[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4883, H.R. 4884,
H.R. 4889, H.R. 4539, H.R. 3646, H.R. 5664,
H.R. 3798, H.R. 3393, H.R. 3298, H.R. 3467,
H.R. 3889, H.R. 3681 AND H.R. 5684
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 16, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-83
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-049 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 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) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
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 HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
Dakota Carolina
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona JEFF MILLER, Florida
JOHN J. HALL, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
PHIL HARE, Illinois GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California VACANT
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 JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JOHN J. HALL, New York VACANT
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
__________
April 16, 2008
Page
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 4883, H.R. 4884, H.R. 4889, H.R.
4539, H.R. 3646, H.R. 5664, H.R. 3798, H.R. 3393, H.R. 3298,
H.R. 3467, H.R. 3889, H.R. 3681 and H.R. 5684.................. 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin............................. 1
Prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin............. 47
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member, prepared statement
of............................................................. 48
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Labor, Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella, Assistant
Secretary, Veterans' Employment and Training Service........... 38
Prepared statement of Hon. Ciccolella........................ 82
U.S. Department of Defense:
Thomas L. Bush, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Reserve Affairs........................................ 39
Curtis L. Gilroy, Ph.D., Director for Accession Policy,
Military Personnel Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness........................ 41
Prepared statement of Mr. Bush and Mr. Gilroy.......... 83
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Keith Pedigo, Associate
Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management,
Veterans Benefits Administration............................... 42
Prepared statement of Mr. Pedigo............................. 86
______
American Legion, Ronald F. Chamrin, Assistant Director, Economic
Commission..................................................... 20
Prepared statement of Mr. Chamrin............................ 62
Buyer, Hon. Steve, Ranking Republican Member, Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, and a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana............................................... 4
Prepared statement of Congressman Buyer...................... 49
Davis, Hon. Artur, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Alabama........................................................ 16
Prepared statement of Congressman Davis...................... 57
Filner, Hon. Bob, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and a
Representative in Congress from the State of California........ 3
Prepared statement of Congressman Filner..................... 48
Hayes, Hon. Robin, a Representative in Congress from the State of
North Carolina................................................. 14
Prepared statement of Congressman Hayes...................... 53
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Patrick Campbell,
Legislative Director........................................... 26
Prepared statement of Mr. Campbell........................... 72
Military Officers Association of America, Colonel Robert F.
Norton, USA (Ret.), Deputy Director, Government Relations...... 27
Prepared statement of Colonel Norton......................... 78
Murphy, Hon. Patrick J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania.......................................... 17
Prepared statement of Congressman Murphy..................... 59
Paralyzed Veterans of America, Richard Daley, Associate
Legislation Director........................................... 23
Prepared statement of Mr. Daley.............................. 69
Rodriguez, Hon. Ciro D., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas................................................. 9
Prepared statement of Congressman Rodriguez.................. 50
Stearns, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida..................................................... 10
Prepared statement of Congressman Stearns.................... 51
Yarmuth, Hon. John A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Kentucky.............................................. 12
Prepared statement of Congressman Yarmuth.................... 52
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Justin Brown,
Legislative Associate, National Legislative Service............ 22
Prepared statement of Mr. Brown.............................. 66
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
CTIA--The Wireless Association, Jot D. Carpenter, Jr., Vice
President, Government Affairs, letter.......................... 93
Disabled American Veterans, Kerry Baker, Associate National
Legislative Director, statement................................ 95
National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Kyle
McSlarrow, President and Chief Executive Officer, letter....... 96
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Letters:
Hon. Steve Buyer, Ranking Republican Member, and Hon. Michael
Michaud, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, to Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S.
House of Representatives, letter dated January 28, 2008,
Regarding the Stimulus Package [An identical letter was sent to
Hon. John Boehner, Minority Leader, U.S. House of
Representatives.].............................................. 97
Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record:
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Patrick Campbell, Legislative Director, Iraq and Afghanistan
Veterans of America, letter dated April 30, 2008, Mr.
Campbell's responses........................................... 98
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to Hon.
Charles S. Ciccolella, Assistant Secretary, Veterans'
Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor,
letter dated April 30, 2008, and response letter dated June 23,
2008........................................................... 100
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to Curtis
L. Gilroy, Ph.D., Director for Accession Policy, Military
Personnel Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense, letter
dated April 16, 2008, and DoD responses........................ 101
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to Keith
Pedigo, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program
Management, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs, letter dated April 16, 2008, and VA
responses...................................................... 103
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4883, H.R. 4884,
H.R. 4889, H.R. 4539, H.R. 3646, H.R. 5664,
H.R. 3798, H.R. 3393, H.R. 3298, H.R. 3467,
H.R. 3889, H.R. 3681 AND H.R. 5684
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:00 p.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Herseth
Sandlin [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Herseth Sandlin, Donnelly, Hall,
Boozman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN 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 those of you that monitor this Committee's activities
more closely, you know it is a bipartisan Subcommittee.
The Ranking Member has a number of other responsibilities
today in other Committees as well as on the floor and he has
asked me to begin the Subcommittee hearing in his absence. He
will join us as soon as possible.
I would also like to ask unanimous consent to allow Counsel
to pose questions to the witnesses on the third and fourth
panels. Seeing no objection, so ordered.
I would also like to call attention to the fact that the
Cellular Telephone Industry Association, the Wireless
Association, and the Disabled American Veterans have asked to
submit written statements for the hearing record. If there is
no objection, I ask for unanimous consent that their statements
be entered for the record. Hearing no objection, so entered.
Today we have 13 bills before us that seek to protect our
Nation's veterans from possible foreclosure and financial
burdens incurred while serving one's country, update U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) housing construction
guidelines, expand education programs while meeting the current
retention needs of the Armed Forces, strengthen employment and
reemployment rights for returning servicemembers, veterans, and
minimize recidivism among incarcerated veterans.
According to a Congressional Research Service report
updated January 25th, 2008: ``The original GI Bill provided up
to $500 annually for education expenses. This is the equivalent
of an estimated $5,890 in 2007 dollars. An additional $50 was
provided monthly for living expenses in 1944, which is
equivalent to $589 monthly or $5,301 annually in 2007 dollars.
Thus, the total education benefit including the living
allowance in 1944 would have been worth $11,191 annually or
$1,243 monthly in 2007 dollars.''
Keeping this historical perspective in mind, I, along with
Ranking Member Boozman, have introduced H.R. 5684, the
``Veterans Education Improvement Act,'' which seeks to address
the educational needs of our brave men and women in uniform.
This bipartisan bill is the product of numerous hearings
held by our Subcommittee since the beginning of the 110th
Congress which allowed for close evaluation of the Montgomery
GI Bill and input from Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs),
education leaders, government agencies, and other policy
experts.
H.R. 5684 would help address current Montgomery GI Bill
(MGIB) shortfalls along with other important improvements
including substantially increasing the amount of basic
education assistance for veterans equal to the average cost of
the tuition at a 4-year public college or university, provides
veterans with a monthly cost-of-living stipend, extends the
time limitation for use of education benefits from 10 years to
15 years, and more fully accommodating the transition from
military to civilian life.
I would like to add that H.R. 5684 includes unique
provisions that allow the overall assistance to be used for
business courses, preparatory courses for exams, and to repay
Federal student loans. It dramatically expands the opportunity
for servicemembers to enroll for the benefits even if they are
beyond the initial opportunity for automatic enrollment,
provides increased funding for state approving agencies, an
important partner in administering the benefits with the VA,
rewards veterans for their service by eliminating their
educational entitlements from being considered as income when
applying for Federal financial aid. It also increases on-the-
job training and dependent education benefit to 85 percent,
supplements reporting fees given to colleges and universities,
creates a 5-year pilot program to expand work study programs
for veterans, increases the VA's full-time employees by 150 to
help administer the new requirements, provides funding for
updating existing IT systems, and rearranges the advance pay
process to prevent any breaks in benefits.
H.R. 5684, one of the many bills we are considering today,
provides specific improvements and adjustments meant to make it
easier, not harder, for veterans to access the education
benefits they have earned following their service and
contributes to the overall national economy.
In addition, this bill will make changes with minimal
disruption of the current VA information technology (IT) system
and to the beneficiaries.
The ``Veterans Education Improvement Act'' is a well-
crafted bill that provides the VA the resources to administer
the new changes, to update and improve the MGIB to better
reflect today's world, and ensure that today's veterans have
the resources they need to continue or begin their education
when they return from service.
I appreciate the support of many of today's witnesses for
this bill that addresses necessary changes to veterans
education benefits. I look forward to working with Ranking
Member Boozman and other Members of the Committee to continue
to improve education entitlements for the veterans that we
serve.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin
appears on p. 47.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Joining us today and seated at the
dais is Chairman Bob Filner, and Ranking Member Steve Buyer.
And also joining us on the first panel is the Honorable Ciro
Rodriguez, all of whom are distinguished Members of the
Committee. All of their written statements will be entered into
the hearing record. We will begin with Chairman Filner.
Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENTS OF HON. BOB FILNER, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS'
AFFAIRS, AND A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA; HON. STEVE BUYER, RANKING REPUBLICAN MEMBER,
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS, AND A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA; HON. CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS; AND HON.
CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
FLORIDA
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB FILNER
Mr. Filner. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and we appreciate
your leadership in this Congress.
Because of your leadership, I think this Congress will soon
be taking up a GI Bill for the 21st century that updates the
educational benefits as you have proposed, looks at the housing
program I will speak to today, and also allows the Guard and
Reserve units to participate in the GI Bill to a much greater
extent than they are currently allowed.
I believe we are moving along in a major effort to do
something that had such an impact on our society in 1944, the
original GI Bill.
Let me just talk about another part of that original bill
and that is the Home Loan Program that so many of the veterans
after World War II were able to take advantage of.
In a meeting in my district, we heard from active-duty
service men and women veterans, VA experts, mortgage brokers
and lenders from the area. Based on that meeting, we saw the
program being irrelevant, not only to the current crisis, but
before then in terms of its loan values, equity requirements,
refinancing caps, and fees that are imposed. We want to update
the program to make it relevant to the veteran today.
One bill that I want to make sure we take quick action on
is H.R. 4883, which prevents foreclosure on active-duty
personnel. We have had anecdotal testimony of young people
coming back and finding that they were, going to lose their
home soon after their tour of duty was over. That is
unacceptable. Active-duty servicemembers should not have to
face that consequence. What we have done in H.R. 4883 is
prevent any foreclosure for at least a year after they return
from active duty.
H.R. 4884, another bill introduced, is sort of a complement
to your bill that you just described in terms of updating the
Home Loan Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It
increases the maximum home loan guaranty to $715,000, decreases
the equity requirements to refinance a home loan, requires the
VA Secretary to review and streamline the process of using a
guaranteed home loan to purchase a condominium. Right now
condominiums are subject to a great deal of regulation and red
tape and it is hard to finance a condominium through the VA
Home Loan Program.
In addition, we want to reduce the home loan refinancing
fees to 1 percent, extend the adjustable rate mortgage
demonstration program to the year 2018, extend the so-called
hybrid adjustable rate mortgage demonstration project to 2012,
and provide a yearly adjustment of the VA home loan to match
the consumer price index.
There are many people in my district, around the country,
who are facing the prospect of foreclosures and the value of
their home falling. They are not able, given the restrictions
of the VA program, to use that at all, no matter what their
situation is or what they may be qualified for they are not
able to make use of a program that was meant to give them some
loan guarantees.
What we do in H.R. 4884 is to make that possible for
veterans in the situation that they find themselves today, but
even without the crisis, to make it fit the 21st century.
In addition, I have another bill, H.R. 4889, to recodify
the so-called REAP Program, the Reserve Education Assistance
Program, entitlements that provide now up to 36 months of
education benefits to certain members of the Reserve forces who
were called on or ordered to active-duty service in response to
war and national emergency.
Without going into details now, it allows for far more
flexibility, support, and help for those in the Reserve who
have given so much of their life and time on active duty.
I look forward to working with you. I thank you for your
leadership and bringing all these bills up for consideration
today.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Filner appears on
p. 48.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
your leadership in introducing a number of those bills,
particularly as they relate to veterans' housing, and your
support of our efforts here on the Subcommittee to address all
of the issues within our jurisdiction, but most recently
veterans' education.
I would now like to recognize our distinguished Ranking
Member, Mr. Buyer.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE BUYER
Mr. Buyer. Thank you.
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman, I am
very pleased that you have included my bill, H.R. 4539, the
``Department of Veterans Affairs Loan Guaranty Cost Reduction
Act of 2007,'' for the Subcommittee's consideration.
When this bill was introduced last December, the full
extent of the mortgage and financial sector crisis had not yet
appeared and, frankly, this bill was intended to improve the
day-to-day operations of the Loan Guaranty Program. But events
since we introduced H.R. 4539 have convinced me of the need to
make the kind of changes included in my bill.
I recognize that Chairman Filner has a similar bill, H.R.
4884, and I take that similarity as a confirmation of the need
to improve the Loan Guaranty Program. I believe that between
us, veterans will find it easier to achieve the American dream.
I would ask unanimous consent to include in the record a
copy of the January 28, 2008, letter co-signed by Mr. Mike
Michaud and I that sent to Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner
regarding the need to include the VA Loan Guaranty Program in
the recent stimulus package in the hearing record.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Seeing no objection, so ordered.
[The letter to Speaker Pelosi appears on p. 97. An
identical letter was sent to Leader Boehner and will not be
reprinted.]
Mr. Buyer. In the letter, Madam Chairwoman, what Mr.
Michaud and I were asking to do was that as the Freddie Mac
rate was increased to the limit of $720,000, the FHA loan
limits be matched to the VA, yet the VA was excluded from the
stimulus package. And Mr. Michaud and I sent that letter to the
Speaker and Mr. Boehner.
At the time when I had spoken to Mr. Boehner, he and the
Speaker basically had an agreement. A lot of amendments and
requests came to them and they made the judgment that the
agreement that they struck with the President, that they would
hold to it.
And as painful as a lot of the corrections and the fixes
that they were learning were, they held on tight to their
agreement. And to me, it is sort of what can happen if you do
not allow the Committee to do its work. If somebody writes a
bill under the pressure of the moment, mistakes can happen.
Now, I had made a request to Chairman Filner to do a
stimulus fix under suspension. He had declined to do that,
Madam Chairwoman. And, frankly, I am not upset over that
because you are doing your due diligence. So he has a bill. I
have a bill. You have some ideas. Mr. Boozman has some ideas.
And I think we are at a moment here where we are going to have
a good meeting of the minds.
The stimulus package says 125 percent of the area median
price of a home as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development not to exceed 175 percent of the Fannie/
Freddie conforming limit of $417,000, which is $729,750.
So when you look at the loan limits that Mike Michaud and I
had included in our bill, when you look at the loan limits that
the Chairman included in his, they do not even match the
stimulus.
So if we really want to do this, we really should match it
to the stimulus fix and then you can come in and look at some
of the improvements that we have done in the bill.
I guess my counsel to you, Madam Chairwoman, is you can
take the best out of proposals, some that Mr. Michaud and I
have done, some that the Chairman has done, some
recommendations that we are going to hear today, and we will
give great deference to your leadership.
What we had sought to do in the bill, H.R. 4539, beyond
this increase now, was increase the maximum loan amount
guaranteed by VA to 125 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming
limit, and we believe that this would enable the servicemembers
and the veterans living in the high-cost areas to purchase
homes using the VA Loan Guaranty Program.
This goes right at the heart of the issue that Mr. Filner
was talking about when he held this hearing out there with
regard to San Diego being one of the highest cost-of-living
index in the country. The pain of access to affordable housing
that he has is much different than I have in rural Indiana and
that you have in the Dakotas. And we are most hopeful that this
would help address these issues.
What we also sought to do here is the intent with regard to
the President, the Speaker, and Leader Boehner in increasing
the FHA loan limits when you have individuals who are in
subprime loans was to be able to move them into the Federal
guaranteed loans. Well, do not leave veterans out of the
equation. And you and I have had that personal conversation.
And we also seek to extend some of the fees through 2017.
These fees provide the funds the VA needs to pay for the
guaranty on homes that go into foreclosure. These fees have
also provided PAYGO offsets for improvements to VA benefits.
We also seek to increase the guaranty amount for certain
refinanced loans by making VA refinancing more attractive and
competitive in the marketplace.
The Michaud/Buyer bill also reduces the equity requirement
for a VA guaranteed refinancing loan to zero. This is
especially important for those servicemembers and veterans
whose home equity has decreased solely because of the current
market forces despite the fact that they are not behind on
their mortgage payments.
We also want to make loans more affordable in the high-cost
areas. The legislation would limit the total loan guaranty fees
to the maximum dollar amounts in effect on the day of
enactment.
Also, to encourage an increase in the supply of affordable
housing, H.R. 4539 would increase the guaranty amount of 30
percent of the mortgage.
And, finally, this legislation would require the Secretary
to provide a small measure of assistance in offsetting closing
costs associated with the purchase of a home. The Secretary
would determine the amount based on the income of guaranteed
fees in the previous year.
Madam Chairwoman, as you know, in regards to your comments
on the GI Bill, H.R. 5684, I mention this because it is a good
bill and you have worked with our side of the aisle in a
bipartisan manner. And there are a few changes that I feel are
important.
I believe that the train is moving quickly and there is not
a lot of time here in this Congress. So for this restructuring
here with regard to VA education programs, the question is
whether it is feasible to do it in a comprehensive fashion? It
may not be comprehensively. And I note you are trying a major
incremental movement.
I am in the process of drafting an extension and
reorganization of Chapters 30, 32, 34, 35, and 36 into one or
two chapters to standardize the administrative rules and
education and training options to those receiving education
benefits.
I hope that we can work together on this approach to bring
some order to these programs in the not too distant future.
Madam Chairwoman, I want to thank you for your bipartisan
manner in which you have included H.R. 4539 and several other
bills from our side of the aisle in today's hearing.
I would also end with this remark, that the issue with
regard to Guard and Reserve is not in your bill. I know the
Chairman had made comments as though it is in the bill. And I
think what that does is it puts the Chairman and I in
agreement, and I know you also have been a very strong advocate
of the Guard and Reserve.
And we do not want to do anything that would exasperate the
gap. So as we work on the improvements with regard to the
active duty, if, in fact, we have a moment in time, we should
capture it. And I want to work with you to do that, whether it
is to do only that which is within our jurisdiction or we try
to add that and we have a joint referral with the Armed
Services Committee. We will work with Dr. Snyder.
I think if we are going to move, and you have the sincerity
to make this major move, I want to join with you and do
everything I can with Mr. Filner or anybody else on the
Committee to satisfy equity and fairness with regard to the
Guard and Reserve.
Now, there is going to be a price. It will come with
mandatory funding. I will speak with Mr. Boehner. I will speak
with the Budget Committee on our side. You will not find
opposition from my side of the aisle with regard to a mandatory
fix, if we take what you are doing and we do the equity fix in
Guard and Reserve and working with the Armed Services
Committee, I believe that when individuals of good will share
sentimentalities, that it is a prescription for success.
And that is what I have always felt in all the work I have
ever done with you. And that is where I want to proceed in
this.
With that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Buyer appears on
p. 49.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I thank the Ranking Member, and I will
just make a couple of remarks before recognizing our colleagues
on the first panel for their testimony.
I appreciate the words of the Ranking Member and I
appreciate the leadership that you and Mr. Michaud demonstrated
as the train was moving quickly a few months ago in putting a
stimulus package together.
I know that since our conversation that I have spoken with
leadership, both on the Financial Services Committee with
jurisdiction as well as with leadership on our side of the
aisle. I know that Chairman Filner has done the same, because
of our desire to want to look at another vehicle to make that
fix, if indeed there is another stimulus or other strategy or
avenue that we are looking at to continue to grapple with the
crisis that we are seeing in housing, not only how veterans are
affected but other constituents with whom we work and who we
serve.
As it relates to veterans' education, again, your words are
appreciated. You are right. Mr. Boozman and I have worked hard
when he was the Chairman of the Subcommittee and when I was
Ranking Member and in this Congress to address the issues of
equity for National Guard men and women and Reservists.
The purpose of the bill that we introduced in a bipartisan
way purposely did not include those provisions, although I
believe Chairman Filner may have been referring to work that I
have been undertaking with Counsel to work and fashion a
separate bill for Guard and Reservists that would be entirely
within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee.
We wanted to avoid joint referral for a number of reasons
as it related to increasing basic pay, the basic benefit in the
Montgomery GI Bill, as well as include a number of the very
unique provisions that our bill includes that we uncovered
during the series of hearings that we have had with this
Subcommittee.
I certainly share your sentiment and I think all of us do
on the Subcommittee as well as our colleagues on the full
Committee, of trying to undertake something in a more
comprehensive way, if that is going to be possible. We want to
make sure that, depending on which track the train is on, we
have a lot of different options on the table.
If the comprehensive approach is indeed the track we are
on, then I think we are all in agreement that we want to make
sure your efforts, as well as other efforts of those on the
Subcommittee, are brought together. I know we will all work in
good faith with the leadership on the respective sides to do
that, based on our hard work here in the Veterans' Affairs
Committee.
However, I am not sure that is the track that we will be
on. I hope so. We have great working relationships with people
on the Armed Services Committee that undertook some of this
work even in the ``Defense Authorization Act'' of last year.
Again, I appreciate your sentiments. I know how hard you
have been working as it relates to the comprehensive fix and a
reorganization and how beneficial that could be to veterans and
their education benefits and the administration of those
benefits.
Again, I thank you.
Mr. Buyer. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Yes, I would.
Mr. Buyer. Then let us step off together and work, step off
together meaning off of the good work that was done in the last
Congress with regard to Dr. Snyder and John McHugh.
So as we try to move the jurisdictional issues, right, and
as you are formulating your legislation, please work with our
staff and we will step off together because it will take the
leadership of Mr. Skelton and Mr. Hunter because this is
mandatory spending on their side. So it is going to take some
major movement.
So with that, I yield back. I thank the gentlelady for her
comments.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I thank you.
Mr. Boozman, would you like to be recognized?
Mr. Boozman. I want to apologize.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. We have all been saying such great
things about you.
Mr. Boozman. Well, I apologize. I am participating in the
``Clean Water Act,'' which is a very important thing. And so I
am just kind of running back and forth. The other Member of my
Committee is on the Farm Bill, so he is over doing that.
So, again, we appreciate you, Madam Chair, in working with
us. And I want to compliment the guys that are bringing some
very, very good legislation before the Committee. We have some
really good things to work with. And so thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Boozman appears on
p. 48.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
I would now like to recognize our distinguished colleagues
on the full Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. Rodriguez and Mr.
Stearns.
Mr. Rodriguez, we will start with you. You are recognized
for 5 minutes. Thank you for being here and thank you for
introducing the bill that we are considering today.
STATEMENT OF HON. CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you. Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, let
me personally thank you and the Subcommittee for giving me this
opportunity to speak to you regarding H.R. 5664, a bill that I
introduced to correct the bureaucratic oversight in the way
that the Veterans Administration advises contractors
constructing or renovating housing for disabled veterans.
I was extremely moved by last June's hearing and testimony
before this Subcommittee concerning specially adapted housing.
There is little doubt that funding levels available to the
individual disabled veterans to have their homes adjusted to
meet their needs is too low.
My bill does not address that particular issue. Rather, it
seeks to ensure that veterans whose homes are updated under
this program benefit from all of the modern technology and
construction practices that can be provided.
Mr. Gonsalves, President and Founder of Homes for Our
Troops, pointed out in the hearing that service men and women
with injuries that would have killed them in previous wars are
now living to see another day and are in need of truly special
home adaptations.
The primary guidance that the VA provides the contractors
who draw up the plans and specifications to modify homes under
this grant program is VA Pamphlet 2613, entitled ``Handbook for
Design, Specially Adapted Housing.''
As Mr. Carl Blake, the National Legislative Director of the
Paralyzed Veterans of America, pointed out, much, if not all,
of the guidance found in the pamphlet is still applicable
today. However, I feel, that it focuses too much on veterans
who find themselves in wheelchairs with lower extremities and
paralysis or amputations.
While certainly still valid, we find increased number of
veterans returning home from current conflicts with alternative
injuries such as upper limb amputations or blindness. The guide
was last updated in 1978. By comparison, the current Army Corps
of Engineers Housing Design Guide is dated 1994 and that of the
Air Force is 2004.
The time has come to ensure that the guide contains updated
directions to architect and engineering firms and contractors
who will do the noble work of ensuring our disabled veterans
have homes that respect the dignity of which they have
sacrificed.
I propose in my bill that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
update the guide at least on a 6-year basis.
I also wish to express my intent that the field agents who
approve the construction plans under this program view the
pamphlet as a guide rather than a definitive set of
requirements. It should be just looked at as a guide to help
out, not one that is a definitive set of requirements.
After consulting with several VSOs in preparing for this
testimony, I need to clarify the wording of the bill. Rather
than requiring the VA to update plans and specifications on a
6-year basis, it is better stated that the pamphlet itself is
updated every 6 years.
Contractors actually derive the plans and specifications
based on each veteran's home and the pamphlet. And I would hope
that if the Committee considers my bill in the future markup
that such language is made clear.
I want to thank you very much for this opportunity and just
indicate now that, we can make these homes much more adaptable.
We can, for example, allow additional electrical outlets, allow
for swinging doors, allowing for other types of, updates, based
on the individual handicaps or difficulties that they have in
getting around.
And so thank you, Madam, and I want to thank you once again
for allowing me this opportunity to present the bill.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Rodriguez appears on
p. 50.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you very much, Mr. Rodriguez.
Again, thank you for your leadership on this important issue on
veterans' housing.
Mr. Stearns, thank you, too, for introducing the bill that
we are considering today and look forward to hearing from you.
You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS
Mr. Stearns. Good afternoon, and thank you, Madam Chair,
for this opportunity to testify on my bill, H.R. 3646, the
``Veterans Effective Training Job Opportunities and Benefits
Act of 2007,'' or the ``VET Jobs Act.''
My colleagues, I think this bill is an important step in
helping our veterans gain gainful employment when retiring from
the service. When warriors return home from combat, they often
face an uphill battle. For many servicemembers, the transition
from active duty to veteran status and returning to a full,
meaningful civilian life is daunting and fraught with many
challenging obstacles and bureaucratic barriers.
Many times, these brave service men and women require job
training for entirely new careers. Although statistics show
that eventually veterans in general enjoy a favorable
employment in the Nation's job market, many veterans initially
find it difficult to compete successfully in the labor market.
That is why for over a decade, the Federal Government has
provided job training benefits to veterans through the
Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Labor.
The mission statement for the Department of Labor Veterans'
Employment and Training Service, VETS Program, is to, ``Provide
veterans and transitioning servicemembers with the resources
and services to succeed in the 21st century workforce by
maximizing their employment opportunities, protecting their
employment rights, and meeting labor market demands with
qualified veterans today.''
Additionally, the Department of Labor offers servicemembers
leaving the military with a service-connected disability the
Disabled Transition Assistance Program or DTAP. This includes a
3-day workshop, plus additional hours of individual instruction
to help determine their job readiness and address the special
needs of disabled veterans.
However, this is the identical DTAP Program offered to all
transitioning disabled veterans across the Nation. This 3-day
program provider valuable support, but it only provides general
employment information and at no time addresses the specific
needs of the community in which the veteran lives and serves.
Unfortunately, this means that frequently there is a void
of information on local labor market conditions that result in
veterans using their benefits to train for jobs that do not
exist in their own communities.
Mr. Jeffrey Askew, who is Director of the Marion County
Veterans Service Center in my hometown of Ocala, Florida, has
said many veterans have used their Federal job training
benefits for information technology--IT career training.
However, Ocala has little demand for IT professionals and
veterans are often advised to move to Orlando where there are
many more opportunities for them.
Upon finally getting settled back into civilian life, it is
frustrating and unfortunate to say the least to be forced to
uproot one more time and move your family to an unknown city.
I am concerned about this problem and I believe, my
colleagues, I have an easy solution. Currently there is a maze
of Web sites with confusing and sometimes out-of-date
information on employment conditions. My legislation would
provide better information to veterans on their local job
market needs.
The ``VET Job Act'' directs the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs and the Secretary of Labor to conduct a joint study on
the greatest employment needs in various job markets around the
United States and post the results on the VA web site. These
results would then be updated annually to reflect the current
and possible changing needs in the local job market.
With this tool, veterans could simply plug in their zip
code and see a list of the occupations that are in most demand
within their commuting area and subsequently use their Federal
job training most effectively.
The Department of Labor already has the infrastructure in
place for this kind of research, so this is a practical low-
cost solution. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has
unofficially scored this proposal as having insignificant cost,
insignificant cost for immeasurable benefit to our veterans.
Further, the ``VET Job Act'' has broad bipartisan support
and has been endorsed by many veterans' organizations including
the American Legion, the American Veterans (AMVETS), Veterans
of Foreign War of the United States, the Blinded Veterans of
America, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. In addition, my
bill has 44 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle.
So, Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify and allowing me this opportunity to talk about the
``VET Jobs Act'' and I look forward to working with you and the
Ranking Member on passing this bill.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Stearns appears on
p. 51.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Stearns, and thank you
for taking time out of your busy schedule to join us today to
speak about your important bill. Certainly the efforts that you
make on the full Committee and on other Subcommittees to
address employment needs and other needs to make the disruption
in their lives during that transition as small as possible.
Certainly Mr. Boozman and I have been working on this
Subcommittee to address some of the issues that you are trying
to get at in your bill. Again, we appreciate the introduction
of it and the opportunity to hear from you directly today.
Thank you.
I would now like to invite the second panel to the witness
table. Joining us on our second panel of witnesses are a set of
other colleagues and it includes the Honorable John Yarmuth,
the Honorable Robin Hayes, and the Honorable Artur Davis, as
well as the Honorable Patrick Murphy.
I welcome all of you gentlemen to our Subcommittee. As I
have done with the other witnesses, we thank you each for
introducing bills that we think get at the heart of the issues
that we have analyzed and explored throughout a number of
hearings in this Subcommittee.
We are pleased to have you here. Thank you for joining us.
I know the schedules can be unpredictable, but we look forward
to hearing directly from you.
I would like to go ahead and start with Mr. Yarmuth. You
are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF HON. JOHN A. YARMUTH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY; HON. ROBIN HAYES, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA;
HON. ARTUR DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF ALABAMA; AND HON. PATRICK J. MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. YARMUTH
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Members of the
Subcommittee. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to be here
today to discuss the ``Second Chance for America's Veterans
Act.''
As a small pilot program, the Incarcerated Veterans
Transitional Program or IVTP has reduced recidivism by 90
percent among participants and saved the taxpayers $1.6 million
in each of the six locations where it has been implemented over
the last 3 years.
We are here today because by expanding this tremendous
level of success to a national scale, we could provide hope for
thousands of men and women who return to civilian life after
years of serving their country.
In my hometown of Louisville, Kentucky, Richard Waddell
returned home 10-percent disabled and suffering from Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder, honorably discharged after 9 years
service in the National Guard, Army, and Marines. He had no
job, no support, and a family to feed. Out of desperation, he
turned to robbery and was apprehended by law enforcement while
buying groceries for his family.
Unfortunately to this point, Richard's story is far from
unusual among American's veterans. Where his story departs is
that when he was released from jail for the second time, he met
an IVTP representative. The IVTP worker first helped him with
the essentials, clothes, food, and transportation. And from
there, the dignity and respect that Richard had earned serving
our Nation returned.
Thanks to the help of IVTP, Richard was able to activate
his VA benefits and register for disability and he now has an
apartment and holds a good job. Next week, he will begin
college. And a future that once seemed bleak at best is now
bright and full of promise.
IVTP has similarly aided 328 veterans in Kentucky by
partnering veterans transitioning out of prison with a
professional mentoring staff composed of veterans to help them
get back on their feet. Of those 328, just 22 returned to
criminal activity after engaging in the program, a recidivism
rate of seven percent.
That number is impressive by any standard, but for a
veteran population that sees over half of its ranks return to
prison, the success of this program is extraordinary.
Abandoning this success and the men and women who served our
country would not only be counterproductive, but would also
send a message that our veterans only matter when our country
needs them and not when they need our country.
The ``Second Chance for American Veterans Act'' would
expand the highly successful IVTP pilot to a competitive grant
program in 24 locations across the United States. Providers
would assist veterans who are exiting the corrections system by
connecting them with transitional housing, employment services,
mental health and/or substance abuse services and other
community support.
After all that our veterans have given for this country,
providing them with such vital, effective, and proven services
should be an obligation, not an option. But this is not only
about giving or forgiving. This is also a matter of working for
our National interests.
In Kentucky, we have the most rapidly growing prison
population in the Nation, a fact that has had a devastating
effect on the fiscal reality of the commonwealth. To keep a
convict in prison for a year, Kentucky spends over $18,000. By
comparison, Volunteers of America, which currently administers
this program, spends between $700 and $1,200 to give a veteran
the tools to stay out of prison and contribute to society for a
lifetime.
At a time when we search to find new approaches to
stimulate the economy and get a handle on America's ever-
growing deficit, the ``Second Chance for Veterans Act'' offers
the opportunity to support a program with a proven track record
of providing immediate and substantial return on our investment
while also repaying a debt to those in uniform who sacrificed
to serve our country.
This is a unique win-win for government. Still, the
Department of Labor has chosen not to continue this highly
successful program and without action by Congress, thousands of
worthy veterans in need would be abandoned by the Nation they
served, left to bounce around our overcrowded prison system.
So I thank the Committee for looking into this legislation
and I strongly urge the Members to support passage of H.R.
3467, the ``Second Chance for America's Veterans Act.'' Thank
you, Madam Chairwoman.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Yarmuth appears on
p. 52.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Yarmuth.
Mr. Hayes, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBIN HAYES
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the
Subcommittee, Mr. Hall. Thanks for bringing wisdom to the
Subcommittee today.
Chairwoman Herseth and other Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to be here to address your
Subcommittee on an issue that impacts our National Guardsmen.
Today I am proud to stand before this Subcommittee in support
of a critical piece of legislation, ``National Guard Employment
Protection Act of 2007.''
As the Subcommittee is aware, the National Guard operations
tempo has increased exponentially since September 11th and the
Federal duties they have been charged with have created a
unique situation.
Previously, National Guard doing Federal missions were
called up under title 10 to active-duty status. The Global War
on Terror (GWOT) became increasingly apparent and there needed
to be a mechanism to allow the National Guard to perform
Federal missions in Title 32 status. It is obvious that good
staff work has helped put this together because this was
difficult to find. I thank Ms. Shirley for her effort.
It has become clear that unified State, Federal cooperative
employment of the National Guard provides a uniquely powerful
tool to address domestic security needs. Some examples of this
type of Federal Title 32 duty are air sovereignty, providing
air defense for our Nation, airport security, operations in
support of natural disasters, fighting wildfires, and border
security to name a few.
More and more often we see operations in which the Federal
Government provides the funds, the State Governors provide the
authority and control to execute operations to secure the
homeland.
This means that a greater number of National Guardsmen are
performing such duties, which unfortunately, are not covered
under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
Act (USERRA). Prior to September 11th, there were essentially
no operational missions conducted by the Guard under Title 32,
so there was no loophole in the protection afforded Guardsmen
for their Federal service.
To address the loophole, I along with Congresswoman
Madeleine Bordallo of Guam, introduced H.R. 3798, the
``Employment Act.'' The bill would amend the ``Uniform Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 1994,'' USERRA, to
authorize the Secretary of Defense to include full-time
National Guard duty for exemption from the USERRA 5-year limit
on service.
Passage of the legislation will ensure that National Guard
members are not forced to choose between keeping their civilian
jobs and serving our Nation.
Since USERRA already authorizes exemptions for service
supporting critical active-duty missions, this amendment would
simply correct a disparity in the treatment of National Guard
members.
It is essential that we make sure all our Nation's heroes
are given adequate opportunity to support Federal missions
without it affecting their civilian job. The Guard has
increasingly been called on since September 11th. North
Carolina has been one of the highest mobilization rates at over
97 percent.
Whether protecting our skies, saving lives in national
disasters, enhancing security, there is no doubt that the Guard
is an essential part of the total force. America's Guardsmen
should never be put in a position where they are forced to
choose to support a critical mission or to protect their
civilian jobs.
