Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2026

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a very heavy heart and in opposition to this bill.

Representative Barrett and House Republicans have engineered here an impossible choice. What they have said to the American people is that only by raising costs on one set of veterans can we afford to help another.

At a time when we are spending trillions on defense, trillions on tax cuts for the wealthy, and countless other frivolities, like ballrooms and a slush fund for the President's friends, to suggest that we can only help veterans by hurting them is patently ridiculous. That is why I oppose this bill.

I want to clearly state that we owe our servicemembers, veterans, their families, and their survivors a debt of gratitude, as they have given everything to this Nation. The promise we made to them is something we strive to live up to every day. However, I believe this bill misses that mark.

We know that these groups desperately need more resources as our veteran population ages and requires more acute care. As I have mentioned before and as I am sure the majority will repeat, the catastrophically injured and survivor community has not seen an appreciable increase in their monthly rate since 2009.

I agree it is well past due that we correct that wrong. I certainly believe they are worth it. In fact, I wish we were increasing these benefits even more.

Unfortunately, this majority seeks to correct that wrong by inflicting harm on another community of veterans who are deserving of support and who are struggling veteran homeowners.

Just in case anyone needs a reminder, let's look at the last year and a half. Last spring, Secretary Doug Collins canceled the VA Servicing Purchase program, otherwise known as VASP, which assists veterans facing mortgage challenges prior to setting up their backstop program.

Chairman Bost and Representative Van Orden cheered on this development as thousands of veterans suddenly faced tenuous financial circumstances and no resources to turn to as they faced foreclosure.

Let me say, in the past 12 months since the closure of the VASP program, 10,000 veterans have lost their homes due to foreclosure. We could call this the Secretary Collins, Representative Van Orden, and Chairman Bost foreclosure program.

All the while, during this time of the past year, President Trump's affordability crisis has sent prices through the roof, making the dream of buying a house entirely out of reach for many Americans.

To recap, at a time when it is already hard to buy a home, Republicans want to make it even harder. They have made it easier for veterans to lose their homes when funds are tight. Now, they want to make it harder for veterans to even buy a home in the first place.

Not only do they want to make it unaffordable to buy a home, but they want to squeeze our veterans when they attempt to refinance. For many, it is a last-ditch effort to save their home. Remember, they already came after VASP. They canceled the program. They cheerleaded for the Secretary to cancel the program.

What we are seeing today is an attempt to take away affordable housing for veterans. These veterans I am talking about have used a home loan while in service to live with their families at a duty station and used it again when they moved on to the next tour.

Understand, the VA home loan is not just about veterans. It is also about Active-Duty servicemembers. They are also eligible to use a veteran home loan to buy a home and, also, refinance a home.

I am talking about the transitioning servicemembers who want to buy a place back home, folks who have done their part in this country and want to transition to civilian life, Active-Duty servicemembers moving to a duty station, transitioning servicemembers who want to buy a home back where they want to settle. Even more critical, these are veterans attempting to keep their homes amidst rapidly rising foreclosures.

Now, we are asking veterans to shoulder the cost of survivors and catastrophically injured veterans--again, taking from one set of veterans in order to help another group of very deserving veterans.

Again, I will emphasize the impossible position we are putting our veteran community in. We are pitting one set of veterans against another, instituting a civil war in which we rack and stack which community is more deserving than the other. Frankly, it is shameful.

Before my Republican colleagues who have served stand up here and tell me that they would be happy to pay that benefit for their fellow veterans, I would ask them one thing: Why are we asking them to? Why are we asking our veterans to shoulder this cost? Why must we put the onus on veterans and servicemembers? Haven't they paid enough?

Yes, I agree that we need to be responsible with how we spend tax dollars, but I am curious: Why is it only when we are looking at benefits for the veteran and survivor community that we take this mindset?

We certainly didn't have this debate when we were offsetting a $30 billion war of choice in Iran, which will only make more veterans, Trump's $1 billion new ballroom, or a $75 billion slush fund for ICE, which now the Senate is having trouble getting over to the House.

