[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},"mediaId",6286201,"mediaKeyId","2563920-4353da3e29fc6b79ae39d8913a73ca44","parentId",2563920,"title","House veterans subcommittee grills VA and industry on VASP, partial-claim options and taxpayer risk","audioSeconds",5965,"startMs",808000,"endMs",6773000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2563920-4353da3e29fc6b79ae39d8913a73ca44&start=808&end=6773","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2563920-4353da3e29fc6b79ae39d8913a73ca44/thumbnail_808000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6286201/House-veterans-subcommittee-grills-VA-and-industry-on-VASP-partial-claim-options-and-taxpayer-risk","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6286201-6bf8f0cd61794cb9c4a8c3fc57e4562b/orig.mp4?Expires=1775552482&Signature=KXuJlSJRMPG96TiV-LAjIB2Cv~0PELkSBwkg9d0XVDcE9DeoI5PbGiflqF67Z8ZWmda6IDu2kQDILiZQ9Y6K9OklHrSPcmlZ2VDJPx0SuFqlIvwTOeGzw3GTYdag~jtg~gr9n7qQ2kDf7o~MMSVBIUCUeTXpQ1mhYXCAJd0UidVG226XM6d3J5oszZpT2FsH68fw8O92QrdGXnRhz4wG1MEXrfpqbS9dXfYVUIcQfayGI8EjpjG-AfQQCUg4jqnSaebuMv01XdlO5haVuV6KqSTS-dkT4Mt9jZRA6ZEv~4O3shJaFUPGqMogYfA7ezojHEXchOtZFwgL4LWkLGarXA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","U.S. House Committee on Veterans' Affairs","date","2025-03-12T04:09:13Z","article","House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee members questioned Department of Veterans Affairs officials and mortgage-industry witnesses about the scope and risks of the VA Servicing Purchase Program, or VASP, and whether the department should adopt a permanent partial-claim option to prevent foreclosures.

The discussion matters because tens of thousands of VA-backed borrowers face higher mortgage costs in a rising-rate environment, and the choice of relief tools affects both how many veterans keep homes and the size of taxpayer exposure.

VA witnesses said VASP was a last-resort tool deployed during a period of sharply higher rates, and that the department is evaluating other loss-mitigation options. ‘‘We have 15,000 veterans that are in the VASP program,’’ John Bell, executive director for loan-guarantee services at the Department of Veterans Affairs, told the subcommittee. Industry witnesses and some lawmakers urged adoption of a permanent partial-claim program instead, arguing it would better preserve homeownership while limiting taxpayer risk.

Mortgage bankers said partial claims allow missed payments to be moved to the end of a loan without changing the borrower's interest rate, reducing payment shock if rates fall later. ‘‘A partial claim is a proven foreclosure-prevention tool used by FHA,’’ Elizabeth Balcay, executive vice president of servicing at Carrington Mortgage Services, testified on behalf of the Mortgage Bankers Association. She added that a partial-claim program should not reduce the VA’s 25% loan guarantee or impose repayment terms that would unduly burden veterans.

Think-tank witnesses warned of moral-hazard and fiscal risks if the VA increasingly acquires and manages loans. ‘‘VASP has fundamentally altered the VA’s role in lending… It could disrupt the alignment between private servicers, the VA, and veterans,’’ Tobias Peter, co‑director of the Housing Center and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said. Peter said VASP-style purchases can shift risk to taxpayers and create incentives that weaken market discipline.

Committee members pressed VA for data and legal analyses. Representative McGarvey criticized VA witnesses for being unprepared on staffing and program details, and repeatedly asked whether VA had the statutory authority to institute a permanent partial-claim program; VA officials said they would take several questions for the record and work with the committee. Several members requested a legal analysis of VA’s authority and a timeline for implementation.

On operational details, witnesses and lawmakers cited the program’s scale and financial magnitude: Bell said the VA’s VASP portfolio includes roughly 15,000 loans and that VA’s average loan amount is in the low‑to‑mid $300,000 range. Bell also said about 301 borrowers in the purchased portfolio were in foreclosure proceedings, and that foreclosure processes vary by state.

Industry witnesses urged Congress to adopt a permanent partial-claim authority with clear operational details — including how the partial claim would interact with VA’s 25% stop‑loss protection, whether repayment terms should differ from other federal programs, and how long any pilot or sunset should run. MBA recommended avoiding a short sunset and ensuring the partial claim would not reduce lender guarantee coverage.

