WRITTEN STATEMENT
SUBMITTED TO THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS
119TH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
May 20, 2026
Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Takano, and Members of the Committee:
We thank you for the opportunity to present this statement for the record at this hearing, which includes many notable bills addressing higher education and veterans’ education benefits. Veterans Education Success is a nonprofit organization with the mission of advancing higher education success for veterans, service members, and military families, and protecting the integrity and promise of the GI Bill® and other federal education programs.
In this statement, we address the following legislative proposals: the Student Veteran Benefit Restoration Act of 2025, the Veterans Readiness and Employment Improvement and Accountability Act of 2025, the Establishing the Veterans Economic Opportunity and Transition Administration Act of 2025, and the Veterans Affairs Advisory Committee Oversight Act of 2025. We applaud the Committee’s dedication to our Nation’s veterans and look forward to working closely with the staff on advancing many of these important topics for broader consideration.
H.R. 1391, the Student Veteran Benefit Restoration Act of 2025
This bill would establish a much-needed pathway for VA to restore education benefits to veterans and beneficiaries who used those benefits at schools that engaged in fraud, deceptive practices, or other serious misconduct, while also allowing VA to seek repayment from the institutions responsible for that harm.
Veterans count on the GI Bill to facilitate a smooth transition from military service to a successful civilian career. Veterans rely on VA’s program eligibility as a “stamp of approval” to identify quality programs. Both veterans and taxpayers are entitled to a reasonable return on investment for the GI Bill.
We have heard from hundreds of students that schools have actively misled them by promising high-quality education but providing substandard instruction, promising job placement, credentials, and salaries that students cannot obtain with their degrees, changing degree requirements after the student has enrolled, or lying about the real cost of tuition. Unfortunately, too many programs that are approved for GI Bill benefits are currently engaging in this kind of misconduct. Bad actor schools cause serious harm to the veterans they are meant to help, leaving veterans with worthless credits, burdensome debts, and wasted benefits.
Despite providing poor results and misleading veterans about their offerings and outcomes, many of these programs and schools continue to rake in millions of taxpayer dollars through the recruitment and exploitation of veterans and the abuse of their hard-earned GI Bill benefits.
Wasting taxpayer funds on subpar education programs is entirely preventable.
Several years ago, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seized the bank accounts of the House of Prayer Christian Church – a purported “bible school” that we exposed and brought to VA’s attention, as veterans were being blatantly cheated out of their GI Bill and abused by an alleged cult leader.[1], [2] The recouped funds went to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, but the defrauded veterans got nothing. The veterans who gave their hard-earned GI Bill to House of Prayer, thinking it was a legitimate bible college, never got their GI Bill back, even though the U.S. Treasury took the school’s assets as recompense for the stolen GI Bill.
In another example, DOJ recouped more than $150 million from Retail Ready Career Center and sent the owner, Jonathan Dean Davis, to jail for 19 years after he had swindled thousands of veterans, taking their GI Bill and their housing allowance but providing nothing of value in return.[3] But when the federal government recovered $150 million, the defrauded veterans got nothing. They could not get their GI Bill benefits back.
Even worse, veterans are sometimes the only students who are not made whole. For example, students with federal student loans from ITT Technical Institute have had their U.S. Department of Education (ED) loans discharged due to evidence of widespread fraud and gross negligence. Yet, student veterans who used their GI Bill to attend ITT Technical Institute cannot get their GI Bill benefits restored because of the fraud. The GI Bill statute currently does allow restoration for closed schools, but not for fraud. The only veterans helped by the current statute are those who were enrolled at or near the time a school closes or loses program approval. But students who experienced the fraud and withdrew earlier get nothing.
We believe it is an absolute betrayal of student veterans that students can get their federal student loans discharged, yet veterans cannot get back their GI Bill benefits. The fact that veterans are defrauded out of their hard-earned GI Bill is blatantly counter to Congress’s vision for the impact of the GI Bill. Furthermore, when the federal government successfully recovers funds from a school that engaged in fraud or gross negligence, Congress should, at a minimum, require that those recovered funds be directed first toward restoring affected students’ education benefits.
In the 118th Congress, the House passed H.R. 1767, the Student Veteran Benefit Restoration Act, by a nearly unanimous vote of 406-6. There is widespread agreement on the fundamental disparity affecting veterans, and we encourage this Congress to finally pass the Student Veteran Benefit Restoration Act with the following technical improvements.
Technical Feedback
Retroactivity. In the strongest possible terms, we urge the Committee to consider making restoration fully retroactive, or, at a minimum, to establish a defined retroactive period. As the language currently stands, the bill applies only to periods occurring on or after enactment. That “forward only” structure would leave out many of the veterans and family members that this bill should be directly intended to address, including veterans harmed by well-documented institutional fraud over time, like the DOJ targets, House of Prayer and Retail Ready, where the government already collected funds that could be used to give the veterans their GI Bill benefits.
