[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2721, H.R. 3786,
H.R. 6070, H.R. 4255, H.R. 6221, H.R. 6224,
H.R. 6225, AND H.R. 6272
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 19, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-93
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-059 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
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
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
DONALD J. CAZAYOUX, Jr., Louisiana
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 STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
June 19, 2008
Page
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2721, H.R. 3786, H.R. 6070, H.R.
4255, H.R. 6221, H.R. 6224, H.R. 6225, and H.R. 6272........... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin............................. 1
Prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin............. 34
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member..................... 2
Prepared statement of Congressman Boozman.................... 35
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, R. Keith Pedigo, Associate
Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management,
Veterans Benefits Administration............................... 28
Prepared statement of Mr. Pedigo............................. 58
______
American Legion, Joseph C. Sharpe, Jr., Deputy Director, National
Economic Commission............................................ 20
Prepared statement of Mr. Sharpe............................. 45
Cardoza, Hon. Dennis A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California............................................ 6
Prepared statement of Congressman Cardoza.................... 36
Carter, Hon. John R., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas....................................................... 7
Prepared statement of Congressman Carter..................... 37
CTIA--The Wireless Association, Bobby Franklin, Executive Vice
President...................................................... 12
Prepared statement of Mr. Franklin........................... 42
Disabled American Veterans, Kerry Baker, Associate National
Legislative Director........................................... 19
Prepared statement of Mr. Baker.............................. 43
Filner, Hon. Bob, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California........ 3
Prepared statement of Congressman Filner..................... 35
Lofgren, Hon. Zoe, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California..................................................... 4
Prepared statement of Congresswoman Lofgren.................. 36
Paralyzed Veterans of America, Richard Daley, Associate
Legislation Director........................................... 21
Prepared statement of Mr. Daley.............................. 47
United States Olympic Committee, Charles Huebner, Chief of
Paralympics.................................................... 10
Prepared statement of Mr. Huebner............................ 39
Vietnam Veterans of America, Richard F. Weidman, Executive
Director for Policy and Government Affairs..................... 22
Prepared statement of Mr. Weidman............................ 50
Welch, Hon. Peter, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Vermont........................................................ 9
Prepared statement of Congressman Welch...................... 38
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
U.S. Department of Defense, Hon. Michael L. Dominguez, Principal
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,
statement...................................................... 60
U.S. Department of Labor, Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella, Assistant
Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training, statement..... 61
OnPoynt Communications, Dallas, TX, Rebecca Noah Poynter, Owner,
and Co-Founder, Military Spouse Business Association, statement 62
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record:
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunities, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
R. Keith Pedigo, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for
Policy and Program Management, Veterans Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, letter
dated June 23, 2008, and VA responses...................... 64
Hon. James B. Peake, M.D., Secretary, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs, to Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Committee
on Veterans' Affairs, letter dated August 18, 2008,
transmitting Administration Views for H.R. 6221, H.R. 6225,
and H.R. 6272.............................................. 65
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to Charles
Huebner, Chief, U.S. Paralympics, letter dated July 1,
2008, and response letter dated October 24, 2008........... 66
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2721, H.R. 3786,
H.R. 6070, H.R. 4255, H.R. 6221, H.R. 6224,
H.R. 6225, AND H.R. 6272
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:05 p.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Herseth
Sandlin [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Herseth Sandlin, Hall, and
Boozman.
Also Present: Representative Filner.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity hearing on pending legislation will come to order.
I would like to call to the attention of the Subcommittee
the fact that the Honorable John Carter of Texas has asked to
submit a written statement for the hearing record on behalf of
his constituent, Mrs. Rebecca North Poynter. If there is no
objection, I ask for unanimous consent that her statement be
entered into the record. Hearing no objection, so entered.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Poynter appears on p. 62.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Today, we have eight bills before us
that seek to authorize the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) to make a grant to the United States Olympic Committee
(USOC) to provide and develop activities for servicemembers and
veterans with physical disabilities; allow military
servicemembers to terminate certain contracts when called to
active-duty service or ordered to change permanent duty
assignment; require the VA to develop and the U.S. Department
of Defense (DoD) to distribute a compact disk of benefits
information to servicemembers preparing to depart from the
military; amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) to
allow a military spouse to claim the same State as the
servicemember in regards to State and property taxes, and voter
registration; and reauthorize the Service Members Occupational
Conversion and Training Act (SMOCTA) 1992.
Some of you might recall on February 13 of this year, we
conducted a hearing on expiring programs. In this hearing, we
received recommendations on ways to improve on the programs and
expand on veterans' rights. One such recommendation came from
Mr. Matthew Tully of Tully and Rinckey, LLC, who specializes in
law under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act, also known as USERRA. Mr. Tully brought up an
example of how a servicemember who had sought injunctive relief
from his employer, but the court denied his request. Mr. Tully
recommended that the Subcommittee consider amending USERRA to
allow servicemembers such as the one who is cited to ensure
equitable relief as available to USERRA victims when the courts
decide it is appropriate.
I share the concerns expressed by Mr. Tully and recently
introduced H.R. 6225, the ``Injunctive Relief for Veterans Act
of 2008.'' This bill will amend Title 38 by changing ``may'' to
``shall'' and it is our expectation that more courts will use
this remedy when deemed appropriate that equitable relief is
warranted. This legislation is a step in the right direction to
providing greater protections and safeguards to those who have
answered the call to duty.
A second bill that I recently introduced is H.R. 6224, the
``Pilot College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act of 2008.''
This bill contains similar language that I proposed in H.R.
5684, the ``Veterans Education Improvement Act of 2008,'' which
would improve existing education for our veterans.
H.R. 6224 would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
conduct a five-year pilot project to expand on existing work-
study activities for veterans. Currently, veterans who qualify
for work study would be limited to working on VA-related work.
My bill would allow those veterans the option of working in
academic departments and student services. This change would
put them at par with students that qualify for the work-study
position under programs not administered by the VA.
Furthermore, this bill would conform to existing PAYGO
rules by providing for discretionary appropriations.
I look forward to working with Ranking Member Boozman and
other Members of the Subcommittee to discuss these two
legislative proposals and those being considered in today's
legislative hearing.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin
appears on p. 34.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I now recognize Mr. Boozman for any
remarks he may have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Today, we will hear
testimony on eight bills covering diverse issues facing
veterans and their families. I especially want to thank you for
including H.R. 6221, a bill that will close a possible loophole
in VA's disabled veterans business contracting and acquisition
programs. This is something that we have introduced together.
Again, I appreciate you bringing it forward.
I would offer one thought on the bill to reauthorize the
long-expired Service Members Occupational Training Act, SMOCTA.
The goal of SMOCTA was to retrain veterans with few or no
transferable military skills and skills better suited to
today's job market. This is a worthy goal, and I support it and
commend our colleague from Vermont for bringing this issue
before us.
There are several ways to offer retraining, and I would
like to explore with you, Madam Chair, and with Mr. Welch
whether or not it would be more effective to reauthorize SMOCTA
or take several SMOCTA concepts and use them to expand VA's
existing on-the-job training, apprenticeship programs for
recently discharged veterans, and those who have passed their
eligibility date for VA benefits.
Given the current awareness of education and training for
veterans, we may have an opportunity here to put more veterans
into good jobs. I know that you share those goals, Madam Chair,
and I look forward to working with you and Mr. Welch and our
colleagues on the Committee to make that happen. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Boozman appears on
p. 35.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
I would like to welcome our panelists testifying before the
Subcommittee today. Joining us is our full Committee Chairman,
the Honorable Mr. Bob Filner of California, the Honorable Zoe
Lofgren of California, the Honorable Dennis Cardoza, also of
California; the Honorable John Carter of Texas.
Mr. Cardoza. Who would like to live in California.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. The Texas cavalry here. And the
Honorable Peter Welch of Vermont, one of the smaller, less-
populated States well represented here on the Subcommittee. All
of your full written statements will be made part of the
hearing record and we welcome all of you to the Subcommittee.
Thank you for the bills that you have introduced that we are
considering today.
Chairman Filner, you are recognized.
STATEMENTS OF HON. BOB FILNER, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS'
AFFAIRS, AND A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA; HON. ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; HON. DENNIS A. CARDOZA, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; HON.
JOHN R. CARTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TEXAS; AND HON. PETER WELCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB FILNER
Mr. Filner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly thank you
and your Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman, for the leadership you
have shown over the last year and a half. You have been an
incredibly productive, incisive Subcommittee and we appreciate
everything you have done.
I would like to just spend a few minutes on H.R. 4255, the
``United States Olympic Committee Paralympics Program Act of
2007.'' For many servicemembers and veterans who have been
severely injured from service to our country, their
rehabilitation can be a disheartening experience. Many become
concerned about having the same quality of life that they had
prior to their injuries.
Programs administered by the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC)
Paralympic Military Program, can enhance and improve the
quality of life for these men and women by introducing them to
an active lifestyle while they heal from their wounds.
Today, the USOC programs have been providing support for
severely injured veterans since 2003, introducing them to
adaptive sport techniques. These opportunities will enable our
veterans to face their new physical realities and to continue
living an active lifestyle through adaptive sports.
We know there is a growing population of veterans who have
survived serious injuries that would benefit from the good work
being done by the USOC, and that is why I have introduced this
bill to support our heroic men and women as they transition
through this very difficult phase in their lives.
This bill would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
to make a grant to the U.S. Olympic Committee to provide
Paralympic instruction, competitive activities, and program
development activities for servicemembers and veterans with
physical disabilities.
The purpose of the program is to enhance the rehabilitation
of current severely injured servicemembers and veterans and to
reduce the chance of secondary medical conditions. Up to now,
more than 1,200 injured veterans have been introduced to
Paralympic sports as a result of these training programs, but
much more needs to be done in order to continue to provide this
dynamic rehabilitative environment.
I hope you can support this bill. I am sure many of you
have seen what getting involved in these programs can do for
the self-esteem, the sense of well-being, the sense of a future
for these veterans. It is one of those programs we visit that
moves us. I know it moves us to tears sometimes to see how
these men and women have overcome some very serious injuries.
We know how to not only keep them alive on the battlefield, but
how to evacuate them quickly and get superior help, whether in
theater or in Germany. But that means there is a lot of healing
and rehabilitation work to do.
I haven't seen a program that does more for their sense of
well-being than this program, and I hope that we, and the
Department of Veterans Affairs, can aid the U.S. Olympic
Committee in this effort. I think you are going to hear more
about that in later testimony.
They do an incredible job. When you see these veterans have
a sense of confidence and a sense of their own future, it is
really remarkable. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Filner appears on
p. 35.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Chairman Filner, for
working so closely with this Subcommittee and your valuable
leadership on the full Committee. We have had the opportunity
in earlier hearings before the Subcommittee, to hear from some
of those who benefited from these important programs, and we
thank you for introducing this important bill.
Ms. Lofgren, thank you for being here at the Subcommittee.
You are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. ZOE LOFGREN
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you so much, Chairman Herseth Sandlin
and Ranking Member Boozman. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify on behalf of the bill I have introduced, the
``Servicemembers Telecom Relief Act.''
A constituent call first alerted me to this problem where
servicemembers have been called up or dispatched to a different
part of the country and they have difficulty dealing with their
cell phone contract. Oftentimes we enter into multiyear
contracts when we get our phones, and although many service
providers have express policies that would allow active duty
military to terminate, sometimes those policies are overlooked
and not every single provider has them. So this bill would
provide certainty.
It would allow members of the Armed Services to suspend or
terminate contracts for telecommunication services when those
services are of no use to them because of their call to active
duty or an involuntary extension of the period of military
service or deployment overseas to locations where the services
aren't available.
When a soldier is called up, the last thing they need to be
worried about is their cable bill. As one mother called and
told me with her son in Iraq, she said her son is over there
risking his neck; he shouldn't have to deal with a cell phone
company.
So I don't mean to suggest that most cell phone companies
have been abusive in that. In fact, telecom providers have
reached out to my office, offering helpful suggestions for
potential changes that would harmonize the bill as introduced
with the Communications Act and have been very collaborative,
and I do appreciate this. However, I think having some
certainty in this area would be important.
I want to clarify that the bill is narrower than H.R. 3298,
introduced by Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania. But I support his
bill. In fact, I am a cosponsor of his bill. This would be
encompassed if the Committee moves that bill or, this is a
unique issue, we could move this bill. Silicon Valley, I guess,
is ground zero for high tech, and it is something that has
caught my attention. I think it would be another thing we can
do for our brave men and women who are doing so much for us.
So I appreciate the opportunity to testify and the
leadership of all of you in making sure we do the right thing
for these brave Americans.
[The prepared statement of Congresswoman Lofgren appears on
p. 36.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Congresswoman Lofgren. We
appreciate that you have worked with the telecom companies and
other providers, and appreciate your support of Mr. Murphy's
bill as well. We will be moving to a markup next week and be
looking at different bills for consideration, and look forward
to hearing some of the thoughts of others that are testifying
today on your bill, in the hopes that we can integrate some of
the provisions of yours into a broader bill, given we have
already had a hearing for Mr. Murphy's as well. Thank you for
working with those in the industry.
Mr. Cardoza, welcome to the Subcommittee. You are now
recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS CARDOZA
Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you
inviting me here today to testify on an issue that I am sure
you will agree will make life just a little bit easier for our
Nation's veterans.
Madam Chair, I have a veterans advisory committee that I
meet with regularly in my district, and in these meetings,
veterans time and time again have told me that veterans, the
rank and file veterans especially, are simply unaware of the
benefits that they are eligible for. In several instances,
veterans have told me upon being discharged and returning to
the United States, they must sit through a transitional process
meeting explaining some of their benefit programs immediately
upon exiting the plane.
Madam Chair, I am sure you will agree that after fighting
for our country and being away from loved ones for months at a
time, the last thing our troops have on their mind is their
benefits. They want to see and hug their family and their
children. They are tired from an exhausting flight; they are
longing to see their families waiting just beyond the gate.
Yet, this process meeting may be the only time that some
veterans hear about their benefits. More often than not, this
is a missed opportunity. Others have told me that in their
briefings with the VA representative they only have 5 minutes,
with a dozen other veterans awaiting their 5-minute briefing as
well.
The veterans receive incomplete information. They are
handed a few pamphlets. They oftentimes feel rushed and are
unable to ask questions that they may have thought of right
after they leave the meeting because of time constraints.
I respectfully ask that this Subcommittee consider for a
moment how in the world anyone can explain all the available
benefits to which a veteran is entitled in 5 minutes, let alone
answer potential questions.
Madam Chair, my bill, H.R. 2721, is quite simple. It would
require the Secretary of the VA to issue a comprehensive CD-ROM
to returning veterans that clearly explains the benefits to
which they are entitled. The CD would inform returning veterans
and their families in plain English about how to access and
navigate VA so they know about all the benefits they have
earned and how to go about receiving them.
This would provide a one-stop source for veterans where
they can simply pop a CD into their computer whenever they wish
to look up the information so no benefit slips through the
bureaucratic cracks. I understand VA currently outlines some of
the information on their Web sites or in pamphlets. This
information is not comprehensive, however.
My bill requires full, complete and updated information be
provided on a VA Web site as well. However, a CD, in my
opinion, is still necessary and would benefit districts like
mine with large rural areas where access to the Internet may
not always be reliable or, in some cases, even available.
This bill only fixes the process, not the symptoms, and it
is just one small step in the right direction to ensure our
veterans who served so honorably receive the benefits they
earned. I believe if we fix the broken informational process,
we are going a long way toward solving some of the benefit
problems.
Giving the troops the informational tools they need to
ensure they are actually receiving their well-deserved benefits
is the least we can do on behalf of a grateful Nation.
Thank you again for allowing me to be here and give
testimony on behalf of the bill.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Cardoza appears on
p. 36.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Cardoza.
You may be interested to know that Mr. Boozman and I
recently attended a field hearing with our colleague Mr.
Donnelley in Indiana, in which we realized there, as we did in
other parts of the country and other testimony we have taken,
people are falling through the cracks in getting access to
information about their benefits, whether they are Reservists
who are in smaller detachments that are now being deployed,
whether it is full units in the National Guard and the
different States on how they have handled demobilization, and
certainly those that are going through the Transition
Assistance Program (TAP), which is not mandatory at our active-
duty bases around country.
So we appreciate it. We think it is a great idea. We
appreciate the bill you are bringing forward and a way, a step
forward in the right direction of sharing information in a way
that is reliable, that will allow servicemembers and their
family members to go back with reliable information to help
answer their questions.
So, again, we thank you for your testimony and the bill you
have introduced.
Mr. Carter, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CARTER
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the
Members of the Subcommittee for allowing me to be here to talk
about an issue that I think is pretty important to our
veterans, our servicemembers, and I want to thank you for all
that you do for our veterans and servicemembers. I am pleased
to serve on the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Subcommittee. We work on many of the same
issues, and I am proud to work with you on those issues.
I want to talk today about H.R. 6070, the ``Military
Spouses Residency Relief Act.'' This, like many things that
happen here in Congress, started when a former constituent
whose husband was still a constituent came to me to meet in the
office here in DC. I say that for scenario because her husband
had chosen Fort Hood, Texas, as his residency, as he could
under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and they had been
transferred to the Pentagon. He was, I believe, a major.
But she, in turn, could not claim Fort Hood as a residency.
She had a business that just did business in Texas, and yet she
was paying taxes in Virginia, she had to register to vote in
Virginia, and vote for a different Congressman. She had to get
a new drivers license. In other words, she was not given the
same courtesy of claiming the residency of the families' choice
that her husband had, that we had given to him as a member of
the service. This seemed, to me, to not be a fair thing to
happen. She pointed out that she actually made more income than
her major soldier did, but they honored the Army and they were
proud to be part of it.
It seemed to me that this is something that we ought to be
able to fix. I think it will provide relief. Remember, we say
now, and I know this is said at Fort Hood all the time, we
recruit a soldier, but we retain a family. The vast majority of
our servicemen and women today that are in our military service
are married, many with children, and so we are now a married
military. We need to provide the relief to these spouses that
we give to the soldier, and that is that she or he should be
able to choose the residency that her spouse, his or her spouse
shows as their residency so the family has the same residency,
they get their same services from the same Congressional
district, they vote for the same Congressman or Congresswoman,
and they have a relationship to where they choose to call home.
We can do this with this bill. This will allow the wife to
choose that place, or where her husband has chosen. It helps
with land titles, it helps with titles to vehicles. If there is
a divorce, it is very important if there should be a divorce in
the family. It helps voter registration, it helps with vehicle
registration, and most of all, it helps with income taxes
versus other taxes in the States where they have chosen to be
residents.
This has no effect whatsoever--it is revenue-neutral for
the U.S. Government, but it is important to the revenue of the
families of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, and I
would respectfully request that this is a simple matter that
will make a major difference in the lives of these folks.
The average loss that every spouse makes on a move is
somewhere between $5,500 and $7,200. Every time they make a
move. Almost 90 percent of our spouses work. It is critical we
give the same relief to the spouse that we give to the soldier.
I would hope that you would support this idea and this bill
so that we can make this family united in their residency and
domicile.
I thank you for allowing me to be here.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Carter appears on
p. 37.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
I do support this bill and this concept. We look forward to
getting some additional input from the folks who will be
testifying later, but I certainly agree with you that in light
of whether it is the example you provided in some of the
temporary assignments to people here in the Pentagon, but also
the other moves that we know our military families make on such
a frequent basis, that we will be looking to simplify their
lives in those transitions, not the complexities of the
jurisdictional issues they face when spouses can't claim the
same benefit as it relates to residency.
So we appreciate your testimony and sharing with us your
constituent's experience, your concern, and all the other
examples you gave about how this can become very complicated
for families and a way of cutting through some of this
jurisdictional matters that they are facing to make it easier
for them.
Mr. Carter. Thank you for allowing me to be here and thank
you for admitting the evidence that Ms. Poynter submitted to
the Committee.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you very much.
Mr. Welch, we have pending votes, as you know, but I think
we have time to wrap up our first panel with your testimony.
You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER WELCH
Mr. Welch. I really appreciate it, Chairwoman Herseth
Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman. We are all grateful to you
in Congress because you have been doing something all of us
know we need to do, and that is respect the service of our
soldiers.
I am here to testify on behalf of a reauthorization of the
Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act. As
you know, that had been authorized in the nineties and it was
to assist veterans returning home to get employment after their
military careers. It worked. And expired. The question is will
we reauthorize it.
What I think is so tremendous about this program is that it
focuses on soldiers and their future because when they come
back, there is an enormous amount of dislocation, as you know.
