[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1750, H.R. 1824,
H.R. 1598, H.R. 1315, H.R. 1240, H.R. 675,
H.R. 513, H.R. 2259, H.R. 2475, H.R. 1632,
H.R. 112, H.R. 2579, AND H.R. 1370
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 21, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
37-468 WASHINGTON : 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
BOB FILNER, California, Chairman
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JERRY MORAN, Kansas
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
Dakota HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona Carolina
JOHN J. HALL, New York JEFF MILLER, Florida
PHIL HARE, Illinois JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South Dakota, Chairwoman
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Ranking
JERRY McNERNEY, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
JOHN J. HALL, New York JERRY MORAN, Kansas
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
__________
June 21, 2007
Page
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1750, H.R. 1824, H.R. 1598, H.R.
1315, H.R. 1240, H.R. 675, H.R. 513, H.R. 2259, H.R. 2475, H.R.
1632, H.R. 112, H.R. 2579, and H.R. 1370....................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin............................. 1
Prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin............. 48
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member, prepared statement
of............................................................. 48
Hon. Ginny Brown-Waite........................................... 17
Hon. Timothy J. Walz............................................. 18
Prepared statement of Congressman Walz....................... 49
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Keith Pedigo, Director, Loan
Guaranty Service, Veterans Benefits Administration............. 34
Prepared statement of Mr. Pedigo............................. 83
______
American Legion, Ronald F. Chamrin, Assistant Director, Economic
Commission..................................................... 21
Prepared statement of Mr. Chamrin............................ 71
American Trucking Associations, Inc., Ray Kuntz, Chairman, and
Chief Executive Officer, Watkins and Shepard Trucking Company,
Helena, MT..................................................... 27
Prepared statement of Mr. Kuntz.............................. 79
Brady, Hon. Robert A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania.......................................... 4
Prepared statement of Congressman Brady...................... 51
Disabled American Veterans, Brian E. Lawrence, Assistant National
Legislative Director........................................... 26
Prepared statement of Mr. Lawrence........................... 78
Israel, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York.................................................... 5
Prepared statement of Congressman Israel..................... 51
Jackson-Lee, Hon. Shelia, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas................................................. 7
Prepared statement of Congresswoman Jackson-Lee.............. 55
Michaud, Hon. Michael H., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maine................................................. 15
Prepared statement of Congressman Michaud.................... 70
Reichert, Hon. David G., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington............................................ 16
Prepared statement of Congressman Reichert................... 70
United States Olympic Committee, Charlie Huebner, Chief of U.S.
Paralympics.................................................... 23
Prepared statement of Mr. Huebner............................ 76
Welch, Hon. Peter, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Vermont........................................................ 13
Prepared statement of Congressman Welch...................... 67
Wynn, Hon. Albert Russell, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland.............................................. 2
Prepared statement of Congressman Wynn....................... 49
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
U.S. Department of Defense, Leslye A. Arsht, Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Military Community and Family Policy),
statement...................................................... 87
U.S. Department of Labor, Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella, Assistant
Secretary, Veterans' Employment and Training Service, statement 89
______
Blinded Veterans Association, Thomas Zampieri, Ph.D., Director of
Government Relations, statement................................ 89
Davis, Hon. Jo Ann, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Virginia, statement......................................... 91
National Association of Mortgage Brokers, Harry H. Dinham,
President, statement........................................... 92
Vermont State Office of the Adjutant General, Michael D. Dubie,
Major General, The Adjutant General, letter.................... 69
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Newspaper Articles and Report:
``Bills in the Napsack: A Law Gets Lost; Creditors Press
Troops Despite Relief Act,'' The New York Times, Late
Edition--Final, March 28, 2005, Section A; Column 3, By
Diana B. Henriques......................................... 53
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Testimony of Cynthia
A. Bascetta, Director, Healthcare--Veterans' Health and
Benefits Issues, Before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
entitled: ``VA Healthcare, More Outpatient Rehabilitation
Services for Blind Veterans Could Better Meet Their
Needs,'' GAO-04-996T, July 22, 2004........................ 58
Post-Hearing Requests and Follow-up Administration Views on
Legislation:
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Leslye A. Arsht, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Military Community and Family Policy), U.S. Department of
Defense, letter dated October 23, 2007, requesting
Administration views on H.R. 513, H.R. 1598, and H.R. 1750. 94
Hon. Gordon H. Mansfield, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs, to Hon. Bob Filner, Chairman,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, letter dated October 26,
2007, transmitting Administration's views and estimates for
H.R. 704, H.R. 2259, and H.R. 1824......................... 96
Hon. James B. Peake, M.D., Secretary, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs, to Hon. Bob Filner, Chairman, Committee
on Veterans' Affairs, letter dated March 31, 2007,
transmitting Administration's views and estimates for H.R.
1370....................................................... 98
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1750,
H.R. 1824, H.R. 1598, H.R. 1315, H.R. 1240,
H.R. 675, H.R. 513, H.R. 2259, H.R. 2475,
H.R. 1632, H.R. 112, H.R. 2579, AND H.R. 1370
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Herseth
Sandlin [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Herseth Sandlin, Boozman, and
Moran.
Also Present: Representatives Brown-Waite, Walz.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity, Hearing on Pending Legislation will come to order.
For purposes of trying to get through with, and hearing
from our first panel of witnesses before votes may be called, I
know Mr. Wynn is on his way as is our Ranking Member, Mr.
Boozman, but I would like to get started.
Before I begin with my opening statement, I want to call
attention to the fact that Representative Tim Walz,
Representative Jo Ann Davis, and Ms. Leslye Arsht, Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy
for the Department of Defense have asked to submit written
statements for the record. If there is no objection, I ask
unanimous consent that their statements be entered for the
record. Hearing no objection, so entered.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Tim Walz and the
written statements of Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis, and Ms.
Leslye Arsht appear on pages 49, 90 and 86.]
As some of you may recall, this Subcommittee has held
numerous hearings in the prior Congress as well as this one
regarding adaptive housing, education assistance, and ensuring
that our returning servicemembers and their families have a
smooth and effective transition to civilian life.
With an increasing number of disabled veterans returning
home from Iraq and Afghanistan, there is an urgent need to
review these important pieces of legislation. Today we have 13
bills before us that seek to do a number of things. They seek
to protect our Nation's veterans from financial burdens
incurred while serving one's country; expand education programs
while meeting the current needs of our economy; provide
transition assistance to members of the National Guard and
Reserve; strengthen re-employment rights for returning
veterans; ensure the vitality of programs that assistant
veterans in making the best use of Montgomery GI Bill Education
Benefits; and establish an office to promote programs to assist
our injured veterans to heal from the wounds they have
sustained while in the U.S. Armed Forces.
In addition, I have introduced legislation that will be
discussed here today that seeks to address some of the special
housing needs of our returning brave men and women in uniform.
The first bill is H.R. 1315, which would provide specially
adaptive housing assistance to disabled servicemembers residing
temporarily in housing owned by a family member. Under current
law a temporary grant may be available to veterans who are or
will be temporarily residing in a home by a family member, but
the assistance provided by this bill allowable up to $14,000
may be used to adapt the family member's home to meet the
veteran's special needs at that time.
The second bill, H.R. 675 would increase the amount of
assistant available to disabled veterans for specially adaptive
housing grants from the current $50,000 to $60,000. I believe
these two bills will be critical components in assisting our
disabled veterans and servicemembers and expand the resources
available to give them a level of independent living they may
not otherwise attain.
I look forward to working with the Ranking Member, as well
as all members of the Subcommittee to continue to improve the
quality of care and services available to our veterans.
As soon as Mr. Boozman arrives, I will want to acknowledge
him for an opening statement. So if Mr. Moran would indulge us
to move directly to the first panel.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin
appears on p. 48.]
Mr. Moran. Madam Chairman, to expedite matters I am happy
to forgo an opening statement. I look forward to hearing the
comments from our colleagues.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Very good. Joining us on our first
panel is the Honorable Albert Wynn; the Honorable Steve Israel;
the Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee; and the Honorable Robert
Brady.
All of your written statements will be entered into the
record. Mr. Wynn, if you are ready you may start, otherwise I
will have Mr. Brady go. You are more than welcome to start out
and you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENTS OF HON. ALBERT RUSSELL WYNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND; HON. ROBERT A. BRADY, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; HON.
STEVE ISRAEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NEW YORK; AND HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT RUSSELL WYNN
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I am also
in a markup so with your indulgence I would appreciate it.
Mr. Moran. Go ahead.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Very good.
Mr. Wynn. Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member
Boozman, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on H.R. 1750 the bill I have
offered to extend the protections offered under the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.
H.R. 1750 would extend the protections to a mortgage
property owned by a servicemember or a qualified Reserve or
Guard member to one year from the current law which provides
for a 90--protection for 90 days.
The bill attempts to address the very real economic and
life hardships that active-duty servicemembers and women and
their families frequently face and acts to protect the families
most treasured and needed possession, their home. The bill is
consistent with the requirements and limitations of the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, originally passed in 1940 and
amended in the 108th Congress. The Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act is an important safeguard for our Nation's veterans and
active-duty servicemembers.
The bill would extend the protections granted to active-
duty servicemen and their immediate families by increasing the
period in which they are protected against mortgage
foreclosure. It gives servicemembers, Guard, and Reserve
members returning from active duty time to re-adjust to
civilian life while protecting their most valued asset and
rebuilding a normal life with their family.
Many combat injuries occurred as a result of active duty
both physical and mental can seriously obstruct servicemen and
servicewomen from finding and holding down a job. Upon their
return due to the operational tempo and intense levels of
combat that our troops face in this conflict, more and more
returning servicemembers are evidencing signs of serious combat
stress and related mental health conditions. Repeated and
lengthened employments dramatically affecting the troops--
dramatically affect the troops and their families.
A recent study found that those who have served multiple
tours are 50 percent more likely to suffer from acute combat
stress. The Defense Department Task Force on Mental Health
reported in early June that almost 40 percent of the troops
have experienced some type of psychological problem. When they
come home, these veterans are unable to fully mesh back into
normal life. They may lose their job, their home, they may end
up on the street, unfortunately.
I received considerable anecdotal evidence of the family
distribution that occurs and that is why we believe this bill
is very important. There are also economic challenges that the
returning members face. And the bottom line is that this bill
would allow basically a year to reconnect with your family, re-
establish your financial situation, and proceed on with your
life while protecting you from the loss of your home due to
mortgage foreclosure.
Now this is not a absolute protection. As exist under
current law, it is only a protection that says that you are
entitled to a court hearing which would allow you to present
evidence that your non-payment of your mortgage is materially
affected by conditions relating to your active-duty service.
I think this protection is a practical approach to solving
the problem. It also really gives life to the rhetoric that we
often espouse of our honoring our veterans by assuring them a
reasonable period of time to readjust and protect their home
from mortgage foreclosure.
I really thank you for this opportunity and be happy to
respond to any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Wynn appears on p.
49.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Wynn, thank you very much. Mr.
Brady, we look forward to your testimony. Thank you for being
such an early and consistent leader on the issue of credit
protection for our servicemembers. You are now recognized for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT A. BRADY
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I would like to
thank you, thank the Committee also for having me testify here.
I would like to discuss H.R. 513, the ``National Hero's Credit
Protection Act.''
No military personnel should ever suffer financial hardship
for answering the call. This bill will require that credit
reporting agencies add a simple note to the credit files of
deployed active-duty servicemembers and activated Reservist and
National Guard personnel indicating that late and slow payments
to existing accounts occurred during the deployment or
mobilization.
This bill will make it easier for our troops to protect
their credit by requiring them to report their deployment to
just one agency instead of to every creditor. But it will not
allow anyone to run up new debt or to get out of any debt they
already owe. It will not cost the Federal Government anything
to implement. There will be no new forms or actions for the
Defense Department to use. Troops will be advised of their
rights under the servicemembers readiness process that they
already go through and it will not impact creditors because
their debt will still be paid.
I believe that this a simple cost-effective way to protect
our troops during this, the longest deployment in America
history.
Real quickly, Madam Chairwoman, I was approached by a
sheriff in the city of Philadelphia that was deployed in the
first deployment to Iraq. And it was a woman. She was there for
18 months. And she asked me to intervene and help her to
straighten out her credit that was ruined by her 18 months that
she was over in Iraq.
She said to me she saw many armored tanks, many armored
vehicles, military planes, a lot of military equipment, but she
didn't see a mail truck. And because of that she could not get
her bill for 18 months. She was a single woman and lived at
home and mail wasn't being forwarded to her over in Iraq.
When she came back she asked me if I would intervene to try
to help her get her credit straightened out, and after being
hung up about four or five times with major credit agencies, I
was able to get a little bit of help for her, but not the
necessary help that now she has credit problems, that her
interest is a little high. I am still trying to help her as we
speak, six, seven--five, six years from now. I think this bill
would help our men and women that are out there protecting
myself, yourself, and all of us every single day. And it is
wrong to have their credit ruined while they are protecting the
United States of America.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Brady appears on p.
51.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Brady. We will look
forward to posing a few questions for you.
Mr. Brady. Sure.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Israel, you are now recognized for
five minutes. Thank you, for your efforts in this same area.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE ISRAEL
Mr. Israel. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman and thank
you to Mr. Moran and the entire Committee. I am grateful for
the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 1598, which is a
bipartisan bill introduced by Mr. Jeff Davis, a gentleman from
Kentucky who serves on the Armed Services Committee and myself.
I want to thank Mr. Brady for starting the debate and being
the first to respond to the critical issue of servicemembers
who are taking bullets and being harassed in the military
theater and then have to come back and fight a bureaucracy to
try and restore their credit at home.
My legislation is essentially a compliment or supplement to
Mr. Brady's and we have had a dialogue on how we can continue
to work together. My legislation closes the gap between the
protections that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act provides
to people in military theater and the awareness that most
servicemembers and many creditors don't have with respect to
those protections.
For example, I have a constituent named Carl Botkin who
left Long Island to serve as a Naval Reserve Officer in Kuwait
from July 2005 to April 2006. Almost as soon as he left, his
phone began ringing off the hook at home where his wife was
constantly harassed by creditors. She called her auto company
because somebody had told her that they weren't allowed to
charge her the interest rate that they were charging her and
asked whether there was any relief that she could get. And was
told over the phone that there is no such law in place that
offers that relief and, ``If you don't pay we will come and get
your car.''
She called her credit card company because her credit card
debt was growing. And the company continued to charge her with
fees and interest and all sorts of penalties in contradiction
to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. When they called our
office, we were able to get many of those fees and penalties
waived, but the fact of the matter is that this poor women went
through extraordinary distress. And she is not alone.
The New York Times, on March 28, 2005, published a front
page story reporting that companies and servicemembers are
often unaware of those protections. With a headline,
``Creditors Press Troops Despite Relief Act,'' and I would
submit that for the record, Madam Chairwomen.
[The New York Times article appears after Mr. Israel's
statement on p. 53.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. So entered.
Mr. Israel. The article talked about Sergeant John Savage
who got a call from his wife on his way to Iraq and was told,
``They are foreclosing on our house.'' At Fort Hood, Texas, a
soldier's wife was sued by a creditor trying to collect a debt
owed by her husband who was in Baghdad even though default
judgments are not permitted against deployed soldiers. Camp
Pendleton, California, ``A dozen Marines return home from Iraq
to find that their cars and possessions were improperly sold
while they were in Iraq to cover unpaid storage and towing
fees.'' And in Ordan, Ohio, a young Army couple was served with
foreclosure papers.
The problem is that ignorance has been used as an excuse
for the law on the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Many times
deployed personnel are kissing their families goodbye, they are
packing up their stuff, they are responding to their orders.
They don't have the time to alert their creditors and tell them
that they are leaving.
Many of these creditors have said publicly, ``We didn't
even know this law existed. Of course we wouldn't have harassed
and intimidated the families of our servicemembers if we knew
this law was the law. We didn't know.'' And so what my law does
basically is this: It was designed in consultation with folks
who are active in the consumer credit industry. They consulted
with us in designing this bill so that is logistically
feasible.
It requires the Department of Defense when adjusting a
servicemembers paycheck to receive combat pay, hostile duty
pay, to automatically alert the three major credit bureaus that
this person is now in a combat environment. That adjustment has
to be made anyway on the payroll system. So it now
automatically alerts the credit bureaus rather than making it
the onus of the deployed personnel to alert the credit bureaus.
The credit bureaus receive that information, they flag that
servicemember's file. When somebody tries to call that--contact
that credit bureau and report adverse information, that company
would be told immediately this person is under the protection
of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. It doesn't entitle them
to not pay their debts, to not pay their loans. It
affirmatively indicates to a creditor who may be trying to
repossess a car that you can't repossess the car; who may be
trying to score against that creditor--that borrower that you
can't do it.
It affirmatively says that this person is under the legal
protection of Federal law and you have certain obligations and
you have certain restrictions. So that nobody could say, ``Gee,
we didn't know there was such a law.'' And so that the person
who is being deployed doesn't have to be the one to, as they
are saying goodbye to their families, and packing up their
belongings, and reading their orders, write to every single
creditor, terminate their leases, have the obligation of
informing their creditors what the law is.
It gets them off the hook. Not to pay their debts, they
still have to do those things, but it puts the onus on the
Department of Defense in order to make that alert in the credit
bureaus and provides those additional protections.
I thank the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee and very much
appreciate your consideration of this bill.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Israel appears on p.
51.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Israel. We have been
joined by the Ranking Member Mr. Boozman. He has indicated he
will temporarily waive his opening statement and questions
until after we have heard from our final witness.
Ms. Jackson Lee, thank you for being here, you are
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE
Ms. Jackson-Lee. Madam Chairwoman, let me thank you very
much. To the Ranking Member, let me thank him for his
courtesies. And thank the full Committee and the Subcommittee
for the forward thinking leadership of this very important
commitment to our veterans in this new Congress, in the 110th
Congress.
I want to particularly applaud the work of the Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity, because it is charged with legislative
oversight and investigative jurisdiction over education of
veterans, employment, training of veterans, vocational
rehabilitation, veterans housing programs, and readjustment of
servicemembers to civilian life.
I believe there could be no more important aspect than the
training and rehabilitation of our veterans. It is the ultimate
commitment that after they have been willing to give the
ultimate sacrifice, and many of them have come back with any
number of injuries no matter what wars they participated in,
that we say to them, ``You count and you care.'' And I want,
again, to applaud this particular Committee and Subcommittee
for that kind of attitude.
My legislation, the Vision Impairment Specialist Training
Act or VISTA Act of 2007, H.R. 1240, is to make good on that
commitment of training, vocational rehabilitation, and the real
answer to a question, ``Do I still care?''
I am very proud that this legislation is supported by the
Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. He is one of the
original cosponsors, as well as Mr. Michaud, who is the Chair
of this Committee's Subcommittee on Health; and the co-Chairs
of the Congressional Vision Caucus, my colleague Gene Green of
Texas, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. It is a bipartisan
legislative initiative. And we are very happy to note that a
companion bill has been filed today by Senator Hagel and
Senator Obama. And so it will be submitted to the Veterans'
Affairs Committee there.
We know that, and if I might just lay the ground work for
the--for what we are literally facing as it relates to visually
impaired veterans. There are 160,000 legally blind veterans in
the United States, but only 35,000 are currently enrolled in
Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Services. In addition, it
is estimated that there are one million low vision veterans in
the United States. And incidences of blindness among the total
veteran population of 26 million are expected to increase by
about 40 percent over the next few years.
I need not frame for you that we know that there are 25,000
injured soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan and the
numbers are mounting. Because the injuries are focused on IEDs,
brain injuries or head injuries rather, we know that much of
that is impacted, if you will, or does impact sight.
And so my legislation says that we are concerned. And I
might add that Tom Zampieri is in the room, the Blind Veterans
Association is a strong supporter of this legislation. But what
does my the legislation do? And I think it goes to the heart of
the matter. How do we help them? We need more trained
individuals who know how to work with the visually impaired. We
want them back on their feet. And my legislation does just
that. It helps to remedy the situation by directing the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a scholarship
program for students seeking a degree or certificate in blind
rehabilitation, vision impairment, and or orientation and
mobility.
The availability of these scholarships will provide an
incentive to students considering entry into the field.
Additionally, in exchange for the scholarship award, students
are required to work for three years in a healthcare facility
of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to assure that our
veterans are well cared for. Such a facility is in Houston;
such facilities are in many of our Congressional districts;
more really should be provided for.
And so this legislation clearly says to the veteran, ``If
you are visually impaired, you still have a future. You still
have the ability to work. You still need to have mobility. And
we are going to help you.'' In detail, this legislation will
provide financial assistance to students enrolled in a program
to study or study leading to a degree or certificate in visual
impairment. It also again requires these individuals to be at
the sites or to go back and give back to those who are in need.
I do want to add a point about scholarships, because
everyone says scholarships how does it work? The scholarship is
from the Federal Government. And this debt will be owed to the
United States thus a discharge and bankruptcy does not
discharge a person from a debt under this legislation. If the
discharge order is entered in less than five years after the
date of termination of the agreement or the contract.
Let me just simply say that I have seen these veterans.
Many of us have been to Walter Reed; many of us have been to
our veteran's hospital. And we see the kind of catastrophic
injuries and we are grateful for the science of today that
allows these young people to live. And I think the value of
this legislation by creating more of these medical
professionals, is that more and more of these injuries are in
younger and younger Americans. Young people who have gone to
war, 18, 19, 20, 21 who have their lives before them. This
legislation will multiply the number of impaired specialist. So
we will give these individuals a new lease on life, if you
will, and give them the opportunity to be able to serve their
country again in the capacity that they desire to do so.
I ask my colleagues to give this due considerations before
this Committee. And I thank the gentle lady and the Ranking
Member for their time and this Committee. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Congresswoman Jackson-Lee
appears on p. 55.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you very much. Thank you to all
of you for making time to be here in what we all have our busy
schedules. I do hope that you will have time to stay for some
questions. I want to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman
for any opening statement or questions he may have of our
colleagues.
Mr. Boozman. In the interest of time the, and I know you
all have got a myriad of things to do. I really don't have any
questions, Madam Chairwoman. And we will go ahead and defer to
the rest of the panel.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. We have also been joined by Mr. Walz
and Mr. Moran. Since the Ranking Member forwent some questions,
I am going to recognize Mr. Moran, because he was here at the
beginning of the hearing. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Madam Chair, thank you very much. I thank you
and the Ranking Member for making it possible for us to hear
from our colleagues. I don't have any questions of the folks
who have testified. I just would commend them for their
bringing us creative ideas and approaches as we try to figure
out how do we best meet the needs of our veterans, both from
the perspective of making certain that we are able to recruit
and retain servicemen and women and that our commitments are
met to those who do serve.
So I appreciate the interest and intensity with which you
look at issues affecting veterans and I look forward to working
with you to see that many of your ideas are accomplished in
this Congress. I thank the Chair.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Moran. Mr. Walz?
Mr. Walz. Well, first of all, thank you Madam Chair for
extending me the courtesy of being here today and to the
Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman, I thank you.
I don't have any specific questions, but I too would like
to echo Mr. Moran's thoughts. I thank you for the passion you
bring to these issues and I know as a 24-year veteran of the
National Guard and someone who is deployed in these current
missions, especially Mr. Israel the issue you bring up, is far
more prevalent than anyone who hasn't gone through it knows.
And I appreciate your thoughtfulness in that in realizing what
a burden that is on the family. And it is easy to set in this
setting and for people to say, ``Well maybe they just make a
couple phone calls you it will be taken care of.'' It is not
quite so simple.
So I truly appreciate your passion. I appreciate the
Chairwoman for having you here and bringing these thoughtful
suggestions to us and things that I hope would love to see each
one enacted. So thank you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Walz, and for the
valuable perspective you bring having served recently and your
years of service in the National Guard. Mr. Boozman?
Mr. Boozman. Mr. Israel, one thing that does come up is,
and again I am very supportive of what you are trying to get
done, do you have any concern at all that in doing this that it
might make it more difficult for those that are serving to
actually get credit at a good rate as we start to do some of
these things?
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. In formulating this
legislation we consulted intensely with the consumer credit
industry. And in fact they indicated that that would be no
problem whatsoever. In fact, they felt that it would--on the
other side of the equation, it would strengthen those members
credit and protect them from getting higher interest rates as a
result of lower scores that were lowered without their
knowledge.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Brady, the notation requirement in
your bill, do you think that the notation of slow payment due
to service should be made for all personnel on active duty, or
should it be restricted for those active-duty servicemembers or
activated Reservist who are in a combat zone?
Mr. Brady. My bill states that those that are receiving
combat pay. Mobilized, they are in or deployed in the combat
zone.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Can you elaborate on how you think the
notation can be of assistance? Does your bill also specify or
would you be open to the issue of once there is a notation made
for purposes of the servicemember, should there be problems
upon his or her return, should there be a preservation of the
pre-activation credit score or does the notation actually get
transmitted to any entity that is requesting it?
Mr. Brady. The notation would get put in by the three major
credit agencies. And they would be all you have to do is notify
one and they will put a little notation in their credit that
they were deployed at this certain time and they should not be
penalized in any way, shape, or form. Nor should their credit
be altered in any way until they are on through their
deployment and then they go back and have to pay their bill.
But it freezes that timeframe when they are in combat, that
they can't have their credit hurt. And I would be open to any
kind of suggestion anybody would make to make this a better and
stronger bill for our men and women in harms way.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify
that once the notation is made, what is the practical effect of
that? If it freezes the current credit rating and their score,
then we want to make sure that is specified.
Mr. Brady. Yes. It is incumbent upon the three major credit
agencies. When they receive a notation, any one of them have to
share with the other two and that notation will be notified any
time there is a credit problem or credit inquiry for this
person at the time only when they were deployed.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Israel, I appreciate the
consultation you have described with the credit industry and
how this would work. I certainly agree that the duty should be
on the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). We all know
individuals who have been activated and they have a lot of
things on their mind as they prepare for their deployments. To
leave a lot of the financial issues either to a spouse or to
parents causes a lot of difficulty and the duty should be on
the DoD.
As we know, we have had problems particularly for the
selected Reserve as it relates, at least in some early
deployments, for TRICARE and the TRICARE coverage for those
selected Reserve and their families. Can you elaborate on how
we are going to ensure that the DoD is going to effectively and
efficiently notify the bureaus and keep track of this within
the system? I know you are on the Armed Services Committee, so
perhaps there has been some oversight done already to ensure
that the problems in TRICARE have been alleviated.
Mr. Israel. Well I, Madam Chairwoman, I used to be on the
Armed Services Committee and now I am on the Appropriations
Committee. My heart is still with the Armed Services Committee,
my wallet is with the Appropriations Committee, however.
I will say that although this is a bipartisan bill
cosponsored by Mr. Davis, a Republican member of the Armed
Services Committee, I cannot tell you that it is by river,
meaning I can't tell you that is the support or the opposition
of the Pentagon. So I want to state that for the record.
What we tried to do was find a logistically feasible and
practical way for the Pentagon to alert credit bureaus to the
change in status, rather than forcing the burden on the
servicemember himself or herself. And the simplest way to do it
is to take advantage of the fact that when you are deployed
into a combat environment, you actually receive a change in
your pay check. You receive combat pay, which means that
somebody in the Pentagon has to go into the computer program
and adjust your record so that you can get that additional pay.
And the idea was, while they are doing that they would just
press another send button or another key that would alert the
credit bureaus to the fact that this person is now in a combat
environment and is under the protection of the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act.
So essentially, it becomes a clerical responsibility by the
Department of Defense, which is already engaged in the clerical
responsibility of adjusting that person's pay. And then, when
the person is deployed out of a combat environment, what
happens is that the Pentagon readjusts the pay to the base
amount without combat pay and would then notify the credit
bureaus that this person is no longer in combat.
And so essentially we just add this one step to the
Pentagon which is far better than adding 12 different steps as
Mr. Brady says to the servicemember.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Yes, Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Not to get into an argument with my dear friend,
he only has one step. He only has to call one credit agency. He
doesn't have to call all the others. And it's incumbent upon
him, because it is his responsibility because it is his credit
that is being hurt, rather than having to go to the Defense
Department and rely on them pushing the button. I am going to
push that button. I don't know whether somebody in the
bureaucracy is going to push it, because it affects me.
And what they do when the get orders, their orders say they
are deployed for 18 months, 22 months, 12 months. They have to
go to other agencies to get their rights. All they got to do is
go to one other credit agency, give them a copy of their
orders, 18 months they know that their credit will be on hold
for 18 months. They do it themselves. No other jurisdiction has
to get involved other than yourself.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I appreciate that. Have either of you
heard from any of the veterans service organizations with
regard to specific support or specific concerns about either of
your bills?
Mr. Brady. Just applauding us for doing it. Applauding us
for doing it.
Mr. Israel. I would echo that. And I just want to state I
don't think there is a difference between Mr. Brady and I on
this at all. It is kind of a one, two punch. There is under Mr.
Brady's bill the servicemember makes one call to a credit
bureau, which I support. Under my bill, there would be this
additional requirement by the Department of Defense to alert
the credit bureaus as well.
And I know that we are have been talking together about
combining our efforts. Is that fair to say?
Mr. Brady. Sure.
Mr. Israel. Okay.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Well there may be some other
areas that we want to explore. We do have ten minutes left on
the vote and I have one quick question for Ms. Jackson-Lee.
But we want to address this issue in the most effective way
possible. And that is why we have the third and fourth panels
that will be addressing each of the bills and we are wanting to
work with you both in having approached this maybe slightly
differently and maybe the initial bill and a supplement as you
described it, Mr. Israel. We may have some follow up questions
for you.
Ms. Jackson-Lee, I commend your efforts in this bill and
the importance of this bill. I, too, have looked at the issue
specifically for disabled veterans for specially adaptive
housing, as I mentioned in my opening statement. I did seek a
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score on mine, which includes
from the $50,000 to $60,000 which is $47 million over ten
years. Have you similarly sought a score for this bill as it
relates to the cost of the scholarship program?
Ms. Jackson-Lee. We are in the midst of doing that now. I
do want to make--I am glad you asked that question and I want
to make sure that in the scholarship program only if you serve
for a period of time and return your services to the Veterans
Affairs Department will the debt be forgiven. So at least there
is a component where we are not providing this training and
never getting a return in kind.
If you do not perform the commitment, then it as I
indicated, it becomes a debt that you are obligated to pay as
long as the request is made five years after the--before five
years in after the agreement, but we are in the midst of
determining that.
I will say that I think that it will equate to a positive
off set only because I want to share with you the U.S.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) study more out patient
rehabilitation services for blind veterans could better meet
their needs. And I think the cost of providing services because
blind veterans or impaired veterans with impaired eyesight are
not able to be mobile, are not able to work. That cost may
exponentially be, if you will, less when you equate it to what
we would get if we provided these trained individuals who can
help them become more able to work or more able to be more
mobile in this instance.
So, we will get that number to the Committee, but I believe
it will be a number that will show that it is certainly more
reasonable to do so in order to provide these services.
And I would like to just certainly give more enthusiastic
recognition of the Blind Veterans Association that includes
this bill in their legislative update. And rumor has it that
the Veterans' Affairs Department is supporting this
legislation. And I know that we don't want to dwell on rumor,
but I thought I would add that to the statement.
Thank you. We will provide that information to the
Committee.
[The 2004 GAO report, entitled VA Healthcare: More
Outpatient Rehabilitation Services for Blind Veterans Could
Better Meet Their Needs, GAO-04-996T, referred to appears on p.
58.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. Hopefully we will have the
rumor confirmed on our fourth panel, but thank you. I
appreciate your response as it relates to the potential cost
estimates and agree with your anticipation of what hopefully
the CBO score will show.
Thank you, again, for making the time to take our questions
and I do look forward, as I know the Ranking Member does, in
working through some of these issues in better meeting the
needs of our Nation's veterans.
We will break now for the next series of votes and be back
shortly for the second panel.
[Recess.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Mr. Boozman and Mr. Reichert are both on their way, but because
we are trying to fit in a lot this afternoon and the witnesses
on our second panel have other places to be as does Ms. Brown-
Waite who has joined us on the Subcommittee for this panel. I
would like to go ahead and get started.
Our second panel is comprised of the Honorable Peter Welch;
the Honorable Michael Michaud; and the Honorable David
Reichert. Mr. Welch, we will start with you. You are recognized
for five minutes.
STATEMENTS OF HON. PETER WELCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT; HON. MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE; AND HON.
DAVID G. REICHERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF WASHINGTON
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER WELCH
Mr. Welch. Thank you, Ms. Sandlin and the other Members of
the Subcommittee. I also want to acknowledge the presence of
Mr. Michaud who has been a leader on issues involving veterans
and very helpful to me and the veterans in Vermont.
Our bill that I am here today on has to do with the fact
that historically, the Guard has been treated differently than
the active-duty military. And there may have been reasons for
that in the past, but whatever they were, they don't exist any
longer, because as this Committee knows, as well as everyone in
Congress, members of the National Guard are now frontline
troops whose responsibilities are to play a frontline role in
combat.
And let me just go through some of the problems that we can
solve with the favorable consideration of the legislation
before you. A regularly discharged veteran who has some level
of disability will typically have to wait about six months
before receiving a disability check from the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA). During that time period, veterans who
suffer a disability are at their most vulnerable for divorce,
for dislocation from work, from facing all the challenges of
getting re-integrated into civilian life.
Now the Army came up with a pretty good program to help
alleviate that, and they call it the Benefits Delivery at
Discharge (BDD) program. And what it does is allow a member of
the Armed Services to go through the disability determination
process about six months before the discharge. And most of the
time the situation is not going to change in the next six
months. That has been incredibly successful, because what it
has meant is that that soldier has had a disability
determination before they leave the service and then upon
discharge from the service they have got their rating and they
are either getting the benefit or they are not, but they know
the answer and they are able to move on with life immediately
in their new status.
Reservist and Guardsmen, while they comprise now 40 percent
of the combat forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, don't have
regular access to this benefit discharge program. In my State
of Vermont, in fact, we have sent 4,000 soldiers to Iraq and
Afghanistan since September of 2001 and nearly half of them are
from the Guard and the Reserves.
So all of us, obviously, know that we are asking first
class service from our Guard and Reservist and we don't want to
give them second class benefits. So in addition to the delay
that is disproportionately imposed on applications from Guard
and Reservist, there is a denial rate for their applications
that is more than twice the denial rate for members of the
regular Army. And obviously since they are doing the same thing
in the same place facing the same conditions, there are no real
explanations other than systemic ones for that.