If full retroactivity is not feasible, we urge the Committee to at least consider a time-limited retroactive period or a narrower retroactive rule tied to specific triggers. To have no retroactivity whatsoever would be an implicit acknowledgment that veterans and their families deserve to have their benefits restored, but that those who should get such treatment were “defrauded too early.” This would be a slap in the face to the thousands of veterans who have filed complaints with VA and brought their concerns to Congress over the years, and we strongly press the Committee to address this issue in some manner.
Funds Recovery. We believe the bill should add a restoration trigger for any instance in which the federal government recovers funds from a school due to fraud, deceptive conduct, substantial misrepresentation, gross negligence, or similar conduct, or to any settlement of such allegations. If DOJ, VA, ED, Treasury, or another federal entity recovers funds from an institution because that institution wrongfully obtained taxpayer dollars connected to veterans’ education benefits, those recovered funds should be used primarily to restore affected veterans’ education benefits. We believe the basic rule should be that when the government recovers money on behalf of defrauded veterans, it should be directed to making those veterans whole. Veterans should not be left holding the bag while the Treasury takes the funds representing veterans’ benefits.
Court Findings. We encourage the Committee to expand subsection (b)(3) beyond court findings of fraud – which has a very narrow definition – to also include findings of gross negligence, substantial misrepresentation, deceptive practices, or comparable misconduct. For comparison, VA’s regulations at 38 CFR § 46.1 describe “gross negligence” as the performance of service which is “materially worse than substandard,” or the “absence of even slight care or diligence; it implies a thoughtless disregard of consequences or indifference to the rights of others.” In the GI Bill statute, students who experience similar levels of negligence should also be made whole.
The bill’s current narrow definition of fraud imposes an unrealistically high burden of proof, requiring the demonstration of intent. It is typically difficult to prove the defrauder’s intent; moreover, the defrauder’s intent is irrelevant if the bad actor clearly cheated veterans and took their benefits. It does not matter if the House of Prayer genuinely believed it was “saving souls” while it took veterans’ benefits; what is important is that it cheated veterans of their GI Bill. Furthermore, bad actors are more likely to obscure the intent behind their behavior, making “fraud” a uniquely high bar to meet.
The Committee should expressly add substantial misrepresentation and gross negligence to ensure the restoration pathway reaches serious misconduct that may not fit neatly into a common-law fraud finding but still produces the same practical result for veterans: wasted benefits, worthless credits, and no meaningful education in return.
Non-Court Findings. The bill should not make court action the only meaningful pathway to restoration. Court findings are important, but they are not the only reliable basis for determining that an institution engaged in serious misconduct. The Committee should also allow restoration based on final determinations by VA, ED, DOJ, state attorneys general, State approving agencies, accreditors, or other appropriate oversight entities. Otherwise, veterans harmed by schools whose misconduct is resolved through administrative action, settlement, receivership, loss of approval, or closure may still be excluded.
Restoration Delays. We recommend that the Committee clarify that any institutional appeal process should not delay restoration to veterans. The bill is appropriately fair to schools in requiring VA to establish an appeal process for institutions that are required to repay funds, separate from the appeal process under 38 U.S.C. § 3696(i). But the bill should also be fair to veterans. Schools’ right of appeal should be limited to the institution’s repayment obligation and should not operate as a stay of restoration for affected veterans. Veterans should not have to wait years for a school to exhaust every procedural maneuver before their entitlement is restored. As the Committee publicly noted recently, “Student veterans have earned a stress-free environment while pursuing their higher education — not financial chaos.”[4] Once VA has determined that restoration is warranted, the student veteran should not be forced to linger in uncertainty while the institution appeals its repayment obligation.
Additionally, we encourage the Committee to consider existing appeal processes within VA rather than establishing new bureaucratic approaches to these issues. The bill could rely on existing processes for recoupment and for deciding whether to revoke school approval, such as 38 U.S.C. § 3696(f) and (g), 38 U.S.C. § 3690, and 38 U.S.C. § 3685(b) and (c). For instance, the bill could provide that whenever the Secretary has made a determination to restore entitlement in accordance with [(a) and (b)], the Secretary shall require a review and determination under 38 U.S.C. § 3696(f) and (g) and the Under Secretary of Benefits shall make a finding regarding any amounts to be refunded to the Department as a condition to continued approval.
School Closures. Subsection (b)(5) should be simplified and aligned with existing school closure restoration authority. As drafted, the bill appears to require both fraud and subsequent closure. That approach may be more limiting than current law and would require unnecessary complexity in a process that is already too burdensome. The Committee should establish a clear restoration rule for students who are unable to complete their approved program due to school closures or program disapproval. Sudden closures can leave veterans with unfinished programs, nontransferable credits, missing transcripts, and exhausted benefits, regardless of whether the closure was caused by fraud, financial collapse, loss of approval, accreditor action, state action, or institutional abandonment. The restoration standard should focus on the harm to veterans, not the procedural path by which the school failed.