Sometimes soldiers have very bad injuries. They have to contend
with that. This Congress, with your leadership, has paid a lot
of attention to increasing veterans benefits, particularly in
the area of healthcare, because the cost of the war has to
include the cost of caring for the warrior.
But what soldiers want is what any other American wants,
and that is hope. It is about getting on with the future, and
that is about having a job where you can feel good about
showing up for work, where you can pay your bills, and take
care of your family, be a provider.
What this does is recognize that these employment-based
programs have to be a very important component of making our
soldiers get integrated back into life. It was a practical
program, in that it worked with employers who were willing to
work with veterans by reimbursing them for an 18-month period
that would allow workers to get the skills they needed to do
sometimes retraining, some job programming. So it is a
practical and proven program that helps our soldiers get back
into normal life, and most of us, normal life includes a job
that we really value.
So you know better than I all the compelling reasons to do
what we can for our soldiers. This is a program, this is
relatively inexpensive, proven to be effective, talks about the
future, and gives soldiers an opportunity to develop their
skills in civilian life.
I thank you very much for the opportunity to be here before
you and again applaud you for the tremendous work you have done
on a bipartisan basis to help us meet our commitment to our
soldiers.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Welch appears on
p. 38.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Welch, for introducing
this bill. You are right about the proven effectiveness of the
program, and we look forward to working with you to ensure
reauthorization, with perhaps looking forward and seeing if
there might be some changes that might be necessary.
I know that Mr. Boozman will want to visit with you as we
head down to votes perhaps, or now, since we have a little bit
of time, about some of his thoughts about the Reauthorization
Act.
Mr. Boozman. Madam Chair, again, I appreciate you bringing
this forward. I think it is something that we need to do, I
think something that we are committed to doing. I think what we
would like to do is work with you to have some ideas of
tweaking things.
Mr. Welch. I would be delighted. As you know, Peter King
had very similar legislation in another bill, and has been a
leader in Congress as well.
Mr. Boozman. We look forward to working with you, and
hopefully getting this thing done.
Mr. Welch. Thank you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you for your commitment to our
Nation's servicemembers and veterans.
We will resume this Subcommittee hearing after this series
of votes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Boozman [presiding]. Thank you all for bearing with us.
The only thing we have to do here is vote, and that is one
thing we can't put off.
Let's go ahead and get the second panel.
Joining us on our second panel of witnesses is Mr. Charles
Huebner, Chief of Paralympics for the United States Olympic
Committee, and Mr. Bobby Franklin, Executive Vice President of
CTIA, the Wireless Association. We are very pleased that you
are here at the Subcommittee today. In the interest of time and
respect to all the panelists here today, we ask that you limit
your testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will
be put in the record.
Mr. Boozman. Let's start with Mr. Huebner.
STATEMENTS OF CHARLES HUEBNER, CHIEF OF PARALYMPICS, UNITED
STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE; AND BOBBY FRANKLIN, EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT, CTIA--THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT OF CHARLES HUEBNER
Mr. Huebner. Ranking Member Boozman, thank you for allowing
us to be here again. I am really going to update you a little
bit on what we have been doing with the Paralympic Military
Program. As you know and the Subcommittee knows, the Paralympic
movement exists today because of injured veterans following
World War II using sport as rehabilitation.
USOC today spends more than $12 million annually on
Paralympic Programs. All of these funds, of course, have been
from private sources. Paralympic organizations throughout the
U.S. spend an additional $30 million at the local level to
provide sports and physical activity programs for persons with
physical disabilities, including veterans and injured military
personnel.
I would like to ad lib a little bit. Looking at the some of
the testimony from some of our other partner organizations that
we work with, I just want to clarify, and maybe even assist
some of their testimony. What we do is not exclusive
competition or just elite competition. The priority focus of
the Paralympic movement is, one, to send a team to the games.
But 95 percent of the participants that participate in
community-based Paralympic Programs will never go to the
Paralympic games.
Our focus at the USOC with our partners is to provide
physical activity as part of rehabilitation for persons with
physical disabilities. The majority of the population that we
touch on a daily basis will never, ever see the Paralympic
games.
Let me give you a couple examples of that. Veteran Kortney
Clemons, who currently resides in Chula Vista, California, was
injured in Iraq. Kortney participated in our Paralympic
Military Sport Camp 3 years ago. Last month, he graduated from
Penn State University. Last week he started an internship at
San Diego Adaptive Sports and Recreation, and is pursuing his
career interest to be a therapeutic recreational specialist in
community Paralympic Programs.
He is just one example. Kortney is not going to the
Paralympic games. He is one example of what we are trying to do
in looking at the rehabilitation process by using sport as a
platform to re-engage in life, education and employment, and
that is a primary focus of what we are trying to do.
In the past 2 weeks, the USOC and our partners, including
Paralympic organizations, veteran organizations, parks and
recreation offices, and Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA)
chapters accomplished the following: 20 veterans participated
in a Paralympic veterans program in Alabama led by Paralympic
mentor Carlos Leon, a Marine veteran; 18 veterans participated
in a Paralympics veterans program in Oklahoma, led by Army
veteran, Paralympic mentor and, sir, I have to do this,
University of Arkansas graduate, John Register.
The USOC launched a pilot program at Fort Lewis,
Washington, last week focused on providing programming and
physical activity support to more than 700 individuals in the
Warrior Transition Unit at Fort Lewis.
In collaboration with Mesa Parks and Recreation, Arizona
Disabled Sports, and Arizona PVA, more than 85 athletes
participated in Paralympic track and field events in Tempe,
Arizona, including 15 injured veterans.
We also have developed and are implementing community
sports programs that are recreational in nature, supporting VA
facilities in Augusta, Tampa, Richmond, Minneapolis, San Diego,
Palo Alto, Birmingham, Chicago, Cheyenne, Atlanta, and Oklahoma
City.
Our focus in what we are trying to develop with the
Paralympic Military Program is not to develop elite athletes.
The primary focus and what lacks today greatly in the United
States is the availability of community-based programs for
injured military personnel and veterans to participate in upon
their return home. That is a major concern of ours.
There are a lot of great events that our partners and us
put on on an annual basis that people come to for a week and
participate in. Our biggest concern in the thrust of everything
we are doing and the resources that H.R. 4255 would provide for
veterans is to make sure that there are programs existing in
their communities when they go home. That is the major emphasis
to what we are trying to develop, ensuring that community
programs and Paralympic mentors are available to veterans upon
return home.
Those programs are not at VA facilities. I am going to read
you a direct quote from a Paralympic mentor. I emphasize
community and I emphasize collaboration because it is cost-
efficient and it is effective and we can reach more people.
This is what a veteran said: ``The reason I do, as one veteran
said, I spent a year of my life in a hospital rehabbing. The
last place I want to go with family or friends to play
basketball is the hospital.''
Our programs are focused on creating programs in the
community, and we see ourselves as an extension of the
Department of Veterans Affairs and other entities, the
Department of Defense, to support injured military personnel
with community programs. When I say we, it is not just the U.S.
Olympic Committee. It is organizations look the Parks and
Recreation Association, which has 6,000 programs in communities
all over the United States; it is organizations like the
Disabled American Veterans (DAV) and the PVA that we
collectively will be efficient from a cost perspective and,
most importantly, more effective in reaching more people.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak in front of you
today. I am available for any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huebner appears on p. 39.]
Mr. Boozman. Thank you. I think what we will do, go ahead,
Mr. Franklin, and do your testimony. What we are trying to do
is make it easier for you all. I think that would probably be
the easiest thing.
STATEMENT OF BOBBY FRANKLIN
Mr. Franklin. Very good. I thank the Chair. Good afternoon.
Since Arkansas was already invoked at this panel, let me start
by saying that after 20 years in Washington, I still consider
Russellville, Arkansas, home, with my family and friends there.
My name is Bobby Franklin, I serve as Executive Vice
President of CTIA, the Wireless Association. We at CTIA are
proud to count among our vast membership wireless carriers,
equipment manufacturers, and applications developers that
collectively provide amazingly innovative products and services
that keep Americans connected in their day-to-day needs.
Let me first make one point very clear. CTIA's wireless
carriers already allow members of the U.S. Armed Forces facing
military deployment to terminate contract-based wireless
service without penalty. Additionally, many of our carriers
have taken steps to create special military programs that allow
servicemembers to suspend service so they may retain their
phone numbers upon their return.
While CTIA and our highly-competitive industry generally
oppose government mandates, in an effort to combat unverified
reports of contract problems with deployed servicemembers,
CTIA's board of directors charged us to actively support
Federal legislation allowing our servicemembers to terminate
wireless contracts without penalty when they are deployed
abroad or to a location that does not support the service from
that particular carrier.
We do have three suggestions for the legislation to improve
H.R. 3786. First, the bill should be amended to make sure the
definitions of ``covered services'' conform to the definitions
in the Communications Act. This will hopefully eliminate any
potential confusion about what is or is not covered by the
legislation.
Second, we propose a clarification of the bill's provisions
on pro-ration to better reflect the way that wireless service
is both purchased and used. By accommodating the way our
billing systems work, you will help keep the cost of wireless
service continuing to decline for all users.
Thirdly, we believe any fines should be capped at no more
than $10,000 dollars, and that such penalties should be levied
only in cases where there is a knowing and a repeated violation
of the law.
These suggestions are consistent with the recommendations
we offered this Subcommittee at your April hearing on
Congressman Patrick Murphy's bill, H.R. 3298. We are pleased to
report that Congressman Murphy has incorporated our suggestions
into a revised version of his legislation. We are also happy to
report, and I think Congresswoman Lofgren mentioned on the
earlier panel that we have been working closely with both her
and her staff and hope to achieve the same outcome with respect
to the bill before the Subcommittee today, H.R. 3786.
Finally, let me just share that the wireless industry
recognizes the sacrifice and the dedication of the members of
our U.S. Armed Forces, and we are pleased to work toward
enactment of appropriate legislation to benefit servicemen and
servicewomen facing military deployment. In fact, CTIA and its
member companies are hopeful that this Committee, as well as
this Congress, can address this legislation just as soon as
possible.
I thank you for this opportunity and I look forward to any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Franklin appears on p. 42.]
Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Huebner, one of the problems, one of the criticisms
that we have heard in the past, and I am glad that you seem to
have addressed it in your testimony, but one of the criticisms
that we have is that the program is only about elite
competition, things like that.
It sounds like you are doing a lot of things to try and
address that. How many current partners do you have to help
provide ongoing programming at the community level?
Mr. Huebner. Sir, our focus is to have 75 Paralympic sport
clubs created by the end of this year, where the focus in those
communities is participation. It is participation in physical
activity. We are working with the National Recreation and Parks
Association, we are working with Paralympic organizations. We
have more than 43 signed up already. We will be in 75
communities by the end of this year. But the absolute emphasis,
you don't get to elite Paralympic sport just by joining a
participation club. It is very important. We understand that
research shows physical activity for persons with physical
disabilities does some very important things like reduce
stress, reduce depression, raise self-esteem, things very
important to veterans coming home from a very difficult
environment.
We are very focused on creating participation programs, and
this is the most important piece; participation programs at the
community level that they can go to every day, not drive 8
hours to go participate in a physical activity with their
friends and their family, but in their backyard, in their
community that they go home to. That is our primary focus. The
majority of those programs are in the community. So we see
ourselves very strongly as an extension of the VA system, not
developing programs within VA facilities.
Mr. Boozman. Good.
On average, how many Paralympians are veterans compared to
nonveterans?
Mr. Huebner. I am very proud to say the beauty of
participating in programs is some people are going to have more
athletic talents than others. I am very much aware of that
because I never had the opportunity to make an Olympic team.
But we have six veterans right now that will serve, veterans of
the Iraq or Afghanistan campaign that will represent this
country again.
Our team size is about 205. Ninety percent of the
population that we deal with on a daily basis, Olympic or
Paralympic, in terms of athletes, will never participate in the
Olympic or Paralympic games. The majority of the program is at
the community level are participatory and I noted in the DAV
comments to exclude the word competitive. Our programs at the
community level are participation and focused on physical
activity. Only a very few raised up to that level of being able
to represent this country at the Olympics or Paralympics. When
they do, it is a great story. It is great to hear about a
veteran like Kortney Clemons succeed, not only in participation
in sports, but also in employment and in education.
Mr. Boozman. If H.R. 4255 were to pass, what would be the
impact on your organization?
Mr. Huebner. When I talk about our organization and our
programs, I am talking about collaboration with organizations
like the PVA, Paralympic organizations around the country.
Those dollars would specifically be focused on veterans to
support, develop, and train, which is extremely cost-efficient.
I mean, I talked with Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin about
this; a rural community in South Dakota, to go in and develop a
program would not make efficient sense from a cost perspective
or participation perspective if it was for one veteran. But if
we can train a parks and recreation in a rural area to support
that veteran, they already have existing programming, they have
existing buildings. What we are doing is providing the training
and ongoing technical assistance to allow communities all over
the country to expand programs focused on veterans.
We could significantly increase the number of people
participating in physical activity on a daily basis. There is a
great need in the country for that.
Mr. Boozman. Is there anything we can do to help you serve
the recently-injured veteran?
Mr. Huebner. Sir, everything you have been doing has been
outstanding. Our role has been in collaboration with numerous
other organizations. The greatest need now is there is a great
lack of programming around the country. There are a lot of
great events, but events last a week and then somebody goes
home. What we want to make sure, and we see this all the time,
you are familiar with our Paralympic military sport camp,
people come to the Olympic training center and have the
greatest week of their life, 50 or 100 people. What we are most
concerned about is when those 100 people go home to their 100
communities, is there a program for them to participate in,
because it is our understanding, and yours more so, that is
when bad things start happening.
When you get back to your home community and the resources
of the program isn't there at the local level to immediately
integrate you, that is our primary focus with what we are
trying to do with the Paralympic Military Program, and H.R.
4255 would allow matching dollars to support the dollars we and
other organizations are investing to significantly increase
participation, as well as programming at the community level.
Mr. Boozman. Very good.
I think I can speak for Ms. Herseth Sandlin. We really do
appreciate your hard work. I personally feel like this is a
great program. We can always improve and we can always better
support. But as somebody that chased athletics awful hard in my
youth, unsuccessfully, I might add, again, getting these men
and women where they are concentrating on a goal, I think it
does play an important part of the healing process. And, again,
something that can be a lifelong thing that they can pursue.
Mr. Huebner. Sir, one last point. I know employment is
important for veterans. The people that are driving this
program for us are veterans.
Mr. Boozman. Very good. Thank you very much.
Mr. Franklin, how does the wireless industry inform not
only their employees, but the servicemembers, about the policy
to not charge cancelation fees when a servicemember is
deployed? If Congress made this policy into law, do you believe
this will reduce the incidence where we have the same problems
we have now?
Mr. Franklin. I do believe that this will help. I think,
the fact that Congress is taking up this legislation and
addressing it will go a long way to help us make sure that all
servicemembers know that the policies, and in the case if the
bill passes, the law, will state that this is what should
happen.
We do a lot, our companies do a lot of training of their
customer service employees, but when you have 260 million
subscribers and tens of thousands of customer service reps, I
am not here to say mistakes don't happen. But I think that with
the policies in place and with Congress paying attention to
this, it is my hope that all servicemembers recognize this
availability.
Mr. Boozman. Very good.
Are you aware of any complaints in the last couple of years
with this type of thing?
Mr. Franklin. We have unverified reports. We have certainly
heard, but have not been able to verify, the fact that some
servicemembers have had difficulty getting out of their
contracts. But it certainly, as I said before, it is not the
policy of the companies and, as I said in response to your
first question, I think the fact that you all are looking at
this and helping publicize the fact that these policies exist
for most of the carriers in this country, that it will
certainly help the servicemembers.
Mr. Boozman. Currently, how long does a servicemember, how
long are they able to reserve their phone number, and is that
policy adequate or does that need to be extended?
Mr. Franklin. I would like to get back on the technical
answer to this because it has to do with how long a company can
pool a number that is not being used in service. So there are
specific rules that our companies must follow, the FCC has, the
North American Numbering Administrator has, that we must
follow. So I would like to get back to the Subcommittee on the
answer to that.
I do know and am proud that many of our member companies
have, on their own, initiated servicemember policies to allow
them to suspend. The question is for how long. When it comes to
how long we can suspend, our hands may be tied by another
agency.
Mr. Boozman. I am going to turn things over to Mr. Hall. I
do want to thank you. The Subcommittee will probably have a
couple more questions in writing that we would like answered.
But I do want to thank you for your openness and willingness to
work with us on this to make sure these men and women, as they
are deployed, they have enough to hassle with, and we all agree
with this, I know that you agree with us and the people that
are out in the field working, serving the veterans agree that
they have enough hassle without dealing with this.
So thank you very much.
Mr. Franklin. Absolutely.
Mr. Hall [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
I regret missing your testimony. Permit me to ask you a
couple of questions anyway. I did have the opportunity to read
it.
I will briefly ask, and forgive me if these questions have
already been asked. Mr. Franklin, which bill do you think would
better serve our servicemembers, the Lofgren bill or the Murphy
bill?
Mr. Franklin. We are in support of both bills. Assuming
that the suggestions on how to improve both bills are taken, we
are really agnostic to both of those bills. We assume that you
all will need to make that decision. I know that Madam Chairman
Herseth Sandlin mentioned in her opening statement that there
might be a way to pool those bills together, and we would be
supportive of either or both, assuming the suggestions we made
were incorporated.
Mr. Hall. How much time elapses between when a
servicemember requests to terminate a contract and when that
contract is actually terminated?
Mr. Franklin. I think that, in most cases, it can be done
very quickly. Again, each company has, in some cases, multiple
billing systems, and it could technically be a difference of
what part of the country you lived in, depending on what
billing system that company is using, to answer with great
specificity, but the policy of the industry and of the
companies is that once they receive the order or a copy of the
order from the servicemen and women showing that they are being
deployed or moving to an area that doesn't have service by that
particular company, then the policy is for them to terminate
that contract.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Franklin, to your knowledge, how many of the
telecoms have international service? Can you estimate?
Mr. Franklin. Well, international service plans are offered
by many of the companies. But that doesn't necessarily mean
that they have the facility in another country.
Mr. Hall. Like towers in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Mr. Franklin. Correct.
Mr. Hall. Even more difficult.
Mr. Franklin. But they may have partnerships with wireless
carriers internationally. In fact, they do--many of them do
offer international plans, perhaps not in every part of the
world where the servicemen and women are. That is why we do
have these policies to let them out of the contract.
Mr. Hall. Right. In such locations that service exists, I
assume that there is work or discussion going on about changing
the contract or exchanging it for one that would allow the
servicemember to transfer the remainder of their contract to
one that covers that area and allows communication with home.
Mr. Franklin. In the case of transferring their contract to
another provider, I am not sure that would work. But certainly
if they want to take up service with a U.S. provider that does
have a relationship or service with somebody that provides
service where they are being deployed, that option exists,
absolutely.
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much.
Mr. Huebner, if H.R. 4255 were to pass, what would be the
impact on your organization?
Mr. Huebner. The impact is on the movement, not so much our
organization. We have implemented a strategy to provide
programming for veterans in communities all over the United
States in the communities that they return home to, and we are
doing that in partnership with numerous organizations like the
National Recreation and Parks Association, Paralympic
organizations, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and others. So
the impact would be on increasing significantly the ability to
reach more veterans in their home communities with very cost-
efficient programming because all the programs I just mentioned
are investing their own resources to provide that support to
veterans.
Right now in America, just to give you an example of
physical disabilities, 21 million Americans have a physical
disability in the United States. Less than 10 percent of them
participate in daily physical activity. Our goal with H.R. 4255
is to increase significantly the number of veterans that return
home and can participate in daily community programs in their
local community.
Mr. Hall. Can the USOC military Paralympic Program survive
without Federal assistance?
Mr. Huebner. Sir, we are surviving with private investment
and with our partnership with those organizations. We can grow
exponentially by having an investment to match the investment
of all the organizations we are working with. We can reach more
veterans. That is the bottom line. But, yes, we will survive,
we will continue on. We are moving on with or without any
Federal support. But my point to you is that with an investment
to match the private investment that already exists, estimated
more than $42 million, we can substantially reach more
veterans.
Mr. Hall. Do you work with Professional Ski Instructors of
America, Adaptive Program, and other private athletic
organizations who already have adaptive sports programs?
