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

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.