Seven years into fighting the Global War on Terror, we are
starting to see a small but increasing number of Guardsmen
bumping up against their 5-year USERRA protection. According to
statistics provided by the Guard Bureau, since September 11th,
6,984 of our soldiers have been called up to perform Federal
missions under Title 32. Currently, 1,719 Guardsmen are
performing duty under Title 32 orders.
Air Guard has especially been impacted, particularly those
airmen performing air sovereignty alert missions. They are by
no means alone in their situations. This loophole affects the
entire National Guard.
If the ``Guard Employment Protection Act'' is not passed,
National Guardsmen may be forced again to choose between their
jobs and serving the Nation. Unfortunately, this is already
starting to occur. The problem would get worse as we near the
current USERRA 5-year protection limit.
The Guard is performing critical missions under Article 32.
We need to close this loophole. Legislation is fully supported
by the Enlisted Guard Association and the United States
National Guard Association. I believe they are in the room
today. They have included their letters of endorsement for the
record.
[The letters are attached to Congressman Hayes prepared
statement, which appears on p. 53.]
The Bureau and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) also favor
the closing of the loophole to protect the Guardsmen. Citizen
soldiers fight to protect our Nation and our freedom. The very
least we can do is protect their right to serve and retain
their livelihood for themselves and their families.
Thank you very much for your serious consideration of this
Act. I know all the Members of the Subcommittee obviously share
my commitment to the Guard and strongly urge passage of the
legislation. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Hayes appears on
p. 53.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Hayes.
Mr. Davis, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. ARTUR DAVIS
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, and thank
you, Mr. Hall. Good to see you as well.
Now, let me begin by thanking the Chairwoman for her
leadership since she came to the Congress 4 years ago on these
issues. It is much appreciated.
Let me thank the Committee for giving me an opportunity to
testify today on the ``Reservist Access to Justice Act,'' H.R.
3393. I am proud to co-sponsor this legislation which deals
with the employment rates of our Guards and Reservists.
I am happy to cosponsor this bill with Jason Altmire from
Pennsylvania whose district has one of the highest percentages
of Guards and Reservists serving in the country and with Tim
Walz from Minnesota who is the highest Ranking Member of the
Guard serving in the U.S. Congress right now.
It would be inconceivable, Madam Chairwoman, to think, any
single one of us, that any employer in this country would
terminate someone because he or she served America. It would be
inconceivable to any of us in this room that any employer in
this country would decline to promote someone or cause someone
to suffer an adverse condition of employment because he or she
served this country.
But as inconceivable as it is to us, as illegal as it is
under current law, it happens. Let me give the Committee some
numbers to put this in perspective.
Between October 1st, 1996, and June 30th, 2005, 10,061
complaints were filed with the Department of Labor by Guards
and Reservists alleging that, exactly what I just described,
happened to them at places of businesses around this country.
About 70 percent of individuals who believe they experience
discrimination, actually did not even file a lawsuit, were not
aware of their protections under the law, or the law was so
weak that it was not worth their while or worth the while of
counsel. We do have a Federal statute. Mr. Hayes referenced it.
It is called USERRA. It is a good statute, but in many ways, it
does not have teeth.
Guards and Reservists who file suit under this statute are
doomed to a second-class kind of litigation status. They are
limited substantially in the damages they can collect. If a
judge finds that they have been fired because of their status
as a Guard or Reservist, right now the judge does not have the
authority to even put them back at work. They cannot get
punitive damages as many individuals do who sue after being
wrongfully discriminated against and they face a variety of
other procedural hurdles.
Well, this bill, H.R. 3393, seeks to give us the USERRA
that our country deserves and that our Guardsmen and Reservists
deserve. Let me outline some of its specific provisions.
Importantly, this bill would expand the availability of the
damages that are available. Without getting into too much
technical lawyer talk today, right now Guard and Reserve
members often cannot get compensatory damages. Only in limited
circumstances can they get those damages. This bill would make
those damages automatic unless an employer can show a good
faith reliance on the law that would bring Guards and
Reservists in line with all of the kinds of employment
litigants around the country.
Our bill would provide for punitive damages in the worst
and most egregious cases of discrimination. That is what the
law normally provides. When African Americans or women or other
individuals believe that they have been discriminated against
because of their status and their employer is an especially bad
case offender, they can get punitive damages. This bill would
allow the same opportunity for Guards and Reservists.
This bill would hold State governments accountable. It
might amaze us that any entity funded by taxpayers would
practice discrimination against our citizen soldiers, but some
do for various reasons. Right now they are exempt from USERRA.
We would hold them accountable.
We also would allow plaintiffs when they win these cases to
get attorneys' fees. As the lawyers in the room recognize as a
practical matter, it is tough to get good lawyers to bring
employment discrimination cases unless they know they will have
a chance to recover the cost of their labor because sometimes
the damage awards are not great enough to compensate them.
I end simply by saying this. There have been 600,000
individuals who have been called up to serve this country since
we were attacked on September 11th. At one point in 2005,
nearly 50 percent of the soldiers in theater were members of
the Guard and Reserve. Sometimes the numbers have even gone
higher than that.
These individuals who constitute the best citizen soldier
force on God's Earth deserve the strongest level of protection
we can give them and they ought not be second-class litigants
in any court.
And I thank the Committee for its consideration.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Davis appears on
p. 57.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Murphy, welcome to the Subcommittee. You are recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. MURPHY
Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much, Ms. Chairwoman. I would
like to thank you, Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member
Boozman, and also Congressman Hall, for holding this hearing
and giving me an opportunity to speak on behalf of my bill,
H.R. 3298, the ``21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act.''
I would also like to thank the Members of the Committee
staff for your continued great work.
I would also like to ask the Committee again to grant
permission for letters of support for this bill written by the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Association of the United States
Army, the Military Officers Association of America, the Fleet
Reserves Association, and the National Guard Association of the
United States be entered into the record.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The letters are attached to Congressman Murphy's prepared
statement, which appears on p. 59.]
Mr. Murphy. Soon after my election to Congress, a friend of
mine, Captain John Gross, a Judge Advocate General (JAG)
attorney who does legal assistance work with the 101st Airborne
Division, the Screaming Eagles, contacted me to let me know
about a growing problem that many deployed servicemembers are
currently facing.
He explained to me that many of the soldiers he worked with
have had their credit reports damaged during their deployment
over issues concerning their contracts with cellular telephone
or Internet service providers. This JAG attorney was able to
put one of his own contracts on hold during his deployment, but
to do so, he was forced to pay a costly fee.
Looking into this further, I also discovered that some
financial institutions were slow or unwilling to reduce
servicemembers' interest rates during their deployment even
though these creditors are already required to do so by law.
I learned that when servicemembers and their families ran
into problems with service providers and creditors, they not
only had to deal with the strain of deployment, but also faced
repeated harassment by collection agencies.
We owe the men and women of our Armed Forces better than
this. For decades, the ``Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief
Act'' and its successor, the ``Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act,'' (SCRA) have provided crucial financial protection for
soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Guardsmen.
As we continue to send a new generation of servicemembers
into harm's way, it is our obligation as Members of Congress to
update and modernize SCRA for today's troops.
The ``21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act'' expands
the SCRA to cover service contracts such as cell phones,
utilities, cable television, or internet access. Similar to
provisions that currently exist for residential and automobile
leases, this legislation will allow troops with deployment
orders to more easily terminate or suspend their service
contract without fee or penalty.
Currently creditors who knowingly or negligently fail to
reduce interest rates upon notification from a soldier with
deployment orders face no specific penalty.
Another provision of my bill would add a penalty to those
creditors who refuse to reduce interest rates after they are
already required to do so under SCRA.
As a veteran of the United States Army and the War in Iraq,
I know how important it is that our troops be able to focus on
accomplishing their mission and coming home safely without
worry about their credit rating or whether bill collectors are
harassing their families.
Since this bill's introduction, my staff and I have worked
with the industries that will be affected by this legislation.
In doing so, we have developed compromised language that I
believe maintains the intent of the bill as introduced while
alleviating the concerns of the companies that will be affected
by the passage of this legislation.
Notably we have adjusted the penalties to remove
imprisonment and made the size of any civil damages more
reasonably tied to the size of the violation. It is with great
hope that the Committee will adopt this revised language when
the bill moves to markup.
We realize that there will still be a few adjustments that
could be made to the language of the bill and my staff and I
are eager to work with the Committee and do what it takes to
get these protections enacted into law as soon as possible.
This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is about
doing what is right for our troops.
With that, I would like to again thank you, Madam Chairman,
and the Ranking Member, as well as Congressman Hall for giving
me the opportunity to speak today, and I am happy to answer any
questions that you may have. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Murphy appears on
p. 59.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Murphy, for your
military service to the country and for introducing this
important bill.
I want to thank all three of you for taking the time to
testify here. We have appreciated your insights and we
appreciate your hard work and dedication to our Nation's
veterans.
Mr. Murphy. Thanks, ma'am. Ma'am, I would like to note on
the record, I see Congressman Hayes' watch of the 82nd Airborne
Division. I mentioned the 101st Screaming Eagles. That is the
second best airborne unit in the entire world following behind
the great all-American division of the 82nd Airborne.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Very good. Thank you, gentlemen.
I would now like to invite panel three to the witness
table. Joining us on our third panel of witnesses today, we
have Mr. Ronald Chamrin, Assistant Director of the Economic
Commission for the American Legion; Mr. Justin Brown,
Legislative Associate of National Legislative Service for the
Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) of the United States; Mr.
Richard Daley, Associate Legislation Director for the Paralyzed
Veterans of America (PVA); Mr. Patrick Campbell, Legislative
Director for the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
(IAVA); and Colonel Robert Norton, Deputy Director of
Government Relations for the Military Officers Association of
America (MOAA).
Gentlemen, welcome to the Subcommittee. We are not sure
when the next set of votes will be called, but we do have
another panel after you. In the interest of time and respect to
all the panelists today, I would like to ask you to limit your
testimony to 5 minutes.
I know that we have a lot of bills under consideration here
and so that may be difficult, but your entire written statement
has been entered into the Committee record.
Mr. Chamrin, we will begin with you and you always get us
off to a right start in keeping to your 5 minutes, so you are
recognized.
STATEMENTS OF RONALD F. CHAMRIN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC
COMMISSION, AMERICAN LEGION; JUSTIN BROWN, LEGISLATIVE
ASSOCIATE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN
WARS OF THE UNITED STATES; RICHARD DALEY, ASSOCIATE LEGISLATION
DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA; PATRICK CAMPBELL,
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA;
AND COLONEL ROBERT F. NORTON, USA (RET.), DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
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 pending legislation before the
Subcommittee today.
America needs a historic investment in the educational
future of this Nation's veterans.
When the American Legion wrote the first draft of the
``Servicemen's Readjustment Act 1944,'' it changed the course
of American history. A generation of heroes was able to join
the middle class, achieve homeownership, earn higher education,
and live the American dream.
More famously known as the GI Bill, it was hailed by many
as the greatest piece of legislation ever. Sadly, as the
generations passed and memories dimmed, the GI Bill benefits
were so drastically reduced that many veterans either declined
or denied even the opportunity to participate in the program.
Few veterans today have the luxury of attending school
without also holding a job and many colleges are completely out
of reach simply due to financial barriers. The time to change
history is once again upon us.
No longer can we continue to call each piece of legislation
in the 110th Congress a GI Bill. A true GI Bill encompasses
such benefits as housing, employment, job counseling and
training, healthcare, and education for veterans. These are the
true tools for seamless transition from warrior back to
citizen.
A true GI Bill also accounts for the operational force of
today's military. The DoD Manpower Data Center reports that
since 2002 and as recent as February of 2008, the average
cumulative length of activation for all Reserve forces in
support of GWOT is 438 days. This accounts for 631,000 Reserve
forces that are activated in support of the Global War on
Terror.
On H.R. 4883, the American Legion supports this
legislation. This legislation would greatly assist those
veterans that are deployed to a combat zone and have little
time to successfully transition from active-duty military to
the civilian sector. It is unfair to expect servicemembers to
concentrate on fighting the battle overseas and then
simultaneously attend to all their personal matters at home.
Moreover, veterans have a positive track record of
following through with payments. During the fourth quarter of
2007, only 2.83 percent of homeowners using the VA's Loan
Guaranty Program were seriously delinquent. This is much lower
when compared to 6 percent of Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) mortgages and a whopping 14.4 percent for the subprime
mortgages.
And I will discuss pending legislation to amend the VA Loan
Guaranty Program. The American Legion supports elimination of
the VA home loan funding fee and petition Congress to
appropriate funding to sustain the VA Home Loan Program when
the funding fee is eliminated.
Currently only service-connected disabled veterans are
exempt from the funding fee. The VA funding fee charged to
veterans was enacted to defray the cost of the VA Guaranty Home
Loan Program. Congress is not required to appropriate funding
for this program. However, because veterans must now buy into
the program, it no longer serves the intent of helping veterans
afford a home.
Approximately 80 percent of all VA Home Loan participants
must pay the current funding fee. In some aspects, the funding
fee makes the VA Home Loan Program less beneficial than the
standard private loan. This has had a negative effect on many
veterans who choose not to participate in this highly
beneficial program and loan originations have been declining.
A long overdue remedy to the refinancing laws is needed. In
order to strengthen the Loan Guaranty Program, the law should
be amended to remove the 10 percent equity requirement in order
to refinance a home and to increase the refinancing limit a
veteran can obtain to match the maximum loan guaranty amount.
Specially adaptive housing is and will continue to be an
important issue as severely wounded veterans heal and
transition out of VA polytrauma facilities. For fiscal year
2008, as of March 31st, 550 veterans have had grants approved
and 1,500 veterans are in some stage of pursuit today.
I just want to note that there are 7,200 veterans currently
being tracked by the VA Loan Guaranty Service that are eligible
for specially adaptive housing, but they are not taking
advantage of it right now. These veterans could request
adaptive housing at any time.
Studies required every 6 years to update plans and
specifications are not the proper solution. Rather, update the
publication, have continuous oversight, and constant updates to
veterans, Congress, and interested parties would better serve
the veteran community.
The 800 pound gorilla in the room is the housing crisis
affecting veterans. The National Alliance to End Homelessness
reports that 930,000 veterans pay more than 50 percent of their
income toward housing, be it renting or owning a home.
When testifying before your Subcommittee, economists,
lenders, Realtors, and other experts painted a bleak outlook
for the future in terms of veterans defaulting and foreclosing
on their homes.
If a veteran loses his or her job, has a financial
emergency, or some other factor leading to delinquency, nearly
one million veterans could be close to losing their homes.
In conclusion, the American Legion appreciates the
opportunity to present its views on programs that will affect
veterans, servicemembers, and their families. An anonymous
author once wrote, a veteran is someone who at one point in
their life wrote a blank check made payable to the United
States of America for the amount up to and including my life.
That is honor.
And there are way too many people in this country who no
longer understand it. We believe that the Subcommittee does
understand it and the American Legion thanks you.
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, this
concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chamrin appears on p. 62.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
Mr. Brown, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JUSTIN BROWN
Mr. Brown. Thank you.
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of
this Subcommittee, on behalf of the 2.3 million members of the
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and our
auxiliaries, I would like to thank this Committee for the
opportunity to testify.
The issues under consideration today are of great
importance to our members and the entire veteran population.
In the history of our Nation, there have always been great
men and women who put everything on the line for our country.
Our Nation is full of these heroes who join together to create
the world's strongest, most impressive, and smartest military.
However, our military is not maintaining the quality of the
force. According to a recent U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report, the percentage of high quality recruits in
the Army fell to 49 percent in 2006. This is the lowest level
in more than 20 years and the lowest among the services. Also,
the total number of medical and criminal waivers has risen
steadily from 11\1/2\ percent of recruits in 2004 to 16.9
percent of recruits in 2006.
From 1973 to 1985, similar recruitment standards produced
veterans that were three to four times more likely to be
homeless than their nonveteran counterparts even without most
of this group suffering the stresses and strains of combat or
the mental and physical problems that follow.
The risks and costs of joining the Army are becoming more
and more apparent to young men and women who are eligible for
recruitment. To join today's military is to risk death, it is
to risk mental and physical impairment, it is to risk one's
marriage, it can risk the custody of one's children, it can
risk employment, and it can risk economic success.
Meanwhile, the military's strongest recruitment tool of a
college education is fast eroding as potential recruits learn
of the shortfalls and failures of the current benefits provided
to those who risk everything for our Nation.
There are two strategies to solve the issue and
respectively there are two outcomes. The Army and Marine Corps
have not met their goal of high quality recruits since 2003.
DoD's response has been to lower recruitment standards, thereby
enlarging the pool of eligible recruits to meet their
recruitment needs.
The consequence of such actions is creating a situation in
which the military becomes the employer of last resort. This
will likely lead us to larger expenditures in the long term
than investing in a robust, attractive, proven recruitment
tool, a GI Bill that pays for the full cost of education,
tuition, room and board, fees, and a cost-of-living stipend.
Increased funding although necessary is not the only issue
with our current GI Bill. Our veterans in the military need a
GI Bill that incentivizes going to the best college possible,
not the cheapest. Also, a new GI Bill ought to equitably
distribute benefits to veterans. A single payment system
becomes inhibitive to many and too generous for others.
Our military's welfare ought to be considered a cost of
war. We can pay it now as an investment or pay it later in much
great cost to our government and our veterans. If we decide to
defer this cost, it will be for increased appropriations for
permanent housing for homeless veterans, increased
appropriations for the expansion of the Incarcerated Veterans
Transition Program, and increased appropriations due to
veterans' further reliance on the VA medical and benefit
systems.
The VFW asks that America does its best to ensure our
veterans a normal life with the same opportunities as those who
chose to go to a college or as those who chose to go into the
workforce, vice serving their Nation. It is simple and readily
apparent, that if we continue to fail to provide our young men
and women a bridge from the all volunteer force back to a
civilian lifestyle, fewer high quality young men and women will
volunteer to serve their country.
In conclusion, the VFW supports all of the bills before the
Subcommittee today. However, we do not agree with the
provisions within some of these bills and we do not favor some
of these bills in comparison to others that are not being
considered in today's hearing.
Madam Chairwoman and Members of this Subcommittee, this
concludes my testimony, and I will be pleased to respond to any
questions you or the Members of this Subcommittee may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown appears on p. 66.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
There are about 13 minutes remaining in this vote. There
are about four votes, approximately 45 minutes.
Mr. Daley, I am going to recognize you for 5 minutes and
then I am going to recognize Counsel for the Ranking Member to
summarize or read statements that he had intended to put forth
on his bills before the Subcommittee and any others. I will
have to leave and then resume with Mr. Campbell once we return.
So, Mr. Daley, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD DALEY
Mr. Daley. Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member
Boozman, Members of the Subcommittee, the Paralyzed Veterans of
America would like to thank you today for the opportunity to
testify on various pending legislation.
We appreciate the Subcommittee's focus on such a broad
range of issues. In the interest of time, I will limit my
comments to just a few of the bills while the rest of them are
submitted for the record.
On H.R. 5664, specially adaptive housing, while PVA
supports the intent of H.R. 5664, we have serious concerns with
the language of the bill as it is written. The legislation
specifically calls for the VA to regularly update specially
adaptive housing plans and specifications furnished to the
veterans by the VA.
The VA is now responsible for providing plans and
specifications to the veterans who are eligible for the
specially adaptive grant. It provides assistance to the
veterans through the application of ideas presented in the
Handbook for Design, Specially Adaptive Housing VA Pamphlet
2613.
We believe that the language of the bill should read the
Secretary shall update the Handbook for Design at least once
every 6 years. The update should include considerations for new
and unique disabilities to include vision impairments,
impairment specifically by limb amputation, or some of the
serious burn situations that we are having now from the War on
Terror.
PVA was fortunate to participate in the hearings held last
year regarding the application of specially adaptive housing
grant. We are well aware of the unique challenges faced by many
of the veterans with complex disabilities incurred while
serving in the War on Terror.
However, it is important to understand that the basic
accessibility concepts in the VA Pamphlet 2613 are not outdated
as implied during that hearing.
If there is a fault, it is that it seems to be basically
centered around wheelchair accessibility, but wheelchair
accessibility is basically the pamphlet centers around a lot of
universal design concepts that are good for a lot of
disabilities.
Furthermore, the accessibility recommended in the suggested
VA Pamphlet 2613 actually exceeds ``Americans With Disabilities
Act'' recommendations as well as fair housing accessibility
guidelines. With that thought in mind, PVA supports the
legislation if the language can be changed to reflect the
intent of the bill.
The bill, H.R. 3889, the study of the vocational
rehabilitation, PVA fully supports H.R. 3889, a bill that would
require the VA to conduct a longitudinal study of veterans who
enter the vocational rehabilitation program beginning with
fiscal year 2008.
We believe that the Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment (VR&E) is critical to the reintegration of severely
disabled veterans into civilian life. The primary mission of
VR&E program is to provide veterans with service-connected
disabilities all the necessary services and assistance to
achieve maximum independence and daily living and to maximize
the extent feasible to become employable and to obtain and
maintain suitable employment.
In fact, PVA places such an importance on vocational
rehabilitation that last year, we designed our own vocational
rehabilitation program to further support what the VA is
currently doing.
The concept of the program is to provide vocational
rehabilitation services under a PVA corporate partnership that
augments many of the existing vocational programs. PVA believes
that by introducing the veteran with a spinal cord injured
disability to vocational rehabilitation counseling soon in
their rehabilitation process is beneficial for the veteran.
The partnership that the VA and Healthnet Federal Services
has, PVA opened its first vocational rehabilitation office in
the Spinal Cord Center of the VA Medical Center in Richmond,
Virginia, in July of 2007. The workload in our pilot office has
grown rapidly and our PVA vocational rehabilitation counselor
in Richmond is currently carrying a caseload of more than 107
veterans. Encouraged by our rapidly growing caseload in
Richmond, the establishment of productive relationships with
the VA's Veterans Health Administration and Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment, PVA recently opened a second
vocational rehabilitation office in Minneapolis under the
corporate sponsorship of TriWest.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Daley, I am sorry. I am going to
have to cut you off because I still want to get Mr. Brinck
recognized before I have to get over to the Capitol. Okay?
Mr. Daley. Okay.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. And then----
Mr. Daley. Thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Daley appears on p. 69.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. You bet. Thank you, Mr. Daley.
Mr. Brinck.
Mr. Brinck. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman for extending the
courtesy to me. I will just very quickly summarize Mr.
Boozman's two bills that you have been so good to bring before
the Committee.
H.R. 3681, the ``Veterans Benefits Awareness Act of 2007,''
will authorize VA to use national electronic media to advertise
veterans' benefits, employment at the VA, whatever they would
deem appropriate.
I know when we were researching the background on this
bill, there seemed to be difference of opinion among the VA
staff as to whether they were currently authorized under law to
spend appropriated funds in that manner. This would make it
clear that the Congress' intent is to modernize the way VA does
this outreach.
The second bill, H.R. 3889, would require VA to conduct a
20-year longitudinal study for those participating in
vocational rehabilitation. Unfortunately, the data that the
Department has on the outcomes of vocational rehabilitation and
you could probably also say the other business lines within VBA
is relatively sparse. And I would note that the Department's
testimony, while it opposes the bill, has some, I think, good
technical corrections that will improve the bill and we would
certainly like to consider those as we move forward.
And, finally, I would like to read Mr. Boozman's statement
in support of H.R. 5684, your GI Bill. It says, ``as an
original cosponsor of your GI Bill, H.R. 5684, I believe that
unlike some other of the nearly 40 veterans' education bills
that have been introduced, H.R. 5684 is an approach that is
manageable and affordable. Veterans will get between 17,000 and
18,000 per school year, not counting other Federal aid, and VA
will not be required to retool its system to pay the
benefits.''
``I am very pleased that we will be taking action on
improving education benefits for our veterans and I look
forward to passing the bill next week.''
Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
I will return hopefully in not too much time.
Thank you for your patience and we will resume with Mr.
Campbell. Thanks.
[Recess.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Thank you for waiting. Sorry it
took longer than we anticipated.
Mr. Campbell, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK CAMPBELL
Mr. Campbell. It is kind of like icing the kicker. But, no.
It is very good to be back.
Madam Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
this opportunity to testify. It is very good to be here and not
have to leave to go to class or go study for the Bar. It truly
is wonderful.
We want to start off by saying that IAVA believes that H.R.
5684, the ``Veterans Education Improvement Act,'' with its
substantial increases in the level of education benefits and
innovative modifications to Chapter 30, will help veterans
across the country to see a considerable improvement in their
education benefits.
We thank the Chairwoman and this Committee for their hard
work in creating this bill. And we look forward to working with
you to make sure that this bill is the best bill it can be.
With that, as we have 13 bills, we are going to try to get
to, what recommendations we feel would be good additions to
this bill.
IAVA does have some concerns that this bill does not
address key structural flaws with the current benefit system.
First, flat rate education benefits creates an incentive for
veterans to go to the cheapest school and does not reward
veterans for challenging themselves.
The genius behind the original 1944 GI Bill was that it
challenged veterans to be all they could be by rewarding those
who challenged themselves and attended better and more
expensive schools.
However, under this proposal, a veteran attending a
community college in rural America will be pocketing almost
$7,000 while other veterans will still need to take out loans
or to work to see their education paid for.
If you look at my testimony on page 2, you will see how
this current proposed benefit in this program is broken out
between 4 different schools, Southeast Technical in your State,
Madam Chairwoman; the University of Arkansas; my school,
California Berkeley; and Notre Dame, which two of the
distinguished Members went to.
Now, I am the first to admit when I was wrong. When I
originally read this bill, I thought the $500 benefit, the
monthly stipend was going to be starting right away. Because it
is not starting for 2 years, you actually need to subtract
$4,500 from the amount that I have given. So let me make a few
little adjustments here.
If you attend Southeast Technical under the current bill
for the next 2 years, you will only be getting $2,350 more than
you would need to go to Southeast Technical. If you were to go
to University of Arkansas, this bill would leave $4,108 to be
able to afford to go to the University of Arkansas. If you were
to go to University of California, it would be $12,200, and
Notre Dame, $35,600.
Now, IAVA would like to see that the $500 be implemented
right away and just included in the original benefit. There is
no reason to make it a monthly stipend, just make it part of
the initial increase.
If you still want to wait 2 years, we encourage you to not
make it a monthly stipend, but increase the benefit in 2 years
because, otherwise, you are going to get in a situation where
Reservists are not going to be able to get this benefit. I am
worried that they are not going to be able to get this benefit
because the way it is structured right now, it says that those
people taking ``under this chapter'' and because Reservists
take under Chapter 1607, a different chapter, it would exclude
them from this bill.
Also, for many veterans, as I just laid out, attending
schools in high cost urban areas, this benefit will not cover
the full cost of an education. It will not cover the cost at
any of the University of California campuses, nor 14 of the
California State Universities.
IAVA believes that we need to make a commitment to our
veterans that if a veteran wants to attend a public university
anywhere in the country, it should be covered by the GI Bill.
We, therefore, recommend modifying this bill to provide an
incentive for veterans that challenge themselves by creating a
tuition credit to a set amount, preferably the average tuition
cost at a public university. This will ensure every public
university is within reach for our service men and women and
that the benefit will challenge those to be the best they can
be.
Lastly, IAVA is concerned that this bill does not have a
mechanism for keeping the benefit up with the rising cost of
education. By looking at the second chart on my testimony on
page three, you will see that in 10 years, we will be in the
same situation we are right now where 2-year universities will
be the only type of benefit available to veterans who depend on
their GI Bill benefits to pay for school.
IAVA recommends linking yearly increases of education
benefits to be based on the rising cost of education as tracked
by the Department of Education and not on the consumer price
index as is done now.
We appreciate the work that you and the Committee have done
on this bill. We look forward to working with you to ensure
that we keep our promise to veterans that they can go to school
both now and tomorrow.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell appears on p. 72.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Campbell.
Colonel Norton, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF COLONEL ROBERT F. NORTON, USA (RET.)
Colonel Norton. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. It is good to
see you again and we thank you and the Members of the
Subcommittee for this opportunity to appear before you today on
behalf of the Military Officers Association of America.
Listening to Patrick, I just want to say it is just an
honor for me personally to work with this distinguished young
American veteran and a number of the other folks at this table.
Patrick has been a tireless advocate for the GI Bill
representing the brave young men and women who have served in
Iraq and Afghanistan. And we really appreciate the work that he
and his colleagues in IAVA have done on the GI Bill.
In a hearing before this Subcommittee, Madam Chairwoman, in
January, I stated that MOAA's top two priorities for the GI
Bill this year are, first, to raise rates to cover at least the
average cost of a public college education and, second, to
authorize Reservists to earn GI Bill benefits for multiple
tours of active duty.
We are very pleased to see that H.R. 5684, your bill,
addresses the first priority and then some. The upgrades in
H.R. 5684 are substantial. We thank you, Madam Chairwoman and
Ranking Member Boozman, for the bill and we support it.
Our second priority, however, permitting Reservists to
accrue GI Bill benefits as they serve on active duty is not
addressed in H.R. 5684. However, I was very encouraged to hear
you and Chairman Filner and the full Committee Ranking Member,
Mr. Buyer, talking about the need for what Mr. Buyer called an
``equity fix'' in this regard and the fact that you share the
sentiment that we need to do more for our Reserve warriors.
And for that reason, MOAA strongly supports as a first step
passage of Chairman Filner's H.R. 4889 to integrate the
operational Reserve GI Bill into title 38.
When General Petraeus completed his testimony before
Congress last week, the President announced that the Army
rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan will be reduced to 12 months
going forward, that can only mean that there will be more
deployments of Guard and Reserve units.
If the Army is going to be able to sustain operations in
both countries for the indefinite future, it can only do that
through increased deployments and call-ups of our Guard and
Reserve troops. They are bearing a bigger share of the
operational load and that will only increase in the future.
They should not be denied credit for all of their active-duty
service. The principle on this issue is quite simple. Same
service, same battlefield, same benefits.
MOAA also strongly supports legislation to improve
financial protections for our troops under the ``Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act.'' H.R. 3298 would allow a servicemember who
receives a permanent change of station or deployment order to
terminate its cell phone or similar personal services contract
without steep financial penalty.
Chairman Filner's H.R. 4883 would protect a returning
servicemember for 1 year from a mortgage foreclosure or
property seizure action. MOAA urges the Subcommittee to endorse
both measures.
MOAA and our colleagues in the Military Coalition also
strongly support H.R. 3393 to strengthen reemployment rights
protections for our activated troops under the ``Uniform
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.''
In addition, we recommend the Subcommittee adopt
legislation to assign one Federal agency the responsibility to
track and report both formal and informal claims under the
USERRA as recommended by the GAO.
I want to close, Madam Chairwoman, by offering a few
remarks on what we see as an historic opportunity before this
Subcommittee and the Congress.
I met the author of the GI Bill named for him, the late
G.V. Sonny Montgomery, on a number of occasions. Early this
decade, Mr. Montgomery spoke at the first press conference of
the Partnership for Veterans Education, giving his endorsement
of a new total force GI Bill that would match benefits to the
average cost of a public college education.
Today there is a rising tide in both chambers to do the
right thing on the GI Bill this year. And, of course, you and
your fellow colleagues on the Subcommittee were talking about
that at the beginning of this hearing.
There are different approaches to that goal, but it is a
goal that more and more lawmakers are recognizing and embracing
in both the House and Senate. We at MOAA fervently hope that
Members of this Subcommittee and the entire Congress will be
able to look back with enormous pride years from now on their
work today on the GI Bill.
As with the great World War II GI Bill, the GI Bill that
bears Mr. Montgomery's name and which helped the fragile all
volunteer force experiment to succeed, we believe this is a
rare moment to make a new GI Bill for a new century and a new
force.
A better GI Bill will be an engine for quality recruiting
and a sound investment not only in and for our warriors but for
the future of our great Nation.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Norton appears on p.
78.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. I appreciate the testimony
of all of our witnesses.
Let me start with posing a question to all of you, but most
directly in response to verbal testimony you provide to the
Subcommittee to Mr. Brown, Mr. Campbell, and Colonel Norton.
Given that there is broad agreement as you heard at the
outset of this Subcommittee hearing for a comprehensive
approach, can you describe to me how you have been working with
the House Armed Services Committee as it relates to addressing
the provisions for Selected Reserve within their jurisdiction?
Colonel Norton. Well, first, I would like to say, Madam
Chairwoman, that while--the issue of jurisdiction is a real
one, inside baseball, if you will, and the issue of mandatory
spending is a real one, the fact of the matter is that soldiers
on the battlefield serve together. They deploy together. They
go into harm's way together. And we believe there is a way to
overcome the jurisdictional, the territorial turf battles
involving this issue.
And I agree with you and Ranking Member, Mr. Buyer, that I
think Representative Snyder is a key guy, a key Member to move
this issue. And I am also encouraged by the fact that a senior
Defense Department official said before your Subcommittee in
January that he sees no objection from the Department in moving
the Reserve GI Bill, the operational GI Bill under Chapter
1607, title 10, over here to title 38. And that is where I
would start on any discussion on this.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Before other responses, I agree
that we should not allow jurisdictional issues to result in a
lack of focus of those of us on Committees, but perhaps do not
have direct jurisdiction over these issues to make noise and
advance the effort.
However, we undertook that last year. We undertook the
jurisdictional change last year working with all of you and we
did not get it done. Now, we made some steps forward to,
perhaps, that way and I agree that Dr. Snyder is a key Member
on this Committee, on the Armed Services Committee, in doing
so.
We do not want to limit our options in making improvements.
I would hope that you would all keep us apprised as to your
work with other key Members both on the House Armed Services
and the Senate Armed Services Committee as it relates to
finally enacting a jurisdictional change that will ease the way
of addressing the equity issues for the National Guard and
Reserve.
That is why I posed the question, because we, on this
Committee, are always assisted enormously by your efforts, when
we know that you working alongside with us are making inroads
with Committees that have the jurisdiction as of today versus
the jurisdiction that we wish we had today.
Mr. Campbell or Mr. Brown, do you care to also address this
question?
Mr. Campbell. We have been working with Members of the
House Armed Services Committee, but not with the staff. I know
I have talked to your staff about this before. We have been
dealing directly with Members, talking about the need for
having this fix. We have not approached the staff directly.
Mr. Brown. Madam Chairwoman, I concur with Patrick's
comments. We have been actively engaging the individual Members
in regards to increasing the GI Bill and especially in regards
to the Reserve and Guard issues, but we have not actively
talked about jurisdictional issues.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Let me just say before moving on to
other questions, some of what we have been working on outside
of the formal Committee hearing process is also inside baseball
in keeping all of our strategic options open in getting this
objective achieved.
While I understand the concern that the bill under
consideration today that Mr. Boozman and I introduced does not
include some of the provisions that you would ultimately like
to see enacted, it does not include provisions I would
ultimately like to see enacted.
Mr. Boozman and I, as you know, have been pretty loud
advocates for addressing the equity issue and working with our
colleagues both here in the House and in the Senate.
However, I think that one could make the argument that if
we can get momentum behind this bill, that will improve our
position to make the case that we also have to address the
equity issue for Guard and Reserves if we move this bill,
because then you have a greater gap if you do not do so.
I just want to lay that out so you understand my thinking
to try to keep all options on the table as we continue these
rather onerous negotiations with a lot of different players not
only in our chamber but over in the Senate.
Mr. Campbell, in your testimony, I just want to make sure
that I am clear so that we can get on the same page with regard
to facts and we know what sources everyone is using.
You state that the average cost of a public school
education is $17,336 a year. We contacted the U.S. Department
of Education who informed us that for the 2007-2008 school
years, tuition and fees were $6,185, room and board, $7,404 for
a total of $13,589. That information comes from the College
Board's annually updated publication of trends and college
pricing.
Mr. Campbell. I used the same one, but on the next page
where it talks about, the same exact document that you are
using, there is actually miscellaneous expenses, that we need
to be talking about when discussing the total cost of
education, not just tuition, room and board. The next page says
that the total cost is 17,336 per year for a public school for
next year.