Mr. Huebner. That is where you get your efficiency. We have
identified communities that already have programs. We have also
identified numerous communities that don't. The role is to
provide training and technical assistance. For example, in a
rural area, to create a specific program in a rural area is not
efficient. To work in collaboration with the Parks and
Recreation that already has buildings and staff and provide
them the equipment and expertise to serve that maybe one
veteran in a rural area is very efficient. That is our focus
with what we are trying to do, working with established
programs today, as well as identifying markets that don't have,
and I will give you an example, in Colorado Springs, Colorado,
there is not a comprehensive program to serve injured personal
or veterans. We will have one established with the City of
Colorado Springs by the end of this year.
Mr. Hall. Well, thank you very much, both of you, for your
patience and your testimony. Thank you, Ranking Member Boozman,
for filling in as Chair.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you for being here. My only frustration
is some of them are playing golf. My frustration is going out
and playing with them and just getting trounced. So thank you
very much.
Mr. Hall. My frustration has been beaten down the hill by
an adaptive skier in a sit-ski while being a certified level II
alpine ski instructor. That is good.
Mr. Huebner. Sir, both of you, obviously that is a great
story for us to tell America and that is an important part of
what we do just not for Americans but all veterans, to say I
can come back from Iraq like Kortney Clemons did, go back to
school. I can pursue a new career and I can be involved in
physical activity which, as we talked about earlier, he can run
a little bit faster than I can.
Mr. Hall. Well, thank you very much for the work that you
do and for your advice and counsel to the Subcommittee. This
panel is now excused. Have a wonderful afternoon.
We now invite Panel Three to the witness table.
Participating on our third panel are Mr. Kerry Baker, Associate
National Legislative Director of Disabled American Veterans;
Mr. Joseph Sharpe, Deputy Director of the National Economic
Commission for the American Legion; Mr. Richard Daley,
Associate Legislation Director for the Paralyzed Veterans of
America; and Mr. Richard Weidman, Executive Director for Policy
and government Affairs for the Vietnam Veterans of America
(VVA).
Mr. Hall. Gentleman, without objection, your full written
statement will be entered into the record and you will be for 5
minutes.
Mr. Baker, you are now recognized.
STATEMENTS OF KERRY BAKER, ASSOCIATE NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS;
JOSEPH C. SHARPE, JR., DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC
COMMISSION, AMERICAN LEGION; RICHARD DALEY, ASSOCIATE
LEGISLATION DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA; AND
RICHARD F. WEIDMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR POLICY AND
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA
STATEMENT OF KERRY BAKER
Mr. Baker. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for inviting the DAV to present this testimony on various
bills before the Subcommittee today. H.R. 3786, H.R. 6070, and
H.R. 6224 are all outside the scope of DAV's mission. We
nonetheless have no opposition to their favorable
consideration.
H.R. 2721 would require the VA and DoD to develop and
distribute to members of the Armed Forces upon their discharge
information in a compact disk format that explains benefits for
which veterans are eligible under the laws administered by the
Secretary. This legislation would improve outreach services and
is therefore deserving of DAV's support.
The information contained on such a disk should be all
inconclusive in regards to VA benefits and military benefits.
Considering the lack of effective outreach in relation to older
groups of veterans, Congress should consider whether this type
of information should be disseminated to older groups in
addition to discharging members.
The DAV presented testimony in the House Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs on
May 22, 2008, regarding the issue of outreach. In that hearing,
the DAV outlined serious flaws in VA's outreach efforts in
relation to older groups of veterans. This legislation could
serve as a vessel to improve those outreach efforts in a cost-
effective manner.
H.R. 4255 would amend the law to authorize VA to provide
assistance to the Paralympic Program of the United States
Olympic Committee. The DAV has concerns regarding this bill.
Since 1991, the DAV and the VA have co-hosted the National
Disabled Veterans Winter Sports Clinic in Snowmass, Colorado.
The sole purpose of this program is to promote rehabilitation
by instructing severely disabled veterans in adaptive alpine
and Nordic skiing and provide an introduction to other adaptive
activities and sports.
The winter sports clinic provides profoundly disabled
veterans opportunities for self-development and challenge. The
participants have an opportunity to develop winter sports
skills and take part in a variety of adaptive workshops. This
event evolved from VA's efforts in rehabilitation and adaptive
sports.
It should be noted that the winter sports clinic hosted by
DAV and VA is purely for rehabilitative purposes and is in no
way competitive in nature. As written, this bill has the
potential to change that, something that both DAV and VA
oppose.
Many disabled veterans that participate in the winter
sports clinic have never even before attempted such sports
activities. Bringing a competitive atmosphere into that clinic
we believe would do more harm than good.
This bill is obviously well-intended and therefore DAV does
not wish to stand in its way. However, we also cannot allow
unintended consequences to occur that may jeopardize the two
decades of success in helping to rehabilitate severely disabled
veterans at the winter sports clinic has achieved. Therefore,
rather than opposing this legislation, we ask that it be
amended to exclude competitive sports from being injected into
the DAV and VA's winter sports clinic.
H.R. 6221 would require VA to include in each contract in
which it enters for the acquisition of goods and services a
provision that requires the contractee to comply with the
contracting goals and preferences for small business concerned
owned or controlled by veterans. The DAV supports this
legislation.
H.R. 6225 would amend the law relating to equitable relief
with respect to a State or private employer. This legislation
could have direct effect on service-connected disabled veterans
because many obtain employment due to their service-connected
disabilities. Those same individuals have enforceable rights of
employment or re-employment. When those rights are violated,
the victims of such violation should not be subject to the
whims of discretion that some courts may choose to abuse. The
DAV therefore supports this legislation.
H.R. 6272 would authorize discretionary appropriations to
carry out the Service Members Occupational Conversion and
Training Act 1992. Under this law, the Secretary of Defense is
required to carry out a program to assist eligible persons in
obtaining employment through participation in programs of
significant training for employment in stable and permanent
positions. Servicemembers separated involuntarily who have
service-related disabilities rated at 30 percent or more are
among those affected. Therefore, the DAV supports this bill as
well.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. On behalf of the
DAV, I am pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker appears on p. 43.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Baker, for your testimony. Now,
Mr. Sharpe, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH C. SHARPE, JR.
Mr. Sharpe. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate this opportunity to share the views of the American
Legion on a couple of benefit-related legislative initiatives
brought before us today, the first being H.R. 6272, the
``SMOCTA Reauthorization Act of 2008.''
Every year, over 250,000 servicemembers are discharged from
the Armed Services. These former service personnel are actively
seeking either employment or the continuation of former, or
vocational education. SMOCTA was developed as a transitional
tool designed to provide job training and employment to
eligible veterans discharged after August 1, 1999.
When created, SMOCTA was the only Federal job training
program available strictly for veterans and the only Federal
job training program specifically designed for the use by State
veterans employment personnel to assist veterans with barriers
to employment.
SMOCTA is a unique job training program because it has
successfully returned veterans to the civilian workforce. The
American Legion strongly endorses this bill.
The other bill that we are very concerned with is H.R.
6221, the ``Veteran-Owned Small Business Protection and
Clarification Act.'' The American Legion views small businesses
as the engine that keeps the American economy on track. It is
the driving force behind America's past economic growth, and
will continue to be the major factor as we move forward into
the 21st century.
The American Legion supported legislation in the past that
sought to add service-connected disabled veterans to a list of
specified small business categories receiving 3 percent set-
asides.
Despite enactment of Public Law 106-50 the Veteran
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act 1999,
agency compliance has been minimal. However, VA has sought to
raise those veteran procurement goals to 9 percent. Therefore,
the American Legion supports H.R. 6221, which is intended to
assist VA in reaching those new goals by ensuring that every
contract up for bid be considered for a veterans service
disabled-owned company.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I appreciate the
opportunity to present the American Legion's views on these
important and timely topics, and I welcome any questions you
may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sharpe appears on p. 45.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much, Mr. Sharpe. We will get back
to questions after the other witnesses.
Mr. Daley, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD DALEY
Mr. Daley. Representative Hall, Ranking Member Boozman, I
would like to thank you for the opportunity to share our views
on the proposed legislation. My written comments are submitted
for the record. I will limit my remarks to the time limited.
Starting with the written comments, my verbal has changed
from the written comments submitted because of some meetings
that we have had.
I wanted to address H.R. 4255, the ``United States Olympic
Committee Paralympic Program Act.'' While we have previously
mentioned concerns about H.R. 4255, in recent days, we have had
the opportunity to talk with different Committee staff as well
as with Mr. Huebner from the Paralympics. We see this potential
expanding relationship between the VA and the USOC as an
opportunity to benefit disabled veterans. Furthermore, we look
forward to working with Paralympics to address our concerns
about the impact of this new relationship on longstanding
partnerships that we and other veteran service organizations
had developed with the VA to support sports and recreation
programs for disabled veterans. We are encouraged that
satisfactory solutions to our concerns may be achieved.
H.R. 6224, the ``Pilot College Work-Study Programs for
Veterans Act.'' As we stated in testimony on similar
legislation earlier this year, PVA supports the provisions of
H.R. 6224, the ``Pilot College Work-Study Programs Act.'' This
legislation would create a five-year pilot program for on-
campus work-study positions that may include work in academic
departments, such as tutoring, research assistants, teaching
assistants, lab assistants, and other services, including
financial aid and cashier, admission. Just about any position
that is available on the campus will be included in this
program. We believe that the work-study program can be very
beneficial for many students.
``The SMOCTA Reauthorization Act.'' The PVA supports the
SMOCTA Reauthorization Act. We recommended the reauthorization
of the Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training
Act, SMOCTA program, or a program similar to that, in the
hearing last October. SMOCTA was established during the
downsizing of the military for veterans discharged after August
1, 1990.
This program was a cooperative venture between the
Department of Defense--they funded it, and the U.S. Department
of Labor and the VA. It was considered one of the better
programs to serve transitioning military veterans. The program
provided assistance in the form of reimbursements to employers
to provide training for veterans that led to permanent
employment. The program also included funds for assessment, for
training programs, for supportive services for the trainee. The
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program specialist and the local
veterans employment representatives staff that is on the State
level developed the employment training programs. The veterans
eligible for this assistance were those with military
occupations that were not transferable, those that were
unemployed for long periods of time, or those that have a 30
percent or greater disability.
The SMOCTA program, we think, would be a real benefit
because it would give the State employment workers something to
go out to the manufacturers and employers and say, I have
something to talk to you about. The Federal government is going
to help you with training new employees.
I think it is a win-win situation. A similar program would
help the men and women transitioning today, the many men and
women, and the Reserves and the Guard members who are
reentering the workforce. I thank you for this opportunity and
I am available for questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Daley appears on p. 47.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Daley. And Mr. Weidman, you are
now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. WEIDMAN
Mr. Weidman. Chairman Hall, Mr. Boozman, and in absentia,
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. We appreciate the opportunity to be here
today to testify on a number of important pieces of
legislation. In regard to H.R. 2721, Mr. Garza is on the right
track in that denial of knowledge of benefits, services and
earned rights is tantamount to denial of those services,
benefits and rights that are earned by virtue of military
service. We would suggest, instead of locking the VA or DoD
into a CD-ROM, our experience in working with young troops at
Walter Reed and elsewhere is: the more portable it is and the
more cool it is, the more they are likely to hang on to it.
And right now at the TAP program, they get all this paper,
and most of it never makes it back home. If you give them a
memory stick, that also doubles as a key chain and it looks
sharp, they will keep that. And that plugs into any computer,
and it accomplishes the same task with having those key sites,
as well as the information that is a contained in Federal
benefits for veterans and their families booklet that is
updated every year based on changes by the Congress and in
regulation.
Incidentally, even here at the flagship at Walter Reed,
every time I go down there, I take the most current version,
about 30 of them, with me. And I go down several times a month.
The young people still have outdated versions of it. And no
matter how much VA and DoD swear they have the most current
information, they don't. And so those things are all gone,
boom. And I put any extras on the table and they are all gone
when I come back the next week.
So getting good information out, we can't do too much of
that. It really needs to be done. The second bill is H.R. 3786,
the cell phones, VVA is for that. The one thing that we would
urge you to be very cautious of is watering down this bill by
inserting the word ``knowingly.'' That word ``knowingly'' was
inserted in the Veterans Preference Act, Veterans Economic
Opportunity Act, Employment Opportunity Act. And it has
basically gutted that Act for any enforcement and enforcement
of veterans preference in Federal employment.
And the same thing is true when people say ``the contract
will be immediately terminated''--as of what date? As of the
date of the orders are supplied or as of the date of the end of
a billing period? That may be anywhere from 30 to 90 days.
Those things need, I would suggest, to be pinned down to make
sure that the Act really accomplishes the protection you are
seeking. H.R. 6070, anything that we can do to assist the
spouses and the families of those who are deployed overseas we
should do. And this is one of the very minimum things that can
be accomplished in a few things that there is no cost but
should be done.
H.R. 6221, in regard to subcontracting, I hope that
Committee staff and the Members will work with us. There are a
number of problems with subcontracting that need to be
addressed. This is only one. And the whole intent of P.L. 109-
461 having to do with VA procurement needs to be significantly
tightened up, if I may suggest, particularly when it comes to
subcontracting. And specifically it needs to be locked into
Black Letter Law that the information on who prime contractors
are subcontracting with cannot in any manner, shape or form be
considered private information or proprietary information and
denied to the Congress and to the veterans advocates. It is
public money and we have a right to know how much money is
being spent with what company. And therefore, we haven't been
able to track subcontracting on any of the major primes in any
agency including VA.
In regard to Federal work-study, just to ensure that there
is no match, this can only help and we would encourage this.
You can call it a pilot program but it needs to go nationwide.
And one of the reasons that program works and works well is the
money follows the veteran where he or she can get a placement
that is going to be congruent with their course of study and
advance their future career.
In regard to H.R. 6225, in terms of injunctive relief, in
most cases, I think we need to look to tax relief for those few
employers who are bearing the cost of this war along with those
who are being mobilized in serving. And we need to look to
incentives more. But at the same time, we need to tighten up
the stick and Ms. Herseth Sandlin deserves great credit for
introducing this bill to improve sanctions, and particularly
injunctive relief.
In regard to governmental institutions, one of the worst
violators of USERRA is State and local and county governments
all across the Nation. In regard to the Paralympics, we share
with one codicil. We fully support this bill. And that is that
it be specifically written in either to the Black Letter Law or
to the Committee report that anything that is done with this
program be congruent and complimentary and not, in any way,
deleterious to the current winner games or to the wheelchair
games currently under operation by VA.
Last, but by no means least, has to do with H.R. 6272. And
I thank Mr. Welch for introducing this legislation. It is a
much needed tool. And the only thing I can suggest, though, is
that we change the name of it to warrior opportunity
conversion, something other than SMOCTA. ``Schmata'' is a
Yiddish word that means something unclean. And in certain parts
of the country, it was met with ridicule by employers. And
being from New York, you know exactly what I mean, Mr. Hall.
When we first got SMOCTA through, that acronym came out of
nowhere and it didn't help us, let us put it that way, market
the program, but it is an important program. And in this room
in 1982, I testified on behalf of what became the Emergency
Veterans Job Training Act, which essentially was the same
program. And that later, the emergency was dropped later in the
eighties and it became the Veterans Job Training Act. And then
that expired. And due to the military conversion or downsizing
subsequent to the Cold war in the first Gulf war, we got the
servicemembers through. And we did get that renewed several
years later, but we didn't get any funding for it and,
therefore, the program died.
This program, particularly when used in conjunction with
the opportunity tax credit for disabled vets that Mr. Rangel
got through Ways and Means in 2006, December 2006, proved to be
very important marketing tools that can be used by disabled
veteran outreach program workers, local veterans' employment
representatives (LVERs) and others.
For the record, since Labor has not publicized these two
documents implementing that Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC)
for disabled vets, which is a very important tool, I would,
with permission of the Chair, submit these to be included with
the record, so at least the Congress can start to do what the
Department of Labor is not doing.
Last, but by no means least, I would be remiss if I didn't
say that the Department of Labor and the service delivery
mechanism that will use these tools, or theoretically use these
tools, is severely compromised if indeed not broken. I would
point out to the distinguished members of the panel here that
conspicuously absent is any senior representative from the
Veterans' Employment and Training Service of the United States
Department of Labor here this afternoon to listen to what could
be the essential tool that their people will pick up and use
out in the field in order to get jobs for those young men and
women returning.
If it sounds like we are somewhat angry at this lack of
diligence and this lack of passion for the job to be done, it
is because it is justifiable. I have gone overtime, and I thank
you very much for your indulgence Mr. Chairman and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weidman, and referenced
attachments, appears on p. 50.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Weidman. Are you suggesting that I
should not say SMOCTA in front of my Slovak Catholic mother?
Mr. Weidman. Yes, sir, I am. And I am not going to go into
the exact translation, but it is not something you want to say
in front of your mom.
Mr. Hall. Do you believe, Mr. Weidman, that under H.R.
2721, a CD with veterans information is a good way to bridge
the outreach gap between Federal agencies and veterans? You are
talking about these information--the data sticks. There also
are some that are transponders for Internet receivers and
senders that are also doubled as data sticks. These sticks
would enable the veteran to not only download or open up files
that are in storage on the device, but also connect directly to
a VA Web site. Would that strike you as a good idea?
Mr. Weidman. The hot links are important. And the one thing
that we spend a lot of time--the more time I spend with these
young folks, the more I realize--find out what works, including
in gifts that we give them. And it needs to be cool and it
needs to be portable. Particularly for those in the combat
arms. They like things that they can carry with them. That is
why I suggest even in addition to that electronic device you do
something that is a tri-fold or a quad-fold card that is die
cut the same size as a credit card they can stick in their
wallet.
If you give that to them at the Transition Assistance
Program or at the military hospital where they are recuperating
from wounds, they will take that and stick it in their wallet,
and you have all the key links in the Web sites of all the
agencies on there. And they will pull it out when they need it.
They are never going to find that tri-fold brochure that is 5
by 11, they are never going to find a thick booklet. But this
they will find and they will pull it out of their wallet or
they will use the electronic device.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Daley, would that address your concern about
veterans from rural areas?
Mr. Daley. Sure. The word has to get out there in the
smaller towns, the rural areas. And I think that would really,
really help. And, of course, we have the veterans one-stop
locations there that they can go for information. So the more
information we give them, the better.
Mr. Hall. Absolutely. And sir, do you believe that if VA
formalizes their agreements to work with the USOC that the VA
will no longer support the national veterans wheelchair games
or other similar events?
Mr. Daley. That was a concern. But after talking with Mr.
Huebner, that is not his goal at all. Everything that we have
done in the past we will keep doing the same way. He has a
broader interest to reach out into the communities, as he said,
to get more people involved in activities and more veterans
involved in activities of recreation and sports. So yeah, I
think it is going to be a good situation.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. Mr. Baker, DAV concerns on H.R. 2721
are that the VA is not conducting outreach efforts to older
groups of veterans, and you suggest disseminating this
information to this group. Do you think a compact disk is not
the most effective tool for this population? And what would you
suggest? For instance, is this generation of veterans going to
benefit from electronic media like a CD or would a pamphlet or
reading material be more effective?
Mr. Baker. I think the answer to that is mixed. Some of
them are going to benefit. Some obviously aren't that computer
literate. And that is certainly not the catchall answer to the
older group. I believe the testimony we presented back in May
on the older vets addressed some laws that are currently in
existence that Congress has implemented in the past years that
is meant to address older vets, and the VA just hasn't complied
with. That is one avenue. This information or in written format
is possibly one avenue to go about complying with that. First,
they have to be identified, which is one of the requirements of
the previous laws, and then it has to be assessed as to what
they know and don't know about their benefits. But this could
be certainly a potential mechanism for delivering that
information.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. And Mr. Sharpe, should the SMOCTA just
be reauthorized or is there room for improvement?
Mr. Sharpe. Both.
Mr. Hall. Or would you also suggest another name?
Mr. Sharpe. That is not an issue for us. But it is a
concern that we do have a training program that meets the
demands for today's employers and what is going on tomorrow.
And if we can improve it more, the better.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, sir. My time has expired, I will
recognize Ranking Member Boozman for 5 minutes.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I appreciate
the testimony. We would like perhaps to submit some questions
as they come up as we work with these things. As always I
appreciate your testimony. You have really given us some good
thoughts as to the different areas. On the Paralympic
Committee, we have a little difference of opinion, but I think
all of us agree that the primary thing that we are trying to do
with all of these things is to serve the entire population. And
that means guys that are just wanting to play pick-up all the
way up to competing at a very, you know, at the top level.
So I think I would really like to work with you and get
that done, but I think we can get that done. Rick, the things
about trying to get the information out, you know, what is the
most valuable tool of doing that, I agree, and that might
change. So you might want to look at maybe working with the
author about maybe giving a range or something. But again,
working with you guys, working with everybody to try and figure
out how we can get the information out, that is a challenge.