Repayment Scope. We also support VA’s testimony suggesting that the bill should ensure that institutional repayment matches the full scope of restored benefits.[5] As drafted, proposed subsection (c)(1) appears to require repayment only of the amounts paid directly to the institution, generally tuition and fees. VA correctly notes that this would not include payments made directly to beneficiaries, such as monthly housing allowances, book and supply stipends, chapter 35 payments, Montgomery GI Bill payments, Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve payments, and certain Veterans Readiness and Employment benefits. We agree with VA that, when VA restores entitlement due to institutional fraud or deceptive conduct, the institution should be responsible for the total amount of taxpayer dollars paid as a result of that conduct, including amounts paid to both the school and the beneficiary.
Administrative Note. We echo VA’s testimony that the bill should be codified as a new 38 U.S.C. § 3699E rather than § 3699C.[6] VA accurately determined that 38 U.S.C. § 3699C and 3699D already exist, so the proposed new section number should be updated throughout the bill, including in the clerical amendment to the table of sections.
School Closures Issue
If the school closure issue is not fully addressed in H.R. 1391, we encourage the Committee to separately make two additional technical fixes to existing law:
First, the Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act of 2026 established the most recent authority for VA to restore GI Bill benefits to students who were pushed out of their programs due to a closure or disapproval before September 30, 2026.[7], [8]
However, VA needs to be able to continue restoring benefits when a school closes or a program is disapproved beyond this date, and we encourage the Committee to extend the period of coverage at least five additional years, through September 30, 2031.
Second, a minor technical adjustment related to program disapproval issues would have a highly consequential impact on student veterans. At present, 38 U.S.C. § 3699 allows veterans to have their benefits restored under limited circumstances, such as a change to “a provision of law enacted after the date on which the individual enrolls at such institution affecting the approval or disapproval of courses under this chapter” or “the Secretary prescribing or modifying regulations or policies of the Department affecting such approval or disapproval.” In consultation with Committee staff, we urge the addition of a section (iii) that states “or for any other reason” because program disapproval due to a provision of law is a very narrow circumstance, and does not help the tens of thousands of veterans who are affected every year by disapprovals.
In addition, to support veterans who attended closed schools, colleges should be required to implement safeguards against sudden shutdowns. VA should ensure schools have an orderly closure process that provides students with adequate advance notice, viable transfer options, and guaranteed permanent access to their transcripts and records.[9] We believe a 2020 Maryland law provides a valuable model of this approach.[10]
H.R. 6904 – the Veterans Readiness and Employment Improvement and Accountability Act of 2025
This bill would revise the Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E) program and seek to strengthen program accountability and to improve how VA supports disabled veterans pursuing rehabilitation and employment. While the stated purpose is to make the program more effective in helping eligible veterans prepare for, obtain, and maintain suitable work, we oppose the measures contained therein for the reasons outlined below.
Background
As noted in our previous statements to Congress, we have continued to receive complaints from veterans about VR&E.[11], [12], [13] These complaints continue to tell the story that the VR&E benefits process is often too complicated and stressful. Veterans get tired of fighting for what they deserve, and all too often, some counselors prove to be unresponsive or even antagonistic to a veteran’s interests.
Highlighted below are specific areas of concern raised by veterans who have contacted us, followed by related recommendations for potential solutions to the challenges they face.
A. Veterans feel VR&E and its counselors steer them away from high-quality programs or push them to enroll in low-quality programs.
Many veterans have told us that VR&E counselors steer them away from top colleges and towards low-quality online programs. One recent veteran, a 100% disabled 12-year service member, was denied approval for an Ivy League business school. The counselor dismissed it as too expensive despite its clear career advantages and the likelihood of higher earnings. Veterans find the approval process arbitrary, as the same schools are approved for others.
B. Veterans complain that applying for and using VR&E benefits is too difficult; counselors have denied their admission to the VR&E program, denied their education program, or refused to cover certain programmatic costs without a reasonable explanation, causing tremendous stress.
One veteran who came to us for help was denied VR&E funding for essential coursework materials, including a laptop, with no apparent reason beyond a vague claim of insufficient funds. Others report difficulty using VR&E for graduate or professional degrees, with counselors blocking doctoral programs and instead approving degrees that do not align with their disabilities or vocational goals. Some counselors improperly decide that advanced degrees are unnecessary, even after veterans have already started their programs. Many veterans believe counselors lack training to assess how disabilities impact career options.