So one of the things while we were going through this, I
had my staff looking at tuition, room and board, but then you
also have miscellaneous expenses.
And so what I normally like to do when I reference the
total cost of education, I look at what people can apply for in
terms of financial aid because the Department of Education
authorizes a student up to a certain amount. This expected
number is what would be required to actually go to school and
make that your full-time job.
And so that is what that number is. And I can get you the
reference, but it is the same exact document that you are
talking about.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. I would appreciate if you could
get us that information. That assumes that the student is not
doing any part-time work, no work study, et cetera, right?
Mr. Campbell. Exactly. Our premise is that school should be
their full-time job.
[The information was provided by Mr. Campbell in the post-
hearing questions and responses for the record, which appear on
p. 72.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Let me explore a little with you on
this issue of the structural flaw that you think that there is
a possibility that veterans will choose the cheapest
alternative, you cited Southeast Tech and you cited University
of Arkansas and Notre Dame and University of California.
I am interested in exploring this further with you and I am
interested in what your fellow panelists would think about
this. But, part of what we have tried to do on the Subcommittee
as well is to make sure that veterans have a lot of flexibility
in utilizing their GI Bill benefits.
While I am certain that there might be a subset of veterans
that might make those types of economic decisions and not
challenge themselves as much as we may think they have the
potential to do, I also know that a number of students who go
to Southeast Technical Institute choose Southeast Technical
Institute because of their areas of interest and wanting to be
trained for a specific vocation, a specific growing industry,
that they do not necessarily think a 4-year college degree is
better suited to them.
How do we grapple with that issue?
Mr. Campbell. I definitely agree that you need to compare
apples to apples, and 4-year universities like Berkeley,
University of Arkansas are not for everyone.
If you look at my testimony, in 2000, RAND did a study and
came out with the fact that 90 percent of veterans go to 2-year
colleges while 38 percent of all students usually attend 2-year
colleges.
So what we are talking about is most people end up going to
2-year colleges for their first 2 years and then try to
transfer. Now, that does not mean currently 90 percent of
veterans are going to 2-year colleges.
In 2000, of the veterans going to school, 90 percent of
them went to 2-year colleges at some point in their college
career. So this is twice as much as the average student.
So structurally there is a problem where we incentivize,
going to the cheapest school. I mean, when you have a choice
between going to a school where you can fully afford it and not
have to work and you are going to be able to keep some money
versus really challenging yourself, by going out on the limb,
because for a lot of these guys, I mean--let us talk about my
unit.
Half my guys that I went overseas with had GEDs. When they
come home and they wanted to go to Louisiana State University,
they could not do it because they could not handle the academic
rigor while having two jobs at the same time. If they are going
to go to a harder school, school needed to be their full-time
job versus if they go to ULL, which is the University of
Louisiana Lafayette, the curriculum is a lot easier. They could
just go and they did not have to try at all.
And the reason why I know this is because when I contacted
the VA about, what are the top 25 schools that, GI Bill users
are going to, University of Phoenix tops the list. Eight of the
top ten schools are, some form of correspondence courses.
So, I understand that for some people 4-year universities
are not the way to go. That is why you create an incentive, so
people can choose. You want that flexibility.
That is also why IAVA is recommending that you have a
tuition cap of some sort that flexes, that says we will give up
to, we suggest at least $6,000. I would say 80 percent of the
people would never get anywhere near that $6,000.
But for those people who are making decisions, can I go to
a tougher school? Can I go to a tougher school versus can I go
to a tougher school and work a job? Another job or two jobs
just to afford to go there, this tuition will challenge them
and give them the way to make going to school their full-time
job.
Mr. Chamrin. Madam Chair, could I comment on that?
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Please. Then I want to recognize
Counsel for the Ranking Member for follow-up questions he may
have.
Mr. Chamrin. The American Legion views all veterans as
equal. So regardless of what they did when they did it, a
veteran is a veteran. They should have equal status.
With a flat rate, what that will do is inadvertently have
some veterans who served side by side be able to afford, say, a
college in Maryland for $10,000 a year. But if they want to go
to another private school, say Duke University, who is another
ACC school, they will receive that flat rate, but they will not
be able to pay for the whole thing and they will have to take
out loans.
They can serve side by side, but that flat rate does not
have the equity. So some sort of fix would be probably
advantageous to the veteran so there is no, how would I say,
people are not jealous of another person for going to a school
when they cannot.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Because of their personal finances?
Mr. Chamrin. Let us say someone gets into Duke University.
It is an ACC school, costs about $30,000 a year.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Right.
Mr. Chamrin. I believe that the H.R. 5684 pays what,
$17,000 approximately a year? So they are short $13,000. If a
veteran who serves side-by-side decides to go to the University
of Maryland, it costs about ten to eleven thousand dollars a
year. They will be able to pay for that school and get
additional money.
So now you are having two different tiers of veterans going
to college, but they are receiving two different--one will be
in debt and then one will receive an overpayment, yet they
served the same exact timeframe while in service.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. But I think inherent in your point
there is assuming that one of the veterans has an economic
background either before going into the service or while in
service or other members of his or her family that have the
wherewithal to make up the difference in tuition.
Mr. Chamrin. If a veteran is able to go to Duke University,
able to go to Wake Forest, they should be able to go and not
have to take out a full $17,000 loan to cover the difference
that the GI Bill will not pay for regardless of where they come
from, their economic status.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Chamrin--you are going further
than I think Mr. Campbell was going in that you think it should
be the full cost of tuition of the veteran's choice.
Mr. Chamrin. Right. And similar to the World War II GI Bill
for a veteran to go to Harvard, pay for Harvard. If a veteran
wants to go to South Dakota, pay for South Dakota.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I understand what you are saying
there, although in my opening statement, I looked at the 2007--
I cited a recent report that compared the dollar amount in 2007
dollars and what the original GI Bill was.
Now, I know we want to do some things on this Committee
that are not directly in our jurisdiction, but we also have the
issue of the rising cost of tuition at private universities as
well as public colleges and universities, and we are trying to
grapple with that issue too.
I hear what you are saying, and we have seen even a
modification of Senator Webb's bill as it relates to the
average cost by State. My concern with that is then you are
going to have the possibility of veterans maybe going to
California schools instead of to South Dakota schools based on
the overall amount of what benefit they can reach.
So, there are unintended consequences with all of this, and
I appreciate everyone's perspective as to how our bill is
constructed, changes you would like to make versus the standard
of what you are describing. Do all the panelists still advocate
that as a top priority, that we cover the cost of full tuition
of the college or university of the veteran's choosing?
Mr. Brown. The Veterans of Foreign Wars does advocate for
that. We are actively engaged in trying to get a GI Bill that
is going to pay for the full cost of education at any
university.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. But that does not mean you are opposed
to bills that have been introduced in the House or the Senate
that fall short of that?
Mr. Brown. No. We are not. Correct.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I would now like to recognize----
Colonel Norton. Madam Chairwoman, if I could just add our
position, is that we support increasing the benefit to cover at
least the national average cost. And with the Partnership for
Veterans Education over the last 7 years and the Partnership
includes all the major education associations, the idea of
benchmarking the benefit so that it keeps pace year after year
after year with the cost of education.
That way, in a sense, you kind of overcome the debates
because you have a single standard and you are able to match
that standard year after year, as you indicated, as measured by
the Department of Education's data.
I think that would be a great way, for example, for
recruiters to basically market, if you will, the GI Bill,
because you have a very clear idea of what is out there, what
you get, and what you receive when you complete your service.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Very good point. While the bill that
Mr. Boozman and I introduced does not necessarily have that
inflation adjustment, some of the figures that you cite in some
of the testimony that was submitted assumes there would be no
Congressional intervention to make up for that in better budget
times. We certainly appreciate the point you are making,
especially as it relates to giving young men and women who may
be considering entering the service, to give those recruiters
some more concrete information, if it was in law, that it is
always going to keep pace rather than wondering at what point
in ad hoc fashion Congress might intervene.
Mr. Brinck.
Mr. Brinck. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate the
courtesy you are extending to me.
Just a comment before I ask a couple of questions. I think
it is a basic fallacy to equate the quality of an education
with the cost of an education. Certainly the elite universities
in this country offer first-rate education.
But there are certainly lots of State-supported
institutions, you know, you could take any of the major
universities, the University of Michigan, the Cal system, are
all recognized as wonderful institutions that provide a first-
rate education.
So I think making an argument based on the cost of an
education is just inappropriate.
Now, do each of your organizations support H.R. 5684? Mr.
Chamrin.
Mr. Chamrin. At this time, we have not taken a position. We
certainly do not oppose. And there are actually a lot of
provisions that we like in the bill. But at this very moment in
time, we have no position on this bill.
Mr. Brown. At this time, the VFW does support H.R. 5684.
However, it is not our favorite bill in regards to education.
We believe that it needs to be based on a system that is
relevant to the entirety of the country and the different
geographic regions and the different costs of education.
Mr. Daley. Paralyzed Veterans of America, we would support
some of the things in H.R. 5684. But the reduced fee of $50 a
month for the E-1 or E-2 to put in, that is still a lot of
money. And there was not a cost for the World War II veteran to
go or the Vietnam era veteran to go. They did not have to put
in money to be part of the program. So that is one thing that
we would oppose about the program. And, of course, we certainly
want to see the Guard and Reserve included in any program, but
that is another issue.
Mr. Campbell. IAVA has not taken a position on this bill.
Colonel Norton. As I testified, we support H.R. 5684.
Mr. Brinck. Thank you.
Changing the subject slightly, Colonel Norton, you
mentioned the USERRA enforcement.
Does each of your organizations have an opinion on what one
Federal agency should be responsible for USERRA enforcement?
Colonel Norton. No, Mr. Brinck, we have not looked into the
technical side of that at this point in time.
Mr. Campbell. If I had to speak on behalf of our
organization, I would say we prefer the Office of Special
Counsel, but that is just me shooting off the hip.
Mr. Daley. Counsel, we do not have a position on that, but
possibly the Department of Justice could take it over. That is
some of the talk among some of the veterans groups. But it
certainly needs more enforcement than it has now.
Mr. Brown. The VFW does not have a position on this.
Mr. Chamrin. Like everyone else, we do not have a position
on this.
Mr. Brinck. Okay. If there was a bill floating around out
there that the Department of Veterans Affairs said would
essentially cause VA to administer, have to administer the bill
for the benefit program in a manner that would cause a
significant increase in the backlog of claims processing for
education benefits, would you support that bill?
Colonel Norton. Put in those terms, no. But I think there
are fixes that can be made in terms of administrative software
support, et cetera. I mean, those systems, current systems, are
30 years old in the VA. So they have to be modernized in any
case.
Mr. Brinck. But if such a bill passed today and it takes
some amount of time to put new systems in place to replace the
old antiquated systems, and you are exactly right, by the way,
would you still support such a bill?
Mr. Chamrin. The American Legion would. We would support
the bill. If it passes tomorrow and it takes a year to get the
benefit online, it is going to take a year from 6 months from
now. It is going to take a year from a year from now. The more
we wait, the longer that these veterans are not able to afford
the cost of college.
Colonel Norton. Mr. Brinck, this was an issue, is an issue
that was raised by Senator Akaka with respect to Senator Webb's
S. 22. And Senator Akaka, however, has agreed to cosponsor the
bill. And so the similar concerns that you are asking us about
and raising apparently have been addressed to the Chairman of
the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee's satisfaction. So we
think other approaches should be looked at as well.
Mr. Brinck. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Let me pose a question to all of you
about Congressman Murphy's bill on the service providers. In
seeking to protect servicemembers from creditors and increased
interest rates for credit cards and some of the issues that
have arisen for servicemembers with cell phone contracts, do
you think that the proposed changes in H.R. 3298 could
influence providers in the future to adopt stricter policies
for new applicants?
Mr. Campbell. I have been waiting for someone to ask me
this question. And, I mean, I----
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thanks for the thumbs up.
Mr. Campbell. I appreciate it. I appreciate it.
I spent my first day back from Iraq in a Cingular Wireless
store for 5\1/2\ hours suffering probably my worst fit of Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder that I ever had, screaming at people
because they would not give me a phone. And I had paid the
entire 14 months I was on deployment, about $15 a month, so
that I could keep my service, on the premise that when I got
home, I would get, to be able to turn on my service.
And, it is funny because I had to actually leave Cingular
Wireless, go and sign up with Verizon. That was the only way
for me to get a phone and to get my service turned on that day.
To put in context, we landed 2 days before Hurricane Rita
was about to hit. I was with the Louisiana National Guard. So
getting a phone was not just about me being about to talk to my
family. It was about the fact that we had to evacuate in a day
and a half and my family did not know if I was going to be
okay.
And so, what I could not understand is while I was fighting
with them, they kept coming up with these rules that my father
was originally on the account and because the account was made
on my father's account and not mine, I was, therefore, denied
any protections under the ``Servicemembers Civil Relief Act,''
so that even if I had wanted to cancel the contract right
there, they said, oh, you do not even have that right. And I
replied I have been a customer with you guys for 3\1/2\ years.
I have been paying just so I could keep my phone and now you
are telling me no.
It took 7 months for me to get this resolved, and a
complaint to the Federal Communication Commission. And the
taste that was left in my mouth was that we do not have
adequate protection for servicemembers dealing with service
contracts. A veteran needs to be able to know that they can go
away, keep their phone number, and keep their service and not
have to pay a fee because if you cancel the contract, you are
fine. But if you try to keep the contract, you are at their
will. There are no protections whatsoever at that point for
you. You pay whatever fee they want. And after 6 months, I
started getting bills for the full rate. It was insanity. Like
this was a huge--I am sorry. I get a little passionate about
this.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Would H.R. 3298 as drafted, as
written, would it have solved the particular problems you
experienced?
Mr. Campbell. Yes. And specifically it is modeled after the
``Illinois Cell Phone for Servicemembers Act'' that was passed
a couple years ago. That has been quite successful in Illinois.
Basically it allows you to suspend service. And it gives you
that right.
Right now you do not have that right, so, therefore, the
cell phone companies or the service providers can decide the
circumstances in which that will happen. It also deals directly
with making contracts on behalf of, not just making contracts
by. That is a huge difference for a lot of people who are using
their parents as a creditor in order to get onto the service
contract in the first place.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Does anyone else care to respond to
the question about whether or not the providers would put
stricter controls on new applicants? Mr. Campbell, the answer
to the question is that, you are not worried based on what you
see in the bill and maybe what Illinois' experience has been,
that providers would then put stricter controls on even new
applicants that are going in?
Mr. Campbell. I mean, there are cell phone companies all
over bases, all over the place. They know this is happening.
And I am not worried. If anything, the rules that I had to
follow while I was there could not get any stricter.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Anyone else care to comment?
[No response.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I apologize to our fourth panel. You
have been very patient. I think this may be just one vote, but
I will make sure that Mr. Lara here updates you so you can know
how much time you may have to be doing other business either on
cell phones or being away from the Committee hearing room for a
time.
I thank you for your patience. In light of that, we may
have some additional follow-up questions that we will want to
submit to you in writing. I appreciate your testimony, your
service to the country, to our Nation's veterans, and your
willingness to come together to address 13 different bills, not
all of which address all the same topics, but we do want to
move on a number of these bills. Your insights are important to
us in a more formal setting in addition to all of the work that
has been undertaken with you, with Committee staff on both
sides of the aisle.
I thank you for your testimony today. We will take a short
recess and then we will come back and begin our fourth panel.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Sorry to keep you waiting, but we do
want to make use of the 20 minutes or so that we might have
before I head back for another vote to hear from our witnesses
on the fourth panel today.
Participating, we have the Honorable Charles Ciccolella,
Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training
Service in the U.S. Department of Labor; Mr. Thomas L. Bush,
Principal Director of Manpower and Personnel for the U.S.
Department of Defense; Dr. Curtis Gilroy, Director of Accession
Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense; and Mr. Keith
Pedigo, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program
management for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs;
accompanied by Mr. John Brizzi, Staff Attorney of the Office of
General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Your written statements have been entered into the hearing
record. I appreciate all of you being back to the Subcommittee
to address the important bills that are being considered today.
We will start with you, Secretary Ciccolella. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF CHARLES S. CICCOLELLA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR; THOMAS L. BUSH, PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF MANPOWER AND
PERSONNEL, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
RESERVE AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; CURTIS L. GILROY,
DIRECTOR FOR ACCESSION POLICY, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE; AND KEITH PEDIGO, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY,
POLICY AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN BRIZZI, STAFF ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES S. CICCOLELLA
Mr. Ciccolella. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to
appear before you today to discuss 4 of the 13 bills that you
are looking at today. I will just move very quickly through
them.
H.R. 3646 is a joint study on employment needs by the
Department of Labor and Department of Veterans Affairs. The
bill mandates a study to be conducted by both the agencies on
the fields of employment for which the greatest need for
employees exist in various geographic areas.
The Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics
develops a 10-year national level industry and employment
projections and they prepare and they publish career
information on those projections already. Projections are done
on a biannual basis. The last projections were done in 2007 for
the period 2006 through 2016.
The national projections data that they produce are
provided to the State workforce agencies and the States also
collect labor market information themselves. They share it with
the Department of Veterans Affairs, and in particular, the
Department of Veterans Affairs Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment folks, to assure that disabled veterans are not
placed in education and training programs for jobs that are
unavailable in the local economy.
We do not believe that the joint study that would be
required by the bill would produce more or better data than the
information that we already have. However, listening to the
testimony by Congressman Stearns, it appears to me that what we
have here is an accessibility and a presentation issue. And we
would be very pleased to work with the Committee on how to work
this out so we make this stuff absolutely available.
H.R. 3393 is the improvement to ``Veterans Employments
Rights Act.'' The bill would make a number of very, very
significant changes to the enforcement and the remedies for
USERRA, give the courts discretion to award $20,000 in
liquidated damages, and authorize the court to award punitive
damages that are essentially unlimited.
States would also be required in USERRA cases to waive
their sovereign immunity under the 11th amendment to the
Constitution.
We are concerned that we have not had a sufficient amount
of time to study the impact that the changes to this law would
have. And these are far-reaching changes. We believe that as a
further issue, we need to discuss these changes with our
enforcement partners.
It is also not clear the impact that these changes would
have on the hiring of veterans. I would be pleased to go into a
little bit more detail during the question and answer period if
you would like.
H.R. 3798 is the reemployment rights following certain
National Guard duty. Congressman Hayes presented this bill. We
would support this proposal. We just need to understand from
the Department of Defense under what circumstances the
exemptions would take place because the bill does not make that
entirely clear.
But having said that, there are certain types of duty,
airport security duty and patrol duty that absolutely make
sense to be counted as exempted from the 5-year limit. So I
think the thing here, and I think DoD would agree, is that the
exclusions from the 5-year limit have to be well-defined in
order to preserve the intent of USERRA which is to protect
noncareer military service.
H.R. 3467 is the ``Second Chance for America's Veterans
Act'' and the bill would authorize VA to establish a workforce
reentry program between 2008 and 2011 at something like $15
million. It would provide a prisoner reentry program for
veterans in 24 locations. Congressman Yarmuth presented that
bill today.
The Administration supports the intent of the bill.
However, we think that most of the services, which are very
similar to the recently concluded Incarcerated Veteran
Transition Program, which is a very successful program, most of
these services could be provided through the ``Second Chance
Act'' that the President signed earlier last week.
In fact, what we have done is we have been working closely
with the Department of Labor unit that is actually responsible
for the prisoner reentry initiative to incorporate veteran-
specific issues that we had in the Incarcerated Veteran
Transition Program into the next round of the prisoner reentry
initiative grants. And that round will be awarded effective 1
July.
There are some differences in what we did in the IVTP, the
Incarcerated Veteran Transition demonstration, and the prisoner
reentry initiative, but we think we can probably work those
out.
Madam Chair, that concludes my testimony. I have 1 second
left, so I would be happy to answer any questions when that
time comes.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Ciccolella appears on p.
82.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bush, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. BUSH
Mr. Bush. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the opportunity
to share the views of the Department on bills that are being
considered by this Committee.
The success the Department is experiencing in recruiting
and retaining Guard and Reserve members over the last 6\1/2\
years is due in large part to the support of Congress. You have
recognized the expanded role that Reserve components are
playing in national defense and have been very generous with
the pay and additional benefits that are now available to
members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families.
Some of the bills being considered by the Subcommittee
today would continue that support for National Guard and
Reserve members and I will focus my remarks on those bills that
directly affect the Guard and Reserve.
H.R. 4889, the ``Guard and Reserves Are Fighting Too Act of
2008,'' as currently drafted would reinstate the retention
aspects of the Reserve Education Assistance Program, yet would
recodify the program into title 38.
As I have previously testified, the Department does not
support placing what would again become a military force
management program under the administration of the Department
of Veterans Affairs. Therefore, the Department does not support
H.R. 4889.
Two bills would amend the ``Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act,'' H.R. 3289 and H.R. 4883. Although the Department is
preparing a formal views letter for the Committee on those
bills, I can report that the Department generally supports both
bills.
In fact, H.R. 4883, which would extend the post-service
limitation on the sale, foreclosure, and seizure of property
from 90 days to 1 year, is a recommendation included in the
final report from the Commission on the National Guard and
Reserves and appears to have broad support within the
Department.
Regarding H.R. 3298, the ``21st Century Servicemembers
Protection Act,'' the Department's views letter is likely to
offer several recommendations regarding the right of
servicemembers to bring action in their own name and to
strengthen the protections proposed in the bill.
Two bills would amend the ``Uniform Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act.'' Although USERRA is under the purview
of the Department of Labor, DoD offers the following comments.
H.R. 3798 would provide a limited exclusion of the 5-year
USERRA limit for National Guard members who perform certain
federally-funded State duty. While we think it may be
appropriate to provide such an exclusion, we need to work with
our partners at the Department of Labor and this Committee to
ensure any exclusion is well-defined and consistent with the
purposes of other duty that is excluded from the 5-year USERRA
limit.
H.R. 3393, the ``Reservist Access to Justice Act of 2007,''
would allow courts to award punitive damages in cases of an
employer who willfully fails to comply with USERRA. While this
may be appropriate in some isolated cases, we are concerned
with the chilling effect this may have on all employers.
As I previously stated, Congress, and particularly this
Committee, has been very supportive of the Guard and Reserve. I
would like to thank you for your unwavering support of the 1.3
million members of the National Guard and Reserve.
This concludes my remarks, and I look forward to answering
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bush and Mr. Gilroy appears
on
p. 83.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Bush.
Mr. Gilroy, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. GILROY, PH.D.
Mr. Gilroy. Thank you, ma'am.
Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Subcommittee, and staff, I
want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
again to discuss how we might best enhance the educational
benefits of our servicemembers and our veterans.
As before, I will limit my remarks to the effects of any
proposed legislative initiatives to the active-duty force.
Specifically, I will limit my remarks to H.R. 5684 that you,
Madam Chair, and Ranking Member Boozman have sponsored.
There are some very attractive features to this bill and
there is much that the Department of Defense sees of value in
it.
I personally congratulate both of you and your staffs for
carefully crafting a very unique piece of legislation. I have
six points to make regarding that legislation.
First, your bill increases the basic benefit from about
$1,100 a month to $1,450 a month, which is the average cost of
a public 4-year institution, and also the value of the so-
called ``tipping point'' about which we spoke in previous
hearings. This is the point at which the benefit may begin to
have a negative effect on retention. The Department supports
this increase in the basic benefit.
Your bill also adds a $500 a month stipend for living
expenses for full-time students and something less for part-
time students. Although this is somewhat more generous than we
would like, we do support some level of increase, and perhaps
we can work with the Committee on what that number might be.
Third, your bill permits members to use their GI Bill
benefits to pay off their student loans. We like that.
And veterans who apply for other financial aid would not be
required to report the value or the moneys received from the
Montgomery GI Bill benefits as income. We also like that.
Fourth, your bill does not eliminate the $1,200 member
contribution, but there really is not any need since it is not
a deterrent to enrollment, as we have seen. Today, 97 percent
of new recruits sign up for participation in the Montgomery GI
Bill under the current situation. But what your bill does is
allow them to pay it over a 2-year period. We could also
support you on this.
Sixth, your bill gives veterans more time to use their
benefits. That is point number five. Fifteen years instead of
10 years. We support you on that.
Although less generous than the Senate Bill S. 22 and its
House cousin, H.R. 5740, your bill addresses nearly all of the
significant issues as we see them. It is much simpler and
straightforward to implement since it is an amendment to the
current Montgomery GI Bill in title 38. Compared to S. 22, it
is far less costly and does not add to the bureaucracy, and it
does not create an unnecessary strain on retention.
Now, one feature of educational benefits that is not
included in your bill that is a priority for this
Administration is transferability of benefits for all
servicemembers, to spouses, and children. Transferability, we
feel, is important to a volunteer force where families also
serve.
As you know, half of our force is, in fact, married. The
adage that we enlist soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and
Coast Guardsmen and, yet, we retain families is really true.
In summary, H.R. 5684 has been thoughtfully prepared and we
look forward to working with you on this piece of legislation.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
and for promulgating and continuing to protect educational
benefits for our servicemembers and our veterans. And I would
be prepared and happy to answer questions at the appropriate
time. Thank you again.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Gilroy.
Mr. Pedigo, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KEITH PEDIGO
Mr. Pedigo. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am pleased to be
here today to discuss a number of bills that would affect
several benefit programs administered by the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
With me today is Mr. John Brizzi, Staff Attorney from our
Office of General Counsel.
Madam Chairwoman, H.R. 5684, the ``Veterans Education
Improvement Act of 2008,'' contains numerous amendments to
title 38 of the U.S. Code that are intended to improve the
basic educational assistance programs offered by VA. We
estimate that enactment of this bill would result in direct
cost to VA of $22.3 billion over 10 years. VA cannot support
this legislation without identified offsets for these costs.
H.R. 4889, the ``Guard and Reserves Are Fighting Too Act of
2008,'' proposed to recodify the statutory provisions of
Chapter 1607 of title 10 of the U.S.C. to a new Chapter 33 of
title 38 of U.S.C. VA does not support this bill as it would
inappropriately place the Reserve Force Management Program
under VA rather than the Department of Defense where it
currently resides.
Finally, we cannot support this proposal without identified
offsets as it would result in a $1.2 billion additional net
direct benefit cost to VA over the next 10 years.
H.R. 3467, the ``Second Chance for America's Veterans
Act,'' would establish a grant program for referral and
counseling services to assist at-risk veterans transitioning
from institutional living into the workplace. While VA strongly
supports efforts to assist these at-risk veterans, we note that
most of the services proposed under this legislation could be
provided through the ``Second Chance Act'' which the President
signed into law last week.
Madam Chairwoman, H.R. 3646 would direct the Secretaries of
Veterans Affairs and Labor to conduct a joint study with annual
updates on fields of employment for which the greatest need for
employees exists in various geographic regions. The Department
of Labor, in many States, currently conduct these types of
studies. Consequently, we defer to the Department of Labor on
this issue and cannot support this bill.
H.R. 3889 would amend Chapter 31 of title 38 by adding a
new section 3122 to require VA to conduct a 20-year
longitudinal study of a statistically valid sample of the
veterans who begin participating in a program of vocational
rehabilitation during fiscal year 2008. Because VA is currently
developing a proposal to conduct its own long-term study of
issues affecting program outcomes, we do not support this bill
as it would duplicate those efforts.
H.R. 4539, the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Loan
Guaranty Cost Reduction Act of 2007,'' would amend title 38 of
the U.S. Code to make several key changes to the home loan
benefit. While we do not object to certain provisions of the
bill, we would not support its enactment in its present form.
VA estimates that this bill would result in cost savings of
$1.8 billion over 10 years.
H.R. 4884, the ``Helping Our Veterans Keep Their Homes Act
of 2008,'' contains a number of provisions similar to those of
H.R. 4539. While we do not object to certain provisions of this
bill, we would not support its enactment in its present form.
The VA estimates that this bill would result in a cost savings
of $8.1 million in fiscal year 2008, but would cost $1.93
billion over 10 years.
H.R. 5664 would amend title 38, section 2103 to require the
Secretary to update VA's plans and specifications for suitable
adapted housing at least once every 6 years. VA does not
support enactment of this bill as section 2103 currently
authorizes the Secretary to furnish model plans and
specifications for suitable housing units for eligible
veterans.
VA does this by providing our Handbook for Design for
Specially Adapted Housing to all veterans who are eligible for
the specially adapted housing assistance. We do not believe
legislation is required to ensure that this handbook is updated
and, therefore, do not support this bill.
Finally, H.R. 3681, the ``Veterans Benefits Awareness Act
of 2007,'' would add a new section 532 to title 38 to authorize
the Secretary of VA to purchase advertising in national media
outlets for the purposes of promoting awareness of benefits
under laws administered by VA. We do not believe enactment of
this bill is needed as current law provides sufficient
authority for the Secretary to purchase such advertising as
appropriate. Therefore, we do not support enactment of the
bill.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pedigo appears on p. 86.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
Well, let me start with just an observation, Mr.
Ciccolella. I think that in light of Mr. Stearns' testimony and
what we heard from Mr. Daley with the PVA, you are saying is if
indeed you can demonstrate to Mr. Stearns and to the
Subcommittee that you have these statistics, this issue of
availability and accessibility, then perhaps his bill can be
modified to achieve that objective.
We plan on working with Mr. Stearns and if you could assist
us in that to address his first question, which I anticipate
was show me the statistics, that they do exist, then it becomes
the issue of making sure they are available to veterans that
can calculate within their area of commuting what is available.
Mr. Ciccolella. Absolutely. And if there is something that
is missing, we will try to identify that and factor that in as
well.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
Mr. Bush, thank you for your testimony. I know in previous
Subcommittee hearings, we have engaged in a bit of a back and
forth on this jurisdictional issue. I know that on a hearing
that we had on January 17th, you stated that if the 10-year
post-service REAP benefit were included in the ``National
Defense Authorization Act,'' that Chapter 1607 would, ``Look
exactly like the Chapter 30 benefit. It no longer serves the
DoD recruiting and retention purpose.''
If that is the case, why would you continue to oppose? Why
does the Administration continue to oppose moving Chapter 1607
from DoD to VA authority?
Mr. Bush. The way this bill is crafted, it takes the pre-
2008 ``National Defense Authorization Act'' provisions and
transfers them. So what the bill would do is repeal the 10-year
post-service authorization. It repeals some of the other
improvements that were made in the 2008 authorization.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. So it is not on moving the
jurisdiction? It is the way it is currently written that if we
can make modifications so it does not affect what was signed
into law in the ``National Defense Authorization Act''?
Mr. Bush. If the bill was modified to reflect the current
provisions of 1607, our only concern would be transferring the
funds that we have in the DoD education trust fund to VA
because we look at that as those funds will help us offset the
attrition that we anticipate will occur when people now will
use the benefit when they leave as opposed to stay with us.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. I appreciate that clarification.
Maybe that is something we can work toward as we make
incremental progress on this issue, at least progress from some
of our perspectives.
Mr. Bush. I think that would be helpful.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Great.
In your statement, you talk about H.R. 3393 and your
concern about the negative message that may send to the
Nation's employers. As we heard Mr. Davis, who introduced the
bill, explain, the issue of punitive damages is current law as
it relates to the most egregious instances.
If we simply made some changes for National Guard men and
women and Reservists, if there is a violation of their
employment or reemployment rights similar to what is in current
law for others who may be discriminated against, do you think
that will have an impact on hiring Guard and Reservists?
Mr. Bush. USERRA is a not very friendly employer law. This
would make it less employer friendly. There are cases when
employers may find a reason not to hire, not advance a Guard
and Reserve member.
And it is hard, and I think Secretary Ciccolella can
probably talk to that in greater detail, but what we would
rather do is try to reach out and work with employers to
encourage them to, you know, reemploy their Guard and Reserve
members, employ Guard and Reserve members. If there is a
problem, we try to resolve those through our National Committee
for Employer Support and Guard and Reserve. You know, it is the
carrot approach as opposed to the stick approach.
There may be times when it is appropriate to have punitive
damages and this bill may be appropriate. But we are concerned
with the effect it would have on employers as they consider
hiring Guard and Reserve members. And that is our concern.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. My time is running low here. Most of
the Members stayed over there to vote, so they are not going to
give me as much time in holding it open. I am going to have to
leave in just a couple minutes and we will talk about how we
want to handle that in just a moment.
But I wanted to get to you, Mr. Gilroy, on the issue of
transferability. Two questions. Was this just proposed this
year as reflected in the President's State of the Union Address
and do you have any estimated costs of transferability of the
benefit?
Mr. Gilroy. Well, with regard to your first question, the
services, particularly the Army, have been asking for
transferability of benefits for some time now, and it has been
near the top of their list of items which they believe soldiers
in the field really want.
The President announced in his State of the Union Address,
this past January, that it was very important to him as well.
We also know that it is an important issue for the
Chairman. Again, we hear it from the field as the senior
leaders talk to troops. That is the primary reason why it was
included in the President's State of the Union message.
Transferability is becoming more and more of an issue of
concern to servicemembers.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I do not doubt that because I have
talked to a number of servicemembers back home. You may have
heard me say this previously. A friend of mine I graduated high
school with, if he could transfer some of those benefits to his
three daughters or even to his wife for her, to get her
graduate degree, he would more than readily do that.
I am interested in pursuing this, although I know that
there are some VSOs that are concerned about moving this now
over some of the other priorities we have been working on. If
we could maintain an open dialog as it relates to estimated
costs, and as it relates to transferring the whole benefit.
Some people do not like incrementalism, but I prefer action
over inaction and some results over none. I would just
encourage you to maintain a dialog as you work with Secretary
Gates and others in each of the branches.
I have some follow-up questions I want to pose in writing
to both you and Mr. Pedigo. I know Mr. Brinck has some
questions. We are going to submit those in writing because you
have been waiting a long time. I would come back if you had the
time to stay, but I have been probably testing your patience
with how long this has taken with the interruption of votes.
Thank you for your testimony, your insights on these many
bills that we are considering, and one of the things that I
wanted to ask and wish I had the time to was on the issue on
the Guard and Reserve equity. I appreciate the DoD being
supportive of the bill Mr. Boozman and I have introduced, but
if that were to move and actually get signed into law, we have
actually exacerbated the gap as Mr. Buyer pointed out.
I would like to get your thoughts given where the
percentage is currently and where it might end up if we do not
make some other changes to Guard and Reserve benefits. We will
be pursuing that with you as well.
Thank you for your service to our Nation's servicemembers,
to our Nation's veterans, for working so closely with us and
with our staff here on the Committee. We will look forward to
seeing you again. Thank you.
The hearing now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Today we have thirteen bills before us that seek to: protect our
nation's veterans from possible foreclosure and financial burdens
incurred while serving one's country; update VA housing construction
guidelines; expand education programs while meeting the current
retention needs of the Armed Forces; strengthen employment and
reemployment rights for returning service members and veterans; and
minimize recidivism among incarcerated veterans.
According to a Congressional Research Service Report updated
January 25, 2008 ``the original GI Bill provided up to $500 annually
for education expenses. This is the equivalent of an estimated $5,890
in 2007 dollars. An additional $50 was provided monthly for living
expenses in 1944, which is equivalent to $589 monthly, or $5,301
annually in 2007 dollars. Thus, the total education benefit, including
the living allowance, in 1944 would have been worth $11,191 annually,
or $1,243 monthly in 2007 dollars.''
Keeping this historic perspective in mind, I along with Ranking
Member Boozman have introduced H.R. 5684, the Veterans Education
Improvement Act which seeks to address the educational needs of our
brave men and women in uniform. This bipartisan bill is the product of
numerous hearings held by our Subcommittee since the beginning of the
110th Congress, which allowed for close evaluation of the Montgomery GI
Bill and input from veteran service organizations, education leaders,
government agencies, and other policy experts.
H.R. 5684 would help address current MGIB shortfalls, along with
other important improvements, including:
Substantially increases the amount of basic education
assistance for veterans equal to the average cost of the tuition at a
4-year public college or university;
Provides veterans with a monthly cost of living stipend;
and
Extends the time limitation for use of education benefits
from 10 years to 15 years, more fully accommodating the transition from
military to civilian life.