And I have been to many TAP programs and stuff, and I think the
want to is there. I don't have any doubts in my mind. It is
just difficult when you are dealing with people that are
sometimes seriously injured, sometimes they are home, and I
have been to the ceremonies when they come home, and they have
their minds seeing a kid sometimes that they have never seen
before.
So you just have the whole gamut. But trying to use the
technology that we have to get the message out so that they can
keep it, and more importantly, have something to rely on or
somebody to rely on in the future to get the information. So
again, thank you all very much for your testimony and taking
the time to be here today. It is very helpful.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. And if I may just follow
up with Mr. Sharpe. You alluded to improvements in SMOCTA.
Could you please elaborate on that?
Mr. Sharpe. Again, our biggest concern is that with any
training program, that the servicemembers are given the skills
that will help them for today's economy. In many cases, many of
the training programs that are currently in existence do not do
that. Employers are looking elsewhere for skilled employees,
and there is no need for that. There is no need for them to
have to look overseas. We feel that our veterans should be
trained with all up-to-date technology that will meet today's
demands and plus in the future. So that is the kind of training
program we are looking for.
Mr. Hall. Under H.R. 6224 you state that veterans should be
permitted to participate as VA work study students in Federal
agencies. Do you propose that veterans be given internships at
Federal agencies?
Mr. Sharpe. Yes.
Mr. Hall. And do you think that the requirements stated
under H.R. 6221 should be extended to all Federal agencies, not
just VA?
Mr. Sharpe. Yes.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. And last Mr. Baker, regarding H.R.
4255 again, should not the veteran be able to decide whether he
or she would like to compete? It would be beneficial if we had
both competitive and recreational noncompetitive programs
available.
Mr. Baker. I agree 100 percent. I completely agree with
that I should probably clarify something after speaking with
Mr. Huebner during the break as well as listening to his
statement. There is a chance we might be mistaken or
misinterpreting the intent of the legislation. And we only want
to make sure that the winter sports clinic in Snowmass doesn't
become a competitive environment. Because that is literally the
first time a lot of these people get on some of these devices,
and it is strictly rehabilitation. That is not to say this law
wouldn't promote some competitive nature elsewhere throughout
the country. That is our only concern, is to shield that from
becoming a competitive event.
Mr. Huebner assures me that that is not the aim. I will
certainly bring that message to our people in the DAV that run
that program. Maybe they can get together to work out any
differences or get a better understanding of the intent of the
law. But I don't want to give that impression that we are
against any competitive nature in the whole arena.
Mr. Hall. Thanks for the clarification. I would say that
the same thing applies to children and to nonveterans. There
are some people who, by temperament, take well to competition
and thrive in it. Yet, there are others who like to just
compete against themselves, if you will, or try to get pleasure
and improve their performance in whatever sport it is, be it
adaptive or not.
I think that making the whole range seems like a good thing
to me. Mr. Boozman, do you have any more questions?
Mr. Boozman. No, I don't.
Mr. Hall. Well, thank you to our third panel for testifying
before the Subcommittee. Thank you for your patience and your
continued dedication to our Nation's veterans. You are now
excused.
And we invite our fourth panel to the witness table.
Joining us on the fourth panel is Mr. Keith Pedigo, Associate
Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management for
the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, accompanied by Ms.
Diane Hartmann, Director of National Programs and Special
Events for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Welcome.
Thank you for being here and thank you for your patience. As
usual, your full written statement will be entered into the
hearing record. Feel free to adjust it, shorten it, or
elaborate on it.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Pedigo, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF R. KEITH PEDIGO, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
FOR POLICY AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, VETERANS BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS;
ACCOMPANIED BY DIANE HARTMANN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PROGRAMS AND
SPECIAL EVENTS, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Pedigo. Mr. Hall and Members of the Subcommittee, I am
pleased to be here today to provide the Department of Veteran
Affairs' views on pending legislation. Accompanying me is Diane
Hartmann, Director of National Programs and Special Events. VA
is still reviewing H.R. 6221, H.R. 6225, and H.R. 6272 and will
provide views on those bills in a subsequent views letter.
[The Administration views from VA for H.R. 6221, H.R. 6225,
and H.R. 6272 appear on p. 65.]
H.R. 2721 would require VA to develop and the Secretary of
Defense to distribute to members of the Armed Forces, upon
their discharge or release from active duty, a compact disk
containing information that VA determines would help veterans.
That information would include the benefits for which veterans
may be eligible under the laws administered by VA, and a
comprehensive explanation of how to apply for benefits and a
list of all VA facilities.
The bill would also require VA and DoD to maintain an
Internet Web site with information clearly explaining VA
benefits and other things. VA supports this bill. It would
clearly enhance VA's already rigorous outreach and information
dissemination efforts. H.R. 3786, the ``Servicemembers Telecom
Contract Relief Act,'' and H.R. 6070, the ``Military Spouses
Residency Relief Act,'' if enacted, would affect
servicemembers.
Therefore, VA defers to the Department of Defense regarding
the merits of these bills. H.R. 4255, the ``United States
Olympic Committee Paralympic Program Act of 2007'' would
authorize VA to make a grant to the U.S. Olympic Committee to
plan, develop, manage and implement the Paralympic Program for
veterans and members of the Armed Forces. It also would require
VA to inform all veterans with physical disabilities of the
Paralympic Program, encourage their participation and require
that VA ensure access to and appropriate use of facilities by
program participants. VA opposes this bill because it is
unnecessary, would divert funds intended for veterans care to
nonveterans and would benefit only a limited number of
veterans.
VA has an established office of national programs and
special events that oversees highly successful and well-
attended rehabilitative programs for disabled veterans. This
office works with the USOC to help elite level athletes to
compete in their Paralympic Programs. That office currently
oversees four national events; the National Disabled Veterans
Winter Sports Clinic, the National Veterans Wheelchair Games,
the National Veterans Golden Age Games and the National
Veterans Creative Arts Festival. Also, a pilot summer sports
clinic scheduled for later this year in San Diego, California,
is specifically designed for veterans with serious
disabilities.
Each year, thousands of disabled veterans have the
opportunity for self-development through participation in these
events. Among other things, a bill would require VA to notify
and encourage participation of catastrophically injured
veterans, many of whom would not be able to participate in
these events. VA currently allows the USOC to distribute
materials about the Paralympic Program at any of VA's offices
of national programs and special events. Additional
notification is unnecessary. Although we applaud the USOC's
efforts to bring more veterans into their elite athletic
competitions, we believe the VA's events are much more suited
to providing the services veterans need. VA's goal is to
introduce sports and other recreation to disabled veterans and
make it a part of their daily lives. Our existing partnership
with the USOC allows those who rise to elite athletic
performance to take their training to the next level through
the USOC Paralympic Program. We are in the process of
estimating the costs that would be associated with enactment of
this bill and will provide them for the record.
[The Committee did not receive the costs for H.R. 4255, as
introduced, since the provisions of that bill were included in
S. 2162, which became Public Law 110-387 on October 10, 2008.]
H.R. 6224, the ``Pilot College Work Study Programs for
Veterans Act of 2008,'' would require the VA to conduct a five-
year pilot project to test the feasibility and advisability of
expanding the scope of certain work study-related activities to
include work study positions available on-site at educational
institutions.
These positions in the program may include those in
academic departments and in student services. The bill would
require VA personnel to supervise veterans in these positions.
While VA supports the principle of exploring possible expansion
of the work study allowances under the current statute, we do
not support this bill because the activities now described in
that section relate primarily to activities that support VA's
mission of services and assistance to veterans and their
dependants, whereas the types of activities proposed would not
relate to that mission.
In addition, VA's supervision of the work study
participants would be administratively burdensome given the
range of activities that would be involved throughout the
university. This concludes my statement, Mr. Hall. I would be
happy to entertain any questions that you or Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pedigo appears on p. 58.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Pedigo. And we look forward to the
view's letter on H.R. 6221, H.R. 6225, H.R. 6272 and the cost
estimate of the other bill, H.R. 4255.
In the report from the Office of the Inspector General for
VA, it seems that VA makes purchases for the Department of
Defense. Yet, the VA has a memorandum of agreement with the
Department of the Army to have the Army do purchases for the
VA. Why is that?
Mr. Pedigo. Mr. Hall, I am not at all familiar with that
issue. But I would be happy to try to get you a response for
the record.
[The answer is included in the response to Question 1 of
the Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record, which
appears on p. 64.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you. You can add that to the package of
things you are sending us. Under H.R. 6224, you state that it
would be administratively burdensome for the VA to supervise
work study participants as outlined in the bill. Could the VA
delegate supervisory duties to the university?
Mr. Pedigo. I believe that would be a possibility. We do
have some programs that we administer where we do delegate
responsibility. And if given the statutory authority to do
that, I think that that would be an improvement to that
proposal.
Mr. Hall. Is the Office of National Programs and Special
Events (ONPSE) a permanent office?
Mr. Pedigo. Mr. Hall, I am going to ask Ms. Diane Hartmann
to respond to that question.
Ms. Hartmann. Thank you, sir. The Office of National
Programs and Special Events was formed in 2001. It is a
permanent office.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Ms. Hartmann. And what is the current
budget of ONPSE?
Ms. Hartmann. I am sorry.
Mr. Hall. The current budget of the Office of National
Programs and Special Events.
Ms. Hartmann. Right now the budget is $4.6 million. That
includes the operational costs of the events as well as staff.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. And last, to Mr. Pedigo, thank you for
taking part in our round table discussion on outreach.
Regarding H.R. 2721, I would assume and encourage you to
coordinate with the outreach effort that we discussed with the
Ad Council, and to make it as holistic as possible, as you
develop this concept of whether it is a compact disk or a
memory stick or whatever device seems to be most widely
accepted among our veterans in different age groups. I am sure
you are thinking that way, but I just wanted to mention that
because some of us in this room maybe weren't at the round
table discussion. And that is all the questions I have. I will
turn now to Ranking Member Boozman for his questions.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you Chairman Hall. First of all thank
you all so much for your hard work for veterans and we really
do appreciate you Mr. Pedigo and Ms. Hartmann for all that you
do. I am a little confused about the recreational therapy
programs. Let me just read this, and then I will follow up. The
Committee staff Members have attended several of the Paralympic
Military Sports summits, and that means held their significant
resistance at the VA Medical Center level defending
recreational therapy programs.
Please describe who has overall responsibility for the
recreational therapy program of VA and is there a budget line
item for the program. I think earlier we heard testimony to the
effect that when you actually go out and talk to these men and
women, there is a problem in the sense they don't want to be at
the hospital their whole life or that kind of situation, you
know, playing basketball or whatever they are doing. So can you
address that for me.
Ms. Hartmann. Yes, sir, I can. First of all, the Recreation
Therapy Program is part of patient care service, which is under
the Veterans Health Administration. The National Programs
Office is separate from that. Originally all of our national
programs started in recreation therapy and they were separated
and elevated to a higher level. As far as the----
Mr. Boozman. And are they on-site?
Ms. Hartmann. Yes, sir. Well, the national office is, but
our planning staff is around the country because our events
move from one location, one Medical Center to another year to
year. So I have staff in the field that it is constantly
working on events. We usually work 3 years of programs during
the year. As far as the question about the difficulty of staff
getting to these programs, that is true. About 8 years ago, it
was very difficult for recreation therapists and caregivers as
well as veterans to have funding to get to these events. Once
this program was elevated, there was quite a bit of policy
developed and consistency put together among the programs so
that these programs would be recognized as part of medical care
and part of recreation therapy. That our veterans who are
attending would be given caregivers when necessary to go with
them. And those caregivers would be given official travel and
administrative leave. There still are issues that the funding
to get the participants as well as the VA staff to these
programs is not always part of the budget of the Medical
Center. A lot of the money is fundraised at a local level. And
a lot of the money that gets the participants there are raised
by our service organizations.
Mr. Boozman. Can you--I guess I would really like to know
what kind of money that we are talking about how much that
budget item would be to fully fund that.
Ms. Hartmann. To fund staff and participants.
Mr. Boozman. Yes ma'am.
Ms. Hartmann. Sir, we can work out, those numbers.
[The answer is included in the response to Question 3 of
the Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record, which
appears on p. 64.]
Mr. Boozman. Again, I really feel strongly that for certain
individuals, and the Chairman addressed it. There are
individuals that want to exercise and compete at all different
levels. But I really do think part of the healing process, part
of the rehabilitation, this stuff really can be very, very
important, for certain individuals. Not necessarily for
everybody, although there probably is something for everybody
if we can find it. But the ability to actually access it is
real important. Now, I have been pleased because it seems like
my experience has gotten a little bit better in some locations.
But I would like to know again what kind of money that we are
talking about. And so how would you address the problem, the
criticism of people not wanting to be in that setting all the
time, the guy that gets out of the hospital--do you see what I
mean?
Ms. Hartmann. I understand. I don't believe that I am the
appropriate person to address that. I do not have a clinical
background so it would be inappropriate for me to say that. As
an observer, truly nonclinician I see very positive aspects
just from the first time someone is introduced to a new
activity or sport to when the end of the day after they have
had a lesson.
Mr. Boozman. But if that were a concern, if you were able
to say yeah, this is a positive thing, if the clinicians told
you that, would you agree that we are not funding that like we
should based on if it was a very positive thing?
Ms. Hartmann. Yes, I would. I think that the recreation
therapy programs at VA could absolutely benefit, and our
veterans would definitely benefit by additional funding.
Mr. Boozman. Good. That is very helpful. I mean you all,
you know you all work with the money that you are given and we
ask a lot of you. But like I said that is very helpful. Thank
you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. I also am curious, Ms.
Hartmann, about the noncompetitive programs and special events.
If you are not the person to describe them, or if you are,
would you do that a little bit? If not, maybe you could send us
a summary of what they are. If it is a separate budget that the
Office of National Programs and Special Events has, I am
curious about the statement that it would benefit only a
limited number of veterans I think if it were structured, as we
see it being structured in terms of applying to all competitive
and noncompetitive individuals, it should benefit a great
number of veterans. Certainly considering the number of serious
injuries that we are seeing in Operation Iraqi Freedom, it
would be good if Operation Enduring Freedom returnees today it
have these kinds of recreational and/or competitive programs
available to as many of them as possible.
Ms. Hartmann. I will be happy to try to clarify the
competitive and noncompetitive. We have two programs now, our
winter sports clinic and our summer sports clinic which are
noncompetitive. They are clinics. They are an introduction to
sports and leisure activities. The winter sports, of course,
having the key basis around winter activities, and the summer
will be summer sports.
In addition to those two components of both summer and
winter, we also introduced the leisure activities, which are
activities that the veterans can take home and do that they
don't need a mountain for, such as scuba diving or trap
shooting or rock climbing. Those types of things where they can
go home to their local community and do it; cycling, kayaking
for the summer games. They don't have to have an ocean to kayak
or to do cycling. So additionally we will do golf, which we
have already in two of our programs.
So those are the noncompetitive. The wheelchair games, the
golden age games and the creative arts festival are all
competitive. They are competitive locally where through the
recreational therapy programs they are introduced to these
activities, and then the therapists work with them. And of
course, we have the organizations like PVA who have the local
chapters who do a lot of local programs for the veterans to get
involved and to learn--I mean to really develop the competitive
skills. Then they come to the national program to compete. In
the national program with our partnership through the
Paralympics, we have been able to identify some veterans that
have the elite level potential. And they have gone on to both
the Paralympic Military Program. And as Mr. Huebner said, this
year we have six veterans who are part of the Paralympic team.
Four of those individuals actually rehabbed at VA Medical
Centers and were introduced to sports through VA recreation
therapy programs and participate at our national programs.
I have to tell you that I think the concept is extremely
supported by VA, and especially by I know my staff, the
concept. Because we have no way of knowing where the funding
will come from, we have to assume that it is going to come from
existing dollars. And therefore, we strongly feel that if we
are going to put the existing dollars into recreation therapy,
it should be within VA's programs that exist already instead of
out into the community. Therefore, more veterans would be able
to benefit by the use of that money.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. And just lastly, could I ask if you
have a rough number of disabled veterans who are taking
advantage of these programs and approximately what percentage
that might be of the total number of disabled veterans?
Ms. Hartmann. I can tell you that this past year at the
national events, we had 1,638 veterans. I do not know the
percentage versus the number of disabled veterans, but I will
be happy to find that number for you.
[The answer is included in the response to Question 2 of
the Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record, which
appears on p. 64.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much. Ms. Hartmann, Mr. Pedigo,
thank you for the work that you are doing and for testifying
before the Subcommittee today. It is very important that we in
Congress continue to reevaluate existing laws and review
legislative proposals so that we may provide our men and women
in uniform, and our veterans and their dependants the benefits
and safeguards that they need to reintegrate back to civilian
life. This hearing has provided us with good feedback and I
look forward to continuing this important dialogue. Again,
thank you for your patience and the work that you do. Thank you
to all of our panelists for participating in today's
legislative hearing. This hearing now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Today we have eight bills before us that seek to: authorize the VA
to make a grant to the United States Olympic Committee to provide and
develop activities for servicemembers and veterans with physical
disabilities; allow military servicemembers to terminate certain
contracts when called to active duty service or ordered to change
permanent duty assignment; require the VA to develop and DoD to
distribute a compact disk of benefits information to servicemembers
preparing to depart from the military; amend the Servicemembers Civil
Relief Act to allow a military spouse to claim the same state as the
servicemember in regards to state and property taxes, and voter
registration; and reauthorize the Service Members Occupational
Conversion and Training Act of 1992.
Some of you might recall that on February 13, of this year, we
conducted a hearing on expiring programs. In this hearing, we received
recommendations on ways to improve on the programs and expand on
veterans rights. One such recommendation came from Mr. Matthew Tully of
Tully and Rinckey LLC who specializes in law under the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, also known as USERRA.
Mr. Tully brought up an example of how a servicemember who had
sought injunctive relief from his employer but the court denied his
request. Mr. Tully recommended that the Subcommittee consider amending
USERRA to allow servicemembers, such as the one that was cited, to
ensure equitable relief is available to USERRA victims when the courts
decide it's appropriate.
I share the concerns expressed by Mr. Tully and recently introduced
H.R. 6225, Injunctive Relief for Veterans Act of 2008. This bill will
amend Title 38 by changing ``may'' to ``shall'' and it is our
expectation that more courts will use this remedy when deemed
appropriate that equitable relief is warranted. This legislation is a
step in the right direction to providing greater protections and
safeguards to those that have answered the call to duty.
A second bill that I recently introduced is H.R. 6224, the Pilot
College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act of 2008. This bill
contains similar language that I proposed in H.R. 5684, the Veterans
Education Improvement Act of 2008, which would improve on existing
educational entitlements for our veterans.
H.R. 6224 would direct the Secretary of the Department of Veterans
Affairs to conduct a 5-year pilot project to expand on existing work-
study activities for veterans. Currently, veterans that qualify for
work-study would be limited to working on VA related work. My bill
would allow those veterans the option of working in academic
departments and student services. This change would put them at par
with students that qualify for a work-study position under programs not
administered by the VA.
Furthermore, this bill would conform to existing paygo rules by
funding this pilot program from discretionary appropriations.
I look forward to working with Ranking Member Boozman and other
Members of the Committee to discussing my two legislative proposals and
those being considered in today's legislative hearing.
It is very important that Congress continue to reevaluate existing
laws and review legislative proposals so that we may provide our men
and women in uniform, our veterans and their dependents the benefits
and safeguards they need to reintegrate back to civilian life. This
hearing has provided us with good feedback and I look forward to
continuing this important dialog.
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Thank you Madame Chair.
Today, we will hear testimony on eight bills covering diverse
issues facing veterans and their families. I am especially pleased that
you have included my bill, H.R. 6221, a bill to close a possible
loophole in VA's disabled veteran business contracting and acquisition
programs. I am also very pleased that you are an original cosponsor of
H.R. 6221 and I look forward to working with you on this wide range of
bills.
I would offer one thought on the bill to reauthorize the long-
expired Servicemembers' Occupational Training Act or SMOCTA. The goal
of SMOCTA was to retrain veterans with few or no transferable military
skills in skills better-suited to today's job market. This is a worthy
goal and I support it and commend our colleague from Vermont for
bringing this issue to us.
There are several ways to offer retraining and I would like to
explore with you whether it would be more effective to reauthorize
SMOCTA or take several SMOCTA concepts and use them to expand VA's
existing On-the-Job-Training (OJT) and apprenticeship programs for both
recently discharged veterans and those who have passed their
eligibility date for GI Bill benefits.
Given the current awareness of education and training for veterans,
we may have an opportunity here to put more veterans into good jobs. I
know you share that goal and I look forward to working with you, Mr.