The denial rate has been documented in a study that was
obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, but it was, just
to be specific, 7.6 percent; but for National Guard and for the
Reserves it was a denial rate of 17.8 percent. So the bottom
line here is that we have in place, through the Army, an
excellent program, the Benefit Delivery at Discharge. That is
not as available to the Reservist and the Guard as it should
be, because it works. And the point of this legislation is to
establish a degree of cooperation between the Army and the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to have this program be
made available to our soldiers who are in the Reserve and in
the Guard.
It is simple. It is straight forward. It is fair. There is
no reason to deny benefits simply because of administrative
burdens as opposed to the merits of the case. So I am pleased
also, Madam Chair, to offer at this time with I hope unanimous
consent into the record, a letter from the Adjutant General in
Vermont, someone we are very proud of, two star General Michael
Dubie who is in support of making this program available to the
members of the Reserve and the Guard.
And I thank all of you for your excellent work.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Welch, and attached
letter from the Adjutant General in Vermont, appear on p. 66
and 68.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Without objection, so entered.
We know you have been working closely with the State
Adjutant General in Vermont. We appreciate that. Each of us has
to work very closely with our State Adjutant Generals because
they have a particular and unique perspective and understanding
of what the men and women under their charge go through post-
deployment. We appreciate that and we will enter that for the
record.
Mr. Welch. Thank you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Michaud, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL H. MICHAUD
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman and
Ranking Member Boozman. I want to thank the Committee for
allowing me testify this afternoon on H.R. 2475, the ``Veterans
Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Act of 2007.'' I introduced
H.R. 2475 with Congresswoman Brown-Waite of Florida to provide
another tool for our aging veterans to help them live out their
remaining years comfortably.
Our legislation would allow the VA to offer a home equity
conversion mortgage to eligible elderly veteran homeowners aged
62 or older. The Home Equity Conversion Mortgage enables our
older homeowners to convert their equity in their homes into
tax free income without having to sell the home, give up the
title, or take on a new monthly mortgage payment.
Instead of making monthly payments to a lender as with a
regular mortgage, a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage converts
the equity in the individual's home to cash. The lender makes
the payment to the individual veteran. With the rate of
American homeownership at an all time high, Home Equity
Conversion Mortgage have become a mainstream and highly
successful financial planning tool for elderly homeowners.
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) endorsed 8,041
reverse mortgages during the month of April compared to 6,536 a
year earlier. If you take that out to seven months into the
current fiscal year, FHA has endorsed 61,101 loans compared to
39,674 during the same period last year, which is a 54 percent
increase.
The intent of H.R. 2475 is to allow the VA to offer reverse
mortgages in the same way that FHA currently does. Like the FHA
program, those interested in obtaining this type of mortgage
must receive significant counseling. The veteran must
demonstrate a full understanding of the benefits and risk, as
well as the consequences of his or her heirs before being
deemed eligible for the loan.
While our legislation leaves it to the discretion of the
Secretary, if the Secretary follows current VA home loan
regulations, veterans would be eligible for higher available
loan limits than the Farmers Home Administration Loan program,
which means more cash out to the veterans and a savings of
roughly 0.5 percent of interest rate, because monthly mortgage
interest premiums are not required with VA guaranteed loans.
Elderly veterans should be offered this valuable tool,
which allows them to cash out the equity that they have built
up in their homes over 20, 30, or 40 years. This would enable
them to continue to meet the demand of increasing health,
housing, and cost without their risking them losing their
homes. There is almost a no risk to veterans and very little
risk to the VA. This is truly a win, win opportunity. This
legislation would allow more veterans to remain in their homes
longer without having to take on additional monthly bills or
facing the prospect of losing their homes.
It will help them to enjoy the so called golden years of
their lives. And I want to thank the Chairwoman, Mr. Ranking
Member, and also Congresswoman Brown-Waite for cosponsoring
this legislation with me. With that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Michaud appears on
p. 70.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Michaud, and we
appreciate the bipartisan efforts between you and Ms. Brown-
Waite in introducing and advancing this legislation.
Mr. Reichert, welcome to the Subcommittee. Thank you for
appearing before us today and you are now recognized for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID G. REICHERT
Mr. Reichert. Sure I am glad to be there. Madam Chairwoman,
Ranking Member Boozman and members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 1632, the
``Improving Veterans Re-Employment Act.'' Congressman Tim Walz,
as you know, and I have worked together on this bipartisan
legislation to enact an important technical fix to the tracking
and reporting of re-employment complaints filed by people in
the Guard and in the Reserves.
You will find Congressman Walz's supporting testimony in
your hearing documents. So I am grateful that he has joined us
here today, knowing that he is on the full Committee. As you
know, the Uniform Services Employment and Re-Employment Rights
Act is meant to ensure that members of the Guard and Reserve
return to the rights, seniority, and benefits of the civilian
jobs they put on hold to defend our freedom.
The Departments of Labor and Defense are charged with
assisting veterans and employers with this law and mediating
disputes with the support of the Department of Justice and the
Office of Special Counsel. Labor submits an annual report to
Congress on their re-employment complaints filed by veterans.
Early in 2005, I learned that Reservists and Guardsmen in my
district and across the country were facing difficulties in
returning to their civilian jobs. I know from my former career
as the Sheriff of King County in the Seattle area of
Washington, that the best course of action comes when you
collect information first. And so, we went on an information
search, gathering intelligence.
We commissioned a GAO study to examine how thousands of
members of the Guard and Reserve who are called up to serve in
Iraq and Afghanistan were transitioning back into the civilian
work force. The study found that the Departments responsible
for enforcing the Uniform Services Employment and Re-Employment
Rights Act do not coordinate the tracking, sharing, or
reporting of the complaint data they receive.
This compromises their ability to swiftly and effectively
respond to the veterans' job needs. The GAO study also found
that Congress was only receiving information on a very small
percentage of the thousands of complaints filed by the
Reservists and Guardsmen each year, hampering our ability to
take immediate action to address the concerns of Reservists and
Guardsmen.
This bill would enact a simple, straightforward fix to this
lack of cohesive information sharing and reporting. It would
require that the Departments coordinate the sharing of and
reporting on the complaint data filed by Reservists facing
difficulties being re-hired. It would require them to use
uniform categories in tracking and reporting the data. And it
would require the Departments to specifically report on hiring
difficulties resulting from service connected disabilities.
These provisions will enable Congress to better identify
trends in the re-employment difficulties of our servicemembers
and the corrective actions that must be taken to ease their
transition back into the civilian work force. Good intelligence
generates good action, and informed action leads to positive
results. This bill would give those responsible for tending to
our veterans re-employment concerns the information needed to
best assist them. I am encouraged by the steps the Departments
of Labor and Defense have already taken to improve the
reporting of Reservists' and Guardsmen hiring difficulties. I
appreciate their support of the provisions in this legislation.
The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have presented our
Armed Forces with many new challenges, some expected and some
unforeseen. As members of the House Veterans' Affairs
Committee, you understand as well as anyone in this chamber the
importance of providing comprehensive support for all of our
servicemembers needs, ensuring that veterans can easily return
to civilian life and the work that they left to serve our
country.
I respectfully urge you to support H.R. 1632, which will
help our veterans return to their civilian jobs and enable us
to better serve all of our men and women in uniform. I thank
you so much for allowing me the time.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Reichert appears on
p. 70.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. Thanks to all three of our
panelists. I now would like to recognize Ms. Brown-Waite for
any statements or questions she may have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GINNY BROWN-WAITE
Ms. Brown-Waite. I thank the Chairlady and certainly the
Ranking Member for allowing me to once again be with this
Committee--Subcommittee. I was on it last year.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. We miss you. That is right.
Ms. Brown-Waite. And it is good to be back. I was very
proud to join with my colleague Congressman Michaud in
introducing H.R. 2475. This measure would actually help older
veterans utilize a financial instrument that has become very
increasingly common. It is the Reverse Home Equity Mortgage. By
ensuring the providers of these products against a loss the
Department of Veterans Affairs will help improve the lives of
those individuals who have served our country.
Millions of those from the greatest generation and soon to
be retiring baby boomers have served their country, raised a
family, built a career, and are looking forward to spending
their golden years in homes that hold all of these memories.
Too often a senior's most valuable asset is his home. His or
her home. Before Congress created the Home Equity Convertible
Mortgages under the Federal Housing Act, the only way to tap
into this asset was for a senior to sell their home, giving up
all of their priceless treasurers. However, under the HECM
program, seniors are actually paid to stay in their homes and
only upon their death or relocation are required to pay the
money back.
What started as a pilot program less than a decade ago now
provides over 75,000 seniors with piece of mind in the comfort
of their own home throughout their retirement. This bill
extends this program to those who qualify for services under
Veterans Affairs. The legislation is, I believe, a common sense
way to thank our Nation's veterans. In fact, such a program
should actually raise revenue for the government, for the VA.
Other reverse programs that have been implemented by the
Federal Government have generated money while benefiting
countless number of older consumers.
I ask the Subcommittee to take a closer look at our bill
and would be happy to answer any questions. I know that I have
held various meetings in my district to help seniors to gather
more information about reverse mortgages. They are always very,
very well attended. And people come away from there, and I
always encourage them, ``Talk to your family before you do
this. Make sure that this is a good family decision.'' But it
is something that many seniors are taking advantage of, because
it helps them, too, to feel as if they have some control over
their financial destiny. And I think it is an excellent bill
and I am very pleased to work with Representative Michaud on
it.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Ms. Brown-Waite. I would
now like to recognize Mr. Walz for any statement or questions
he may have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY J. WALZ
Mr. Walz. Well thank you once again, Madam Chair, for
extending me the courtesy and Mr. Boozman for allowing me to be
here. It is a great privilege. Thanks to all my colleagues who
are here for offering up great legislation to take care of our
veterans. Your passion, your concern and your thoughtfulness is
truly appreciated.
And it is a real pleasure for me to be a cosponsor with the
gentleman from Washington, Mr. Reichert's legislation. Mr.
Reichert is a veteran himself and as a sheriff of a large
department hired many National Guard and Reserve soldiers. He
understands this issue intimately. He was working on it when I
was a member of the Guard and not in Congress. So it is a real
privilege for me to join you. You are fighting the good fight
and doing the right thing. So I thank my colleague.
What Mr. Reichert and our bill is trying to do is trying
to, I think, establish a solid baseline to work from and trying
to get an understanding of how we can best use our resources to
address this problem of re-employment. And Mr. Reichert and I
were just having a conversation on the floor a little while ago
about how this issue is kind of the silent one that is out
there. And one of the issues is, and I know in my State and I
know Mr. Reichert would agree in Washington, our employers do a
fantastic job of doing everything they can to try and help our
citizen soldiers.
But the burden is very great and they are unwilling to try
and talk about it. So one of the things is that the statistics
are hard to get a grasp on and Mr. Reichert is very thoughtful
on what he is asking for here.
And I would just like to, from your expertise on this, Mr.
Reichert, and you talked a little bit in your opening
statement, elaborate a little bit on what you see as a
deficiency in a way that you think that we could correct this,
where it would make a difference.
Mr. Reichert. Well it is very simple. In just a couple of
minutes, the problem has been that most of the complaints are
filed through the Department of Defense. However, Department of
Labor has received about 2,400 complaints, and there are 10,000
complaints that have been filed through DoD and those
complaints are not brought together. So when we get our report
here in Congress, we are only learning about 2,400 complaints
and issues, and we are only getting a piece of the picture as
to what the real issues and the real problems are.
There are 10,000 other complaints out there that we don't
see in the annual report to Congress. And so what this bill
does is gather that information together, gather those
complaints together, and now we are able to analyze nearly
13,000 complaints to find the true picture of what is really
happening when Reservists and Guardsmen come back to their
families. And it gives the Department of Labor a better
understanding as to how to address each need as they look at
the total picture rather than just a very small fraction of the
complaints.
Mr. Walz. Well thank you so much, Mr. Reichert. And I would
say that for most of us to understand this, this is about an
issue of compassion for our veterans in terms of treating them
the way they need to be treated. It is also an issue of
national security to make sure that our retention rates stay as
high as they possibly can that we can retain these soldiers by
them keeping their jobs. And I think Mr. Reichert has got the
first step here before we rush head long into how we are going
to fix this, it is best that we know the real data.
So it is a pleasure for me to be on this with you Mr.
Reichert, and I thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Walz appears on p.
49.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Walz. Mr. Boozman?
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chairwomen. Again, I agree
with what Mr. Walz said. I appreciate all three of you being
here, it is so exciting to see people like you that are working
so hard. You and your staffs' that are devoting your time
trying to sort through all these veteran issues, trying to make
life easier for them. And so we really do appreciate it.
So I look forward to moving the process forward, but again
just want to commend you for your hard work and again bringing
forth some really excellent ideas that we need to look at and
hopefully fix. Thank you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well I want to echo Mr. Boozman's
sentiments.
[Laughter.]
We have two more panels after you to specifically address
their positions on each of your bills.
All three of you have identified by working together with
other members of the Subcommittee areas where there is a
disconnect between either DoD and the VA; DoD, Department of
Labor, and then opportunities for the VA along the lines of
what we have pursued in the past, very effective programs. So
we appreciate you introducing these bills, bringing them to our
attention.
I have worked with others in identifying some of these
gaps. As you stated, Mr. Reichert, to have cohesive information
sharing and reporting that allows us to do our job better and
our oversight to identify the corrective action that may be
necessary is very helpful. We look forward to continuing to
work with you to advance these bills.
I do have a quick question for Mr. Michaud and Ms. Brown-
Waite. Mr. Michaud, you had mentioned that H.R. 2475 would
provide almost no risk to the veteran and very little risk to
the VA. In either of your opinions, given that the risk is very
minimal, what are the risks that are involved and how do we
best address those risks? If indeed you feel that they have to
be addressed or if, as the program is structured along the
lines of other programs that we have had, whether they be
revenue generators or not that those risks can be adequately
addressed separate from specifying that in the legislation
itself.
Mr. Michaud. Well I think the risks to the veteran would be
if a veteran was to move out of his home before the time was
up, then he would have to repay the mortgage. If you look at
the benefit of the program, I think the benefit clearly
outweighs the risk to the veteran if he has to move out.
And as far as what risk there might be to the VA system, I
think there would be very little other than if a veteran tends
to live a long, long, long time, which hopefully that is the
case, but I can see there is very, very little risk.
And I might also add I want to thank Ms. Brown-Waite. She
has definitely been a leader in this particular area and has
focused on this issue a lot longer than I have and want to
thank her publicly for her leadership. I really enjoyed working
with you and your staff on this particular issue.
Ms. Brown-Waite. I think that is an excellent question. The
risk to the veteran is exactly as Mr. Michaud had said, but
think about the benefits. I mean the benefit clearly is people
age better in their own home. And they will have spending money
as a result of it. And they will be able to draw that equity
out.
Many seniors, whether they are veterans or non veterans, at
first are a little reluctant to take the money out of their
house because initially they want to say, ``Oh, I am going to
leave to my daughter or my son or my grandchildren.'' But that
is why I always encourage them, ``Please talk to your family
about it,'' because most families will say, ``You know, if it
helps you be more comfortable, go for it.''
The VA always has the home as the asset. And so there is
little or no risk there for the VA. And then actually,
historically, has been a money generator. I know that with the
reverse mortgages elsewhere, it actually has generated money.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, again, thank you both for your
responses. And we may be posing some similar questions to other
witnesses on the other panels. Thank you once again.
Mr. Welch, thank you for identifying yet another area in
which we can identify a gap and better serve our National Guard
and Reservist as it relates to the specific program you have
identified of the Benefits Delivery at Discharge program. Again
identifying mechanisms whereby we can close this gap and have
DoD more responsive to this in a systemic way. I don't think
there is any intent to dismiss the needs or to be neglectful,
but sometimes the systemic issue of the administrative burdens
versus the merits as you described in just enhancing the
availability of these programs for the selected Reserve.
Thank you all very much. We appreciate your time and the
your availability on rather short notice to appear before our
Subcommittee.
I would now invite panel three to the witness table.
Joining us on our third panel of witnesses we have Mr. Ronald
Chamrin, Assistant Director of the Economic Commission for the
American Legion; Mr. Brian Lawrence, Assistant National
Legislative Director for the Disabled American Veterans; Mr.
Ray Kuntz, Chief Executive Officer of Watkins and Shepard
Trucking Company and Chairman of the American Trucking
Associations; and Charlie Huebner, Chief of U.S. Paralympics
for the U.S. Olympic Committee.
Mr. Chamrin, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENTS OF RONALD F. CHAMRIN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC
COMMISSION, AMERICAN LEGION; CHARLIE HUEBNER, CHIEF OF U.S.
PARALYMPICS, UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE; BRIAN E.
LAWRENCE, ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED
AMERICAN VETERANS; AND RAY KUNTZ, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
WATKINS AND SHEPARD TRUCKING COMPANY, HELENA, MT, AND CHAIRMAN,
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC.
STATEMENT OF RONALD F. CHAMRIN
Mr. Chamrin. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to present the
American Legion's view on several pieces of legislation being
considered by the Subcommittee today.
The American Legion commends the Subcommittee for holding a
hearing to discuss these very important and timely issues.
Madam Chairwoman, I will limit my remarks to a few pieces of
legislation.
H.R. 1598, servicemembers Credit Protection Act. American
Legion supports Section 801, Notice of Consumer Reporting
Agencies, efforts to assist the servicemember and protecting
the credit reporting will allow the servicemember to focus on
their mission and provide a favorable climate. Mobilizing
troops have enormous responsibilities for their mission, their
fellow troops, their families, and themselves and may have
little time to monitor their credit.
Many servicemembers and veterans are unaware of benefits
and protections that are afforded to them. Additionally, the
veteran must perform certain steps and procedures that to
receive their maximum benefit and protection afforded by law.
Filing, following up and responses to matters while in a combat
zone is extremely difficult. Efforts to assist veterans in a
transition from civilian life to active duty and back again to
civilian life will greatly benefit a veteran.
American Legion supports the addition of Section 605C the
Combat Zone Duty Alert to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This
measure aims to protect the credit of servicemembers deployed
to an overseas combat zone.
H.R. 1315. The American Legion supports the intent, but
strongly objects to the restrictive language ``. . . in the
line of duty.'' This would be inconsistent with the current VA
policy for awarding of a service connected disability rating
for an injury or medical condition incurred or aggravated while
on active-duty. American Legion strongly objects to denying
veterans severely disabled due to injuries sustained while at
off duty status.
Active duty servicemembers in transit to and from the duty
station would also be excluded from this benefit if severely
injured.
H.R. 1240. The American Legion supports this legislation.
servicemembers and returning--servicemembers are returning from
the battlefield with vision loss, amputations, TBI, and other
injuries. These veterans are young and have their whole lives
ahead of them. This bill will help to ensure that in future
years these veterans will have the care and improved quality of
life that we as a nation should gladly give.
H.R. 513, the National Heroes Credit Protection Act. The
American Legion supports the protection of credit ratings of
persons activated for military service as stipulated in this
provision. Supporting the troops includes ensuring that they
are solely focused on their mission at hand while on active
duty. A large number of National Guard and Reserve troops that
are called to active duty are deployed to a combat zone and
have little or no opportunity to review their finances, credit
scores, and other matters while deployed.
Additionally, many young servicemembers are unaware of many
best financial practices, protections, and benefits afforded to
them.
H.R. 2259. American Legion supports this bill to ensure
that members of the Reserve components are able to fully
participate in the Benefits Delivery at Discharge program. It
is extremely important to ensure the financial, psychological,
and physical well-being of our Nation's heroes. We do note the
absence of any mention of the Department of Labor's Veterans'
Employment and Training Service and feel that VETS is an
integral member of the transition process. The American Legion
strongly supports the Transition Assistance Program.
H.R. 1632. The American Legion supports the Improving
Veterans Re-employment Act of 2007. This bill seeks to amend
title 38, U.S.C., to improve the annual report required on
veterans re-employment rights. The number of cases from each
agency that are disability related must also be contained in
the report.
The American Legion also supports the strongest veterans
preference laws possible at all levels of government. We
believe that the evidence compiled in this report will show the
current state of enforcing the Uniformed Services Employment
and Reemployment Rights Act and veterans preference laws to our
Nation's veterans.
The American Legion is deeply concerned with the protection
of the veteran and the prevention of a legal and egregious
hiring practices. Currently, veterans are filing claims after
the non-compliance employment event occurred, and therefore may
become financially disadvantaged. Concurrent measures and
continuous oversight must be enforced and in place to protect
veterans from unfair hiring practices, not just reactionary
investigations.
Many veterans give up or do not file complaints because
they must seek employment elsewhere or face serious financial
difficulties. We further state that the veteran must be
protected at the onset of the hiring process, especially
because corrective actions to remedy the veterans plight are
not always guaranteed.
H.R. 112. The American Legion agrees with the intent H.R.
112 in that allows for members of the Armed Services and
veterans to receive enhanced educational benefits more in line
with today's needs. The American Legion feels that a monthly
tax-free substance allowance index for inflation must be part
of all educational assistance packages.
Furthermore, while this legislation is aimed toward the
active-duty force MGI Bill chapter 30, the American Legion
supports legislation that will allow Reservists to earn these
credits for education just as active duty troops do.
In addition to the positive measures that the bill
encompasses, the American Legion feels that all veterans be
treated equally regardless of their Reserve/National Guard
status in such that an individual who is called to duty and
served honorably should not have to remain in the selected
Reserve to use their earned benefits.
Finally, and my final bill, H.R. 2579. The American Legion
has no official position on the mechanism of funding State
Approving Agencies (SAA). However, the American Legion fully
supports re-authorization of SAA funding to the current fiscal
year 2007 levels.
In conclusion, this legislation discussed today aims to
better serve veterans and ultimately assists them in financial
stability. American Legion commends the Subcommittee for
addressing these important issues and appreciates the
opportunity to present this statement for the record.
I would be happy to answer any questions you would have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chamrin appears on p. 71.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you for the views on all of
those bills. I know it is hard to get through in five minutes.
And with the indulgence of Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Kuntz, Mr.
Huebner has a flight to catch. So if you don't mind I am going
to recognize him now for five minutes. Thank you both.
Mr. Huebner?
STATEMENT OF CHARLIE HUEBNER
Mr. Huebner. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and
also Ranking Member Boozman and Members of the Subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 1370. I do
have a personal message for you Madam Chair. Our CEO, Jim
Shear, is the first Olympian to be head of the U.S. Olympic
Committee and also the first South Dakotan to be head of the
U.S. Olympic Committee. And he wanted to express to you and to
the Committee his thanks for your leadership in support of
veterans.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well thank you very much for passing
that along. We will look forward to seeing him. Always nice
when you have a first for South Dakota.
Mr. Huebner. He also said he will be at the Mowbridge Rodeo
over the 4th of July weekend. So if you are in South Dakota, he
would love to have you to Mowbridge.
[Laughter.]
By way of brief background, the USOC, the U.S. Olympic
Committee is an organization chartered by Congress to run
Olympic and Paralympic programs. Paralympic activity is sports
for physically disabled athletes and the Paralympic games are
held approximately two weeks after the Olympic games at the
same Olympic venues.
The Paralympic movement began shortly after World War II
utilizing sports as a form of rehabilitation for injured
military personnel returning from combat. The USOC today spends
more than $10 million annually on Paralympic programs. All of
those funds, of course, are from private sources. We expect our
budget to grow to $16 million to support Paralympic program by
2012.
In addition, disabled sports programs from throughout
United States are spending an additional $20 million at the
local level to provide sports and physical activity programs
for person with physical disabilities.
Injured military personnel and veterans are the soul of the
Paralympic movement. When I speak of the Paralympic movement, I
am not talking about the a small number of persons that will
make future Paralympic teams. I am speaking of a movement and
individuals with physical disabilities that are using the
simple platform of sports to re-enter life. I am talking about
a population that is educated, employed, active in their
communities, and inspiring Americans to achieve and overcome
obstacles.
However, it is likely I am very proud to say, that by 2008
there will be one or more former servicemembers that will
represent America for the second time at the Paralympic games
in Beijing. That will be a great achievement and story for
America and the American people.
Three years ago, recognizing the growing number of U.S.
military personnel returning home with physically debilitating
injuries, and utilizing our experience, expertise, and
understanding of the impact of sport on the physical and mental
rehabilitation process for young men and women that are newly
disabled, the USOC launched the Paralympic Military program.
Components of the Paralympic Military program include
national training of community leaders to implement Paralympic
sport at the community level; clinics and mentor visits at
military and VA installations; development of local community-
based programs in targeted markets that have military or VA
installations; and Paralympic military sport camps conducted at
our Olympic training centers in Colorado Springs and Chula
Vista, California.
The Military Sports Camps provide an introduction to
Paralympic sport, but also the introduction of Paralympians
that serve as mentors to newly injured military personnel and
veterans. These successes have been told nationally by entities
such as USA Today, The New York Times, NBC Sports, and ABC
Sports just in the last 30 days.
As successful as the Paralympic Military program has been,
we have only scratched the surface and will do more. Currently,
there is a significant lack of Paralympic and community-based
programs for persons with physical disabilities in the United
States. We have been most fortunate in developing a very
positive and productive working relationship with the
Department of Veterans Affairs and other Paralympic
organizations. Since we have collaborated on certain
activities, but have been limited financially and
programmatically.
We believe that this legislative proposal, H.R. 1370 to
establish an Office of National Veterans Sports Programs and
Special Events accompanied by supportive funding would serve as
a vehicle for the VA and USOC jointly to serve a larger
universe of veterans for whom Paralympic sport would serve as a
valuable rehabilitation activity, to re-integrate into
communities with family members and friends.
We would envision an expansion of community-based programs
to target a larger number of veterans and their families and
create similar programs at community facilities of some of our
Paralympic partners such as the Lakeshore Foundation in
Birmingham, Alabama and the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado,
the home of Fort Carson where today a community-based programs
for persons with physical disabilities does not exist.
These programs would be community extensions of VA programs
that are identified in collaboration with our partners at the
Veterans Affairs. This legislation in the interest of this
Subcommittee that is giving this proposal a hearing is
testimony to the need of activities for veterans, programs that
enable them to return to a full and active life. We have
learned that these various sport rehabilitation programs,
whether they be the USOCs, the Department of Veterans' Affairs
or those of Disabled Sports USA, Disabled American Veterans
(DAV), Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) make a positive
difference in the lives of those who are being served.
We are confident that the expertise that we have developed
in Paralympic programs and the collaborations with the agencies
mentioned, including the American Legion at the community
level, can and will have a significant impact on veterans that
are newly disabled re-entering their communities. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huebner appears on p. 76.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Huebner. If you do need
to leave prior to the other two witnesses finishing their
testimony, we understand. We may be submitting some questions
for you as a follow up for the record. Thank you very much for
being here and your testimony.
Mr. Huebner. My pleasure. Thank you.
Mr. Boozman. Can I just make a comment, Madam Chair?
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Yes, Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Now you left out Arkansas, John Register.
Mr. Huebner. No. Yeah.
[Laughter.]
I have it here on my notes, sir, but Mr. Register who runs
the Paralympic Military program is a proud alumni of the
University of Arkansas----
Mr. Boozman. Yes.
Mr. Huebner [continuing]. And ran track and field there.
Mr. Boozman. He ran track and field. Was a full time all
American, I believe, in one of the great track programs in
literally in the world. So we are very proud of him also.
Mr. Huebner. Two-time Paralympian and a veteran, sir.
Mr. Boozman. Well be sure and tell him that we said,
``Hi,'' and we are very proud of your and his work.
Mr. Huebner. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Whenever small under-represented
States, in our opinion, get that kind of recognition we want to
make sure it is on the record.
[Laughter.]
Thank you again.
Mr. Huebner. My pleasure.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Lawrence, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN E. LAWRENCE
Mr. Lawrence. Thank you. Madam Chair, Ranking Member
Boozman, and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the 1.3
million members to the Disabled American Veterans, I am pleased
to present our views on the bills under consideration today. I
will limit my remarks to the measures that address DAV
resolutions.
The DAV has a long standing resolution to provide a
realistic increase in specially adapted housing grants. It also
calls for automatic annual adjustments based on cost of living.
Therefore, we hope that the proposals contained in H.R. 675
will be favorably considered.
H.R. 1315 is also a commendable bill that would provide
adaptive housing grants to disabled members of the Armed Forces
residing with a family member. The DAV supports this measure
which addresses the needs of some of our most severely disabled
veterans.
The DAV also supports H.R. 1370 to establish a VA Office of
National Veterans Sports Programs and Special Events. The VA
along with the DAV and other veterans organizations host
rehabilitative special event programs for veterans receiving
healthcare from VA. These programs showcase the therapeutic
value of sports, fitness, and recreation which are profoundly
beneficial in helping veterans overcome the impact of severe
disabilities.
The DAV has a resolution calling for a separate line item
appropriation to ensure the continuance of these worthy
programs. So we are pleased with the intent of this legislation
and we would recommend that include language to place the
office under the Veterans Health Administration.
Currently the programs are under the authority of VA Public
Affairs Office and VHA is almost completely removed from the
administrative decisions. Though Public Affairs certainly has a
role to play, the ultimate purpose of the events is to provide
therapy to severely disabled veterans. Since VHA is responsible
for providing such care, it should be the designated authority
for the programs.
The DAV supports H.R. 1370 and hopes the Subcommittee will
consider our suggestions.
Finally, the DAV supports H.R. 2259 to ensure that members
of the National Guard and Reserves can utilize the Benefits
Delivery at Discharge program. BDD improves service for
separating members by eliminating lengthy delays and claims
decisions and redundant and an unnecessary physical
examinations. Rating decisions adjudicated in the BDD program
are generally more accurate and appealed less frequently than
those processed via regular claims procedures.
The DAV strongly recommends that BDD be expanded and made
available to every person retiring or separating from active
duty.
Thank you for the opportunity to state our position on
these bills and I will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement Mr. Lawrence appears on p. 78.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you for your testimony once
again before the Subcommittee, Mr. Lawrence. Mr. Kuntz, you are
now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF RAY KUNTZ
Mr. Kuntz. Thank you, Madam Chairman Herseth Sandlin,
Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Ray Kuntz, I am a newly installed Chairman of the
American Trucking Associations (ATA) and the Chief Executive
Officer of Watkins and Shepard Trucking, a Montana based
company.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear here before the
Subcommittee on behalf of ATA and to voice our continued
support on H.R. 1824 to expand the scope of programs of
education that are eligible for accelerated benefits under the
Montgomery GI Bill.
The ATA commends Representative Michaud for re-introducing
this important piece of legislation. The American Trucking
Associations is a national trade association for the trucking
industry and is a federation of affiliated State trucking
associations conferences and organizations that include over
38,000 motor carrier members representing every type and class
of motor carrier in the country.
When I appeared before this Subcommittee regarding this
legislation two years ago, I stated that the long-haul
truckload sector of the truck transportation industry annually
experiences critical workforce challenges. This situation has
not significantly changed since 2005, although shortages for
this particular sector ebb and flow to market demands, the
driver shortage for long-haul truckload industry still remains
and is expected to worsen in years ahead.
There are a number of factors involved in the driver
shortage issue. Stringent government regulations, insurance
carrier standards, and standards of carriers themselves that
restrict availability of qualified drivers to the commercial
vehicle industry. Through my own personal involvement with
Watkins and Shepard's Truck Driving School, I can tell you that
oftentimes truck driving schools reject more applicants than
what they can enroll.
Despite the driver shortage, in the last year my company's
truck driving school received around 1,000 applications for
truck driving jobs. From that total, we were able to train and
hire 58, or in other words, about six percent of those people
that applied for the jobs.
An estimated 300,000 servicemen and women annually
transition from Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom to the civilian sector. Of this population,
approximately 54,000 Army and 24,000 Marine personnel per year
transition to civilian life with significant transportation and
truck driving experience.
Just like moving armies and fleets, transporting goods
across the country requires monumental logistic efforts and
excellent driving skills. For transitioning veterans with
military occupational specialties into these areas,
professional truck driving may be a very natural career path.
Although many of these veterans have experienced operating
large trucks in the Armed Forces, this experience does not
readily translate to a civilian commercial drivers license.
Additional education is usually needed to further train these
individuals on basic truck operations, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration safety regulations, newer onboard
technologies, and specific motor carrier State motor carrier
testing skills and requirements.
Unfortunately, the traditional Montgomery GI Bill Benefits
for former military personnel are inefficient in funding
truckdriver training programs. The ATA believes that the
expansion of the VA Accelerated Benefits program would go a
long way toward fixing this and could potentially add a
significant number of qualified veterans to the demand driven
labor pool of truckdrivers.
However, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs,
expanding the eligibility list include truckdriver training
programs would be cost prohibited. I have reviewed the VA's
list of approved education programs that are eligible for
educated for accelerated benefits.
ATA applauds the VA for encouraging veterans to enter high-
technology careers, however, many of the approved courses of
study on this list do not accurately reflect today's market
driven career demands and opportunities.
This eligibility list was developed in 2002 by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics and the National Science Foundation for the
VA Department without direction from Congress. Further, many of
the educational programs eligible for funding on this list are
two to four year programs. Degree courses that can
appropriately be funded through traditionally monthly
Montgomery GI payment process.
In closing, I would like to reiterate ATA's support for
legislative intent of H.R. 1824. However, we believe that in
order to move this bill forward, significant changes need to be
made to the Montgomery GI Bill's Accelerated Benefits program.
ATA recommends that VA's current list of educational
programs eligible for these benefits be replaced or revised to
reflect career training opportunities in high-growth industries
rather than solely high-technology industries.
Further, to better align the program with the original
intent of providing affordable financing for high cost, short-
term educational training. The payment of accelerated benefits
should be limited to educational opportunities lasting one year
or less.
ATA further or looks forward to working with Representative
Michaud and the Subcommittee in ways to enhance H.R. 1824 to
improve veterans access to educational opportunities in high-
growth well paying industries like trucking--the trucking
industry.
This concludes my remarks and I would be happy to answer
questions. And also if I may, I feel like I should probably
comment on the first bill that was testified on today if that
would be okay with the Chairman?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kuntz appears on p. 79.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. If we can move to questions first and
then we will give you an opportunity at the end of questioning
to do that. I am going to have to step out for a minute and
would want to come back to hear your comments.