I would like to add that H.R. 5684 includes unique provisions that:
Allows the overall assistance to be used for business
courses, prepatory courses for exams, and to repay federal student
loans;
Dramatically expands the opportunity for service members
to enroll for the benefits, even if they are beyond the initial
opportunity for automatic enrollment;
Provides increased funding for State Approving Agencies,
an important partner in administering the benefits with the VA;
Rewards veterans for their service by eliminating their
educational entitlements from being considered as income when applying
for federal financial aid;
Increases On the Job Training and dependent education
benefit to 85 percent;
Supplements reporting fees given to colleges and
universities;
Creates a 5-year pilot program to expand work-study
programs for veterans;
Increase the VA's full time employees by 150 to help
administer the new requirements;
Provides funding for updating existing IT systems; and
Rearranges the ``advance pay'' process to prevent any
break in benefits.
H.R. 5684 provides specific improvements and adjustments meant to
make it easier, not harder for veterans to access the education
benefits they've earned following their service and contributes to the
overall national economy. In addition, this bill will make changes with
minimal disruption of the current VA IT system and to the
beneficiaries.
The Veterans Education Improvement Act is a well crafted bill that
provides the VA the resources to administer the new changes to update
and improve the Montgomery GI Bill to better reflect today's world, and
ensure that today's veterans have the resources they need to continue
or begin their education when they return from service. I appreciate
the support of many of today's witnesses for this bill that addresses
necessary changes to veterans' education benefits.
I look forward to working with Ranking Member Boozman and other
Members of the Committee to continue to improve education entitlements
for veterans. Those serving in our Armed Forces deserve to be protected
as best we know how--not just with weaponry, armor and other equipment,
but also healthcare, education, and support for the families who await
their return.
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Good afternoon. We have a lot of business to transact this
afternoon so in the interest of time, I will forego my usual clever and
highly insightful analysis so that we may hear from our witnesses. I
would say that we have an interesting mix of bills before us and I am
eager to hear the various points of view.
I yield back.
Honorable John Boozman Remarks on H.R. 3681 and H.R. 3889
Thank you Madam Chairwoman. My first bill on the agenda is H.R.
3681, the Veterans Benefits Awareness Act of 2007. Over the years,
Congress has given VA millions of dollars to increase outreach to raise
awareness of veterans benefits. I suspect anyone who watches or listens
to sports or other types of entertainment in the national media has
seen or heard ads for each of the military services. But when was the
last time any of us saw a TV advertisement in prime time or a
continuing radio campaign designed to achieve those goals?
VA produces significant amounts of brochures and posters. And VA
staffs meet with lots of service organization posts and other small
venues. These are nice from a personal contact standpoint, but
relatively inefficient in getting the word out on veterans benefits.
That is the purpose of H.R. 3681, to authorize VA to use modern
electronic media to promote the programs earned by service to the
nation. Staff tells me there has been a body of opinion at VA that the
Department was prohibited from spending on this type of outreach. My
bill will put an end to that type of out-of-date thinking.
My second bill, H.R. 3889 is designed to develop a database of
outcomes experienced by those who participate in the VA's Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment program. Unfortunately, there is
relatively little data on how the program improves the lives of our
more seriously injured veterans. Conducting a 20 year longitudinal
study that requires annual reports to Congress will make future
management decisions easier for VA and legislative decisions more
accurate for Congress. As a matter of fact, each of VBA's business
lines should be conducting longitudinal studies, but that is a matter
for another time.
Finally, as an original cosponsor of your GI Bill, H.R. 5684, I
believe that unlike some of the other nearly 40 veterans education
bills that have been introduced, H.R. 5684 is an approach that is
manageable and affordable. Veterans will get between $17,000 and
$18,000 per school year not counting other federal aid and VA will not
be required to retool its system to pay the benefits. I am very pleased
we will be taking action on improving education benefits for our
veterans and I look forward to passing the bill next week.
I hope my colleagues will support H.R. 3681 and 3889 at our markup
next week and thank you for including these bills in today's agenda. I
yield back.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Filner, Chairman,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
and a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Thank you for the opportunity to speak before the Subcommittee on
three important pieces of legislation to address the needs of veterans.
Like most Americans, our nation's heroes see homeownership as an
integral part of the American dream. Unfortunately, for many service
members and veterans, that part of the American dream can become a
nightmare when coupled with frequent deployments, the high cost of
purchasing a home and rising interest rates.
Currently, the Department of Veterans Affairs offers veterans VA-
guaranteed loans through common lending institutions, including banks,
savings and loan associations and mortgage brokers. For veterans that
qualify, the VA will guarantee a portion of the loan to the lender,
thereby protecting the lender for the guarantee amount.
Unfortunately, the current VA loan program is not sufficient to
meet the needs of our veterans because, too often, the loan amount is
insufficient to purchase a home, does not offer alternatives for
veterans with less than perfect credit and does not incorporate younger
veterans that may lack the necessary financial track record to prove
they are a good risk.
As Chairman of the Committee, I am especially concerned about the
affects of the housing market and home foreclosures on our active duty
service members and veterans. These courageous, young men and women
should never be forced to worry about their homes, while they are
serving overseas and dealing with the intense stresses of deployment.
I have introduced two bills that improve the VA home loam program.
H.R. 4883 will prohibit foreclosure of property owned by a service
member for one year following a period of military service.
The second, H.R. 4884, Helping Our Veterans to Keep Their Homes Act
of 2008 will:
increase the maximum home loan guarantee amount to
$625,500;
decrease the equity requirement to refinance a home loan;
require the VA Secretary to review and streamline the
process of using a guaranteed home loan to purchase a condominium;
reduce the home loan funding fees to one percent;
extends the adjustable rate mortgage demonstration
project to 2018;
extend the hybrid adjustable rate mortgage demonstration
project to 2012; and
provide a yearly adjustment of the VA home loan to match
the consumer price index.
Madam Chair, when our service members return home, it is our solemn
obligation to protect and serve them with the same commitment and
dedication with which they protected and served us. Both H.R. 4883 and
H.R. 4884 would demonstrate just such a level of commitment and I ask
for your support.
Each day members of the National Guard and Reserve serving in
support of contingency operations both at home and abroad experience
the inequity of educational benefits that exist between members of
Active Duty and Reserve Forces.
I also urge you to support H.R. 4889, a bill to recodify Reserve
Education Assistance Program entitlements from the Department of
Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Currently, REAP provides up to 36 months of education benefits to
certain members of the Reserve Forces, who are called or ordered to
active duty service in response to a war or national emergency.
This cost neutral legislation would augment timeliness and quality
of receipt of benefits while enabling better support for recruitment
and readjustment outcomes, as intended by Congress. This bill is an
important administrative step in establishing readjustment benefits for
activated Guard and Reserve members who are subject to the same
hardships, and face the same enemy fire, as active duty troops.
As you will hear later today, this legislative proposal is a top
priority for most of the veteran service organization, many of which
have endorsed my bill. I urge all my colleagues to join me and these
veterans service organizations in supporting our nation's Reserve
Forces by cosponsoring H.R. 4889.
Again, thank you for including H.R. 4883, H.R. 4884 and H.R. 4889
in today's Subcommittee hearing. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to address the negative impact the recent subprime
foreclosures have had on our veterans and service members and ensure
our veterans are afforded the education entitlement they deserve.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve Buyer, Ranking Republican Member,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
and a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman, I am very
pleased you have included my bill, H.R. 4539, the Department of
Veterans Affairs Loan Guaranty Cost Reduction Act of 2007, for the
Subcommittee's consideration.
When I introduced the bill last December with Mike Michaud, the
full extent of the mortgage and financial sector crisis had not yet
appeared and frankly, this bill was intended to improve the day-to-day
operations of loan guaranty program. But events since I introduced H.R.
4539 have convinced me of the need to make the kinds of changes
included in my bill.
I would note that subsequent to introduction of H.R. 4539 by Mike
Michaud and I, Chairman Filner introduced a similar bill, H.R. 4884,
and I take that similarity as confirmation of the need to improve the
loan guaranty program. I believe that between us, veterans will find it
easier to achieve the American dream.
I also ask unanimous consent to include a copy of a January 28,
2008 letter to Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner cosigned by Mike
Michaud and me regarding the need to include the VA loan guaranty
program the recent stimulus package in the hearing record. I was very
disappointed it was not addressed when the stimulus package increased
the loan limits for FHA mortgage loans to move people from risky
subprime loans to federally guaranteed loans. I did appropriately bring
this matter to you and thank you for your attention.
In addition to the details of the bill, I note that VA's loan
Guaranty program is not experiencing the same financial difficulties as
the broader market because VA maintained its standards while others did
not. I must also emphasize that H.R. 4539 has no affect on VA's
underwriting standards.
Madame Chairwoman, H.R. 4539 would do the following:
Increase the maximum loan amount guaranteed by VA to 125
percent of the Freddie MAC conforming limit. This will enable service
members and veterans living in high cost areas to purchase homes using
the VA loan guaranty.
Extend some of the fees through 2017. These fees provide
the funds VA needs to pay for the guaranty on homes that go to
foreclosure. These fees have also provided PAYGO offsets for
improvements to other VA benefits.
Increase the guaranty amount for certain refinanced loans
making VA refinancing more attractive and competitive in the
marketplace.
My bill reduces the equity requirement for a VA-
guaranteed refinancing loan to zero. This is especially important for
those service members and veterans whose home equity has decrease
solely because of the current market forces despite the fact that they
are not behind on their mortgage payments.
To make loans more affordable in the high cost areas, my
bill would limit the total loan guaranty fees to the maximum dollar
amounts in effect on the day of enactment.
To encourage an increase in the supply of affordable
housing, H.R. 4539 would increase the guaranty amount to 30 percent of
the mortgage.
And finally, my bill would require the Secretary to
provide a small measure of assistance in offsetting closing costs
associated with the purchase of a home. The Secretary would determine
the amount--if any--based on the income from guaranty fees in the
previous year.
Madame Chairwoman, as you know, I support your GI Bill, H.R. 5684.
I mention this because it is a good bill and you have worked with our
side in a bipartisan manner to make a few changes we felt important.
Additionally, we all know the train is moving quickly on this issue so
major restructuring of all VA education programs is not feasible at
this time. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am in the process of
drafting an extensive reorganization of chapters 30, 32, 34, 35 and 36
into one or two chapters to standardize the administrative rules and
education and training options to those receiving education benefits. I
hope we can work together on this approach to bring some order to these
programs in the not too distant future.
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, I thank you again for the bipartisan
manner in which you have included H.R. 4539 and several other bills
from our side of the aisle in today's hearing. I look forward to
working with you and all the Members of the full committee to improve
the VA loan Guaranty program.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ciro D. Rodriguez,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, members of the subcommittee, thank you
for the opportunity to speak regarding H.R. 5664, a bill that I
introduced to correct a bureaucratic oversight in the way that the
Veterans Administration advises contractors constructing or renovating
housing for disabled veterans. I was extremely moved by last June's
hearing before this subcommittee concerning Specially Adaptive Housing.
There is little doubt that funding level available to individual
disabled veterans to have their homes adjusted to meet their needs is
too low. My bill does not address that particular issue, rather it
seeks to ensure that veterans whose homes are updated under this
program benefit from all that modern technology and construction
practice can provide.
As Mr. Gonsalves, President and Founder of Homes for Our Troops,
pointed out in the hearing, ``service men and women with injuries that
would have killed them in previous wars are now living to see another
day, and are in need of truly `special' home adaptations.'' The primary
guidance that the VA provides contractors who draw up plans and
specifications to modify homes under this grant program is VA Pamphlet
26-13, titled Handbook for Design: Specially Adaptive Housing. As Mr.
Carl Blake, National Legislative Director of the Paralyzed Veterans of
America pointed out: much, if not all, of the guidance found in the
pamphlet is still applicable today. However, I feel that it focuses too
much on veterans who find themselves in wheelchairs with lower
extremity paralysis or amputation. While certainly still valid, we find
increasing numbers of veterans returning home from current conflicts
with alternative injuries such as upper-limb amputation or blindness.
The guide was last updated in 1978. By comparison, the current Army
Corps of Engineers housing design guide is dated 1994 and that of the
Air Force, 2004.
The time has come to ensure that the guide contains up-to-date
direction to architect and engineer firms and contractors who will do
the noble work of ensuring our disabled veterans have homes that
respect the dignity by which they sacrificed. I propose in my bill that
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs update the guide on at least a six-
year basis. I also wish to express my intent that the field agents who
approve the construction plans under this program view the pamphlet as
a guide rather than a definitive set of requirements.
After consulting with several VSOs in preparing for this testimony,
I need to clarify the wording of my bill. Rather than requiring the VA
to update plans and specifications on a six-year basis, it is better
stated that the pamphlet itself is updated on a six-year basis.
Contractors actually derive the plans and specifications based on each
veteran's home and the pamphlet. I would hope that if the committee
considers my bill in any future mark-up that such language is made
clear. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak today and for
considering my bill, H.R. 5664.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cliff Stearns,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida
Executive Summary
For many service members, the transition from active duty to
veteran status, and returning to a full meaningful civilian life is
daunting, fraught with many challenging obstacles and bureaucratic
barriers. Many times, these brave service men and women require job
training for entirely new careers.
My legislation, H.R. 3646, the Veterans' Effective Training Job
Opportunities and Benefits Act of 2007, or the VET JOBS Act, would
provide better information to veterans on their local job market needs.
The VET JOBS Act directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the
Secretary of Labor to conduct a joint study on the greatest employment
needs in various job markets around the country and post the results on
the VA website. These results would then be updated annually to reflect
the current and possibly changing needs in the local job market.
The VET JOBS Act has broad bipartisan support and has been endorsed
by many veterans' organizations, such as the American Legion, AMVETS,
Veterans of Foreign Wars, Blinded Veterans of America and the Paralyzed
Veterans of America. In addition, my bill has 44 co-sponsors from both
sides of the aisle.
__________
Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me the opportunity to testify
on behalf of my bill, H.R. 3646, the Veterans' Effective Training Job
Opportunities and Benefits Act of 2007, or the VET JOBS Act. This bill
is an important step in helping our veterans find gainful employment
when retiring from service.
When warriors return home from combat, they often face another
uphill battle. For many service members, the transition from active
duty to veteran status, and returning to a full meaningful civilian
life is daunting, fraught with many challenging obstacles and
bureaucratic barriers. Many times, these brave service men and women
require job training for entirely new careers.
Although statistics show that eventually veterans in general enjoy
a favorable employment rate in the nation's job market, many veterans
initially find it difficult to compete successfully in the labor
market. That's why for over a decade, the federal government has
provided job-training benefits to veterans through the Department of
Veterans Affairs and the Department of Labor. The mission statement for
the Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service
(VETS) program is to ``provide veterans and transitioning service
members with the resources and services to succeed in the 21st century
workforce by maximizing their employment opportunities, protecting
their employment rights and meeting labor-market demands with qualified
veterans today.''
Additionally, the Department of Labor offers service members
leaving the military with a service-connected disability, the Disabled
Transition Assistance Program (DTAP). DTAP includes a three-day
workshop plus additional hours of individual instruction to help
determine job readiness and address the special needs of disabled
veterans. However, this is the identical DTAP program offered to all
transitioning disabled veterans across the nation.
This three-day program is valuable support, but it only provides
general employment information and at no time addresses the specific
needs of the community in which the veteran lives. Unfortunately, this
means that frequently there is a void of information on local labor
market conditions that results in veterans using their benefit to train
for jobs that don't exist in their communities.
Mr. Jeffrey Askew is Director of the Marion County Veterans'
Service Center in my hometown of Ocala, Florida. He said many veterans
have used their federal job training benefits for Information
Technology (IT) career training. However, Ocala has little demand for
IT professionals, and veterans often are advised to move to Orlando
where there are more opportunities. Upon finally getting settled back
into civilian life, it is frustrating and unfortunate--to say the
least--to be forced to uproot one more time and move your family to an
unknown city. I am concerned about this problem, but I believe there is
an easy solution.
Currently, there is a maze of websites with confusing and sometimes
out of date information on employment conditions. My legislation would
provide better information to veterans on their local job market needs.
The VET JOBS Act directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the
Secretary of Labor to conduct a joint study on the greatest employment
needs in various job markets around the country and post the results on
the VA website. These results would then be updated annually to reflect
the current and possibly changing needs in the local job market. With
this tool, veterans could plug in their zip code and see a list of the
occupations that are most in demand within their commuting area, and
subsequently use their federal job training most effectively. The
Department of Labor already has the infrastructure in place for this
kind of research, so this is a practical, low cost solution. In fact,
the Congressional Budget Office has unofficially scored this proposal
as having ``insignificant'' costs. Insignificant costs for immeasurable
benefit to our veterans.
Furthermore, the VET JOBS Act has broad bipartisan support and has
been endorsed by many veterans' organizations, such as the American
Legion, AMVETS, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Blinded Veterans of America
and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. In addition, my bill has 44
cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.
Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to testify on the
VET JOBS Act. I look forward to working with my colleagues to help our
veterans obtain quality employment.
Prepared Statement of Hon. John A. Yarmuth,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Kentucky
Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for inviting me here today to discuss
the Second Chance for America's Veterans Act. As a small pilot program,
the Incarcerated Veterans Transitional Program or IVTP has reduced
recidivism by 90 percent among participants and saved the taxpayers 1.6
million dollars in each of the six locations where it has been
implemented over the last three years. We're here today because by
expanding this tremendous level of success to a national scale, we
could provide hope for thousands men and women who return to civilian
life after years of serving their country.
In my hometown of Louisville, Kentucky, Richard Waddell returned
home 10 percent disabled and suffering from post traumatic stress
disorder, honorably discharged after nine years service in the National
Guard, Army, and Marines. He had no job, no support, and a family to
feed. Out of desperation, he turned to robbery, and was apprehended by
law enforcement while buying groceries for his family.
Unfortunately, to this point, Richard's story is far from unusual
among America's veterans. Where his story departs is when he was
released from jail for the second time, he met an IVTP representative.
The IVTP worker first helped him with the essentials--clothes, food,
and transportation--and from there, the dignity and respect that
Richard had earned serving our nation returned. Thanks to the help of
IVTP, Richard was able to activate his VA benefits and register for
disability, and he now has an apartment and holds a good job. Next week
he will begin college, and a future that once seemed bleak at best is
now bright and full of promise.
IVTP has similarly aided 328 veterans in Kentucky, by partnering
veterans transitioning out of prison, who are at risk of homelessness
upon their release, with a professional mentoring staff composed of
veterans to help them get back on their feet. Of those 328, just 22
returned to criminal activity after engaging the program, a recidivism
rate of seven percent. That number is impressive by any standard, but
for a veteran population that sees over half of its ranks return to
prison, the success of this program is extraordinary. Abandoning this
success, and the men and women who served our country, would not only
be counterproductive, but also send the message that our veterans only
matter when our country needs them and not when they need our country.
The Second Chance for America's Veterans Act, would expand the
highly successful IVTP pilot to a competitive grant program in twenty-
four locations across the U.S. Providers would assist veterans who are
exiting the corrections system by connecting them with transitional
housing, employment services, mental health and/or substance abuse
services, and other community support.
After all that our veterans have given for this country, providing
them with such vital, effective, and proven services should be an
obligation not an option. But this isn't only about giving, this is
also a matter of working for our national interest. In Kentucky, we
have the most rapidly growing prison population in the nation, a truth
that has had a devastating effect on the fiscal reality of the
Commonwealth.
To keep a convict in prison for a year, Kentucky spends over 18,000
dollars. By comparison, Volunteers of America, which currently
administers the program, spends between 700 and 1,200 dollars to give a
veteran the tools to stay out of prison and contribute to society for a
lifetime.
At a time when we search to find new approaches to stimulate the
economy and get a handle on America's ever-growing deficit, the Second
Chance for America's Veterans Act offers us the opportunity to support
a program with a proven track record of providing immediate and
substantial return on our investment, while also paying a debt to those
in uniform who sacrificed to serve our country. This is a unique win-
win in government.
Still, the Department of Labor has chosen not to continue this
highly successful program, and without action by Congress, thousands of
worthy veterans in need would be abandoned by the nation they served;
left to bounce around our overcrowded prison system.
I thank the committee for looking into this legislation and
strongly urge you to support passage of H.R. 3467, the Second Chance
for America's Veterans Act.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robin Hayes,
a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of Legislation: This bill would amend the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 1994 (USERRA) to
authorize the Secretary of Defense to include Full Time National Guard
Duty for possible exemption from the USERRA 5-year limit on service.
The Secretary of Defense would be authorized to exempt National Guard
service supporting critical homeland defense missions or other missions
as deemed appropriate. Since USERRA already authorizes exemptions for
service supporting critical active duty missions, this amendment would
simply correct a disparity in the treatment of National Guard members.
Background: Currently, certain types of active duty service are
exempted from the five-year reemployment limit under the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 1994 (USERRA). These
exemptions cover service during a time of war or national emergency,
support of missions where others have been ordered to duty under an
involuntary call-up authority, and for other critical missions or
requirements.
After the events of September 11, 2001, voluntary active duty in
support of Operation Noble Eagle (ONE) and Operation Enduring Freedom
(OEF) were exempted from the USERRA 5-year limit on reemployment.
However, full-time National Guard duty performed under Title 32 is not
covered under those exemptions.
As part of the new operational reserve construct, National Guard
personnel will be used in ever-increasing numbers to support certain
operational requirements while serving in a Title 32, full-time
National Guard duty status. Indeed, section 512 of the Ronald W. Reagan
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law
108-375) added a new chapter 9 to Title 32 to authorize this type of
service. Despite this fact, there is no authority under USERRA to
exempt this type of National Guard service.
Examples of National Guard employment when such a USERRA exemption
might be appropriate include airport security following the terrorist
attacks of September 11, the recent southwest border security mission,
Hurricane Katrina, and the Air Sovereignty Alert missions defending the
United States from air attacks. As we continue to pursue the Global War
on Terror, and the National Guard continues to be utilized at a high
rate, more of these missions may identify themselves.
Conclusion: If the National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2007
is not passed, National Guard members may be put into a position where
they are forced to choose whether they support a critical mission, such
as Katrina or a mission in support of the Global War on Terror or
return to work with their civilian employers. This is already starting
to occur. Like their counterparts supporting critical active duty
missions, they should not be forced to make the choice of whether to
keep their civilian jobs or support critical national security
missions.
The lack of a USERRA exemption for Title 32 Federal full-time
National Guard duty is a clear disparity that needs to be addressed.
H.R. 3798 will close this loophole and protect our citizen soldiers.
This legislation is fully supported by the National Guard Association
of the United States (NGAUS) and the Enlisted Guard Association of the
United States (EANGUS).
__________
Chairwoman Herseth, Ranking Member Boozman, representatives of our
Veterans' Service Organizations, thank you for the opportunity to be
here to address your Subcommittee on an issue that impacts our National
Guardsman. Today, I am proud to stand before this Subcommittee in
support of a critical piece of legislation: The National Guard
Employment Protection Act of 2007.
As this Subcommittee is aware, the National Guard operations tempo
has increased exponentially since September 11th, and the Federal
duties they have been charged with have created a unique situation.
Previously, National Guard doing Federal missions were called up to
Title 10 active duty status, but with the Global War on Terror, it
became increasingly apparent that there needed to be a mechanism to
allow the National Guard to perform Federal missions in Title 32
status.
It has become clear that unified state-federal cooperative
employment of the National Guard provides a uniquely powerful tool to
address domestic security needs. Some examples of this type of Federal
Title 32 duty are Air Sovereignty Alert (ASA) providing air defense for
our Nation, airport security, operations in support of natural
disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, fighting wildfires, and border
security to name a critical few.
More and more often, we see operations in which the Federal
government provides the funds and the State governors provide the
authority and control to execute operations to secure the homeland.
This means that a greater number of National Guardsmen are performing
such duties, which unfortunately are not currently covered under
USERRA. Prior to September 11th, there were essentially no operational
missions conducted by the National Guard under Title 32 so there was no
loophole in the protection afforded National Guardsmen for their
Federal service.
To address this loophole, I introduced H.R. 3798, The National
Guard Employment Protection Act of 2007, with Congresswoman Madeleine
Bordallo of Guam as my Democratic original cosponsor. The bill would
amend the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
1994 (USERRA) to authorize the Secretary of Defense to include Full
Time National Guard Duty for possible exemption from the USERRA 5-year
limit on service. Passage of this legislation will ensure that National
Guard members are not forced to choose between keeping their civilian
jobs and serving our Nation. Since USERRA already authorizes exemptions
for service supporting critical active duty missions, this amendment
would simply correct a disparity in the treatment of National Guard
members.
It is essential that we make sure all of our nation's heroes are
given adequate opportunity to support Federal missions without it
affecting their civilian jobs. The National Guard has increasingly been
called up since September 11th, and North Carolina has one of the
highest mobilization rates at over 97 percent. Whether they are
protecting our skies, helping save lives during a national disaster
such as Hurricane Katrina, enhancing our border security, or doing
another Federal mission, there is no doubt that the National Guard is
an essential part of the total force. America's National Guardsmen
should never be put in a position where they are forced to choose
whether to support a critical mission, such as a mission in support of
the Global War on Terror, or return to work with their civilian
employers in order to protect their jobs.
At seven years into fighting the Global War on Terror (GWOT), we
are starting to see a small but increasing number of National Guardsmen
bumping up against their 5 year USERRA protection for their civilian
jobs. According to statistics provided by the National Guard Bureau,
since September 11th, 6,984 of our citizen soldiers have been called up
to perform Federal missions under Title 32. There are currently 1,719
Guardsmen performing duty under Title 32 orders. The Air National Guard
has especially been impacted, particularly those airmen performing the
Air Sovereignty Alert mission. They are by no means alone in their
situation, as this loophole in employment protection affects the entire
National Guard.
If the National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2007 is not
passed, National Guard members may be forced to choose between keeping
their civilian jobs and serving our nation. Unfortunately, this is
already starting to occur and the problem will likely get worse as
people near the current USERRA 5-year job protection limit. The
National Guard is performing critical Federal missions under Title 32
and it is essential that this loophole be closed so that we protect
those whose service protects us.
This legislation is fully supported by the Enlisted Guard
Association of the United States (EANGUS) and the National Guard
Association of the United States (NGAUS) and I have enclosed their
letters of endorsement for the record. The National Guard Bureau and
Department of Defense also favor closing this loophole to protect our
National Guardsmen. Our citizen soldiers fight to protect our nation
and our freedom and the very least we can do is protect their rights to
serve and also retain livelihood for themselves and their families.
Thank you for the serious consideration of the National Guard
Employment Protection Act. I know all the Members of this Subcommittee
share my commitment to the National Guard, and therefore strongly urge
passage of this legislation.
__________
Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States
Alexandria, VA.
October 11, 2007
The Honorable Ike Skelton
The Honorable Duncan Hunter
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States
(EANGUS) is the only military service association that represents the
interests of every enlisted soldier and airmen in the Army and Air
National Guard. With a constituency base of over 414,000 soldiers and
airmen, their families, and a large retiree membership, EANGUS engages
Capitol Hill on behalf of courageous Guard persons across this nation.
As you begin negotiations for conference on the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 1585), we write to express
our strong support for fully authorizing the President's Budget request
for the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) and to maintain an Army-led Joint
Program Office in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement. In
particular, we write to express our concerns that section 132 of the
House bill and section 1029 of the Senate bill would delay fielding of
this critical program.
Providing robust intra-theater lift capabilities over the ``last
tactical mile'' of combat operations plays a critical role in
supporting the modern war fighter. However, the current inventory of
intra-theater transports is increasingly inadequate for this mission
due to increased use in current combat operations, which not only
stresses older aircraft such as the C-23 Sherpa but also rapidly ages
newer rotorcraft aircraft as well. The Army C-23 in particular is an
aging aircraft which is not pressurized, not certified for medical
evacuation missions and incompatible with the standard cargo pallets.
This important intra-theater lift mission cannot continue to be
supported by a rapidly aging, overstretched and inadequate fixed wing
fleet.
Once fielded, JCA will provide the rapid, reliable and flexible
intra-theater lift capabilities on an asymmetric battlefield. The JCA
will ease the strain on our present fleet and afford the immediate need
for greater maximum loads at smaller, unrefined landing strips. This
will get critical equipment and supplies into the fight faster in
support of the war fighter.
The need for improved intra-theater lift has repeatedly been
studied and validated by the Department of Defense (DOD) through the
Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC). The Army and Air Force, in
coordination with the National Guard Bureau, meet the joint validated
requirement through the capabilities provided by the JCA.
Additionally, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) ruled
against the JCA bid protest is a testament to the program's joint
acquisition management. The joint requirements call for fielding a
total of 78 aircraft to the Army, Air Force, National Guard and Army
Reserves. Also, on June 20, 2006, the Army and Air Force Vice Chiefs of
Staff signed a Memorandum of Agreement that clearly laid out the joint
requirements for the program that meet both Army and Air Force
operational capabilities.
As importantly, current planning would assign the JCA to Army and
Air National Guard units in 19 states and the territories of Guam and
Puerto Rico. JCA will provide an added critical capability to state
emergency management and homeland security missions. In addition, JCA
will help National Guard units across the country replace missions lost
to BRAC 2005, retain personnel with needed skills and recruit new
members. This is the right mission at the right time for the National
Guard, and one that is strongly supported by Governors and Adjutants
General across the country.
Legislative language in the Senate and House versions of the
Defense Authorization Bill, as currently written, would delay the
fielding of JCA aircraft. In particular, the Senate, in section 1029,
has included language that would shift responsibility of the Joint
Cargo Aircraft program from the Army to the Air Force divesting the
Army of any fixed-wing aircraft missions. Such a directive would
undermine Army fixed-wing capabilities essential to supporting critical
combat missions and protecting the homeland. The Army-led program is on
schedule and has met all of its milestones. Shifting responsibility to
the Air Force at this point would set the program back at least two to
three years--if not more--due to differing fielding timelines between
the services.
The Army, Air Force and the National Guard have worked together to
provide a workable Joint solution to an important Joint capability gap.
Given the critical need for improved intra-theater lift capabilities,
we believe that it is critical that the JCA program continue to move
forward without delay. To this end, we respectfully request your
support in conference for fully authorizing the Joint Cargo Aircraft
program in fiscal year 2008 as submitted to Congress in the President's
Budget, and removing any legislative provisions or requirements that
could impede the program's progress.
Thank you for your consideration and strong support for the men and
women of our armed forces.
Working for America's Best!
MSG Michael P. Cline, USA (Ret)
Executive Director
__________
National Guard Association of the United States
Washington, DC.
November 19, 2007
The Honorable Robin Hayes
130 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Representative Hayes:
Thank you for sponsoring H.R. 3798.
The service of our men and women of the National Guard ordered to
full-time National Guard duty under Title 32 must be protected by the
same reemployment rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) as are afforded our members ordered to
active duty under Title 10.
Although not readily visible to the American public and media, the
men and women of the National Guard ordered to serve on full-time
National Guard duty under Title 32 after September 11, 2001 are playing
an indispensable role in maintaining the National Guard as ready
operational force in the Global War on Terror. As with the active
forces, the sacrifice of these men and women involves spending extended
periods away from civilian occupations. They should have the same
rights under USERRA upon completion of their duty to return with
certainty to their civilian jobs as those protecting Reserve Component
members serving on active duty under Title 10.
NGAUS strongly supports H.R. 3798 now before the 110th Congress
which would establish a National Guard Employment Protection Act that
would apply the benefits of USERRA to individuals ordered to full time
National Guard duty under section 502(f) of Title 32 on or after
September 11, 2001.
Our young men and women ordered to serve full-time in the National
Guard under Title 32 in the Global War of Terror deserve the same re-
employment rights as those protecting their active duty counterparts.
Thank you again for your efforts.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Koper
Brigadier General, USAF, (ret)
President
Prepared Statement of Hon. Artur Davis,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Alabama
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman, thank you
for holding today's hearing to examine proposals to protect the jobs,
housing and educational opportunities of our brave men and women of the
U.S. Guard and Reserves. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the
Reservist Access to Justice Act (RAJA), H.R. 3393, that I cosponsored
with Reps. Altmire and Walz.
All of us recognize that our military service men and women are
offering the highest personal service to their country as the war
continues. Since 9/11, more than 600,000 reservists and guardsmen have
been mobilized.\i\ Defense Department Data shows that while members of
the Guard and Reserve have made up about 28 percent of all U.S. forces
deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, there were periods during 2005 when
they made up nearly half of all U.S. troops in combat.\ii\ These
deployments have taken a toll on the mental health, family lives, and
economic stability of these brave men and women.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ Jill Carroll. The Christian Science Monitor. While Reservists
Serve, Their Jobs Don't Always Wait. April 10, 2008.
\ii\ Kimberly Hefling. Associated Press. Iraq War Vets' Suicide
Rates Analyzed: High Numbers Found Among Members of Guard, Reserves.
February 13, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding the role of reservists in the military, Congress
acted in 1994 to ensure that when reservists and guardsmen answer the
call of duty and return home, they also have the right to return to
their civilian jobs. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act (USERRA) prohibits employer discrimination against members
of the military, on the basis of their military service, in hiring or
in reemployment. Unfortunately, studies and reports familiar to this
Subcommittee show that--due to a number of factors--USERRA has not kept
all of our reservists and guardsmen from falling through the cracks.
For example, a Christian Science Monitor article published this
weekend bore the title, ``While Reservists Serve, Their Jobs Don't
Always Wait.'' The article outlines the story of Marine Reservist Steve
Duarte, who held his civilian job for 19 years. Yet when he returned
from Iraq in 2003, he was told that he would be let go at the end of
the week. When his efforts with the Departments of Labor and Defense
led nowhere, Duarte hired a private attorney and spent $12,000 of his
own money for fees. Several years later, he won his lawsuit and was
awarded almost $400,000. Duarte is not an isolated case. Numbers
indicate that:
10,061 formal complaints were filed with DOL from October
1, 1996 through June 30, 2005.\iii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iii\ GAO. Posthearing Questions Related to Federal Agencies'
Activities Regarding the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act. GAO-08-397R Military Personnel. Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions. 1/9/08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly 10,000 informal complaints were filed with the
Office of Employment Support for the Guard and Reserve (ESGR), and over
2,000 formal complaints were filed with the Veterans' Employment and
Training Service (VETS) and Office of Special Counsel (OSC) during
fiscal years 2004-2005 (a total of almost 16,000).\iv\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iv\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though numbers show slight improvement, the June 2006
Status of Forces Survey showed that military personnel reported being
briefed on USERRA 1.8 times on average (up from 1.3 in 2004). The
number of servicemembers who had never been briefed on USERRA decreased
from 27 percent in 2004 to 21 percent in 2006.\v\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\v\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the GAO, about seventy percent of reservists
facing difficulties in being reemployed or promoted did not seek any
type of redress.
We must agree that these numbers are unacceptable. However, recent
court decisions have weakened service members' ability to use USERRA to
enforce their rights. These include allowing service members to be
subject to binding arbitration agreements and limiting the types of
relief the court can provide. My bill, H.R. 3393, will correct and
clarify gaps in USERRA that have allowed employers to escape their
legal obligations to the military service members they hire.
For example, in 2003 Lieutenant Colonel Michael Garrett, USMCR, was
fired from his position with Circuit City stores following more than 10
years of work-related problems due to his service and training in the
Marine Corps Reserve. When he sued the company, Circuit City responded
with a motion to compel arbitration on the basis of a binding
arbitration agreement that had been distributed to all employees in
1995. While the district court found that USERRA superseded the
arbitration agreement, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed,
finding that because Congress has not explicitly stated that USERRA
plaintiffs ``procedural'' (as opposed to ``substantive'') rights are
superseded by USERRA, the agreement was enforceable. The Reservist
Access to Justice Act will provide needed clarity on this issue by
amending the Federal Arbitration Act to exempt USERRA plaintiffs from
binding pre-dispute arbitration agreements.