Welch and our colleagues on the Committee to make that happen.
I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Filner,
Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and
a Representative in Congress from the State of California
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on H.R. 4255, the United
States Olympic Committee Paralympics Program Act of 2007, which I
introduced earlier this Congress.
For many servicemembers and veterans who have been severely injured
from service to our country, their rehabilitation can be a
disheartening experience. Many become concerned about having the same
quality of life that they had prior to their injuries.
Programs administered by the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC)
Paralympic Military Program can enhance and improve the quality of life
for these men and women by introducing them to an active lifestyle
while they heal from their wounds.
Today, the USOC programs have been providing support for severely
injured military servicemembers and veterans since 2003, introducing
them to adaptive sport techniques. These opportunities will enable our
veterans to face their new physical realities and to continue living an
active lifestyle through adaptive sports.
We know that there is a growing population of veterans that have
survived serious injuries that would benefit from the good work being
done by the USOC. This is why I have introduced H.R. 4255, the United
States Olympic Committee Paralympic Program Act of 2007, to support our
heroic men and women as they transition through this difficult phase in
their lives.
H.R. 4255, will authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make
a grant to the USOC to provide: paralympic instruction, competition
activities, and training program development activities for
servicemembers and veterans with physical disabilities.
The purpose of the program in my bill is to enhance the
rehabilitation and quality of life of current severely injured
servicemembers and veterans and to reduce the chance of secondary
medical conditions.
To date, more than 1,200 injured veterans have been introduced to
paralympic sports as a result of these training programs, but much more
needs to be done in order to continue to provide this dynamic
rehabilitative environment.
I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting my bill H.R. 4255
and our nation's severely injured veterans.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Zoe Lofgren,
a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and
distinguished colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today in support of my bill H.R. 3786, The Servicemembers Telecom
Contract Relief Act.
As the Committee on Veterans' Affairs observed in the report
accompanying the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, ``Congress has long
recognized that the men and women of our military services should have
legal protections so they can devote their entire energy to the defense
needs of the Nation.'' The bill I offer today for your consideration is
but a modest step in providing those legal protections, but it is an
important one.
A constituent call first led me to examine this issue, but further
research and discussions disclosed other instances in which
servicemembers had difficulties suspending or terminating contracts for
telecommunication services after receiving orders for overseas
deployment. Although many service providers have express policies for
suspension or termination of telecommunication contracts for those
called to active service, those policies weren't always followed. Some
degree of certainty regarding the rights and obligations of
servicemembers is therefore necessary.
H.R. 3786 provides that certainty. The bill allows members of the
armed services to suspend or terminate contracts for telecommunications
services when those services are no longer of any use to them because
of a call to active duty, an involuntary extension of the period of
military service, or deployment overseas to locations where those
services are not available. In so doing, the bill tracks similar
provisions in the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act that allow someone
called to active service to terminate leases for a house, apartment, or
automobile.
Extending this relief to telecommunication services makes sense. At
a time when soldiers must concentrate on their mission and their
safety, they shouldn't be worrying about bills for their cell phones,
cable, or Internet service back home. As the mother of one soldier
serving in Iraq put it, her son ``is over there risking his neck, and
he shouldn't have to deal with a cell phone company.''
In no way do I mean to suggest that this bill is in response to
widespread negligence or malfeasance by telecommunication service
providers. In the overwhelming majority of cases, those providers have
demonstrated their commitment to our troops and have been flexible in
dealing with contract disputes. Indeed, most service providers adhere
to the letter and spirit of their policies providing for contract
cancellations or suspensions for servicemembers put on active duty.
This legislation merely provides additional recourse--and peace of
mind--in the handful of cases in which there is uncertainty about a
servicemember's obligations after being called to active duty. At that
time, the cable bill should be the furthest thing from the mind of
someone charged with defending our country.
Representatives of the telecommunications industry have reached out
to my office to recommend changes to harmonize this legislation with
the Communications Act and to refine certain other provisions. I
appreciate the cooperative spirit in which those suggestions have been
made and intend to adopt many of them should this bill proceed to
markup.
Finally, I wish to clarify that while my bill is narrower than H.R.
3298, introduced by Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania, I do support his bill,
which I have cosponsored. I chose to focus exclusively on
telecommunications services because of the unique importance of those
services to my constituents in Silicon Valley. We are acutely aware of
the growing role that telecommunications play in keeping us connected
to one another. Advances in telecommunications technology have
extraordinarily enhanced the ability of our active servicemembers
abroad to stay in touch with loved ones back home. My bill ensures that
telecommunication services remain a benefit rather than a burden to
those servicemembers.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about this important
legislation.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dennis A. Cardoza,
a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee,
Thank you for inviting me here today to testify on an issue that
I'm sure we will all agree will make life just a little bit easier for
our Nation's veterans.
We continue to owe a debt of gratitude to our brave servicemen and
women for their sacrifices to support and defend our great nation. This
Congress is working tirelessly to ensure our veterans are afforded the
honorable treatment and benefits that they deserve. But beyond
providing benefits for our brave servicemen and women when they return
home, we must ensure our veterans are actually receiving the benefits
they have earned.
In meeting with veterans throughout my district, time and time
again I have heard about the difficulty of navigating the Veterans
Administration bureaucracy, and I have heard about cases of incomplete
or untimely submission of paperwork. However, I have also heard too
many times that veterans simply are unaware of the benefits they are
eligible for.
In several instances, veterans have told me that upon being
discharged and returning to the U.S., they must sit through a
transitional process meeting explaining some of their benefits programs
immediately upon exiting the plane. Madam Chair, I'm sure you will
agree that after fighting for our country and being away from loved
ones for months at a time, that the last thing on our troops' minds is
their benefits. They are tired from the battlefield. They are tired
from an exhausting flight. They are longing to see their families and
put their arms around a mother, a father, a wife, a husband, a
daughter, or a son. This process meeting may be the only time some
veterans hear about their benefits and more often than not this is a
missed opportunity. There is a time and a place for this meeting to
occur; when families and loved ones are waiting beyond the gates, that
certainly is not the time.
Others have told me that in their briefings with a VA
representative, they only have 5 minutes, with dozens of other veterans
awaiting their 5-minute briefing. The veterans receive incomplete
information, they are handed a few pamphlets, they feel rushed, and
they are unable to ask any questions because of the time constraints. I
respectfully ask the Subcommittee to consider for a moment how in the
world can anyone explain all of the available benefits to which a
veteran is entitled in 5 minutes--let alone answer any questions he or
she may have.
Our Nation's veterans, many readjusting to civilian life after
returning from combat, deserve the best treatment and care available.
They are entitled to all the benefits they have earned. The last thing
veterans deserve is to be given incomplete information or the run-
around by governmental red tape.
Madam Chair, my bill, H.R. 2721, is quite simple. It would require
the Secretary of the VA to issue comprehensive CD-ROMs to returning
veterans that clearly explain the benefits to which they are entitled.
The CD would inform returning veterans and their families in plain
English about how to access and navigate the VA so they know about all
the benefits they have earned, and how to go about receiving them.
This would provide a one-stop source for veterans where they can
simply pop a CD into their computer whenever they wish to look up
information so no benefit slips through the bureaucratic cracks. I
understand that the VA currently outlines some information on their
website; this information is not comprehensive. My bill also requires
full, complete, and updated information to be provided on the VA
website. However, a CD is still necessary and would benefit districts
like mine with large rural areas where access to the Internet may not
always be reliable.
This bill only fixes the process, not the symptoms, and is just one
small step in the right direction to ensure our veterans who served so
honorably receive the benefits they have earned. But I believe that if
we fix the broken informational process, we are going a long way toward
solving the benefits problem. Our veterans should be able to depend on
our country, just as our country depended on them, and I believe that
giving troops the informational tools they need to ensure they receive
their well-deserved benefits is the least we can do on behalf of a
grateful Nation.
Thank you again for allowing me to be here, and I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Prepared Statement of Hon. John R. Carter,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas
Section 1: Short Title
Names the bill the ``Military Spouses Residency Relief
Act.''
Section 2: Guarantee of Residency for Spouses of Military Personnel
Amends section 705 of the Servicemember's Civil Relief
Act to state that the spouse of an active duty servicemember may
maintain his or her voter registration in the same state as the
servicemember regardless of where military orders send them.
Section 3: Residency for tax purposes
Amends section 511 of the Servicemember's Civil Relief
Act to state that a spouse of an active duty servicemember may maintain
the same state of residency as the servicemember for state taxation.
The section specifically states that personal property and income taxes
shall be taxed by the state of domicile, not the state where they live
due to military orders.
______
Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, good morning.
First, I would like to thank you for your commitment to our veterans
and servicemembers. It has been an honor to work hand-in-hand with you
as a member of the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Subcommittee in an effort to improve the lives of those
that have given so much for our Nation's freedom. I am honored to be
here and happy to discuss H.R. 6070, the Military Spouses Residency
Relief Act with you.
As you are all aware, the Servicemember's Civil Relief Act (SCRA)
provides basic civil relief to our men and women in the Armed Services
in exchange for their voluntary service. These range from relief from
adjudication while deployed in combat to maintaining a single state of
domicile regardless of where their military orders may send them. This
state of domicile provides an important stability for our soldiers,
airmen, and marines. Though their orders may send them to Texas,
Virginia, and California, they are able to simplify their state income
tax requirements, maintain property titles and driver's license in a
single state, and continue to vote for the elected officials from their
hometown. Without the SCRA protections, the servicemember would see all
of these concerns change every time they move to a military
installation located in a different state.
However, the composition of the military has changed since SCRA was
first written. It is no longer enough for this Committee, the Congress,
and the Department of Defense to provide relief to just the men and
women that have volunteered to protect us. We no longer deal with a
primarily unmarried fighting force. The saying ``We recruit a soldier
but retain a family'' could not be any more accurate. While our
servicemembers receive this important civil relief, we do not offer the
same protections to those that bear the same stress and responsibility
as the member--their spouse. Over the course of their spouse's career,
they face multiple changes of voter registration and drivers' licenses,
will pay income tax to a state they never intended to live in, and
likely not have their name on any property titles leading to a feeling
that they are second class citizens.
My bill would amend the SCRA to allow a military spouse to claim
the same state of domicile as the servicemember for the purposes of
state income and property taxes as well as voter registration. This
policy would prevent a military family from suddenly losing up to 9.3
percent of their income if they were to be restationed from Fort Hood
to Fort Irwin, up to 8.25 percent if they were to move from Fort Bliss
to Schofield Barracks, or up to 8.97 percent if they were to go from
Lackland Air Force Base to McGuire Air Force Base. This is a
significant loss of income that occurs only because of government
orders.
H.R. 6070 also affords legal protections to spouses that they do
not currently have because they do not have their names on deeds and
titles. While this may not seem a pressing issue, consider the legal
ramifications should a servicemember and his or her spouse decide to
end their marriage. While this is a worst case scenario that I would
hope as few of our men and women in uniform must endure, it is a
realistic situation that this Congress should address.
In closing, in a time when retention and recruitment is so
important, we must take every opportunity to remove potential
disincentives to serving in our Nation's military. While you and I may
not think of this as one of the most pressing issues for our
servicemembers, for these husbands and wives, it is one more stressful
change they have to deal with as they help lead their families through
restationing and deployment. I urge the Committee to join myself and 68
other Members of Congress in support of this important change to the
Servicemember's Civil Relief Act.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter Welch,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Vermont
Thank you Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and
Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on behalf of
H.R. 6272, the SMOCTA Reauthorization Act, authorizing discretionary
appropriations to carry out the Service Members Occupational Conversion
and Training Act of 1992.
The SMOCTA program was authorized throughout the nineties to assist
veterans in finding employment after their military careers. Our
veterans deserve this program today.
This important program was originally established to respond to the
needs of veterans who had been hurt by the downsizing of the military,
especially personnel whose specialty did not have direct applicability
in the civilian employment market. Specifically, veterans eligible for
assistance were those with military occupations that were not
transferable into the private sector; those that were unemployed for a
long period of time; and those with a 30 percent or greater service-
connected disability.
SMOCTA reimbursed employers to offset their cost of training
recently separated servicemembers for stable and permanent positions
that involve significant training, usually lasting between 6 and 18
months. Besides the reimbursements to employers, SMOCTA provided funds
for assessments, development of training plans, and supportive services
for the trainee. In exchange for this assistance, employers guaranteed
jobs for veterans.
According to the Paralyzed Veterans of America, SMOCTA was
considered one of the better programs to serve transitioning military
personnel.
Today, with a tough economy and the high demands we place on our
veterans, the rational for reestablishing SMOCTA is stronger than ever.
According to a May, 2008 Bureau of Labor Statistics report, Gulf
War-era II veterans aged 18 to 54 years had a higher unemployment rate
(6.5 percent) than did non-veterans (4.7 percent) in 2006. In addition,
at 7.5 percent in 2006, the unemployment rate of Gulf War-era II
veterans aged 25 to 34 years was higher than the 2006 unemployment rate
of non-veterans in the same age group (4.6 percent).
As disturbing as those figures are, the situation will likely only
become more dire for new veterans. More and more of those who have
served in Iraq and Afghanistan will return home as civilians, and they
will find an economy that is on the brink--an economy that just
experienced its sharpest 1-month increase in unemployment in 22 years,
to 5.5 percent in May from 5 percent in April.
If you serve your country in the military, you should have the
opportunity to return home, find a job, have a career, and support your
family. Our brave men and women in uniform have given us so much. They
deserve to come home with the support necessary to provide for
themselves and for their families that have already sacrificed so much.
It is our job, as Members of Congress, to make sure that our Nation
lives up to its commitment to our veterans. It is a simple pact we have
made with our troops--and one we are obligated to fulfill: After they
have sacrificed to serve our country on the battlefield, we must do all
we can to serve them here at home.
A reauthorization of SMOCTA could not be more timely. Simply put,
more troops are coming home from battle at a time when there are fewer
jobs for American workers. In addition, the global economy is becoming
more and more complex and demanding of new skills. We know our troops
possess the work ethic, the intelligence, and the discipline to succeed
in any environment, from the battlefield to the boardroom. As Members
of Congress, we need to ensure that veterans are as equipped to compete
for jobs in the economy as they were trained to defeat our adversaries
in combat.
SMOCTA reauthorization has the support of many of the Veteran
Service Organizations (VSOs), including the American Legion and
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the National Association of State
Workforce Agencies.
I thank the Subcommittee for your consideration of this important
legislation and am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Prepared Statement of Charles Huebner,
Chief of Paralympics, United States Olympic Committee
1. Paralympic Sport, which is sport for physically disabled
individuals, began as a rehabilitative tool for injured World War II
service personnel.
2. In 1998 Congress mandated that the USOC should serve as the
National Paralympic Committee for the U.S.
3. Since that time the USOC has grown its Paralympic division and
today spends more than $12 million on Paralympic programs.
4. In recognition of a need coupled with the USOC's expertise,
U.S. Paralympics has launched programs that introduce Paralympic sport
to injured active duty and veteran servicemen and women as a tool for
their rehabilitation and a vehicle for a return to an active lifestyle.
5. While the USOC is pleased that some of these programs have so
far produced five individuals who will represent the U.S. at the
Paralympic Games in Beijing this summer, the principal purpose of these
programs is to bring the USOC's experience and expertise to bear in
this area in order to serve a deserving population.
6. The USOC intends to partner with a number of community-based
and veterans service organizations to create Paralympic programs in
communities across the nation.
7. The bill under consideration, ``the United States Olympic
Committee Paralympic Program Act of 2007,'' (HR 4255) will serve to
expedite the creation of these programs and, therefore, enable the USOC
to serve more members of this deserving population more effectively.
______
Good afternoon Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Charles Huebner and I am the Chief of Paralympics, for the
United States Olympic Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify on HR 4255, the ``United States Olympic Committee Paralympic
Program Act of 2007,'' that would create an opportunity for the U.S.
Olympic Committee, in collaboration with Veterans, Paralympic, and
community-based organizations, to serve as an extension to the
Department of Veterans Affairs in providing programs and mentors to
disabled Veterans in communities throughout the United States.
By way of a brief background, the USOC is an organization chartered
by Congress through what was formally known as the Ted Stevens Olympic
and Amateur Sports Act. In amendments to the Act in 1998 the USOC was
given the additional responsibility of serving as the National
Paralympic Committee for the United States, a function that in most
other countries is governed by a separate organization. Paralympic
activity is sports for physically disabled athletes, and the Paralympic
Games are held approximately 2 weeks after the Olympic Games and at the
same Olympic venues.
The Paralympic Movement began shortly after World War II, utilizing
sports as a means of rehabilitation for injured military personnel
returning from combat. The Paralympic Games have become the second
largest global sporting event behind the Olympic Games, with more than
180 Countries and 4,000 physically disabled athletes expected to
participate in the 2008 Paralympic Games in Beijing.
The USOC today spends more than $12 million dollars annually on
Paralympic programs, all of these funds, of course, from private
sources. And Paralympic organizations throughout the U.S. spend an
additional $30 million dollars at the local level to provide sports and
physical activity programs for persons with physical disabilities.
The Paralympic movement today exists because of the needs of
injured veterans. And when I speak of the Paralympic movement, I am not
talking about a small number of persons that will make future
Paralympic teams, I am speaking of a movement and individuals with
physical disabilities that are using the simple platform of sports to
re-enter life. I'm talking about a population that is educated,
employed, is active in their communities, promotes excellence and
inspires Americans to achieve and overcome obstacles. Let me give you a
few examples.
Veteran Kortney Clemons, who currently resides in Chula Vista,
California, was injured in Iraq in 2003. In 2004 Kortney participated
in a Paralympic Military Sport Camp conducted at the Olympic Training
Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Last month he graduated from Penn
State University. Last week he started an internship at San Diego
Adaptive Sports and is pursuing his career interest of being a
Therapuetic Recreation Specialist in the Paralympic movement.
Veteran Scott Winkler of Augusta, Georgia, was injured in Iraq.
Last Saturday in Tempe, Arizona, Scott earned the honor of representing
his country again, this time at the Paralympic Games. More importantly,
Scott founded a local program in Augusta to provide physical activity
for injured military personnel and persons with physical disabilities.
In the past 2 weeks, the USOC and our partners accomplished the
following:
Twenty Veterans participated in a Paralympic Veterans
program in Alabama led by Marine Veteran and Paralympic mentor Carlos
Leon;
More than 18 veterans participated in a Paralympic
veterans program in Oklahoma led by Army Veteran, Paralympic mentor and
University of Arkansas graduate John Register, and;
The USOC launched a pilot program at Ft. Lewis,
Washington, focused on providing program support and mentors for the
more than 700 individuals currently in the Warrior Transition Unit at
that base.
In 2008, the USOC and our partners will provide ongoing programming
at the community-level for more than 2,000 Veterans. We expect to
increase this number significantly in 2009.
In 2008 we will also celebrate as five former members of the United
States military who were injured in defense of their country again don
a uniform, but this time the uniform of Team USA, to represent their
country at the 2008 Paralympic Games. This is a great story for
America, and the American people.
By utilizing our experience, expertise and understanding of the
impact of sport on the physical and mental and emotional rehabilitation
process for young men and women that are newly disabled, the USOC
Paralympic Military and Veterans Program that introduced Paralympic
sport to these men and women is serving as an effective vehicle for
their return to an active lifestyle. Components of the Paralympic
Military and Veterans Program include national training of community
leaders to implement Paralympic sport; clinics and mentor visits at
military and VA installations; development of local community-based
programs in targeted markets that have military or VA installations;
and ``Paralympic Military Sports Camps,'' conducted at our Olympic
Training Centers in Colorado Springs and Chula Vista, California. These
Military Sports Camps provide an introduction to Paralympic Sport, and
also the introduction of Paralympians that serve as mentors to injured
military personnel and veterans. We would like to invite members of
this Committee to attend our sport camp scheduled for Oct. 27-November
2, 2008 at the U.S. Olympic Training Center in Chula Vista, California.