Just a couple of quick questions before turning it over to
the Ranking Member. Mr. Huebner, again, thank you for your
testimony on H.R. 1370. I do have one quick question. As you
know, the way the bill is written would authorize up to $2
million annually. Do you feel that is sufficient to meet the
needs of the Paralympics program or achieve the expansion that
you envision and articulated here today?
Mr. Huebner. That is a great question. And when we are
looking at the Paralympic program we are looking at multiple
organizations beyond that, including programs like DAV and PVA
and other organizations.
It is a great start, but no doubt we are investing a
significant amount of private dollars that we are going to
increase and continue to raise. An investment from this entity
will help us expedite the amount of programs that we can
deliver immediately. So an increase in that support would be
very well received.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. And then Mr. Chamrin, on
H.R. 1315, the Adaptive Housing Bill that I have introduced. I
know that the American Legion has a concern about the
definition of, ``. . . line of duty.'' And would you be
supportive of the definition, ``. . . while on active duty,''
or ``. . . on authorized leave,'' versus, ``. . . in the line
of duty?''
Mr. Chamrin. Madam Chairman, I would have to get back to
you on that one.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. If you could get back to us on
it. If we can work with you and Committee staff to get some
clarification on the concern and what would diminish the
concern with that actual language.
Mr. Chamrin. Absolutely.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Mr. Kuntz, you state that many
applicants are rejected, what are the main problems? And what
can we do to help these applicants?
Mr. Kuntz. Well the main problems probably relate toward
the regulations of our industry. You know, I say a lot of times
that if we have four percent unemployment that probably three
and a half percent won't pass a drug test. So that limits us to
a very small portion, but you know we have aggressive drug
testing, aggressive alcohol testing. We have to go back in
their driver's records and if they have had a history of DUI's,
accidents and it is those issues and their ability to correctly
complete the courses.
But it is primarily just the group of people that we get
and the history they bring to the table with them that does not
allow us to put them in a truck. Most insurance companies won't
let someone in that has had like a DUI for six, seven years
after that.
So there is a lot of limiting factors. And when you get a
lot of--when you see people come out of other careers where
they have been unsuccessful sometime their habits take them
down those roads.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Recognizing the objective of Mr.
Michaud's bill, which is to assist in expanding the pool of
applicants for this high-need, high-growth industry, does the
trucking industry or any of the driving training programs
actively recruit or advertise to transportation experienced
military personnel?
Mr. Kuntz. Yeah. There are several trucking companies that
are very actively advertising and we are reaching out in a
variety of ways. But more importantly we recognize that the
quality of the individual that we get out of the military tends
to fit and be a little higher quality individual than we get
out of normal life. It is just the background and the training
and the discipline that they have to learn to be a soldier
tends to fit real well in the qualifications to be a
truckdriver.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you all for your responses and
your testimony. Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Huebner,
again just one quick question. With the increased allocation,
can you be a little bit more specific about some of the plans
that you would have? You mentioned that you would expand
programs, can you give an example perhaps of a specifically as
to what you are doing?
Mr. Huebner. Yes. The two most significant things that we
are in the process of doing right now with dollars that we are
raising, is the national training of how to implement
community-based programs. And that is training community
leaders, military, installation personnel, VA personnel on how
to implement a community program.
The second component is implementing those community
programs and our stated goal to our Board of Directors is to
develop 250 new programs by 2012 in 250 American cities. And as
mentioned in my testimony, Colorado Springs, Colorado, which is
home to, you know, a significant military presence has no
program today for persons with physical disabilities. We will
have one in that market by the end of this year.
So those are the two most significant things that we are
going to be doing. With increased dollars, we can expedite that
plan. Right now we have a stage where we are going to launch 20
new programs this year, 60 by the end of 2008. We can expedite
that strategy with increased funds.
Mr. Boozman. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Huebner. Does that answer your question?
Mr. Boozman. Yes, sir. Very much so. And again the
Chairwoman doesn't have any more questions. I don't have any
more questions. If you feel like you need to go.
Mr. Huebner. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Boozman. Very good. Mr. Kuntz, I agree with you about
the 2002 statistics and the fact that, things get in the world
that we live in now things get outdated very quickly, but if
you have 2002 when you are doing this, then you know you run
the risk of your data being a little bit old even when you
start. And then in the world that we live things doing very
quickly.
So I am supportive of what you are trying to get done and
the trucking initiative. Why isn't the traditional method of
payments provided under the Montgomery GI Bill appropriate for
funding truck training school tuition? What we are doing now,
why isn't it working?
Mr. Kuntz. Well the traditional method, as you know, gives
around $1,004 I believe a month for training and then a
percentage of that sometimes for truck driving training. The
average truck driving school is about four to six weeks. And
when an applicant applies to a school for Montgomery GI
funding, he can get usually one month of it. And in many cases
they don't get that $1,000 for two or three months and then the
veteran himself receives the check. And in some cases doesn't
decide to reimburse it to the school.
So as it is, it covers just a small percentage of the cost
of the school. It doesn't get there in time to help the school
cover the wages. And most of these are private schools just a
small percentage of companies like ours actually have their own
schools. Most companies rely on private schools and private
schools need the money up front because they got to make
payroll and tuition and fuel and gas. And so as a result of
that, most of the private schools won't even consider GI
funding as an alternative today. And again a lot of these folks
get turned away.
And it is really important to remember that not just are we
getting people returning from the military today. A lot of the
people come in and want truck driving jobs as vets have been
out of the service for three, four, five and even 15 years. And
unfortunately a lot of these men and women have failed at two
or three careers and unfortunately bring a list of bad credit
including bankruptcies and other forms of funding are also
closed. And so they just get the door slammed in their face.
And even though they recognize it, a truck driving career might
allow them to make $45,000 a year, get health insurance, have a
retirement. They don't have that option because they don't have
the financing ability.
Mr. Boozman. No, I agree. I think that is one of the things
that we are finding is that many individuals as they start to
re-train have been out for a while and under the best of
circumstances, you know, financially are not in great shape.
And then because of that it really does limit their options
when they have to come up with anything up front.
I think, you know, that your feeling is, is that the
accelerated benefit should only apply to short-term things of a
year or less. Why--what is your reasoning? Why don't you think
that the two- to four-year program should be part of the----
Mr. Kuntz. Well if you look at the list and you see things
like mathematical studies, engineering, engineering studies,
computer systems networking and I majored in a math background
and I wasn't the brightest guy in the room and it took me four
years, but the brightest guys in there also took four years.
And so the existing GI funding adequately takes care of
those people, but it is the people that if you look at the
80,000 people that are coming out of the service this year that
drove truck for a living in Iraq, I would venture to say that
you may not find one of those guys that is going to go into
mathematical training, but probably as many 50 percent of them
may go into truck driving.
And I believe that with everything that has happened over
there, it is very, very important that we get these young men
and women into meaningful jobs quickly. You know, I
unfortunately have a very tragic story that I will share with
you about that.
My stepson, Chris, went into the Guards right out of high
school. And the only job he ever had was flipping hamburgers
and making hot dogs. And he went in the Guards as a gunner. And
think of the tremendous responsibility that a gunner has in
protecting everybody in his platoon. And several people in his
platoon will tell you that he made some decisions that saved
their lives.
A year ago, November, he came back from the Guards and we
thought he was doing fine, but he couldn't find a meaningful
job. He went back to flipping hamburgers and hot dogs and as
time went on you could see almost a depression set in. He
started drinking. In September of last year, he quit going to
Guards. And unfortunately, the Guards started sending out their
little threatening letters. And in November he reached out to
my son who tried to help him. In January he quit his job and
bought his first gun. And in February shot himself.
And I bring that up because it is so important that we find
a way to get these people into meaningful jobs. And there
aren't a whole lot of these guys that are going to be
mathematicians. Chris was never going to be a mathematician, he
was never going to be a computer scientist. He might of been a
truckdriver or some other job that would allow short-term
accelerated payment. But if you look through the list, the
right jobs are not on the list.
Mr. Boozman. No. Very good. And I understand your other--
your son also was in the military. Both your stepson and----
Mr. Kuntz. Yeah.
Mr. Boozman [continuing]. Your son. So----
Mr. Kuntz. My oldest son is actually the other, you know,
our family has experienced both sides of it. My oldest son was
a West Point grad and ripped his ankle up very badly during
Ranger Training. Went through a year of rehab stationed in
Hawaii and got out under disability and very successfully went
through----
Mr. Boozman. Right.
Mr. Kuntz [continuing]. Law school and used the GI Bill
under the traditional method to get through law school. And
today he is practicing law. And I believe that his being able
to find a career quickly led to where he is today and dealt
with the depression of getting tore up in the Army.
Mr. Boozman. Right. Well we appreciate the sacrifice of
your family very much. Can I ask one more question, Madam
Chairman? I'm sorry.
I would like the VSOs to comment regarding Mr. Israel's
bill. I guess one of the concerns that we have is giving
information on when servicemembers are deployed, when there is
really not a whole lot of control over the data, perhaps who
might eventually have access.
The other thing is if their credit problems during
deployment, the family could always provide that data in a
different way. Do you all have any concerns along that line
also or have you thought about that?
Mr. Chamrin. We are very concerned with----
Mr. Boozman. Having somebody that the husband is gone or?
Mr. Chamrin. Right.
Mr. Boozman. Is really what we are----
Mr. Chamrin. We are always concerned with the overseas
deployment and the following up with their finances especially
identity theft. We want to make sure that they have full
coverage. There is, I am fortunate to have a last name that is
not very common, but there is Smith, there is Jones. How many
Bob Jones, Mike Smiths are there out there?
You know, to have the follow up and someone taking care of
them is very important, especially in a situation where they
are not able to have access to the Internet, or maybe a phone
to call back to their spouse. A lot of young servicemembers,
age 20 to 24 are single. Either they don't have a lot of
support that are able to help them out.
Mr. Lawrence. Mr. Boozman, the DAV doesn't have a position
on that bill, but just a personal observation that occurred to
me during the testimony that could potentially cause a problem.
The trigger reaction or would notify the credit agencies
was the receipt of combat pay. But if people are receiving--you
can only--they cap out special pay. So if somebody was
receiving dive pay and demolition pay and jump pay, they can't
receive combat pay. So the people that were already maxed out
on their special pay, there wouldn't be--they wouldn't receive
combat pay, so those people would be left out. So it just seems
like there has to be some other way of bringing this up. And I
just wanted to share that with you.
Mr. Boozman. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwomen.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. That would be true of Mr.
Brady's bill as well. I mean separate from the concerns that I
have about DoD's ability to manage this and make sure no one
falls through the cracks, but also the concern that I think the
Pentagon would have about essentially advertising to entities
outside of the Pentagon; dates of deployment and everything
else.
Mr. Brady's bill also, he testified, would be for those in
a combat zone. Would it be geared toward kind of the notation
of when the servicemember gets his or her orders, I am fairly
certain that he made mention of combat pay there, but your
point is well taken, something we will certainly work through
to make sure that there is an ability of the individual
servicemember regardless of what the orders state or what type
of pay classification is the trigger that we avoid, again,
people falling through the cracks and the protections that we
are trying to offer.
I thank you all again for your testimony, for your
dedication and commitment to our Nation's veterans.
Mr. Kuntz, thank you in particular for sharing the tragic
experience of your family with us to help shed light on the
importance of the flexibility of the benefits that we are
offering so that people can transition more effectively into
meaningful jobs or access to different benefits.
We have asked Mr. Wilson with the Education Service who
will be testifying in the next panel to develop a list for us
based on the current list of programs available for accelerated
payments to see just how many people are actually signing up
for those programs and comparing that to a different set of
programs that the President has set forth in a different
context to see if we can make some adjustments whether it is
specifically to commercial drivers license programs or to other
programs as well that will better meet the needs of the young
people returning home.
Thank you all. I would now like to invite our final panel
to the witness table. We appreciate your patience and welcome
back to the Subcommittee.
We have Mr. Keith Pedigo, Director of Loan Guaranty Service
for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Mr. Keith Wilson,
Director of Education Service for the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs; and Mr. Dean Gallin, Deputy Assistant General
Counsel for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Your written statement will be entered into the record.
Again welcome back to the Subcommittee. Mr. Pedigo you are
recognized for five minutes.
Could you turn your microphone on, or it is not close
enough.
STATEMENT OF KEITH PEDIGO, DIRECTOR OF LOAN GUARANTY SERVICE,
VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY KEITH M. WILSON, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND DEAN GALLIN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT GENERAL
COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
Mr. Pedigo. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss 13 bills
that would affect a variety of VA benefit programs. Joining me
this afternoon is Mr. Keith Wilson, Director of VA's Education
Service and Mr. Dean Gallin from our Office of General Counsel.
Madam Chairwoman, we do not yet have cleared positions on
three of the bills, H.R. 1824, 1370, and 2259, but we will
provide our comments for the record as soon as they are
available.
[The VA views for H.R. 1824, and H.R. 2259, were provided
in an October 26, 2007, letter from Acting Secretary Gordon H.
Mansfield, which appears on p. 95. The VA views for H.R. 1370
were provided in a March 31, 2008, letter from Secretary James
B. Peake, which appears on p. 98.]
Madam Chairwoman, H.R. 112 entitled the ``GI Advanced
Education in Science and Technology Act,'' would amend chapter
30 of title 38 by adding a new sub-chapter containing
provisions through which the Secretary would, subject to the
availability of appropriations, be required to pay monthly
stipends to eligible doctoral candidates who are pursuing full-
time doctoral degrees in sciences of engineering, mathematics,
and other technology disciplines.
The bill would limit the number of stipend payments to a
total of 60 months. The amount of the stipend would be $1,200
per month. Madam Chairwoman, VA does not support enactment of
H.R. 112 for several reasons.
First, this bill represents a departure from the existing
chapter 30 Montgomery GI Bill structure, which provides
equivalent benefit opportunities to veterans who establish
entitlement under Sections 3011, 3012 and certain other
provisions of that Chapter.
This measure would restrict eligibility for the proposed
doctoral stipend to only those veterans eligible under Section
3011. In the absence of a clearly supportable rationale for
this eligibility restriction, we cannot support altering the
existing chapter 30 benefit structure by singling out for
special treatment one group of entitled veterans from others
who have established the same basic program entitlement.
In addition, we have not noted any savings to offset the
estimated costs of this bill. We estimate the increase
Readjustment Benefit cost would be $25.9 million over a 10-year
period. General Operating Expense (GOE) costs were estimated at
$3 million for computer system upgrades.
Next I will discuss H.R. 2579. Currently VA is authorized
to enter into contracts with State and local agencies known as
State Approving Agencies or SAAs to perform services necessary
to ascertain the qualifications of educational institutions
furnishing courses to veterans and other individuals receiving
VA educational assistance. The total amount the VA may pay in
any fiscal year may not exceed $13 million and must be paid
solely out of amounts available for payment of readjustment
benefits.
H.R. 2579 would require that VA make these payments out of
the readjustment benefits account and the general operating
expense account rather than solely from the readjustment
benefits account. The total amount that could be available from
the readjustment benefits account would be $13 million. VA does
not support this legislation because using two funding sources
for this program instead of one dedicated source would make the
program more complicated for SSAs and more difficult to
administer.
H.R. 675, entitled the ``Disabled Veterans Adaptive Housing
Act,'' would increase the maximum dollar amounts available
under the Specially Adapted Housing program, as well as provide
for additional increases to the grants by tying the maximum
dollar amounts to an annual cost of construction index. The VA
supports the overall objective of increasing SAH grants, but
has two concerns.
First, the existing statutory limit on grants made pursuant
to Section 2101(a) is an aggregate that includes temporary
residences grants, an authority which is due to expire in 2011.
An ambiguity may arise at the time of expiration with regard to
the amount of assistance available under Section 2101(a). To
avoid this potential situation, VA recommends statutory
revisions to eliminate this ambiguity.
Second, in light of cost associated with grant amounts, we
would recommend enactment of legislation offsetting the cost
associated with grant increases. Section three of the bill
would require that VA increase SAH assistance caps except for
temporary residence grants every fiscal year starting in
October 2007. Such increases would be based on changes and a
residential home cost-of-construction index. VA opposes
indexing programs such as Specially Adapted Housing Grants.
Instead, we would prefer to provide adjustments on an ad hoc
basis.
VA estimates the enactment of Sections two and three of
this bill would result in a benefit cost of $68.6 million in
the first year and $194.2 million over ten years.
H.R. 1315 would make Specially Adapted Housing Assistance
available to disabled, active-duty servicemembers temporarily
residing in homes owned by their family. VA supports enactment
of this provision. However, VA notes that as drafted, the
provision continues to require specific legislation in order to
make active-duty members of Armed Forces eligible any time
newly enacted assistance may become available.
Insofar as these disabled active-duty servicemembers are
already eligible for SAH benefits, there would be no additional
cost.
H.R. 513, 1598, and 1750, would amend the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act by expanding and increasing protections
afforded servicemembers. Because these bills would not affect
the provision of VA benefits, VA defers to the Department of
Defense concerning this legislation.
H.R. 1240 would require the Secretary to establish and
carry out a scholarship program to provide financial assistance
to individuals enrolled in education programs leading to a
degree or certificate in visual impairment or orientation and
mobility.
In exchange for scholarship assistance, the individual must
enter into a written agreement to serve as a full-time VA
employee for a period of three years. The maximum amount of
financial assistance that could be provided to a participant
who is a full-time student would be limited to $15,000 per
academic year and up to a maximum of $45,000.
VA supports this scholarship program, but believes it
should be authorized under chapter 76 of title 38 U.S. Code not
a new chapter 80. We estimate the total cost of H.R. 1240 to be
$349,233 in fiscal year 2008 and $3.7 million over a 10-year
period.
H.R. 1632 would add informational requirements to the
annual report that the Secretary of Labor must submit to
Congress concerning employers' compliance with laws governing
the re-employment rights of members of the Armed Forces.
Because these bills would not affect the provision of VA
benefits or require any reporting by VA, we defer to the
Department of Labor concerning this legislation.
H.R. 2475 would authorize VA to guarantee home equity
conversion mortgages or HECMs made to elderly veteran
homeowners. We cannot support this bill for several reasons.
First, the original intent of the VA loan program was to
provide home ownership opportunities for veterans and active-
duty servicemembers who forgo such an opportunity in order to
serve in the Nation's military.
While the program has been modified by legislation over its
63 year history, all program changes have been designed to
enable veterans to purchase and retain homes. In contrast, a
HECM program focuses on the ability to extract equity prior to
disposal of the property. In addition, the Federal Housing
Administration, or FHA, currently has a very active and
successful HECM program. We fail to see what a VA HECM program
would have to offer that would not be a duplication of this
existing Federal program.
Further, the FHA fully ensures lenders against losses,
whereas, by statute, VA is only able to guarantee the lender
against a percentage of its potential loss. We do not believe
this proposed VA HECM program would be as attractive to the
lending community as the FHA program.
Finally, we note that the text of the bill contains certain
inconsistencies and ambiguities that would require
clarification.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. Mr. Wilson
and Mr. Gallin and I would be pleased to respond to any
questions that you and members of the Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement Mr. Pedigo appears on p. 83.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. We thank you for your testimony. I
understand that we will just move directly to questions as Mr.
Wilson and Mr. Gallin are here to provide any answers to those
questions along with you, Mr. Pedigo.
Mr. Boozman, did you have questions or comments for the
panel?
Mr. Boozman. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. On H.R. 2579 on State
Approving Agencies, what we are trying to do is not require you
to use both those funds, but just to give you some flexibility
so that if you have the $13 million and that is not adequate,
then you can have some flexibility to do something differently
and receive some more funding.
I guess my question is if you only have $13 million to work
with, what are you going to do next year? What is that program
going to look like? You have a couple different choices. You
can cut back over all the States, reduce their funding, or you
can get the larger States to continue and cut back, thus making
the smaller States disappear and then you can suck that up
within the deal.
So, again my concern is, is that through whatever
pressures, budgetary or whatever, that we are going to get
ourselves in the situation where we have problems along that
line. We have all of these subs coming back, and we have to get
this stuff done. And again that is the purpose, like I said not
requiring you to do that, but giving you the flexibility that
if you need that money, that you could do that. It sounds like
it would take some effort on your part as far as fiddling with
the accounts.
But tell me what, if you are just going to have your $13
million, what is the program going to look like? What are you
going to do to make that work?
Mr. Wilson. If we would go down to $13 million we have
developed a couple different contingencies. We can look at it
basically from the perspectives that you talked about. We can
look at spreading the pain evenly among all the SAAs. We can
also look at having the larger SAAs perhaps take a larger share
of the burden with the idea of trying to keep some SAA presence
in as many States as possible.
We have got contingencies both ways. But flexibility, I----
Mr. Boozman. But the questions isn't if. I mean you are
going to down to $13 million. So go ahead.
Mr. Wilson. Yeah. Flexibility I believe is the key issue.
And creating a mechanism that will potentially require us to
fund the existing dollar amount out of two different pots will
be very restrictive.
We cannot take both pools of money and administer them
under one contract. We would, in essence, be in a situation
where we would have some State contracts out of the $13
million, some out of any other potential money. So if we were
in that type of situation, the impact of having less than the
current $19 million, say the $13 million, and potentially
making other offices or other States wholly out of General
Operating Expenses would impact just those States that would be
funded out of the GOE.
Mr. Boozman. So I guess what is the answer? I mean we want
to help you. You said that mechanism isn't going to work. I am
very concerned that we are going to get ourselves into a bind,
because I would really like know very quickly what the plan is.
I mean we are getting to where we need to address that.
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
Mr. Boozman. So I would like to know what is the plan.
Certainly at that point if we don't feel like the plan is
workable, or you, as you think it through, you don't think it
is workable, then we need to do something different. But I
guess what I want to know is if you are opposed to this, then
what are you for? What do you want us to do?
Mr. Wilson. We are in support of the funding remaining
within the Readjustment Benefits (RB) account, preferably at
the level it is now. But it, we believe, is important that the
funding be in the RB account as it is now.
Concerning the plan that we have, as I mentioned, we do
have contingencies for how we would handle this. We are
required by statute to pick up work if a State chooses not to
contract with us. We will do that. We will also have issues
that may not be addressed, for instance, part of the increase
in funding for the SAAs gave them an added role in outreach. It
is possible that that additional outreach will be reduced or
not occur.
We cannot develop definite contingency plans because
contracting with VA is something that would be up to the
individual States. We cannot tell what States would or would
not contract with us depending on the amount of money that we
can offer them.
So concerning specifics, we will have to address the
specific States when we find out that information.
Mr. Boozman. And so when would all that go into effect?
Mr. Wilson. October 1.
Mr. Boozman. Okay. So you know we are getting there.
Mr. Wilson. Yes, we are.
Mr. Boozman [continuing]. Madam Chairwoman I would hope
that working together that we can kind of figure out what the
plan is and then go from there. But as you know, with the
budgetary constraints it makes it difficult. I want to help
you, but again I would like to know what you are planning on
doing. If you pick up the slack, with personnel, what do you
do. I know that everybody is working hard now. What are you
going to give up when you pick up the slack? See what I am
saying? That is the other side.
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
Mr. Boozman. So, again, I would very much like us to be
able to address that as soon as we can.
Mr. Wilson. Absolutely. I share the same concerns that you
have. I would like to provide more specificity concerning what
our contingency plans would be. The decisions that we would
make concerning potentially what work would have to be shifted
and what work would be not be done, would be dependent on what
specific States were impacted.
Mr. Boozman. Okay. And the other thing was, again working
with our staffs', I believe this is something we all want to
get done. If you have a suggestion that where we can finagle
around that would make it easier than what we are trying to do
to help you, and we really are trying to help you, then that
would be something that we would like to know so that we can
move this thing forward. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well thank you, Mr. Boozman. It is
clear that we both share this as a priority. I appreciate the
Ranking Member introducing the bill to try to provide you with
the tools to meet what we think are clear needs. The testimony
that we took earlier this year as it relates to the role of the
SAAs--we are going to look at other alternatives too, but we
are just trying to be helpful here in recognizing where the
SAAs are serving an important role, and have enhanced that role
over time, and now unfortunately we are dealing with a
statutory issue that needs to be addressed. We would appreciate
ideas and input that you can provide working with us and
members of our staff.
I appreciate that you have a contingency plan in place, but
with the variables and the uncertainties that poses for the
States at this point, we may just need to discuss how we can
best go about sharing as much information as possible so that
everyone can plan accordingly at least for Fiscal Year 2008 as
we try to make changes that will help us further down the line.
Mr. Pedigo, I appreciate the comments that you provided
about the Specially Adaptive Housing bills that I have
introduced. Recognizing the need for some specific legislation
necessary to address active-duty servicemembers as well as the
recommendations that you made with regard to the expiration
date of the temporary assistance and needing to make some
revisions to eliminate ambiguity. So we will take those
recommendations and give them further consideration.
Let me move now to the issue of the Home Equity Conversion
Mortgage bill that was introduced by Mr. Michaud and Ms. Brown-
Waite. Do you think that the Federal Housing Administration
program is meeting the home equity conversion mortgage needs of
veterans today?
Mr. Pedigo. As far as we can determine, it is. And I say
that based not on any type of formal studies that we have done
to make that determination, but based on the fact that we do
not receive communications from veterans indicating that they
wish that VA had a home equity conversion mortgage or
communications indicating that they cannot get a HECM.
And so our conclusion is that they are availing themselves
of the FHA HECM program, which has 95 percent of the market
share for HECMs in the country.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I appreciate what you are saying
there, but I think Ms. Brown-Waite's comments earlier with
regard to the meetings that she has had, to try to help share
information with seniors about different financial tools
available to them. This is the kind of outreach that for
veterans who are already enrolled and getting benefits and
accessing different services from the VA might actually be more
likely to get helpful information about those financial tools
available to them if it were offered the way it has been
introduced by Mr. Michaud and Ms. Brown-Waite separate from the
outreach that may or may not available through FHA.
I appreciate what you are saying. I do think there are some
opportunities here for us, however, that may not have been
identified yet. And as you mention, it is not--your comments
are not made from a formal survey that has been done, but we
know that there is the 95 percent market share, but you know
are there some folks that we may be able to assist within the
veterans' community by offering a separate program.
You did state in your testimony that there were
inconsistencies and ambiguities in H.R. 2475 that would require
clarification. Could you elaborate on that statement and tell
us what you think the inconsistencies and ambiguities might be?
Mr. Pedigo. Well there were several in there. For example,
it was not clear in the draft bill how the funding fee would
come into play. As you know we charge a funding fee for
veterans who are using the home loan program. And the language
in the draft was not clear as to whether we would be expected
to charge a funding fee. And of course that would play a big
part in determining whether, if we got such a program, it would
be a negative subsidy or whether it would require appropriated
funds.
So that was the biggest issue. There were some other issues
in there, for example, counseling. There is a requirement in
there that VA make sure that these veterans were able to avail
themselves of counseling and it wasn't clear whether VA was
going to be expected to provide that counseling or whether the
veterans would use the existing counseling infrastructure that
exist in the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
And also to what extent the veteran would be required to
pay for that counseling. Those were just a couple of the items
that were not clear to us. There were a number of others and we
would be willing to provide those for the record.
[The following was subsequently received from Mr. Pedigo:]
H.R. 2475
The Veteran Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Act of 2007
H.R. 2475 authorizes the Secretary to guarantee Home Equity
Conversion Mortgages (HECMs) for elderly veteran homeowners. VA
is opposed to this bill for the reasons described in the
testimony delivered, on June 21, 2007, before the Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, United
States House of Representatives. From a more technical
viewpoint, we note that the text of the bill contains
inconsistencies and ambiguities that would require additional
legislative direction. The following text provides a detailed
list of our technical comments.
Section 1
Please note that the title is misquoted as ``the Veteran Home
Equity Conversation Mortgage Act of 2007.'' Instead, the title
should read ``the Veteran Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Act
of 2007.''
Section 2
a. Loan Guarantee
We are concerned with the use of the term
``covered mortgagee,'' especially since there is no definition
provided. The use of the term makes the legislation sound more
relevant to an insurance program (like HUD's) than to a
guaranty program.
The fact that ``the Secretary may guarantee any
home equity conversion mortgage . . .'' (emphasis added) lends
a permissive tone to the legislation, which is contrary to the
existing statutes for VA guaranteed loans. Our existing
statutes are mandatory in nature.
b. Standards for Commitment
Under the first sentence in this subsection,
Congress requires the Secretary to establish standards for
guaranteeing HECMs. However, due to the sentence structure, it
is unclear at what point Congress expects VA to establish such
standards (e.g., `before the date on which the mortgage is
executed' or prior to the Secretary `committing to
guarantee.'). We would appreciate a revision to this sentence.
As written, the bill requires the VA Secretary to
determine that the HECM ``is likely to improve the financial
situation or otherwise meet the special needs of the elderly
veteran homeowner.'' We believe this language is too vague for
VA to conduct such assessments. Furthermore, VA is not in the
position to decide whether a HECM is an appropriate choice for
improving the veteran's financial situation. The language from
HUD's HECM statute seems more appropriate, as it requires a
determination that the mortgages ``have promise for improving
the financial situation'' of the borrower.
We are unclear about what ``accepted'' means in
subparagraph (3), and we would prefer to use HUD's language,
which requires mortgages to ``have a potential for acceptance
in the mortgage market'' (emphasis added).
c. Mortgage Eligibility
Subsection (c)(1) outlines the types of allowable
properties that can secure a HECM. The language used in this
reference appears to conflict with the definitions of
``mortgage'' and ``first mortgage'' in subsections (1)(2) and
(1)(3), respectively.
Subsection (c)(2)(A) requires that the elderly
veteran homeowner discuss the use of a HECM with a loan
counselor. Similarly, subsections (c)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(C)
require that the elderly veteran homeowner receive certain
disclosures regarding a HECM. We believe the bill is vague
about whether VA would be required to procure outside fee
services to carry out certain counseling and disclosure
requirements; for example, in (c)(2)(B), who will be providing
the disclosure to the veteran? Furthermore, it is also unclear
whether the veteran or VA is responsible for paying for the
costs of such services.
There is no provision for VA's non-liability for
the errors and omissions of third-party counselors.
Subsection (c)(2)(A)(3) should read be reordered
to, ``prepayment . . . may be made without penalty at any time
during the period of the mortgage.''
Subsection (c)(7) mentions foreclosure
proceedings. Is it Congress' intent for HECM default/
foreclosure proceedings to be reconciled with Sec. 3732, or are
such proceedings to be notwithstanding Sec. 3732? Similarly,
this subsection mentions a number of items that are outlined in
other areas of our code. To avoid any statutory conflicts, a
careful and thorough analysis of chapter 37 is necessary.
Subsection (c)(8) contains a typo and should read
``according to one of the following.'' Also, we are unclear as
to the definition of ``tenure'' in (D) and (E).
Subsection (c)(10) requires the Secretary to
``ensure that the homeowner does not fund any unnecessary or
excessive costs for obtaining the mortgage, including any costs
of estate planning, financial advice or other related
services.'' As a housing program, VA is not in the position to
limit the costs of such advice to borrowers. Furthermore, as
drafted, it is unclear whether costs of estate planning and
financial advice would be considered acceptable costs to the
veteran (see subsection (c)(10) versus subsection (e)).
d. Information Provided to the Homeowner
As previously stated, we believe the bill is
vague about whether VA would be required to procure outside fee
services to carry out certain counseling and disclosure
requirements and whether the veteran or VA is responsible for
paying for the costs of such services.
This subsection states ``the Secretary shall
provide or arrange, before executing on a home equity
conversion mortgage under this section. . . .'' Under VA's
existing programs, lenders execute the mortgages. Consequently,
we are unclear about Congress' intent regarding VA's
responsibilities for ``executing'' a HECM in subsection (e)(1).
Subparagraph (e)(2) contains a typo and should
read, ``. . . all of the information specified in such
paragraphs.''
e. Limitation of Amount of Benefit
Given that FHA insures lenders against all
losses, whereas VA is only able to guaranty the lender against
a percentage of its potential loss, we do not see how a new VA
HECM program would be as attractive to the lending community as
the existing FHA program has proven to be.
In the case where the covered mortgagee becomes
VA, we assume that Congress intends to provide the same
protection to the eligible veteran homeowner. If so, there
appears to be a technical inconsistency between our requirement
to continue making payments to the elderly veteran homeowner
and subsection (f), Limitation of amount of benefit, which
restricts the guarantee of a mortgage under this section to the
maximum guarantee amount under Section 3703 of this title.
f. Additional Authority
Under subsection (g)(1)(A), the bill prescribes
that VA provide the veteran with funds to which they are
entitled under a HECM if a lender/servicer defaults. Given that
HECMs are secured by Ginnie Mae, we assume that Ginnie Mae is
responsible for continuing to pay the veteran the necessary
payments and that VA would only be responsible for the
administration of such payments.
Subsection (g)(1)(B) should read, ``provided
under subparagraph (A) to a homeowner.''
Subparagraph (g)(1)(C) makes it appear as if VA
is supposed to cover the entire loss, like HUD does. As
previously discussed, we believe this presents an
inconsistency.
Subparagraph (g)(2)(A) should be reordered to
read, ``disbursing funds from the Veterans Housing Benefit
program Fund to the elderly veteran homeowner or covered
mortgagee.''
Subsection (g)(2)(C) gives the Secretary the
authority to ``require a subordinate mortgage from the
homeowner at any time in order to secure repayments of any
funds previously advanced or to be advanced to the homeowner.''
We are unclear regarding the circumstances under which this
would occur.
Under subsection (g)(2), the bill allows VA to
accept an assignment of the mortgage for reasons other than
homeowner default. We assume that Congress is providing this
authority to allow for VA to continue providing the borrower
with payments, similar to HUD's program, once the lender has
reached the maximum claim amount. As previously described,
there appears to be a technical inconsistency between our
requirement to continue making payments to the elderly veteran
homeowner and subsection (f), Limitation of amount of benefit,
which restricts the guarantee of a mortgage under this section
to the maximum guarantee amount under Section 3703 of this
title.
We are unclear as to what subsection (g)(2)(D)
requires.
Subsection (g)(2)(E) allows VA to impose
``premium charges.'' We assume that Congress intended VA to
assess a funding fee versus an upfront and annual premium (as
charged by HUD). If Congress intended a funding fee, does
Congress plan to establish a new rate or apply one of our
existing rates?
g. Authority to Guarantee Mortgages for Refinancing
A loan fee is discussed here, but is it the same
as or additional to premium charges previously discussed? The
bill prescribes that VA will charge a loan fee ``as determined
by the Secretary'' under Section 3729. However, the Secretary
does not have the discretion to determine any other funding
fee.
