[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]