This legislation also addresses the need to ensure that injunctive
relief is available to reservists who have been fired in violation of
USERRA. Current law holds that only violations that result in
``irreparable injury'' can be prevented by a court injunction. Firings
are not considered ``irreparable'' injury, since a court can award
backpay if it finds that the firing was discriminatory. However, the
unique goals of USERRA--to ensure that the jobs of service members are
protected--cannot be achieved if the Court cannot act to prevent a
discriminatory firing. H.R. 3393 strengthens USERRA by clarifying that
the court ``shall'' use its equity powers to protect military service
members.\vi\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\vi\ Section 4323(e) of USERRA allows the court to make
discretionary use of its equity powers in order to vindicate the rights
and benefits of the veteran. In the case of Bedrossian v. Northwestern
Memorial Hospital, 409 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2005), the court declined to
grant Dr. Bedrossian an injunction to prevent his employer from firing
him. By amending Section 4323(e) to read that the court ``shall use its
full equity powers'' instead of ``may use its full equity powers,''
RAJA ensures that courts can act to prevent discriminatory firings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional key provisions of RAJA would accomplish the following:
1. Expand Availability of Liquidated Damages in USERRA disputes.
Section 4323(d) of USERRA currently allows for liquidated damages only
in disputes with a State or local government, or a private employer.
Further, because liquidated damages are determined by doubling the
amount of actual damages, a veteran may still end up without any
monetary relief. RAJA will extend section 4323(d)(C) by making it
applicable to the Federal Government. RAJA will also ensure that
liquidated damages are always available by making the amount of damages
equal to the actual amount of damages or $20,000, whichever is greater.
2. Make compensatory damages automatic absent a showing of good
faith by the employer. Section 4323(d) allows for a range of
discretionary relief, including compensatory damages. RAJA will make
the award of damages the default outcome, except where the employer can
show that the USERRA violation was made in good faith.
3. Provide for Punitive Damages in the Worst Cases of
Discrimination. USERRA currently does not provide the court with
additional remedies to deter the most egregious violations of service
members' employment rights. RAJA would make punitive damages available
as a remedy in cases where the discriminator acted with ``malice or
reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the
person.''
4. Holds State Governments Accountable. RAJA provides that States
that accept federal funds for any state programs or activities have
waived their sovereign immunity in cases of USERRA actions.
In addition to these key provisions, my office is currently
finalizing the drafting of several additional provisions which would
further re-invigorate USERRA. These provisions would do the following:
1. Clarify the Definition of Successor in Interest. In Coffman v.
Chugach Support Services, Inc., 411 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2005), a court
found that Coffman had no remedy under USERRA. While the USERRA
definition of ``employer,'' includes a ``successor-in-interest,'' the
definition does not make clear that a merger or transfer of assets need
not occur for a successor company to take on the reemployment
obligations of the original company. In USERRA's legislative history,
Congress stated its intent to apply factors used in Leib v. Georgia-
Pacific Corp., 925 F.2d 240 (8th Cir. 1991) to define ``successor-in-
interest.'' RAJA will codify Congress' intent so that a company like
Chugach, which interviewed all 100 of the previous contractors'
employees and hired 97 of them, would be considered a successor-in-
interest for the purposes of protecting USERRA plaintiffs.
2. Ensure that Prevailing Plaintiffs Receive Attorneys' Fees.
Currently, USERRA makes the award of attorneys' fees discretionary. By
requiring the award of attorneys' fees where appropriate, USERRA will
ensure that reservists are able to turn to private attorneys to
represent them when they are unable to find relief through government
channels.
The views and recommendations of a number of experts were
considered in the drafting of this legislation. As a result, H.R. 3393
has been endorsed by the National Defense Committee, The Military
Officers Association of America, the Military Coalition, and the
Reserve Officers Association. In a letter of support signed by
representatives of 32 member organizations, the Military Coalition
states, ``Since September 11, 2001, more than 600,000 members of the
Guard and Reserve have served the nation on active duty in the war on
terror. Over 132,000 have served multiple tours and thousands more are
in the call-up pipeline. For these selfless patriots and their families
returning to home, hearth, and jobs is second only to accomplishing
their mission. . . . The Military Coalition appreciates your
introduction of this legislation. Your bill is a very positive step in
helping sustain the Guard and Reserve as full partners in our operating
forces. TMC strongly supports H.R. 3393 and pledges to work with you
and all of Congress to secure its enactment.''
I urge you to join these organizations and support this
legislation.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Murphy,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania
First, I would like to thank Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking
Member Boozman for holding this hearing and giving me the opportunity
to speak on behalf of my bill, H.R. 3298, the 21st Century
Servicemembers Protection Act.
Soon after my election to Congress, a JAG attorney who does legal
assistance in the 101st Airborne contacted me to let me know about a
growing problem that many deployed servicemembers are currently facing.
He explained to me that many of the soldiers he worked with have
had their credit reports damaged during their deployments over issues
concerning their contracts with cellular telephone or Internet service
providers. This JAG attorney was able to put one of his own contracts
on hold during his deployment, but to do so he was forced to pay a
costly fee.
Looking into this further, I also discovered that some financial
institutions were slow or unwilling to reduce servicemembers' interest
rates during their deployments, even though these creditors are already
required to do so by law.
I learned that when servicemembers and their families ran into
problems with service providers and creditors, they not only had to
deal with the strain of deployment, but also faced repeated harassment
by collection agencies.
We owe the men and women of our Armed Forces better than this.
For decades, the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act and its
successor, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) have provided
crucial financial protection for our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen,
Marines, and Guardsmen. Now, as we continue to send a new generation of
servicemembers into harm's way, it is our obligation as Members of
Congress to update and modernize SCRA for today's troops.
The 21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act expands SCRA to
cover service contracts such as cellular phones, utilities, cable
television, or Internet access. Similar to provisions that currently
exist for residential and automobile leases, this legislation will
allow troops with deployment orders to more easily terminate or suspend
their service contracts without fee or penalty.
Currently, creditors who knowingly or negligently fail to reduce
interest rates upon notification from a soldier with deployment orders,
face no specific penalty. Another provision of my bill would add a
penalty to those creditors who refuse to reduce interest rates as they
are already required to do under SCRA.
As a veteran of the United States Army and the war in Iraq, I know
how important it is that our troops be able to focus on accomplishing
their mission and coming home safely, without worrying about their
credit rating or whether bill collectors are harassing their families.
Since this bill's introduction, my staff and I have worked with the
industries that will be affected by this legislation. In doing so, we
have developed compromise language that I believe maintains the intent
of the bill as introduced while alleviating the concerns of the
companies that will be affected by passage of this legislation. It is
my hope that the Committee will adopt this revised language when the
bill moves to mark-up.
This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is about doing
what's right for our troops. With that, I would again like to thank the
Chairwoman and the Ranking Member for giving me the opportunity to
testify today, and I am happy to answer any questions.
__________
Fleet Reserve Association
Alexandria, VA.
22 August 2007
The Honorable Patrick Murphy
U.S. House of Representatives
1007 Longworth Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Fax: 202-225-9511
Dear Representative Murphy:
The Fleet Reserve Association strongly supports, ``The 21st Century
Service Members Protection Act'' (H.R. 3298) to expand current credit
protections for service members to terminate or suspend certain service
contracts entered into before the individual receives notice of a
permanent change of station or deployment orders.
Under current law, only residential leases (90 days or more) and
vehicle leases (180 days or more) can be canceled. Your proposal
expands these protections to include other services such as cell phone
service, cable/satellite television, Internet service, auto insurance
and utility payments. In cases of fees paid in advance, a company would
have 30 days from the effective date of termination to provide a
refund.
The bill also increases the potential penalty for companies that do
not provide interest rate reduction to those eligible under the Service
Members Civil Relief Act, which mandates a six percent rate cap on
loans incurred prior to the service member coming on active duty.
The Association appreciates your leadership on this legislation and
stands ready to assist you in its passage in the 110th Congress. The
FRA point of contact is John Davis, FRA's Director of Legislative
Programs at the above numbers or ([email protected]).
Sincerely,
JOSEPH L. BARNES
National Executive Secretary
JLB:jrd:aal
__________
Association of the United States Army
Arlington, VA.
12 September 2007
The Honorable Patrick Murphy
U.S. House of Representatives
1007 Longworth Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Murphy:
On behalf of the 105,000 members of the Association of the United
States Army, I write to express our support for your legislation, the
21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act, H.R. 3298.
The Association of the United States Army strongly believes that
military members called to defend our great nation should not be
penalized by steep termination fees in contracts involving cellular
phone service, car insurance, utilities, cable television, or Internet
access. Also, we appreciate your recognition of the fact that serious
penalties are warranted for unscrupulous lenders who knowingly fail to
reduce interest rates for deploying servicemembers.
The Association of the United States Army applauds and supports
your efforts to provide greater protections for military members and
their families. We look forward to working with you to secure enactment
of this legislation.
Sincerely,
GORDON R. SULLIVAN
General, USA Retired
GRS/WBL/rmw
__________
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
Washington, DC.
November 15, 2007
The Honorable Patrick Murphy
1007 Longworth Office Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Murphy:
On behalf of the 2.4 million members of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars and our Auxiliaries, I'd like to offer our support for H.R. 3298,
legislation that would expand the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
(SCRA) to cover service contracts such as cellular phone service, car
insurance, utilities, cable television, or Internet access. This
legislation would allow troops with deployment orders to terminate or
suspend their service contracts without fee or penalty.
This important legislation would also create a penalty of up to
$10,000 for creditors who refuse to reduce interest rates as required
by SCRA. As of currently, there is no penalty for creditors that choose
not to adhere to SCRA; this legislation would ensure our service
members being sent into harm's way are taken care of.
The VFW commends you for introducing this legislation and we look
forward to working with you and your staff to ensure its success. Thank
you for your continued support of all America's veterans. Also, thank
you for your service in the 82nd Airborne.
Sincerely,
Dennis Cullinan, Director
National Legislative Service
__________
Military Officers Association of America
Alexandria, VA.
August 30, 2007
The Honorable Patrick Murphy
The Honorable Tim Walz
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representatives Murphy and Walz:
On behalf of the nearly 367,000 members of the Military Officers
Association of America (MOAA), I am writing to express our support for
your legislation, the 21st Century Service Members Protection Act, H.R.
3298.
MOAA strongly believes that military members called to defend our
great nation should not be penalized by steep termination fees in
contracts involving cellular phone service, car insurance, utilities,
cable television. or Internet access. Also, we appreciate your
recognition of the fact that serious penalties are warranted for
unscrupulous lenders who knowingly fail to reduce interest rates for
deploying service members.
We would recommend further review of potential unintended
consequences in the lease termination provisions in the bill. In many
states a landlord would be required to hold and protect for a specified
period personal property of a deployed service member who has
terminated a lease. This requirement is intended to protect tenants
from retaliation. However, the bill would apparently result in criminal
penalties for holding tenants' property that may be in their interest.
MOAA applauds and supports your efforts to provide greater
protections for military members and their families. We look forward to
working with you to secure enactment of this legislation.
Sincerely,
VADM Norbert R. Ryan, Jr. USN (Ret.)
President
__________
National Guard Association of the United States, Inc.
Washington, DC.
September 10, 2007
The Honorable Patrick Murphy
1007 Longworth Office Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Murphy:
As a vital part of our Nation's Armed Forces, National Guard
members continue to perform their federal active duty mission with
distinction but not without risks to their legal interests at home.
While serving on active duty, National Guard members requires full
protection of their civil legal interests and, where appropriate,
relief from performing certain contractual obligations adversely
affected by their active duty service.
NGAUS strongly supports H.R. 3298 now before the 110th Congress
which seeks to expand the protections available to National Guard
members under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act with respect to
terminating or suspending contracts for cellular phone service, cable
or satellite television service, Internet service, automobile
insurance, water, electricity, oil, gas, telephone and other utilities.
Our young men and women, who are selflessly serving our states and
nation, deserve the protections they need to obtain relief from
contractual obligations for services that they will not require during
deployment.
NGAUS thanks you for your continued support of the National Guard.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Koper
Brigadier General, USAF, (ret)
President
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 pending legislation before the Subcommittee today.
America needs a historic investment in the educational future of
this nation's veterans. When The American Legion wrote the first draft
of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act 1944, it changed the course of
American history. A generation of heroes was able to join the middle
class, achieve home ownership, earn higher education and live the
American dream. More famously known as the GI Bill, it was hailed by
many as the greatest piece of legislation ever. Sadly, as the
generations passed and memories dimmed, the GI Bill benefits were so
drastically reduced that many veterans either declined or were denied
even the opportunity to participate in the program. Few veterans today
have the luxury of attending school without also holding a job, and
many colleges are completely out of reach simply due to financial
barriers.
No longer can we continue to call each piece of education
legislation in the 110th Congress a GI Bill. A true GI Bill encompasses
such benefits as housing, employment, job counseling and training,
health care, and education for veterans. These are the true ``tools''
for seamless transition from warrior back to citizen. The time to
change history is once again upon us.
H.R. 4883, A bill to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to
provide for a limitation on the sale, foreclosure, or seizure
of property owned by a servicemember during the 1-year period
following the service members period of military service.
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 successfully transition from active duty
military service 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 would provide veterans an
extended period of time to become employed, correct all their finances
and assist them in the transition process.
In the most unfortunate of circumstances, lenders are unwilling to
negotiate and assist veterans who are in default status even though
these veterans are in a good position to correct the situation. It is
unfair to expect servicemembers to concentrate on fighting a battle
overseas and then simultaneously attend to all their personal matters
at home. Moreover, veterans have a positive track record of following
through with payments. During the fourth quarter of 2007, only 2.83
percent of homeowners using the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA's)
Loan Guaranty program were seriously delinquent. This is much lower
when compared to 6 percent for Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
mortgages, and a whopping 14.44 percent for the subprime mortgages.
H.R. 3798, National Guard Employment Protection Act
Protecting employment rights of National Guard soldiers who are
training to support their missions in the Global War on Terror is the
right thing to do. This bill would improve current law by amending
Title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.) to protect the reemployment
rights of members of the National Guard who were ordered to active duty
in support of national or state emergencies.
PENDING LEGISLATION TO AMEND THE VA LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM: H.R. 4884,
H.R. 4539, H.R. 5664
Since the VA Home Loan program was enacted as part of the original
Servicemen's Readjustment Act 1944 (the GI Bill), VA has guaranteed
more than 18.2 million home loans totaling nearly $938 billion for
veterans to purchase or construct a home, or to refinance another home
loan on more favorable terms. In the last five years (2001-2006), VA
has assisted more than 1.4 million veterans in obtaining home loan
financing totaling almost $197 billion. About half of these loans, just
over 730,000, were to assist veterans to obtain a lower interest rate
on an existing VA guaranteed home loan through VA's Interest Rate
Reduction Refinancing Loan Program.
The American Legion supports the elimination of the VA Home Loan
funding fee and petition Congress to appropriate funding to sustain the
VA Home Loan program when the funding fee is eliminated. Currently,
only service-connected disabled veterans are exempt from this funding
fee. However, for all other eligible veterans, the VA funding fee
charged to veterans was enacted to defray the costs of the VA
guaranteed home loan program. The fee, currently 2.15 percent on no
downpayment loans for first-time use, is intended to enable the veteran
who obtains a VA home loan to contribute toward the cost of this
benefit. Congress is not required to appropriate funding for this
program; however, because veterans must now ``buy'' into the program,
it no longer serves the intent of helping veterans afford a home.
In some aspects, the funding fee makes the VA Home Loan program
less beneficial than a standard, private loan. Approximately 80 percent
of all VA Home Loan participants must pay the current funding fee to VA
to defray the cost of appropriating funding for the home loan program.
This has had a negative effect on many veterans who choose not to
participate in this highly beneficial program.
The American Legion supports the reinstatement and extension of the
adjustable rate mortgage and hybrid adjustable rate mortgage project,
not just for the immediate future, but indefinitely. The adjustable
rate mortgage authority would enable VA the flexibility to assist more
veterans in obtaining affordable homes.
The American Legion supports allowing spouses of deceased veterans
to gain eligibility for the VA Home Loan program. The current
eligibility for a home loan for spouses are: an unremarried spouse of a
veteran who died while in service or from a service-connected
disability, or are a spouse of a serviceperson missing in action or a
prisoner of war. It is unfair for a veteran's spouse only to become
eligible for the home loan if the veteran dies of a service-connected
disability. Moreover, veterans are more likely than not to be the
primary income provider for the household and contribute the majority
of payments to mortgages for the family. Upon death of a veteran, the
mortgage payments must continue to be paid and the burden falls on the
surviving spouse. Many times the spouse elects to relocate to a
smaller, more economical home that is within their means. By allowing
spouses to gain eligibility, many elderly widows/widowers will be able
to enter the VA Loan Program.
A long overdue remedy to the refinancing laws is needed. In order
to strengthen the Loan Guarantee program, the law should be amended to
remove the 10 percent equity requirement in order to refinance a home
and to increase the refinancing limit a veteran can obtain to match the
maximum loan guarantee amount; currently $417,000. Under current law, a
veteran who wishes to refinance their home is limited to a loan of
$144,000.
Specially adaptive housing (SAH) is and will continue to be an
important issue as severely wounded veterans heal and transition out of
VA Polytrauma facilities. Since 1948, SAH assisted over 34,000 veterans
totaling $650M. For FY 2008 as of March 31, 2008, 550 veterans have had
grants approved and 1,500 veterans are in some stage of pursuit of
grant today.
It is important to note that there are 7,200 veterans currently
being tracked by the VA Loan Guarantee Service that are eligible, but
not taking advantage of SAH at this time. These veterans could request
specially adaptive housing assistance at any time and as the Global War
on Terror continues, more veterans will require special adaptations to
their homes. Studies required every six years to update plans and
specifications are not the proper solution. Rather, continuous
oversight and constant updates to veterans, Congress, and interested
parties would better serve the veteran community.
Housing Crisis Affecting Veterans
The National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) report, ``Vital
Mission, Ending Homelessness Among Veterans'' reports that currently,
over 930,000 veterans pay more than 50 percent of their income toward
housing, be it renting or owning a home. (476,877 rent/453,354 own)
When testifying before your Subcommittee; economists, lenders,
realtors, and other experts painted a bleak outlook for the future in
terms of veterans defaulting and foreclosing on their homes. If a
veteran loses his or her job, has a financial emergency, or some other
factor leading to delinquency, nearly 1 million veterans could be close
to losing their homes.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the
overall default rate grew by 29 percent, reaching a point at which just
over 1 in every 100 mortgages was in default, almost a 28-year high.
The foreclosure start rate did reach a 28-year high, rising by 55
percent. (GAO-08-78R Default and Foreclosure Trends (October 2007)).
In comparison to the subprime mortgage crisis, the VA Home Loan
program is helping veterans maintain their homes through supplemental
services. The VA Loan Guarantee Service reports that in 2007, there
were 58,836 reported defaults:
Only 16,000 had VA-Veteran assistance through the
Supplemental Servicing program provided by the VA.
Approximately 8,400 saved loans with assistance with the
VA Home Loan program supplemental servicing.
Just 8,100 homes foreclosed.
PENDING LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH A STUDY OF VETERAN TRENDS AND
PROGRAMS: H.R. 3646, H.R. 3889
A joint study to ascertain the needs of employees between
Department of Labor's (DOL) Veterans' Employment and Training Services
(VETS) and VA, as proposed in H.R. 3646, must also have Department of
Defense (DOD) involvement to determine what military occupational
skills can successfully translate over to the civilian sector. In the
Armed Forces, unique occupations are performed to approved military
standards that may meet or exceed the civilian license or certification
criteria. Upon separation, many former military personnel, certified as
proficient in their military occupational career, are not licensed or
certified to perform the comparable job in the civilian workforce, thus
hindering chances for immediate civilian employment and delaying career
advancement. This situation creates an artificial barrier to employment
upon separation from military service.
Unemployment, underemployment, difficulty translating military
skills to the civilian sector and the state of our economy are proving
to be obstacles to employment. Younger veterans of Operation Iraqi
Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF) are experiencing
employment obstacles at an alarming rate. A report by the DOL-VETS
finds that 11.3 percent of veterans ages 20 to 24 were unemployed in
2007, compared to only 8.1 percent of nonveterans in the same age
group. Moreover, a separate report by VA (Employment Histories Report
Final Compilation Report, Associates Inc. September 28, 2007) shows a
rise in the figure for those who stopped looking for work because they
couldn't find jobs or returned to school from just 10 percent of young
veterans in 2000 to 23 percent in 2005. VA even reports a higher
percentage of unemployed veterans, 18 percent of veterans aged 20-24
who sought jobs within one to three years of discharge were unemployed.
A longitudinal study of the vocational rehabilitation program
proposed in H.R. 3889 has the potential to greatly assist VA's efforts
in rehabilitation and other aspects of benefits and health care. The
requirement to provide annual reports enforces greater oversight of
this vital program. In addition to the requirements set forth by the
legislation, The American Legion recommends that the Secretary report
on all aspects of employment and housing and other related data of the
families of veteran sample source.
PENDING LEGISLATION TO AMEND VETERANS' EDUCATION BENEFITS: H.R. 4889
The American Legion strongly agrees with H.R. 4889, The Guard and
Reserves Are Fighting Too Act of 2008, and fully supports the intent of
the bill that would move the Reserve Educational Assistance Program
(REAP) from Chapter 1607, Title 10, U.S.C., to a new chapter under
Title 38, U.S.C. Recodification of REAP benefits would place the
administration and oversight authority under VA and the Veterans'
Affairs Committees. Traditionally seen as a recruitment tool,
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits can also be viewed as a readjustment
tool that more closely falls in line with the purview of VA for
seamless transition from active-duty to the classroom.
However, The American Legion has concerns regarding the technical
language. If H.R. 4889 were enacted in its current form, the positive
veterans' education provisions contained in the FY 08 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) would be removed. Therefore, The American
Legion most strongly recommends making technical corrections to H.R.
4889 to contain the new veterans' education provisions enacted under
Title 10, U.S.C., by the NDAA. The language would then fully match the
legislative intent to transfer of all REAP benefits to Title 38, U.S.C.
The most notable positive provision in the NDAA in regards to
veterans' education is the portability of benefits of REAP
beneficiaries. The NDAA enacted legislation in Title 10, U.S.C., to
allow Reservists to use their Chapter 1607 educational benefits for 10
years after separation from the Reserves and permits Reservists to
reclaim previously earned 1607 benefits and use them for 10 years
following any subsequent separation, if they rejoin the Armed Forces.
This is important because we must understand that many of the
Reservists, who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, have already left
the service due to multiple deployments, injuries, family, or
retirement. Reservists should not be penalized because they served in
the war, but chose to separate before the war ended.
Additionally, the NDAA authorizes an accelerated payment program;
allowing Reservists with three cumulative years of active-duty service
to qualify for education benefits at 80 percent of the active-duty
rate, and creates a buy-up program for service members eligible for
Chapter 1607 benefits.
The American Legion has no official position at this time on H.R.
5684, Veteran Education Improvement Act and H.R. 3681, the Veterans
Benefits Awareness Act
The American Legion has no official position on H.R. 3393,
Reservist Access to Justice Act; H.R. 3298, 21st Century Servicemembers
Protection Act; and H.R. 3467, Second Chance for America's Veterans
Act.
CONCLUSION
The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to present its
views on programs that will affect veterans, servicemembers and their
families. An author once wrote, ``A veteran is someone who, at one
point in their life, wrote a `blank check' made payable to the United
States of America for an amount `up to and including my life.' That is
honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer
understand it.'' We ask that this Subcommittee take into consideration
the recommendations of The American Legion as your colleagues address
these issues. Many steps should be taken to ensure that those who have
put on the uniform and have written a ``blank check'' to this country
(to include the ultimate sacrifice) continue to receive the thanks of a
grateful nation. We also ask the Subcommittee not to forget the
sacrifices and contributions made by America's veterans and their
families as the legislation that you deliberate upon will have lasting
effects on them.
The American Legion looks forward to continuing to work with the
Subcommittee to assist the nation's veterans. Madam Chairwoman and
Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my testimony.
Prepared Statement of Justin Brown, Legislative Associate,
National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States
Madam Chairwoman and Members of this Subcommittee:
On behalf of the 2.3 million members of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States and our Auxiliaries, I would like to thank
this committee for the opportunity to testify. The issues under
consideration today are of great importance to our members, and the
entire veteran population.
In the history of our nation there have always been great men and
women who have put everything on the line for our country. Our nation
is full of these heroes, who join together to create the world's
strongest, most impressive, and smartest military. However, our
military is not maintaining the quality of the force. According to a
recent GAO report, the percentage of high quality recruits in the Army
fell to 49 percent in 2006--the lowest level in more than 20 years and
the lowest among the services. Also, the total number of medical and
criminal waivers has risen steadily from 11.5% of recruits in 2004 to
16.9% of recruits in 2006 (10.1% of 2006 recruits were waived for pre-
service drug use, criminal charges, or convictions).
From 1973-1985, similar recruitment standards produced veterans
that were three to four times more likely to be homeless than their
non-veteran counterparts, even without most of this group suffering the
stresses and strains of combat or the mental and physical problems that
follow.
The risks and costs of joining the Army are becoming more and more
apparent to young men and women who are eligible for recruitment. To
join today's military is to risk death; it is to risk mental and
physical impairments; it is to risk one's marriage; it is to risk the
custody of one's children; it is to risk employment; and it is to risk
economic success. The military's strongest recruitment tool of a
college education is fast eroding as potential recruits learn of the
shortfalls and failures of the current benefits provided to those who
risk everything for their nation.
There are two strategies to solve the issue and respectively there
are two outcomes. The Army and Marine Corps have not met their goal of
high-quality recruits since 2003. DoD's response has been to lower
recruitment standards, thereby enlarging the pool of eligible recruits,
to meet their recruitment needs. The consequence of such actions is
creating a situation in which the military becomes the employer of last
resort. This will likely lead us to larger expenditures in the long
term, than investing in a robust, attractive, proven recruitment tool--
a GI Bill that pays for the full cost of education: tuition, room,
board, fees, and a cost-of-living stipend.
Increased funding, albeit necessary, is not the only issue with our
current GI Bill. Our veterans, and military, need a GI Bill that
incentivizes going to the best college possible, not the cheapest.
Also, a new GI Bill ought to equitably distribute benefits to veterans.
A single payment system becomes inhibitive to many and too generous for
others.
The GI Bill is a cost of war; we can pay it now as an investment,
or pay it later in much greater costs to our government and our
veterans. If we decide to defer this cost it will be for increased
appropriations for permanent housing for homeless veterans, increased
appropriations for the expansion of the Incarcerated Veterans
Transition Program, and increased appropriations due to a further
reliance on the VA medical and benefits system.
The VFW asks that America does its best to ensure our veterans a
normal life with the same opportunities as those who chose to go to
college, or as those who chose to go into the workforce, vice serving
their nation. It is simple, and readily apparent, that if we continue
to fail to provide our young men and women a bridge from the all
volunteer force back to a civilian lifestyle, fewer high-quality young
men and women will volunteer to serve their country.
H.R. 3298, 21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act.
We support this legislation, which would expand the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act (SCRA) to cover service contracts such as cellular
phone service, car insurance, utilities, cable television, or Internet
access. This legislation would allow troops with deployment orders to
terminate or suspend their service contracts without fee or penalty.
The current SCRA legislation applies no penalties for creditors who
refuse to reduce interest rates as required; this legislation would
create a penalty mechanism thereby increasing the likelihood for
companies to comply with the law. This is important because many
deployed men and women are coming home to large bills that were not
efficiently canceled by service providers.
H.R. 3393, Reservist Access to Justice Act of 2007.
The VFW believes that there is great need for reform to the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 2004
(USERRA). The original intent of USERRA was to provide employment
protections to veterans in Reserve and Guard units who were being
deployed. The current USERRA is not getting the job done as many
veterans are returning from deployments without their previous
employment.
H.R. 3393 would correct some previous court decisions that favored
employers. The bill would hold federal, state or private employers
liable for up to $20,000 in liquidated damages if they willfully
discriminated against employees who are activated to active-duty
status. The bill would also increase the likelihood that the courts
would award injunctive relief to those making USERRA claims. The bill
would stipulate that veterans are not bound to pre-arbitration
agreements.
The VFW strongly supports these necessary reforms to USERRA, and
supports its swift passage. Our Reserve and Guard units should come
home to their previous employment if they choose to do so. They have
served in the name of their country and should be treated honorably.
H.R. 3467, Second Chance for America's Veterans Act.
The Second Chance for America's Veterans Act would extend and
provide funding for the Incarcerated Veterans Transition Program
(IVTP). During its pilot phase, IVTP stated it reduced recidivism rates
amongst participants by 90 percent. IVTP also recorded that 90 percent
of its participants were moved into permanent housing, and 72 percent
became gainfully employed. Under this assumption, IVTP has saved
taxpayers millions of dollars a year in incarceration costs and has
stimulated local job growth and economic development by providing
former offenders with jobs. The pilot program stopped receiving funding
as of September 2007. If this program continues to reduce recidivism
rates for veterans and offsets the cost of the program with the cost of
incarceration, the VFW supports this program and this legislation.
H.R. 3646, To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the
Secretary of Labor to conduct a joint study on the fields of employment
for which the greatest need for employees exists in various geographic
areas.
The VFW supports this legislation, which would assist veterans in
finding employment based on the needs of local employers. While the VFW
is aware of the strong unemployment levels of recently separated
servicemembers, and the importance of locating potential employment
opportunities for veterans, it is also important to give these veterans
access to training and education should they want to pursue a technical
vocation, college degree, or certification. It is the VFW's belief that
increased transitional benefits, the GI Bill and Vocational
Rehabilitation in particular, are the best answer to employment issues
facing veterans, especially in regards to our recently separated
servicemembers.
H.R. 3681, Veterans Benefits Awareness Act of 2007
The VFW supports this legislation, which would authorize the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to advertise in the national media in
regards to veterans benefits. The VFW believes that targeted national
media campaigns could be conducive to ensuring America's veterans are
receiving necessary information in a timely manner. Other departments
frequently utilize national media and advertisement with great success.
In particular, DoD uses national media extensively for recruitment. It
is the belief of the VFW that our government should be as proactive in
their approach to veteran's welfare as they are in making them.
H.R. 3889, To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a longitudinal study of the
vocational rehabilitation programs administered by the Secretary.
The VFW supports this legislation, which would provide information
in regards to the effectiveness of the VA's Vocational Rehabilitation
program. The VFW would like to see this, and similar studies, conducted
on all educational, transitional, and employment benefits, as very
little is known in regards to the end results provided by our current
transitional benefits. Such a study, and tracking, of the benefit and
participants would provide Congress and the VA invaluable information
as to what is, and what is not, working in regards to benefits that are
currently being distributed for the purpose of employment and
education.
H.R. 3798, National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2007.
The VFW supports this legislation that would ensure that the
National Guard receives equal employment protections under USERRA. This
legislation clears up a legal loophole for employers of National Guard
members. The National Guard, like our Reserve components, deserves full
employment protections while serving our country.
H.R. 4539, Department of Veterans Affairs Loan Guaranty Cost Reduction
Act of 2007.
The VFW would like to see the loan fees of the VA home loan
guarantee program repealed. While this legislation does not repeal the
fees, it would make them more feasible for veterans using the program
by extending them over a period of time. The VFW strongly supports
provisions of the bill that would increase the max loan VA can
guarantee to 125% of the Freddie Mac conforming limit, currently
$521,250. This legislation would also reduce the equity requirement for
the VA to guaranty a mortgage refinance from 10 percent currently to 0
percent. We also support the provisions that would raise refinance
loans to the conforming limit and increase the guaranty for affordable
housing (as determined by VA and HUD) to 30% of the total loan. This
legislation also authorizes VA to use a portion of the previous year's
fee revenue to reduce closing costs.
H.R. 4883, To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide for
a limitation on the sale, foreclosure, or seizure of property owned by
a servicemember during the one-year period following the
servicemember's period of military service.
This legislation would temporarily increase servicemembers'
foreclosure relief from 90 days to one year. This legislation would
help families that have been caught in the subprime mortgage crisis
and/or are in risk of default on their mortgage due to military
service. This legislation could be the difference between a
servicemember's family having a home or being homeless.
H.R. 4884, Helping Our Veterans to Keep Their Homes Act of 2008.
The VFW supports this legislation, that would: increase the maximum
home loan guarantee amount to $625,500; decrease the equity requirement
to refinance a home loan; require the VA Secretary to review and
streamline the process of using a guaranteed home loan to purchase a
condominium; reduce the home loan funding fees to one percent; extend
the adjustable and hybrid rate mortgage demonstration projects to 2018;
and provide a yearly adjustment of the VA home loan to match the
consumer price index.
H.R. 4889, The Guard and Reserves Are Fighting Too Act of 2008.
The VFW strongly supports this legislation, which would recodify
chapter 1607 of title 10, United States Code, by adding it to title 38,
United States Code. This in effect would transfer responsibility of the
National Guard and Ready Reserves educational benefits from the
Department of Defense to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. This would
greatly simplify an already complicated system and allow for the
greatest amount of transitional assistance in one location, the VA.
Since the introduction of transportability in the National Defense
Authorization Act of 2008--which allows National Guard and Reservist to
use their benefit following their service--the VFW believes that their
educational benefits should be the responsibility of the VA.
H.R. 5664, To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to update at least once every six years
the plans and specifications for specially adapted housing furnished to
veterans by the Secretary.
The VFW supports this legislation. That would require VA to
periodically update its publications so that they reflect current times
and methods. The current Handbook For Design: Specially Adapted
Housing, that is printed and distributed by VA, was last updated in
April 1978. Having a title date that is thirty years old could easily,
and would likely be, misconstrued as old out-of-date material.
H.R. 5684, Veterans Education Improvement Act of 2008.
The VFW supports this legislation, which would provide for an
increased monetary benefit. It would also increase the time limitation
for use from ten years to fifteen years. It does not repeal the $1,200
buy in, but it would make it more palatable by distributing the buy in
over a 24-month period, instead of a twelve month period. H.R. 5684
would extend the amount of programs that the educational benefit could
be used for and could also be used to repay student loans. The bill
would allow for active-duty military to enroll in the GI Bill program
at any time during their service. This benefit would not be counted
against veterans applying for additional financial aid. The bill would
also provide funding for additional employment for the VA to implement
the legislation and calls for a five-year pilot program for on-campus
work-study positions. Also, of importance is the bill's section calling
for an upgrade in the antiquated VA's informational technology system
that is used for the administration of educational benefits.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony and I will be pleased
to respond to any questions you or the Members of this Subcommittee may
have. Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Richard Daley, Associate Legislation Director,
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, members of the
Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank
you for the opportunity to testify today on the various pending
legislation. We appreciate the Subcommittee's focus on such a broad
range of issues.
H.R. 3298, the ``21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act''
PVA supports H.R. 3298, the ``21st Century Servicemembers
Protection Act''. This bill is a necessary complement to other
legislation previously passed that aids service members with their
transfer or deployment when the departure was not planned. This will
allow the servicemember to terminate a contract without penalty when
the individual is required to relocate. Service contracts entail a
specific number of days, months, or years to protect both the provider
of the service and the user. When a man or woman is serving in a branch
of the military, standard contracts that are written for, and used in
the civilian world must grant this leeway with a time commitment. Those
that have chosen to serve in the military should not be penalized by a
contract when called to serve this nation.
H.R. 3393, the ``Reservist Access to Justice Act of 2007''
PVA supports H.R. 3393, the Reservist Access to Justice Act of
2007. This bill reinforces the intent of Congress when they passed
improvements to the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act (USERRA) in 2004. It is unthinkable that some employers have
spent large amounts of money in the legal system to prevent a Reservist
or National Guardsman from returning to his or her job after performing
their service in the armed forces. H.R. 3393 would give reservists the
right to bring their case in state or U.S. district court. It would
make injunctive relief mandatory and provide for punitive damages in
the worst cases of discrimination.
H.R. 3467, the ``Second Chance for America's Veterans Act''
PVA supports H.R. 3467, the ``Second Chance for America's Veterans
Act''. This will provide funding for the Incarcerated Veterans
Transitional Program (IVTP) for fiscal years 2008 through 2011. It will
expand the program allowing more veterans to participate during these
years. The success of the program has been documented with the three-
year pilot program that ended in 2007. It has proven to be extremely
effective in reducing the recidivism of veterans, improving the quality
of life for the veterans, and saving the taxpayer the estimated $33,600
per year cost for incarceration. This program could help turn these men
and women that served their nation honorably into upstanding citizens
once again.