Chairman Van Orden opened the hearing noting multiple related bills on the agenda, and lawmakers from both parties stressed urgency. Some members warned that eliminating VASP before a workable partial-claim alternative exists could lead to an increase in veteran foreclosures. ‘‘Without VASP, VA would have foreclosed on tens of thousands of homeowners,’’ Balcay said succinctly when asked about consequences of ending the program before alternatives were in place.

The subcommittee did not vote on legislation. Members and witnesses agreed on the need for additional data — including legal authority memos, precise counts of affected borrowers, and a timetable for implementation — before Congress moves to legislate. Several members said the committee will expect prompt follow-up responses from VA.

Ending notes: Committee members asked VA to provide detailed legal and operational analyses, and to return answers for multiple questions taken for the record. The department said it would engage further with the committee as it considers reforms to the VA home‑loan program and related loss‑mitigation tools.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Legislative Hearing","oneSentenceSummary","House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee members questioned Department of Veterans Affairs officials and mortgage-industry witnesses about the scope and risks of the VA Servicing Purchase Program, or VASP, and whether the department should adopt a permanent partial-claim option to prevent foreclosures.","taxTitle","Veterans Affairs: House Committee, Standing Committees - House & Senate, Congressional Hearings Compilation, Legislative, Federal","taxId",1825,"location","","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6286186,"Subcommittee hears safety, scope and fraud concerns on auto-adaptive, flight training and independent-study bills",2956,2236000,5192000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2563920-4353da3e29fc6b79ae39d8913a73ca44&start=2236&end=5192","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2563920-4353da3e29fc6b79ae39d8913a73ca44/thumbnail_2236000.jpg","/articles/6286186/Subcommittee-hears-safety-scope-and-fraud-concerns-on-auto-adaptive-flight-training-and-independent-study-bills","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6286186-b55bc0cad6701da56db4890b319fe320/orig.mp4?Expires=1775552482&Signature=PZ0iVUOJFt9MTAqUkzyCsY8bF3wnSxTrqPkTbqHHZuSG~vs44x1feZ9b8ZY3EtxXpfQRPf~JQ6UICIGTScCq2LttdjKnaaa6BpYwgBhrSO4qqI3~8QERsgihzZQmp2oijcNLfUqoyn9oJEEyOu2rZos16q6Zn-EqLst2uumKT2r36SGjdGPjmzK~se3aZRwo7nb02OpjUrB9V-Kg~a2wYYd~sh-p6EcX8uJyIQCgna0f2xBmLsFJA2Bz0JxNrC1eS0uoW1dRcEm7FtSmGqG2eNiSBiLpA6wmwBGx6dC6s9sjvc75ovETS~RliEPJGsWjaVkYmN4Lt8Sd2dTqGpSlbQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Witnesses and VA officials discussed several bills that would change VA benefits related to vehicle adaptations, flight training and the use of GI Bill funds for nontraditional education.

The ASSIST Act (Automotive Support Services to Improve Safe Transportation Act) would clarify and expand vehicle-adaptive-equipment coverage in VA’s automobile adaptive equipment (AAE) program. VA expressed broad support for medically necessary automobile adaptations but raised safety and cost concerns about explicitly including non‑articulating trailers as a covered conveyance. ‘‘The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not signed off on safety for those,’’ John Bell said; he asked that the bill be drafted to permit VA to provide ‘‘any medically necessary device’’ to maintain flexibility as technology changes.

Paralyzed Veterans of America urged corrections to previous statutory language so catastrophically disabled veterans can reliably obtain vehicle adaptations. ‘‘This is a critical benefit… The assist act fixes this language and it will help ensure veterans are able to receive this assistance in the way that Congress intended,’’ Julie Howell testified.

Committee members also considered the Safe Veterans Act, which would allow VR&E vocational flight training outside of traditional four‑year degree programs. Supporters argued the change would help veterans access pilot-training pathways and address pilot shortages; critics expressed concern about removing safeguards tied to degree programs and pointed to long histories of GI Bill abuse in certain vocational sectors. Will Hubbard of Veterans Education Success said he was concerned recent drafts ‘‘remove key oversight measures for flight training under VR&E’’ and warned about past abuses in flight programs.

