers may choose not to pay buyer
    broker compensation - particularly if competing buyers are offering to
    cover the cost themselves. As the implementation date approached, the
    VA temporarily lifted its longstanding policy that prohibited Veterans
    from paying fees or commissions to real estate agents or brokers in
    relation to a VA home loan.
        Without the ability to potentially match competing offers that
    cover buyer agent commissions, Veteran borrowers faced a significant
    disadvantage. MBA appreciates VA's temporary measure addressing this
    prohibition. Accordingly, our association urges the VA to permanently
    amend its regulations as written in its temporary suspension to allow
    Veteran borrowers to pay reasonable and customary fees and commissions
    to retain agents that will represent their interests in the
    transaction.

    Drafting Table

        As we have noted in prior testimony before this Subcommittee, MBA
    encourages Congress to ensure the VA has the necessary resources to
    implement a permanent public input process for developing new lending
    and servicing policies before implementation is required. Creating a
    ``Drafting Table'' similar to FHA's for interested stakeholders would
    enable the VA to gather thoughtful comments on the impact of policy
    changes on lenders' and servicers' operations before implementation and
    enforcement. Enhancing transparency and collaboration in policy
    development will help ensure that VA's mission is achieved, leading to
    a more efficient mortgage program and improved outcomes for Veterans.

                                    *  *  *

    Conclusion

        Once again, MBA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the many
    critical issues that impact the VA Home Loan Program, including the
    specific legislation noticed for this hearing today. Our association
    and its members value our partnership with Congress and the VA on these
    issues - and continue to embrace our shared mission of helping Veterans
    utilize their hard-earned benefit to achieve homeownership.
        Our association looks forward to continuing to work with the
    members of this Subcommittee - and the full Committee - to help forge
    practical solutions such as the legislation to establish a permanent
    partial claim option to help distressed VA borrowers. MBA also looks
    forward to working with Congress to help provide the VA with the
    resources necessary to implement changes and improve the delivery of
    the Home Loan Program benefit to our Nation's heroes.
        I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

                       Prepared Statement of Tobias Peter
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.042

                       Prepared Statement of Will Hubbard
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.053

                           Statements for the Record

                                  ----------

          Prepared Statement of National Alliance to End Homelessness
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.055

    Prepared Statement of BraunAbility and the National Mobility Equipment
                              Dealers Association
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.057

                     Prepared Statement of Freedom Mortgage

        Freedom Mortgage appreciates the opportunity to provide a Statement
    for the Record for this legislative hearing of the Subcommittee on
    Economic Opportunity. Freedom Mortgage is one of the largest mortgage
    originators and servicers in the United States. We serve over 2.5
    million consumers across all U.S. states and territories (630,000 VA
    customers) and manage a mortgage servicing book with over $630 billion
    in unpaid principal balances ($180 billion for VA customers). Our
    mission is to foster homeownership across the markets we serve and
    maintain our customers for life. This mission continues to position us
    as one of the largest VA Home Loan program originators and servicers
    every year. Today's hearing raises important policy issues and
    legislative proposals related to servicing the mortgages of veterans
    and active-duty service members.
        Importantly, this Subcommittee is studying the tools mortgage
    servicers have to sustainably keep Veterans and active-duty service
    members in their homes when they are facing episodic financial hardship
    and, ultimately, prevent avoidable foreclosure. The VA Home Loan
    program guidelines, as published through VA rulemaking and in its
    servicing guidelines in VA Servicer Handbook M26-4, outline steps
    mortgage servicers may take, and programs they may utilize, under the
    process known as loss mitigation. Generally, loss mitigation
    discussions occur with a borrower when they are either delinquent on
    payments, in a forbearance plan, impacted by a natural disaster, or
    otherwise facing financial hardship. Servicers proceed through a
    ``waterfall'' of options, governed by VA Home Loan program regulations
    and guidance. Every borrower's circumstance is unique, and some loss
    mitigation steps or programs may work for one borrower, but not solve
    the problem for another borrower. At a high level, Freedom Mortgage
    supports the VA Department and this Committee in offering as many loss
    mitigation tools as possible to help sustainably avoid foreclosure, the
    costliest of all outcomes for all stakeholders: Veterans, servicers,
    investors, and communities. Maximum optionality to assist struggling
    borrowers helps achieve our shared goal of keeping Veterans and active-
    duty service members in their homes, when appropriate.
        Today, this Subcommittee is discussing two important loss
    mitigation concepts in the VA Home Loan program. First, a ``Partial
    Claim Program,'' which would enable a borrower to place their arrearage
    on the back end of their mortgage as a silent second mortgage. The
    second concept is the scope and functionality of the existing VA
    servicing purchase programs, including the VA Servicing Purchase
    Program (VASP), which is currently in place at the VA Department.
    Before sharing our views on each program, Freedom Mortgage would like
    to highlight the important context of the financial hardship affecting
    many Veterans and active-duty service member borrowers.
        During the COVID-19 health emergency, and following economic
    disruption, Congress passed sweeping bipartisan Federal assistance
    through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (``CARES'')
    Act. Notably, the CARES Act authorized broad-based mortgage forbearance
    assistance for borrowers who were impacted by COVID-19. This
    forbearance assistance was structured to give impacted borrowers
    payment relief during the duration of the national emergency. Many
    hundreds of thousands of borrowers, nationally, utilized this
    assistance to meet their economic hardship. While this assistance was
    needed during the national emergency, it did present long-term
    complications for borrowers who stayed in forbearance for an extended
    period of time (up to 18 months), or who may be in other types of
    forbearance arrangements. For example, when payments resumed, many
    borrowers were still faced with challenging personal economic hardships
    but without a loss mitigation solution that fit their needs.
        Turning to the specific concepts being considered by this
    Subcommittee.