Is Congress' intent in (i)(3) to consider HECMs
functionally equivalent to IRRRLs or Cash-Out Refinances? The
entitlement amount differs for each, which would impact the
maximum principal loan amount on HECMs in such cases.
h. Origination Fee
We are unclear about what exactly Congress
intended in terms of this fee.
We are unclear as to the definition of
``correspondent mortgagee.''
We are unclear whether ``approved by the
Secretary'' modifies the fees or the correspondent mortgagees.
i. Fee Waiver
Is it Congress' intent to limit the fee waiver to
those cases where ALL funds (versus some funds) provided to a
borrower through a HECM are used to fund the cost of a
qualified long-term care insurance contract?
Given the bill's structure, it appears that
subsection (k)(2), financing mortgage obligations, only is
allowed for situations where the HECM is being obtained to fund
the cost of qualified long-term care. We believe the ability to
finance mortgage obligations should apply to ALL veterans using
a HECM.
j. Definitions
If ``elderly veteran homeowner'' is the defined
term, we believe Congress should use that term consistently or
include a preferred abbreviation in the definition.
We believe that the use of ``real estate'' needs
to be more clearly defined since it can include many forms of
property.
Some overarching considerations:
Chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code,
includes provisions for entitlement, default, and property
management, among others, that would not mesh with the
provisions of this proposal. To avoid any statutory conflicts,
a more careful and thorough analysis of chapter 37 is
necessary.
Any procurement needs, such as procuring
counseling services, to expressly and specifically come out of
the Housing Benefit Program Fund needs to be articulated in the
bill.
The legislation needs more specific information
about HECM lien priority. Also, the difference between
obligations and mortgages is not sufficiently clear.
Given the novelty of this program, it would be
helpful to have an expanded definitions section. In addition,
we recommend placing this subsection at the beginning of the
legislation.
HUD's statute contains the following language:
``The Secretary may enter into such contracts and agreements
with Federal, State, and local agencies, public and private
entities, and such other persons as the Secretary determines to
be necessary or desirable to carry out the purposes of this
section.'' We would like to have similar language in this bill
with the Department of Housing and Urban Development named so
that we can leverage their expertise in the development of such
a program.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. If you could. It would be helpful as
we give further consideration to the program that is proposed
in that bill. So that if indeed we choose to move forward we
have additional perspective and your insight as to based on
other programs that you administer, if we do choose to
authorize it that we make it as good as possible based on past
experience----
Mr. Pedigo. Certainly.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I don't think I have any further
questions. Mr. Boozman?
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. The only thing I
would say, I have the testimony from the ATA, the American
Trucking Associations, again talking about the need for people
in that field. And I think the statement that he made was a
fair one. You know we have many people in the infantry now,
this war is being fought by the infantry that are coming back
and you know they are not going to be necessarily scientist.
You know they are not necessarily going to be math teachers or
whatever.
So I know that there is a difficulty now in the law in
trying to fast forward some payments, to some of those fields
in the high-tech field. But could you all think about this
problem and what VA feels about again maybe going along with
that direction perhaps in a little different direction of
meeting the needs of the average guy that was the sense of the
2002 law itself. We have a completely different need. The story
he told about this stepson. We have a lot of people that are in
the field, they have got tremendous amount of responsibility
that it is really important that we get them back as soon as we
can, get them gainfully employed.
I think also the statement he made about the fact that many
of these individuals even at their best, because of the amount
of money that they are receiving have problems. The fact that
there is some time elapse, they don't have a lot of savings,
that it is very difficult.
But I really would like some comments in the future about
updating the list even if we stay high tech, the world is a
different place now than it was in 2002.
And then, also, if you would have a feeling again in us
looking at re-writing that language to make our sphere a larger
deal, let us know. We got 30 percent that don't use the GI Bill
and I suspect part of it is that. Just the fact that some of
the things that they have an interest for would be along that
line, but they really can't see a way out.
So that is just kind of for what it is worth, Madam
Chairwoman. The other thing, could we have an update briefing
on ``The Expert Education System'' (TEES) program and a staff
briefing on last year's education call center and what you
might be doing in the future with these projects. Would that be
something that we could ask you for, with your permission?
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Most certainly. I think that is a very
good idea to get that information on a more regular basis with
the briefings between members of our Committee staff and with
all of you.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you.
Mr. Pedigo. Yes.
Mr. Boozman. And again, thank you all for your service.
Mr. Pedigo. If I could----
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Please.
Mr. Pedigo [continuing]. If I could address that just very
briefly. I agree with the direction the Committee is trying to
go with accelerated pay. I have had discussions with the staff
of the Subcommittee, hope to have a lot more as we define
things.
There is a lot, I believe that we have in common with our
desires for accelerated pay much more than I believe that we
have opposing views on this. So I believe that there is
something that we can work out. We do believe strongly that we
can expand the Accelerated Pay program in a manner that will
serve a greater veteran population and in a manner that
budgetary wise everybody can live with it.
And if I could address the call center just very quickly
and our performance, because this is something I am very proud
of. We have had a lot of success improving our performance over
this last year. We started this fiscal year, October 1st,
processing original claims in about 46 days, we are at 24 days
right now. And processing supplemental claims in 18 days and we
are in 10 days right now.
So we are very pleased. We are obviously happy to provide
more details, but I did want to make sure that that was made
available.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well we appreciate that update and we
would like to see the additional details, but that is certainly
a trend that any Subcommittee likes to hear as it relates to
the progress being made and the processing of the claims.
And Mr. Wilson, if you could also, I know you had testified
even previously about the desire to open up to a greater number
of programs and to a greater number of veterans the accelerated
pay benefit. I think last time we did ask if we could see going
back I believe to 2000 maybe, or 2001 the applicants and
participants in the list of programs currently available so you
can match that with some other areas that the Administration
has identified for high-needs areas.
[The following was subsequently received from Mr. Pedigo:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accelerated Pay Over the Life of the Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims * # Payments Denials Total Payments Average Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec-02 33 11 22 $33,728 $3,066
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar-03 170 110 60 $420,734 $3,825
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun-03 278 224 54 $1,002,518 $4,476
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep-03 319 277 42 $1,361,259 $4,914
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec-03 359 320 39 $1,706,292 $5,332
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar-04 262 245 17 $1,521,458 $6,210
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun-04 303 286 17 $1,782,844 $6,234
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep-04 307 268 39 $1,610,469 $6,009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec-04 279 233 46 $1,290,063 $5,537
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar-05 275 249 26 $1,677,826 $6,738
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan-00 232 195 37 $1,239,901 $6,358
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep-05 241 209 32 $1,514,553 $7,247
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec-05 228 192 36 $1,443,920 $7,520
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar-06 207 180 28 $1,481,055 $8,228
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun-06 363 270 92 $1,659,400 $6,146
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep-06 324 246 78 $1,532,265 $6,229
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec-06 320 274 45 $1,489,352 $5,436
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar-07 308 257 51 $1,505,798 $5,859
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 4,808 4,046 761 $24,273,434 $105,364
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A ``claim'' doesn't represent one individual. It represents a single educational benefit claim. Therefore, an
individual can file more than one claim.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types of Training Programs for Accelerated Pay for the 4th Qtr. FY 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participants %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
09.0702 Digital Communication and Media/ 18 13.95%
Multimedia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Computer and Information Sciences and
Support
Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.0101 Computer and Information Sciences,
General
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.0102 Artificial Intelligence and Robotics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.0103 Information Technology 11 8.53%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.0199 Computer and Information Sciences 6 4.64%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.02 Computer Programming
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.0201 Computer Programming/Programmer 8 6.20%
General
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.0202 Computer Programming Specific 1 0.78%
Applications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.0203 Computer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.08 Computer Software and Media Application
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.0801 Web Page, Digital/Multimedia and 1 0.78%
Information Resources
Design
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.0802 Data Modeling/Warehousing and 1 0.78%
Database Administration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.0803 Computer Graphics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.0899 Computer Software and Media 8 6.20%
Applications, Other
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.09 Computer System Networking and 10 7.75%
Telecommunications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.1002 Computer Systems Networking and 3 2.33%
Telecommunications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.0901 Computer Systems Networking and 26 20.16%
Telecommunications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*14. Engineering 34 26.36%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructional programs that prepare
individuals to apply
mathematical and scientific principles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**15. Engineering Technologies/Technicians 1 0.78%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructional programs that prepare
individuals to apply basic
engineering principles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0.78%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Biological and Biomedical Sciences
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructional programs that focus on the
biological sciences and the
non-clinical biomedical science
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 129
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* On average more Beneficiaries Enroll in Courses of Engineering when a
participating in Accelerated Payment programs.
** 2nd is for Computer System Networking and Telecommunications 3rd is
Radio, Television and Digital Communications.
This chart represents the types of programs as an average based on the
4th quarter FY 2006. After reviewing other quarters during FY 2006, it
appears that the percentage is consistent through the entire fiscal
year.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. The reason I'm so inclined to move
forward with the Commercial Driver's License program is just to
see. I mean given what we know the experience and the skills of
a number of individuals coming up from transportation companies
in the National Guard and Reserve, and others in the infantry
as Mr. Boozman mentioned. All the other very important helpful
points that he just made to help us at least move forward and
then kind of open the flood gates to what we might be able to
do with the accelerated payment benefit program.
So if you could get that list to us as quickly as possible
and share that with staff, we would appreciate it. And we
appreciate our working relationship with you and agree that we
are much more on the same page in wanting to adapt this
important program for our veterans than any opposition that may
exist there.
So thank you all again for your time, for your input and
insights. We always appreciate it and we will look forward to
following up.
The hearing now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:01 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
As some of you may recall, this Subcommittee has held hearings on
issues such as adaptive housing, education assistance and ensuring that
our returning servicemembers and their families have an easy transition
to civilian life. With an increasing number of disabled veterans
returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, there is an urgent need to
review these important pieces of legislation.
Today we have 13 bills before us that seek to: protect our Nation's
veterans from financial burdens incurred while serving one's country;
expand education programs while meeting the current needs of our
economy; provide transition assistance to members of the National Guard
and Reserve; strengthen reemployment rights for returning veterans;
ensure the vitality of programs that assist veterans in making the best
use of the Montgomery GI Bill education benefits; and establish an
office to promote programs to assists our injured veterans to heal from
their wounds sustained while in the U.S. Armed Forces.
In addition, I have introduced legislation that will be discussed
today that seeks to address some of the needs of our returning brave
men and women in uniform.
The first being H.R. 1315, which would provide specially adaptive
housing assistance to disabled servicemembers residing temporarily in
housing owned by a family member. Under current law, a temporary grant
may be available to veterans who are/will be temporarily residing in a
home owned by a family member. This assistance, allowable up to
$14,000, may be used to adapt the family member's home to meet the
veteran's special needs at that time.
The second bill, H.R. 675 would increase the amount of assistance
available to disabled veterans for specially adaptive housing grants.
Increase the maximum amount from the current $50,000 to $60,000.
I believe that these two bills will be critical components in
assisting our disabled veterans and servicemembers, and expand the
resources available to give them a level of independent living they may
not normally enjoy.
I look forward to working with Ranking Member Boozman and Members
of this Subcommittee to continue to improve the quality of care and
services available to our veterans.
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman,
Ranking Republican Member, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Thank you Madam Chairwoman and good afternoon to everyone,
especially those who have joined us to provide their views on the bills
before the Subcommittee.
We have lots to do this afternoon, so I will be very brief. The
bills before us represent many good ideas and intentions and I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses about their positions. I am
concerned however, that some initiatives may have unintended
consequences that are less than optimal.
I would also ask a favor of our witnesses. Please limit your
remarks to your comments on the bills rather than each of you
explaining each bill to us. That will give us more time to grill you
with highly insightful and probing questions.
Madam Chairwoman, I look forward to a good markup next week to
report some solid legislation to the Full Committee. I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Timothy J. Walz,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota
Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, I want to express
my strong support for H.R. 1632, the Improving Veterans' Reemployment
Act. Congressman Dave Reichert and I introduced this legislation to
enact a small, technical fix that will improve the way the federal
government deals with National Guard and Reserve reemployment
complaints. This legislation is an excellent example of the good work
the Congress can do on behalf of our nation's veterans.
My colleague Congressman Reichert realized the crucial role of the
National Guard and Reserves early on in the Iraq War. He also
understood that long deployments for the Guard and Reserves meant
servicemembers would be leaving their civilian jobs for months and
years at a time. Congressman Reichert asked the GAO to study this issue
in 2005, directing them to report on difficulties Guard and Reserve
servicemembers face when returning to their civilian jobs.
Among numerous results, the study found a simple problem in the way
the Departments of Labor and Defense deal with complaints Guard and
Reserve servicemembers register when they return home and reenter the
civilian workforce. These servicemembers can file complaints dealing
with the reemployment process with either the Department of Defense or
the Department of Labor. However, these two departments are not fully
sharing the complaint data as they work to improve the reemployment
process and report to Congress. Congressman Reichert and I came up with
a legislative fix to this problem. Our bill simply acts on GAO's
recommendations by requiring the federal agencies and departments that
are involved with veterans' reemployment complaints to fully share
their data. The bill also requires that Congress receive all of this
data in an aggregate report. Congressman Reichert and I offer a simple
fix to a small problem that has a negative effect on thousands of
veterans returning home to their civilian jobs.
As a retired Command Sergeant Major in the Army National Guard, I
have an intimate understanding of the veterans' reemployment issue. I
deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom from 2003 to 2004 and
was fortunate to have my job as a high school teacher waiting for me
when I returned home. Unfortunately, the process was not as simple for
every member of my unit and I have heard plenty of horror stories of
both Guard members and Reservists who come home to a radically
different job situation. Local businesses back home in Minnesota have
done a tremendous job supporting the Guard and Reserves and bearing the
financial burden of long deployments, but servicemembers can still face
problems when they return. Our bill goes a long way to improving the
way the federal government deals with reemployment problems. While
constituents I served with in the Guard and now represent in Congress
may voice their problems and complaints to any number of federal
agencies, I need to know that the Congress will get the full story on
reemployment problems. Our bill does just that: ensuring that all the
data is compiled so that federal agencies and the Congress can better
understand reemployment problems and create effective solutions. I urge
the Subcommittee to support our legislation for the sake of thousands
of Guard and Reserve servicemembers who have served this country
exceptionally and who need our help now.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Albert Russell Wynn,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today on the bill I have offered to extend the protections offered
under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 533(c)). I am
pleased to join this Subcommittee in discussing the economic challenges
that many U.S. military veterans face after honorably serving our
Nation.
My bill, H.R. 1750, would extend the protections to mortgaged
property owned by a servicemember or qualified Reserve or Guard member
to one year following active duty, extending the current protection
from 90 days. H.R. 1750 attempts to address the very real economic and
life hardships that active duty servicemen and--women, and their
families frequently face, and acts to protect a family's most treasured
and needed possession--their home.
H.R. 1750 is consistent with all requirements and limitations of
the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Originally passed by Congress in
1940, and amended in the 108th Congress, the Servicemembers Civil
Relief Act is an important safeguard for our Nation's veterans and
active duty servicemembers. It generally protects veterans and
servicemembers with honorable service from eviction for nonpayment of
rent, foreclosure on mortgaged properties, and provides a cap on
interest rates for those on active duty.
H.R. 1750 extends protections granted to active duty servicemembers
and their immediate families to veterans who have served our Nation
honorably, by increasing the period in which they are protected from
immediate foreclosure on a mortgage from 90 days to one year. H.R. 1750
gives servicemembers, Guard and Reserve members returning from active
duty time to readjust to civilian life, while protecting their most
valuable and necessary asset for rebuilding a normal life with their
family.
Mental Illness, PTSD, and TBI
This Subcommittee knows very well the challenges that returning
veterans face. Veterans are at higher risk of mental illness and
homelessness than the general population. Many combat injuries incurred
as a result of active duty service, both physical and mental, can
seriously obstruct servicemen and servicewomen from finding and holding
down a job.
As Committee Members know, the War in Iraq and Afghanistan has been
especially hard on those who have served. More than one million troops
have served in Iraq or Afghanistan since 2001. Due to the operational
tempo and intense levels of combat that our troops face in this
conflict, more and more returning servicemembers are evincing signs of
serious combat stress and related mental health conditions.
Three-quarters of the troops in Iraq have faced life-threatening
situations and nearly half have seen dead or severely injured American
troops. Repeated and lengthened deployments are dramatically affecting
troops and their families. A recent study found that those who have
served multiple tours are 50 percent more likely to suffer from acute
combat stress.
More than a third of returning servicemembers have symptoms of
psychological or neurological injuries such as traumatic brain injuries
(TBI) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Onset of both TBI and
PTSD may be delayed, and both can take significant time to diagnose.
And they can both be suffered without receiving so much as a scratch in
combat operations.
The Defense Department Task Force on Mental Health reported in
early June that almost 40 percent of the troops have experienced some
type of psychological problem. Between 20 and 25 percent of
servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan experience serious
mental health problems.
Many believe that mental health conditions such as Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury, since they are not visible
to the naked eye, are imaginary, or a weakness in character. I do not,
and I am grateful to the Veterans' Committee for acting to address this
important issue.
But in the interim, veterans come home, are unable to fully mesh
back into normal life, and lose their job, lose their home, and end up
on the street. I have received considerable anecdotal evidence of the
family disruption that this causes. Extending protection for veterans
would not only save their homes, but also relieve the pressure on
families already experiencing great stress.
Economic Challenges and Homelessness among Veterans
Many servicemembers on active duty, especially those in the Guard
and Reserves, face significantly reduced income when deployed. Although
the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act protects servicemembers during and
immediately following active-duty service, many servicemembers and
their families incur significant debt that is difficult to pay off.
Combined with common problems in readjusting to civilian life, and
mental and physical challenges that many veterans face, these economic
challenges can lead to late or missed mortgage payments, eventually
triggering foreclosure. 700,000 children in America have at least one
parent deployed on active duty today--H.R. 1750 would help provide them
with additional stability over the year following active service
Subcommittee Members know the figures better than I do, but they
bear repeating. The unemployment rate among veterans is three times the
national average. According to a recent article in the Washington Post,
the total number of homeless veterans has gone down from about 250,000
10 years ago to about 194,000 this year. We need to help our veterans
make the transition back to productive civilian life, help our veterans
find and maintain gainful employment, and receive the healthcare they
need and deserve. I appreciate all that the Subcommittee has done, and
will do, to help our veterans face the challenges of that transition.
H.R. 1750 Protects Veterans in Transition
H.R. 1750 maintains requirements for honorable service under
existing law. This bill would maintain requirements that the mortgage
have been entered into prior to the period of military service, and
would not grant absolute protection, but rather
require a court hearing (as under existing law) prior to mortgage
foreclosures. This court hearing would determine if the servicemember
or veteran's inability to pay promptly was materially affected by
military service, and allow the count to stay foreclosure, adjust the
amount of the financial obligation to protect all parties, or to allow
the foreclosure of the veteran-owned property.
What H.R. 1750 requires is that all U.S. veterans, for a period of
one year after their active duty service, would receive a court hearing
prior to foreclosure or sale of their home. What it does not do is
protect all veterans from foreclosure, or allow irresponsible financial
management by servicemembers to serve as a ``get-out-of-jail free
card'' for mortage foreclosures on their home. It requires that all
actions taken by the court take into consideration the servicemember or
veteran's honorable service to our Nation, and consider whether their
ability to pay has been materially affected by military service.
In the current conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, with long
deployments, multiple tours, and all the pressures that puts on
servicemembers and their families, it seems reasonable to extend the
protection offered them under existing law. It is a practical and a
moral response to honor the service of the men and women in our
Nation's military, and I believe that protecting the homes of those who
have served is a just and fair proposal.
I look forward to working with the Subcommittee, and the full
Committee, to protect our Nation's veterans, and I again thank the
Chairwoman for her gracious invitation to offer testimony here today.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert A. Brady,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania
Since 1990, reservists have been involuntarily activated by the
federal government six times, an average of once every 2\1/2\ years.
Our nation has called on its armed forces to place themselves at risk
in far away places, in furtherance of our national interests. In the
tradition of the American citizen soldier, many of our neighbors and
loved ones have answered the call and are serving with distinction in
Afghanistan, Iraq and other theaters. The post-September 11
mobilization has been the largest since the Gulf War.
According to a Rand study by the Defense Department, 28 percent of
activated reservists lost income during their last deployment. These
losses occur due to differences between the reservists' military and
civilian pay, expenses incurred by reservists because of mobilization,
and the decline in business experienced by self-employed reservists
during and after release from active duty.
One survey sponsored by the Department of Defense (DoD) indicated
that as many as two-thirds of the reservists activated during Operation
Desert Shield/Storm suffered economic loss as a result of their
deployment. Another DoD sponsored survey indicated that the potential
for income loss during activation was a major concern for both officers
and enlisted personnel in the Reserves and National Guard.
Recognizing that fact, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee has
undertaken a bi-partisan effort to strengthen servicemembers' rights. I
am in full support of these efforts, which will go a long way to
protecting the rights of active duty and mobilized reserve and guard
personnel. But even more can be done. That is why I am introducing the
H.R. 513 ``National Heroes Credit Protection Act.''
This measure will require that credit reporting agencies add
notations to the credit files of active duty military personnel,
including reserves and guards forces, indicating that late and slow
payments to existing accounts occurred during, and because of their
mobilization. In the future, creditors would be prohibited from denying
or downgrading credit to personnel because of a notated file.
No military personnel should ever suffer financial hardship for
answering the call.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve Israel,
a Representative in Congress from the State of New York
Madame Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today.
I have always believed in a robust military with the strength to
handle threats to our country's security. We need our troops to be
well-supplied and well-trained. We need soldiers who can focus on the
tasks at hand. Right now, our troops have to worry about roadside
bombs, snipers, IEDs, and countless other dangers of combat. The
absolute last thing they should be worrying about while in harm's way
is whether or not their families are being harassed by creditors and
consumer agencies at home.
I recently met with a retired Long Island Naval Reservist who
suffered from re-
possession threats, burdensome credit card debt and sky high interest
rates during his deployment. Thinking he had taken all the necessary
steps to keep his families' financial history in order, Naval reservist
Karl Botkin left to serve as a naval reserve officer in Kuwait from
July 2005 to April 2006. But while he was deployed, his wife was at
home being constantly harassed by creditors. She took it upon herself
to call her automobile company to find out about reduced interest rates
for deployed soldiers, but was told that there is no such law in place
and ``if you don't pay we will come and get your car.''
Reservist Botkin's wife also tried to call her credit card company
but ultimately the debt on their credit cards grew and the creditor
following standard procedure increased their interest rates and
penalized them. Although, the money was later returned, it still caused
distress to the family.
Karl and his family are not alone. This happens time and time
again. Many times the creditors have no idea these protections are in
place. On March 28, 2005, The New York Times reported that creditors
and servicemembers were often unaware of the protections.
The New York Times also wrote about Sgt. John J. Savage III, who
was an Army reservist on his way to Iraq when he got a call from his
wife. They had been advised that their home was being foreclosed, even
though the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act limits the ability of
mortgage companies and other lenders to foreclose against active duty
servicemembers. The problem is that so many lenders either do not know
or do not fully understand the law.
Luckily, the foreclosure against Sergeant Savage and his family did
not go through but it damaged his credit history. I would also point
out that the same New York Times article reported that a creditor
trying to collect an owed debt sued a soldier's wife while her husband
was serving in Baghdad.
The families of deployed soldiers should not have to deal with
being harassed by credit card companies while worrying about their
loved ones in harm's way. If we are willing to send troops overseas,
the least we can do is secure their financial wellbeing upon return
from battle.
But among the rushed preparations and farewells, these reservists
might not have the time to report to credit bureaus on their change to
active status in a combat zone. They may not have time to request a
reduction of interest rates in writing, or provide a copy of their
orders to prove it. Moreover, they may not have time to request a
military termination clause in apartment and car leases, or learn how
to precisely navigate countless other loopholes, which cause only
financial and logistical headaches and nightmares for the deployed
soldier and their families.
Shouldn't the government which is deploying the soldier make this
transition easier for them and protect them?
If enacted into law, my bill H.R. 1598 the Servicemembers Credit
Protection Act would strengthen the existing Servicemembers Civil
Relief Act. It would safeguard credit ratings of soldiers deployed to
war zones and facilitate awareness of their protected rights to credit
bureaus, consumer, and collection agencies. The Department of Defense
(DoD) would be required to notify the national credit bureaus within 30
days of deployment of servicemembers. The DoD would also notify those
credit bureaus when the soldier returns home. The act would increase
penalties for any organization that violates the established rights of
the servicemember who is fighting to protect our country.
It is important to note that this bill does not exempt members of
the Armed Services from paying their bills. It does not stop
information from being obtained from or placed on their credit reports.
It simply ensures that every man and woman who is fighting for us
overseas does not have to worry about their financial rights being
violated back home.
We have a responsibility to fight for their families while they are
overseas fighting for us. Instead we dishonor our troops by allowing
their families to be hounded by collection agencies, or having their
credit rating affected by the absence of their hero.
Supporting our troops begins at home. And it is stories like Karl's
that inspired me to write this legislation to protect our troops from
financial harassment and foreclosure.
It begins with responsible spending, accountability within
leadership, and protecting the families and assets of the brave men and
women who are willing to sacrifice everything for our country.
I hope this subcommittee will look favorably on this legislation
and I am grateful for the consideration. I hope my bill would help show
that our government will go beyond symbols and rhetoric and distribute
tangible, practical relief and assistance that honors those who fight
for us.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Bills in the Napsack: A Law Gets Lost;
Creditors Press Troops Despite Relief Act
The New York Times, Late Edition--Final
Monday, March 28, 2005, Section A; Column 3
By Diana B. Henriques
Sgt. John J. Savage III, an Army reservist, was about to climb onto
a troop transport plane for a flight to Iraq from Fayetteville, N.C.,
when his wife called with alarming news: ``They're foreclosing on our
house.''
Sergeant Savage recalled, ``There was not a thing I could do; I had
to jump on the plane and boil for 22 hours.''
He had reason to be angry. A longstanding federal law strictly
limits the ability of his mortgage company and other lenders to
foreclose against active-duty servicemembers.
But Sergeant Savage's experience was not unusual. Though statistics
are scarce, court records and interviews with military and civilian
lawyers suggest that Americans heading off to war are sometimes facing
distracting and demoralizing demands from financial companies trying to
collect on obligations that, by law, they cannot enforce.
Some cases involve nationally prominent companies like Wells Fargo
and Citigroup, though both say they are committed to strict compliance
with the law.
The problem, most military law specialists say, is that too many
lenders, debt collectors, landlords, lawyers and judges are unaware of
the federal statute or do not fully understand it.
The law, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, protects all active-
duty military families from foreclosures, evictions and other financial
consequences of military service. The Supreme Court has ruled that its
provisions must ``be liberally construed to protect those who have been
obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burdens of the
nation.''
Yet the relief act has not seemed to work in recent cases like
these:
At Fort Hood, Tex., a soldier's wife was sued by a creditor trying
to collect a debt owed by her and her husband, who was serving in
Baghdad at the time. A local judge ruled against her, saying she had
defaulted, even though specialists say the relief act forbids default
judgments against soldiers serving overseas and protects their spouses
as well.
At Camp Pendleton, Calif., more than a dozen marines returned from
Iraq to find that their cars and other possessions had been improperly
sold to cover unpaid storage and towing fees. The law forbids such
seizures without a court order.
In northern Ohio, Wells Fargo served a young Army couple with
foreclosure papers despite the wife's repeated efforts to negotiate new
repayment terms with the bank. Wells Fargo said later that it had been
unaware of the couple's military status. The foreclosure was dropped
after a military lawyer intervened.
Little Known Legislation
The relief act provides a broad spectrum of protections to
servicemembers, their spouses and their dependents. The interest rate
on debts incurred before enlistment, for example, must be capped at 6
percent if military duty has reduced a servicemember's family income.
The law also protects servicemembers from repossession or
foreclosure without a court order. It allows them to terminate any real
estate lease when their military orders require them to do so. And it
forbids judges from holding servicemembers in default on any legal
matter unless the court has first appointed a lawyer to protect their
interests.
The law is an updated version of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil
Relief Act, which was adopted on the eve of World War II and remained
largely unchanged through the Persian Gulf War 1991. But in July 2001,
a federal court ruled that servicemembers could sue violators of the
relief act for damages. And the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 prompted
Congress to take up a long-deferred Pentagon proposal to update the old
act. The revised statute, clearer and more protective than the old one,
was signed into law in December 2003.
But the news was apparently slow in reaching those who would have
to interpret and enforce the law.
``There are 50,000 judges in this country and God knows how many
lawyers,'' said Alexander P. White, a county court judge in Chicago and
the chairman of one of the American Bar Association's military law
Committees. ``Are people falling down on the job--the judges, the bar,
the military? Probably.'' And broad understanding of the law ``is not
going to happen overnight.''
Military lawyers, credit industry organizations and some state
courts and bar associations have also tried to spread the word about
the new law. But these efforts are not enough, said Col. John S. Odom
Jr., retired, of Shreveport, La., who is a specialist on the act.
``What we need is a way to reach Joe Bagadoughnuts in Wherever,
Louisiana,'' he said. ``Because that's where these cases are turning
up.''
One reason they are surfacing in unlikely places is the Pentagon's
increased reliance on Reserve and National Guard units that do not hail
from traditional military towns, said Lt. Col. Barry Bernstein, the
judge advocate general for the South Carolina National Guard. When
these units are called up, he said, their members find themselves
facing creditors and courts that may never have dealt with the relief
act.
As a result, some servicemembers heading off to war have confronted
exactly the kinds of problems the law was supposed to prevent. The
Coast Guard alone handled more than 300 complaints last year; military
law specialists say the numbers are probably higher in the branches
sending troops abroad.
Financial Difficulties
Sergeant Savage's lender eventually dropped its foreclosure against
him after receiving repeated warnings from military lawyers at Fort
Bragg, N.C. But damage was done. The foreclosure dispute remained on
his credit history, hurting his ability to revive his struggling
wireless Internet connection business when he returned home to
Asheboro, N.C., he said. By then he had retired on full disability
after being seriously injured while working on a sabotaged electrical
system at the former Baghdad Convention Center.
Sergeant Savage has not let the matter end. Represented by Colonel
Odom, he has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Greensboro, N.C. He
says the EverHome Mortgage Company, a unit of the EverBank Financial
Corporation in Jacksonville, Fla., violated the relief act by failing
to cap his mortgage at 6 percent, wrongfully initiating foreclosure
and, after dropping the foreclosure, failing to remove information
about it from his credit history.
The mortgage company denied that it violated the act or treated
Sergeant Savage unfairly. His case ``has unique and extenuating
circumstances'' that will be raised when the dispute comes to trial,
Michael C. Koster, EverHome's president, said in a written statement.
``We are confident that court documents will reveal that EverBank
treated Mr. Savage equitably and worked diligently to resolve this
matter,'' Mr. Koster said.
Extent of Coverage
When Sgt. Michael Gaskins of Fort Hood, Tex., was sent to Iraq last
April, his wife, Melissa, was left to cope with a dispute over a
delinquent loan from the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital credit union;
the couple took out the loan just before Sergeant Gaskins enlisted in
November 2001. When the credit union took the couple to court in Texas
last year, a military lawyer at Fort Hood alerted the local judge that
the new relief act required that the case be deferred because Sergeant
Gaskins was abroad.
But on Feb. 18, a county court judge in Gatesville, Tex., ruled
that Mrs. Gaskins had lost the case by default. She was ordered to pay
the credit union more than $6,000 and turn over the family truck, which
secured the loan. Colonel Odom, who is also representing the couple, is
trying to have the default judgment overturned, in part on the ground
that the relief act protects spouses as well as servicemembers.
The credit union in Tallahassee, Fla., disputes that. ``It's our
position the act does not protect her,'' said Palmer Williams, a lawyer
for the organization. Judge Susan R. Stephens, the county judge who
signed the default judgment, said she did not think that Mrs. Gaskins
had ever invoked the relief act but said she would review the matter
when it came before her. The relief act was also supposed to prevent
the kind of situation that the marines returning to Camp Pendleton
faced when they discovered that their cars and other possessions had
been sold to cover towing and storage fees.
``The Act says you need a court order to do that, and you can't get
a court order without notice to the servicemember,'' said Maj. Michael
R. Renz, director of the joint legal assistance office there. ``I've
got six attorneys here, and each one of us has handled at least two or
three of these cases within the last eight months.''
`I'm Not Sleeping'
Stephen Lynch, a civilian lawyer for the Coast Guard in Cleveland,
said he had stepped in repeatedly over the past year to help
servicemembers invoke their rights under the Act.
One of them is a young soldier sent to east Asia, leaving a wife
and two children at home in northern Ohio. His periods of unemployment
and the death of a newborn daughter last July left the young family
struggling financially. Their situation was aggravated by delays in the
processing of his first military paychecks, said Mr. Lynch, who asked
that the couple's name not be used because their debt problems could
hurt the soldier's career.
The soldier's wife said she had tried for months to renegotiate
their mortgage with Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. But on March 8, just
three weeks after paying the bank $3,000 that the U.S.O. had raised on
her behalf, she was served with foreclosure papers.
``I'm having anxiety attacks,'' the wife said in an interview that
night. ``I'm not sleeping.'' She said she was especially worried about
how much to tell her husband. ``The other military wives I've spoken to
all say, `Don't let them know you're upset; don't let them hear you
cry.' ''
Kevin Waetke, a spokesman for Wells Fargo, said the foreclosure
action was dropped as soon as Mr. Lynch contacted the bank's lawyers.
The bank had not known the couple was eligible for relief, he said.
Different Experiences
A Coast Guardsman, Kevin Cornell, was baffled by his experience
with Citigroup's credit card unit. When he enlisted, he had a Citibank
card and another from Sears, whose credit card operations Citibank
acquired in late 2003. When he applied last fall to have the interest
rates on both cards capped at 6 percent, Citibank did even better: it
cut the rate on his pre-enlistment balance to zero.
But the Sears card was another story; a different Citibank employee
refused to make the interest rate cut on that card retroactive to his
date of enlistment, as the new relief act requires. Again, Mr. Lynch
intervened. But he said he wondered how many other servicemembers had
been misinformed.
Janis Tarter, a spokeswoman for the bank, said the company's policy
was to go beyond the requirements of the relief Act on all its credit
cards. ``We regret the difficulty that our customer encountered,'' Ms.