C. VR&E counselors are often challenging to reach and do not provide timely information and responses to veterans.
Veterans frequently report unresponsive, incompetent, or even antagonistic counselors who seem more focused on disqualifying them than helping. Some are repeatedly reassigned counselors, receiving conflicting guidance and decisions. Many worry about retaliation.
One veteran considered withdrawing from VR&E entirely after a year without a response from his counselor. A medically retired Army veteran s to even start the program.
To address this challenge, we recommend to the Committee to mandate reducing the maximum client-to-counselor ratio from 125 to 85. This will facilitate veterans’ receipt of timely, individualized support. While VA has worked to reduce this number, 125 remains too high for counselors to address veterans’ needs adequately, and veterans continue to report unresponsive counselors.
Technical Feedback
Based on the feedback we’ve received from veterans, we believe the bill does not address the core concerns of the most frequently cited issues pertaining to this program. We do applaud the intent to make the program more efficient and to provide a higher return on investment to taxpayer dollars, which we strongly support. However, several features in the current language may ultimately undercut the overall intent of the program in supporting the employment readiness of disabled veterans.
We offer the following input on key sections of the bill for consideration of the Committee:
Section 2, Section 3. VA correctly points out that existing statutory authority already addresses these topics, per 38 U.S.C. § 3111 and 38 U.S.C. § 3103(c), respectively.[14] We have no additional comments.
Section 4. While we support reviewing payments over $5,000, we encourage this authority to be delegated to a lower level to prevent bureaucratic roadblocks from delaying legitimate expenditures. We support the requirement for an annual report for post facto accountability and suggest that perhaps a higher threshold for payments could instead be considered for Secretary-level authority.
Section 5. We remain concerned about capping all Federal funds at a specific level, such as $250,000 in this proposal, without the possibility of a waiver or individual review, as it may be applied unevenly given the nature of non-Title 38 funds. We recommend the Committee add the option for individual veterans to seek waivers of this cap on a case-by-case basis. In some instances, costs may exceed this cap but are truly necessary to achieve a positive long-term outcome, such as the cost of independent living adaptations. We believe most individuals would rarely incur costs above the proposed limits, but the program should offer some flexibility for specialized cases. If the Committee does consider adding a waiver provision, we would support including this data element in the annualized report discussed in section 4 of the bill.
Section 6. This section would allow vocational rehabilitation specialists (VRS) to redevelop the individualized vocational rehabilitation plan for a veteran and, in effect, the plan’s vocational feasibility. Presently, this authority is limited to vocational rehabilitation counselors (VRC). Due to the distinct education requirements between VRS’s and VRC’s, we oppose effectively lowering the standard of academic training that would result from this change, and encourage the Committee to maintain the highest possible standards for VA staff who have the authority to approve rehabilitation plans.
Section 7. We believe this section would create inconsistent housing payment rules across VR&E and other VA education benefit programs. Specifically, the provision would require VA to calculate the Post-9/11 GI Bill subsistence allowance for certain VR&E participants based on the zip code of the veteran’s residence, rather than the zip code of the school, when the school is more than 25 miles from the veteran’s home. That approach would treat VR&E participants differently from Post-9/11 GI Bill students and other beneficiaries whose housing support is tied to the institution’s location, even when those students may be enrolled in the same program. If the goal is to address whether VR&E participants receive sufficient housing and expense support, we encourage the Committee to consider that issue directly rather than creating a location-based exception that may introduce new inequities across benefit programs.
Section 8. We support this section, with the caveat that newly established employment counselor roles should not draw on already strained staffing resources across the rest of the VR&E program. We would also encourage these new roles to engage with community resources, including career placement services at local colleges and universities, to amplify ongoing employment efforts further.
Section 9. We strongly recommend that the Committee prioritize the recommendations of experts on disability policy and benefits, especially those from Disabled American Veterans and Paralyzed Veterans of America. There are many nuanced and intricate details involved in determinations of total disability and VR&E eligibility, and we believe cost-cutting should not be the only priority for the Committee.
Based on the issues addressed above, we make the following recommendations on VR&E for the Committees’ consideration:
- Staff Ratio. Reduce the maximum client-to-counselor ratio from 125 to 85 to ensure veterans receive timely, individualized support. While VA has worked to reduce this number, 125 remains too high for counselors to address veterans’ needs adequately, and veterans continue to report unresponsive counselors.
- Counseling Consistency. Require increased training for VR&E counselors to ensure consistent, high-quality guidance. Too many veterans are steered into low-quality schools while others are approved for top-tier institutions. Counselors should be trained to avoid recommending schools with federal caution flags or law enforcement actions. They should be empowered to approve graduate degrees when needed to help veterans achieve their vocational goals. Additional training and explicit guidance would improve program delivery and the veteran experience.
- System Modernization. Continue to improve and modernize the VR&E case management system to prevent payment delays and reduce administrative burdens. Given the financial hardships many veterans face, timely payments are critical. We commend the e-VA Document Repository and Automation Initiative, which significantly reduces the burden on both veterans and counselors by streamlining required documentation.