If my counterparts in the Republican Party truly gave a damn about veterans, they would not pit them against one another just to give them a meager downpayment on veteran benefits. No. If they did, they would enact meaningful change.

We could be, instead, bringing to the floor the Love Lives On Act. We would pass the Caring for Survivors Act, and we would ask the American people to pay for them. I have no doubt the American people would say: Yes, we should pay for these things. We shouldn't put this on veterans.

I could go on and on all day. We could expand access to toxic-exposed veterans, provide fertility care for our women veterans, and address traumatic brain and blast injury. Getting things done on behalf of our veterans requires bold action.

That is why, today, I have filed a discharge petition on the Major Richard Star Act. It is live and ready for signature, and I invite my colleagues on the other side, as soon as we are done with this debate, to go down and sign that petition. I believe it will reach 218 very quickly.

Chairman Bost, Congressman Barrett, and Congressman Van Orden, I invite you right after this debate to go down and sign the discharge petition to bring the Major Richard Star Act to the floor.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me when they come to vote, in maybe 45 minutes or so, to sign the petition. We can get something meaningful done on behalf of veterans right now.

Let's end the wounded warrior tax. If we are not committed to caring for veterans and ensuring that they and their survivors get benefits that they were told they would be entitled to when they signed on the dotted line, then we need to stop making more veterans, full stop.

We can choose to do the right thing. We can choose to do the honorable thing. We can choose to do the moral thing and give survivors a meaningful benefit.

Right now, my colleagues across the aisle are choosing a Band-Aid for a wound that needs stitches. We cannot allow ourselves to accept veterans paying for their own benefits, and we should not tolerate forcing this community to fight each other in a pecking order of who matters most.

I hope to appeal to my colleagues' morality when I say that increasing compensation to survivors and catastrophically injured veterans is the right thing to do. We should do it, but we cannot do it at the expense of other veterans.

This legislation has pushed us to the point of having to make a hard decision out of what should have been an easy one. Waive paygo and pass meaningful legislation.

Today, we sit here debating a change on the margins that opens a Pandora's box to charge veterans for their own benefits. That is why I simply cannot support this legislation as written, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

I will say that was a wonderful post of all the veterans service organizations that support this legislation. Yes, they support raising the compensation for the catastrophically disabled. If you read their letter very carefully, they are silent on the pay-for. They are silent on the subject of should you ask our servicemembers who are serving right now in the waters around Iran whether they should be charged $1,000 or more in fees to refinance their homes. There is not a single one of those veterans service organizations that says that they agree with that pay-for.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman has referred to moments when I was chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee when we did look at pay-fors related to increasing the interest rate reduction refinance program.

We did pass a bill out of the House in 2020 that would have increased the interest rate reduction refinance loan fees by one-fourth of a percent, but it did not become law. When you strip away all of the context around that bill, you can try to set up a gotcha--you did what we are trying to do--but the reality is that we are in a much different situation now.

First, the proposed increase in 2020 returned to current levels just after a few years. Representative Barrett's and Chairman Bost's proposed increase replaces the current level with their new fee level. It is not a temporary change. It is a permanent increase.

Today's proposed increase is almost three times what was contemplated back in 2020. That translates into $2,500 to $3,000 more in fees that veterans would have to pay under Representative Barrett's plan. That cost doubles when the veteran has to pay interest on that fee increase.

Also back in 2020, home loan mortgage and refinance rates were at record lows. Fees had much less of an impact on veterans' abilities to lower their housing costs. Today, interest rates are so much higher. Many more veterans are facing foreclosure. As I said, 10,000 veterans in the past 12 months, and thousands and thousands of veterans are in jeopardy of losing their homes in the coming months.

The Trump administration has gotten rid of VASP, as I said, with the cheerleading done by the chairman and Representative Van Orden. VASP was the last-ditch program to keep veterans and their families in their homes. It has been a year, and the replacement, the partial claims program, which I supported in instituting, has still not been rolled out yet, and it won't be rolled out for several months. Meanwhile, we will see more veterans foreclosed upon.