Tarter said. ``It is not representative of the level of service we work
to provide.''
Burden of Enforcement
Some problems that military personnel are confronting suggest that
the new law may need more work by Congress. For example, although
mandatory arbitration clauses are becoming increasingly common in
credit agreements, arbitration is not even mentioned in the relief act.
But the biggest problem, both bankers and military lawyers say, is
that the enforcement of the Act rests initially on the shoulders of the
servicemembers themselves. They must notify their creditors or
landlords of their military status to invoke their rights under the
act. It is one more chore for a soldier getting ready for overseas
duty, and it often does not get done properly.
And if a landlord or creditor, out of ignorance or intransigence,
refuses to comply with the Act, the servicemember may not have the time
or money to fight back, said Capt. Kevin P. Flood, a retired Navy
lawyer.
``Sure, if you take them to court and win, you can even collect
damages,'' Captain Flood said. ``But most of our people are not in that
position. They are just regular Joes, and they don't have the money to
hire a lawyer.''
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin for convening this
historic hearing. There are few if any higher obligations of the
Congress, the President, and the American people than keeping faith
with the men and women who have worn the uniform in service to our
country.
I applaud the work of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
because it is charged with legislative, oversight and investigative
jurisdiction over education of veterans, employment and training of
veterans, vocational rehabilitation, veterans' housing programs, and
readjustment of servicemembers to civilian life. That is the purpose of
this hearing is to consider a number of legislative proposals to
facilitate the readjustment of veterans to civilian life.
It is for that reason that I am delighted to be here to discuss
H.R. 1240, the ``Vision Impairment Specialist Training Act,'' or VISTA
Act of 2007. The purpose of my legislation is to help our Nation's
blind and low-vision veterans by establishing a scholarship program for
students seeking training in blind rehabilitation.
I am proud that the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee,
Mr. Filner, is an original co-sponsor of this legislation, as is Mr.
Michaud, the Chair of this Committee's Subcommittee on Health; and the
cochairs of the Congressional Vision Caucus, my colleague Mr. Gene
Green of Texas and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. I am proud to report
also that this legislation is strongly supported by the Blind Veterans
of America, an organization chartered by Congress in 1958, and which
has been for nearly 50 the only veterans service organization
exclusively dedicated to serving America's blind and visually impaired
veterans.
Madam Chairwoman, there are approximately 160,000 legally blind
veterans in the United States, but only 35,000 are currently enrolled
in Veterans Health Administration services.
In addition, it is estimated that there are over one million low-
vision veterans in the United States, and incidences of blindness among
the total veteran population of 26 million are expected to increase by
about 40% over the next few years. This is because the most prevalent
causes of legal blindness and low vision are age-related, and the
average age of the veteran population is increasing; the current
average age is about 80 years old.
Members of the Armed Forces are important to our Nation and we show
them our appreciation by taking care of them even after they have
completed their service. But the fact is that there are not enough
blind rehabilitation specialists to serve all legally blind and low-
vision veterans in United States.
Blind rehabilitation training helps give these veterans awareness
of and functioning in their surroundings and enables them to retain
their independence and dignity. Veterans without these services may
find it difficult to be self-sufficient, relying on others to perform
certain skills or even simple tasks on their behalf.
Madam Chairwoman, Public Law 104-262, the Eligibility Reform Act
1996, requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to maintain its
capacity to provide specialized rehabilitative services to disabled
veterans, but it cannot do so when there are not enough specialists to
address these needs.
Last December, the Veterans Programs Extension Act was passed,
which included a provision by Congressman Michael Michaud to increase
the number of Blind Rehabilitation Outpatient Specialists serving our
Nation's veterans. However, there are currently not enough counselors
certified in blind rehabilitation to provide for the growing number of
blind or low-vision veterans, let alone the rest of our Nation's
elderly population.
My legislation, the VISTA Act, helps to remedy this situation by
directing the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a scholarship
program for students seeking a degree or certificate in blind
rehabilitation (Vision Impairment and/or Orientation and Mobility). The
availability of these scholarship opportunities will provide an
incentive to students considering entry into the field.
Additionally, in exchange for the scholarship award, students are
required to work for three years in a healthcare facility of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, to ensure that our veterans are well
cared for.
If I might, let me discuss the legislation in more detail.
H.R. 1240 mandates that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
provide financial assistance to students enrolled in a program of study
leading to a degree or certificate in Visual Impairment and/or
Orientation and Mobility at an accredited educational institution in a
U.S. State or territory, provided that they agree with applicable
requirements.
As I stated earlier, the purpose of the scholarship program is to
increase the supply of qualified blind rehabilitation specialists for
the Department of Veterans Affairs and the nation.
The legislation requires that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall widely publicize this scholarship program to colleges and
universities across the nation, especially institutions with large
numbers of Hispanic students and HBCUs. This is a particularly salutary
provision because African Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities
are underrepresented in the field of vision rehabilitation.
To apply and participate in the scholarship program, an applicant
shall submit to the Secretary, or his designee, an application and
agree to serve a 3 year period of obligated service in the Department
of Veterans Affairs. The legislation requires that the Secretary shall
include among the application and agreement materials a fair summary of
the rights and liabilities of the applicant if accepted into the
program.
When the Secretary approves of the applicant's acceptance, the
applicant shall be promptly notified and accepted into the program.
The amount of financial assistance provided for an applicant shall
be the amount determined by the Secretary as being necessary to pay the
tuition and fees of the applicant. If the applicant is enrolled in a
dual degree or certification program, the amount awarded shall not
exceed the amounts necessary for the minimum number of credit hours to
achieve such dual certification or degree.
Financial assistance provided to an applicant by this scholarship
program may supplement other educational assistance, as long as the
total award does not exceed the tuition and fees required for an
academic year.
The maximum award for any full-time student per academic year may
not exceed $15,000. The maximum award for any part-time student should
be determined in proportion to the amount that would be the case if the
student were full time. For any student, the total amount of assistance
may not exceed $45,000.
The maximum duration for financial assistance under this program is
six years.
The agreement for participation in this scholarship program shall
be signed by both the Secretary and the participant. The Secretary
shall agree to provide the participant with the authorized financial
assistance and the participant shall agree to:
accept the assistance
maintain enrollment and attendance in the appropriate
program of study
maintain an acceptable level of academic standing
serve as a full-time employee in the Department of
Veterans Affairs for three years within the first six years after
completing the program and receiving the degree or certificate
specified
If the applicant fails to satisfy the requirements of the
agreement, the applicant must repay the amount equal to the unearned
portion of assistance, except in circumstances authorized by the
Secretary. The Secretary shall establish procedures for determining the
amount of the repayment required, as well as the circumstances under
which an exception to the required repayment may be granted.
The Secretary shall prescribe regulations for the waiver or
suspension of an applicant's obligation for service or payment whenever
the applicant's noncompliance is due to circumstances beyond his or her
control or it is in the best interest of the United States.
Madam Chairwoman, I should point out that an obligation to repay
the Secretary under this section is a debt owed the United States.
Thus, a discharge in bankruptcy does not discharge a person from a debt
under this legislation if the discharge order is entered less than five
years after the date of the termination of the agreement or contract.
Madam Chairwoman, every morning when I arrive at my office, I am
reminded of how fortunate I am to live in a nation as great as the
United States. Outside of my office there is a poster-board with the
names and faces of those heroes from Houston, Texas who have lost their
lives wearing the uniform of our country. We live in a nation where so
many brave young men and women volunteer to the ultimate sacrifice so
that their countrymen can enjoy the blessings of liberty. Now is the
time to remind our heroes know they have not been, and will never be,
forgotten. They deserve honor, they deserve dignity, and they deserve
the best care. After all, this is the least we can do for those who
have done so much for all of us.
I thank the Committee for allowing me this time to discuss H.R.
1240. I appreciate the support of the members who have cosponsored the
bill and invite all other members to join as well. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
Testimony Before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of
Representatives, United States Government Accountability Office,
Thursday, July 22, 2004
VA HEALTHCARE: MORE OUTPATIENT REHABILITATION SERVICES
FOR BLIND VETERANS COULD BETTER MEET THEIR NEEDS
Statement of Cynthia A. Bascetta, Director, Healthcare--
Veterans' Health and Benefits Issues
GAO Highlights: Highlights of GAO-04-996T, a report to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives:
Why GAO Did This Study:
In fiscal year 2003, VA estimated that about 157,000 veterans were
legally blind, with more than 60 percent age 75 or older. About 44,000
legally blind veterans were enrolled in VA healthcare. VA estimated
that through 2022, the number of legally blind veterans would remain
stable. (See fig. 1.)
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct the
Under Secretary for Health to issue, as soon as possible in fiscal year
2005, a uniform standard of care policy that ensures that a broad range
of inpatient and outpatient blind rehabilitation services are more
widely available to legally blind veterans. In commenting on a draft of
this testimony, VA concurred with our recommendation.
What GAO Found:
VA provides three types of blind rehabilitation outpatient training
services. These services, which are available at a small number of VA
locations, range from short-term programs provided in VA facilities to
services provided in the veteran's own home. They are Visual Impairment
Services Outpatient Rehabilitation, Visual Impairment Center to
Optimize Remaining Sight, and Blind Rehabilitation Outpatient
Specialists.
Figure 1--Estimated Age Distribution of Legally Blind Veterans,
Fiscal Years 2003, 2012, and 2022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37468A.001
Source: Atlanta VA Rehabilitation Research and Development Center.
Locations of VA Outpatient Blind Rehabilitation Services, May 2004
[See Figure 3.]
VA reported to GAO that some legally blind veterans could benefit
from increased access to outpatient blind rehabilitation services. When
VA reviewed all of the veterans who, as of March 31, 2004, were on the
waiting list for admission to the five BRCs GAO visited, VA officials
reported that 315 out of 1,501 of them, or 21 percent, could
potentially be better served through access to outpatient blind
rehabilitation services, if such services were available.
GAO also identified two factors that may affect the expansion of
VA's outpatient blind rehabilitation services. The first involves VA's
longstanding position that training for legally blind veterans is best
provided in a comprehensive inpatient setting. The second reported
factor is VA's method of allocating funds for medical care. VA is
currently working to develop an allocation amount that would better
reflect the cost of providing blind rehabilitation services on an
outpatient basis.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the healthcare
rehabilitation services the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
provides to legally blind veterans. In fiscal year 2003, VA estimated
that about 157,000 veterans were legally blind,\1\ and about 44,000 of
these veterans were enrolled in VA healthcare. Since the forties, the
demographics of VA's blind veteran population have changed from young
veterans totally blind as a result of traumatic injury to primarily
older veterans whose legal blindness is caused by age-related eye
diseases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ VA defines ``legal blindness'' as when the patient's best-
corrected central visual acuity, with ordinary glasses or contact
lenses, is 20/200 or less in the better eye (measured by the Snellen
Visual Acuity Chart), or when the field of useful vision is 20 degrees
or less in the better eye. For example, a legally blind person can read
only the big ``E'' on the eye chart or sees as if looking through a
paper towel tube.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You expressed concern that VA has not updated its delivery of care
options for blind rehabilitation programs by offering, in addition to
inpatient services, a range of outpatient services closer to where
veterans live.\2\ To determine how VA serves the needs of legally blind
veterans and what role outpatient training services could play, we
reviewed (1) the availability of VA outpatient blind rehabilitation
services, (2) whether legally blind veterans benefit from VA and non-VA
outpatient services, and (3) what factors affect VA's ability to
increase veterans' access to blind rehabilitation outpatient services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This work was requested by the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Health, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives and
the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, United
States Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address these issues, we met with officials from VA's
Rehabilitative Strategic Healthcare Group, including the Blind
Rehabilitation Service Program Office (program office). We also met
with VA's directors for ophthalmology and optometry. We reviewed
applicable policies and procedures regarding VA's blind rehabilitation
services, its strategic plan for blind rehabilitation, and its planning
documents for special disability populations. To determine what blind
rehabilitation services were available to veterans, we visited five
medical centers offering blind rehabilitation services and met with
Blind Rehabilitation Center (BRC) officials as well as case managers
and rehabilitation specialists who work with legally blind veterans.\3\
We asked BRC officials and case managers to evaluate veterans on the
waiting lists for admission to these BRCs as of March 31, 2004, to
identify those who could potentially be better served through access to
outpatient blind rehabilitation services, if such services were
available. We also interviewed case managers who were located at
medical centers without a BRC and representatives of the Blinded
Veterans Association to gain their perspectives on the types of care
that would benefit legally blind veterans. In addition, we met with
officials from state and private nonprofit agencies in Arizona,
Illinois, and Washington to learn about the blind rehabilitation
programs they offer older citizens.\4\ Our review was conducted from
September 2003 through July 2004 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ We visited the BRCs located in Tucson, Arizona; West Palm
Beach, Florida; Augusta, Georgia; Hines, Illinois; and American Lake,
Washington. These BRCs were selected based on differences in geographic
location and the number of beds available at the BRC.
\4\ We selected these states because they were in the same
geographic location as three of the BRCs we visited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, VA provides three types of blind rehabilitation
outpatient training services, but they are available only in a few VA
locations. These services range from short-term programs provided in VA
facilities to services provided in the veteran's own home. VA also
believes that some legally blind veterans could benefit from increased
access to outpatient blind rehabilitation services. In fact, VA
officials reported to us that 21 percent of veterans on the waiting
lists for admission to the five BRCs we visited could potentially be
better served through access to outpatient blind rehabilitation
services, if such services were available. Finally, two factors affect
the expansion of VA's outpatient blind rehabilitation services. The
first involves VA's longstanding position that training for legally
blind veterans should be provided in a comprehensive inpatient setting.
This delivery model has not kept pace with VA's overall healthcare
strategy that reduces its reliance on inpatient care and emphasizes
more outpatient care. The second reported factor affecting the use of
outpatient blind rehabilitation services is its method of allocating
funds for medical care. VA's Visual Impairment Advisory Board (VIAB)
believes that the funds allocated for basic outpatient care for legally
blind veterans do not cover the cost of providing blind rehabilitation
outpatient services. The VIAB is currently working with VA's Office of
Finance and Allocation Resource Center \5\ to develop an allocation
amount that would better reflect the cost of providing blind
rehabilitation services on an outpatient basis, which could provide an
incentive to expand this care. We are recommending that VA take action
to ensure that a broad range of inpatient and outpatient blind
rehabilitation services is more widely available to legally blind
veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Allocation Resource Center is responsible for developing,
implementing, and maintaining management information systems that
provide data for the Veterans Health Administration's budget process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
In 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt made a commitment that no
servicemen blinded in combat in World War II would be returned to their
homes without adequate training to meet the problems imposed by their
blindness, according to VA. From 1944 to 1947, the Army and Navy
provided this rehabilitation training. In 1947, responsibility for this
training was transferred to VA, and in 1948, VA opened its first BRC to
provide comprehensive inpatient care to legally blind veterans.
In 1956, blind rehabilitation services were expanded to include
veterans whose legal blindness was not service-connected. Because of
this expansion, the demographics of VA's blind veteran population
shifted toward predominately older veterans whose legal blindness was
caused by age-related eye diseases. Expanded eligibility also caused an
increase in demand for services. VA responded to this demand by opening
9 additional BRCs in the United States and Puerto Rico for a total of
10 facilities with 241 authorized beds. (See table 1.) As of May 5,
2004, VA reported that there were 2,127 legally blind veterans waiting
for admission to BRCs.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See U.S. General Accounting Office, VA Needs to Improve
Accuracy of Reported Wait Times for Blind Rehabilitation Services, GAO-
04-949 (Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2004).
Table 1--Location of VA's Blind Rehabilitation Centers, the Year Each Was Opened, and the Number of Authorized
and Staffed Beds, as of May 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beds\a\
Location Year Opened ---------------------------------------
Authorized Staffed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Lake, Washington 1971 15 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August, Georgia 1996 15 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birmingham, Alabama 1982 32 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hines, Illinois 1948 34 34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palo Alto, California 1967 32 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Juan, Puerto Rico 1986 12 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tucson, Arizona 1994 34 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waco, Texas 1974 15 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Haven, Connecticut 1969 34 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Palm Beach, Florida 2000 18 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 241 218
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: VA.
\a\ Authorized beds are the total bed capacity of the BRC. Staffed beds are the beds available for admission of
patients. According to VA's Capacity Report for 2003, the number of staffed beds may be less than authorized
beds because the local medical center may have eliminated staff positions, imposed a hiring freeze, or
experienced difficulties in recruiting qualified personnel.
In fiscal year 2003, VA estimated that about 157,000 veterans were
legally blind,\7\ with more than 60 percent age 75 or older. About
44,000 legally blind veterans were enrolled in VA healthcare. VA
estimated that through 2022, the number of legally blind veterans would
remain stable. (See fig. 1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ All legally blind veterans are given priority 4 status and
currently are eligible to enroll in VA healthcare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) considers the increase in
age-related eye diseases to be an emerging major public health problem.
According to NIH, the four leading diseases that cause age-related
legal blindness are cataract, glaucoma, macular degeneration, and
diabetic retinopathy, each affecting vision differently. (See fig. 2
for illustrations of how each disease affects vision.) Cataract is a
clouding
Figure 2--Vision and Vision Loss Due to Age-Related Eye Diseases
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37468A.002
Source: National Eye Institute, U.S. National Institutes of Health.
of the eye's normally clear lens. Most cataracts appear with advancing
age, and by age 80, more than half of all Americans develop them.
Glaucoma causes gradual damage to the optic nerve--the nerve to the
eye--that results in decreasing peripheral vision. It is estimated that
as many as 4 million Americans have glaucoma. Macular degeneration
results in the loss of central visual clarity and contrast sensitivity.
It is the most common cause of legal blindness in older Americans and
rarely affects those under the age of 60. Diabetic retinopathy is a
common complication of diabetes impairing vision over time. It results
in the loss of visual clarity, peripheral vision, and color and
contrast sensitivity. It also increases the eye's sensitivity to glare.
Nearly half of all diabetics will develop some degree of diabetic
retinopathy, and the risk increases with veterans' age and the length
of time they have had diabetes.
To assist legally blind veterans, VA established Visual Impairment
Services Team (VIST) coordinators who act as case managers and are
responsible for coordinating all medical services for these veterans,
including obtaining medical examinations and arranging for blind
rehabilitation services. There are about 170 VIST coordinators, who are
located at VA medical centers that have at least 100 enrolled legally
blind veterans. VIST coordinators are also responsible for certain
administrative services such as reviewing the veteran's compensation
and pension benefits. Almost all of VA's blind rehabilitation services
for veterans are provided through comprehensive inpatient care at BRCs,
where veterans are trained to use their remaining vision \8\ and other
senses, as well as adaptive devices such as canes, to help compensate
for impaired vision. VA offers both basic and computer training. (See
table 2 for examples of the types of skills taught during basic and
computer training.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ About 85 percent of those who are legally blind have some
usable vision.
Table 2--Examples of Training Courses Offered at Blind Rehabilitation
Centers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of skills taught
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visual skills Maximizing
remaining vision through
the use of alternative
scanning or viewing
techniques
Using
magnification devices or
close circuit televisions
to read or write
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orientation and mobility Moving around the
home
Traveling through
different environments
Using adaptive
devices, such as
telescopic devices for
reading street signs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Living skills Cooking and
eating
Doing laundry or
changing light bulbs
Typing or
keyboarding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manual skills Using hand and
power tools
Problem solving
and organization of work
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leisure skills Going to sporting
events
Playing golf or
fishing
Developing a
hobby, such as woodworking
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustment counseling Using counseling,
therapy, and social
interaction with others
who have similar visual
impairments to learn to
adjust to blindness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of skills taught
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer skills Operating a
computer
Searching the
Internet
Sending,
receiving, and reading e-
mail
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: VA Blind Rehabilitation Service.
In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, VA spent over $56 million each year
for inpatient training at BRCs. During this same time period, VA spent
less than $5 million each year to provide outpatient rehabilitation
training for legally blind veterans.
Blind Rehabilitation Outpatient Services Are Available in Few VA
Locations
VA offers three types of blind rehabilitation outpatient services
to legally blind veterans,\9\ but these services are available in few
VA locations. The three types of services include Visual Impairment
Services Outpatient Rehabilitation (VISOR), Visual Impairment Center to
Optimize Remaining Sight (VICTORS), and Blind Rehabilitation Outpatient
Specialists (BROS). The services range from short-term outpatient
programs provided in VA facilities to home-based services. Figure 3
identifies the locations throughout the United States and Puerto Rico
where these services are offered.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Some VA low vision eye clinics also provide limited outpatient
rehabilitation training to legally blind veterans whose remaining
vision can be enhanced through the use of magnification devices.
However, while VA has overall workload data for its eye clinics, it
cannot disaggregate the data to identify how much low vision training
is provided to legally blind veterans.
\10\ All of VA's outpatient programs also treat low vision veterans
in addition to those veterans who are legally blind. VA defines low
vision as when the patient has significant uncorrectable visual
impairments of 20/70 up to, but not including, 20/200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3--Locations of VA Outpatient Blind
Rehabilitation Services, May 2004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37468A.003
VISOR
VISOR is a 10-day outpatient program located at the VA medical
center in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, that offers training in the use of low
vision equipment, basic orientation and mobility, and living skills.
Serving veterans in the surrounding 13-county area, it is primarily for
veterans who can independently perform activities of daily living and
who require only limited training in visual skills and orientation and
mobility, such as traveling within and outside their homes. According
to a VISOR official, the program is meant to provide training to
veterans while they wait for admission to a BRC or to veterans who do
not want to attend a BRC. Veterans who participate in this program are
housed in hoptel beds \11\ within the medical facility. In fiscal year
2003, 54 veterans attended the VISOR program; about 20 to 30 percent of
these veterans were legally blind. According to a VISOR official, there
is no waiting list for this program and the local medical center
provides the necessary funding for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A hoptel is temporary lodging where no medical care is
provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORS Services
VICTORS is a 3- to 7-day outpatient program for veterans in good
health whose vision loss affects their ability to perform activities of
daily living, such as personal grooming and reading mail. The program
provides the veterans with a specialized low vision eye examination,
prescriptions for and training in the use of low vision equipment, and
counseling. There are three VICTORS programs located in VA medical
centers in Kansas City, Missouri; Chicago, Illinois; and Northport, New
York. Veterans are housed in hoptel beds within the medical facility or
in nearby hotels. In fiscal year 2003, VICTORS served over 900
veterans; about 25 to 30 percent of these veterans were legally blind.
According to VICTORS officials, the wait time for admission to VICTORS
varied from about 55 to about 170 days. The medical center where the
program is located funds the services.
BROS Services
BROS are blind rehabilitation outpatient instructors who provide a
variety of short-term services to veterans in their homes and at VA
facilities. BROS train veterans prior to and following their
participation in BRC programs, as well as veterans who cannot or do not
choose to attend a BRC. BROS training addresses veterans' immediate
needs, especially those involving safety issues such as reading
prescriptions or simple cooking. There are 23 BROS throughout VA's
healthcare system, with 7 located in the VA network that covers Florida
and Puerto Rico. In fiscal year 2003, BROS trained about 2,700
veterans, almost all of whom were legally blind. Wait time for BROS
services varied from about 14 to 28 days according to the BROS we
interviewed. BROS are funded by the medical centers where they are
located.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In connection with VA's fiscal year appropriations for 1995,
the Senate Committee on Appropriations had recommended including $5
million for blind rehabilitation services to alleviate the lengthy
waiting lists for such services. The conference Committee agreed. See
S. Rep. No. 103-311 (1994), H. Conf. Rep. No. 103-715 (1994). In
addition to the BROS, these funds were also used to establish a BRC in
Augusta, Georgia, and additional staff positions for VIST coordinators
and computer specialists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outpatient Services Provide Opportunities to Benefit Veterans
VA officials who provide services to legally blind veterans told us
that some veterans could benefit from increased access to outpatient
blind rehabilitation services. We obtained this information by asking
VA to review all of the veterans who, as of March 31, 2004, were on the
waiting lists for admission to the five BRCs we visited and to
determine whether outpatient services could meet their needs. VA
officials reported that 315 out of 1,501 of these veterans, or 21
percent, could potentially be better served through access to
outpatient blind rehabilitation services, if such services were
available. The types of veterans VA believes could potentially benefit
from outpatient services include those who are very elderly or lack the
physical stamina to participate in a comprehensive 28- to 42-day BRC
program and those who have medical needs that cannot be provided by the
BRC. For example, some BRCs are unable to accept patients requiring
kidney dialysis. In addition, some veterans do not want to leave their
families for long periods of time \13\ and some legally blind veterans
are primary caretakers for their spouses and are unable to leave their
homes. VA officials also told us that veterans in good health who can
independently perform activities of daily living and require only
limited or specialized training could also be served effectively on an
outpatient basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ A 2003 study of 150 veterans located in the southeastern
United States who were recommended for BRC training by their VIST
coordinators but who did not attend, found that 59 percent cited a
reluctance to leave home for an extended period as an important reason
for nonparticipation. Williams, M., Help-Seeking Behavior as a
Predictor of Participation in Department of Veterans Affairs-Sponsored
Visual Impairment Rehabilitation. A Dissertation (Decatur, GA; 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A VA study concluded that there is a need for increased outpatient
services for legally blind veterans. In 1999, VA convened a Blind
Rehabilitation Gold Ribbon Panel to study concerns about the growing
number of legally blind veterans. The panel examined how VA
historically provided blind rehabilitation services and recommended
that VA transition from its primarily inpatient model of care to one
that included both inpatient and outpatient services. In 2000, VA
established the VIAB to implement the panel's recommendations. The VIAB
drafted guidance for a uniform standard of care policy for visually
impaired veterans throughout VA's healthcare system. This guidance
outlined a continuum of care to provide a range of services from basic
low vision to comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation training,
including use of more outpatient services from both VA and non-VA
sources. In January 2004, a final draft of the uniform standard of care
policy was forwarded to VA's Health Systems Committee for approval. The
Committee believed additional information was needed for its approval
and requested additional analysis that compared currently available
blind rehabilitation services with anticipated needs. VA plans to
complete this analysis in the first quarter of fiscal year 2005 and
then resubmit the uniform standard of care policy and the additional
analysis to the Health Systems Committee. VA officials were unable to
provide a timeframe for the Health Systems Committee's approval.
Some VIST coordinators have already provided outpatient services to
legally blind veterans by referring them to state and private blind
rehabilitation services. For example, in Florida a VIST coordinator
referred veterans to the Lighthouse for the Blind for computer training
at its outpatient facility if they did not live near and did not want
to travel to the BRC. A VIST coordinator in Oklahoma arranged
contractor-provided computer training in the veteran's home for
veterans with a 20 percent or more service-connected disability. The
coordinator issued the computer equipment to a local contractor; the
contractor then set up the equipment in the veteran's home and provided
the training. Another VIST coordinator in North Carolina referred all
legally blind veterans to state service agencies, including veterans
waiting for admission to a BRC. Each county in that state had a social
worker for the blind that referred its citizens to independent living
programs for in-home training in orientation and mobility and living
skills. The state provided this training at no charge to the veteran
and VA paid for the equipment.
Recently, VA has begun to shift computer training from inpatient
settings at BRCs to private sector outpatient settings. VA's goal was
to remove from the BRC waiting list by July 30, 2004, those veterans
seeking admission to a BRC only for computer training. In spring 2004,
VA issued instructions stating that the prosthetic budget of each
medical center, which already paid for computer equipment for legally
blind veterans, would now pay for computer training.\14\ Additionally,
the Blind Rehabilitation Service Program Office asked BRCs to identify
all the veterans waiting for admission for computer training and refer
them back to their VIST coordinator for local computer training. If BRC
and VIST coordinator staff determined that local computer training was
not available or appropriate for a veteran, they were to provide an
explanation to the program office. On May 5, 2004, 674 veterans were
waiting for admission to a BRC for computer training. As of July 1,
2004, 520 veterans were removed from the BRC waiting list because
arrangements were made for them to receive computer training from non-
VA sources or they no longer wanted the training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ According to VA officials, the funds allocated for prosthetics
maybe used only for prosthetic care--e.g. purchase of prosthetic items
and veteran training in the use of these items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factors that Affect Expansion of Blind Rehabilitation Outpatient
Services: There are two factors that affect VA's expansion of
outpatient services systemwide. One factor is the agency's longstanding
belief that rehabilitation training for legally blind veterans can be
best provided in a comprehensive inpatient setting. The second reported
factor is VA's method of allocating funds for blind rehabilitation
outpatient services, which provides local medical center management
discretion to provide funds for them.
Some VA officials told us that one factor affecting veterans'
access to outpatient care has been the agency's traditional focus on
providing comprehensive inpatient training at BRCs. VA has historically
considered the BRCs to be an exemplary model of care, and since 1948
BRCs have been the primary source of care for legally blind veterans.
However, this delivery model has not kept pace with VA's overall
healthcare strategy that reduces reliance on inpatient care and
emphasizes outpatient care. VA's continued reliance on inpatient blind
rehabilitation care is evident in its recent decision to build two
additional BRCs in Long Beach, California, and Biloxi, Mississippi.\15\
We have, however, observed some recent changes that may affect this
reliance on inpatient services. For example, VA has new leadership in
its blind rehabilitation program that has expressed an interest in
providing a broad range of inpatient and outpatient services to meet
the training needs of legally blind veterans. Further, as previously
discussed, the VIAB's draft continuum of care policy recommends a full
range of blind rehabilitation services, emphasizing more outpatient
care, including VICTORS, VISOR, and BROS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Department of Veterans Affairs Capital Asset Realignment
for Enhanced Services (CARES): Secretary of Veterans Affairs CARES
Decisions. (Washington D.C; May 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA blind rehabilitation officials also told us that they believe
changes to VA's resource allocation method could provide an incentive
to expand blind rehabilitation services on an outpatient basis. The
VIAB believes that the funds allocated for basic outpatient care for
legally blind veterans do not cover the cost of providing blind
rehabilitation services. Veterans Integrated Service Networks
(networks) \16\ are allocated funds to provide basic outpatient care
for veterans, which they then allocate to the medical centers in their
regions. Both the networks and the medical centers have the discretion
to prioritize the use of these funds for blind rehabilitation services
or any other medical care. Some networks and medical centers have made
outpatient blind rehabilitation training a priority and use these funds
to provide outpatient services. For example, the network that covers
Florida and Puerto Rico has used its allocations to fund seven BROS
that are located throughout the region to provide outpatient blind
rehabilitation services to legally blind veterans in their own homes or
at VA facilities. Currently, the VIAB is working with VA's Office of
Finance and Allocation Resource Center to develop an allocation amount
that would better reflect the cost of providing blind rehabilitation
services on an outpatient basis, which could in turn, provide an
incentive for networks and medical centers to expand outpatient
rehabilitation services for legally blind veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ VA has organized its medical facilities into 21 regional
healthcare networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions
Many legally blind veterans have some vision, which frequently can
be enhanced with optical low vision devices and training that includes
learning to perform everyday activities such as cooking, reading
prescription bottles, doing laundry, and paying bills. Since the
forties, VA's preferred method of providing training to these veterans
has been through inpatient services offered by BRCs. Because of its
predisposition toward inpatient care, VA has developed little capacity
to provide this care on an outpatient basis uniformly throughout the
country. For the last 10 years, VA has been transitioning its overall
healthcare system from a delivery model based primarily on inpatient
care to one incorporating more outpatient care. Outpatient services for
legally blind veterans, however, have lagged behind this trend.
Recently, VA drafted a uniform standard of care policy that recommends
a full range of blind rehabilitation services, emphasizing more
outpatient care, including more services provided by VISOR, VICTORS,
and BROS type programs. Making inpatient and outpatient blind
rehabilitation training services available to meet the needs of legally
blind veterans will help ensure that these veterans are provided with
options to receive the right type of care, at the right time, in the
right place.
Recommendations
We are recommending that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct
the Under Secretary for Health to issue, as soon as possible in fiscal
year 2005, a uniform standard of care policy that ensures that a broad
range of inpatient and outpatient blind rehabilitation services are
more widely available to legally blind veterans. Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this testimony to VA for comment. In oral
comments, an official in VA's Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for
Health informed us that VA concurred with our recommendation.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I will be glad to
answer any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have.
Contact and Acknowledgments
For further information regarding this testimony, please contact
Cynthia A. Bascetta at (202) 512-7101. Michael T. Blair, Jr., Cherie
Starck, Cynthia Forbes, and Janet Overton also contributed to this
statement.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter Welch,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Vermont
Thank you Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and
members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on behalf of
H.R. 2259, legislation that would permit members of the National Guard
and Reservists to participate in the successful Benefits Delivery at
Discharge (BDD) program, which is currently available only to Active
Duty soldiers.
I recently had the opportunity to visit Iraq and Afghanistan. That
trip gave me an even greater appreciation for the significant
sacrifices our soldiers, including the members of our National Guard,
must make and must cope with for the rest of their lives.
It isn't just the soldier who makes the sacrifice, their families
do as well: their parents, their spouses, their children, girlfriends
and boyfriends, and their siblings. They give up so much in defense of
our country.
It is our job, as Members of Congress, to make sure that our Nation
lives up to its commitment to our veterans. It is a simple pact we have
made with our troops--and one we are obligated to fulfill: after they
have sacrificed to serve our country on the battlefield, we must do all
we can to serve them here at home. The cost of any war must include
caring for the warrior.
Like all Americans, I was stunned by the recent exposure of
substandard outpatient care at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. It
was unimaginable to me that our Nation could treat our veterans with
such neglect. My legislation takes an important step toward ensuring
all of our brave veterans are treated better.
A regularly discharged veteran, who has some level of disability,
will typically have to wait 6 months before receiving his or her
disability check from the VA. This is wrong. During this time period,
veterans, particularly those in a state of mental distress, are most at
risk for serious problems, including suicide, substance abuse, divorce,
unemployment or even homelessness.
To alleviate this problem, soldiers can access a program called
``Benefits Delivery at Discharge'' (BDD). This successful program
allows soldiers to process their disability claims up to six months
prior to discharge, so they can begin receiving benefits as soon as
they leave the military. VA representatives begin to process the
disability claims from military personnel prior to their separation/
retirement from active duty, by developing claims and conducting
physical rating examinations. By getting a head start on the claims
process, VA representatives may be able to review proposed disability
rating decisions with participants prior to their separation/retirement
from service. By comparison, VA's national average processing time is
about 6 months for claims requiring a disability rating conducted
outside the BDD process.