- Housing Allowance Parity. Establish a Monthly Housing Allowance (MHA) for VR&E students at rates comparable to the Post-9/11 GI Bill to keep pace with rising living costs.[15]
We thank the Committee for your attention to this critical program and consideration of these recommendations. We will continue to provide feedback based on what we hear from the veterans we work with on an ongoing basis.
H.R. 6843 – the Establishing the Veterans Economic Opportunity and Transition Administration Act of 2025
This measure proposes the creation of a “Veterans Economic Opportunity and Transition Administration” within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), to be overseen by a new Under Secretary. The purpose of this new Administration would be to manage and administer various programs that deliver economic opportunity benefits to veterans, their dependents, and survivors. The bill would also require the Secretary to provide an annual report to Congress on the programs administered by the Under Secretary for Veterans Economic Opportunity and Transition.
Various versions of this legislation have been proposed over the last decade, the last of which we commented on in the Senate with S. 291; this version included support from several organizations that testified at that hearing.[16], [17], [18],[19] Notably, many other iterations of this proposal have passed the House of Representatives, though none have passed the full Congress.[20] A previous sticking point had been the inclusion of a provision that would have moved the U.S. Department of Labor (DoL) Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) program under the proposed new Administration within VA. Given the politically tenuous nature of such a component, we would encourage the Committee to consider removing subsection (4) of § 8002 of the bill.
While we do not know if a new Administration would do a better job administering the GI Bill, experience clearly shows that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) continues to struggle with its competing missions of delivering disability compensation benefits and a wide variety of economic opportunity benefits, such as the GI Bill.
In 2018, VBA established the Office of Transition and Economic Development (TED), now known as Outreach, Transition, and Economic Development (OTED), in response to earlier proposals similar to this legislation.[21], [22] The establishment of that office acknowledged that VBA had been structurally unprepared to meet the modern needs of veterans in terms of transition and economic opportunity. We believe much of the office is geared towards transition, more so than economic opportunity and tools of empowerment such as the GI Bill.[23] Despite this office’s existence for the past eight years, significant barriers to economic opportunity for veterans remain.
The notable failures of the current VBA include the following:
1. Delays
In 2023, VBA publicly announced a technical flaw that delayed GI Bill housing allowance (MHA) payments for more than 280,000 student veterans.[24] For nearly 4,000 of these veterans, VBA had to work with Treasury to mail hard-copy checks to the individuals to ensure continuity of on-time payments.[25] We applaud the VBA leadership for ultimately finding solutions to this challenge, but we believe it indicates broader systemic issues; veterans should never be exposed to doubt about whether they will be able to pay rent in a given month.
Earlier this year, we testified before this Committee regarding the detrimental delays in VA’s education programs, including the sudden interruption in GI Bill payments that left students and survivors without timely benefits or clear answers this past fall. Students who depend on these benefits faced immediate financial consequences, including housing insecurity, vehicle repossession, and uncertainty about whether they could remain enrolled. At the same time, VA’s GI Bill hotline was unavailable during the federal government shutdown, and stakeholders outside VA were forced to determine the scope of the problem on their own.
2. Failure to Protect Veterans from Fraud and Predatory Schools
VA’s attention to implementing critical consumer protection laws has been inconsistent, or entirely lacking in certain instances, over the past several decades. For example, the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 added 38 U.S.C. § 3696 to the requirements governing the administration of veterans’ educational benefits. Section 3696 prohibits schools from participating in the GI Bill if they utilize “advertising, sales, or enrollment practices of any type which are erroneous, deceptive, or misleading either by actual statement, omission, or intimation.”[26]
VA’s inadequate implementation of Section 3696 (1) prevents GI Bill beneficiaries from making an informed choice when deciding where to use their hard-earned benefits, and (2) undermines the integrity of the GI Bill by allowing schools that engage in fraud to receive taxpayer support. Even more troubling, schools, including Alta (Westwood College), Corinthian, ITT, and former EDMC brands (Argosy, Art Institutes, South University), that engaged in deceptive advertising and enrollment tactics have closed precipitously, leaving beneficiaries without a degree after having wasted some or all of their benefits.[27] We remain deeply concerned about the continued ability of predatory schools to defraud veterans out of their hard-earned GI Bill benefits. More recent examples of failing to provide adequate responses have included:
- House of Prayer. In 2022, the public became widely aware of the shocking allegations associated with a system of schools misleadingly called the House of Prayer Christian Church.[28] This case culminated in a raid by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, two years after our initial report to VA.[29], [30]
- In 2021, we alerted VA to law enforcement’s concerns about Perdoceo Education Corporation, formerly known as the Career Education Corporation, which encompasses American InterContinental University, Colorado Technical University, California Southern University, and Trident University International.[31] Nearly every state in the nation sued Perdoceo for defrauding students – especially veterans – as did the Federal government, and yet VA did nothing. In 2019, 36 veterans and military service organizations wrote to VA to raise these concerns and highlight the states’ lawsuit, and, despite years of community-wide concerns, no meaningful action has been taken to date.[32]
- FastTrain and Retail Ready Career Center. It is unacceptable that veterans should have to wonder why obvious scams like FastTrain College and Retail Ready Career Center were approved in the first place.[33] Veterans should be able to count on VA’s “stamp of approval” as the level of quality they – and taxpayers – expect.