Despite the success of this and similar programs directed at
injured and disabled active duty and veteran military personnel, we
recognize that there is much more that we can and should do. As
successful as the Paralympic Military and Veterans Program has been, we
have only scratched the surface and intend to do more. Currently there
is a significant lack of Paralympic community-based programs throughout
the United States. We have been most fortunate in developing a very
positive and productive working relationship with the Department of
Veterans Affairs. Since then we have collaborated on certain activities
but have been limited financially and programmatically. We believe that
this legislative proposal, accompanied by supportive funding, would
serve as a vehicle for the VA and USOC and our partners like the
Paralyzed Veterans of America and National Recreation and Parks
Association which has programs in 6,000 U.S. communities, to cost
efficiently serve a significantly larger universe of veterans for whom
Paralympic sport would serve as a valuable rehabilitation activity to
reintegrate into communities with family members and friends. We would
envision an expansion of Paralympic Community-Based programs to target
a larger number of veterans and their families, and create similar
programs at community facilities of some of our Paralympic partners
such as the Lakeshore Foundation in Birmingham, Alabama, and in the
City of Colorado Springs, Colorado, the home of Fort Carson, where a
Paralympic Community-based program does not exist today. These programs
would be community extensions of VA programs that are identified in
collaboration with our partners at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
This legislation, and the interest of this Subcommittee that is
giving this proposal a hearing, is testimony to the need of veterans
for activities and programs that enable them to return to a full and
active life. The United States Olympic Committee, through its
Paralympic Division, wants to be an active participant in serving a
most deserving segment of our population. We have learned that these
various Paralympic sport programs, whether they be the USOC's, the
Department of Veterans Affairs', or those of Paralympic organizations,
make a positive difference in the lives of those who are being served.
We are confident that the expertise that we have developed in
Paralympic programs, and in collaboration with numerous agencies like
DSUSA, PVA, DAV, and the American Legion, can and will have a
significant impact on veterans that are newly disabled to re-enter
their communities as active members.
Thank you for your consideration of this important piece of
legislation and for your ongoing concern for and support of our
Nation's veterans.
Prepared Statement of Bobby Franklin,
Executive Vice President, CTIA--The Wireless Association
Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear today to testify on H.R. 3786, the
Servicemembers Telecom Relief Act.
My name is Bobby Franklin, and I serve as the Executive Vice
President for CTIA--``The Wireless Association (``CTIA''). The
Association I represent is proud to count among its members wireless
carriers, equipment providers, and applications developers. CTIA's
carrier members collectively serve 95 percent of America's
approximately 260 million wireless consumers. Our members provide
consumers with a wide array of services, equipment, and applications
that permit Americans to stay connected to their families, friends, and
businesses no matter where they go.
CTIA's carrier members, as a matter of their respective corporate
policies, permit members of the U.S. armed forces facing deployment to
terminate contract-based 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 a servicemember the ability to stop service and reserve his
or her existing telephone number for a set period of time. Our members
take these obligations seriously, and they train their customer service
representatives to implement these policies with care and consistency.
Notwithstanding these efforts, unverified reports have circulated
here and in many state capitals suggesting that wireless carriers have
not released from contracts servicemen and servicewomen who are serving
in military units posted overseas or in locations within the U.S. where
they cannot use their wireless phones. These reports have generated a
variety of legislative proposals both in Congress and in state
legislatures. While CTIA has determined that these unverified reports
are contrary to the policies of our member companies, and while we
generally oppose Federal mandates of any sort, we want to put an end to
these suggestions. For that reason, CTIA's Board of Directors has
authorized us to support Federal legislation that would amend the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to address these well-intentioned but
unjustified concerns at both the Federal and state level.
While we support enactment of legislation to provide a template for
when and how contracts may be terminated when a servicemember receives
deployment orders, CTIA has several suggestions for how to improve H.R.
3786. These suggestions are consistent with the recommendations we
offered the Subcommittee when it held a hearing in April on H.R. 3298,
Representative Patrick Murphy's 21st Century Servicemembers Protection
Act. CTIA's suggestions fall into three categories.
First, the descriptions of the covered services in the ``Covered
Contract'' portions of the bill should be amended to conform to the
definitions used for these services in the Communications Act. This
will eliminate any potential for confusion regarding what services are
intended to be covered by the regime imposed by the legislation.
Second, we propose a clarification of the bill's provisions on
``Arrearages and Other Obligations and Liabilities'' to better reflect
the way that wireless service is purchased. The vast majority of the
more than 260 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 consumer 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, and the relatively small number of service
termination requests, CTIA recommends modifying the legislation to
better accommodate existing industry practices.
Third, while CTIA's carrier members have individual corporate
policies that provide for contract termination without penalty when a
servicemember provides appropriate deployment orders, and while our
carriers train their customer service representatives to follow these
policies, errors 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, the
penalty provisions in the bill should be clarified and narrowed to cap
fines at no more than $10,000. Additionally, CTIA asks that any
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 legislation to benefit servicemen and servicewomen facing
deployment. CTIA and its members look forward to working with the
Subcommittee and sponsors of both H.R. 3786 and H.R. 3298 to ensure
that this issue is addressed during the remaining days of the 110th
Congress.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today, and I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Prepared Statement of Kerry Baker,
Associate National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of the 1.3 million members of the Disabled American
Veterans (DAV), I am honored to present this testimony to address
various bills before the Subcommittee today. In accordance with our
congressional charter, the DAV's mission is to ``advance the interests,
and work for the betterment, of all wounded, injured, and disabled
American veterans.'' We are therefore pleased to support various
measures insofar as they fall within that scope.
H.R. 2721
Congressman Cardoza introduced H.R. 2721 in June 2007. This bill
would amend title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs (Secretary) to develop, and the Secretary of Defense
to distribute to members of the Armed Forces upon their discharge or
release from active duty, information in a compact disc read-only
memory format that lists and explains the health, education, and other
benefits for which veterans are eligible under the laws administered by
the Secretary. The DAV does not have a resolution on this issue;
however, this legislation would improve outreach services and is
therefore deserving of DAV's support.
The DAV believes the information contained on such a disc should be
all-inclusive in regards to both the Department of Veterans Affairs
benefits and military benefits. Further, considering the lack of
effective outreach in relation to older groups of veterans, Congress
should consider whether this type of information should be disseminated
to older groups of veterans in addition to discharging servicemembers.
The DAV presented testimony to the House Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs on May 22,
2008, regarding the issue of outreach. In that hearing, the DAV
outlined serious flaws in VA's outreach efforts in relation to older
groups of veterans. Although, this initiative could not correct such
flaws, this legislation could easily serve as a vessel to improve those
outreach flaws in a cost-effective manner.
H.R. 3786
The Servicemembers Telecom Contract Relief Act, H.R. 3786,
introduced by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren in October 2007, would amend
the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to allow individuals called to
military service to terminate telecommunications contracts entered into
before the individual receives notice of a permanent change of station
or deployment orders. The DAV has no resolution on this issue.
Additionally, this legislation is outside the scope of DAV's mission.
We nonetheless have no opposition to its favorable consideration.
H.R. 4255
The United States Olympic Committee Paralympic Program Act of 2007,
H.R. 4255, introduced by Chairman Filner in December 2007, would amend
title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary to provide
assistance to the Paralympic Program of the United States Olympic
Committee. The DAV has concerns regarding this bill.
Since 1991, the DAV and the VA have co-hosted the National Disabled
Veterans Winter Sports Clinic in Snowmass Village, Colorado. Known as
the ``Miracles on a Mountainside,'' the Winter Sports Clinic is the
world leader in promoting rehabilitation. The sole purpose of this
program is to promote rehabilitation by instructing severely disabled
veterans in adaptive Alpine and Nordic skiing, and to provide an
introduction to other adaptive activities and sports.
The Winter Sports Clinic provides profoundly disabled veterans
opportunities for self-development and challenge. Participants have an
opportunity to develop winter sports skills and take part in a variety
of adaptive workshops. These activities include: Adaptive skiing in
sit-skis, mono-skis, and bi-skis; instruction in adaptive Alpine and
Nordic skiing for stand-up skiers; alternate activities include scuba
diving, rock climbing, wheelchair self-defense, sled hockey, horseback
riding, target shooting, snowmobiling, and various additional programs,
seminars and activities.
This event evolved from the pioneering efforts of the VA in
rehabilitation and adaptive sports. Mr. Sandy Trombetta, founder and
director of the Winter Sports Clinic, began bringing VA patients to a
nearby mountain resort to participate in disabled ski programs in the
early 1980s. As a recreation therapist at the VA Medical Center in
Grand Junction, Colorado, he recognized the physical and mental healing
that skiing and other winter sports can provide to veterans with
disabilities. Just a few years after the first Winter Sports Clinic
held in 1987 with 20 staff members and about 90 veterans, it became
apparent more support was needed due to the therapeutic benefits and
popularity of the Clinic. The DAV answered that call and has become a
co-sponsor of the event since 1991.
Last year, 391 veterans participated in the event, which is further
broken down as follows: 133 new veterans; 30 new OIF veterans; 49
female veterans; 44 states represented; and 88 VA medical facilities
represented. The youngest participant was 20 years old and the oldest
was 85. The breakdown by periods of war was as follows: 6 World War II
veterans; 13 Korean war veterans; 96 Vietnam War veterans; 42 Gulf War
veterans; 51 Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans; and 18 Operation
Enduring Freedom veterans.
It should be noted that the Winter Sports Clinic hosted by DAV and
VA is purely for rehabilitative purposes, and is in no way competitive
in nature. As written, this bill has the potential to change that,
something that both DAV and VA opposes. Many disabled veterans that
participate in the winter sports clinic have never before attempted
such sports activities. Bringing a competitive atmosphere into that
clinic we believe would do more harm than good.
Section 3, paragraph (c) of the bill states, amongst other things,
that a program under that section includes a program that ``promotes .
. . competition.'' The activities described in that same section are,
among others, instruction and ``competition in paralympic sports.''
This bill is obviously well-intended and therefore the DAV does not
wish to stand in its way. However, we also cannot allow unintended
consequences to occur that may jeopardize the two decades of success in
helping to rehabilitate severely disabled veterans that the winter
sports clinic has achieved.
Therefore, rather than opposing this legislation, we ask that it be
amended to exclude ``competitive'' sports from being injected into the
DAV and VA's Winter Sports Clinic in Snowmass Village, Colorado.
H.R. 6070
The Military Spouses Residency Relief Act, H.R. 6070, introduced by
Congressman Carter in May 2008, would amend the Servicemembers Civil
Relief Act to guarantee the residency of spouses of military personnel.
The DAV has no resolution on this issue. Additionally, this legislation
is outside the scope of DAV's mission statement. We nonetheless have no
opposition to its favorable consideration.
H.R. 6221
The Veteran-Owned Small Business Protection and Clarification Act
of 2008, H.R. 6221, introduced by Congressman Boozman in June 2008,
would amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary to
include in each contract in which he enters for the acquisition of
goods and services a provision that requires the contractee to comply
with the contracting goals and preferences for small business concerns
owned or controlled by veterans. Essentially, this legislation would
require compliance with title 38, United States Code, section 8127 when
the Secretary enters into a contract, memorandum, agreement, or other
arrangement applicable thereto. The DAV has a standing resolution to
support legislative measures that assist service-disabled veteran-owned
small businesses. Although this legislation supports both veteran-owned
and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses, it is nonetheless in
compliance with our resolution. The DAV therefore supports this
legislation.
H.R. 6224
The Pilot College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act of 2008,
H.R. 6224, introduced by Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin in June 2008,
would direct the Secretary to conduct a 5-year pilot project to test
the feasibility and advisability of expanding the scope of certain
qualifying work-study activities under title 38, United States Code.
The DAV has no resolution on this issue. Additionally, this legislation
is outside the scope of DAV's mission. We nonetheless have no
opposition to its favorable consideration.
H.R. 6225
The Injunctive Relief for Veterans Act of 2008, H.R. 6225,
introduced by Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin in June 2008, would amend
title 38, United States Code, relating to equitable relief with respect
to a State or private employer. By changing title 38, United States
Code, section 4323(e), from, ``[t]he court `may use' its full equity
powers . . .'' to, ``[t]he court `shall use' its full equity powers . .
.,'' applicable courts will no longer be able to use discretion in
determining whether to use their power to vindicate the rights of those
individuals entitled to the enforcement of such rights with respect to
state and private employers.
This legislation could have direct effect on service-connected
disabled veterans because many obtain employment due to their service-
connected disabilities. Those same individuals have enforceable rights
of employment or reemployment. When those rights are violated, the
victims of such violations should not be subject to the whims of
discretion that some courts may choose to abuse. The DAV therefore
supports this legislation.
H.R. 6272
The SMOCTA Reauthorization Act of 2008, H.R. 6272, introduced by
Congressman Welch in June 2008, would authorize discretionary
appropriations to carry out the Service Members Occupational Conversion
and Training Act 1992. In addition to the amounts authorized under 4495
of the Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act 1992,
this bill would authorize $60 million per fiscal year for years 2009
through 2018.
Under this law, title 10, United States Code, section 1143, the
Secretary of Defense is required to carry out a program to assist
eligible persons in obtaining employment through participation in
programs of significant training for employment in stable and permanent
positions. Those entitled to this program are, among others, members
separated involuntarily and who have a service-connected disability
rated at least 30 percent by VA.
This bill has obvious beneficial effects regarding employment
opportunities for service-connected disabled veterans. The DAV
therefore supports this bill.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony on behalf of DAV. We hope
you will consider our recommendations.
Prepared Statement of Joseph C. Sharpe, Jr.,
Deputy Director, National Economic Commission, American Legion
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to present The American Legion's
views on the legislation being considered today. The American Legion
commends the Committee for holding a hearing to discuss these important
issues.
H.R. 4255, United States Olympic Committee Paralympic Program Act of
2007
This bill seeks to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide assistance to the
Paralympic Program of the United States Olympic Committee.
The purpose of this bill is to provide support to the United States
Olympic Committee (USOC) for the Paralympic Program; to increase the
participation of physically disabled members of the Armed Forces and
veterans with service-connected disabilities, through regular
participation in physical activity and sports; to promote lifelong
health of members of the Armed Forces and veterans with service-
connected disabilities through regular participation in physical
activity and sports; and to provide training to physically disabled
members of the Armed Forces and veterans in their communities.
The U.S. Olympic Committee Paralympic Division was formed in 2001
to increase support for Paralympic sport in the United States. The USOC
Paralympic Division coordinates the preparation and selection of
athletes to U.S. Paralympic Teams, for both summer and winter games.
The U.S. Paralympic Military Program provides post-rehabilitative
support and mentoring to American servicemen and women who have
sustained physical injuries. Veterans are introduced to adaptive sport
techniques and opportunities through clinics and camps, and are also
connected with on-going Paralympic sports programs in their hometowns.
The Veterans Paralympic Performance Program (VP3) supports Paralympic-
eligible military veterans in their efforts to represent the USA at
upcoming Paralympic Games.
Through its Paralympic Military Program, the USOC looks to channel
America's returning wounded servicemembers into adaptive sports
programs. USOC is partnering with the Office of the Secretary of
Defense and the National Recreation and Park Association to promote
adaptive sports to wounded servicemembers through the DoD's Heroes to
Hometowns program. The American Legion supports such programs of the
United States Olympic Committee that promote Americanism, and
facilitate the rehabilitation and reintegration of our disabled
veterans and servicemembers. This funded program will extend more
opportunities for disabled veterans, who in turn will provide them the
opportunity to achieve and maintain an improved quality of life, and
once again experience the pride of being a United States citizen
representing their community and nation. In turn, The American Legion
also supports the United States Olympic Committee Paralympic Program
Act of 2007.
H.R. 2721, To amend title 10, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop, and the Secretary of Defense
to distribute to members of the armed forces upon their discharge or
release from active duty, information in a compact disk read-only
memory format that lists and explains the health, education, and other
benefits for which veterans are eligible under the laws administered by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Since 1919, The American Legion has been advocating for returning
servicemembers and providing them with assistance in understanding and
accessing their benefits. The American Legion supports the distribution
of benefit information on compact disk. Additionally, we offer a few
suggestions:
1. Any comprehensive benefits information package should include a
comprehensive reference guide of available veteran service
organizations (VSOs) with a detailed description of what services they
offer transitioning servicemembers.
2. Digital information should complement, rather than replace, a
paper manual or guide to veterans' benefits.
3. Any comprehensive guide should also include Department of
Defense (DoD) assistance information.
4. A system to update information must be in place to ensure the
accuracy of the information being distributed.
5. The information should be available to download free of charge
from Department of Veterans Affairs and DoD websites.
H.R. 6070, Military Spouses Residency Relief Act
This legislation seeks to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
to guarantee the residency of spouses of military personnel.
The American Legion supports this legislation as it will help to
ensure that the spouses of military personnel are indeed able to
effectively participate in the democratic process.
The American Legion also recommends:
1. That appropriate laws and guidelines be developed at Federal,
state and local levels with the intent that all military absentee
voters and their families will have their votes counted in every
applicable election.
2. That the sending and receiving of blank and completed military
absentee ballots be accomplished electronically as much as possible.
H.R. 6272, The SMOCTA Reauthorization Act of 2008
This proposed legislation would authorize discretionary
appropriations to carry out the Service Members Occupational Conversion
and Training Act 1992 (SMOCTA). SMOCTA was developed as a transitional
tool designed to provide job training and employment to eligible
veterans discharged after August 1, 1990. When created, SMOCTA was the
only Federal job training program available strictly for veterans and
the only Federal job training program specifically designed for use by
state veterans' employment personnel to assist veterans with barriers
to employment. Veterans eligible for assistance under SMOCTA were those
with a primary or secondary military occupational specialty that DoD
determined was not readily transferable to the civilian workforce or
those veterans with a service-connected disability rating of 30 percent
or higher. SMOCTA is a unique job-training program because it
successfully returned veterans to the civilian workforce.
The American Legion strongly endorses this bill along with the
proposed funding request.
H.R. 6224, The Pilot College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act of
2008
This legislation would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
conduct a five-year pilot project to test the feasibility and
advisability of expanding the scope of certain qualifying work-study
activities under title 38, United States Code. The bill refers to work
study positions on college campuses to include positions as ``tutors,
research, teaching, and lab assistants.'' The American Legion
recommends that students should also be allowed and encouraged to
participate as a VA Work Study student at veteran offices within the
Small Business Administration (SBA), the Department of Labor (DoL),
Department of Defense, (DoD) and Department of State. The College Work
Study Program could also include veteran service organizations (VSOs)
and military family support offices and other offices that focus on the
reintegration of returning Reserve and Guard members as well.
The American Legion endorses this bill to include the $10 million
funding authorization.
H.R. 6221, Veteran-Owned Small Business Protection and Clarification
Act of 2008
H.R. 6221 seeks to amend Title 38, United States Code, to require
the VA Secretary to include in each contract the Secretary enters for
the acquisition of goods and services a provision that requires the
contractee to comply with the contracting goals and preferences for
small business concerns owned or controlled by veterans, and for other
purposes.
The American Legion has urged Congress to require reasonable set-
asides of Federal procurements and contracts for businesses owned and
operated by veterans. The American Legion supported legislation in the
past that sought to add service-connected disabled veterans to the list
of specified small business categories receiving 3 percent set-asides.
Despite enactment of Public Law 106-50, the ``Veteran Entrepreneurship
and Small Business Development Act of 1999,'' agency compliance has
been minimal; however, VA has sought to raise their veteran procurement
goals to 9 percent. Therefore, The American Legion supports H.R. 6221
which is intended to assist VA in reaching their new goals by ensuring
that every contract up for bid be considered for a service disabled
owned company.
H.R. 6225, to amend title 38, United States Code, relating to equitable
relief with respect to a State or private employer
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
(USERRA) protects civilian job rights and benefits of veterans and
members of the armed forces, including National Guard and Reserve
members. USERRA also prohibits employer discrimination due to military
obligations and provides reemployment rights to returning
servicemembers.
Since September 11, 2001, nearly 600,000 National Guard and Reserve
members have been activated for military duty. During this same period,
the Veterans Employment and Training Service of the Department of Labor
has provided USERRA assistance to well over 400,000 employers and
servicemembers. Therefore, The American Legion supports this
legislation that would greatly increase the authority of the courts to
use its full equity powers to ``administer temporary or permanent
injunctions, temporary restraining orders, and contempt orders, to
vindicate fully the rights or benefits of persons under this chapter,
4323 Title 38.''
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for allowing The American Legion this
opportunity to present its views on the aforementioned issues. We look
forward to working with the Committee to help increase the earned
benefits for our Nation's veterans.
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 bills that have
been introduced. We appreciate the efforts of this Subcommittee to
address the different needs of the men and women who are currently
serving in the War on Terror and those men and women who served during
past conflicts.
H.R. 2721, BENEFITS INFORMATION ON COMPACT DISK
PVA supports H.R. 2721, a bill that will require the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) to develop and the Department of Defense to
distribute to all servicemembers upon discharge a compact disk (CD)
that explains all healthcare, compensation, education, and other
benefits and services available from the VA. This initiative would seem
to support the idea of greater outreach that PVA and all other
veterans' service organizations have been advocating for the VA to
conduct. Furthermore, it reinforces the fact that this newest
generation of veterans is very much in tune with the information age.