Refinancing, therefore, is currently the last line of defense in keeping veterans with distressed loans in their homes. Representative Barrett is proposing that we raise costs at this very moment, in this financial environment and when this Congress has passed a reconciliation bill costing billions and billions of dollars that were not offset. Mind you, the $70 billion that the Senate was hoping to send over here, the Republican Senate, that this House presumably would have also approved of, the Republican majority, that $70 billion will not offset.

We are also looking at potentially a $1.5 trillion defense budget increase, and there is talk about $1 billion on the President's ballroom.

How do we justify taxing veterans to access their own benefits? How do you justify that?

Let me just say that I offered an amendment. I offered an amendment to pay for this bill not with the money that would have gone to other veterans. I had an amendment that would have delayed for 3 years the implementation of a big, bad, ugly bill tax break we were giving to very wealthy people--people with $15 million to pass on to their heirs. We wanted to delay the tax break that rich people get when they want to pass on their wealth to their heirs. We would delay that for 3 years. That would pay for the cost of this bill.

That amendment was rejected. I think that very wealthy people benefit from the bravery and the courage of our military servicemembers. It is not too much to ask the wealthiest people of our country to bear the cost of paying for the catastrophically disabled veterans.

I think the American people would countenance that much better than: Let's take away the ability for our servicemembers who are currently serving in the waters surrounding Iran, or our veterans--we shouldn't be asking them to have to pay more in home loan fees for benefits that they thought they were getting when they signed up.

It is the choices that we are making that bother me here. I don't think we should be doing something that is very, very worthy by charging one set of veterans to pay for another set.

Wasserman Schultz), my good friend and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies on the Appropriations Committee.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee in opposition to the offset in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was stunned to see this pay-for included in this bill and so disappointed that no one included appropriators in this discussion, but I was not surprised.

The benefits expansion that this bill would make are worthy changes that we absolutely should pass as a supplemental monthly allowance of $833.33 for severely disabled veterans requiring aid and attendants. That is an issue we haven't addressed since 1993.

I wish that we could have worked on this issue last week when our appropriations bill was on the House floor, or the month before when the bill was before the Appropriations Committee. Instead, House Members are going to take a vote that will rob Peter to pay Paul. When we are talking about our veterans, that is just plain wrong.

This bill triples VA home loan fees, which amounts to hundreds or thousands of dollars on each home loan, which will make homeownership even harder for veterans. When a veteran refinances their home loan, they will get hit with this tripled fee, which will be cost prohibitive for many veterans.

Republicans are increasing, tripling fees for one group of veterans to pay for benefits for another. Do you know what I find the most despicable, though? It is that the veterans and their families were told that this pay-for was required or the bill would not become law. That is a flatout lie, and I speak as an appropriator and someone who understands the paygo rules.

At some point, if you recall, my friends on the other side of the aisle, we thought it was going to be tonight, but we will likely push that to next week or when we come back, you are going to push through a partisan spending bill that would include billions of dollars in spending that is completely unpaid for because the paygo rule would be waived, just like every point of order.

That is what you could do in this bill, but instead you are saddling one group of veterans with tripled fees to get a home loan to pay for benefits for the other, and that is why I must rise in opposition today.

This benefits expansion should be passed. It should. I firmly believe that we must honor our commitment to our veterans at every step, but let me be very clear: The precedent that we are being asked to set is a dangerous one. We will not take from one group of veterans to give to another, no matter how small we claim the pay-for would be.

Chairman Bost and Ranking Member Takano, I would ask that we all get together and meet--Chairman Carter, myself, and the two of you--to talk about how we can accomplish this in a bipartisan way. We should not waste any of the House's time because the House and Senate are going to need to conference on MILCON-VA bills, and I want to make sure that this issue is addressed in that bill.

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, when this bill drops the painful triple fee increase, you will have my vote.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, when this bill drops the painful, triple fee increase on VA home loans, you will have my vote. In the meantime, I must strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

This is completely unnecessary. The pay-for is not required. They could waive it just like they do on nearly every other bill. I would ask my friends on the majority side to seriously reflect on what this precedent would mean for our veterans in the future.