H.R. 3646
PVA supports H.R. 3646, a bill that requests a joint study of
employment opportunities for veterans. With more that 220,000 active
duty military personnel leaving the military each year, every state
will have thousands of veterans looking for employment. The 110th
Congress has introduced several new bills that are intended to help
these new veterans as they seek training, education, or employment.
H.R. 3646 can be another tool for these men and women as they plan
their transition from military to civilian life. This bill calls for
the Department of Labor and the Department of Veterans Affairs to
conduct a study to locate employment opportunities and the fields of
employment for which the greatest need for employees exists. This would
indicate opportunities by zip codes or regions of a state. The
Department of Labor has most of this information in their data base.
By posting this information on the VA's web site, the veteran will
be able to identify employers in their home state and review the
requirements for employment. This could be a useful tool for the
veteran when looking for employment opportunities or planning
employment training using the Montgomery GI Bill.
H.R. 3681, the ``Veterans Benefits Awareness Act of 2007''
PVA fully supports H.R. 3681, the ``Veterans Benefits Awareness
Act.'' This bill would allow the VA to use national media outlets to
conduct outreach to veterans around the country. Many veterans leave
the service with very little knowledge of benefits available. Some
service members participate in the Transition Assistance Program (TAP)
prior to their separation from the military. In TAP they receive
information about searching for a job and VA benefits. Though it has
been used more widely in recent years, this program is still not
mandatory for service members and it is not a standard program where
all servicemembers in all branches receive the same information. PVA
and other veterans' service organizations have continuously expressed
concerns about the VA not making an effort to reach out to veterans who
have earned and deserve healthcare and benefits.
We believe it is the responsibility of the VA to use whatever means
necessary to inform veterans and their families of the benefits and
services available to them. VA must ensure that the needs of the men
and women who have served and sacrificed are provided for.
H.R. 3889, Longitudinal Study of VA Voc Rehab
PVA fully supports the H.R. 3889, a bill that requires the VA to
conduct a longitudinal study of veterans who enter the Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program beginning in FY 2008. We
believe that VR&E is critical to the reintegration of severely disabled
veterans into civilian life. The primary mission of the VR&E program is
to provide veterans with service-connected disabilities all the
necessary services and assistance to achieve maximum independence in
daily living and to the maximum extent feasible, to become employable
and to obtain and maintain suitable employment.
In fact, PVA places such an importance on vocational rehabilitation
that last year we designed our own vocational rehabilitation program to
further support what the VA is already doing, and to go above and
beyond current services. The concept of the program is to provide
vocational rehabilitation services under a PVA-corporate partnership
that augments the many existing vocational programs. PVA believes that
by introducing veterans with SCI disability to vocational
rehabilitation counselors specializing in SCI disability that are able
to provide extensive vocational-oriented services early in the medical
rehabilitation process and who can continue to provide services as
needed, the productivity and employment rates for this group of
veterans will improve.
In partnership with VA and Health Net Federal Services, PVA opened
its first vocational rehabilitation office in the SCI Center of the VA
Medical Center in Richmond, Virginia in July 2007. The workload in our
pilot office has grown rapidly and our PVA vocational rehabilitation
counselor in Richmond is currently carrying a caseload of more than 70
veterans.
Buoyed by our rapidly growing caseload in Richmond, the
establishment of productive relationships with the Veterans Health
Administration and VR&E, PVA just recently opened a second vocational
rehabilitation office in Minneapolis under the corporate sponsorship of
Tri West. In fact, the ribbon cutting for that office will be this
Friday, April 18, 2008. We are confident that our continuing efforts in
this initiative as well as the continuing efforts of our VA partners
will result in the 85 percent unemployment rate among PVA members
becoming a sad statistic of the past.
H.R. 4539, the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Loan Guaranty Cost
Reduction Act of 2007''
PVA supports H.R. 4539, the Department of Veterans Affairs Loan
Guaranty Cost Reduction Act of 2007. This legislation will increase the
maximum amount of the home loan guaranty that the VA provides to
veterans. It will cap funding fees on loans and provide incentives for
using the VA loan for affordable housing. The bill will update the
existing VA Loan Guaranty Program with the hope that more veterans will
become homeowners.
H.R. 4883
H.R. 4883 will amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide
for a limitation on the sale, foreclosure, or seizure of property owned
by a servicemember during the 1-year period following the
servicemember's period of military service. PVA supports this
legislation that will protect the servicemember from losing his or her
home because they were away defending this nation.
H.R. 4884 the ``Helping our Veterans to Keep their Homes Act of 2008''
PVA supports H.R. 4884, the ``Helping our Veterans to Keep their
Homes Act of 2008''. H.R. 4884 will amend Title 38, United States Code,
to make improvements in the home loan guaranty program increasing the
total amount of the loan guaranty and restricting fees to make the
program more attractive for veterans to use.
H.R. 4889, ``The Guard and Reserves Are Fighting Too Act of 2008''
PVA supports H.R. 4889 the ``Guard and Reserves Are Fighting Too
Act of 2008''. This legislation will recodify the educational benefit
for the Guard and Reserve from the current Title 10, to Title 38,
United States Code. Along with this recodification, Congress will make
significant changes in the educational benefits for those
servicemembers that are playing a significant role in the War on
Terrorism. Many of the young Guard and Reserve members worked in a part
time position, attended school, or worked in a position that paid less
than a living wage. This legislation will allow Guard and Reserve
members to return to school or enroll in a training class to further
their career.
Recent surveys show that veterans returning home from military duty
face a bleak job market. Eighteen percent of the veterans who recently
returned from tours of duty are unemployed. Of those employed since
leaving the military, 25 percent earn less than $21,800 a year,
according to the VA. This legislation will provide these veterans with
the money needed to continue their education while employed, or looking
for employment.
H.R. 5664, Specially Adapted Housing
While PVA supports the intent of H.R. 5664, we have serious
concerns with the language of the bill, as it is written. The
legislation specifically calls for the VA to regularly update specially
adapted housing ``plans and specifications'' furnished to veterans by
the VA. The VA is not responsible for providing plans and
specifications to veterans who are eligible for the Specially Adapted
Housing (SAH) grant. It provides assistance to the veteran through
application of ideas presented in the Handbook for Design: Specially
Adapted Housing (VA Pamphlet 26-13). We believe that the language of
the bill should read ``The Secretary shall update the Handbook for
Design at least once every six years. The update should include
consideration for new and unique disabilities to include vision
impairments, impairments specific to upper limb amputation, and burn
injuries.''
PVA was fortunate to participate in the hearing held last year
regarding application of the SAH grant. We are well aware of the unique
challenges faced by many new veterans with complex disabilities
incurred while serving in the War on Terror. However, it is important
to understand that the basic accessibility concepts in the VA Pamphlet
26-13 are not outdated, as implied during that hearing. If there is a
fault, it is that it seems to focus on wheelchair accessibility. But
what most people do not realize is that basic wheelchair accessibility
is meant to cover the concept of universal home design. Furthermore,
the accessibility recommendations suggested in VA Pamphlet 26-13
actually exceed American's With Disabilities Act (ADA) recommendations
as well as the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines. With these
thoughts in mind, PVA can support the legislation if the language is
changed to reflect the actual intent.
H.R. 5684, the ``Veterans Education Improvement Act of 2008''
PVA supports most of the provisions of this bill. We realize that
legislation intended to replace existing landmark legislation such as
the Montgomery GI Bill, will receive many modifications to satisfy
various parties before if becomes law. With that in mind, we have only
a few concerns. The Fee to participate in the program should be
removed.
There was no charge for the educational benefit for the veterans of
WWII or the Vietnam era veterans. The veterans of the current conflict
should not have to pay for this benefit. Although it is a reduced fee
of $50 per month (for 24 months) from $100 per month, it is still a
large amount of money from an E-1 or E-2 in the service.
The bill does not include educational benefits for the Guard and
Reserve. Without these military components, the nation could not
conduct the War on Terror. They are fighting and paying the cost war
along with the regular forces. We have an obligation to provide the
same educational benefits that the regular forces receive. We should
not have to inform these veterans that perhaps a law will be passed
next year, or 2010, that will give them equal educational benefits.
The extension of time to use the program is helpful for veterans
who may need more time to complete there education. We favor the
provision of including veterans in the program discharged with a
General Discharge. The 5-Year pilot program for on-campus work-study
positions can be helpful for many students. Using the educational
assistance program for business courses and seminars is an innovative
use of the program.
Increasing the fees paid to the schools will help the institutions
with processing the veterans. Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking
Member Boozman, Members of the Committee, I would like to thank you
again for this opportunity to express our concerns on these issues. I
would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Prepared Statement of Patrick Campbell, Legislative Director,
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
Madam Chairwoman and members of the House Veterans' Affairs
Committee, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, on behalf of Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), thank you for this opportunity
to testify in front of this Subcommittee again, especially with so many
important pieces of legislation being considered at one time.
I. H.R. 5684 ``Veterans Education Improvement Act''
In January, IAVA along with the other Veteran Service Organizations
(VSO) sitting with me today presented to you our top priorities for
reforming the education benefits for veterans. After months of
discussion and debate, the VSO and Education community united behind
two critical reforms. We need a GI Bill that:
1. Fully Covers the Cost of Education at any Public School in the
Country
2. Compensates Guard/Reserve Servicemembers for Serving Multiple
Tours
We are happy to see that this Committee is continuing to focus on
the plight of servicemembers attempting to earn a degree with
substandard education benefits. If enacted, H.R. 5684 would mean a
considerable improvement in education benefits for veterans across the
country.
IAVA is encouraged to see provisions that would increase the
monthly rate for education benefits under Chapter 30 to $1950/month, an
increase of 77%. At most, a veteran would receive $17,550/yr. which is
slightly above the average cost of a public school education, currently
at $17,336/yr. according to the College Board.
We also support the inclusion of a 5-year usage extension, allowing
servicemembers to pay back their student loans, and many of the
administrative changes contained in the bill. By adding additional
staff, money for information technology and increasing the per-veteran
fee paid to schools for GI bill administrators, veterans who depend on
this benefit will experience substantially better customer service. We
thank the chairwoman and this committee for their hard work on this
bill.
However, to borrow a phrase used in the 1944 debates about the
original GI bill, ``Not all that glitters is gold.'' I have testified
before this Committee that the current Chapter 30 benefit structure is
fundamentally flawed and unfortunately, this bill fails to address key
structural issues with the benefit.
First, flat-rate education benefits create an incentive for
veterans to attend the cheapest school possible and do not reward
veterans for challenging themselves. Second, for many veterans
attending school in high-cost urban areas even $17,550/yr will not
cover the full cost of a public school education. Third, requiring
veterans to burn months of entitlement to pay for up front costs, such
as tuition and books, will discourage veterans from completing a 4-year
degree. Last and most importantly, there is no mechanism for this
benefit to keep up with the rising cost of education.
1. Flat Rate Benefits Create Disincentives
The genius behind the original 1944 GI bill was that it challenged
veterans to ``be all they could be'' by rewarding those veterans who
attended more challenging and consequently more expensive schools. The
benefit, which paid for the full cost of tuition and provided a monthly
living stipend, was a promise to the veteran: ``You worry about getting
accepted and the government will cover the cost.'' Unfortunately, when
the GI bill transferred to a flat monthly rate in 1977, veterans were
forced to choose between more difficult schools that would require them
to work a second job or attending cheaper and easier schools where they
would be able to pocket some of their education benefits.
A veteran attending a community college in rural America will be
pocketing almost $7,000/yr. (over $11,000 if they apply for a Pell
grant) under this proposed benefit scheme, while other veterans will
still need to take out loans or work to see their education paid for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SE Tech. (SD) U. of Ark. Cal. Berkeley Notre Dame
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuition: $3,800 $6,038 $8,382 $36,850
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Room & Board: $5,900 $7,982 $13,848 $9,830
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Expenses: $1,000 $3,138 $3,076 $2,350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost of Educ.: $10,700 $17,158 $25,308 $49,030
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vs. H.R. 5684 Benefits $6,850 $392 ($7,758) ($31,480)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This phenomenon explains why many veterans choose the cheapest path
to earning a college degree and why online courses have the highest
rates of GI Bill users, and why, according to a RAND study from 2000,
``90 percent of veterans go to two-year colleges'' compared to ``38
percent of all students'' (Asch, Fair and Kilburn, RAND, 2000). IAVA
recommends modifying H.R. 5684 to provide veterans an incentive to
challenge themselves by providing tuition credits up to a set amount,
preferably at least the average cost of tuition at public university
(currently $6,185/year, according to the College Board.
2. Benefit Does Not Cover Full Cost of Education at Many Public Schools
IAVA believes that any new education benefit should renew the
promise made to our men and women in uniform back in 1944, by
guaranteeing that these veterans will be able to attend any public
university with their GI bill benefits. Although this benefit will
cover the full cost of education at any public school in Arkansas,
Indiana, Kansas and South Dakota, the benefit falls well short for
public institutions in California and New York. In California alone,
the benefit will not cover the cost of education at any of the
University of California campuses nor fourteen of the California State
Universities. In New York, the overall benefit is slightly below the
typical cost of education at a State University of New York (SUNY)
campus--currently estimated at $17,630/yr.--and the cost of education
at many SUNY campuses exceeds that estimate.
3. Burning Future Entitlement Discourages Finishing Degrees
IAVA agrees that charging advance payments used to help veterans
pay for initial education costs from the final months of a veteran's
education entitlement, as provided for in Section 19 of H.R. 5684,
would be a marked improvement from the current system. However, IAVA
also believes that H.R. 5684 should abandon the advance payment scheme
altogether in exchange for up front tuition payments made directly to
the school.
Currently, veterans can only use one month of education entitlement
every year to help defray the large startup cost associated with paying
for tuition and fees. The current value of one month of entitlement is
$1,101 ($1,950 under H.R. 5684) and that amount does little to help a
veteran pay the $6,185 average tuition payment for a four-year public
university. Furthermore, if a veteran were to use advance payments for
all four years of their education, by the time they got to their final
semester they would have no educational benefits left. Either option,
taking or not taking advance payments leaves the veteran in a Catch-22.
IAVA recommends modifying H.R. 5684 to strike the advance payment
system and provide tuition credits paid directly to the school that are
not charged against a veteran's monthly entitlement.
4. Value of Benefit Diminishes Rapidly
There is no mechanism for this new benefit to keep up with the
rising cost of education. Since H.R. 5684 does not modify the current
yearly increases linked to the Consumer Price Index, every year a
veteran remains in service the value of their education benefit
dwindles. The cost of education has outpaced inflation by over 100%
since 1984 and 34% since 1996. Based on the previous increases to the
CPI (Bureau of Labor & Statistics) and Total Charges for education
(College Board) this is what the new education benefit will look like
in five and ten years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 years SE Tech. (SD) U. of Ark. Cal. Berkeley Notre Dame
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of Education (40% increase) $14,980 $24,021 $35,431 $68,642
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 5684 Benefit (18% increase) $20,743 $20,743 $20,743 $20,743
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference $5,763 $(3,278) $(14,688) $(47,899)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 years SE Tech. (SD) U. of Ark. Cal. Berkeley Notre Dame
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of Education (82% increase) $19,501 $31,270 $46,124 $89,357
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 5684 Benefit (30% increase) $22,885 $22,885 $22,885 $22,885
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference $3,385 $(8,385) $(23,238) $(66,472)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In ten years, we will be in the same situation we are right now
where two-year universities will be the only type of education
available to veterans who depend on their GI Bill benefits to pay for
school. IAVA recommends linking yearly increases to education benefits
to be based on the rising cost of education as tracked by the
Department of Education and not on the Consumer Price Index as it is
done now.
5. Conclusion
IAVA estimates that H.R. 5684 will cost approximately $1.8 billion
in FY2009. The chart below breaks down that approximation into cost
estimates of each of the various new provisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Education Benefits: $1.66 billion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 30: $1.47 billion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 1607: $189 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buy-in Adjustment: $112 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
150 Full Time Employees: $10 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Approving Agencies: $13 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing Fee/Veteran: $5 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work Study Program: $10 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IAVA recommends that H.R. 5684 be amended to ensure that all public
universities will be covered by these new education benefits. IAVA
suggests that H.R. 5684 should accomplish this goal by creating an
additional tuition payment, no less then $6,185/yr., that is paid
directly to the school. IAVA also recommends that H.R. 5684 is amended
so that yearly increases are linked to the growing cost of education to
ensure that this benefit will remain robust for the next generation of
servicemembers.
II. H.R. 4883 Extension of Servicemember Civil Relief Act Homeowner
Protections
This bill will extend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to
provide for a limitation on the sale, foreclosure or seizure of
property owned by a servicemember during the one-year period following
the servicemember's period of military service. The current protection
of 90 days from adversarial proceedings is inadequate for many
returning veterans, especially while they are facing the daunting task
of readjusting to civilian life. IAVA endorses this straight forward
and helpful measure.
III. H.R. 4884 ``The Helping Our Veterans to Keep Their Homes Act''
H.R. 4884 will allow veterans to refinance their home loans up to
the full value of their residence or farm, limit fees for VA loan
guarantees to only 1% of the total loan value, extend a series of
demonstration projects, raise the overall ``maximum guaranty amount'',
emplace yearly increases to the maximum loan guaranty based on the
Consumer Price Index and require the Secretary of the VA to review the
loan process for condominium purchases. Veterans, much like their
civilian counterparts, are struggling to keep their homes and lives in
tack even with foreclosure clouds hanging over this nation.
The provisions of this bill will allow veterans to refinance their
home loans and take advantage of both lower interest rates and the
security of VA's home loan guaranty. The increase to the ``maximum
guaranty amount'' and the linking of this maximum to the CPI will
ensure that veterans' home loans will continue to be a valuable benefit
for generations to come. There does however appear to be a minor typo
in section 2(e) of this bill. The bill should read ``by `striking 25
percent of' and inserting `150 percent of.' '' IAVA endorses this
timely and important legislation.
IV. H.R. 4889 ``The Guard and Reserves Are Fighting Too Act''
IAVA strongly endorses recodification of Chapter 1607, education
benefits for Reservists who have served at least one active-duty
deployment, from Title 10 to Title 38. Education benefits for these
servicemembers should be considered a readjustment benefit and
therefore should be administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs,
not the Department of Defense. H.R. 4889 would recodify Chapter 1607
into Title 38, without making any substantial changes to the Chapter
1607 program. However, H.R. 4889 does not contain any of the amendments
to Chapter 1607 contained in last year's National Defense Authorization
Act. IAVA believes that H.R. 4889 must not only contain the provisions
included in the NDAA, but also deal directly with two issues.
First, H.R. 4889 must clarify that Reserve and National Guard
servicemembers deployed from or retiring into the Inactive Ready
Reserve (IRR) are still entitled to portability of their education
benefits after they separate from the military. This was the original
intent of the legislation passed in the NDAA, but the Department of
Veterans Affairs has interpreted the portability provision extremely
narrowly, which has caused much angst and confusion among the veteran
community.
Second, benefits for Reserve/National Guard servicemembers should
be based on the cumulative length of their active-duty deployments and
not on their single longest deployment. This fix would eliminate a
glaring inequity faced by reservists serving multiple deployments.
Currently Marine Reservists serving more frequent but shorter tours
never qualify for the higher level of REAP benefits. The average Marine
reservist has been deployed on multiple 9-month tours and therefore
might have served 18 months of active-duty but still receive $220/month
less in educational benefits then an Army National Guardsman who served
the same amount of active duty. IAVA strongly endorses modifying the
current Chapter 1607 structure of benefits to be based on cumulative
service and by adding intermediary qualification steps that increase
the level of education benefits for every six months of service (see
attachment).
IAVA can not endorse H.R. 4889, until the issues mentioned above
are addressed.
V. H.R. 4539 ``Department of Veterans Affairs Loan Guaranty Cost
Reduction Act''
As stated above, IAVA is supportive of allowing veterans to
refinance their home loans up to the full value of their residence or
farm and raising the overall ``maximum guaranty amount'' which would be
provided for in this bill. IAVA is also supportive of programs that
reduce the closing cost of affordable homes.
IAVA is unable, however, to comment on the provision concerning
``limitation on amount of fee'' because the text of that section relies
on a reference to a provision in the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1454(a)(2)) that appears to be completely
unrelated to limitations on fees. IAVA is generally supportive of
increases for loan guaranties for affordable housing, though we are
curious why the veteran must be ``first owner-occupant'' to qualify for
the benefit. Lastly, IAVA recommends that H.R. 4539 provide the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs further guidance in establishing
regulations concerning ``maximum income amount[s]'' that would
determine eligibility for this program.
VI. H.R. 3646 Joint Employment Study
This bill will direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the
Secretary of Labor to conduct a joint study on the fields of employment
for which the greatest need for employees exists in various geographic
areas. IAVA only recommends that the findings of these studies be
integrated in the Department of Veterans Affairs Transition Assistance
Programs' (TAP) presentations to separating active personnel and be
sent to the pertinent National Guard and Reserve centers across the
nation.
VII. H.R. 5664 Reviewing Adaptive Housing Plans & Specifications
H.R. 5664 directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to update at
least once every six years the plans and specifications for specially
adapted housing furnished to veterans by the Secretary. IAVA has no
position on this bill.
VIII. H.R. 3798 ``National Guard Employment Protection Act''
This bill will extend Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protections to National Guard
servicemembers who are ``ordered to perform training or other duty''
with or without their consent that is above and beyond the required
normal one weekend a month and two weeks a year. USERRA provides
meaningful protections for these citizen soldiers and should be
extended to all forms of involuntary call-ups. IAVA strongly endorses
this legislation.
IX. H.R. 3681 ``Veterans Benefit Awareness Act''
H.R. 3681 will authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
advertise in the national media to promote awareness of benefits
administered by the Secretary. IAVA has testified many times that we
believe that the VA is a passive system that waits for the veteran to
ask for help. H.R. 3681 will allow the VA to reach out to many veterans
across this country by advertising in the national media and alerting
them that they are entitled to benefits. This provision is long overdue
and IAVA emphatically endorses the Veterans Benefit Awareness Act.
X. H.R. 3393 ``Reservist Access to Justice Act''
The Reservist Access to Justice Act will expand USERRA protections
to apply to all federal, state and private employers. The purpose of
USERRA was to encourage ``noncareer service in the uniformed service by
eliminating . . . disadvantages to civilian careers . . . minimiz[ing]
disruption . . . by providing prompt reemployment [and] prohibit[ing]
discrimination against'' 38 U.S.C. 4301(a) (2007). IAVA believes that
the federal government should be held to at least the same standard as
the private sector when dealing with our service men and women.
This bill will set a minimum recovery for a successful USERRA
claim. A veteran will receive compensation for either their lost wages
and benefits or $20,000, whichever is greater. Many veterans fail to
pursue USERRA discrimination claims against their employers, because
the prospects of a long legal fight with the possibility of a minuscule
recovery leaves a veteran little reason to vindicate their rights.
Furthermore, other forms of discrimination claims have similar recovery
guidelines. Although IAVA is strongly supportive of this provision, we
suggest that USERRA remedies adopt the Title VII tiered model that sets
higher penalties for discrimination claims against larger employers.
H.R. 3393 will allow for punitive damages against employers whose
discrimination against servicemembers is ``done with malice or reckless
indifference.'' This provision would directly affect repeat offenders
that continue to ignore USERRA protections even after the employer is
made aware of the existence and relevance of these protections. This
bill will also require courts to use their full equity powers,
including injunctions, ``to vindicate fully the rights and benefits of
persons'' protected under USERRA. This will allow courts to enjoin
employers from firing an employee while a USERRA claim is being
processed.
Lastly, the bill would definitely clarify that USERRA claims would
be exempt from binding arbitration agreements, even in spite of recent
court decision to the contrary. Congress had clearly intended to exempt
USERRA complaints from binding arbitration agreements. The USERRA
statute states, ``In the case of an action against a private employer .
. . the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of
the action.'' USERRA also ``supersedes any . . . contract, agreement,
policy, plan, practice . . . that reduces, limits, or eliminates in any
manner any right or benefit . . . including the establishment of
additional prerequisites to the exercise of any such right or the
receipt of any such benefit.'' This very committee stated that USERRA
claims are not to be preempted by binding arbitration in House Report
103-65. ``It is the Committee's intent that, even if a person protected
under the Act resorts to arbitration, any arbitration decision shall
not be binding as a matter of law.''
IAVA strongly endorses this H.R. 3393 ``Reservist Access to Justice
Act.''
XI. H.R. 3298 ``21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act''
The ``21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act'' is a long over
due overhaul of the Servicemember Civil Relief Act. Arguably the most
important provision of this bill is the section that allows for the
termination or suspension of service contracts made by a servicemember
or on behalf of a servicemember.
While I was in Iraq, I was required to pay a monthly fee to my cell
phone provider in order to keep my cell phone contract current. Even
after paying 12 months of fees to Cingular wireless, when I returned
home I was unable to get a replacement phone with my old number without
paying a deposit of $500. I spent five hours of my first day back from
Iraq in the mall just trying to get my service restored. It took over 7
months for the whole issue to get resolved and it involved filing a
complaint to the FCC and switching service providers.
IAVA is encouraged to see that this protection has been expanded to
contracts made on behalf of a servicemember, because many
servicemembers are sharing contracts with their families and therefore
are being denied protections because they are not the ``name on
account.''
H.R. 3298 also creates a meaningful remedy for violations of the 6%
interest cap provided for in section 207 of the Servicemember Civil
Relief Act. Currently there is no penalty for a creditor who simply
ignores this important protection. This bill would allow for the
recovery of damages caused by higher interest rates and provide a
penalty up to $10,000 for creditors who willfully or negligently
violate this protection.
IAVA strongly endorses this legislation. IAVA also recommends that
H.R. 3298 adopt section 3 of the Veterans Education Tuition Support
Act, H.R. 2910, which clarifies that student loans do qualify for the
6% interest rate cap.
XII. H.R. 3467 ``Second Chance for America's Veterans Act''
The ``Second Chance for America's Veterans Act'' extends programs
that provide counseling, job placement, healthcare and housing to
veterans to help veterans in the transition from prison or mental
institutions to the workforce. Based on the demonstration project
called the Incarcerated Veterans Transition Program, this model has
been shown to reduce veteran recidivism rates by 90%. IAVA supports the
authorization and appropriation of $15 million for this program.
XIII. H.R. 3889 Longitudinal Study of Vocation Rehabilitation Programs
H.R. 3889 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
conduct a longitudinal study of the vocational rehabilitation programs
administered by the Secretary. IAVA has no position on this bill.
Respectfully Submitted,
Patrick Campbell
Legislative Director
Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA)
Prepared Statement of Colonel Robert F. Norton, USA (Ret.),
Deputy Director, Government Relations,
Military Officers Association of America
MADAM CHAIRWOMAN AND DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, on
behalf of the nearly 370,000 members of the Military Officers
Association of America (MOAA), I am honored to have this opportunity to
present the Association's views on various legislative proposals before
the Subcommittee today.
MOAA does not receive any grants or contracts from the federal
government.
STATEMENT
MOAA appreciates the work of this Subcommittee for holding a number
of hearings in recent years on educational and other benefits
legislative proposals that support our veterans' reintegration to
civilian life following active military service.
This Statement offers our views and recommendations on a number of
bills before the Subcommittee today that we believe are important to
the needs of the military community and veterans.
H.R. 5684 (Rep. Herseth-Sandlin, D-SD, At Large). MOAA strongly
supports H.R. 5684 and we are very grateful for the bipartisan support
for the substantial MGIB upgrades in the bill. During a time of war,
our service men and women deserve no less.
MOAA is particularly pleased that H.R. 5684 includes a number of
longstanding MOAA priorities, including:
Higher reimbursement rates that would cover at least the
average cost of a public college/university education
Extension of the post-service usage period to 15 years
(from 10 years)
Prohibition against counting MGIB benefits as income when
applying for federal financial aid
More flexible rules for the use of benefits--such as for
licensing or certification prep courses and business-related courses
An opportunity for currently serving members who declined
to enroll in the MGIB to withdraw that decision and enroll in the
program
MOAA is also grateful for the new monthly stipend provision of $500
for full time study/training and $250 for half-time study; and, for the
bill provisions that would improve the capability of the VA Education
Service to more efficiently and effectively administer GI Bill
benefits.
A Coherent Approach to the New GI Bill
Over the course of a number of hearings before this Subcommittee
and the full Committee, we have urged restructuring the MGIB to reflect
the way our combined active duty and reserve forces team is used today
to accomplish operational missions at home and overseas.
A ``total force'' approach to the MGIB essentially means that
educational benefits should be structured according to the type and
length of duty performed by our service men and women. It no longer
makes sense to have multiple GI Bill programs that reflect Cold war
policies and procedures.
Active duty service entrants earn benefits according to the
duration of their initial service contract, usually two to four years.
Historically, National Guard and Reserve recruits received about
47-50 percent of the three-year active duty contract rate. That changed
in the late 1990s. Reserve initial entry rates dropped to 29% of the
active duty rate and have remained stagnant for the five long years of
this war.
MOAA continues to urge that the Department of Defense restore the
47-50 percent ratio of the basic reserve MGIB with the active duty
program. We are confident that would help sustain quality recruiting in
this difficult recruiting period.
Alternatively, DoD and the Armed Services Committees should
consider either converting the basic reserve MGIB program authorized
under Chapter 1606, 10 U.S.C. to a service-funded ``tuition
assistance'' program, or relinquishing jurisdiction to the Veterans
Affairs Committees.
Operational Reserve Service Should be Included in H.R. 5684
The FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act established
readjustment benefits under Chapter 1607, 10 U.S.C. for operational
reservists who serve on active duty on contingency operation orders.
This change accomplished MOAA's and the
Partnership for Veterans' Education's top priority for the MGIB in 2007
and we are very grateful to Congress for it.
Two inequities, however, remain for operational reservists with
respect to their GI Bill benefits. First, reservists are limited to
crediting the single longest tour of active duty until they acquire 36
months of active duty service. Second, for those who do complete an
aggregate of 36 months service, they are limited to 80% of the Chapter
30 MGIB rate--the two-year contract rate--instead of the 100% rate
their 36 months of cumulative active duty service has earned them.
Since 9/11 more than 150,000 reservists have served multiple active
duty tours. Some have already served 36 months active duty and
thousands more will reach that level soon.
The only way for the Army to meet sustained deployment rotations
under the newly announced 12 month tours for active Army soldiers is to
increase reliance on National Guard brigade combat teams and other
federal reserve force assets.
If you serve the nation on active duty in the war on terror, your
GI Bill benefits should be equal for the same service performed.
MOAA strongly recommends that the Subcommittee amend H.R. 5684 to
include an accrual provision that would authorize our Guard and Reserve
warriors to earn active duty MGIB benefits as they serve up to a
maximum of 36 months.
Other Legislative Proposals
MOAA respectfully recommends that the Subcommittee examine recently
re-introduced Senate and House proposals, such as S. 22, in structuring
a new GI Bill for today's service men and women. S. 22, for example,
includes a reserve accrual authority discussed above, an innovative
public-private partnership with independent colleges, a geographic
housing allowance (an alternative approach to H.R. 5684's flat rate
stipend), and an authority for Service Academy and ROTC Scholarship
recipient graduate commissioned officers to enroll in the GI Bill in
exchange for a service extension agreement.
During MOAA's legislative presentation before a joint hearing of
the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees on 3 April 2008, we
strongly endorsed Senate bill, S. 22, as reintroduced by Senator Jim
Webb (D-VA) with original cosponsors Senators John Warner (R-VA), Frank
Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Chuck Hagel (D-NE).
MOAA urged that
``the [House and Senate Veterans Affairs] Committees
`deconflict' the statutory authority for the MGIB in Chapter
30, 38 U.S.C. with the proposed new GI Bill for the 21st
century, S. 22 (Revised). We believe desirable features in the
MGIB should be incorporated into the proposed new Chapter 33,
38 U.S.C., or vice versa. To maintain two GI Bill program
authorities at the same time will undoubtedly cause confusion
and be difficult to administer.''
In this regard, MOAA has no preference whether the most desirable
features of H.R. 5684 and other pending GI Bill legislation should be
incorporated into Chapter 30, 38 U.S.C. or in Chapter 33 (the proposed
`site' for S. 22). We strongly believe, however, that only one Chapter
should be used to create a ``total force'' approach to the GI Bill for
our 21st century warriors.
MOAA also respectfully requests the Subcommittee consider including
two other initiatives in the final version of H.R. 5684.
VEAP `Decliner' Enrollment. <20,000 servicemembers who declined to
enroll in VEAP remain on active duty. This cohort has at least 22+
years service and most will retire in the near term.
VEAP Participants with zero-balance accounts were permitted to
enroll in the MGIB in the late '90s if they agreed to pay $2700--the
out-of-pocket cost for a full VEAP account. Only 11% of that group
agreed to pay the $2700 fee to get into the MGIB. Consistent with this
policy, it would not be unreasonable to expect VEAP Decliners still on
active duty to pay $2700 with a COLA-adjustment as a condition of MGIB
enrollment. Based on the earlier VEAP-MGIB conversion, we estimate that
the cost would be very low since only about 2200 (11%) would elect to
enroll.
MOAA recommends the Subcommittee include a VEAP Decliner MGIB
enrollment opportunity in Section 9--Opportunity to withdraw election
not to enroll in educational assistance program--of H.R. 5684.
Surviving Spouses of Dual-Military Couples. The second initiative
concerns certain surviving spouses of dual-military couples. There are
cases in today's force where a military surviving spouse of a military
member who died in the line of duty is ineligible for the MGIB; e.g.,
Service Academy or SROTC Scholarship commissioned officers are
ineligible for the MGIB. Under current law, the military surviving
spouse is also denied use of Survivors and Dependents Educational
Assistance (DEA) benefits while continuing to serve on active duty
(See: Chapter 35, Section 3501(d), 38 U.S.C.).
MOAA recommends a law change to permit military surviving spouses
who elect to remain on active duty but are ineligible for the MGIB to
be authorized to use Chapter 35 DEA benefits while continuing to serve.
H.R. 4889, the Guard and Reserves Are Fighting Too Act of 2008
(Chairman Bob Filner, D-CA).
At a hearing before this Subcommittee on 17 January, in response to
a question from Chairwoman Herseth-Sandlin, a senior DoD official
stated that the Department of Defense no longer objected to the
recodification of the Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) in
Title 38.
The FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) established
readjustment benefits for operational reservists entitled to REAP under
Chapter 1607, 10 U.S.C. With the NDAA change, however, the DoD must
``pay for'' a veteran's benefit--namely REAP readjustment benefits--for
our National Guard and Reserve warriors following their separation from
military service.
Under a ``total force'' approach to the GI Bill, active duty and
reserve forces' readjustment educational benefits should be overseen
and administered under Title 38. (Basic reserve educational benefits
for enlistment--Chapter 1606, 10 U.S.C.--have no readjustment purpose
and could remain in Title 10 subject to the judgment of the House Armed
Services and the Veterans Affairs Committees).
MOAA strongly agrees with the Department of Defense's conclusion
that the Chapter 1607 program no longer belongs in Title 10 since its
purpose is to support veterans' readjustment.
MOAA strongly recommends that H.R. 4889 be incorporated as an
amendment to H.R. 5684 in full Committee markup of H.R. 5684.
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) Legislation
H.R. 3298, 21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act (Rep. Patrick J.
Murphy, D-PA)
H.R. 3298 would amend the SCRA to allow individuals called to
military service to terminate or suspend a service contract, after the
date of entry into service or the date of the military orders, if: (1)
the service contract (such as cellular phone, cable or satellite
television service, Internet service, utilities or automobile
insurance) is executed before the individual is called to service for a
period of at least 90 days; or (2) the person enters into the contract
while in military service and thereafter receives orders for a change
of permanent station to a location outside the United States, or to
deploy with a military unit for a period of at least 180 days.
H.R. 3298 would establish penalties against anyone who: (1) holds
property or funds of a person in military service who lawfully
terminates a contract; or (2) violates the 6% limit on interest rates
charged to servicemembers during a period of military service.