The only caution we would offer is that this initiative still may not
benefit a great many veterans who may live in highly rural areas, or
may have limited or no access to computer and Internet services.
H.R. 3786, THE ``SERVICEMEMBERS TELECOM CONTRACT RELIEF ACT''
PVA fully supports the provisions of this proposed legislation.
Just as we testified in 2003, when motor vehicle leases were added to
the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, it makes no sense to require a
servicemember to maintain a cellular phone, cable or satellite
television, or Internet contract when they will have no opportunity to
use it while on active duty and deployed. The inability of the
servicemember to take advantage of the service should preclude his or
her requirement to pay for that service.
H.R. 4255, THE ``UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE PARALYMPIC PROGRAM
ACT''
While we generally supported this legislation in the past, we now
have serious concerns about the long-term impact that this association
between the VA and the USOC could have on the programs that the
veterans service organizations have developed with VA that serve a
similar purpose. To this point, the USOC has not been completely open
and forthright with any of the veterans' service organizations who have
longstanding partnerships with the VA to conduct the National Veterans
Wheelchair Games, the Winter Sports Clinic, and similar sports and
recreation programs. We believe that there needs to be assurances that
VA continues to have independence administering sports and recreational
activities for disabled veterans, assurances that the USOC has yet to
provide. We also believe separate funding should be provided outside of
the direct healthcare dollars appropriated to the VA. Ultimately, the
concepts outlined in this legislation are what need to be reinforced--
that sports and recreation programs are about improved health and
rehabilitation, not elite competition.
PVA became aware of the VA-United States Olympic Committee (USOC)
Military Paralympic Program by its association with VA, as co-presenter
of the National Veterans Wheelchair Games. The NVWG, established in
1981 by VA, is a week-long, multi-sport event designed to introduce the
newly injured veteran to a variety of wheelchair sports and recreation
activities in hopes that this participation will lead to a healthy
lifestyle. PVA's involvement began in 1985 due to its unique expertise
in sports and recreation programs for our members and other severely
disabled veterans. We have contributed countless financial and
personnel resources throughout the years to these types of programs.
Moreover, approximately 80 percent of the 550 total average
participants at the Games each year are PVA members. As a result, PVA
has a vested interest and commitment to the Games and we are seriously
concerned with this new relationship that the VA is developing with the
USOC.
H.R. 6070, THE ``MILITARY SPOUSES RESIDENCY RELIEF ACT''
PVA supports the ``Military Spouses Residency Relief Act.'' This
legislation would amend the Servicemember's Civil Relief Act (SCRA) to
state that a military spouse who moves out of state because of the
servicemember's military orders would have the same option to claim one
state of domicile regardless of where they are stationed.
This logical correction in the law will ease transition for
military families from one location to another. Both parties in a
marriage should be able to file taxes together paying to one state, own
property together claiming the same residence, vote at the same
location, and have their driver's licenses from the same state.
H.R. 6221, THE ``VETERAN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS PROTECTION AND
CLARIFICATION ACT''
PVA supports H.R. 6221, the ``Veteran-Owned Small Business
Protection and Clarification Act.'' Almost universally, Federal
agencies are not living up to standards established for initiating
contracts with veteran-owned businesses and disabled veteran-owned
small businesses. Public Law 106-50 originally outlined the
responsibility of Federal agencies to provide at least 3 percent of
contracts with veteran-owned small businesses and 3 percent of
contracts with disabled veteran-owned small businesses. Due to the
intransigence of Federal procurement officers, new legislation was
passed in 2003--P.L. 108-183--that made 3 percent a mandatory Federal
procurement policy.
This bill will clarify the process of placing contracts for the VA.
If the VA places a contract with any government entity for goods or
services and that entity contracts for those goods or services, then
the requirement for using a veteran-owned business will apply. This
will help veteran-owned businesses receive their share of Federal
contracts from VA, as Congress has intended all along.
H.R. 6224, THE ``PILOT COLLEGE WORK STUDY PROGRAMS FOR VETERANS ACT''
As we stated in testimony on similar legislation earlier this year,
PVA supports the provisions of H.R. 6224, the ``Pilot College Work
Study Programs for Veterans Act.'' This legislation would create a 5-
year pilot program for on-campus work-study positions that may include
work in academic departments serving as tutors, research assistants,
teaching assistants, and lab assistants or work in student services
including positions in career centers and financial aid, campus
orientation, cashiers, admissions, records, and registration offices.
We believe this work-study program can be very beneficial for many
students.
H.R. 6225, THE ``INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VETERANS ACT''
PVA fully supports the language change to the section of Title 38
that governs enforcement of employment of reemployment rights with
respect to state or private employers. The War on Terror has provided
unexpected hardship for many National Guardsmen and Reservists seeking
employment or a return to a previous job. This simple language change
from ``may'' to ``shall'' will give the servicemember a greater hope
that a meaningful decision will be made when it comes to his or her
employment or reemployment following military service. PVA appreciates
the efforts of this Subcommittee, and Ms. Herseth Sandlin in
particular, to ensure that servicemembers are not punished by a state
or private employer with loss of a job when they are called to serve.
THE ``SMOCTA REAUTHORIZATION ACT''
PVA supports the ``SMOCTA Reauthorization Act.'' We recommended the
reauthorization of the Service Members Occupational Conversion and
Training Act (SMOCTA) program, or a program similar to that at a
hearing before this Subcommittee last October. SMOCTA was established
during the downsizing of the military for veterans discharged after
August 1, 1990, to help those veterans that had limited transferable
job skills. This program was a cooperative venture funded by the
Department of Defense and administered by the VA and the Department of
Labor. This was considered one of the better programs to serve
transitioning military personnel.
This program provided assistance in the form of reimbursements to
employers who provided training for veterans that led to permanent
employment. The program also included funds for assessments,
development of training plans, and supportive services for the trainee.
The Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists and Local
Veterans Employment Representatives (LVER) staff developed the
employment and training plans. Veterans eligible for assistance were
those with military occupations that were not transferable; those that
were unemployed for a long period of time; and those with a 30 percent
or greater service-connected disability.
At this time we are facing a similar situation with a large number
of young men and women leaving the military, many of whom will not have
transferable job skills. A similar program would help these men and
women transitioning from the military today, and those Reserve and
Guard members reentering the workforce.
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman, we
appreciate the emphasis you have placed on providing for the needs of
the men and women who have served and continue to serve in harm's way.
We look forward to working with you to ensure that the best benefits
and services are made available to them.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you might have.
Prepared Statement of Richard F. Weidman,
Executive Director for Policy and Government Affairs,
Vietnam Veterans of America
Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman. On behalf of VVA National
President John Rowan and all of our officers and members we thank you
for the opportunity for Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) to appear
here today to share our views on several items of pending legislation.
I will briefly summarize the most important points of our statement.
H.R. 2721, Directs: (1) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary)
to develop and maintain, in a compact disk (CD) read-only
memory format, information that lists and explains the health,
education, and other benefits for which veterans are eligible
through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); (2) that a
copy of such CD be included as part of the pre-separation
counseling provided to each member of the Armed Forces being
discharged or released from duty; and (3) the Secretary,
Secretary of Defense, and head of any other relevant government
agency to each maintain an Internet website containing an
explanation of the benefits administered by that Secretary or
agency head to which veterans are entitled, and how veterans
can secure those benefits.
The concept behind this bill is sound in that depriving veterans of
the knowledge and existence of services, entitlements, and benefits is
tantamount to denying the benefits. Several years ago, VVA joined with
then Congressman Ted Strickland in suing VA to force them to start
doing outreach to veterans again. This suit was precipitated by the
infamous Laura Miller memo in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)
ordering the end to marketing and outreach events. In many cases this
memo even led to the denial of VA participation in ``Stand Down''
events for homeless veterans, as well as the severe curtailing of any
efforts to educate veterans as to their earned rights. In the days
leading up to actual filing, I asked the VISN Directors at a so-called
Leadership Board for a show of hands as to how many were doing
significantly less outreach than a year before, and about seven raised
their hands. I then asked how many were doing somewhat less, and 8
raised their hands. I asked how many were doing about the same, and
three raised their hands. Only one felt he was doing more (and it
turned out later that this person was confused by the question). So, we
filed suit.
VVA won that suit. The Federal Court held that VVA had standing to
sue the VA, that VVA was correct that Title 38 compelled an affirmative
responsibility on VA to do outreach to inform veterans of the rights,
benefits, and services they have earned by virtue of military service
to country, and that VA needed to do more. It was therefore no accident
that the ``theme'' of the 75th Anniversary of the VA was officially
stated as ``to inform every veteran in America of their rights and
benefits.'' (Of course that did not happen.)
In preparation for this hearing, VVA asked the Secretary's office
what was the aggregate budget for outreach in the current Fiscal Year,
and the two previous Fiscal Years, and how it was apportioned. The
answer was that they did not have such a figure, as each and every
little program and local facility had their own funds for marketing,
education, and outreach as part of their budget allocation, but that it
was not tracked centrally, and apparently it is not centrally
coordinated or directed either. This is a case of how to ensure that
the whole is far less than the sum of the parts.
The idea of giving servicemembers the information in an electronic
format at separation or demobilization is a good one, but it must be
highly portable, and not necessarily a CD-ROM. (For instance, a
``memory stick'' containing the information that is also a key chain
might work better, and be more likely not to be lost or tossed.)
A supplement to this would be a card that contains all of the key
Web sites which is the size and shape of a credit card, and so can be
put in the separating servicemember's wallet and kept until they feel
they have a need to use it would be a very inexpensive supplement to
this electronic device.
VVA favors this proposal, with a bit of modification, and the
addition of a reporting mechanism to the Committee.
H.R. 3786, Servicemembers Telecom Contract Relief Act--Allows a person
in military service to terminate a telecommunications contract
for cellular phone service, cable or satellite television
service, or internet service at any time after: (1) entry into
military service; or (2) the date of the station or deployment
orders. Requires for termination that: (1) the contract is
executed by or on behalf of a person who thereafter and during
the term of the contract enters military service (or receives
order to enter military service) under an order specifying a
period of not less than 90 days (or who enters military service
under an order specifying a period of 90 days or less and who,
without a break in service, receives orders extending the
period of military service to a period of not less than 90
days); or (2) the person enters into the contract while in
military service and thereafter receives military orders for a
permanent change of station outside of the continental United
States, or to deploy with a military unit for a period of not
less than 90 days, to a location that does not support
continuation of the service under the contract.
This is an important update of protections and relief to our
servicemembers, and VVA favors passage. Cell phone contracts can be
very difficult to break, and are the most common communication device
of choice, along with e-mail, of our young servicemembers.
H.R. 6070, Military Spouses Residency Relief Act, amends the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to guarantee the residency of
spouses of military personnel.
As this is apparently a problem for some spouses, VVA generally
favors the concept of this proposed legislation. Anything and
everything that can be done to make the life and lot of military
spouses a bit easier is something that VVA strongly favors, and the
spouses (and the children and parents) also sacrifice much for our
country.
H.R. 4255, United States Olympic Committee Paralympics Program Act of
2007, Authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make a
grant to the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) to plan, develop,
manage, and implement the Paralympics Program for veterans and
members of the Armed Forces. Directs the USOC to use a grant to
recruit, support, encourage, schedule, facilitate, supervise,
and implement paralympic instruction and competition
activities, training and technical assistance, and coordination
and program development activities for veterans and members of
the Armed Forces with physical disabilities. Sets forth
outreach, coordination, application, and memorandum of
understanding requirements.
Regaining a sense of physical prowess has been proven to often
carryover to all areas of one's life for significantly disabled
individuals, so investing in this sort of programs can increase the
success of other programmatic programs for disabled veterans. Therefore
VVA generally supports this bill, but as always, we believe that even
in this case there must be built in accountability mechanisms to ensure
that the intent is carried out effectively and efficiently, and that
proper fiscal accounting is ensured.
H.R. 6221, Veteran-Owned Small Business Protection and Clarification
Act of 2008, amends title 38, United States Code, requiring the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include in each contract the
Secretary enters for the acquisition of goods and services a
provision that requires the contractee to comply with the
contracting minimums and preferences for small business
concerns owned or controlled by veterans, and for other
purposes.
Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) strongly favors this bill. We
also urge that it be made clear to VA, and therefore to very large
contractors like McKesson (which currently has a $3 Billion plus
contract with VA with no or virtually no veteran or service disabled
veteran owned subcontractors) that failure to comply will result in
prohibiting the contractor from bidding on future contracts. Heretofore
there has been little or no effort to monitor or ensure compliance with
the 3 percent minimum sub-contracting requirement at VA (or elsewhere,
for that matter).
Further, it needs to be made explicit in Title 38 and elsewhere in
Federal law that information on sub-contracting is public information,
and cannot under any circumstances be considered to be private,
privileged, or proprietary information of prime contractors. This ruse
has been used in the past to deny information on subcontracting by
major Federal contractors to the service disabled veterans business
owner community. After all, this is the public's money, and the public
has a right to know how, and with whom, it is spent.
H.R. 6224, Pilot College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act of 2008,
directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a 5-year
pilot project to test the feasibility and advisability of
expanding the scope of certain qualifying work-study activities
under title 38, United States Code.
VVA favors this so-called pilot, as long as there is no ``match''
that has to be provided by the sponsoring academic or research entity,
which would then allow the veteran to market themselves to the type of
entity that will give them the best experience toward eventually
reaching their career goals irrespective of ready ``match'' funds,
usually one that is complementary to their course of study. The
requirement under Federal Work Study Programs for an up to 25 percent
match often serves as an impediment to the student securing the best
possible assignment to further their future success.
Further, VVA can see no reason why this program cannot be taken
nationwide after the first 2 years of successful operation. Lastly,
there needs to be strict reporting guidelines so that the Congress can
successfully fulfill your all-important oversight function
expeditiously.
H.R. 6225, Injunctive Relief for Veterans Act of 2008, amends title 38,
United States Code, relating to equitable relief with respect
to a State or private employer.
VVA salutes you, Madam Chairwoman, for moving to strengthen
protections of employment for mobilized servicemembers. While
incentives and education of employers has proven to be the best
strategy for gaining general compliance, the lack real sanction
measures that will be respected by recalcitrant or unscrupulous
employers has long been a significant weakness in the law. You are to
be congratulated for taking action to ``put more teeth'' into
enforcement of this vital program.
Having noted that we favor this initiative, VVA also suggests to
the Committee that there is not enough staff at the Veterans Employment
& Training Service (VETS) of the United States Department of Labor
(USDoL) who are adequately trained and supervised to do proper
investigations regarding re-employment. VVA would hope that the
Appropriations Committee would add to the number of VETS staff and to
the VETS training budget enough additional resources to close this gap
between what needs to be done and what is now happening in many states.
VVA further suggests that a very small percentage of businesses are
bearing a disproportionate share of the burden of paying for these wars
in which we are currently engaged, in that they are the ones who DO
support their employees who are also Guard and Reserve members when
they are deployed. These employers pay the cost of lost productivity,
the cost of hiring and training a temporary employee while the Guard
member or reservist is on active duty, and in many cases the cost of
re-training the returning servicemember whose skills have become
outdated and the cost of helping that person readjust to civilian life
again.
Therefore, VVA strongly urges the Congress to consider two options:
First, to provide tax incentives for those employers who have Guard and
Reservists on their payroll who are activated for the proportional
number of months in a given year that their employee was away; and,
two, to make available training dollars through USDoL to both train the
temporary replacement worker and the returning servicemember when they
come back to the job. These two measures together would materially
strengthen the support for the National Guard and Reserves from the
employer community, but we believe it would greatly reduce the number
of problems with re-employment rights, therefore reducing the number of
complaints dramatically.
What we are really suggesting is that we look to better educate the
employers as to what is their responsibility under the USERRA law
BEFORE there is a problem and everyone gets emotional, but also that
the employers' perspective and needs should be taken into account.
Frankly, VVA believes that providing real incentive for voluntary
compliance will prove to be far more effective than any or all
enforcement efforts.
Essentially we are urging that at the same time as you move to
``strengthen the stick'' to try and ensure better compliance, VVA
thinks that much more needs to be done to ``sweeten the carrot'' that
will provide real incentives for private sector employers to comply.
H.R. 6272, SMOCTA Reauthorization Act of 2008, authorizes discretionary
appropriations to carry out the Service Members Occupational
Conversion and Training Act 1992.
Although this is the last bill on which we comment in this
statement, this is one of the most important bills to assist disabled
and separating veterans that Congress will consider this year. VVA has
held for thirty years that the nexus or central event in the
readjustment process is assisting veterans to come to the point where
each can obtain and sustain meaningful employment at a living wage.
While a decent job will not solve their PTSD or TBI or blindness or
other problems stemming directly from their service to country in the
military, it will go a long way toward ameliorating those problems and
making them more likely to be overcome.
In 1982 this Committee created what was then known as the
``Emergency Veterans Job Training Act'' (EVJTA) as a tool to assist
Vietnam and disabled veterans to obtain employment. It was created
largely in response to very high unemployment rates of veterans in the
recession 1982-83. While there were some significant problems with
initial implementation (caused mostly by David Stockman and the Office
of Management & Budget trying to sabotage the program), the program
created a significant tool that was utilized by Disabled Veteran
Outreach Program (DVOP) personnel and others to create job positions
for veterans that would not have otherwise existed. The program was so
successful that it was renewed several years later. And the term
``emergency'' was dropped, making it the Veterans Job Training Act
(VJTA).
The VJTA was also a very successful program, and was highly valued
by both employers and by veteran advocates who were able to use it to
``get their foot through the door'' to speak with employers regarding
strong candidates whom they were trying to ``market'' to employers.
Unfortunately, this program was allowed to lapse to the dismay of
veteran advocates and many in the employment placement community.
There was enough of a clamor for a VJTA type of placement tool
during the downsizing of the military following the victory of the
United States in the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet empire
that the Congress created the Service Members Occupational Conversion &
Training Act (SMOCTA). Essentially SMOCTA was a re-packaged version of
the earlier VJTA program. Despite the unfortunate acronym, this program
was very successful and resulted in many veterans obtaining decent jobs
that led into successful careers. Once again, after the perceived
crisis had passed the veterans community and our advocates on this
distinguished Committee were successful in securing the renewal of the
authority for the program, but never succeeded in obtaining the
appropriations necessary to operate this worthy employer incentive
program.
Today there is another perceived crisis in regard to the
difficulties of returning Global War on Terror (GWOT) warriors in
obtaining decent jobs. This problem is real for many, especially those
who return disabled, those in combat arms with no immediately
convertible secondary MOS or prior civilian credentialed skills, and
those from very rural or other areas where job opportunities are few.
While VVA strongly favors early enactment of H.R. 6272 and immediate
full funding of this program, VVA does urge that this not be another
``flash in the pan'' that will disappear after the perceived immediate
crisis no longer is in the media headlines. Such a tool is something
that is needed to assist many veterans to get the type of work that
will sustain these veterans and their families, and in more cases than
not turn into viable careers for these individuals.
I would be remiss if I did not note that the primary service
delivery mechanism for ensuring widespread usage of this important tool
is still significantly compromised, if indeed not broken. There simply
must be significantly greater and much more meaningful accountability
measures imposed on the state workforce development systems regarding
the DVOP and the Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER) grants
programs, or the entire structure needs to be Federalized and the DVOP/
LVER staff put under direct and immediate control of the USDoL-VETS
state directors. And then those state directors held accountable for
overall performance in each state.) We hope that even at this late date
in the 110th Congress that you and your distinguished colleagues will
embark on a serious dialog with all stakeholders concerned in order to
take meaningful action in this regard, this year.
Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) thanks you for the opportunity to
appear here to today to offer our thoughts and views on these vital
veterans' issues. I will be pleased to answer any questions that the
Committee may have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASSIFICATION
WOTC
-----------------------------------------------------
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CORRESPONDENCE
ADMINISTRATION ADVISORY SYSTEM SYMBOL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OWI
Washington, D.C. 20210
-----------------------------------------------------
DATE
April 3, 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT GUIDANCE LETTER NO. 20-06
TO:
ALL STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES
ALL STATE WORKFORCE LIAISONS
FROM:
EMILY STOVER DeROCCO /s/ Assistant Secretary
SUBJECT:
Reauthorization of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit
and Other
Program Changes
1. Purpose. To announce the reauthorization of the Work
Opportunity Tax Credit Program under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act
of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and provide procedural guidance to the states
for processing requests for certification under the amended program.