3. Implementation of Existing Statutes
School Closures. In August 2021, we wrote a memorandum to VA expressing our concern about the language on its GI Bill Restoration Page.[34], [35] Under the VETS Credit Act, veterans must sign a declaration stating that if they transfer 12 or more credits, they are ineligible for full GI Bill restoration.[36] Despite this new law, VA presented burdensome logistical hurdles for veterans to use the benefits they earned.
Our testimony is in no way intended to take away from the incredible work of the many hardworking VBA teams. In fact, quite the opposite. When these professionals are given the full opportunity to succeed, the result is a more reliable and higher-quality set of opportunities for the ultimate customer of VA: our Nation’s veterans.
It’s possible a new Administration and Under Secretary could help to address these issues, though the premise remains untested. We encourage the Committee to deliberate thoroughly on the long-term implications of continuing with the current system, which is clearly inadequate.
H.R. 6764, the Veterans Affairs Advisory Committee Oversight Act of 2025
This bill would establish a Veterans Economic Opportunity and Transition Advisory Committee (VEOTAC) to advise VA on the effectiveness of education benefits, vocational rehabilitation, employment assistance, transition services, job training, and entrepreneurship training in helping veterans successfully readjust to civilian life and achieve economic stability. The Committee would also review barriers faced by veterans in employment, higher education, and job training, advise on interagency coordination, and recommend strategies to support veterans at risk of homelessness or unemployment.
Based on our organizational expertise, we note that our comments pertain strictly to the proposed Section 550(a). We support this section of the bill, and believe it is clearly distinguishable from the existing Veterans Advisory Committee on Education (VACOE), which has a singular stated purpose, “To provide advice to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of education and training programs for Veterans and Servicepersons, Reservists, Guard personnel and for dependents of Veterans, including programs under Chapters 30, 32, 35, and 36 of title 38, and chapter 1606 of title 10, U.S.C.”[37]
In contrast, the proposed VEOTAC, as outlined in the bill, would serve to:
- Advise the Under Secretary for Benefits regarding the effectiveness of the educational benefits, vocational rehabilitation, employment assistance, and transition services furnished by the Secretary in enabling veterans to readjust to civilian life and achieve economic stability successfully.
- Assemble and review information on the needs of veterans in readjusting to civilian employment, higher education, and job training. Such information shall include identified barriers that veterans, including women, minority, and economically disadvantaged veterans, face in such readjustment.
- Assess the effectiveness of the educational benefits, vocational training, job placement, and entrepreneurship training furnished by the Secretary in improving economic opportunities for veterans.
- Advise the Under Secretary regarding means to improve interagency coordination and partnership between the Department and other Federal, State, and local entities to promote employment, skills training, and financial stability for veterans.
- Identify and recommend strategies, including early intervention, supportive services, and employer outreach, to assist veterans at risk of homelessness or unemployment.
We believe these are all valuable areas for expert review and go well beyond the scope of any existing VA advisory committees, either in part or in combination. We also believe this would place greater emphasis on program outcomes rather than merely measuring “dollars spent, veterans served,” which has plagued the historical culture of VA. In particular, we strongly support the intent of “[assessing] the effectiveness of the educational benefits,” a long-standing challenge for VBA, that would benefit from external expert input.
We also believe that the establishment of VEOTAC could yield valuable insights, including the validity of establishing such an Administration, in the absence of an existing Economic Opportunity and Transition Administration. We thank Representative Keith Self for introducing this legislation, and support section 550(a) of the bill.
Information Required by Rule XI, Clause 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives
and the Rules of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
Pursuant to Rule XI, clause 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, Veterans Education Success has not received any federal grants in Fiscal Year 2026, nor has it received any federal grants in the two previous Fiscal Years.
Information Required by the Rules of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Regarding Foreign Government and Foreign Adversary Funding
Pursuant to the Rules of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, and consistent with the definitions outlined in P.L. 118-50, Division H, § 2(g)(1), Veterans Education Success has not received any contracts, grants, or payments originating with a foreign government, a foreign adversary-controlled entity, or an entity or country of particular concern.
[1] United States of America v. $115,800.00 in U.S. Currency Funds (Jan. 6, 2023), https://vetsedsuccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/House-of-Prayer-Bible-Seminary.pdf.