MOAA strongly believes that military men and women called to defend
our nation should not be penalized by steep termination fees for
personal services contracts such as cell phone service, cable and
satellite TV or Internet service. MOAA strongly supports H.R. 3298.
H.R. 4883 (Chairman Bob Filner, D-CA). H.R. 4883 would amend the
SCRA by extending from 90 days to one year the limitation on the sale,
foreclosure, or seizure of property owned by a servicemember following
release from a period of active duty service.
In this particularly difficult ``mortgage meltdown'' environment,
our nation's defenders should be given every reasonable extension on
their mortgage payment obligations upon return from active duty
service. MOAA strongly endorses H.R. 4883.
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
H.R. 3393, Reservists Access to Justice Act of 2007 (Rep. Artur
Davis, D-AL). H.R. 3393 would amend the USERRA by allowing a court, if
it determines that a federal, state, or private employer's failure to
comply with a veteran's reemployment rights was willful, to require the
employer to pay the individual the greater of any loss of wages or
benefits, or $20,000. The bill would require--current law permits--a
court to exercise injunctive relief to fully vindicate such rights.
H.R. 3393 also would authorize a court to require a state or
private employer to pay punitive damages for violations found to be
with malice or reckless indifference to the individual's federally
protected reemployment rights. In addition, the bill would make federal
arbitration procedures inapplicable to claims for veterans' employment
and reemployment rights and benefits.
MOAA and our colleagues in The Military Coalition endorsed H.R.
3393 in a letter to Representative Davis on 3 October 2007 (copy
enclosed with this Statement).
In addition to the protections proposed in H.R. 3393, MOAA also
recommends the Subcommittee establish a single office in the government
to be responsible for overseeing and tracking USERRA claims, whether
formal or informal. MOAA addressed this issue in our legislative
presentation before the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees
on 3 April:
``The routine activation of National Guard and reserve service men
and women is a fact of life in today's world. Under `operational
reserve' policies, reservists can expect to be on active duty for at
least one year of every five years they serve on inactive (drill) duty.
But the reality in the war on terror is otherwise: over 150,000 Guard
and Reserve members already have served multiple tours of active duty
in the last five years and tours often stretch to 15 months or longer.
In this context, MOAA believes it's imperative to regularly review
and update, as necessary, the laws, procedures and resources for
ensuring the reemployment rights of reservists under the USERRA.
In its most recent Report, ``Military Personnel: Federal Agencies
Have Taken Actions to Address Servicemembers' Employment Rights, but a
Single Entity Needs to Maintain Visibility to Improve Focus on Overall
Program Results'' (GAO-08-254T, 8 November 2007), the GAO noted that:
No single agency is accountable for overseeing the USERRA
complaint resolution process
Required reports to Congress on USERRA complaints do not
include informal complaints data from the Employer Support of the Guard
and Reserve (ESGR) network of ombudsmen
USERRA information outreach and servicemember reporting
of employer information has improved
The four Federal agencies responsible for USERRA
complaints do not systematically track disability-related complaints.
Disability-related complaints and other complaints are not
distinguished
MOAA agrees with the GAO's recommendation that Congress should
establish in law `a single entity accountable for maintaining
visibility over the entire USERRA complaint resolution process.'
Support passage of H.R. 1632.''
H.R. 3798, National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2007 (Rep.
Robin Hayes, R-NC). H.R. 3798 would establish reemployment rights under
the USERRA for certain National Guard service men and women called to
active duty in their state under Title 32 to accomplish a mission
requested by the Secretary of Defense.
This proposed change appears to conform with post-September 11,
2001 law-changes that authorize members of the National Guard to be
ordered to state active duty under Title 32 at the request of the
President or the Secretary of Defense to perform a homeland security or
national security mission within the limits of a particular state.
Although such duty is performed in the interest of the national
security, Guard members currently are not authorized reemployment
rights for performing such duty.
MOAA strongly recommends passage of H.R. 3798 to protect the
reemployment rights of certain National Guard service men and women who
are performing a national security mission while serving on state
active duty under Title 32.
H.R. 4539, Dept. of Veterans Affairs Loan Guaranty Cost Reduction
Act of 2007 (Rep. Steve Buyer, R-IN, Ranking Member, House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs). H.R. 4539 is a bipartisan bill that would increase
the maximum loan VA can guarantee to 125% of the Freddie Mac conforming
limit ($417,000 X 1.25); extend some of the loan fees to 2017 (as a
PAYGO offset); add refinancing of VA loans to the conforming limit;
reduce the equity needed for VA to guaranty a refinance to 0% from the
current 10%; and, for other purposes. MOAA supports H.R. 4539.
Conclusion
MOAA appreciates the opportunity to present our views on
legislation that supports our service men women and veterans. We look
forward to working with the Members of the Subcommittee to ensure that
our 21st century warriors, including members of the National Guard and
Reserve, and veterans receive the benefits that match their service and
sacrifice during this time of war.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella, Assistant Secretary,
Veterans' Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor
Chairman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the
Committee.
I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss four bills
introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to this
Subcommittee for action.
H.R. 3646
H.R. 3646 mandates a study, to be conducted jointly by the
Secretaries of Labor and Veterans' Affairs, ``on the fields of
employment for which the greatest need for employees exists in various
geographic areas . . .''
The Department of Labor's (DOL) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
develops ten-year National-level industry and employment projections
and prepares and publishes career information based on those
projections. Projections are done on a biennial basis; the most recent
set, released in December 2007, covers 2006 to 2016. BLS provides the
National projections data files through DOL's Employment and Training
Administration (ETA) to state workforce agencies to use as a starting
point for developing state and area projections. In addition, the
states currently collect labor market information and share it with the
Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment (VR&E) service to better assist disabled veterans in making
an informed choice on the type of career they would like to pursue.
This information is used to assure disabled veterans are not placed
into education or training programs for jobs that are unavailable in
the local economy.
The Department urges the Congress to fund the President's FY09
budget request for BLS so we and the states can continue to produce the
occupational employment and wage information, and the national
projections that underlie the state and area projections that VR&E and
others who work with veterans are already using. We do not believe that
the joint study that would be required if this bill became law would
produce more or better data than the information described above, which
is already available and used in the federally-funded workforce
investment system to assist in matching veterans with good jobs and
promising careers. Accordingly, the Department opposes this bill.
H.R. 3393
H.R. 3393 would make a number of significant changes to the
enforcement and remedies provisions of USERRA. For example, the bill
would give the court the discretion to award $20,000 in liquidated
damages if it finds that the employer willfully violated USERRA. In
addition, it would authorize the court to award punitive damages,
subject only to Constitutional limits, against State and private
employers of 15 or more employees if the court determined that the
violation was done with malice or reckless indifference to the service
member's USERRA rights. States would also be required in USERRA cases
to waive their sovereign immunity under the 11th amendment of the U.S.
Constitution or otherwise.
In general, the Department supports efforts to strengthen the
ability of service members to reclaim their civilian employment upon
leaving military service. However, the Department cannot support this
bill, as drafted, because it is concerned that the far-reaching
provisions of this bill, particularly its provision for unlimited
punitive damages, could have a chilling effect on employers' desire to
hire service members. The provision requiring states to waive various
rights would also deserve thorough debate.
H.R. 3798
The Department would like to work with the Subcommittee and the
Department of Defense to further explore the intent of this proposed
legislation. USERRA was intended to encourage noncareer service--as
opposed to career service--in the uniformed services. The Department
therefore is concerned that, as drafted, this legislation could extend
USERRA protection to certain members of the National Guard well beyond
the existing five-year limit on military service while working for a
single employer.
H.R. 3467
H.R. 3467 would authorize the Department of Veterans Affairs to
establish a workforce reentry program for fiscal years 2008-2011 at $15
million per year. Additionally, the bill would: provide for a prisoner
re-entry program for veterans in 24 locations across the country that
would provide counseling and referral services, in addition to job
training; vest the authority for this program with the Secretary of VA;
make relevant state agencies, including state and local workforce
investment boards, and non-profit organizations eligible to receive
grants to provide services to incarcerated veterans; and require
grantees to submit an evaluation of the program three years after
receiving the grant.
The Administration supports the intent of the ``Second Chance for
America's Veterans Act.'' However, we would note that most of the
services proposed under this legislation, which mirrors the recently
concluded Incarcerated Veterans Transition Program (IVTP), could be
provided through the Second Chance Act, which the President signed into
law last week.
Among other things, the recently enacted Second Chance Act formally
authorizes key features of the Prisoner Re-entry Initiative (PRI),
which provides recently released ex-offenders--including veterans--the
support and services they need to successfully reintegrate into
mainstream society.
We fully recognize the promising early results of the Incarcerated
Veterans Transition Program demonstration, and believe the lessons
learned and best practices from that demonstration can be incorporated
into the PRI. These lessons include: active collaboration with the
Department of Veterans Affairs; pre-release counseling; veterans'
benefits counseling; coordination with other programs for housing and
other assistance; and discharge upgrade consideration.
VETS will work closely with DOL's Employment and Training
Administration and with VA to assure that IVTP best practices are
incorporated into the Prisoner Re-entry Initiative and that eligible
veterans receive priority of service.
That concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Prepared Statement of Thomas L. Bush, Acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense
and
Statement of Curtis L. Gilroy, Ph.D., Director for Accession Policy,
Military Personnel Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense
Introduction
Good afternoon Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. We
are pleased to appear before you today, on behalf of the Department of
Defense (DoD), to testify about pending legislation that affects
programs available to active duty members, National Guard and Reserve
members, and veterans. The pending bills that directly affect DoD are
H.R. 4889, H.R. 5684, H.R. 3393, and H.R. 3798. The changes proposed in
these bills will significantly alter the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) and
the Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP), which provide
educational assistance benefits to Active, Guard and Reserve members
who have served in support of contingencies, and the impact of
activation of members of the Reserve components on their employers.
Program Changes and Enhancements
For today's hearing, you asked that we comment on several bills
that would modify educational assistance programs, home loan programs,
employer relations and support, and provisions of the Servicemembers'
Civil Relief Act. Our comments will focus on the implications of the
proposals on military force management, specifically military
recruiting and retention, and the relationship of the Department of
Defense with the Nation's businesses and employers of Service members.
As for the amendments affecting the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act,
H.R. 3798 and H.R. 4883, the Department is in general support of these
bills. We will submit a separate views letter to address minor
technical change recommendations.
We will defer to the Department of Veterans Affairs for those bills
that impact programs under their purview, specifically H.R. 4884, H.R.
4539, H.R. 3889, H.R. 3681, H.R. 3646, H.R. 3467, and H.R. 5664.
Reserve Educational Assistance Program
The Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) was developed to
reward National Guard and Reserve members who served in support of a
contingency operation and National Guard members who performed
federally funded state duty at the request of the President or
Secretary of Defense to respond to a national emergency, and to provide
an incentive to continue to serve following a mobilization when
pressure to separate may be strong. However, the retention aspect of
REAP was lost with enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 (NDAA 2008) when Congress added the 10-year post-
service eligibility provision to REAP.
H.R. 4889, the Guard and Reserves are Fighting Too Act of 2008,
would eliminate the 10-year post-service eligibility thereby restoring
the retention incentive and recodify chapter 1607 (REAP) of title 10,
as a new chapter in title 38. This bill is substantively flawed.
Although we support restoring REAP as a retention incentive, the bill
would inappropriately, move a reserve force management program to the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Second, H.R. 4889 would require the Secretary of Defense to
transfer to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the funds that are in the
Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund. These are funds
appropriated to the Department of Defense and programmed to be spent on
the Department's reserve component retention incentive programs and
should remain with DoD to fund what would be a restored DoD incentive
program. The Department needs the dollars in the Education Benefits
Fund programmed for REAP if this bill is enacted as drafted, or to fund
other, alternative retention programs and additional recruiting efforts
to make up for the losses in skilled manpower that will result from the
FY 2008 NDAA revision of REAP.
For these reasons, the Department does not support H.R. 4889.
Veterans Educational Assistance Program
H.R. 5684, the Veterans Education Improvement Act of 2008 would
make significant changes to Chapter 30, title 38, United States Code.
As we have testified before, the Department does not believe that the
basic structure of the Montgomery GI Bill is broken. However, we do
recognize that some changes to the program would be advantageous. Since
the administration and funding for the MGIB fall within the VA, we
focus on only those aspects of the bill that would have an impact on
military force management and defer to VA for other comments. There are
some attractive features of this bill which we support, but we do have
some concerns.
First, we regret that H.R. 5684 does not make changes to the
existing transferability provision currently in section 3020, title 38,
United States Code (U.S.C.). The Department's number one imperative
with regard to the MGIB is opening up of the authority for the Service
Secretaries to allow all career members the ability to transfer their
unused education benefits to family members, consistent with strong
messages from the field and fleet, and the President's specific request
that was presented in his State of the Union Address. As a result, the
Administration cannot support this bill in lieu of the Administration's
transferability proposal, which will be transmitted shortly.
Second, research sponsored by the Department and conducted at
Clemson University by the Lewin Group suggests that negative retention
effects begin to intrude when the monthly benefit exceeds $1,400 to
$1,500. Therefore, we are confident that this bill, as currently
structured with a monthly benefit of $1,950, would encourage untimely
separation among many members who otherwise would have elected to
remain in the military. In turn, this would demand new investments to
hike retention incentives as a counterbalance. This challenge could be
offset by targeting those who have completed at least six years of
service--the timeframe recognized in current law (e.g., section 1174,
title 1, U.S.C.) as the point at which special benefits would be
required to recognize career oriented service members making a
transition from the military. Six years should represent the minimum
service period required to qualify for the expanded benefits available
under H.R. 5684.
Section 2 of H.R. 5684 would increase the monthly educational
benefit from the current $1,101 to $1,450 for those whose initial tour
was three years or more. This benefit level is in line with the average
cost of a four-year public education (tuition, fees, room, and board)
as estimated using data from the Department of Education--a benchmark
we believe would not negatively impact our force management programs.
We support this provision.
Section 3 would extend the current 10-year delimiting period for
MGIB usage to 15 years. This provision has no impact on military force
management and is directly applicable to military veterans. We defer to
the VA for comment relating to program and administration costs.
Section 4 would add a $500 monthly educational stipend to the basic
benefit for those pursuing an approved program of education on at least
a half-time basis. While the basic benefit as proposed in this bill
would cover the average tuition, fees, room, and board at a 4-year
public institution, we recognize that students may have other expenses.
The College Board has estimated that books, supplies, and personal
expenses average just over $2,200 per academic year, or about $245 per
month. If available only to new Service members who would elect a four
or more year initial term of service, the Department could support a
stipend at the $245 level, as it would increase experienced man-years
across the Department. As an example, even a modest increase in four or
more year enlistments in the Army above the current 58% would have a
significant positive effect on military readiness.
Section 5 would make changes to the way the current pay reduction
required for enrollment is administered by extending the current
reduction of $100 per month for the first 12 months of service to $50
per month for the first 24 months. In essence, this would be like a
small pay raise for our most junior troops at a time they may most need
it. Although there could be a first year decrement to the General
Treasury of about $90 million, in the second and subsequent years there
should be no impact on treasury receipts. We would support this
provision.
Section 8 would allow the use of MGIB benefits to repay federal
student loans. Currently, new enlistees who receive college loan
repayment under the provisions of Chapter 109, title 10, United States
Code, are ineligible to use that period of service to qualify for the
MGIB. This provision would allow young men and women the opportunity to
serve and use their earned MGIB benefits for either pre-service
education or post-service education, or a combination of the two. This
provision would be very advantageous to those young men and women who
choose to stop or drop out of college to serve their country, but who
fully intend to continue their education either during or after
service. We would support this increased flexibility in the use of
educational benefits.
The Department is in general support of increasing flexibility in
the use of MGIB benefits as specified in section 6, 7, and 9 through
19. However, we defer to the VA for comment as it affects their
program, the costs and its administration.
Other Program Changes
H.R. 3393, the Reserve Access to Justice Act of 2007, would provide
an additional Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
(USERRA) enforcement mechanism to the U.S. District Court, in the case
of a civilian employer, or the U.S. Court of the Federal Circuit, in
the case of a Federal employer, who willfully fails to comply with the
provisions of USERRA. Under chapter 43 of title 38, U.S.C., as it would
be amended by this bill, the court may require the employer to
compensate the affected employee the greater of any loss of wages or
benefits suffered by reason of the employer's failure to comply with
USERRA or $20,000, in addition to any other rights and benefits the
employee may have. The court may also award punitive damages when the
employer has 15 or more employees. Actions may also be brought against
States as employers and State officials.
The Department is not aware of any data that would indicate a need
for this legislation. On the contrary, we are concerned about the
negative message its enactment may send to the Nation's employers. With
over 630,000 RC members who have been activated, a large number of
employers are affected by the temporary loss of an employee to military
service and it is inevitable that some conflicts will arise even though
reservists' employment rights are protected by law. To give perspective
to the problems that have arisen, between September 11, 2001 and
September 30, 2007, data show that 513,248 Guard and Reserve members
were deactivated. During this timeframe, the Department of Labor
received 6,606 cases filed by Reserve or Guard members. This represents
less than 1.3% of the deactivated population. The Department believes
USERRA is working well, and employers continue to support to their
Reserve component employees.
We would rather reach out to employers and work with them to
resolve problems, as we do through Employer Support for the Guard and
Reserve organization. Therefore, we suggest the Congress not take this
decisive action without compelling evidence of its need and certainty
that it will not do more harm than good.
H.R. 3798, the National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2007,
would amend USERRA to specify that the Secretary of Defense may
designate service by a member of the National Guard in a state status
under the provisions of section 502(f), title 32, U.S.C., as service
that is exempt from the five-year cumulative service limitation on
USERRA protections. The Department supports the intent of this bill,
but would like to work with the Subcommittee and DOL to further explore
the intent of this legislation.
H.R. 3298, the 21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act, would
amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to allow individuals called
to military service to terminate or suspend certain service contracts
entered into before the individual receives notice of a permanent
change of station or deployment orders and to provide penalties for
violations of interest rate limitations. The Administration's position
on this bill is under development and will be forwarded under separate
cover.
Conclusion
Today, the volunteer military stands ready, willing, and able to
defend our great nation, as well as its values and principles. Credit
for our success in attracting and retaining high-quality people to
serve in uniform belongs in large measure to the Congress and to your
Committee for providing military members with the benefits embodied in
the educational assistance programs. Few areas, if any, are more
important to DoD than recruiting and retention. We recognize our duty
to man the All-Volunteer Force with high-quality, motivated, and well-
trained men and women. The MGIB education benefit has been a major
contributor to recruiting achievements for our active forces and a
major contributor to both recruiting and retention of our Guard and
Reserve forces for more than 20 years and REAP has been an effective
new retention tool for sustaining membership in the Selected Reserve as
evidenced with more than 58,000 Reserve component members having used
the this benefit during the three and a half since it was authorized.
As we move through the 21st century, we must continue to build upon the
remarkable legacy of the visionaries who crafted preceding versions and
improvements in the GI Bill. I thank this Committee for its dedicated
support to the men and women who currently serve, and those who have
served, our great nation.
Prepared Statement of Keith Pedigo,
Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management,
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 a number of bills that would
affect several benefit programs administered by the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA). Accompanying me today is Mr. John Brizzi, Staff
Attorney, Office of General Counsel. At the outset, I would note that
several bills on the agenda affect programs or laws administered,
respectively, by the Departments of Defense (DoD) and Labor (DOL).
Accordingly, my testimony today does not address the following bills:
H.R. 3298 and H.R. 4883 (Servicemembers Civil Relief Act amendments--
DoD), and H.R. 3393 and H.R. 3798 (veterans' reemployment rights
amendments--DOL). VA respectfully defers to the views of those
Departments with regard to these bills.
Education Benefits
H.R. 5684
Madam Chairwoman, your bill, H.R. 5684, the ``Veterans Education
Improvement Act of 2008,'' contains numerous amendments to title 38,
United States Code, that are intended to improve the basic educational
assistance programs administered by VA.
If enacted, H.R. 5684 would accomplish the following:
Increase the full-time 3-year benefit rate for the
Montgomery GI Bill--Active Duty (MGIB-AD) to $1,450 monthly and
increase the full-time 2-year monthly benefit rate for MGIB-AD to
$1,250 for pursuit of approved programs of education for months
beginning on or after January 1, 2009. The bill also states that the
rate increases shall apply with respect to a payment of educational
assistance for the month beginning after the date that is 90 days after
the date of enactment of the Act.
Extend the delimiting date for MGIB-AD from 10 years to
15 years, effective for an individual who is entitled to educational
assistance 90 days after the date of enactment.
Create a monthly stipend for those entitled to education
benefits under MGIB-AD. Those who are in a program of education at an
Institution of Higher Learning (IHL) at the half-time or more rate
would receive a monthly stipend of $500. Individuals in a program of
education at an IHL at a less-than-half-time rate would receive a
stipend of $250. This proposal would become effective 2 years after the
date of enactment.
Change the pay reduction for enrollment into MGIB-AD from
$100 for 12 months to $50 over 24 months. This proposal would become
effective 90 days after the date of enactment.
Amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3452(b) and Sec. 3501(a)(5) to
include business courses and seminars related to the operation of a
business and continuing education courses, as approved programs of
education. These changes would become effective 2 years after the date
of enactment.
Amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3452(b) and Sec. 3501(a)(5) to
include preparatory courses for licensure or certification tests as
approved programs of education. These changes would become effective 2
years after the date of enactment.
Allow an individual with entitlement to MGIB-AD to use
his or her benefit to repay federal student loans accrued under title
IV of the Higher Education Act 1965. The individual would have to be on
active duty when the loan is repaid and the payment could not exceed
$6,000 over a 12-month period. Payments would be made on a monthly
basis and the payment of educational assistance could not exceed the
individual's amount of entitlement. These changes would become
effective 2 years after the date of enactment.
Allow an individual who previously elected not to enroll
in MGIB-AD to enroll in the program as long as the individual is on
active duty and his or her pay is reduced or the individual otherwise
pays $1,200 no later than 90 days after discharge. This section would
apply to individuals who serve 2 years on active duty and 4 years in
the Selected Reserves. These changes would become effective 90 days
after the date of enactment and would apply to individuals serving on
active duty on the date of enactment.
Amend 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1087vv(j) to provide that the
receipt of MGIB-AD educational assistance shall not be considered as
part of the Expected Family Contribution calculation for federal
financial aid. Thus, federal financial aid would be calculated as if an
individual is not in receipt of MGIB-AD benefits.
Extend to January 1, 2014, the on-the-job and
apprenticeship training program benefit rate increases that expired on
January 1, 2008. This provision would become effective 90 days after
the date of enactment.
Amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3674(a)(4) to set funding for State
Approving Agencies at no more than $19 million per fiscal year. This
amendment would become effective on the date of enactment.
Allow individuals separated with a general discharge
(under honorable conditions) to be eligible to receive MGIB-AD. This
amendment would become effective for individuals who are discharged on
or after 90 days following the date of enactment.
Increase annual reporting fee amounts in 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 3684 from $7 to $21, and $11 to $21, respectively. This amendment
would become effective 90 days after the date of enactment.
Expand the work-study program to include students
attending a program of education at the half-time or more rates. This
amendment would become effective 90 days after the date of enactment.
Create a pilot work-study program that would expand work-
study positions at educational institutions. Examples of some eligible
positions would include tutors, lab assistants, and positions in campus
orientation. The Secretary would be required to prescribe regulations
to carry out the program and to provide for the supervision of the
work-study positions. An amount of $10 million would be authorized to
be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2012 to carry out
the purpose of this provision. This provision would become effective on
the date of enactment.
Require the Secretary to increase the number of full-time
equivalent employees (FTE) for the Education Service business line in
the Veterans Business Administration by 150 additional employees. This
provision would become effective on the date of enactment.
Require VA's Director of Education Service and VA's
General Information Officer to submit to the Committees on Veterans'
Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representatives an action plan
describing how VA intends to upgrade the information technology (IT)
system used to administer education benefits. VA would be required to
update the Committees annually on any progress made in upgrading the
systems. The bill would authorize the appropriation of $8 million for
fiscal year 2009 and $3 million for each of fiscal years 2010 through
2012. This provision would become effective on the date of enactment.
Amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3680(d)(2) to charge entitlement for
an advanced payment against the final month of the individual's
entitlement. An individual would be limited to one advance payment per
academic year. This provision would be effective 90 days after the date
of enactment.
We estimate that enactment of H.R. 5684 would result in direct
costs to VA of $595 million during the first year, $8.6 billion for 5
years, and $22.3 billion over 10 years. VA cannot support this
legislation without identified offsets for these costs.
Furthermore, as noted in the State of the Union address, the
President is committed to expanding MGIB to include transferability of
benefits from servicemembers to their spouses and children. The
Administration's first priority is to transfer the benefit to family
members of those committed to a career in service, an initiative our
senior uniformed leaders enthusiastically support and one that is more
supportive of the current makeup and retention of the all-volunteer
force. VA defers to DoD on how the various legislative proposals will
affect DoD's ability to recruit and retain the all-volunteer force. As
a result, VA cannot support this bill in lieu of the Administration's
transferability proposal, which will be transmitted shortly.
We offer the following comments on how the several provisions of
H.R. 5684 would affect program implementation:
Section 2 of the bill appears to have conflicting
effective date provisions. While this section would, in section 2(a),
amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3015(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(A) to reflect higher
rates for full-time MGIB-AD pursuit for months beginning on or after
January 1, 2009, it also provides, in subsection 2(b), that the benefit
rate increases shall be effective with respect to payments of
educational assistance for months beginning after the date that is 90
days after the date of enactment. To avoid this conflict, we recommend
simply making the amendments to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3015, as proposed in
section 2(a) of the bill, effective on the date of enactment of the
Act.
Section 4 of the bill would establish a stipend for
individuals receiving MGIB-AD; however it does not indicate whether VA
should pay an individual the full stipend amount versus a prorated
amount when he or she attends school for a partial month versus a whole
month.
Section 6 would include business courses and seminars as
approved programs of education. This is problematic because an
individual attending a 2-day business seminar under the proposed full-
time MGIB-AD rate ($1,450) would only be entitled to $96.66, well short
of the amount necessary to cover the cost of most business seminars. VA
believes the more advantageous way to pay for seminars (and charge
entitlement) would be similar to the way that VA administers payment
for Licensure or Certification tests. If we were to administer this in
the same way we administer payments for Licensure or Certification
tests, an individual would be refunded the cost of the seminar (up to
$2,000) and his or her entitlement would be charged by dividing the
amount of the seminar payment by the applicable full-time rate.
The provision added by section 8 that would allow an
individual with entitlement to MGIB-AD to use his or her benefit to
repay a federal loan accrued under title IV of the Higher Education Act
of 1995 might be read to permit a borrower to repay a PLUS loan that he
or she obtained for a child's education as well as a loan for the
borrower's education. Accordingly, we believe this provision should be
clarified.
The amendment in section 10 of the bill to 20 U.S.C.
Sec. 1087vv(j) to provide that the receipt of MGIB-AD educational
assistance shall not be counted as part of the Expected Family
Contribution for federal financial aid likely would increase federal
student loan amounts for MGIB-AD recipients and could result in
additional subsidy costs to be paid by the Department of Education.
The language in section 11(a) of the bill is not
complete. That subsection states that ``Subsection (c) of such section
is amended. . . .'' However, the applicable section of law is not
identified. Based on our review of the other provisions in section 11,
we believe the intended reference is to section 103(c) of the
``Veterans Earn and Learn Act of 2004,'' Pub. L. No. 108-454, 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 3032 note.
Section 12 would authorize reimbursement from VA's
readjustment benefits account to state approving agencies (SAAs) for
certain expenses incurred in the administration of VA education benefit
programs, not to exceed $19 million in any year. VA supports section 12
subject to identified offsets. The current funding amount is limited to
$13 million. For FY 2008, the Omnibus Appropriations bill (P.L. 110-
161) made available an additional $6 million from General Operating
Expenses for these reimbursements. However, without relief for future
years, we anticipate that funding at the reduced level would cause SAAs
to reduce staffing proportionately, severely curtail travel and
outreach activities, and perform fewer approval/supervisory duties
under their VA contracts. Some SAAs might decline to contract with VA
altogether, requiring that VA employees assume their duties.
Section 16 of the bill would establish a 5-year work-
study pilot program that would be effective on the date of enactment.
Because VA would need to promulgate regulations to implement this
provision, we recommend making this provision effective at a later
date. We also note that section 16 authorizes appropriated dollars for
only 4 fiscal years of the 5-year pilot program.
Section 17 of the bill would require the Secretary to
increase the number of employees of the Education Service by 150
additional employees. VA does not support this section because it
inappropriately directs internal staffing decisions made by the
Secretary. The Education Service staffing level provided for in the FY
2009 President's Budget already enables us to improve timeliness and
accuracy of claim processing, reducing the average days to process
original education claims from 32 in 2007 to 19, and the average days
to process supplemental claims from 13 to 10.
The intent and desired outcome of the provisions in
section 19 are unclear. Generally, an individual is entitled to 36
months of educational assistance. On average, an eligible individual
uses 17 months of this entitlement before his or her eligibility period
expires. If an individual were to receive an advance payment equal to
1.5 months of his or her entitlement, VA would charge 1.5 months
against the 36 months. The individual would then have 34.5 months of
benefits remaining. Regardless of when VA assesses entitlement charge,
the result will be the same--the individual will have used 1.5 months
of entitlement and have 34.5 months of entitlement remaining.
H.R. 4889
Madam Chairwoman, H.R. 4889, the ``Guard and Reserves Are Fighting
Too Act of 2008,'' proposes to recodify the statutory provisions of
chapter 1607 of title 10, United States Code (Educational Assistance
for Reserve Component Members Supporting Contingency Operations and
Certain Other Operations (REAP)), in a new chapter 33 of title 38,
United States Code. Under current law, educational assistance under a
program established under the authority of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 16162 is paid
to entitled servicemembers by the Education Benefits Fund at the
Department of Defense (DoD) through the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
VA does not support H.R. 4889. This bill would inappropriately
place a reserve force management program under VA rather than the DoD
where it currently resides. Additionally, the current funding structure
for the REAP program is sound budget and programmatic policy because it
helps ensure policymakers fully consider the cost of promised future
benefits when making personnel and benefit decisions. We also note that
several sections of H.R. 4889 would need to be amended to align the
proposed chapter 33 codification with REAP as it currently exists in
title 10.
Finally, we cannot support this proposal without identified offsets
for the additional $1.2 billion in direct benefit net costs that VA
would bear over the next 10 years. Since the effective date for this
bill would be October 1, 2009, there is no funding impact in fiscal
year 2009. While VA funding needs would increase by $183.2 million in
FY 2010, $718.9 million over 5 years, and nearly $1.6 billion over 10
years, the anticipated transfers from DoD's Education Benefit Trust
Fund (EBTF) totaling approximately $383.2 million, partially offset
VA's appropriation requests for the Readjustment Benefit (RB) account.
The initial transfer from EBTF of $183.2 million covers the entire FY
2010 resource requirement; therefore the VA RB appropriation for FY
2010 would not be affected. A subsequent transfer of approximately $200
million from the EBTF to the RB account, results in a net increase of
$335.7 million over 5 years, and nearly $1.2 billion over 10 years in
VA's RB appropriation request. Because VA currently administers the
REAP benefit for DoD, the administrative or staffing impacts of H.R.
4889 would be minimal/negligible.
Vocational Rehabilitation
H.R. 3467
H.R. 3467, the ``Second Chance for 's Veterans Act,'' would
establish a grant program for referral and counseling services to
assist at-risk veterans transitioning from institutional living into
the workplace. The bill is intended to reduce recidivism, increase
employment, and assist these veterans in locating permanent housing.
The Administration supports the intent of the bill. However, we
would note that most of the services proposed under this legislation,
which mirrors the recently concluded Incarcerated Veterans Transition
Program (IVTP), could be provided through the Second Chance Act, which
the President signed into law last week.
Among other things, the Second Chance Act formally authorizes key
features of the Prisoner Re-entry Initiative (PRI), which provides
recently released ex-offenders--including veterans--the support and
services they need to successfully reintegrate into mainstream society.
H.R. 3646
Madam Chairwoman, H.R. 3646 would direct the Secretaries of
Veterans Affairs and Labor to conduct a joint study, with annual
updates, on the fields of employment for which the greatest need for
employees exists in various geographic regions, as determined by the
Secretaries. The bill would also require the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to make the findings of the study (with the annual updates)
available on VA's Internet website. We defer to DOL on this issue. VA
does not support H.R. 3646.
H.R. 3889
H.R. 3889 would amend chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code,
by adding a new section 3122 to require VA to conduct a 20-year
longitudinal study of a statistically valid sample of the veterans who
begin participating in a program of vocational rehabilitation under
that chapter during fiscal year 2008.
The annual report would include any data necessary to determine the
long-term outcomes of those veterans included in the study. Data
elements could be added as necessary, but the report would contain at
least the following information collected during the year covered by
the report:
Number of veterans who suspended participation
Number of months veterans served on active duty
Average disability rating
Types of other VA benefits received
Types of Social Security benefits received
Unemployment benefits received
Average number of months veterans were employed
Starting and ending salaries of veterans
Number of veterans enrolled in institutions of higher
learning
Average number of college credits and degrees obtained
Average number of visits to VA medical facilities
Average number of visits to non-VA medical facilities
Average total household income
Percentage of veterans who own their principal residences
Average number of dependents.
VA supports efforts to determine the long-term outcomes of the
veterans participating in vocational rehabilitation programs under
chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code. However, since VR&E is
currently developing a proposal to conduct its own long-term study of
issues affecting program outcomes, we do not support H.R. 3889 because
it duplicates efforts the Department is already taking. We also cite
additional concerns with provisions of H.R. 3889 as outlined below:
Effective Date--The bill would be effective on the date
of enactment and would require data collection on veterans who began
participation during fiscal year 2008. VA would need to attempt to
retroactively collect data on veterans who began participation from
October 1, 2007, to September 30, 2008. Some of the required data may
only be available by self-report. Self-reporting of events that
occurred more than 6 months in the past could be unreliable. Some
veterans may have begun and dropped out of the program by the time the
bill is enacted into law; therefore, it may not be possible to obtain
the cooperation needed for self-reporting in some cases. VA is
currently conducting a study of those veterans who dropped out of the
program before completion. That study should be available soon, and we
will make it available to the Committee.
Single Cohort--The bill requires only a single cohort of
veterans to be followed during this study--those veterans who began
participation in a vocational rehabilitation program during fiscal year
2008. Concerns regarding data collection on this cohort have been
expressed. Moving the initial cohort to the fiscal year following
enactment of the bill into law and adding additional cohorts would
permit more reliable data collection and increase the validity of the
results of the study. We recommend following participants who entered a
program during the first, third, and fifth years following enactment of
the bill into law.
Identification of Participants--Participants in
vocational rehabilitation programs under chapter 31 include veterans
and servicemembers. The bill identifies only veterans as subjects of
this study. We believe servicemembers should also be included.
Funding--H.R. 3889 does not contain provisions to fund VA
for the additional general operating expenses required to administer
this program.
Data Collection--Designation of the initial cohort should
not occur before the coordination of all methods of data collection is
in place. For data elements that are only available through self-
report, VA may be required to obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget for any collection instrument developed for this
study.
Required Reporting Elements--
Unemployment Benefits, Number of Months Employed, and
Salary: Several states will not provide this information to VA due to
privacy concerns. Self-report of this information may not be reliable.
Visits to Non-VA Medical Facilities, Total Household
Income, Owning Principal Residence: This information would be obtained
by self-report and may not be reliable.
We estimate that enactment of H.R. 3889 would result in a cost of
approximately $11 million over the 20-year duration of the study,
beginning in fiscal year 2009.
Housing
H.R. 4539
H.R. 4539, the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Loan Guaranty Cost
Reduction Act of 2007,'' would amend title 38, United States Code, to
make several key changes to the home loan guaranty benefit veterans
currently enjoy. While we do not object to certain provisions of this
bill, we would not support its enactment in its present form.