While Reservists and Guardsmen comprise up to 40% of the combat
forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, this efficient and successful program
is not readily available to these men and women fighting on our
frontlines. My state of Vermont has sent about 3,995 soldiers to Iraq
and Afghanistan since September of 2001. Of that number, 1,976, nearly
half, are from the Guard and Reserves.
As this country has asked first class service from our Guard and
Reservists, we must be sure they are not thanked with second class
benefits.
In addition, the veterans benefits claim denial rate is twice as
high for Reserve and Guard veterans than it is for active duty
soldiers. A recent document entitled ``Compensation and Benefit
Activity among veterans deployed to the GWOT'' obtained by the George
Washington University under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
details that the Active Duty benefits claims denial rate is 7.6 percent
compared with National Guard and Reserve denial rate of 17.8 percent.
Harvard University Professor Linda Bilmes, who has been studying
the Administration's ability to handle the influx of returning veterans
and has recently testified before a number of Congressional Committees,
proposes that one possible explanation for the fact that the Veterans
benefits claim denial rate is twice as high for Reserve and Guard
veterans is their lack of access to the BDD program.
My legislation lifts the impediment on Reserve and Guard veterans
and allows them to access BDD. Specifically, the bill requires the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the VA to work together to
develop a plan that facilitates the use of the BDD program by Reserve
and Guard veterans. The plan must be submitted to Congress within 6
months of enactment and must include a description of efforts to ensure
that services under BDD are provided to the maximum extent possible.
All veterans, including veterans from all seven reserve components
(Army National Guard of the United States, Army Reserve, Navy Reserve,
Marine Corps Reserve, Air National Guard of the United States, Air
Force Reserve, Coast Guard Reserve), would be able to begin receiving
benefits as soon as they are eligible upon leaving the military.
In addition, expanding access to the BDD program further encourages
the Department of Defense to work with the VA, which is crucial as this
Congress continues to explore innovative ways to provide a seamless
transition for our veterans as they move from the DoD to the VA medical
systems.
The National Guard has played a vital role in the defense and
security of the United States under the federal component of its
mission. They have become integral forces in the Global War On
Terrorism (GWOT) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). As I stated
earlier, the Guard and Reserves comprise up to 40% of the total U.S.
forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Also due to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Guard and Reserve
have also shouldered an enormous burden in equipment shortages. A USA
TODAY report from last Friday found that National Guard units in 31
States say four years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan have left them
with 60% or less of their vehicles, aircraft, radios, weapons and other
equipment they are authorized to have for home-front uses. 49% of the
Vermont National Guard's equipment, mostly Humvees and M35 trucks, are
being used overseas. This lack of equipment could affect the Vermont
Guard's ability to respond to a natural disaster, such as flooding
which is a big problem for my state. And this is a problem that affects
more than just my home state. As we saw just last month, horrible
tornados that ripped through Kansas prompted pleas from the Governor to
replenish the missing equipment and well-trained personnel.
Madam Chairwoman, the human cost of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan has been high. More than 1\1/2\ million soldiers have been
deployed since 2001, more than 3,000 soldiers have died and more than
50,000 have sustained non-fatal injuries. My state of Vermont has borne
a disproportionate share of this burden, losing more soldiers per
capita than any other state. As I have traveled around my state, I have
talked extensively with our soldiers, our veterans and their families.
No matter how you feel about this war, we must care for those called on
to serve.
For every soldier killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, 16 are wounded,
the highest wounded-to-fatality ratio for any war in our nation's
history.
We can thank the great advances in battlefield medicine for the
thousands of lives saved, but we must now be prepared to care for
recovering veterans. This legislation would do just that.
Again and again throughout our nation's history, we have asked the
members of the Armed Forces to step forward and serve their country,
and again and again they have responded with valor. To each of them we,
as a nation, owe an enormous debt of gratitude. We would not be here
today, enjoying the freedoms that we now enjoy, if not for their
courage and sacrifice. I thank them all, on behalf of our great nation,
for answering the call to duty.
I thank the Subcommittee for your consideration of this important
legislation.
State of Vermont, Office of the Adjutant General
Colchester, Vermont 05446-3099
June 19, 2007
The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Committee on Veterans' Affairs
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin:
I am responding to a specific request for information from
Representative Peter Welch regarding the need for equal accessibility
to the Benefits Delivery at Discharge (BDD) program for members of the
National Guard and Reserves. This topic will be the subject of a
legislative hearing on Thursday, June 21, 2007.
As the Adjutant General for the State of Vermont, I strongly
support initiatives that help provide better services and benefits for
all members of the Reserve Component (RC) as they transition from the
Department of Defense (DoD) to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
medical systems. Considering that members of the RC are exposed to the
same missions and associated risks while fighting for their country, it
is only fair that these same veterans should be treated equally with
access to benefits when compared to their active duty counterparts.
While we in Vermont have been successful in working with the local VA
to help returning members of the RC access VA benefits quickly, this
efficient and successful BDD program is not universally available to
all Guard and Reserve members around the country on a timely basis. The
lack of accessibility can result in significant hardship while some
members wait up to six months to receive a benefit that is readily
available to the members of the active duty.
Any changes that can be made to remove impediments imposed on RC
members and provide equal access to the BDD program would help mitigate
some significant stress on our affected veterans. Our country continues
to ask a great deal from our Reservists and making the BDD readily
available will assist in facilitating a more seamless transition back
to civilian life.
Many thanks to the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity for taking
a strong interest in ensuring equal benefits and equal accessibility to
benefits for all of our returning warriors and for helping to
facilitate a seamless transition when they return home.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Dubie
Major General, The Adjutant General
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael H. Michaud,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Maine
Good morning Chairwoman Herseth-Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman.
Thank you for allowing me to testify before the Economic Opportunity
subcommittee on H.R. 2475, the Veteran Home Equity Conversation
Mortgage Act of 2007.
I introduced H.R. 2475 with Congresswomen Brown-Waite of Florida to
provide another tool to our aging veterans to help them live out their
lives in comfort and security. Our legislation would allow the VA to
offer home equity conversion mortgages to eligible elderly veteran
homeowners, age 62 or older.
A home equity conversion mortgage enables older homeowners to
convert the equity in their homes into tax-free income without having
to sell the home, give up title, or take on a new monthly mortgage
payment. Instead of making monthly payments to a lender, as with a
regular mortgage, a home equity conversion mortgage converts the equity
in an individual's home to cash. In other words, the lender makes
payments to you.
With the rate of American home ownership at an all-time high, home
equity conversion mortgages have become a mainstream and highly
successful financial planning tool for elderly homeowners.
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) endorsed 8,041 reverse
mortgages during the month of April, compared to 6,536 a year earlier.
Seven months into the current federal fiscal year, FHA has endorsed
61,101 loans, compared to 39,674 during the same period last year, a 54
percent increase.
The intention of H.R. 2475 is to allow the VA to offer reverse
mortgages in the same way that FHA currently does. Like the FHA
program, those interested in obtaining this type of mortgage must
receive significant counseling. The veteran must demonstrate a full
understanding of the benefits and risks as well as the consequences for
his or her heirs before being deemed eligible for the loan.
While our legislation leaves it to the discretion of the Secretary,
if the Secretary follows current VA home loan regulations, veterans
would be eligible for a higher available loan limit than the FHA HECM
loan program, which means more cash to the veteran; and a savings of
roughly 0.5% in interest rate, because monthly mortgage insurance
premiums are not required with VA-guaranteed loans.
Elderly veterans should be offered this valuable tool, which allows
them to cash-out the equity that they have built-up in their homes over
20, 30 or 40 years. This will enable them to continue to meet the
demands of increasing health, housing, and sustenance costs, without
the risk of losing their home.
There is almost no risk to the veteran and very little risk for the
VA. It is truly a win-win opportunity. This legislation will allow more
veterans to remain in their homes longer without having to take on
additional monthly bills or face the prospect of losing their home. It
will help them to enjoy the golden years of their lives.
Thank again Chairwoman Herseth-Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman.
I look forward to working with you on this issue.
Prepared Statement of Hon. David G. Reichert,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington
Madame Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the
Subcommittee--thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support
of H.R. 1632, the Improving Veterans' Reemployment Act. Congressman Tim
Walz (D-MN) and I introduced this bipartisan legislation to enact an
important technical fix to the tracking and reporting of reemployment
complaints filed by Guardsmen and Reservists. Congressman Walz is a 24-
year veteran of the Army National Guard, and has more first-hand
knowledge of this issue than perhaps any other Member of Congress. You
will find his supporting testimony in your hearing documents.
As you know, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act (USERRA) is meant to ensure that Guardsmen and Reservists
return to the rights, seniority, and benefits of the civilian jobs they
put on hold to defend our freedom. After several of my constituents
informed me of the difficulties they faced in returning to work, I
wanted to first gather more intelligence on this issue, and then take
immediate action. I commissioned a GAO study in the FY06 National
Defense Authorization \1\ to examine how the thousands of Guardsmen and
Reservists called up to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan were
transitioning back into the civilian workforce. In conducting the
study, the GAO reviewed volumes of employer data, assessed current
agency policies, interviewed department officials, and met with groups
of officers, enlisted personnel, and veterans. They found that a lack
of coordination in the reporting of reemployment difficulties is
hampering our Reservists' seamless transition from active duty back to
civilian work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PL 109-163, Sec. 517.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The study revealed that the Departments of Labor and Defense \2\--
who are responsible for tracking the hiring complaints filed by
Reservists--currently do not coordinate the sharing of this complaint
data with each other, compromising their ability to swiftly and
effectively respond to veterans' job needs. Between Fiscal Years 2004
and 2006, the departments addressed nearly 16,000 formal and informal
complaints filed by Guardsmen and Reservists, but the lack of
information sharing between the departments led to a very small
percentage of these complaints actually being reported to Congress.\3\
This lack of information sharing and coordination prevents Congress
from receiving the complete, accurate picture of Reservists' hiring
difficulties that we need in order to best address them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment Training Service
(V.E.T.S.) receives formal reports of USERRA complaints. The Department
of Defense assigns representatives to assist servicemembers with job
complaints through its National Committee for Employer Support of the
Guard and Reserve (E.S.G.R.). The Department of Justice and the Office
of Special Counsel also have jurisdiction in responding to
servicemembers complaints, but Labor is charged with submitting the
annual report to Congress.
\3\ ``Military Personnel: Additional Actions Needed to Improve
Oversight of Reserve Employment Issues.'' GAO 07-259, p. 4. February
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our bill is straightforward: it would require the Departments of
Labor and Defense to coordinate their sharing of and reporting on the
complaint data filed by Reservists facing difficulties being rehired.
It would require them to use uniform categories in tracking and
reporting the data. And it would require the departments to
specifically report on hiring difficulties resulting from service-
connected disabilities. These provisions will enable Congress to better
identify trends in the reemployment difficulties Reservists face and
the corrective actions we need to take to ease their transition back
into the civilian workforce.
I am encouraged by the steps the Departments of Labor and Defense
have already taken to improve the reporting of Reservists' hiring
difficulties, and this legislation is intended to facilitate that
process. While DoD now mandates the collection of all Reservists'
employment data, the Department of Labor is enhancing its information
systems to better manage the data it receives. I am pleased that both
departments agree with the information tracking and sharing provisions
that our bill would implement.
The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have presented our Armed
Forces with many new challenges, some expected and some unforeseen. As
Members of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, you understand the
importance of providing comprehensive support for all of our
servicemembers' needs as well as anyone in this chamber. Ensuring that
our Reservists can easily return to civilian work after their tours of
duty is one such need. I respectfully urge you to support H.R. 1632,
which will help our Reservists return to their civilian jobs and enable
us to better serve all of our men and women in uniform.
Thank you. I welcome any questions that you have about our
legislation.
Prepared Statement of Ronald F. Chamrin, Assistant Director,
Economic Commission, American Legion
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to present The American Legion's
view on the several pieces of legislation being considered by the
Subcommittee today. The American Legion commends the Subcommittee for
holding a hearing to discuss these very important and timely issues.
H.R. 1750, A bill to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to
extend from 90 days to one year after release of a member of the Armed
Forces from active duty during which the member is protected from
mortgage foreclosure.
The American Legion supports this legislation. This legislation
would greatly assist those veterans that were deployed to a combat zone
and had little time to transition from active duty to the civilian
sector. Members of the Reserve components would be the largest
benefactors of an extension from 90 days to 1 year. Enactment of this
legislation will allow the veteran an extended period of time to
correct all their finances and assist them in the transition process.
H.R. 1824, A bill to amend title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.), to
expand the scope of programs of education for which accelerated
payments of educational assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB)
may be used.
Section 1
This bill would enable accelerated payments to be used for courses
that would lead to employment as an operator of a commercial motor
vehicle.
The American Legion supports this provision however, we support
granting veterans the option to request an accelerated payment of all
monthly educational benefits upon meeting the criteria for eligibility
for Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) financial payments. The selection of
courses veterans undergo remains exclusively the decision of the
individual veteran, and all earned veterans' education benefits should
be made available to veterans in support of their endeavors.
Accelerated education payments allow veterans to achieve education
goals in the manner that they decide. Binding the timeframe of an
education payout may restrict educational options for some veterans.
In addition to the traditional institutions for higher learning,
MGIB benefits can be used for training at Non-College-Degree
Institutions, On-the-Job or Apprenticeship Training, Independent, and
Distance or Internet training. MGIB also allows the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) to reimburse veterans for the fees charged for
national tests for admission to institutions of higher learning and
national tests providing an opportunity for course credit at
institutions of higher learning. Examples of tests covered are SAT,
GRE, CLEP, GMAT, LSAT, and so forth. MGIB for veterans, and not those
eligible under Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance (DEA),
is available for Flight Training and Correspondence Training.
The significance of expanding the scope of accelerated education
payments is that the preceding categories are eligible for MGIB
payments, yet excluded from accelerated education payments. The
American Legion recommends that all MGIB-approved courses, including
the On-The-Job training (OJT) and Apprenticeship courses, become
eligible for accelerated education payments.
The American Legion supports the expansion of Public Law 107-103 to
include but not limited to:
1. Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance (DEA, or
chapter 35)
2. Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance program
(VEAP, or chapter 32)
3. Reserve Educational Assistance program (REAP, or chapter 1607)
Section 2
The exclusion of Benefit Payments under the MGIB from income for
eligibility determinations for Federal education loans would be
implemented if this bill were enacted into law.
The American Legion supports this provision. Enactment of this
legislation will increase the total amount of federal student aid a
veteran may receive while concurrently receiving MGIB benefits. This
will in effect raise the overall potential education benefits.
H.R. 1598, Servicemembers Credit Protection Act
Section 2
TITLE VIII NOTICE OF DEPLOYMENT
Section 801. Notice of Consumer Reporting Agencies
This section would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
notify the deployment of the servicemember within 30 days after the
deployment and within 30 days after the end of the deployment to each
consumer-reporting agency that complies and maintains files on
consumers on a nationwide basis. Furthermore, the Secretary will ensure
compliance in the timeliness of reporting such required information to
the consumer reporting agencies.
The American Legion supports this provision. Efforts to assist the
servicemember and protecting their credit reporting will allow the
servicemember to focus on their mission and provide a climate that is
favorable to the servicemember. Mobilizing Reservists and National
Guard members have enormous responsibilities for their mission, their
fellow troops, their families and themselves.
Many servicemembers and veterans are unaware of benefits and
protections that are afforded to them. Additionally, the veteran must
perform certain steps and procedures to receive their maximum benefit
and protection afforded by law. Filing, following up and responses to
matters while in a combat zone is extremely difficult. Efforts to
assist veterans in the transition from civilian life to active duty and
back again to civilian life will greatly benefit a veteran.
Section 802. Increase in Penalties for Certain
Violations Involving Servicemembers Deployed to an Overseas Combat Zone
The American Legion has no official position on this provision.
Section 3
NOTIFICATION IN CONSUMER FILES OF SERVICEMEMBERS
Section 605C Combat Zone Duty Alert
Each consumer agency that receives a report that a
servicemember is deployed in a combat zone will include a combat zone
duty alert in the file, provide that alert along with a credit score,
and exclude the consumer from any list of consumers prepared by the
consumer reporting agency and provided to any third party. Furthermore,
a combat zone duty alert will require a summary of the rights of the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and the duties of creditors and other
persons to be delivered to the consumer. If a person or another
consumer files adverse information to a consumer reporting agency, and
the individual is in a combat zone, the reporting agency shall notify
the adverse reporter of the combat zone duty alert.
The American Legion supports this provision. This measure aims to
protect the credit of servicemembers deployed to an overseas combat
zone by amending The Fair Credit Reporting Act. Identity theft is an
ever-increasing reality that can damage ones credit unnecessarily.
Servicemembers who are fighting overseas usually do not have the time
or resources to track all of their finances and could therefore be
victimized more easily by identity theft. Payments on mortgages, cars,
utilities, credit cards, and so forth. may also be hard for a
servicemember to keep track of while fighting overseas.
H.R. 1315, a bill to amend title 38, U.S.C., to provide specially
adaptive housing assistance to certain disabled members of the Armed
Forces residing temporarily in housing owned by a family member.
This bill seeks to amend title 38, U.S.C., Section 2102 A, by
adding a section that would give the Secretary of VA the authority to
provide specially adaptive housing assistance to members of the Armed
Forces serving on active duty who are suffering from a disability
described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2) of Section 2101 if the
disability is a result of injury incurred or disease contracted in or
aggravated in the line of duty while serving on active duty.
The American Legion supports the intent, but strongly objects to
the restrictive language ``in the line of duty.'' This would be
inconsistent with the current VA policy for awarding of a service-
connected disability rating for an injury or medical condition incurred
or aggravated while on active duty. The American Legion strongly
objects to denying veterans severely disabled due to injuries sustained
while in ``off-duty'' status.
In the Kobar Towers disaster, the only people ``on-duty'' were
those servicemembers on the barrack's duty roster as ``CQ'' (in charge
of quarters). Those asleep were ``off-duty,'' but were injured just the
same.
Active-duty servicemembers in transit to and from their duty
station would also be excluded from this benefit if severely injured.
H.R. 1240, a bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
establish a scholarship program for students seeking a degree or
certificate in the areas of visual impairment and orientation and
mobility.
The American Legion supports this legislation. Servicemembers are
returning from the battlefield with vision loss, amputations and
Traumatic Brain Injury. These veterans are young and have their whole
lives ahead of them. This bill will help to ensure, that in future
years, these veterans will have the care and improved quality of life
that we as a nation should gladly give.
H.R. 675, Disabled Veterans Adaptive Housing Improvement Act
The Disabled Veterans Adaptive Housing Improvement Act seeks to
increase the amount of assistance available to disabled veterans for
specially adapted housing and to provide for annual increases in the
amount to reflect the increase in cost of residential home
construction.
The Specially Adapted Housing Grant is available for disabled
veterans who are entitled to a wheelchair accessible home especially
adapted for their needs. These veterans are service connected for total
and permanent disabilities that include: loss or loss of use of both
lower extremities; blindness in both eyes and loss or loss of use of
one lower extremity; loss or loss of use of one extremity and residuals
of organic disease or injury; and loss or loss of use of both upper
extremities at or above the elbow. Many of the injured servicemembers
may temporarily reside for extended periods of time with family members
providing assistance during rehabilitation after combat-related
injuries that result in permanent and total service-connected
disabilities.
The American Legion supports the provisions of this bill and
strongly recommends that the current maximum for this program be
increased to reflect the increase in the residential cost of
construction index. Currently, the program authorized a maximum amount
of $50,000 for this grant--which can be used up to three times. A
temporary grant of $14,000 for veterans residing temporarily in a home
owned by a family member is also available. The cost of construction
material and labor will increase and the grants should be adjusted
regularly to reflect the increase.
H.R. 513, National Heroes Credit Protection Act
This bill would create a protection of Credit Ratings of Persons
Activated for Military Service and provide a protection of negative
reporting while they are on active duty. A negative report of
nonpayment or late payment will have a notation that the account is
delinquent or paid slowly due to military service. Furthermore, a
future potential creditor shall disregard any negative information so
noted in the credit report that is due to military service.
The American Legion supports this provision. Supporting the troops
includes ensuring that they are solely focused on their mission at hand
while on active duty. The majority of National Guard and Reserve troops
that are called to active duty are deployed to a combat zone such as
Iraq or Afghanistan and have little or no opportunity to review their
finances, credit scores, and other matters while deployed.
Additionally, many young servicemembers are unaware of many best
financial practices, protections, and benefits afforded to them.
Enactment of this legislation will be beneficial to servicemembers and
veterans.
H.R. 2259, a bill to ensure that members of the National Guard and
Reserves are able to fully participate in the benefits delivery at
discharge program is extremely important to ensure the financial,
psychological, and physical well-being of our Nations heroes. We do
note the absence of any mention of the Department of Labor's Veterans'
Employment and Training Service (DOL-VETS) and feel that it is an
integral member of the transition process. This legislation would
require the Secretaries of the VA and Department of Defense (DoD) to
jointly submit to Congress a plan to maximize access to the benefits
delivery at discharge.
The American Legion supports this bill.
The American Legion strongly supports the Transition Assistance
Program and Disabled Transition Assistance Program. Additionally, The
American Legion supports that DoD require all separating, active-duty
servicemembers, including those from Reserve and National Guard units,
be given an opportunity to participate in Transition Assistance Program
and Disabled Transition Assistance Program training not more than 180
days prior to their separation or retirement from the Armed Forces.
H.R. 2475, Veteran Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Act of 2007
A bill to amend title 38, U.S.C., to authorize the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs (VA) to guarantee home equity conversion mortgages for
elderly veteran homeowners.
The American Legion has no official position on this bill.
H.R. 1632, Improving Veterans' Reemployment Act of 2007
A bill to amend title 38, U.S.C., to improve the annual report
required on veterans' reemployment rights by requiring a report by the
Labor Secretary of the number of cases reviewed by the Department of
Labor, cases referred to the Attorney General, and complaints filed by
the Attorney General. It also requires a report of the number of cases
reviewed by the Secretary of Defense under the National Committee for
Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve of the Department of Defense
(ESGR). Of all these reports, the number of cases that are disability-
related must also be filed.
The American Legion supports these provisions. The American Legion
also supports the strongest veterans' preference laws possible at all
levels of government. We believe that the evidence compiled in this
report will show the current state of enforcing the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and Veterans'
Preference laws to the nation's veterans.
The American Legion is deeply concerned with the protection of the
veteran and the prevention of illegal and egregious hiring practices.
Currently, veterans are filing claims after the non-compliance
employment event occurred and therefore may become financially
disadvantaged. Concurrent measures and continuous oversight must be
emplaced to protect veterans from unfair hiring practices, not just
reactionary investigations.
The following paragraphs are the perceived steps taken by the
Federal government to protect veterans' employment and it demonstrates
reactionary measures to assist veterans that may take months to
resolve. Many veterans give up or do not file complaints because they
must seek employment elsewhere or face serious financial difficulties.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) administers entitlement to
veterans' preference in employment. The Department of Labor, through
the Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS), provides
assistance to all persons having claims under USERRA. The Department of
Labor is the enforcement authority for USERRA, and it processes all
formal complaints of violations of the law. The veteran may then
request that the Department of Justice litigate on their behalf but
only after a certain period has passed.
The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:
``If VETS is unsuccessful in resolving the complaint, the
claimant may request that VETS refer the complaint to Office of
Special Counsel (OSC). If the Special Counsel believes there is
merit to the complaint, OSC will initiate an action before the
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and appear on behalf of
the claimant.
``The DOJ is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the
USERRA against state and local government employers and private
employers. If the Department of Justice takes your case, it
will serve as your attorney if you work for a private employer
or a local government. If you work for a state government, the
Department of Justice may bring a lawsuit in the name of the
United States.''
The Department of Justice website continues to state:
``USERRA authorizes the Department of Justice Office of
Special Counsel (OSC) to investigate alleged violations of the
act by Federal Executive Agencies, and to prosecute meritorious
claims before the Merit Systems Protection Board on behalf of
the aggrieved person. Under the Veterans Employment
Opportunities Act 1998 (VEOA), in order to seek corrective
action, a preference eligible [veteran] is to file a written
complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor, Veterans
Employment and Training Service (VETS), within 60 days of the
alleged violation. If the Secretary is unable to resolve a
complaint within 60 days, the Secretary is to provide
notification of an unsuccessful effort to resolve the complaint
to the complainant.'' (Department of Justice, www.usdoj.gov)
The American Legion reiterates our position that protection of
veterans' employment rights should be concurrent and continuous
oversight must be emplaced to protect veterans from unfair hiring
practices, not just reactionary investigations and lawsuits. We further
state that the veteran must be protected at the onset of the hiring
process, especially because corrective actions to remedy the veteran's
plight is not guaranteed.
Finally, we recommend to this Subcommittee that the Department of
Justice provide a detailed description of their veterans' employment
activities.
H.R. 112, G.I. Advanced Education in Science and Technology Act
A bill to amend title 38, U.S.C., to provide for the payment of
stipends to veterans who pursue doctoral degrees in science and
technology.
The American Legion supports this provision, however, we feel that
a monthly tax-free subsistence allowance indexed for inflation must be
part of all educational assistance packages.
The American Legion agrees with the intent of H.R. 112 in that it
allows for members of the Armed Services and veterans to receive
enhanced educational benefits more in line with today's needs. While
this legislation is aimed toward the active duty force (MGIB chapter
30), The American Legion supports legislation that will allow
Reservists to earn credits for education while mobilized, just as
active-duty troops do, and then use them after they leave the military
service.
In addition to the positive measures that the bill encompasses, The
American Legion feels that all veterans be treated equally regardless
of their Reserve/National Guard status in such that an individual who
was called to duty and served honorably should not have to remain in
the selected reserve to use their earned benefits. We support a Total
Force GI Bill and major enhancements to the current MGIB that would
entail, amongst other items, that all Reservists and National Guard
members are able to use their MGIB benefits for up to ten years after
separation regardless of disability status and if their enlistment
contract expires.
H.R. 2579, a bill to amend title 38, U.S.C., to authorize the use of
funds in the VA readjustment benefits account and funds appropriated
for such purpose to provide funding for State Approving Agencies (SAA).
The American Legion has no official position on the mechanism of
funding State Approving Agencies. However, The American Legion fully
supports reauthorization of SAA funding.
Section 301 of Public Law 107-330 created increases in the
aggregate annual amount available for state approving agencies for
administrative expenses from FY 2003-FY 2007 to the current funding
level of $19 million. The American Legion believes this is totally
inadequate, especially for a nation at war, and strongly recommends
keeping SAA funding at $19 million in FY 2008 to assure current
staffing and activities.
H.R. 1370, a bill to amend title 38, U.S.C., to establish in the
Department of Veterans Affairs an Office of National Veterans Sports
Programs and Special Events.
The American Legion fully supports this legislation. Returning
servicemembers, particularly those who incur service-related
disabilities, are already benefiting from participating in sporting
activities as they readjust to civilian life. This can be most readily
seen in the area of adaptive sports therapy for the severely wounded.
Whether it has been kayaking, horse riding or adaptive cycling or
skiing, sports programs are making an immeasurably positive impact in
how they improve the quality of life for returning servicemembers and
veterans.
CONCLUSION
Historically, The American Legion has encouraged the development of
essential benefits to help attract and retain servicemembers into the
Armed Services, as well as to assist them in making the best possible
transition back to the civilian community. The Servicemen's
Readjustment Act 1944, the ``GI Bill of Rights'' is a historic piece of
legislation, authored by Harry W. Colmery, Past National Commander of
The American Legion, that enabled millions of veterans to purchase
their first homes, attend college, obtain vocational training, and
start private businesses.
The legislation discussed today aims to better serve veterans and
ultimately assists them in financial stability. The American Legion
commends the Subcommittee for addressing these important issues.
The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to present this
statement for the record.
Prepared Statement of Charles Huebner, Chief, U.S. Paralympics,
United States Olympic Committee
Good afternoon Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee. My
name is Charles Huebner and I am the Chief of U.S. Paralympics, a
division of the United States Olympic Committee which is headquartered
in Colorado Springs, Colorado. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
on H.R. 1370, the bill that would establish within the Department of
Veteran's Affairs an Office of National Veterans Sports program and
Special Events that would work with the United States Olympic Committee
in support of certain programs directed at disabled veterans.
By way of a brief background, the USOC is an organization chartered
by Congress through what was is now known as the Ted Stevens Olympic
and Amateur Sports Act. In 1998, Paralympic terminology was added to
the Act, giving the USOC the additional mandate by Congress to
implement a Paralympic program for the United States. Paralympic
activity is sports for physically disabled athletes, and the Paralympic
Games are held approximately two weeks after the Olympic Games and at
the same Olympic venues. The Paralympic Movement began shortly after
World War II utilizing sports as a form of rehabilitation for injured
military personnel returning from combat. The Paralympic Games have
become the second largest global sporting event behind the Olympic
Games with more than 130 Countries and 4,000 physically disabled
athletes expected to participate in the 2008 Paralympic Games.
Because this new Congressional mandate to implement a Paralympic
program for the United States was not funded, it took some time to
build an effective Paralympic organization. The USOC has now, however,
built an organization that employs over twenty people operating with a
budget of more than $10 million annually, all of these funds, of
course, from private sources.
Three years ago, recognizing the growing number of U.S. military
personnel returning home with physically debilitating injuries, and
utilizing our experience and expertise with sport for the physically
disabled, we launched the USOC Paralympic Military program that
introduced Paralympic sport to these men and women as a tool for their
rehabilitation and a vehicle for their return to an active lifestyle.
Components of the Paralympic Military program include national training
of community leaders to implement Paralympic sport; clinics and mentor
visits at military and VA installations; development of local
community-based programs in targeted markets that have military or VA
installations, and; ``Paralympic Military Sports Camps,'' conducted at
our Olympic Training Centers in Colorado Springs and Chula Vista,
California. The Military Sports Camps provide an introduction to
Paralympic Sport, but also the introduction of Paralympians that serve
as mentors to injured military personnel and veterans. Each of these
camps has involved more than three dozen active duty and veteran
military personnel, and their success is attested to by the
participants as well as various media outlets including USA Today and
the New York Times, which have published major features on them.
Despite the success of this and similar programs directed at
wounded and disabled active duty and veteran military personnel, we
recognize that there is much more that we can and should do. I want to
emphasize that we are and will continue to engage in these activities
because injured military personnel are the soul of the Paralympic
movement. And when I speak of the Paralympic movement, I am not talking
about an exclusive number of persons that will make future Paralympic
teams, I am speaking of a movement and individuals with physical
disabilities that are educated, employed, active in their communities,
promote excellence, ability and inspire Americans to achieve and
overcome obstacles. However, it is likely that by 2008, there will be
one or more former servicemembers that will qualify to represent their
country again at the Paralympic Games. And that will be a great
achievement and story for America, and the American people.
As successful as the Paralympic Military Sports Camps have been we
have only scratched the surface and want to do more. Currently there is
a significant lack of Paralympic Community-based programs throughout
the United States. We have been most fortunate in developing a very
positive and productive working relationship with the Department of
Veterans Affairs with which we concluded a Memorandum of Understanding
in November 2005. Since then we have collaborated on certain activities
but have been limited financially and programmatically. We believe that
this legislative proposal to establish an Office of National Veterans
Sports Programs and Special Events, accompanied by supportive funding,
would serve as a vehicle for the VA and USOC jointly to serve a larger
universe of veterans for whom Paralympic sport would serve as a
valuable rehabilitation activity to reintegrate into communities with
family members and friends. We would envision an expansion of
Paralympic Community-Based programs to target a larger number of
veterans and their families, and create similar programs at community
facilities of some of our Paralympic partners such as the Lakeshore
Foundation in Birmingham, Alabama, and in the City of Colorado Springs,
Colorado, the home of Fort Carson, where a Paralympic Community-based
programs does not exist currently. These programs would be community
extensions at various VA facilities that are identified in
collaboration with our partners at the Veterans Administration.
This legislation, and the interest of this Subcommittee that is
giving this proposal a hearing, is testimony to the need of veterans
for activities and programs that enable them to return to a full and
active life. The United States Olympic Committee, through its
Paralympic Division, wants to be an active participant in serving a
most deserving segment of our population. We have learned that these
various Paralympic sport programs, whether they be the USOC's, the
Department of Veterans Affairs', or those of Disabled Sport USA which
is ably led by Kirk Bauer, make a positive difference in the lives of
those who are being served. We are confident that the expertise that we
have developed in Paralympic sport can be a valuable component in an
effort in which there are many different parts, and believe that the
proposal contained in this legislation will better enable us to be of
meaningful service.
Prepared Statement of Brian E. Lawrence,
Assistant National Legislative Director,
Disabled American Veterans
Madame Chair and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am happy to appear before you to present the views of the
Disabled American Veterans (DAV) on the various bills under
consideration today. In accordance with its congressional charter, the
DAV legislative mission is focused on benefits and services provided to
veterans on account of their service-connected disabilities. We are
therefore pleased to support the bills insofar as they fall within that
scope. The DAV has no mandate from its membership on issues addressed
within H.R.112, H.R. 513, H.R. 1240, H.R. 1598, H.R. 1632, H.R. 1750,
H.R. 1824, H.R. 2475, and H.R. 2579, but we have no objection to their
favorable consideration.
H.R. 675
The Disabled Veterans Adaptive Housing Improvement Act would amend
Section 2101 of title 38, United States Code, to increase the specially
adapted housing grant from $50,000 grant to $60,000, and increase the
$10,000 grant to $12,000. Additionally, the bill would provide for
automatic annual adjustments based on the national average increase in
the cost of residential home construction. The purpose of this grant is
to enable severely disabled veterans to construct, purchase, or remodel
homes with structural features to accommodate special needs. The grant
was last increased by Public Law 108-183, enacted December 16, 2003.
Because the cost of construction has risen over the past 4\1/2\ years,
the current $50,000 maximum amount is insufficient to allow severely
disabled veterans to make all necessary adaptations and modifications.
During the most recent DAV National Convention, our members voted
to again adopt a long standing resolution calling for legislation which
would provide a realistic increase in the specially adapted housing
grants, and would provide for automatic annual adjustments based on
increases in the cost of living. Our resolution coincides with the
recommendations of The Independent Budget (IB), which is a budget and
policy document that sets forth the collective views of the DAV,
AMVETS, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States. Therefore, we urge that the proposals
contained in H.R.675 be favorably acted upon by the Subcommittee.