    Partial Claim

        Freedom Mortgage supports the adoption of a partial claim program
    within the VA Home Loan program loss mitigation waterfall. As this
    Subcommittee knows, the VA Department operationalized a temporary
    COVID-19 Partial Claim program, ending in October 2022 after running
    into budgetary challenges. A partial claim option allows many borrowers
    who have significant arrearage due to forbearance to resume their
    existing mortgage payments. The added benefit of this option is
    minimizing disruption to the capital markets. Having a partial claim
    program will also allow Veterans and active-duty service members to
    have loss mitigation options on par with their peer borrowers in the
    FHA program, which maintains a successful partial claim program.
    Freedom Mortgage supports the discussion draft legislation on partial
    claims and has shared specific ideas with this Subcommittee in its
    development. We look forward to continued conversations to refine the
    program and see it implemented into law.

    VASP

        Freedom Mortgage encourages the VA Department to maintain the
    Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase (``VASP'') program as a last-resort
    option in its loss-mitigation waterfall, especially with the current
    absence of an operationalized partial claim program. Freedom Mortgage,
    like many servicers, engaged with the VA Department in providing input
    as the VA created VASP. We recognize that any government program can
    always be improved for cost-effectiveness, public-private risk-sharing
    dynamics, and policy and timing clarity to market participants. Without
    question, VASP should continue to be reviewed to make it more effective
    and efficient, going forward. However, Freedom Mortgage is concerned
    that if VASP were significantly scaled back, or eliminated, then
    servicers would have very limited tools to help struggling borrowers
    stay in their homes, and the market may ultimately see an uptick in
    foreclosures. As noted above, the last thing Freedom Mortgage wants to
    do is initiate a preventable foreclosure and preserving loss mitigation
    tools is one proven way of preventing them. Freedom Mortgage looks
    forward to working with this Committee on helping to refine VASP to
    make it more effective and efficient for borrowers, servicers, and
    taxpayers.

    Conclusion

        Freedom Mortgage is supportive of the ongoing enhancement of loss
    mitigation options for the VA Home Loan program and its Veteran and
    active-service member beneficiaries, bringing its permanent,
    sustainable solutions on par with other Federal agency insurance and
    guarantee programs. We believe that the authorization and
    implementation of permanent VA Partial Claim Program will be an
    effective tool in providing a sustainable foreclosure avoidance option
    for VA borrowers, and will be a complement to VASP, which would reduce
    the number of borrowers utilizing a VASP solution.
        Thank you for the opportunity to engage in this important debate.
    We applaud all in studying these critical housing issues that our
    Veterans and active-duty servicemembers face. We take our
    responsibility for our VA customers seriously, and we look forward to
    helping further the policy dialog to ensure a robust VA Home Loan
    program.

               Prepared Statement of National Consumer Law Center
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Prepared Statement of National Association of Veterans Program
                                 Administrators
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Prepared Statement of Student Veterans of America
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                Prepared Statement of Veterans Education Project
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]