The bill would amend the maximum guaranty entitlement available to
veterans for purchase, construction and refinancing loans. Currently
the maximum guaranty amount is 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming
loan limitation, for a single family home, as adjusted annually. This
means that the current VA maximum guaranty is $104,250 on a no-
downpayment loan of $417,000. In high cost areas, defined by Freddie
Mac as Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, and the Virgin Islands, the maximum
guaranty amount is $156,375 on a no-downpayment loan of $625,500.
H.R. 4539 would increase the maximum guaranty amount so that it
would be equal to 25 percent of 125 percent of the Freddie Mac
conforming loan limit. Because lenders generally accept the 25 percent
guaranty in lieu of a downpayment, an increase to the maximum guaranty
translates into more purchasing power for veterans.
Two proposals in H.R. 4539 would make changes to the VA funding
fee. First, the statutory funding fees would be extended to October 1,
2017. Second, the funding fee would be capped so that the highest
funding fee a veteran would pay would be based on the Freddie Mac
conforming loan limitation in effect on the date of enactment, not
necessarily the limitation in effect at the time of loan origination.
For example, if this bill were enacted today, a veteran obtaining a
$450,000 loan in January of 2009 would pay a funding fee based on
today's Freddie Mac loan limitation of $417,000.
Funding fee collections are used to offset the costs of paying
claims and other expenses incurred by the Department as part of
providing the home loan benefit to veterans. VA opposes capping the
funding fee based on the current conforming loan limitation. H.R. 4539
would increase the maximum amount of a VA housing loan guarantee by 25
percent; VA would need to increase the funding fee to offset additional
costs (or reduced savings) associated with this increase.
H.R. 4539 would also increase the maximum guaranty amount for
certain refinance loans, sometimes referred to as ``regular''
refinances, while eliminating the existing equity requirement.
Currently, the law limits VA's guaranty of regular refinance loans to
$144,000, and limits the size of these loans to 90 percent of the value
of the security for the loan. This means that a veteran who has no
equity in his or her home is able to obtain a regular VA refinance loan
for only 90 percent of the home's appraised value, and the maximum loan
he or she may effectively borrow is $144,000. The statutory changes
proposed in H.R. 4539 would provide many veterans who obtained
conventional or subprime mortgages with an avenue to refinance into a
VA guaranteed home loan. However, borrowers with higher loan-to-value
(LTV) ratios have a higher incidence of default than otherwise
comparable borrowers. Removing the 90 percent LTV cap on VA ``regular''
refinances would therefore introduce additional risk and cost to the VA
guaranteed housing loan portfolio.
H.R. 4539 further would increase the guaranty available to a
veteran whose income ``is below a maximum income amount'' (as
determined by the Secretary) for purposes of purchasing ``affordable
housing''. Additionally, VA would be required to use $14 million of the
Veterans Housing Benefit Program Fund to reduce closing costs for VA
guaranteed home loans for affordable homes. We cannot support either of
these proposals. First, VA lacks the requisite expertise, staffing, and
statutory mandate to address the myriad issues involved in affordable
housing programs. Additionally, administering the closing-cost
provision of this bill would be difficult at best, given the fixed
amount of money available for the assistance. We also note that $14
million over 10 years ($1.4 million each year) would yield an
insignificant amount of assistance to veterans. If we estimate that 20
percent of last year's 130,000 loans were made to ``low-income''
veterans for purchase of ``affordable housing,'' each of those 26,000
veterans would receive only $53 in closing-cost assistance.
Finally, we would like to point out two technical problems in the
bill as it is drafted. First, section 2(b)(1) refers to a non-existent
38 U.S.C. Sec. 3729(b)(2)(C)(iii). We believe the correct citation
should be to section 3729(b)(2)(C)(ii). Second, we believe that section
2(g)(2) of the bill would create a statutory inconsistency within the
Veterans Housing Benefit Program Fund. Currently, the Veterans Housing
Benefit Program Fund expressly precludes loans made pursuant to the
Native American Direct Loan Program. Therefore, by referring to 38
U.S.C. Sec. 3762 (the Native American Direct Loan Program), the
proposed change seems to conflict with existing 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3722(e).
VA estimates that H.R. 4539 would result in a cost savings of $1.24
million in fiscal year 2008, $237.7 million by fiscal year 2013, and
$1.8 billion over 10 years.
H.R. 4884
H.R. 4884, the ``Helping our Veterans to Keep Their Homes Act of
2008,'' contains a number of proposals similar to provisions contained
in H.R. 4539. While we do not object to certain provisions of this
bill, we would not support enactment in its present form for the
following reasons:
Section 2(a) of H.R. 4884 proposes to eliminate the equity
requirement for regular refinance loans. As discussed earlier,
elimination of the current requirement for a 10 percent equity position
would provide veterans who obtained conventional or subprime loans an
avenue to refinance into a VA home loan, but would also increase risk
and cost in the VA guaranteed home loan portfolio.
Section 2(b) of H.R. 4884 would make the VA funding fee a flat 1
percent of the total loan amount. Under current provisions found in 38
U.S.C. Sec. 3729(b), the funding fee ranges from 0.05 percent on a rate
reduction loan, up to 3.30 percent of the loan amount for no-
downpayment loans to veterans who have had more than one VA guaranteed
loan (not counting a rate reduction loan).
Funding fee collections are used to offset the costs of paying
claims and other expenses incurred by the Department as part of
providing the home loan benefit to veterans. The current fee structure
on VA guaranteed housing loans appropriately targets the highest fees
to the highest risk loans. VA opposes changes to its fee structure that
would encourage risky borrowing practices by lowering fees on the
riskiest kinds of loans. Such changes would also likely result in
additional cost to VA.
Subsections 2(c) and 2(d) of H.R. 4884 would extend VA's authority
to conduct its demonstration projects on adjustable rate mortgages
(ARMs) and hybrid ARMs, as VA's authority to offer these options to
veterans expires in fiscal year 2008. Since the inception of this
project, VA has guaranteed over 227,000 ARMs and hybrid ARMs, making up
approximately 11 percent of VA's business.
At this time, we do not object to making the provisions of 38
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3707 and 3707A permanent, provided Congress identifies
offsets for the increased direct spending.
H.R. 4884 also proposes an increase in the maximum guaranty amount.
This provision is similar to that contained in H.R. 4539. However, H.R.
4884 would increase the maximum guaranty amount to 25 percent of 150
percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit (CLL), which would
enable veterans to purchase homes in more costly areas.
Section 2(f) of H.R. 4884 would provide for an annual increase in
the amount of guaranty by applying the 12-month increase in the
Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U). This provision, as
drafted, would conflict with the current method for increasing the
maximum guaranty--the statutory tie to the Freddie Mac conforming loan
limit. As such, we cannot support this proposal as drafted.
Finally, section 2(g) of this bill calls on the Department to
review and streamline the process of guaranteeing loans obtained in
conjunction with the purchase of condominiums. We agree that it is
appropriate to conduct such a review and have already begun the process
by reviewing our existing regulatory requirements regarding
condominiums.
VA estimates that H.R. 4884 would result in a cost savings of $8.1
million in fiscal year 2008, but would cost the government $168.7
million by fiscal year 2013, and $1.93 billion over 10 years.
H.R. 5664
H.R. 5664 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 2103 to require that the
Secretary update VA's plans and specifications for suitable adapted
housing at least once every 6 years. VA does not support enactment of
this bill.
Currently, section 2103 authorizes the Secretary to furnish,
without cost, model plans and specifications of suitable housing units
to eligible veterans. VA does this by providing our Handbook for
Design: Specially Adapted Housing (VA Pamphlet 26-13) to all veterans
who are eligible for Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) assistance. This
handbook is intended to educate the veteran and his or her family on
the types of adaptations that may improve the safety of the home, as
well as increasing the veteran's independence. In addition, VA hopes to
increase the architect's sensitivity to the needs of severely injured
veterans and stimulate awareness of the design challenges he or she may
face during the planning stage. On a practical level, this handbook
provides model design assistance to our severely injured veteran
population, as well as their architects to assist them in developing
construction plans to provide the best possible homes for these
veterans.
We agree that it is important to maintain models that are current
and that incorporate new technologies as they become available. VA
believes this type of guidance should be kept modern and up-to-date in
order to provide the most beneficial assistance to this special
population of veterans. As such, we are now in the process of updating
the current handbook, and we would anticipate updating it every 3 or 4
years, or more frequently, as industry or veterans' needs require. We
do not believe legislation is required to ensure that this handbook is
updated and, therefore, do not support H.R. 5664.
VA anticipates no costs associated with enactment of this provision
during the first 5 years, but we estimate a cost of $122,000 over 10
years.
Outreach
H.R. 3681
H.R. 3681, the ``Veterans Benefits Awareness Act of 2007,'' would
add a new section 532 to title 38, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to purchase advertising in national media
outlets for the purpose of promoting awareness of benefits under laws
administered by the Secretary. Madam Chairwoman, we do not believe
enactment of this bill is needed. Current law provides sufficient
authority for the Secretary to purchase such advertising, as
appropriate. Therefore, we do not support enactment of this bill.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have.
CTIA, The Wireless Association
Washington, DC.
April 14, 2008
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman
Rep. John Boozman, Ranking Member
House Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: H.R. 3298
Dear Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman:
On behalf of the members of CTIA--The Wireless
Association' (``CTIA''), I am writing to share the wireless
industry's views on H.R. 3298, the ``21st Century Servicemembers
Protection Act.'' I respectfully request that this letter be included
in the record of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity's April 16
hearing on H.R. 3298.
CTIA commends the Committee for its attention to this issue, and we
thank the bill's sponsor, Representative Patrick Murphy, for his and
his staff's willingness to work with the wireless industry to improve
the legislation.
CTIA's service provider members, as a matter of corporate policy,
permit members of the U.S. armed forces facing deployment to terminate
service without penalty. Additionally, many carriers (including the six
largest, representing nearly 93 percent of ``post-paid'' consumers)
have policies regarding contract suspension which offer the affected
consumer an opportunity to stop service and reserve his or her existing
telephone number for a set period of time. CTIA therefore does not
oppose Representative Murphy's proposal to amend Title III of the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (``SCRA'') to allow a servicemember to
terminate his or her contract for wireless service upon either receipt
of military orders for a deployment of more than 90 days or a change in
permanent station to a location where service covered by the contract
is not supported.
Rep. Murphy's proposed amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
(dated December 19, 2007) includes a number of improvements over the
introduced version of H.R. 3298. Nonetheless, there are several
provisions of the bill that still could be improved, and these are
detailed below.
Covered Contracts: The amendments to the SCRA proposed by H.R. 3298
are intended to cover contracts for ``cellular phone service.'' Because
``cellular phone service'' is not defined in either H.R. 3298 or the
Communications Act 1934, as amended, CTIA recommends striking the term
and replacing it with ``commercial mobile radio service'' as such term
is defined by section 332(d) of the Communications Act 1934 (47 U.S.C.
332(d)).
Preservation of Existing Carrier Military Service Suspension
Programs: In response to the needs of military personnel facing
deployment, many carriers have implemented service suspension programs
that allow individual consumers to place their account(s) on ``hold''
status for between 12 and 24 months, depending on the carrier. The
suspension process generally allows consumers to reserve their existing
wireless telephone number(s) without incurring any monthly or other
recurring fees, and for many customers it offers an attractive option
short of contract termination. Because the Murphy bill is silent on how
suspension would work in any particular context, and since neither the
bill nor the SCRA's definitions section define ``suspend'' or
``suspension,'' it is unclear whether existing carrier suspension
programs would continue to be permissible or require modification.
Since efforts to define these terms or otherwise conform existing
carrier suspension programs to a government-imposed standard could
upset these pro-consumer carrier practices, CTIA recommends that the
scope of the bill be narrowed to exclude all references to ``suspend''
or ``suspension.''
Arrearages and Refunds: The vast majority of the more than 255
million wireless subscribers in the United States purchase service on a
``post-paid'' (as opposed to ``pre-paid'') basis, and nearly all
``post-paid'' consumers subscribe to flat-rate ``bucket'' plans that
allow them to use a fixed number of minutes per billing cycle for a
flat fee. These flat fee plans have been an overwhelming consumer and
competitive success and allow consumers a broad choice of plans to suit
their widely varying calling needs. These plans do not make any
distinction regarding whether the consumer uses all of the covered
minutes on the first day or last day of the billing cycle, or whether
the consumer distributes the minutes equally over all days covered in a
particular billing cycle, and carriers employing this business model do
not pro-rate a flat fee if a customer deactivates service in the middle
of a billing cycle. Accommodating a pro-rating requirement would
require an industrywide expenditure of millions of dollars for billing
system modification and customer care retraining. Because of the
magnitude of the compliance costs associated with this type of pro-
rating, CTIA recommends that the first sentence in the proposed 308(e)
be expanded by adding at the end ``except that any such unpaid amounts
shall be due in full for any contract period in which the servicemember
utilized the service if the contract provides for service on a flat
rate basis.''
Penalties: CTIA remains concerned that the penalty provisions
included in the proposed 308(h)(1) have the potential to be
unreasonable in relation to the size of any harm that could accrue to a
servicemember should a carrier representative fail to terminate a
contract appropriately. While CTIA's members have individual corporate
policies that provide for contract termination without penalty when a
servicemember provides appropriate deployment orders, mistakes can
happen. In the event of such a mistake, the limit of any customer harm
is the imposition of an early termination fee, which generally is less
than $200 (and increasingly is being pro-rated so as to decline across
the term of the contract). Given this, and the equitable relief
provisions in the proposed 308(i), the penalty provisions in the bill
should be clarified and narrowed to cap fines at no more than $5,000.
Additionally, CTIA asks that the legislative history accompanying the
bill clarify that fines at that level should only be levied in cases
where there is knowing and repeated violation of the law.
The wireless industry recognizes the dedication of members of the
U.S. armed forces and is pleased to work toward enactment of
appropriate Federal legislation to benefit servicemen and servicewomen
facing deployment. CTIA and its members look forward to working with
the Committee and the bill's sponsor to improve H.R. 3298 as it moves
through the legislative process.
Sincerely,
Jot D. Carpenter, Jr.
Vice President, Government Affairs
Prepared Statement of Kerry Baker,
Associate National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to submit for the record, the views of the Disabled
American Veterans (DAV) on the various bills under consideration today.
In accordance with its congressional charter, the DAV's legislative
mission is focused on benefits and services provided to veterans
because of service-connected disabilities. We are therefore pleased to
support the bills insofar as they fall within that scope.
The DAV does not have mandates from its membership to support
issues addressed within H.R. 4883, H.R. 4884, H.R. 3393, H.R. 3298,
H.R. 3467, H.R. 3646, H.R. 4539, H.R. 4889, H.R. 5664, and H.R. 3798.
The provisions of these bills are also mostly outside the scope of
DAV's mission. Nonetheless, after reviewing the bills, we have no
objection to their favorable consideration.
H.R. 3681
The ``Veterans Benefits Awareness Act of 2007,'' or H.R. 3681,
would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) to
advertise in the national media to promote awareness of benefits under
laws administered by the Secretary. This is truly a novel undertaking,
one that DAV does not oppose.
We note that this legislation as currently written authorizes, but
does not require, the Secretary to advertise various benefits in the
media. This distinction is important. Advertising healthcare or
compensation and pensions benefits in the media will attract an unknown
number of new beneficiaries into the system--a purpose for which any
positive outreach program is designed. These actions will increase VA's
claims backlog as well as the demand for its medical services.
There are currently over 800,000 claims pending in the Veterans
Benefits Administration (VBA). This amount of backlogged claims is
historic. However, the DAV has stated on the record that legislation
benefiting veterans should never be withheld merely because of its
effect on VA's claims backlog. We nonetheless believe that enhanced
outreach efforts should focus on discharging and newly discharged
service members.
The newest generation of our veterans is also the most unfamiliar
generation in relation to benefits earned through their service. This
problem could be solved in part by enhanced outreach through
improvements and expansion of the Transition Assistance Program (TAP),
Disabled Transition Assistance Program (DTAP), and Benefits Delivery at
Discharge Program (BDD).
Many veterans of World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam War went
years, if not decades, prior to becoming aware of their rightful
benefits. Enhancing outreach to our newest veterans through these
programs could help ensure these new generations receive timely
benefits, rather than benefits decades after their service.
H.R. 3889
House bill 3889 would require the Secretary to conduct a
longitudinal study of the VA's vocational rehabilitation program. While
DAV does do not oppose the intent of this bill, we do have concerns.
The bill requires the study to begin during fiscal year 2008, which
would require VA, or a contractor thereof, to begin gathering data in
the arrears. The bill also requires the study to be conducted over the
course of 20 years. We believe this length of time is unrealistic. A
more logical timeframe would be no longer than 10 years, and a possible
extension thereafter.
Much of the reporting criteria is unknown, such as unemployment
benefits received by veterans, the number of months such veteran was
employed, starting and ending salaries, the average number of visits to
VA medical facilities, etc. These statistics are not readily available
to VA and would have to be gathered from the veteran, who would not be
required to participate in such a study.
If VA contracted this study privately, the cost of such a long-term
project may outweigh the studies benefits to the Department. We believe
the funds needed for such a potentially high-cost, long-term private
contract would be better spent within the Department. There would also
be certain logistical barriers to a private contractor obtaining access
to the types of information requested by the study the bill requires.
Therefore, while we do not oppose the intent of this bill, we ask
that the Committee to consider these concerns.
H.R. 5684
The ``Veterans Education Improvement Act of 2008'' would amend
title 38, United States Code, to make certain improvements in the basic
educational assistance program administered by the Secretary. While the
DAV has no resolution specifically pertaining to this bill, we
nevertheless support the bill since the Independent Budget Veterans
Service Organizations have advocated for a GI Bill for the 21st century
in the Independent Budget for FY 2009.
Since the inception of the GI Bill, every generation of warriors
has had this benefit to ease transition back into civilian life, which
provided them an opportunity for education and served as an investment
in the future of our nation. Today's GI Bill is not meeting the needs
of our veterans, and skyrocketing education costs are forcing veterans
to shoulder the bulk of college expenses.
Moreover, young veterans are more likely to become unemployed and
homeless. A new approach to veterans' transition, stabilization, and
education is needed. The increasing cost of education is diminishing
today's GI Bill as a veterans' education benefit. According to the
Department of Education, the national average cost of undergraduate
tuition, fees, room, and board charged to full-time students in degree-
granting institutions for the 2005-06 academic school year was $17,447.
A veteran in receipt of the active duty fulltime GI Bill benefit for
the same period received $9,306, approximately 53 percent of the total
cost of education.
While we agree the bill would certainly enhance educational
benefits beyond what is currently provided, we suggest an amendment to
the bill. Rather than setting a specified limit of tuition cost as the
bill currently proposes, we suggest the bill cover the full cost of
tuition plus books, fees, and expenses; but limited to an amount not to
exceed the average cost of tuition for in-state colleges in the
veterans' particular state wherein he/she attends college.
Additionally, we suggest the bill also cover room and board at a rate
equal to the average college dormitory for the applicable school, or
the average dormitory rate for the applicable state if no dormitory
exists at the veteran's school of choice.
These minor changes would ensure that no veteran is prohibited from
pursuing his or her desired course of higher education merely because
of financial constraints. Despite our recommended changes, we
nonetheless support the bill due to its obvious improvements in
educational benefits for our nation's veterans.
National Cable and Telecommunications Association
Washington, DC.
April 16, 2008
The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman
The Honorable John Boozman, Ranking Member
House Committee on Veteran's Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman,
On behalf of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association
(NCTA), thank you for inviting the cable industry to comment on H.R.
3298, the 21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act.
NCTA is the principal trade association for the cable television
industry in the United States, representing cable operators serving
more than 90 percent of the nation's cable TV households and more than
200 cable program networks. The cable industry is the nation's largest
broadband provider of high speed Internet access after investing $110
billion over 10 years to build out a two-way interactive network with
fiber optic technology. Cable companies also provide state-of-the-art
digital telephone service to millions of American consumers.
The cable industry strongly supports H.R. 3298 which would ensure
that military personnel who receive orders to deploy for military
action or for a change of permanent station are given the absolute
right to terminate contracts for telephone service, multichannel video
service, Internet access or any utility without penalty, and to receive
a refund for any services paid in advance. This legislation addresses
one of the many financial issues faced by military personnel when they
are deployed or mobilized. Military personnel should have the right to
cancel or suspend service contracts when they are called to leave their
homes and families to defend our nation. Quite simply, our troops
should not be obligated to pay for services they will not be using
while they serve our country, nor should they face penalties such as
early termination fees during deployment.
We also believe the measure could be strengthened to ensure that
all providers of multichannel video service and all providers of
Internet access service, as defined under existing law, are covered by
the bill. In that regard, we would recommend the following clarifying
language--
On page 2, beginning on line 9, strike ``cable or
satellite television service'' and insert ``video programming service
provided by a multichannel video programming distributor (as such term
is defined in section 602(13) of the Communications Act 1934 (47 U.S.C.
522(13))''.
On page 2, line 10, strike ``Internet service,'' and
insert ``Internet access service (as such term is defined in section
231(e)(4) of the Communications Act 1934 (47 U.S.C. 231(e)(4))''.
Thank you again for giving us the opportunity to express our
support for H.R. 3298. We applaud your leadership on this issue, and we
commend Reps. Patrick Murphy and Tim Walz for introducing this
important legislation which recognizes the commitment and sacrifice of
our brave and heroic military personnel.
Sincerely,
Kyle McSlarrow
President and Chief Executive Officer
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Washington, DC.
January 28, 2008
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Madame Speaker:
We are writing to alert you to an important improvement to the
stimulus package that will greatly benefit America's veterans. This
proposal, which has already been introduced, H.R. 4539, is at the
center of one of the guiding principles for the overall package--to
help provide relief to some subprime mortgage holders to refinance into
federal insured loans; thereby helping to stabilize the economy. The
proposal to increase the FHA loan limit is noble but we should also
widen the availability of mortgage access in the country to provide
incentives for our nation's veterans to participate and benefit as
well.
As you know, the stimulus package contains provisions to address
the problems in the home loan market and will raise the Freddie Mac
rate to over $720,000. Current law limits the maximum VA loan guaranty
rate to the Freddie Mac maximum.
We strongly suggest adding our bill, H.R. 4539, the VA Loan
Guaranty Cost Reduction Act of 2007, to improve on the stimulus package
for veterans. It is important to note that the Department of Veterans
Affairs has estimated that our bill will actually save taxpayer dollars
by increasing the overall fee revenue to VA while simultaneously making
the program more attractive to lower-income veterans. A brief outline
of our bipartisan bill includes the following:
Raise the VA loan guaranty limit to 125 percent of the
Freddie Mac limit.
Cap the funding fees at today's maximum amounts. For
example, a veteran who now pays a 3.35% funding fee on the current
maximum $417,000 loan pays a fee of about $14,000. Under this bill, the
veteran could borrow up to the new maximum loan of $521,250 but the
funding fee would remain at $14,000. That is effectively a rate
reduction of nearly 1% in that price range.
Reduce the equity requirements for all refinance loans
from the current 10% down to 0%. This reduction applies to both VA-
guaranteed and non-guaranteed loans. This will help some of the
veterans experiencing difficulties in today's sub prime mortgage market
to refinance their home loans through the VA program which also has a
very aggressive program to avoid foreclosure.
Promote the creation of ``affordable housing'' by
increasing the loan guaranty amount to 30% for housing that meets
``affordable housing'' qualifications (as determined by VA in
consultation with HUD). This will encourage construction of more
affordable housing units that offer entry to home ownership for
veterans.
Provide closing cost assistance paid to the borrower for
affordable housing units. The amount would be determined by VA based on
projections of the number of borrowers and the available negative
subsidy created through the fee program. The subsidy cost may not
exceed $14 million over 10 years.
We urge you to include the provisions of H.R. 4539 in the stimulus
package.
Sincerely,
Michael Michaud
Chairman, Subcommittee on Health
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Steve Buyer
Ranking Member
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
cc: Chairwoman Slaughter
Ranking Member Dreier
[An identical letter was sent to Hon. John Boehner, Minority Leader,
U.S. House of Representatives, on January 28, 2008.]
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
April 30, 2008
Patrick Campbell
Legislative Director
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
308 Massachusetts Ave., NE.
Washington, DC 20002
Dear Mr. Campbell:
In reference to the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on
Pending Legislation on April 16, 2008, I would appreciate it if you
could answer the enclosed hearing question.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
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.
Due to delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Orfa Torres by fax at 202-225-2034. In the interest of time and the
necessity to publish all responses please reply no later than May 30,
2008. If you have any questions please call 202-226-4150.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
Questions from the Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Hearing on Pending Legislation
April 16, 2008
Question 1: During our hearing you were requested to provide the
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity the reference for your data on the
average cost of a public school education which you determine to be
$17,336. Please provide your reference for your data and explain how
you determined the average cost of a public school education to be
$17,336.
Response: In my testimony on April 16th, 2008, I stated that ``the
average cost of a public school education [is] currently at $17,336/yr.
according to the College Board.'' The reference for that statistic can
be found on page 7 of the ``Trends in College Pricing 2007'', table 2,
``Average Estimated Undergraduate Budgets 2007-8'' (see table below).
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The statistic that the Chairwoman was using to estimate the cost of
education at a public university was derived from page 6 of the same
report, ``Average Published Charges for Undergraduates.''
I think the real issue at hand is what numbers should be considered
the ``full cost of education'' in determining benefits for veterans.
According to the Department of Education the appropriate statistics to
be using when determining the full cost of an education is the ``Cost
of Attendance'' and that phrase is clearly defined by statute (20
U.S.C. Sec. 1087II--Cost of Attendance) to include:
1. Tuition and fees
2. Allowance for Books, Supplies, Transportation and Miscellaneous
Personal expenses
3. Room & Board Costs
While the chart highlighting ``Avg. Published Charges''
incorporates Tuition, Fees and Room and Board, it also leaves out
projections for ``Books, Supplies, Transportation and Miscellaneous
Personal expenses.'' That is why IAVA adopts the average estimated
undergraduate budgets as the true estimate of the cost of a public
school education.
We need a GI Bill that will cover the full cost of attendance and
ensure veterans can make going to college their full time job.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
April 30, 2008
The Honorable Charles S. Ciccolella
Assistant Secretary
Veterans' Employment and Training Service
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
Dear Secretary Ciccolella:
In reference to the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on
Pending Legislation on April 16, 2008, please answer the enclosed
hearing question.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
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.
Due to delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Orfa Torres by fax at 202-225-2034. In the interest of time and the
necessity to publish all responses please reply no later than May 30,
2008. If you have any questions please call 202-226-4150.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
U.S. Department of Labor
Washington, DC.
June 23, 2008
The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
U.S. House of Representatives
331 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the House Committee
on Veterans' Affairs' Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity on April 16,
2008, to testify on pending legislation before the Committee.
Subsequent to the hearing, the Subcommittee forwarded a question for
the record to the U.S. Department of Labor. A response to that question
is enclosed.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee and
for your continued support of employment services for America's
veterans.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Ciccolella
Assistant Secretary for
Veterans' Employment and Training
Enclosure
__________
Answer to a Question for the Record By Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella
Assistant Secretary For Veterans' Employment and Training, U.S.
Department of Labor
For a Hearing of the Subcommittee On Economic Opportunity
Committee On Veterans' Affairs, United States House of Representatives
April 16, 2008
Question 1: In your written and oral testimony for the Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity hearing, your state that the U.S. Department of
Labor (DOL) opposes H.R. 3646, To direct the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs and the Secretary of Labor to conduct a joint study on the
fields of employment for which the greatest need for employees exists
in various geographic areas. You mentioned that DOL is opposed to this
bill since the DOL Bureau of Labor Statistics already develops a ten-
year national level industry and employment projections, which is also
published. These projections are provided to the state workforce
agencies and the states also collect labor market information. Please
provide the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity the latest publication
of this report and the available statistics.
Response: As stated in my testimony, the Department of Labor's
(DOL) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) develops ten-year national-level
industry and occupational employment projections and prepares and
publishes career information based on those projections. These
projections are available online at http://www.bls.gov/emp/home.htm.
BLS provides the national projections data files through DOL's
Employment and Training Administration (ETA) to state workforce
agencies to use as a starting point for developing state and area
projections. The information available from the state workforce
agencies can be accessed though the DOL Web site CareerOneStop: http://
www.careerinfonet.org/acinet/
select_state.asp?from=&next=lmil&id=11,1&nodeid=13
&soccode=.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
April 16, 2008
Dr. Curtis L. Gilroy
Director, Accession Policy
Office of the Undersecretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness
U.S. Department of Defense
1300 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301
Dear Mr. Gilroy:
In reference to our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on ``Pending Legislation''
on April 16, 2008, I would appreciate it if you could answer the
enclosed hearing questions as soon as possible. As you may know, we
have a scheduled Subcommittee markup on April 23, 2008.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 225-3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
Hearing Date: April 16, 2008
Committee: HVA
Member: Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin
Witness: Mr. Gilroy
Cost of Four-Year Public Education
Question 1: One of the stake holders asserts that $1,101 to $1,450
a month will not cover the average cost of a four-year public
education. Do you disagree with their assertion that the average cost
is $17,336 a year?
Response: The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), an
element of the Department of Education, estimated that the average
undergraduate tuition, fees, room, and board charged for full-time
students at a public four-year school during school year 2006-2007 was
$12,805. Based on the typical nine-month school term, this would equate
to a monthly cost of $1,423.
The $17,336 figure appears to be the school year 2007-2008
enrollment weighted average cost for a public four-year school (in-
State) taken from a publication of the College Board, a private
organization, and includes not only tuition, fees, room, and board, but
also books, supplies, transportation, and other expenses. The tuition,
fees, room, and board as estimated in this publication for school year
2006-2007 was $12,837, only $32 more than the NCES average. The College
Board estimate for school year 2007-2008 is $13,589 ($1,508 per month).
Percentage of Active Duty Benefit Covered by Chapter 1606
Question 2: Chapter 1606 now pays about 29 percent of the current
GI Bill compared to about 47 percent when the GI Bill was first passed.
What percentage of the active duty benefit would Chapter 1606
recipients receive if H.R. 5684 were enacted into law? How can we amend
H.R. 5684 to provide a similar benefit that was enacted in the original
(47 percent) GI Bill?
Response: Enactment of H.R. 5684 would increase the Montgomery GI
Bill (MGIB) basic benefit rate in 2009 to $1,450 for a person who
completes three years of service on active duty. The projected monthly
benefit rate in 2009 for MGIB for the Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) is
$327. This is based on a projected Consumer Price Index (CPI)
adjustment of 3.3 percent. The significant increase in the MGIB benefit
provided in H.R. 5684 compared to the modest CPI adjustment for the
MGIB-SR benefit would result in Guard and Reserve members receiving a
benefit of just under 23 percent of the MGIB rate.
To increase the MGIB-SR benefit rate in Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 to 47
percent of the MGIB benefit rate proposed in H.R. 5684, the bill would
have to include an amendment to chapter 1606 of title 10 specifying a
basic monthly benefit rate of $682 (47 percent of $1,450) beginning in
FY 2009. This would result in an increase to the Department of Defense
budget of approximately one billion dollars over the five-year period
beginning in FY 2009.
Portability for 1607 Benefits for Ready Reserve
Question 3: Can an individual called up from the Individual Ready
Reserve obtain portability for their 1607 REAP benefits? If not, what
section of the law should we amend to allow for this portability?
Response: No, an individual cannot obtain portability for their
1607 REAP benefits. The amendment made to section 16164 of title 10 by
section 530 of Public Law 110-181, dated January 28, 2008, does not
permit members of the Individual Ready Reserve to use the REAP benefit
if they separate from the Ready Reserve. Section 16164 of title 10
would have to be further amended to provide portability of the REAP
benefit to Individual Ready Reserve members. The Department provided
the attached amendment as a drafting service to both the House Armed
Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee.
How to Simplify H.R. 5684 to Simplify Administration of Reserve
Benefits
Question 4: How can we simplify H.R. 5684 to ease the
administration of Guard and Reserve benefits?
Response: The amendments in H.R. 5684 to chapter 30 of title 38
adequately cover National Guard and Reserve members who meet the active
duty service requirement and any other eligibility requirements.
However, the Committee is also considering a bill that would recodify
chapter 1607 of title 10 as a new chapter in title 38--H.R. 4889, ``The
Guard and Reserves are Fighting Too Act of 2008.''
If Congress were to repeal chapter 1607 in favor of recodifying the
provisions into title 38, as proposed in H.R. 4889, it would simplify
administration of the Reserve Education Assistance Program (REAP)
benefit. That is, if the REAP eligibility requirements were codified in
chapter 30 of title 38 rather than recodifying all of chapter 1607 as a
new chapter in title 38. The REAP benefit amounts are tied to the
chapter 30 benefit. Furthermore, with the recent amendment to chapter
1607 in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(section 530 of Public Law 110-181, dated January 28, 2008), the REAP
program is now virtually identical to the chapter 30 program, with the
exception of the monthly benefit rate and the active service
requirement. By amending chapter 30, rather than creating a new chapter
in title 38 for REAP, any changes to the chapter 30 program would be
applicable to National Guard and Reserve members who are eligible for
educational assistance based on their contingency service without need
to consider changes to another chapter in title 38 to maintain parity
between the programs.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
April 16, 2008
Mr. Keith Pedigo
Associate Deputy Under Secretary
Policy and Program Management
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420
Dear Mr. Pedigo:
In reference to our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on ``Pending Legislation''
on April 16, 2008, I would appreciate it if you could answer the
enclosed hearing questions as soon as possible. As you may know, we
have a scheduled Subcommittee markup on April 23, 2008.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter-size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 225-3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
Questions for the Record
The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman
Economic Opportunity Subcommittee
House Veterans Affairs Committee
April 16, 2008
Pending Legislation
Question 1: You state that the transfer of benefits is a key
priority. Could each Secretary of the Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air
Forces, etc.) do it today under Title 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3020?
Response: Yes, however title 38, U.S.C. Sec. 3020 limits the
authority for transferability of benefits to service members in
critical skills who reenlist/extend for a period of 4 years or more.
The Department of Defense (DoD) would like to see this authority
expanded to include all career service members regardless of skill or
specialty.
Question 2: How many military branches are implementing the program
under Title 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3020?
Response: Currently, the Army is using the authority under title 38
U.S.C. Sec. 3020 as an integral tool in its reenlistment program. No
other Service is currently using the authority.
Question 3: If the funding for the SAAs could not be secured, is VA
prepared to take over the duties of the SAAs? How much would it cost VA
to train and perform those duties?
Response: Yes, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is prepared
(and required by law) to take over those duties. It is not possible to
determine cost to train and perform these duties because the amount of
work needed is dependent on how many (if any) State Approving Agencies
(SAA) would no longer desire to contract with VA for the contract
amounts offered.
Question 4: Do you not support H.R. 3889 because you are already
doing a study? Is it a one-year study or is it longer than one year?
Response: Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment (VR&E) Service
expects to award a contract for the VR&E Service participant research
study in fiscal year (FY) 2008. This is a year long study to validate
the findings of the veterans employability research study (VERS).
Additionally, VR&E Service is developing plans to conduct a long-term
study of VR&E outcomes.
Question 5: How much do the VA home loan fees generate on an annual
basis?
Response: From FY 2002 through FY 2008, VA has collected over $3.12
billion in funding fees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 FY 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$508,795,542-----------------------------------------------$629,446,827----$491,453,430----$405,108,773----$430,630,160----$417,005,212----$237,759,267-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 6: The income generated from the fees, do they fund other
veteran programs or do they go back to the Treasury?
Response: We assume that the income to which the question refers is
the current negative subsidy estimate associated with the loan guaranty
financing account. Funding fees collected from the VA loan guaranty
program do not fund other veteran programs. VA holds the estimated
amounts that are sufficient to fund all future expenses on loans
guaranteed or made in a particular year. Any amount of funding fee
collections in excess of these expenses (referred to as the `negative
subsidy amount') is returned to Treasury at the end of the year. In FY
2007, the amount of funding fees in excess of the future anticipated
expenses totaled $87.1 million, which was returned to Treasury at the
end of the fiscal year.