Separately, several witnesses warned against broadening GI Bill eligibility for unaccredited independent-study programs. Veterans Education Success strongly opposed the Vets Opportunity Act as written, arguing it would invite fraud and predatory programs. Hubbard said past reforms excluded certain delivery models to protect veterans from low‑quality providers.

The subcommittee did not vote on any bill; witnesses and members recommended more precise statutory language on safety and oversight, better coordination among VA, DOT (NHTSA) and DoD where needed, and stronger guardrails to prevent misuse of GI Bill funds.","The panel considered the ASSIST Act (auto-adaptive equipment), the Safe Veterans Act (flight training access under VR&E), and concerns about opening GI Bill funds to unaccredited independent-study programs; VA raised safety and cost concerns about non‑articulating trailers.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6286191,"Subcommittee presses VA on VR&E staffing, VSOC degree requirement and Guard/Reserve GI Bill parity",1067,1375000,2442000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2563920-4353da3e29fc6b79ae39d8913a73ca44&start=1375&end=2442","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2563920-4353da3e29fc6b79ae39d8913a73ca44/thumbnail_1375000.jpg","/articles/6286191/Subcommittee-presses-VA-on-VRE-staffing-VSOC-degree-requirement-and-GuardReserve-GI-Bill-parity","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6286191-b9a490f984010732afa960d7d65e8ad7/orig.mp4?Expires=1775552482&Signature=fF2w4jDD-3WPDnrLw34gQy6uCvpeFP-GsrJt~SSdff7PAn7~Z69fMHYqNndTT3cNhEiYB1RS0BM3UUFPPnDzAS1bdiJyVPkAoG8tfQ7F-ixnPrrqX6uJaXxxDrwBolHVUbayw9QrxFebn6IPdNIIrxlu7c1QOW0AKJmvEzWZ~wSPChEiFUKTxMoK5EhE08gLt8-cZ3cYHfzMeRD0goKN4f7v2J~utwXKzooq5J7dWQSzTqHaHameZTYJ3yPVPQMtg92NOksP9iL89TUh3eWxXUvi0Wp3vON81NS4zaBl~l9jAQ56wHoaqJKu11lDx85GWa0c3ib0Cy~3XIGrvGHTWA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House members pressed VA and stakeholders about staffing and access in Veterans Readiness and Employment (VR&E) and campus-based veteran support, and discussed a separate bill to give Guard and Reserve members equal GI Bill credit for days in uniform.

Ranking Member Pappas opened questioning by citing persistent VR&E counselor shortages and recent terminations that he said have worsened staffing and wait times. ‘‘We heard from student veterans around the country who have seen impacts to the VR and E program following the DOGE firings,’’ he said, and asked VA about vacancies and wait times. VA witnesses repeatedly took staffing-count questions for the record; the department did not provide precise head counts during the hearing.

VA’s Nick Pamperin confirmed in the hearing that ‘‘Counselors were exempt from the VRP,’’ but he declined to provide detailed numbers on whether support positions were removed or how wait times have changed and said he would take several questions for the record. PVA and VFW witnesses described operational strain: Julie Howell of Paralyzed Veterans of America told the committee that as of Feb. 27 the VR&E program had “around a thousand VRCs working almost 83,000 active cases,” a caseload far above the program’s guideline ratios.

Witnesses and lawmakers supported changes to Veterans Success on Campus (VSOC) rules. VA and veterans’ service organizations endorsed the Modernizing Veterans Success on Campus Experience Act of 2025, which would allow VA to hire VSOC staff who hold a bachelor’s degree rather than a master’s in counseling. John Bell said 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 levels counseling degree.’'

The Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act also drew support from VA and VSOs, although VA noted implementation dependencies on Department of Defense data. ‘‘VA anticipates needing 18 to 24 months to take the necessary adjustments to our adjudication procedures if DOD has the data,’’ Bell said. The VFW urged the committee to pass the parity bill to count all days of service for reserve-component members, calling current rules ‘‘outdated’’ for a force that is more frequently activated.

Members asked for follow-up data on counselor head counts, terminations, and wait‑time metrics. Lawmakers said they expect VA to supply those numbers so the committee can assess whether proposed statutory changes are operationally feasible.