H.R. 1315
This bill would amend Section 2102A of title 38, United States
Code, to provide specially adaptive housing grants to disabled members
of the Armed Forces residing temporarily in housing owned by a family
member. Public Law 108-454, enacted December 10, 2004, authorized VA to
provide specially adapted housing grants of up to $10,000 to eligible
disabled veterans residing temporarily in housing owned by a family
member. H.R. 1315 extends eligibility to members of the Armed Forces.
The DAV supports this measure; however, we recommend that the
amount used in the adaptation of the family member's residence should
be added to the aggregate amount to which the veteran is entitled. In
most instances, severely disabled veterans residing with a family
member will eventually seek to establish his or her own permanent
residence. In such instances, the maximum amount should be available to
the veteran regardless of whether he or she received a previous grant
for the alteration of a family member's home.
H. R. 1370
The Disabled Veterans Sports and Special Events Promotion Act of
2007 would establish a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of
National Veterans Sports Programs and Special Events, to carry out and
promote programs for the participation of disabled veterans in approved
sporting and other events. The bill would authorize VA to provide a
monthly assistance allowance to service-connected disabled veterans
participating in an event sanctioned by the U.S. Olympic Committee
(USOC) or residing at a USOC training center. The amount of the monthly
assistance would be equal to the monthly amount of subsistence
allowance that would be payable to the veteran under chapter 31 of
title 38, United States Code. The bill would require VA to establish a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the USOC under which the VA
would provide support and reimbursement for USOC expenditures for the
military paralympic program. Additionally, the bill would authorize an
appropriation of $2 million each fiscal year to carry out the
activities of the Office of National Veterans Sports Programs and
Special Events.
The VA, along with the DAV and several other veterans' service
organizations as cosponsors, hosts annual national rehabilitative
special event programs for veterans receiving healthcare from VA
medical facilities. These four programs, which include the National
Disabled Veterans Winter Sports Clinic, National Veterans Wheelchair
Games, National Veterans Golden Age Games, and the National Creative
Arts Festival, focus on rehabilitation and enhancement of the physical,
social, and emotional well-being of many severely disabled veterans.
These programs showcase the therapeutic value of sports, fitness, and
recreation, which are key factors in VA's extensive rehabilitation
programs, and are profoundly beneficial in helping veterans overcome or
mitigate the physical and emotional impact of severe disabilities.
In addition to supporting rehabilitative events through
cosponsorship, the membership of the DAV has adopted a resolution
calling on Congress to provide a separate line-item appropriation in
the VA budget to ensure the continuance of these worthy programs.
Therefore, we are pleased with the comparative intent of this
legislation. Adequate resources designated specifically for the special
events office would eliminate the VA's need to raise funds and allow it
to focus exclusively on rehabilitation and therapy for disabled
veterans. The responsibility for raising additional funds can and
should be left to the co-sponsors.
Along with our support of this draft bill, we encourage the
Subcommittee to include language to place the special events office
under the Veterans' Health Administration (VHA). Currently, the
programs are under the authority of the VA Office of Public Affairs and
the VHA is almost completely removed from administrative decisions.
Though the Public Affairs Office certainly has a role to play, the
ultimate purpose of these special events is to provide rehabilitative
therapy to severely disabled veterans. Since VHA is the department
responsible for providing such care, it should be the designated
controlling authority for the four rehabilitative programs mentioned
above. As the administrative authority, the VHA should be required to
develop a comprehensive MOU with cosponsors, and to provide detailed
accountability for all special events office funds, including
cosponsorship fees. Without such financial support from the DAV and
other cosponsors, substantially fewer disabled veterans would benefit
from these uplifting special events. Therefore, cosponsors should be
allowed at least some level of input regarding the programs.
The DAV applauds the Subcommittee for recognizing the value and
importance of National Disabled Veterans Sports Programs and Special
Events, and for having the foresight to ensure they are available to
severely disabled veterans in the future. The DAV supports this
commendable bill and hopes the Subcommittee will consider our
suggestions for improvement.
H.R. 2259
This bill would ensure that members of the National Guard and
Reserves are able to fully participate in the benefits delivery at
discharge (BDD) program administered jointly by the Department of
Defense and the VA to provide information and assistance on available
benefits and other transition assistance to members of the Armed Forces
who are separating from the Armed Forces. BDD improves service for
separating servicemembers by eliminating lengthy delays in claims
decisions and redundant and unnecessary physical examinations. BDD
takes pressure off overly burdened VA Regional Offices that already
face backlog problems. Rating decisions adjudicated via the BDD program
are generally more accurate and appealed less frequently than those
processed via regular claims procedures. The DAV strongly recommends
that BDD be expanded and made available to every person retiring or
separating from active duty.
Madame Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, the DAV appreciates
the opportunity to present our views on these bills. We look forward to
our continued work with the Subcommittee to serve our Nation's disabled
veterans and their families.
Prepared Statement of Ray Kuntz, Chairman,
American Trucking Association, and Chief Executive Officer,
Watkins and Shepard Trucking, Inc., Helena, Montana
INTRODUCTION
Good afternoon Madame Chairwoman Herseth-Sandlin, Ranking Member
Boozman and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Ray Kuntz, Chairman
of the American Trucking Associations, Inc. and CEO of Watkins &
Shepard Trucking, Inc. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here
again before the Subcommittee on behalf of ATA to voice our continued
support for the intent of H.R. 1824: to expand the scope of programs of
education eligible for accelerated payments under the Montgomery GI
Bill. ATA commends Representative Michaud for re-introducing this
important piece of legislation. We look forward to working with Mr.
Michaud, and the Subcommittee to explore ways to enhance the bill so as
to realize its goal of improving veterans' access to the accelerated
benefit payment program, particularly as it relates to training U.S.
veterans to driver commercial vehicles.
As a matter of background, the American Trucking Associations Inc.,
the national trade association for the trucking industry, is a
federation of affiliated state trucking associations, conferences and
organizations that include nearly 38,000 motor carrier members
representing every type and class of motor carrier in the country.
TRUCKLOAD DRIVER SHORTAGE ISSUE
Madame Chairwoman, when I appeared before this Subcommittee
regarding this legislation two years ago I stated that the long-haul
truckload sector of the truck transportation industry annually
experiences critical workforce challenges. I would submit here today
that this situation has not significantly changed since 2005. Although
shortages for this particular sector ebb and flow according to market
demands, the driver shortage for the long-haul truckload industry
segment still remains and is expected to worsen in the years ahead.
In the next ten years, ATA expects the economy and trucking to grow
by 30%.\1\ As a result, the demand for long-haul, heavy-truckload
services will increase--with the long-haul truckload sector expected to
transport 3.3 billion more freight tonnage over this ten year time span
than it does today.\2\
Over the same period, economic growth will give rise to a need for
a 2.2% average annual increase in the number of long-haul truckload
drivers, or the creation of 320,000 additional jobs overall.\3\ At
least another 219,000 new truckdrivers must be found to replace drivers
currently of ages 55 and older who will retire over the next 10 years.
Combining these two figures places total expansion and replacement
hiring needs of the heavy-truckload sector at 539,000 or an average of
about 54,000 drivers per year through 2014.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ATA, Economic & Statistics Group, U.S. Freight Transportation
Forecast to . . . 2017, 2006.
\2\ Ibid
\3\ Global Insights: U.S. Truckdriver Shortage: Analysis and
Forecast, May, 2005
\4\ Ibid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHALLENGES TO RECRUITING QUALIFIED TRUCKDRIVERS
As I have testified previously, there are several challenges to
recruiting long-haul truckload drivers. One particular challenge is the
fact that the truck driving industry is heavily regulated by the
Department of Transportation, through the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration. For safety reasons, which we support, the Agency places
many restrictions on motor carriers regarding the type of individual
that they can and cannot hire to drive a truck. Additionally, the
insurance companies that underwrite carriers, can place even more
restraints on a company regarding who they can hire as a truckdriver.
Through my own personal involvement with Watkins & Shepard's truck
driving school, I can tell you that often times, truck driving schools
have to reject more applicants than they can actually enroll, despite
the driver shortage.
For example, my company's trucking school, in the last year,
received 1000 applications for truck driving jobs. From that total we
were able to train and/or hire 58 qualified individuals. Put another
way, last year, we were only able to train and/or hire less than 6% of
the individuals who applied.
ATA & INDUSTRY EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE LONG-HAUL TRUCKLOAD DRIVER
SHORTAGE
ATA, its member motor carriers and its state trucking associations
have been pro-active on several fronts to address these recruiting and
training challenges. In the 2005 highway re-authorization bill, ATA
actively sought and gained funding for a new FMCSA grant program to
specifically train more commercial motor vehicle drivers. The grant
program, funded at $5 million over the five years subsequent to the
highway bill's enactment, is administered and awarded by the FMCSA on a
competitive basis. Public, private and motor carrier training schools
are eligible to apply for the grant for purposes of making driver
training more affordable to more students.
To more effectively assist in the driver recruitment effort, ATA's
Board of Directors allocated $700,000 in October, 2005 for the
development of the association's National Truckdriver Recruiting
Campaign. The campaign, which was launched in early 2007, is a
nationwide effort to promote positive images of truck driving and to
recruit long haul truckdrivers for ATA's 50 state associations and
their member motor carriers. ATA made matching funds available to
interested state associations for them to purchase driver recruitment
advertising media. Television, radio, outdoor advertising and decal
programs are examples of what some states are using to serve as
vehicles to promote www.GetTrucking.com. The advertising campaign
directs new candidates, current truckdrivers, motor carriers and
trucking schools to the website. GetTrucking.com's website has two
functions: the first is to match new candidates with motor carriers or
truck schools, and the second is to provide a job board for current CDL
holders and motor carriers.
In efforts to make tuition more affordable for students, motor
carrier schools often subsidize or even pay the total amount of a
student's truckdriver training. In turn, the student agrees to work for
the carrier for a specified time. Others agree to work for the carrier
and repay all of or a portion of the tuition. Several ATA carriers,
including my own, operate their own driver training and driver
finishing schools. However, according to a recent ATA poll of the
membership, fewer than 15 of our member companies currently operate
their own truckdriver training schools. As a result, our remaining
carriers without their own driver training schools, rely exclusively on
public and private truckdriver training schools for entry-level
training of new, qualified commercial vehicle drivers.
Commercial vehicle driver training is essential and must be taught
by a reputable truck driving school in order for the driver to obtain
the knowledge and skills to successfully pass both the written and
road-testing requirements of the commercial drivers licensing test. A
company will not hire a driver, nor are any civilian individuals
legally able to drive a commercial motor vehicle without a valid,
state-issued CDL.
CONGRESS NEEDS TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS ELIGIBLE FOR
MGIB CHAPTER 30 ACCELERATED PAYMENT BENEFITS
Madame Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, for the past six
years, an estimated 300,000 service men and women annually transition
from Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom to the
civilian sector.\5\ Of this population, the Department of Defense \6\
statistics indicate that 54,000 Army and 24,000 Marine military
personnel per year transition out of the military with significant
transportation experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ American Legion, Testimony on H.R. 1824, May 3, 2007
\6\ DoD, Department of the Army, 2006, Department of the Marines,
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like moving armies and fleets, transporting goods across the
country requires monumental logistical efforts and excellent driving
skills. For transitioning veterans with military occupational
specialties in these areas, professional truck driving may be a natural
career path. Although many of these veterans may have experience
operating large trucks in the Armed Forces, this experience does not
readily translate to a civilian CDL. Additional education is usually
needed to further train these individuals on: basic civilian truck
operations, FMCSA regulations; newer, onboard truck technologies; and,
on specific state and motor carrier road skills testing and
requirements.
As ATA has previously testified, the current MGIB system of
educational assistance for transitioning military personnel and
veterans is an inefficient funding mechanism for truckdriver training
programs. ATA believes that H.R. 1824, if enacted, would go a long way
toward fixing this particular funding problem and could potentially add
a significant number of qualified veterans to the demand-driven, labor
pool of commercial vehicle truckdrivers. As currently written, this
legislation would add commercial truck driving schools to the list of
educational/training institutions eligible for the accelerated payment
program under chapter 30 of the Montgomery GI Bill. However, according
to the Department of Veterans Affairs, adding truckdriver training
school to the MGIB's list of educational programs eligible for
accelerated benefits would be cost-prohibitive.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Daniel Cooper, Undersecretary for Veterans' Affairs Benefits,
Prepared Testimony before the Senate Oversight Hearing on VA Benefits,
May 9, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madame Chairwoman, I have reviewed the VA's list of approved
educational programs that are eligible for accelerated benefits payment
assistance. ATA applauds the VA for encouraging veterans to enter high-
technology career. We believe, however, that many of the approved
courses of study on this list do not accurately reflect today's market-
driven career demands and/or opportunities. We would also like to point
out that this eligibility list, developed in 2002 by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics and the National Science Foundation for the VA
Department, was done absent any specificity or direction from Congress.
Further, ATA contends that many of the educational programs on the VA's
accelerated benefit payment's eligibility list are two to four year
degree courses that can be appropriately funded through the traditional
monthly MGIB educational benefit payment process.
ATA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENHANCING H.R. 1824
ATA believes that returning service men and women should be
encouraged to pursue careers in well-paying occupations that will
contribute most to the U.S. economy. The Department of Labor has
identified 14 industry sectors that are expected to add large numbers
of new jobs or require new job training to meet the demands of the 21st
century's economy which include transportation, hospitality, financial
services and homeland security. Many training programs in these high-
growth industry sectors are short term and high-cost in nature, like
truckdriver training schools. However, truckdriver training and these
other high-growth industry training programs, are excluded from
receiving MGIB accelerated benefit payments because they do not qualify
under the VA's definition of ``high technology'' educational programs.
ATA recommends that Congress consider amending P.L. 107-103, which
authorizes accelerated benefit payments, to refocus the program and
better define its scope.
Due to the cost of expanding the accelerated benefit payment list
beyond what is currently prescribed by the VA, ATA suggests that the
VA-approved list of programs eligible for educational assistance either
be replaced or revised. Subsequently, any newly developed list should
be an accurate reflection of jobs in industry sectors, such as truck
driving, that: (1) are expected to add large numbers of new, well-
paying jobs to the U.S. economy and (2) require educational career
training that is truly high-cost and short term in nature.
If further cost-savings must be realized, ATA recommends that
Congress limit the length of training eligible for funding through the
MGIB accelerated benefit payment program to one year or less. Most two
year or four year degree educational programs may not fall within the
original intent of the MGIB accelerated benefit program--to improve the
affordability of relatively high cost, short term programs.
Madame Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, not all veterans
are college-bound. Accelerating the educational benefits available
through the MGIB for a high-growth industry training program, such as
truck driving, would allow veterans to complete an educational program
with immediate employment results, without incurring short-term debt.
Such a move would also make it possible for veterans, transitioning
from the military or otherwise, to more readily support a family than
if they were to enroll in a two-four year educational course.
For those individuals, like our Nation's veterans who are willing
to work, are careful, safe and responsible, the trucking industry
offers them a wonderful opportunity. In as little as two to three
months, upon completion of truck driver training and by successfully
passing a state commercial drivers' license test, a veteran can be
gainfully employed as a long haul truckload driver with a high quality
trucking company, making an entry-level salary of approximately $40,000
a year, with benefits. This figure does not include potential ``sign-
on'' or other bonuses that some trucking companies use to attract and
recruit new drivers. Additionally, as truck transportation is the
lifeblood of our Nation's economy, truck driving jobs are not likely to
experience ``downsizing'' nor will they be ``outsourced.''
CONCLUSION
In closing Madame Chair, I would like to reiterate ATA's support
for the legislative intent of H.R. 1824. However, we believe that, in
order to move this bill forward, substantive changes need to be made to
the MGIB's accelerated payment benefits program. First, the VA's
current list of educational programs eligible for payment assistance
should either be replaced or revised to reflect eligibility for
training in HIGH-GROWTH industries rather than solely in HIGH-
TECHNOLOGY industries. Further, in order to better align the
accelerated benefits program with its original intent of providing
affordable financing for high-cost, short term educational training,
the program should be limited to fields of study that are one year or
less in duration.
ATA looks forward to working with Representative Michaud and the
Subcommittee on ways to enhance H.R. 1824 to improve veterans' access
to educational opportunities in high-growth, well-paying industry
sectors, like truck transportation. This concludes my remarks Madame
Chairwoman. I would be happy to answer any further questions.
Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Keith Pedigo, Director, Loan Guaranty Service,
Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Madam Chairwoman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I
am pleased to be here today to discuss 13 bills that would affect a
variety of VA's benefit programs, including educational assistance,
housing, and employment, as well as statutory provisions providing
civil and economic relief and protection for servicemembers, and
certain other miscellaneous matters affecting veterans and
servicemembers alike. Joining me this morning is Mr. Keith Wilson,
Director of VA's Education Service.
Madam Chairwoman, we do not yet have cleared positions on three of
the bills, H.R. 1824, H.R. 1370, and H.R. 2259, but we will provide
them for the record.
Education Program Amendments
H.R. 112
Madam Chairwoman, H.R. 112, entitled the ``G.I. Advanced Education
in Science and Technology Act,'' would amend Chapter 30 of title 38,
United States Code, by adding a new subchapter containing provisions
through which the Secretary would, subject to the availability of
appropriations, be required to pay monthly stipends to eligible
doctoral candidates who are pursuing full-time doctoral degrees in the
sciences of engineering, mathematics, or other technology disciplines.
For purposes of the new subchapter, the term ``eligible doctoral
candidate'' would mean an individual who meets the requirements for
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) entitlement under Section 3011 of Chapter 30
(other than the requirements relating to the reduction in basic
military pay otherwise applicable under the program) and who is
pursuing a full-time a doctoral degree in the sciences of engineering,
mathematics, or technology disciplines, after having completed a
bachelor's degree in any academic discipline at an institution of
higher learning.
The bill would limit the number of stipend payments to a total of
60 months. The amount of the stipend would be $1,200 per month, subject
to annual adjustments for inflation and would be in addition to MGIB
basic educational assistance allowances. Payment of the stipend would
be conditioned on the eligible doctoral candidate's: (1) acceptance
into an accredited doctoral program at an institution of higher
learning; (2) providing annual documentation to VA of full-time
matriculation in the program; and (3) maintaining good academic
standing.
Finally, the bill would provide that an eligible doctoral
candidate's entitlement to the stipend would end 10 years after the
date on which the candidate is discharged or released from active duty
in the Armed Forces.
Madam Chairwoman, for a number of reasons, VA does not support
enactment of H.R. 112. In terms of equity among veterans receiving
chapter 30 education benefits, VA has not seen evidence that veterans
who choose to pursue doctoral candidates in engineering, mathematics,
and technology must have a greater benefit than other veterans using
their education benefits. This bill represents a departure from the
existing chapter 30 MGIB structure, which provides equivalent benefit
opportunities to veterans who establish an entitlement.
In the absence of a clearly supportable rationale, we cannot
support altering the existing chapter 30 benefit structure by singling
out for special treatment one group of entitled veterans from others
who established the same basic program entitlement.
In addition, we have not noted any savings to offset the estimated
costs of this bill. We estimate the increased Readjustment Benefit (RB)
cost would be $25.9 million over a 10-year period. General Operating
Expenses (GOE) costs were estimated at $3 million for computer system
upgrades.
H.R. 2579
Section 3674(a) of title 38, United States Code, authorizes VA to
enter into contracts with State approving agencies (SAAs) to perform
services necessary to ascertain the qualifications of educational
institutions furnishing courses to veterans and other individuals
receiving VA educational assistance. Section 3674(a)(2)(A) specifies
that VA shall make payments to the SAAs out of the amounts available
for the payment of readjustment benefits. The total amount made
available for any fiscal year may not exceed $13 million, as outlined
in Section 3674(a)(4).
H.R. 2579 bill would amend Section 3674(a)(2)(A) to direct VA to
make SAA payments out of amounts in the RB account and amounts
appropriated to VA. Essentially, SAA payments would come from both the
RB and GOE accounts, rather than solely from the RB account, as is
presently done. The total amount that could be available from the RB
account would be $13 million.
VA does not support this legislation as written because utilizing
two funding sources for this program (both GOE and RB Accounts) would
create numerous complications in administering the program. SAAs are
critical players in the readjustment process, and it is necessary to
maintain a stable funding source and working relationship between VA
and the SAAs.
This proposal would allow the GOE appropriation to pay for SAA
contracts. In 2007, the RB account is authorized to pay up to $19
million for SAA contracts. In 2008 and subsequent years, the RB is
authorized to pay $13 million per year for SAA contracts. This bill
would allow for payment of up to $13 million for SAA contracts from RB,
with any remaining funds to be paid out of GOE. Increasing funding in
2008 and the out years to the 2007 level of $19 million would cost $6
million per year.
Specially Adapted Housing Program Amendments
H.R. 675
H.R. 675, entitled the ``Disabled Veterans Adaptive Housing Act,''
would increase the maximum dollar amounts available under the Specially
Adapted Housing (SAH) program, as well as provide for additional
increases to the grants by tying the maximum dollar amounts to an
annual cost-of-construction index. VA supports the overall objective of
increasing the SAH grants subject to Congress' enactment of legislation
offsetting the costs associated with the increases and with the
following clarifications.
Section 2 would adjust the maximum dollar amounts available under
the SAH program. First, it would increase from $50,000 to $60,000 the
aggregate dollar amount for grants authorized under sections 2101(a)
and 2102A, leaving unchanged the $14,000 cap on a single Section 2102A
grant. Next, it would raise from $10,000 to $12,000 the maximum amount
of assistance available for grants authorized under Section 2101(b).
Finally, it would increase from $10,000 to $12,000 the aggregate dollar
amount for grants authorized under sections 2101(b) and 2102A, but
would leave unchanged the $2,000 cap on a single Section 2102A grant.
These amounts would be effective immediately upon enactment.
Madam Chairwoman, VA supports enactment of Section 2, with the
following clarification and subject to Congress' enactment of
legislation offsetting the costs associated with the increases. VA
notes that, since the existing statutory limit on grants made pursuant
to Section 2101(a) is an aggregate that includes grants made under
Section 2102A, an authority which is due to expire June 14, 2011, an
ambiguity may arise at the time of expiration with regard to the amount
of assistance available under Section 2101(a). To avoid such an effect,
VA recommends amending the introductory paragraph of Section 2102(a) by
adding a maximum dollar amount allowable for grants authorized under
Section 2101(a).
Section 3 of this bill would mandate that the Secretary increase
the SAH assistance caps (except for grants made under Section 2102A)
each fiscal year, commencing October 1, 2007. Such increases would be
based on the percentage by which the residential home cost-of-
construction index for the preceding calendar year exceeds the index
for the year immediately preceding that calendar year. As with similar
provisions offered in other legislation, VA adamantly opposes indexing
programs such as the Specially Adapted Housing grants. As VA closely
monitors the sufficiency of grants provided under this program, and as
it will be very difficult to find a suitable index which adequately
captures the unique nature of SAH, it is best to provide adjustments on
an ad hoc basis.
VA estimates that enactment of sections 2 and 3 of this bill would
result in a benefit cost of $68.6 million in the first year and $194.2
million over 10 years.
H.R. 1315
H.R.1315 would make Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) assistance
available to disabled, active-duty members of the Armed Forces residing
temporarily in housing owned by a family member. VA supports enactment
of this technical correction. However, VA would like to point out that,
as drafted, this provision would continue to require specific
legislation in order to make active-duty members of the Armed Forces
eligible any time newly enacted assistance may become available.
Insofar as these disabled active-duty servicemembers are already
eligible for SAH benefits, there would be no additional cost. Any
amounts received as part of a temporary grant would be deducted from
the total amount of SAH grants for which recipients might be eligible.
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act Amendments
H.R. 513
H.R. 513, entitled the ``National Heroes Credit Protection Act,''
would add to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act a provision to protect
the credit rating of ``a person in military service.'' This bill would
require a person or entity who is engaged in the practice of assembling
or evaluating consumer credit information, and who receives from a
creditor a negative report of a servicemember's nonpayment or late
payment on an account, to annotate the negative report that the account
is delinquent or paid slowly due to military service. It would also
require that any future potential creditor of the servicemember who
receives such an annotated credit report to disregard that negative
information. Because this bill would not affect the provision of VA
benefits, VA defers to the Department of Defense (DoD) concerning this
bill.
H.R. 1598
H.R. 1598, entitled the ``Servicemembers Credit Protection Act,''
would also add to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) provisions
to protect the consumer credit of servicemembers. The new provisions
would: (1) require that the Secretary of Defense notify the major
consumer credit reporting agencies of a servicemember's deployment from
his or her usual duty station to a combat zone and return from such a
deployment; and (2) increase the penalties for violations of the SCRA
in cases where the consumer report contains a combat zone duty alert.
This bill would also make various amendments to the Fair Credit
Reporting Act to accommodate these changes. Because this bill would not
affect the provision of VA benefits, VA defers to DoD and the Federal
Trade Commission concerning this bill.
H.R. 1750
H.R. 1750 would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to expand
the law's protection against mortgage foreclosure when active military
service has contributed to the borrower's inability to repay the
obligation. Under current law, such protection is limited to 90 days;
under the proposed legislation, this period would be extended to 12
months. Because the legislation would not affect the provision of VA
benefits, VA believes that substantive views on the merits of this
proposal should be presented by DoD.
Miscellaneous Proposals
H.R. 1240
H.R. 1240 would require the Secretary, subject to the availability
of appropriations, to establish and carry out a scholarship program to
provide financial assistance to an individual who is enrolled in an
education program leading to a degree or certificate in visual
impairment or orientation and mobility, or a dual degree or
certification in both such areas at an accredited educational
institution. We note this program would be established apart from the
Employee Incentive Scholarship Program (EISP) for VHA employees, which
is authorized by 38 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 7671, et seq.
H.R. 1240 would require that in exchange for scholarship assistance
the individual must, among other things, enter into a written agreement
to serve as a full-time VA employee for a period of three years. This
service obligation would have to be completed within the first six
years after the individual has completed the VA-sponsored degree and
received a degree or certificate. H.R. 1240 would also require the
Secretary to publicize this scholarship program throughout the country,
with an emphasis on disseminating information to institutions with high
numbers of Hispanic students and to Historically Black Colleges and
Universities.
Additionally, this bill would establish detailed application
requirements and require the Secretary to include specified information
with each application. It would also require certain information to be
incorporated into the written agreements used in the program. H.R. 1240
would also authorize the Secretary to determine the funding amount
necessary to pay the tuition and fees of an individual participating in
the program. However, if the individual is enrolled in a dual degree or
certification program, the bill would limit the amount that could be
awarded to that which is needed to obtain the minimum number of credit
hours to achieve the approved dual degree or certification. Financial
assistance awarded under this program could be supplemented by other
educational assistance, as long as the total amount of educational
assistance received by a participant in an academic year does not
exceed the total tuition and fees for that academic year.
H.R. 1240 would limit the maximum amount of financial assistance
that could be provided to a participant who is a full-time student to
$15,000 per academic year. (Such amount would be pro-rated for
participants who are part-time students.) The maximum dollar amount
that could be awarded to a participant in the program would be $45,000,
and the bill would limit the duration of scholarship assistance that
could be provided to a participant to six years.
The measure would also identify information that must be included
in the written agreement entered into by VA and the participant. A
participant's breach of an obligation under the agreement would require
the participant to repay the Department an amount equal to the unearned
portion of such assistance, except in circumstances authorized by the
Secretary. The Secretary would be required to establish, by regulation,
the procedures to be used in determining the amount of repayment
required in the case of breach as well as the circumstances under which
an exception could be granted. Further, the Secretary would be required
to prescribe regulations providing for the waiver or suspension of any
service or payment obligation whenever noncompliance by the individual
is due to circumstances beyond the control of the individual, or
whenever the Secretary determines that the waiver or suspension of
compliance would be in the best interest of the United States. A
payment obligation that is not waived or suspended under the program
would be considered, for all purposes, a debt owed the United States.
Such a debt could not be discharged in bankruptcy under title 11 if the
discharge order is entered less than five years after the date of the
termination of the agreement on which the debt is based. Finally, H.R.
1240 would require the Secretary to implement this scholarship program
no later than six months after the date of enactment.
VA supports this legislation. However, we would note that this
scholarship program should be authorized under Chapter 76 of title 38,
United States Code (``Health Professional Educational Assistance
Program''), rather than under a new Chapter 80.
We estimate the total cost of S. 1240 to be $349,233 for FY 2008,
and $3.7 million over a 10-year period.
H.R. 1632
H.R. 1632 would add informational requirements to the annual report
that the Secretary of Labor must submit to Congress concerning
employers' compliance with the laws governing the reemployment rights
of members of the Armed Forces. Given that this reporting requirement
applies only to the Department of Labor, we defer to the Secretary of
Labor on the merits of this bill.
H.R. 2475
H.R. 2475 would authorize VA to guarantee Home Equity Conversion
Mortgages (HECMs) made to elderly veteran homeowners. We are opposed to
the bill, as written, for several reasons.
First, the original intent of the VA home loan program was to
provide home ownership opportunities for veterans and active duty
servicemembers who forego such an opportunity in order to serve the
nation's Armed Forces. While the program has been modified over the
course of 60 years of legislation, all program changes have been
designed to enable veterans to acquire and retain homes. In contrast,
the proposed VA HECM program centers on the ability to extract equity
prior to disposal of the property.
In addition, FHA currently has a very active and successful HECM
program. We fail to see what a VA HECM program would have to offer that
would not be a duplication of this existing federal loan program.
Further, FHA fully insures its lenders against all losses; whereas, by
statute, VA is only able to guaranty the lender against a percentage of
its potential loss. As a result, we do not believe this proposed VA
HECM program would be as attractive to the lending community as the
existing FHA program.
Finally, we note that the text of the bill contains certain
inconsistencies and ambiguities that would require clarification.
We are unable to provide a cost estimate for this proposal at this
time. Given that this bill would create a new mortgage product for VA,
and one that is very distinct from existing products in our portfolio,
we will need to collect data from HUD and the conventional market to
adequately project costs. Further, this proposal has many undefined
variables, such as administrative costs and the funding fee structure
to be charged veterans under this program, which will require
additional analysis. Once we have prepared a cost estimate, we will be
pleased to submit it for the record.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. Mr. Wilson and I
would be pleased to respond to any questions you or other members of
the Subcommittee may have.
Prepared Statement of Leslye A. Arsht, Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Military Community and Family Policy), U.S. Department of
Defense
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, thank you
for the opportunity to discuss issues relating to H.R. 2259, a bill to
ensure that members of the National Guard and Reserves are able to
fully participate in the Benefits Delivery at Discharge program
administered jointly by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs.
We require a great deal from our Armed Forces and I want to affirm
the Department's commitment to all our servicemembers--Active, National
Guard and Reserves and their families.
VIEWS on H.R. 2259
Returning to private life after serving in the military is a very
complex undertaking. To assist them in doing so, we must empower
servicemembers with the tools and information they need to fashion
individual solutions to the challenges they will face as they return to
civilian life. To that extent, the Department supports the intent of
H.R. 2259, which is to inform National Guard and Reserve members of the
rights and benefits available to them as a result of their military
service. Transition programs are currently conducted at demobilization
and other out-processing sites. Further, because the members of the
Guard and Reserve are so geographically dispersed, the Department has
just launched a new web portal at www.TurboTAP.org, which provides
comprehensive information to Guard and Reserve members about their
rights and benefits and enables them to build individual transition
plans.
The Department has also formed the special working group with the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Labor--as required by Section 676
of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2007--to identify and assess the needs of National Guard and Reserve
members returning to civilian employment following deployment in
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Additionally,
Section 515 of the House-passed Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 would require the Department to establish another working
group to identify, catalog and analyze the various existing programs
currently being operated by different services, states, and commands--
such as the programs in Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, and
Washington--to help returning Reserve component members make the
transition back to civilian life. This working group will identify best
practices and develop plans to incorporate the best practices across
the services to meet the needs of Reserve component members, who are
reintegrating following return from overseas operational deployment.
While well intended, H.R. 2259 is overly broad in its scope. H.R.
2259 would require DoD to develop a plan to provide every Reserve
component member who has served on active duty since September 11,
2001--regardless of the length or purpose of the period of active
duty--with the information contained in the Benefits Delivery at
Discharge program. Nearly all members of the Selected Reserve perform
annual training. Therefore, to meet the requirements of this Bill, the
Department would have to develop the means of informing each member of
their rights and benefits at least annually. Moreover, many active duty
members transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) upon
completion of their active duty service obligation, in order to
complete their total military service obligation. At the time of their
release from active duty, they completed a transition course. However,
this Bill would require that DoD develop a plan to once again inform
every active-duty member transferred to the IRR after September 11,
2001, of their rights and benefits, even though they many not have
performed any duty while in the IRR, and the service has had only
periodic contact with the member since being released from active duty.
For these reasons, the Department does not support H.R. 2259.
TURBOTAP
Because TurboTAP is available on the World Wide Web, complete
transition information is already available at every military
installation, armory, military family support center and activity
conducting disability evaluations. TurboTAP will better meet the needs
of the National Guard, Reserves and Active Component servicemembers and
their families because it gives them the tools to connect and access
the information to meet their needs when they are ready--present or
future. This portal architecture will be the backbone of the updated
DoD Transition Assistance Program (TAP) process for National Guard and
Reserve servicemembers. Each Reservist and Guardsman will be able to
create a lifelong account to which he/she or his/her spouse can refer,
at any time during his/her life. Usability, flexibility, adaptability,
and individual customization are the keys to successful implementation
of this new technology-enabled process. TurboTAP allows an individual
to develop and print out his or her own individual transition plan. The
goal for this system is to increase servicemember participation and
satisfaction.
Some of the features of TurboTAP are:
A comprehensive Transition Guide for the Guard and
Reserves, as well as a comprehensive Preseparation Guide for Active
Component servicemembers. These guides provide information on benefits
and services available to transitioning servicemembers, as well as
contact points for further assistance.
Life long account for National Guard, Reserves and Active
Component servicemembers, which allows them to use the system
indefinitely;
A personal profile that can be updated anytime;
A customized, Individual Transition Plan;
Transition information that can be accessed anytime,
anywhere;
An Employment Hub containing job searches, resume builder
and military occupational translator using the O*NET to convert to
civilian occupational skills;
A VA Benefits Hub providing information on VA benefits,
services and programs and, finally,
``Helpful checklists'' to remind servicemembers about key
things they should do before separating or being released from active
duty.