[2] Veterans Education Success, Our Letter to VA and Georgia SAA Regarding House of Prayer Christian Church (Aug. 2020), https://vetsedsuccess.org/letter-to-va-and-georgia-saa-regarding-house-of-prayer-christian-church/.
[3] United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas Press Release, For-Profit Trade School Sentenced to Nearly 20 Years for Defrauding VA, Student Veterans (Sept. 22, 2021), https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/profit-trade-school-sentenced-nearly-20-years-defrauding-va-student-veterans.
[4] House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, “GW must provide Congress with a detailed plan on how they will fix these issues with past and present student veterans enrolled in the accelerated MBA program,” X (May 8, 2026), https://x.com/HouseVetAffairs/status/2052844577933975639.
[5] Phillip Christy, “Statement of Mr. Phillip Christy, Principal Executive Director and Chief Acquisition Officer, Office of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction, Department of Veterans Affairs, Before the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives,” U.S. House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs (Mar. 18, 2026), https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR00/20260318/119040/HHRG-119-VR00-Wstate-ChristyP-20260318.pdf.
[6] Id.
[7] Public Law 119–37, Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026, Section 7202, 119th Congress, 1st Session. (2025), https://www.congress.gov/119/plaws/publ37/PLAW-119publ37.pdf.
[8] The Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act had also previously established the authority for VA to restore GI Bill benefits to students who were pushed out of their programs due to a closure or disapproval before September 30, 2025.
Public Law 118-210, Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act, Section 211, 118th Congress, 2nd Session (2024), https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8371; the Fiscal Year 2024 VA Extenders Legislation was the preceding authority for VA to restore GI Bill benefits to students who were pushed out of their programs due to a closure or disapproval before September 30, 2025. Reference Public Law No. 118-19, Continuing Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2024 Act, 118th Congress, First Session (Oct. 6, 2023), https://www.congress.gov/118/plaws/publ19/PLAW-118publ19.pdf.
[9] Section 207 of the Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act established the requirement for Title 38-participating institutions to provide students with an “official transcript in a digital format.” However, we believe this requirement is not adequate, as most employers and virtually all institutions to which a student may wish to transfer would insist on directly receiving a transcript from previously attended schools. Transcripts supplied by students are viewed as unreliable because their indirect chain of custody could have allowed them to be altered. Furthermore, transcripts are merely a snapshot of a subset of data from the comprehensive academic records of students.
[10] Maryland orderly school closure law: SB 446 (enacted May 7, 2020), http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/SB0446?ys=2020RS.
[11] Veterans Education Success, “VES Written Statement on Evaluating the Effectiveness of VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Programs Before the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Committee on Economic Opportunity” (Jun. 4, 2019), https://vetsedsuccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/VES_SFR_VRE_06032019-1.pdf.
[12] Veterans Education Success, “Our Statement for the Record on the Topic of ‘Veteran Readiness and Employment: Is VA Succeeding?’” (Sept. 15, 2022), https://vetsedsuccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/VES-SFR-VRE-Hearing-HVAC-EO-September-15-2022.pdf.
[13] Veterans Education Success, “Our Statement for the Record on the Topic of ‘Examining the Effectiveness of the Veterans Readiness and Employment (VR&E) Program’” (Dec. 11, 2024), https://vetsedsuccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Statement-For-the-Record-VRE-HVAC-EO-Dec-2024.pdf.
[14] Phillip Christy, “Statement of Mr. Phillip Christy, Principal Executive Director and Chief Acquisition Officer, Office of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction, Department of Veterans Affairs, Before the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives,” U.S. House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs (Mar. 18, 2026), https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR00/20260318/119040/HHRG-119-VR00-Wstate-ChristyP-20260318.pdf.
[15] Veterans Education Success, “Statement for the Record, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Economic Opportunity Committee Hearing, Getting Veterans to Work after COVID-19” (Jul. 21, 2020), https://vetsedsuccess.org/our-sfr-for-july-21-hvac-economic-opportunity-Committee-hearing-getting-veterans-to-work-after-covid-19/.
[16] Notable interest in various iterations of this legislation has has come from the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Disabled American Veterans (DAV), Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA), American Veterans (AMVETS), Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), and Student Veterans of America (SVA). The concept has also been previously endorsed in the annual Independent Budget produced by DAV, PVA, and VFW.
[17] Hubbard, William, “Testimony of Mr. William Hubbard, Chief of Staff, Student Veterans of America” Apr. 30, 2019, https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109320/witnesses/HHRG-116-VR10-Wstate-HubbardW-20190430.pdf.
[18] Independent Budget, https://www.independentbudget.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/TIB-EAE1-Create-an-Economic-Opportunity-Administration-Within-The-Department-of-Veteran-Affairs-VA.pdf.