","Members probed VA witnesses about hiring freezes, counselor shortages in the Veterans Readiness and Employment program, and bills to reduce the degree requirement for campus VSOC counselors and to provide Guard and Reserve GI Bill parity.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6286196,"Witnesses tell subcommittee End Veteran Homelessness Act could free HUD‑VASH vouchers but VA flagged other concerns",876,1299000,2175000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2563920-4353da3e29fc6b79ae39d8913a73ca44&start=1299&end=2175","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2563920-4353da3e29fc6b79ae39d8913a73ca44/thumbnail_1299000.jpg","/articles/6286196/Witnesses-tell-subcommittee-End-Veteran-Homelessness-Act-could-free-HUDVASH-vouchers-but-VA-flagged-other-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6286196-db0eda97a05f51fa59e43124d0a18fa1/orig.mp4?Expires=1775552482&Signature=amzU5tPI17alKF8IsChwISoEZy8EIanEG4QcedddufPr8m5bcEE~GZ2XunVhV~LMwuI7TU-OpPjxHKBEjO-a2y0fEbsxDGtTE-osQpO-icwTAXyuncGDe8bD2OceWJeNGI8HVDIzLPGqSGrOiX2DcTZvWI6pJLI9x~c0wpwgy7IEdefSP3e6TB243cMvbNOB~CUEJ2xnTMCmL0PhWMwKewGUVSloSXlqhoU7mD~09T-MgKp9YHoVdAyDhqn8nTZHxc23oph2BwQDFD8GcrPh9ewUfVo6ikkWdU~R0O23oZeATMcJjAWnzNDH7Df~gsdBrN4PcktJRuJ64vDmblH6Lg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Department of Veterans Affairs officials and homelessness advocates told the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee that the End Veteran Homelessness Act of 2025 could help use underutilized HUD‑VASH vouchers but that operational questions remain.

The bill would expand eligibility and provide additional case-management supports for the HUD‑VASH (VA Supportive Housing) program, which pairs HUD housing choice vouchers with VA case management. Witnesses from VA and veterans' service organizations said broader eligibility and targeted supports could enable more vouchers to be used.

‘‘We have over 90,000 veterans under lease in HUD VASH… when we take away set‑asides we have about 10,000 vouchers available for use,’’ Jill Albanese, director of clinical operations and senior adviser to the VA Homeless Program Office, testified. She said eligibility rules and housing authorities’ procedures can limit voucher use and that some changes in the End Veteran Homelessness Act could free vouchers for eligible veterans.

Christina Keenan of the Veterans of Foreign Wars testified in support of the End Veteran Homelessness Act and called for the annual reporting and GAO studies included in the bill, saying they would improve program transparency. Keenan described the bill’s proposed reporting requirements as tools to ‘‘identify veterans who are not making progress and who may need to have their rehabilitation plans reworked’’ and to understand barriers to voucher use.

VA also testified that it supports efforts to end veteran homelessness but does not back all proposals on the subcommittee agenda. In opening remarks John Bell said the department ‘‘strongly supports the End Veteran Homelessness Act of 2025’’ but that it opposed the ‘‘homeless grant and per diem program applications bill’’ as overly prescriptive.

Members pressed witnesses on the number of unused vouchers and whether changing eligibility could allow veterans housed under other voucher types to transfer into HUD‑VASH and free up their existing vouchers. Albanese confirmed transfers are possible and that the End Veteran Homelessness Act would broaden eligibility ‘‘potentially, yes,’’ while noting that some questions about Public Housing Authority practices are under HUD’s authority.

The subcommittee did not adopt any legislation at the hearing. Members and witnesses emphasized coordination between VA and HUD, better data on voucher use, and additional outreach to rural and territorial providers to increase voucher uptake.

","VA and homeless-services witnesses described tens of thousands of HUD-VASH leases, roughly 10,000 available vouchers, and supported narrowing eligibility gaps in the End Veteran Homelessness Act of 2025, while VA opposed overly prescriptive grant-application changes.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House veterans subcommittee grills VA and industry on VASP, partial-claim options and taxpayer risk

Subcommittee hears safety, scope and fraud concerns on auto-adaptive, flight training and independent-study bills

Subcommittee presses VA on VR&E staffing, VSOC degree requirement and Guard/Reserve GI Bill parity

Witnesses tell subcommittee End Veteran Homelessness Act could free HUD‑VASH vouchers but VA flagged other concerns