TurboTAP allows servicemembers, veterans, retirees, and
demobilizing members of the Reserve Components to locate and find the
nearest DOL One-Stop Career Center, VA Regional Office, VA Vet Center,
VA Medical Center, and military installation to where they live.
We have high expectations for this being a 21st century approach to
delivering individualized information and benefits to servicemembers
and families. With the expected success, we further plan to make
transition an online transaction much like banking and bill paying have
become. The success and accountability of transition will be managed
online versus a form being hand carried to a personnel file. As we move
down this road, we will solicit your approval and legislative support.
I now want to share with you some on-going transition initiatives
in DoD as they relate to our severely injured servicemembers.
SUPPORT FOR SEVERELY INJURED
As you are aware, DoD and VA established task forces to review how
wounded servicemembers are served and how to better collaborate to meet
the needs of the members and their families. The bipartisan
Presidential Committee led by Senator Dole and Secretary Shalala is
also addressing this issue. However, today, the Office of Seamless
Transition program, established by VA, in coordination with the
Military Services, also facilitates a more timely receipt of benefits
for severely injured servicemembers. VA Veteran Benefits Administration
(VBA) counselors visit all severely injured patients and inform them of
the full range of VA services, including readjustment programs,
employment programs, and information on educational and housing
benefits.
Seamless Transition helps these personnel touch base with
vocational rehabilitation and employment services, and assists in
putting them in contact with other employment resources available
through DoL, the Military Services, the Joint Seamless Transition
Office, DoD and the Military Services severely injured and wounded
programs, including DoL's special ``Recovery and Employment Assistance
Lifelines'' or REALifelines. All of these are available to help
servicemembers and their families connect with the employment
assistance they need.
To expand employment assistance to our severely injured and
wounded, the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Civilian
Personnel Management Service, has undertaken a broad outreach program
called ``Hiring Heroes Career Fairs'' to assist severely injured
Servicemembers and their families in finding employment opportunities
in the DoD, other Federal agencies, and the private sector.
Career fairs that support the Department's ``Hiring Heroes''
program have been offered at the following locations: Walter Reed Army
Medical Center, DC; Fort Sam Houston, TX; Womack Army Medical Center,
Fort Bragg, NC; Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon, GA; and
Walson Army Medical Center, Fort Dix, NJ. Three career fairs have been
conducted in partnership with the Coalition to Salute America's Heroes,
a non-profit organization. Over 2,000 servicemembers and their family
members have attended these career fairs and several more are planned
well into the future.
Corporate America has responded to the call; many Fortune 500
companies and small businesses are recruiting injured and wounded
veterans for their skills, experience, maturity, and work ethic. Many
of these companies are creating special programs geared specifically
toward finding employment in their respective companies for these
veterans and their family members.
It's important to note that DoD, along with DoL and the VA, has
worked to provide separating servicemembers with a variety of tools.
Examples of our collaborative efforts include the Transition Assistance
Program (TAP) Steering Committee and the Secretary of Labor's Advisory
Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training, and Employer Outreach
(ACVETEO). DoD and VA also partner extensively though the VA/DoD Joint
Executive Council (JEC), the Benefits Executive Council (BEC), and the
Health Executive Council (HEC)
OTHER BILLS
We acknowledge that the Department of Veterans' Affairs defers to
DoD on H.R. 513, H.R. 1598, and H.R. 1750, which are three bills
related to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. We do not yet have
cleared positions on those bills, but will provide them for the record.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. On behalf of the men and
women in the military today and their families, I thank you and the
members of the Subcommittee for your steadfast support during these
demanding times.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella, Assistant Secretary,
Veterans' Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor
Madam Chairwoman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee.
On behalf of the Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and
Training Service (VETS) I am pleased to provide you our views on H.R.
1632, the ``Improving Veterans' Re-employment Act of 2007.'' The bill
expands and enhances the annual report produced by VETS regarding
complaints made under the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
We support the provisions of the bill that provide an opportunity
to collaborate with other Departments and agencies. H.R. 1632 would,
among other things, require VETS to report, ``The number of cases
reviewed by the Secretary of Defense under the National Committee for
Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve of the Department of Defense
during the fiscal year for which the report is made.'' These data are
to be collected by the National Committee for Employer Support of the
Guard and Reserve (ESGR) for the Department of Defense (DoD).
We also agree with the concept of uniform categories for reporting.
VETS and the ESGR already have a very positive working relationship.
Should H.R. 1632 become law, VETS will work with ESGR to establish
procedures as well as to develop a common understanding of the term
``cases'' so that ESGR will be able to provide VETS with the required
data in the appropriate format for inclusion in our annual USERRA
report to Congress. VETS will include any formatted data that ESGR
provides in a timely manner to our future annual reports.
Another provision of H.R. 1632 would require VETS and ESGR to
identify and report ``which of the cases reported on pursuant to
paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) are disability-related.'' VETS
currently tracks and reports complaints involving ``disabilities'' if
the USERRA complaint is based on a reasonable accommodation issue. We
plan to meet with ESGR, and look forward to working with the Committee,
to identify the data requirements needed to address your concerns.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide our comments on this
legislation.
Prepared Statement of Thomas Zampieri, Ph.D.,
Director of Government Relations,
Blinded Veterans Association
INTRODUCTION
Madame Chairwoman and members of the House Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, on behalf of the Blinded Veterans
Association (BVA), thank you for this opportunity to submit for the
record our strong legislative support for the ``Vision Impairment
Specialists Training Act'' (VISTA), H.R. 1240. BVA is the only
congressionally chartered Veterans Service Organization exclusively
dedicated to serving the needs of our Nation's blinded veterans and
their families. BVA has worked with VA Blind Service in improving the
VA ability to provide the necessary blind outpatient mobility and
orientation training for blinded veterans for years and this
legislation will help ensure that this will continue to occur. With the
growing numbers of wounded in both Operation Iraq Freedom (OIF) and
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) who are entering the VA healthcare and
benefits system today, with direct eye trauma history and over 30% of
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), having Post Trauma Vision Syndrome
(PTVS), more of these highly skilled professionals are necessary and
critical for VA.
As of May 22 of this year there were 25,549 traumatic combat
injuries, of which 7,267 required air medical evacuation from Iraq and
another 6,991 military personnel have been injured in non-hostile
action have also been evacuated from OIF and OEF operations. Such
numbers reflect the probability that an ever increasing number of
future veterans will depend on VA Blind and Low Vision Services in
order to live independently in their own homes. More than 1,886 of the
total TBI-injured have sustained moderate enough injuries that they are
experiencing neurosensory complications. Epidemiological TBI studies
find that about 30 percent have associated neurological visual
disorders of diplopia, convergence disorder, photophobia, ocular-motor
dysfunction, and an inability to interpret print. Some TBIs result in
visual field loss or even legal blindness and other manifestations.
Like other generations of disabled veterans who have desired to
continue living independently, the current generation of OIF and OEF
veterans deserves the same opportunity.
BVA would like to stress again to this Committee that data compiled
between March 2003 and April 2005 found that 16 percent of all
causalities evacuated from Iraq were due directly to eye injuries.
Walter Reed Army Medical Center has surgically treated approximately
700 soldiers with moderate to severe visual injuries while the National
Naval Medical Center has had 450 individuals with eye injuries
requiring surgery. VA reports that 46 such servicemembers have attended
one of the ten VA Blind Rehabilitation Centers (BRCs), 89 are enrolled
in local VA Blind Visual Impairment Service Teams (VISTs), and others
are in the process of being referred. It should be very obvious to
members of this Committee that a new generation of blinded or impaired
low vision veterans will require lifetime specialized programs to meet
their needs. Such rehabilitation programs must be very individualized
for such veterans and their family members, as has been the case for an
older generation of veterans who have recently suffered from age-
related degenerative blindness.
The Vision Impairment Specialist Training Act (VISTA), H.R. 1240,
will help our Nation's blind and low-vision veterans by establishing a
scholarship program for students seeking training in blind
rehabilitation. There are 167,000 legally blind veterans in the United
States, and 47,450 are currently enrolled in Veterans Health
Administration services. In addition, it is estimated that there are
over 1 million low-vision veterans in the United States, and incidences
of blindness among the total veteran population of 24 million are
expected to increase over the next two decades. This is because the
most prevalent causes of legal blindness and low vision are age-related
diseases like glaucoma, macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy,
cataracts, and the veteran population is increasing in age, the current
average age is about 80 years old.
Members of the armed forces are important to our nation and we show
them our appreciation by taking care of them after they no longer
serve. But the fact is that there are not enough blind rehabilitation
specialists to serve all legally blind and low-vision veterans in the
VA currently there are only 33 of these critical Blind Rehabilitative
Outpatient Specialists (BROS). Two of the VA Poly Trauma Centers had
difficulty for over a year in finding certified blind instructors at
those centers. Blind rehabilitation training helps give these veterans
awareness of and mobility functioning in their surroundings and enables
them to retain their independence and dignity. Veterans without these
services may find it difficult to be self-sufficient, relying on others
to perform certain skills or even simple tasks on their behalf.
Research on blind and low vision Americans show they are at high risk
of falls, or making medication mistakes, resulting in costly hospital
admissions every year, and of losing their independence to live at
home. Falls are the sixth leading cause of death in senior citizens and
a contributing factor to 40% of all nursing home admissions with annual
federal costs over $45,000 for each nursing home bed. According to
Framingham Eye Study, 18% of all hip fractures among senior citizens--
about 63,000 hip fractures a year--are attributable to vision
impairment. The cost of medical-surgical treatment for every hip
fracture is over $39,000, if outpatient rehabilitation services
prevented even 20% of these hip fractures, the annual federal savings
in healthcare costs would be over $441 million. Essential outpatient,
cost effective services that would allow blind veterans to safely live
independently at home should be supported by this Congress and the
Administration from a healthcare policy stand point. Research has found
that 25% of all falls resulting in hip fractures result in nursing home
admissions with chronic disability; it is seven times more expensive to
care for a disabled nursing home resident, than a healthy independent
American over age 65.
Public Law 104-262, The Eligibility Reform Act 1996, requires the
Department of Veterans Affairs to maintain its capacity to provide
specialized rehabilitative services to disabled veterans, but it cannot
do so when there are not enough specialists to address these needs.
Last December, the Veterans Programs Extension Act was passed, which
included a provision by Congressman Michael Michaud to increase the
number of Blind Rehabilitation Outpatient Specialists by thirty-five
new positions over the next thirty months serving our Nation's
veterans. However, there are currently not enough counselors certified
in blind rehabilitation to provide for the growing number of blind or
low-vision veterans, let alone the rest of our nation's elderly
population. According to National Council of Private Agencies for the
Blind and Visually Impaired today there are only approximately 3,000
certified in the field in the entire country. Because of this shortage,
some of the ten VA Blind Centers have had longer waiting times for
admissions.
The Vision Impairment Specialists Training Act H.R. 1240 helps
remedy this situation by directing the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
establish a scholarship program for students seeking a degree or
certificate in blind rehabilitation (Vision Impairment and/or
Orientation and Mobility). This will provide an incentive to students
considering entry into the field to consider a VA career in return for
this scholarship funding. In addition, in exchange for the scholarship
award, students are required to work for three years in a healthcare
facility of the Department of Veterans Affairs, to ensure that our
veterans are well cared for.
RECOMMENDATIONS
BVA supports including this occupational specialty in the current
VA educational program and provide for the aging population of visually
impaired and blinded veterans the rehabilitative specialized staffing
needed. BVA requests the Committee pass this VISTA act. Chairwoman
Herseth-Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman, BVA expresses thanks to
both of you for this opportunity to present our statement for the
record. The current lack of access in many networks of VA will continue
unless changes are made by enacting this legislation. The future
strength of our Nation depends on the willingness of young men and
women to serve in our military. This willingness depends, in turn and
at least in part, on the willingness of our government to meet its full
obligation to them as veterans.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jo Ann Davis,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, I thank you for
the opportunity to testify on H.R. 112 and I appreciate the
Subcommittee's interest in this legislation. Your strong support for
those who have worn the uniform of our country is appreciated, and I am
grateful to be here with you this morning.
I am pleased to offer a brief statement on H.R. 112, the GI
Advanced Education in Science and Technology Act of 2007, and I would
ask for the full text of my written statement to be entered into the
record.
I represent Virginia's First Congressional District, which is home
to almost 100,000 active duty servicemembers and veterans, one of the
highest concentrations of active and former military personnel and
their families in the country. Thousands of my constituents have taken
advantage of the GI Bill as a result of their service to our country,
and I am extremely supportive of this worthwhile veteran's educational
assistance program. I also believe that modifications and amendments to
the GI Bill are appropriate, especially given the nature of the Global
War on Terror and the increased operational tempo of our Reserve
Component.
Additionally, I believe that we are facing serious challenges in
our Nation's ability to retain its technological edge in the 21st
Century. Our country is not producing enough graduates in the Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, or STEM, fields, and the
forces of globalization are enabling recent graduates in the science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to leave the United
States and pursue work elsewhere.
I am concerned about this shortage because our economy has
dramatically benefited from the innovation of such highly talented
individuals. We simply must do whatever we can to ensure a future
workforce of trained American scientists and engineers, and H.R. 112
will provide a critical additional incentive for transitioning
servicemembers to pursue ``hard'' science doctoral degrees. I believe
one of the keys to reducing this shortage is education, and our
Nation's GI Bill recipients are especially deserving of increased
assistance to help defray the rising costs of doctoral education in
science and technology.
Since the enactment of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act 1944, when
the first GI Bill began, more than 21.3 million veterans,
servicemembers and family members have received $72.8 billion in GI
Bill benefits for education and training. This includes 7.8 million
veterans from World War II, 2.4 million from the Korean War and 8.2
million post-Korean and Vietnam era veterans, plus active duty
personnel. Over the last 60 plus years, this legislation and its
subsequent amendments have had an enormous social and economic impact
on our Nation, and I believe H.R. 112 will continue this tradition.
Since coming to Congress in 2001, I have observed some disturbing
trends in the number of American graduates in the science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics, or STEM, fields. Simply put, there are a
decreasing number of American graduates in these hard sciences, yet our
future economic competitiveness and perhaps our National security could
be in jeopardy if we do not act positively.
Because of my Committee assignments on Armed Services and Foreign
Affairs and previous service on the Intelligence Committee, I realize
that our Nation relies on scientists and engineers now more than ever
to ensure that our military remains strong and our country remains
free. The Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community must
have the technological advantages that come from technological
development, and I believe that our transitioning veterans can help to
fill the coming shortages in these key fields of innovation.
If a former servicemember who is eligible for the GI Bill would
like to pursue a full-time doctoral degree in the sciences of
engineering, mathematics, or technology disciplines, I believe that
this choice deserves recognition. By expanding provisions of the
existing chapter 38 program under the Montgomery GI Bill, H.R. 112
would provide an inflation adjusted, monthly stipend of $1200 for up to
60 months to each individual who is entitled to veterans' basic
educational assistance and is pursuing full-time a doctoral degree in
the sciences of engineering, mathematics, or other technology
disciplines, in addition to any other authorized Montgomery GI Bill
educational assistance.
The requirements for payment include: (1) acceptance into a full
time course of study leading to a doctorate into an accredited college
or university, (2) an annual certification of enrollment by the veteran
to the VA and (3) maintaining good academic standing throughout the
course of study.
This legislation is a positive step for both our transitioning
veterans and our future scientific workforce. The GI Bill continues to
provide educational opportunities for those who have served our
country, and H.R. 112 would provide a special incentive to help fill a
coming critical shortage in our workforce.
Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate the opportunity to present this
statement before the Subcommittee. Thank you for holding this hearing.
Prepared Statement of Harry H. Dinham, President,
National Association of Mortgage Brokers
Chairwoman Herseth-Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for permitting the National Association of
Mortgage Brokers (``NAMB'') to submit this written testimony on the
Veteran Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Act of 2007 (``H.R. 2475''). We
are confident that this important piece of legislation will help
elderly veterans stay in their homes longer, improve their quality of
life, and satisfy increased financial obligations.
NAMB is the only national trade association exclusively devoted to
representing the mortgage brokerage industry, and as the voice of the
mortgage brokers, NAMB speaks on behalf of more than 25,000 members in
all 50 states and the District of Columbia. NAMB members are typically
small business men and women, who act as independent contractors and
serve as a principal conduit for delivering loan products, developed by
state and federally-regulated lenders, directly to consumers. Mortgage
brokers play a critical role in helping the American economy and in
making the dream of home ownership a reality for America's veterans.
Today, mortgage brokers originate a majority of all home loans, and
remain a key distribution channel for U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs (``VA'') guaranteed home loans. As such, mortgage brokers are
familiar with veterans' needs when it comes to buying or refinancing a
home. Over the years, Congress, the VA, and other entities have worked
to break-down barriers and make it easier for veterans to become
homeowners. NAMB applauds these efforts, and today we urge Congress to
work to break-down another barrier, and make it easier for elderly
veterans to remain in their home while continuing to meet the financial
burden of steadily increasing medical and home ownership costs.
Roughly one quarter of the nation's population--about 70 million
people--are potentially eligible for benefits and services through the
VA. These benefits and services have been earned through the great
sacrifices made to provide for our freedom and our security. We believe
extending the VA home loan benefits to include home equity conversion
mortgages (``HECMs'') is a small, but meaningful way to acknowledge
that we have not forgotten the service our elderly veterans have given
to this country.
With the rate of American homeownership at a near-record high,
HECMs have become a mainstream and highly successful financial planning
tool for elderly homeowners. In the most recent fiscal year, ending
September 30, 2006, the Federal Housing Administration (``FHA'')
insured 76,351 HECM loans. That number is up from 43,131 the previous
year.
Elderly veterans represent a large and growing market for HECM
loans. Elderly veterans should be offered this valuable product, which
will allow them to cash-out the equity that they have built-up in their
homes over 20, 30 or 40 years in order to meet the demands of
increasing health, housing, and sustenance costs, without the risk of
losing their home. A VA HECM loan program will provide elderly veteran
homeowners with:
1. A higher available loan limit than the FHA HECM loan program,
which means more cash out to the veteran;
2. A loan product that meets a Veterans needs better than existing
HECM programs;
3. An effective savings of roughly 0.5% in interest rate, because
monthly mortgage insurance premiums are not required with VA-guaranteed
loans;
4. Greater access to HECM loans, since the VA does not impose
burdensome audit and net worth requirements on originators wishing to
participate in the program;
5. An opportunity for Veterans to remain in their homes longer,
without incurring additional monthly expenses;
6. An opportunity for Veterans to choose in-home care, as opposed
to the often more costly option of long-term care at a VA Hospital or
other facility; and
7. Zero chance of default.
Some have expressed concern that this proposed legislation does not
fit the mission of the VA program. We believe it does. This program
would help Veterans retain their home and would allow Veterans to take
equity out of their home, as they can do currently with a VA refinance.
Additionally, a VA HECM loan would be viable loan product to the
secondary market, as the VA guarantee of the HECM loan would be the
same as it is for VA loans that are currently purchased by the
secondary market. Another positive point is that the program would not
incur any additional cost. Currently, the VA funding fee charged on VA
home loans not only covers the cost to administer the program, but also
generates excess revenue. As currently drafted, this proposed VA HECM
legislation would grant the Secretary of the VA discretion to establish
the funding fee at an amount that would cover the cost of administering
this new loan product.
NAMB sincerely appreciates the opportunity to share its position
with this Subcommittee. We commend Chairwoman Herseth-Sandlin and
Ranking Member Boozman for taking the time to convene a hearing on this
very important issue. It is imperative that we seek out ways to sustain
this country's near-record rate of home ownership, and authorizing the
VA to guarantee HECM loans to eligible elderly veterans is a noble
start. We urge the Committee to support H.R. 2475 and greatly improve
the home loan benefits earned by our veterans.
Respectfully submitted,
Harry H. Dinham
President
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
October 23, 2007
Leslye A. Arsht, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Military Community and Family Policy)
U.S. Department of Defense
4000 Defense Pentagon
Suite 5A726
Washington, DC 20301
Dear Ms. Arsht:
In reference to the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on
Pending Legislation on June 21, 2007, you stated the U.S. Department of
Defense did not have a clear position on H.R. 513, H.R. 1598, and H.R.
1750 at the time. I am requesting for the DoD to provide a clear
position on these four bills.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veteran's
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, in
implementing some formatting changes for materials for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide answers consecutively on letter size paper, single
spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before
the answer.
Please provide your response to Orfa Torres and fax at 202-225-
2034, no later than November 23, 2007. If you have any questions please
call 202-225-9756.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
Hearing Date: June 21, 2007
Committee: HVA
Member: Congressman Herseth
Witness: Ms. Arsht
Pending Legislation
Question: Please provide Department's position on H.R. 513, H.R.
1598, and H.R. 1750.
Answer: Following are the Department of Defense (DoD) positions on
H.R. 513, H.R. 1598, and H.R. 1750:
The Department opposes H.R. 513, which requires credit reporting
agencies (CRA) that receive negative credit information concerning a
servicemember with respect to a financial obligation incurred prior to
active duty to annotate the credit report that the negative information
was due to military service. It would also require that the potential
creditor disregard any adverse information containing the military
service annotation.
Although this bill provides some potential benefits to
servicemembers, we have practical concerns about its implementation and
about its impact on other protections the Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act (SCRA), Public Law 108-189, codified at 50 United States Code
(U.S.C.) App. Sec. Sec. 501 currently provides:
Section 108 of the SCRA states that a servicemember's
exercise of the protections of the SCRA cannot provide the basis for
the annotation of a servicemember's credit records identifying the
servicemember as a member of the National Guard or a Reserve component.
The proposed bill would undercut this important provision, which helps
prevent a creditor from refusing to extend credit to Reservists who
might assert SCRA protections in the future.
The legislation does not specify how the CRA would
determine whether a delinquent account is owned by a military member or
whether the obligation was incurred prior to military service. No
mechanism or process addresses how to determine this information or who
would be responsible for providing it. One possibility would be that
creditors would request the DoD to provide service data to comply with
the statute. This would be an administrative burden and raise privacy
and security concerns about active duty and mobilizing servicemembers.
The military service annotation called for in proposed
Section 110(a) assumes, without requiring any evidence, that any
adverse credit information is the result of military service. A
fundamental tenet of the existing provisions of the SCRA is the
requirement to establish that the service materially affected the
servicemember's ability to discharge his or her legal obligations.
Thus, the current bill undermines a fundamental principle of the SCRA.
Section 110 (b) requires creditors to ``disregard any
negative information'' containing notations required by subsection (a).
Once negative information is put in a record, it would be nearly
impossible to demonstrate that the negative information is not used for
impermissible purposes.
The amendment applies to all active duty military
personnel. The obligations placed on credit reporting agencies by this
amendment could create a situation in which they (or creditors) would
be liable for violations of the act. The unintended consequence of this
amendment could be that creditors refuse or limit credit to
servicemembers to avoid the risk of liability.
The DoD recognizes that the intent of the proposed amendment is to
benefit servicemembers. It may provide some helpful provisions, but
potentially at the risk of undermining other protections already in the
SCRA, as well as undermining the cornerstone of the SCRA; the
requirement to show material effect. Furthermore, the bill does not say
who has the responsibility for providing basic service data. Additional
study is needed to maximize the protections that the proposed bill
offers while ensuring that other key provisions of the SCRA are not
undercut.
One possible approach would be to establish a workable and
expedited mechanism that would allow servicemember to challenge and
remove unfavorable information from credit reports when the underlying
obligation was materially affected by their military service.
The Department also opposes H.R. 1598, which would amend the SCRA
and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Public Law No. 91-508, as
amended by the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act 1996, Public Law
104-208, codified at 15 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1681-1681x. The bill requires
the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) to notify CRAs of a servicemember's
deployment within 30 days after the beginning and end of a deployment.
The CRA must then provide a ``combat zone duty alert'' along with the
credit score in a report involving the deployed member or when
furnishing adverse information. Additionally, the CRA must exclude the
servicemember from lists provided to third parties for the purposes of
providing unsolicited offers of credit or insurance.
Although this bill provides some potential benefits to
servicemembers, it raises force protection concerns and practical
concerns about the responsibilities it places on the SECDEF. We are
also concerned about its impact on other protections the SCRA currently
provides:
This nation's enemies could learn about and exploit the
absences of deployed servicemembers based on information provided by
this bill. The DoD has non-disclosure policies regarding the numbers
and locations of deployed personnel that could be violated by this
bill.
Information concerning the deployed status of a
servicemember disclosed to third parties could be used to commit fraud
or harass family members. Furthermore, the servicemember would be away
from his family and less likely to detect and react to a financial
misuse of the information.
The bill places a significant administrative burden on
the SECDEF to notify each CRA of the deployment status of potentially
hundreds of thousands of servicemembers within 30 days after the
deployment begins and ends. The protections of the section would
continue to apply until the Secretary notifies the CRA of the
termination of the deployment status. A failure to properly notify the
CRA could give rise to claims from the servicemember against both the
DoD and the CRAs. A potential creditor provided a combat zone duty
alert might improperly use that information in the opposite way
intended to deny credit to servicemembers or to their families.
Section 518 of the SCRA states that a servicemember's
exercise of the protections of the SCRA cannot provide the basis for
the annotation of a servicemember's credit records identifying the
servicemember as a member of the National Guard or a reserve component.
This important provision, which helps prevent a creditor from refusing
to extend credit to Reservists who might assert SCRA protections in the
future, would be undercut by the proposed bill.
This amendment singles out active duty servicemembers
deployed to a combat zone for additional protection. There is no other
provision in the SCRA that ties SCRA entitlement to deployment to a
combat zone. This creates a dangerous precedent of not providing
uniform protection to all qualifying servicemembers. If a Reservist
gets mobilized and suffers a decrease in pay (material effect) there is
a similar harm, regardless of where the Reservist is stationed.
Although the Department recognizes that the intent of the proposed
amendment is to benefit servicemembers, its minimal protections are
outweighed by force protection concerns, the enormous administrative
burden that would fall to the DoD, and the impact on other provisions
of the SCRA.
An alternate approach could be to more easily (and without cost)
allow servicemembers to place a freeze on their account while deployed.
Additionally, mechanisms allowing servicemembers to challenge an
adverse credit entry as a matter of right upon a showing that the
adverse entry was materially affected by military service would be
beneficial.
The Department supports H.R. 1750, which would amend the SCRA to
extend mortgage foreclosure protection from 90 days to one year.
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Washington, DC.
October 26, 2007
Hon. Bob Filner, Chairman
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am pleased to provide the views of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) on the following three bills: H.R. 704, H.R. 2259, and
H.R. 1824, 110th Congress. These bills were on the schedules of the
Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs and Economic Opportunity
Subcommittees' hearings of June 19 and June 21, respectively. At the
hearing, the Department stated that we were not able to comment on all
of the bills on the agenda because we did not have enough time to
coordinate the Administration's views and estimate costs. We can now do
so for the introduced version of these bills.
H.R. 704
Section 1(a) of H.R. 704 would reduce from 57 to 55 the age after
which a surviving spouse may remarry without losing eligibility for
dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC), educational assistance and
housing loans. Section 1(b) would specify that this amendment will take
effect on the later of the first day of the first month that begins
after the date of enactment of this bill or the first day of the fiscal
year that begins in the calendar year of enactment of the amendment.
Section 1(c) would prohibit the payment of any benefit based on the
amendment for any period before the effective date of the amendment.
Section 1(d) would permit an individual who remarried before the bill's
enactment and after age 57 to apply for reinstatement of benefits
before the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of enactment.
Under current law, a surviving spouse who remarries is not eligible
for DIC benefits, medical care, educational assistance, or housing
loans based on a prior marriage to a deceased veteran, unless the
surviving spouse remarries after age 57 (after age 55 in the case of
medical care).
Because the mandatory costs of the bill are not included in the
President's fiscal year (FY) 2008 Budget, we cannot support enactment.
VA estimates that enactment of H.R. 704 would result in a benefit cost
of $23 million in FY 2008 and $723.2 million over the 10-year period
from FY 2008 through FY 2017.
H.R. 2259
H.R. 2259 would require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs to jointly submit to Congress a plan to maximize
access to the benefits delivery at discharge (BDD) program for members
of the Armed Forces reserve components who have been called or ordered
to active duty since September 11, 2001. The bill would require a
description of the efforts that would be taken to ensure that services
under this program are provided at specified locations, including
locations where servicemembers are separated or discharged from the
Armed Forces.
VA believes that this bill is not necessary for a number of
reasons. First, VA is already committed to working with DoD to produce
a plan to improve transition assistance for personnel in the National
Guard and Reserves.
Also, it is not feasible to offer the BDD program to most National
Guard and Reserve members. The BDD program is a joint VA and DoD
program that provides information, benefits and services to
servicemembers who are within 60 to 180 days of separation from service
and who wish to file a claim for VA benefits. At least 60 days of
remaining active-duty time is needed to process a servicemember for
effective BDD. Major requirements of the program, such as the physical
examination necessary to determine entitlement to VA pension or
compensation, present significant logistical difficulties if sufficient
time is not available. Although the BDD program is available to all
servicemembers on active duty, including National Guard or Reserve
members, as well as servicemembers undergoing medical evaluation board
of physical evaluation board proceedings, most mobilized National Guard
and Reserve members are released from active duty shortly after they
return from deployment. Because such members are eager to return to
their families and civilian lives, they are quickly processed through
demobilization sites, released from active duty, and returned to their
respective Reserve or National Guard command. Thus, there is not
sufficient time to accomplish BDD processing before they are released
from active duty.
In addition, all benefits claims from servicemembers who have
participated in the Global War on Terrorism, to include Operation
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, receive priority
handling. This includes servicemembers from the Guard and Reserve.
These cases are permanently tagged to reflect priority status and are
processed expeditiously. However, veterans who require case management,
such as those who have sustained a serious injury or illness or have
lost a body part, do not participate in the BDD program.
There are no costs associated with this bill because National Guard
and Reserve members are already provided services at demobilization.
H.R. 1824
Section 1 of H.R. 1824 would amend title 38, United States Code, to
expand the scope of programs of education for which accelerated
payments of Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) educational assistance may be
used, to include programs that lead to employment as an operator of a
commercial motor vehicle (as defined in Section 31301 of title 49,
United States Code).
Under current Section 3014A of title 38, an MGIB-Active Duty
participant pursuing high-cost courses leading to employment in a high
technology occupation in a high technology industry has the option of
receiving an accelerated benefit payment. This optional lump-sum
accelerated benefit payment covers up to 60 percent of tuition and
fees. Enactment of H.R. 1824 would lead to a slight increase in the
number of trainees enrolled in courses within the Heavy Equipment
Operation industry, which includes commercial driver training.
Section 2 of the bill would amend Section 3015 of title 38 by
adding a new subsection (h), to provide specifically that benefit
payments received by an individual under the MGIB-Active Duty program
shall not be considered as income for purposes of determining
eligibility of that individual for education grants or loans under any
other provision of Federal law.
The purpose of the existing accelerated payment authority is to
facilitate training and promote employment in high technology
occupations in high technology industry based on a demonstrated
national need for a highly trained and highly skilled workforce in that
sector of the economy. This bill would constitute a departure from that
purpose. We are not aware, however, that a similar need exists for
providing accelerated payment for the proposed commercial driver
training or that a basis exists to do so to the exclusion of other non-
high technology, high-cost programs. Absent such a demonstrated need,
as well as identification of cost savings to offset the cost of the
proposed accelerated payment provision expansion, we cannot support
H.R. 1824. Further, we note that this bill's provision excluding
benefits payable under the MGIB from consideration as income for
purposes of determining eligibility for education grants or loans is
unnecessary since these benefits are not currently counted as income
for such purposes.
We estimate that enactment of the H.R. 1824 provisions expanding
accelerated payment entitlement would result in a benefit cost increase
of $578,000 in the first year and approximately $6.1 million over 10
years.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the
Administration's program.
Sincerely yours,
Gordon H. Mansfield
Acting Secretary
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Washington, DC.
March 31, 2008
Hon. Bob Filner, Chairman
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This letter transmits the views of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) on H.R. 1370, the ``Disabled Veterans Sports and Special
Events Promotion Act of 2007,'' introduced in the House on March 7,
2007. This bill seeks to establish a new office within VA that would
carry out programs and events for participation by disabled veterans
and require the office to cooperate with the U.S. Olympic Committee
(USOC) and its subsidiaries to promote the participation of disabled
veterans in USOC sporting events. VA believes this legislation is
unnecessary because it duplicates existing offices and programs.
VA has an established Office of National Programs and Special
Events (ONPSE) that oversees highly successful and well-attended
national rehabilitative programs for disabled veterans. This office
already works with the USOC to help elite-level athletes compete in
their paralympic programs. ONPSE currently oversees four National
events--the National Disabled Veterans Winter Sports Clinic, National
Veterans Wheelchair Games, National Veterans Golden Age Games, and
National Veterans Creative Arts Festival, with a fifth pilot summer
sports clinic currently being developed for veterans with amputations,
traumatic brain injuries and burn injuries. The goals of these events
are to reach disabled veterans during their recovery from traumatic
injury or disease, introduce them to adaptive recreational activities,
and challenge them with activities that give them a sense of
accomplishment and enable them to redefine their capabilities. These
events are supported by veterans service organizations, and although
they are open to all disabled veterans who meet the eligibility
criteria, they are particularly geared toward first-time participants.
Each year, thousands of disabled veterans have the opportunity for
self-development through participation in these events.
By contrast, H.R. 1370 would require VA to enter into an agreement
with the USOC to provide support, including direct support, and
reimbursement (up to $2 million per fiscal year), for a program that
would benefit a small number of elite athletes. We estimate the costs
associated with enactment of this bill to be $2,250,000 for FY 2008 and
$22,500,000 over 10 years.
While we applaud the USOC 's efforts to bring more veterans into
their elite athlete competitions, that is not the primary purpose of
VA's rehabilitative events. For example, last year, 28 veterans
participated in USOC programs as opposed to over 1,500 veterans who
participated in VA National Rehabilitation Special Events. VA's
programs are designed to include veterans of all ages and levels of
impairment and aimed primarily at medical rehabilitation.
VA's goal is to introduce sports and recreation to disabled
veterans and make it a part of their daily lives. For those who rise to
elite athletic performance, our existing partnership with the USOC
allows them to take their training to the next level through the USOC
paralympic program. For the above reasons, VA opposes enactment of H.R.
1370.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that the transmission
of this views letter is in accord with the President's program.
Sincerely yours,
James B. Peake, M.D.
Secretary