[19] U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, “Hearing to Consider Pending Legislation” (Apr. 26, 2023), https://www.veterans.senate.gov/2023/4/hearing-to-consider-pending-legislation.
[20] Six iterations of this legislation have been proposed over the past 15 years, including H.R. 2494 (117th Congress), H.R. 2045 (116th Congress), H.R. 5644 (115th Congress), H.R. 2327 (113th Congress), H.R. 2481 (113th Congress), and H.R. 3719 (111th Congress); on three occasions, the legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously, including H.R.s 2494, 2045, and 2481. https://www.congress.gov/. Accessed Apr. 20, 2023.
[21] Devlin, Margarita, “Statement of Margarita Devlin, Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, before the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Committee on Economic Opportunity” (Apr. 9, 2019), https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109258/witnesses/HHRG-116-VR10-Wstate-DevlinM-20190409.pdf.
[22] U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, “Outreach, Transition and Economic Development,” https://benefits.va.gov/transition/index.asp. Accessed Apr. 20, 2023.
[23] Rawls, Cheryl, “Statement of Ms. Cheryl Rawls, Executive Director, Outreach, Transition and Economic Development Service Department of Veterans Affairs before the Committee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Committee on Veterans’ Affairs U.S. House of Representatives” (Feb. 8, 2022), https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR09/20220208/114386/HHRG-117-VR09-Wstate-RawlsC-20220208-U1.pdf.
[24] U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, “Important Update About GI Bill Monthly Payments for Students” (Mar. 31, 2023), https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USVAVBA/bulletins/3522215.
[25] U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, “Update on Post 9/11 GI Bill MHA Delayed Payment for March 2023” (Apr. 19, 2023), https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USVAVBA/bulletins/355e1e1.
[26] U.S. Code, Section 3696, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title38-section3696&num=0&edition=prelim. Accessed Apr. 20, 2023.
[27] Veterans Education Success, “VA Still Not Enforcing 1974 Ban on Schools that Engage in Deceptive Advertising and Recruiting” (Oct. 2019), https://vetsedsuccess.org/va-still-not-enforcing-1974-ban-on-schools-that-engage-in-deceptive-advertising-and-recruiting/.
[28] Beynon, Steve and Novelly, Thomas. “How a Church Allegedly Scammed Millions in VA Money from Vets,” Military.com (Jul. 19, 2022), https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/07/19/how-church-allegedly-scammed-millions-va-money-vets.html.
[29] Koch, Alexandra, “FBI raids Georgia churches near military bases, sources say church was targeting soldiers,” USA Today (Jun. 24, 2022), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/06/24/fbi-raids-house-prayer-churches/7724801001/.
[30] Veterans Education Success, “Our Letter to VA and Georgia SAA Regarding House of Prayer Christian Church” (Aug. 1, 2020), https://vetsedsuccess.org/letter-to-va-and-georgia-saa-regarding-house-of-prayer-christian-church/.
[31] Veterans Education Success, “Summary of Veteran and Servicemember Student Complaints about Perdoceo Education Corporation” (Sept. 1, 2021), https://vetsedsuccess.org/summary-of-veteran-and-servicemember-student-complaints-about-perdoceo-education-corporation/.
[32] Letter from Veterans and Military Service Organizations to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (Feb. 14, 2019), https://static1.squarespace.com/static/556718b2e4b02e470eb1b186/t/5c6db4db1905f4690dd06f6f/1550693596300/VSO+Letter+to+VA+Secretary-1.pdf.
[33] Ayala, Eva-Marie, “Hundreds of veterans scramble after Garland for-profit college closes,” The Dallas Morning News (Sept. 28, 2017), https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2017/09/28/hundreds-of-veterans-scramble-after-garland-for-profit-college-closes/.
[34] Hubbard, William, “Memorandum From William Hubbard to Department of Veterans Affairs on Changes to VBA Webpage” (Aug. 17, 2021), https://vetsedsuccess.org/memorandum-from-william-hubbard-to-department-of-veterans-affairs-on-changes-to-vba-webpage/.
[35] U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, “Restoration of Benefits After School Closure or if a School is Disapproved for GI Bill Benefits,” https://www.benefits.va.gov/GIBILL/Restoration.asp. Updated March 15, 2023.
[36] Veterans Education Success, Our Press Release: Senate Passes Important “VETS Credit Act” Unanimously, Bill Heads to the President for Signature,” https://vetsedsuccess.org/our-press-release-senate-passes-important-vets-credit-act-unanimously-bill-heads-to-the-president-for-signature/.
[37] U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Advisory Committee Management Office, “Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Education” (May 5, 2025), https://department.va.gov/advisory-committee-management/veterans-advisory-committee-on-education/.
Statement For the Record - HVAC - VES - May 20 2026 - FINAL