We should not be tripling the cost of a VA home loan to pay for benefits that are sorely needed and deserved, but it is completely unnecessary to hit one group of veterans. Coming from a party that says they are against fee and tax increases, this is pretty shocking. It is unacceptable, and it doesn't have to be this way, and you know it. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I do think the gentleman doth protest too much. The gentleman cheerleaded and encouraged Secretary Collins to end the VASP program over a year ago, forthwith. He is now on the floor arguing to take away the last remaining tool that veterans who have distressed properties have to hang on to those properties, which is the ability to refinance their homes under the VA home loan program. He is advocating for the passage of a bill which will admirably address the catastrophically disabled, but cause veterans who are in distressed homes higher costs in refinancing.

Let me explain further. Veterans are experiencing record foreclosures. Unfortunately, it is not hard to explain exactly why. It is because of the Trump administration's assault on the VA loan assistance options.

Just months into the Trump administration's second term, President Trump and Secretary Collins, at the urging of Chairman Bost and Chairman Van Orden, ended the Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase program, otherwise known as VASP.

The VASP program was a lifeline offered to veterans by President Biden that served as a last resort option for veterans before foreclosure. The program worked. For inane, extreme ideological reasons, Chairman Bost and Chairman Van Orden urged Secretary Collins to end the VASP program.

It is no surprise that foreclosures for veterans have doubled since that action. Ten thousand veterans have lost their homes in the last year, and tens of thousands more are set to be foreclosed upon in this Trump economy.

The majority might claim that their partial claims law, which was finally enacted last fall, is the answer. The gentleman from Wisconsin says that it is going to be implemented next month. We will see. I hope he is right, but I believe that the law is still months away from being implemented. Based on the rollout, it is unlikely to save many of the veterans at risk due to limitations in the program and the delays in rollout.

At the very least, they could have urged Secretary Collins to continue the VASP program until the partial claims program was ready. But no, oops, it is unfortunate, says my colleague from the State of Wisconsin, that 10,000 veterans had to lose their homes.

Now, what brings us to this moment? With VASP gone and partial claims not ready for prime time, the only last true option for veterans is to refinance their loans so they can get current on their outstanding payments.

This very legislation we are considering right now puts that relief further away. Refinancing will become more expensive, which makes it no longer a viable option for many veterans. Veterans have less options than they did a year ago, and this bill will reduce those options even more.

Mr. Speaker, I have been searching my memory to recall such righteous indignation about costs when we prosecute wars.

The rhetoric about the true cost of war is very different. In fact, it is nonexistent. No one is prepared to handcuff our military at a time when they need equipment. Yet, the individual consequences of war can last a lifetime, and we must take them into account.

After 250 years, we have more than enough historical data to understand that the cost of these wars does not end at the last appropriation marked for battle.

We already promised to care for veterans. In this case, that means their families, as well. Congress should not turn away or hide from that fact. If we are to support the cost of starting and sustaining war, we must acknowledge the financial cost of supporting those veterans it creates when they come home.

We need to stop treating our work in Congress as something out of the ``Hunger Games,'' that someone must suffer so that someone else can get what they need, that we need to force schoolchildren, small business owners, and veterans to compete for help from their government. We on our side of the aisle are not going to play that game with the benefits our veterans have earned.

We should provide funding to give veterans who have gone to war for this country healthcare and benefits. In fact, if you want to continue to increase funding for defense spending and military aid, I would say that you should be required to consider the long-term cost of taking care of the servicemembers whom we are sending into harm's way.

I personally would never ask for offsets for funding for the equipment our troops need because it is the right thing to do, just like taking care of veterans is also the right thing to do. I hope that our country and this Congress will not perpetuate a double standard when we discuss funding and support for our servicemembers and for our veterans and their families. America deserves better.

Again, I will conclude by saying we should be taking care of the catastrophically disabled veterans of our country. It has been too long. They have gone without for too long, but we should not be asking other veterans to do that work. We, the American people, should be the ones who foot that bill, not our veterans.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source