2. References. The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (P.L.
109-432); Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-311);
Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 14-05, dated
February 9, 2006; Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of 1986, Sections 51 and
51A, as amended; Employment and Training Administration (ETA) Handbook
No. 408, Third Edition, November 2002 (the Handbook); and the May 2005
Addendum to the Handbook.
3. Background. Legislative authority for the WOTC program and the
Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit (WtWTC) expired December 31, 2005. Congress
has reauthorized and extended the WOTC program through December 31,
2007. Congress has also modified certain provisions with respect to
individuals who begin work for an employer after December 31, 2006.
4. Authorization. The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (P.L.
109-432) was signed into law on December 20, 2006. Section 105 of the
Act provides a 2-year extension of the WOTC program through December
31, 2007, effective retroactively to January 1, 2006.
In addition, the following statutory changes apply with
respect to individuals who begin work for employers on or after
January 1, 2007:
The earnings test for ex-felons is
eliminated;
The maximum age for food stamp recipients is
increased;
The certification request filing deadline is
increased; and
The WtWTC provisions are merged into the WOTC
Explanation of Specific Statutory Amendments and Provisions.
Section 105 of the Act:
a. Amends the statutory definitions of two WOTC target
groups in IRC Section 51 as follows:
1. Ex-Felons--removes economic eligibility
determination based on family income.
2. Food Stamp Recipients--increases
eligibility age from 18-25 to 18-40.
b. Extends the certification request filing date from
21 to 28 days after the new hire begins work for the
employer.
c. Repeals IRC Section 51A by merging the WtWTC into
the WOTC and creating a new WOTC target group I,
entitled ``Long-term family assistance recipient.'' The
new target group retains the statutory definition and
the more generous tax credit provisions over a 2-year
period of the former WtWTC. With respect to this target
group only:
First-year WOTC is increased from 35
to 40 percent of qualified first-year wages,
which are capped at $10,000.
Second-year WOTC is retained at 50
percent of qualified second-year wages, again
capped at $10,000 for a maximum 2-year credit
of $9,000.
Wages taken into consideration are
calculated in the same manner as for the other
WOTC target groups. Therefore, wages no longer
include certain amounts excludable from the
recipient's gross income.
The minimum employment or retention
period is calculated in the same manner as for
the WOTC. Therefore, the 180 days of service
formerly required for certified WtWTC employees
no longer applies to this target group under
the consolidated WOTC. Note: For the other
adult target groups (except Summer Youth),
``the 40-percent rate applies to qualified
first-year wages only if the employee works at
least 400 hours or more. If the employee works
at least 120 hours, but fewer than 400 hours,
the credit is 25 percent of qualified first-
year wages capped at $6,000 ($3,000 for Summer
Youth).''
5. Program Administration. Under the reauthorizing legislation,
state workforce agencies' (SW As) certification and program operation
responsibilities for the consolidated WOTC program remain the same as
those described in the Handbook and the May 2005 Addendum to the
Handbook. These include procedures for: (a) determining target group
eligibility and issuing certifications and denials; (b) establishing
working partnerships with different participating agencies at the state
and local levels for resolving technical issues and issuing conditional
certifications; (c) conducting verification activities; (d) complying
with quarterly report responsibilities; and (e) records retention.
6. IRS Form 8850. IRS Form 8850, Pre-Screening Notice and
Certification Request for the Work Opportunity Credit, and the
instructions for Form 8850 have been revised. The February 2007 revised
form and instructions are available at www.irs.gov.
SW As are reminded of the guidance provided in Announcement
2002-44, ``Electronic Submission of Form 8850,'' contained in
the IRS' Internal Revenue Bulletin (IRB) No. 2002-17, published
on April 29, 2002. This announcement describes the requirements
that must be met should SW As choose to establish systems to
accept electronic submission of IRS Form 8850. The text of
Announcement 2002-44 is available at http://
www.uses.doleta.gov/pdf/Appendix IV/Appendix_IV_3_Announcement
2002-44.pdf.
7. Reporting Authority. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has extended the information
collection requested for the WOTC/WtWTC administrative and streamlined
reporting form without changes. ETA Form 9058--Report 1 and ETA
administrative forms 9057, 9059, 9061-9063, and 9065 are approved under
OMB No. 1205-0371 through August 31, 2009. SW As should continue to use
the current certification and reporting forms until further notice. A
package including revised reporting and administrative forms, updates
to the May 2005, Addendum to the Handbook, a new Fourth Edition of ETA
Handbook 408, a Fact Sheet ``Employers: 9 ways to Earn Federal Income
Tax Credits for Your Company,'' and a revised Technical Assistance and
Compliance Review Guide will be submitted to OMB for clearance.
Training on WOTC program amendments, provisions, and new reporting and
administrative forms is being planned and will be provided through
webinars.
8. Action Required. SW A administrators are requested to:
a. Provide this information to appropriate program
staff, employers and their representatives,
participating agencies, and other interested partners.
They are to ensure that the SW As and participating
agencies administer the WOTC in accordance with the
guidance provided in the Handbook; the May 2005
Addendum to the Handbook; and the Internal Revenue Code
1986, Section 51, as amended.
b. Ensure that State WOTC Coordinators receive a copy
of the new legislation. Title I, Section 105 of the Tax
Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) is
available at http://thomas.1oc.gov/home/thomas2.html.
9. Inquiries. Direct all questions to the appropriate Regional
WOTC Coordinator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESCISSIONS EXPIRATION DATE:
None Continuing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASSIFICATION
WOTC
-----------------------------------------------------
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CORRESPONDENCE
ADMINISTRATION ADVISORY SYSTEM SYMBOL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OWI
Washington, D.C. 20210
-----------------------------------------------------
DATE
September 11, 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT GUIDANCE LETTER NO. 5-7
TO:
ALL STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES
ALL STATE WORKFORCE LIAISONS
FROM:
EMILY STOVER DeROCCO /s/ Assistant Secretary
SUBJECT:
Reauthorization of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit
and Other
Program Changes
1. Purpose. The purpose of this guidance is to announce the
reauthorization of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) Program under
the Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-28)
and provide procedural guidance to the states for processing requests
for certifications under the consolidated program.
2. References. The Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act of
2007 (P.L. 110-28); Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-
432); Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-311); Training
and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 20-06, dated April 7, 2007;
Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of 1986, section 51, as amended; Employment
and Training Administration (ETA) Handbook No. 408, Third Edition,
November 2002 (the Handbook); and the May 2005 Addendum to the
Handbook.
3. Background. On December 20, 2006, the President signed into law
the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432). This
legislation not only extended the WOTC Program (retroactively to
January 1, 2006) through December 31, 2007, but also merged the
Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit (WtWTC) into WOTC and repealed permanently
section 51(A) of the IRC. Congress also amended certain statutory
definitions with respect to new hires that began to work for an
employer after December 31, 2006. For additional information, see TEGL
No. 20-06, dated April 3, 2007.
4. Authorization. The Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act
of 2007 (P.L. 110-28) was signed into law on May 25, 2007. Section 8211
of the Act provides a 44-month extension of the WOTC Program through
August 31, 2011.
Explanation of Specific Statutory Amendments and Provisions.
Section 8211 of the Act:
a. Renames the High-Risk Youth group (D) and calls it
Designated Community Resident (DCR).
b. Amends the statutory definition of a DCR to mean an
individual certified by the state workforce agency
(SWA) as having:
attained age 18 but not 40 on the
hiring date, and
his/her principal place of abode
within an Empowerment Zone (EZ), Renewal
Community (RC), or Rural Renewal County (RRC).
Eligibility Determination of DCRs. Eligibility determination
of a new hire as a member of the DCR target group involves
verification of the following two requirements: 1) age; and 2)
location of the individual's principal place of abode
[residence] in an EZ, RC, or RRC. Age should be verified by
looking at documents submitted by the employers/consultants
with the request or requiring from employers one or several of
the recommended documents in
section E.
Examples of Documentary Evidence., p. VII-32 of the November
2002, Third Edition, ETA Handbook 408. Verifying the
residential location of a potential DCR as in an EZ, RC, or RRC
requires reviewing the instructions for IRS Form 8850. EZs, RCs
and RRCs are all listed in these IRS instructions. SWAs can
verify whether a DCR's address is located in a Rural Renewal
County online by visiting the following Web site at:
www.usps.gov and following these simple steps: 1) click on Find
a ZIP Code; 2) enter and submit the Address and ZIP Code; and
3) click on Mailing Industry Information. SWAs should download
and print the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Mailing Industry
Information sheet, and keep a copy in the case file of the new
hire, employer, or consultant.
c. Limits ``qualified wages'' for Designated Community
Residents to those paid for services performed while
the individual is residing in an EZ, RC, or RRC.
d. Defines a Rural Renewal County as a county that:
is outside a metropolitan statistical
area (MSA) as defined by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB); and
during the 5-year periods, 1990
through 1994, and 1995 through 1999, had a net
population loss.
e. Clarifies that ``ticket holders'' are included in
the vocational rehabilitation referral target group by
adding at the end of its statutory definition the
following clause:
an individual work plan developed and
implemented by an Employment Network pursuant
to Subsection (g) of section 1148 of the Social
Security Act with respect to which the
requirements of such Subsection are met.
f. Expands the definition of the ``Qualified Veteran''
target group to include ``disabled veterans'' who are
entitled to compensation for a service-connected
disability and:
have a hiring date which is not more
than 1 year after having been discharged or
released from active duty in the Armed Forces
of the United States; or
have aggregate periods of
unemployment during the 1-year period ending on
the hiring date that equal or exceed 6 months.
g. Defines the terms ``compensation'' and ``service
connected'' as having the meanings under Section 101 of
Title 38 of the United States Code, pertaining to
veterans benefits as follows:
Section 101(13) defines
``compensation'' as a monthly payment made by
the Secretary to a veteran because of a
service-connected disability; and
Section 101(16) defines ``service-
connected,'' with respect to a disability, as
meaning that the disability was incurred or
aggravated in the line of duty in the active
military, naval, or air service.
h. Increases the amount of ``qualified wages,'' for
disabled veterans only, from $6,000 to $12,000.
5. Program Administration. Under the reauthorizing legislation,
SWAs certification and program operation responsibilities for the
consolidated WOTC program remain the same as those described in the
November 2002, Third Edition of ETA Handbook 408 and the May 2005
Addendum. These include procedures for: a) determining target group
eligibility and issuing certifications and denials; b) establishing
working partnerships with different participating agencies at the state
and local levels for resolving technical issues and issuing conditional
certifications; c) conducting verification activities; d) complying
with quarterly report responsibilities; and e) complying with records'
retention time periods.
6. IRS Form 8850. IRS Form 8850, Pre-Screening Notice (PSN) and
Certification Request for the Work Opportunity Credit, and the
instructions for this form have been revised. The June 2007, PSN form
and its instructions are available at www.irs.gov.
7. Funding. ETA issued Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 funding advances from
Continuing Resolutions (CRs) to the SWAs for WOTC Program
implementation and elimination of existing backlogs. The CR advances
covered activities through February 15, 2007. Funding for the merged
WOTC Program was passed as part of the FY 2007 funds appropriated in
the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-
5).
8. Reporting Authority. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act,
OMB extended the information collection requested for the WOTC/WtWTC
administrative and reporting forms without substantial changes. ETA
Form 9058--Report 1 and administrative forms 9057, 9059, 9061-9063, and
9065 are approved under OMB No. 1205-0371 through August 31, 2009. SWAs
should continue to use the current certification and reporting forms
until further notice. A package including revised reporting and
administrative forms, the Spanish versions of IRS Form 8850 and ETA
Form 9061, the revised May 2005 Addendum to ETA Handbook 408 (the
Handbook), and a revised Technical Assistance and Compliance Review
Guide will be submitted to OMB for emergency clearance. Training on
WOTC program amendments, provisions, and new reporting and
administrative requirements is being planned and will be provided.
9. Action Required. SWA administrators are requested to:
a. Provide this information to appropriate program
staff, employers, and their representatives,
participating agencies (PAs), and other interested
partners. They are to ensure that the SWAs and PAs
administer the WOTC in accordance with the guidance
provided in this TEGL, the Handbook, the May 2005
Addendum to the Handbook, and the Internal Revenue Code
1986, Section 51, as amended; and
b. Ensure that state coordinators receive a copy of
the new legislation, Title VIII, Part I., Subpart A.,
section 8211 of the Small Business and Work Opportunity
Tax Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-28) available at http://
thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas2.html.
10. Inquiries. Direct all questions to the appropriate Regional
Coordinator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESCISSIONS EXPIRATION DATE:
None Continuing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared Statement of R. Keith Pedigo,
Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program
Management, Veterans Benefits Administration,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be
here today to provide the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) views on
pending legislation. Accompanying me is Diane Hartmann, Director of
National Programs and Special Events. VA is still reviewing H.R. 6221,
H.R. 6225, and 6272 and will provide views on those bills in a
subsequent views letter.
H.R. 2721
H.R. 2721, would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
develop, and the Secretary of Defense to distribute to members of the
Armed Forces upon their discharge or release from active duty, in a
compact disk read-only memory format, information that the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs determines would help veterans. That information would
include the benefits for which veterans may be eligible under the laws
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a comprehensive
explanation of how to apply for benefits, and a list of all VA
facilities and contact information for them. The bill would also
require the secretaries of Veterans Affairs and of Defense, along with
the head of any other relevant government agency, to maintain an
Internet website with information clearly explaining VA benefits, how
to secure those benefits, and how veterans' family members may request
copies of the compact disk.
VA supports this bill. VA recognizes the importance of providing
benefit information to separating servicemembers and their families.
This bill would support expansion of VA's extensive outreach efforts.
We estimate at least 250,000 compact disks would be needed each
year to provide one to every separating servicemember. An additional
50,000 copies would be needed to provide upon request. At an estimated
cost of $1.00 per copy, which would include distribution costs to each
service, the total cost for all copies would be $300,000 annually.
H.R. 3786
H.R. 3786, the ``Servicemembers Telecom Contract Relief Act,''
would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to permit
servicemembers to terminate certain telecommunications contracts before
their expiration if the contract was entered before the servicemember
entered service or received permanent change-of-station orders or
deployment orders.
Because this bill if enacted would affect active-duty
servicemembers, we defer to the Department of Defense (DoD) regarding
the merits of H.R. 3786.
H.R. 4255
H.R. 4255, the ``United States Olympic Committee Paralympic Program
Act of 2007,'' would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
make a grant to the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) to plan, develop,
manage, and implement the Paralympic program for veterans and members
of the Armed Forces. It also would require the Secretary to inform all
veterans with physical disabilities about the existence of the
Paralympic program and to encourage their participation, as well as
require the Secretary to ensure access to and appropriate use of VA
facilities by program participants. VA opposes this bill because it is
unnecessary, would divert funds intended for veterans' care to
nonveterans, and would benefit only a limited number of veterans.
VA has an established Office of National Programs and Special
Events (ONPSE) that oversees highly successful and well-attended
national rehabilitative programs for disabled veterans. This office
already works with the USOC to help elite-level athletes compete in
their Paralympic programs. ONPSE currently oversees four national
events: National Disabled Veterans Winter Sports Clinic, National
Veterans Wheelchair Games, National Veterans Golden Age Games, and
National Veterans Creative Arts Festival. Also, a pilot summer sports
clinic, scheduled for September 28 through October 3 in San Diego,
California, is specifically designed for veterans with amputations,
traumatic brain injuries, burn injuries, or post-traumatic stress
disorder. The goals of these events are to reach disabled veterans
during their recovery from traumatic injury or disease, introduce them
to adaptive recreational activities, and challenge them with activities
that give them a sense of accomplishment and enable them to redefine
their capabilities. Veterans service organizations support these
events, which, although they are open to all disabled veterans who meet
the eligibility criteria, are particularly geared toward first-time
participants. Each year, thousands of disabled veterans have the
opportunity for self-development through participation in these events.
Certain provisions in H.R. 4255 are prescriptive, such as requiring
VA to notify all veterans with physical disabilities about the
existence of the Paralympic program and to encourage their
participation. Under this provision, VA would have to notify and
encourage the participation of catastrophically injured veterans, who
cannot participate in these events. VA currently allows the USOC to
distribute materials about the Paralympic program at any of VA's ONPSE
events. Additional notification is unnecessary.
VA is particularly concerned by the provision that would grant
access to VA facilities to all individuals--not necessarily veterans or
servicemembers--participating in the Paralympic program. VA's resources
should be limited to the medical rehabilitation of eligible veterans
and not diverted to provide access to facilities for non-veterans.
Further, H.R. 4255 would require VA to support a program that would
benefit only a small number of elite athletes. Although we applaud the
USOC's efforts to bring more veterans into their elite-athlete
competitions, we believe VA's rehabilitative events are much better
suited to providing the services veterans need. For example, last year,
28 veterans participated in USOC programs as opposed to over 1,500
veterans who participated in VA's Winter Sports Clinic, Wheelchair
Games, or Golden Age Games. VA's programs are designed to include
veterans of all ages and levels of impairment and are aimed primarily
at medical rehabilitation.
VA's goal is to introduce sports and recreation to disabled
veterans and make it a part of their daily lives. Our existing
partnership with the USOC allows those who rise to elite athletic
performance to take their training to the next level through the USOC
Paralympic program.
We are in the process of estimating the costs that would be
associated with enactment of this bill and will provide them for the
record.
H.R. 6070
H.R. 6070, the ``Military Spouses Residency Relief Act,'' would
amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to protect spouses of
servicemembers from losing or acquiring domicile or residency for
purposes of elections and taxation if the spouse is absent from a state
because the spouse is accompanying a servicemember who is absent from
the state in compliance with military orders.
Because this bill if enacted would affect active-duty
servicemembers and their spouses, we defer to DoD regarding the merits
of H.R. 6070.
H.R. 6224
H.R. 6224, the ``Pilot College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act
of 2008,'' would require the Secretary to conduct a 5-year pilot
project to test the feasibility and advisability of expanding the scope
of certain work-study activities, to include work-study positions
available on site at educational institutions. The positions in this
program may include those in academic departments (tutors or research,
teaching, and lab assistants) and in student services (positions in
career centers, financial aid, campus orientation, admissions, records,
and registration offices). The bill would require the Secretary to
issue regulations providing for the supervision by VA personnel of
these positions.
While VA supports the principle of exploring the feasibility of
expanding the scope of qualifying activities for the provision of work-
study allowances under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3485, we do not support this bill
because the types of activities now described in that section relate
primarily to activities that support VA's mission of services and
assistance to veterans and their dependents, whereas the types of
activities proposed for evaluation apparently would not need to relate
to that mission. In addition VA supervision of the work-study
participants concerned would be administratively burdensome, given the
breadth of the types of activities or functions that would be involved
throughout a university.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to
entertain any questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee
may have.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael L. Dominguez,
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense
Mr. Chairman and Members of this distinguished Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to provide views on draft legislation. Our comments
on one of the bills is below.
H.R. 3786, the bill to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to
allow individuals called to military service to terminate
telecommunications contracts entered into before the individual
receives notice of a permanent change of station or deployment orders.
While the Department generally supports this provision, it needs
additional clarification with respect to whom it applies. Section
(b)(1) talks about entering military service under a call or order
specifying a period of not less than 90 days. It is unclear if this
refers to someone with no military status, as opposed to a reservist,
who enters active duty. Those having no military status are not usually
considered to be under a call or order to active duty.
More importantly, this legislation is applicable to only those who
receive orders for a permanent change of station (PCS) outside the
continental United States or orders to deploy with a military unit for
a period of 90 days to certain locations that do not support continued
telecommunication service under contract. This excludes a person with a
PCS move from Hawaii or Alaska into the Continental U.S. Also, the new
legislation would not cover the PCS move from one point to another
inside the Continental U.S., where the service could not be maintained.
On H.R. 2721, we will submit a separate DoD-VA joint views letter.
We are currently working with the VA in understanding the implication
of this provision.
We do not have comments on any other DoD-related proposed
legislation (including H.R. 6070) and for those legislation that are
VA-related, we defer to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella,
Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and
Training, U.S. Department of Labor
Madam Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and
Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit for the record the
following testimony to this Subcommittee on several bills and draft
bills. I will address the bills in the order they are listed in your
letter of invitation.
H.R. 4255, United States Olympic Committee
Paralympic Program Act of 2007
This bill would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
provide assistance to the Paralympic Program of the United States
Olympic Committee among other purposes. We defer to the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA).
H.R. 3786, Servicemembers Telecom Contract Relief Act
This bill amends the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to allow
individuals called to military service to terminate telecommunications
contracts entered into before the individual receives notice of a
permanent change of station or deployment orders. We defer to the
Department of Defense (DoD) and the Federal Communications Commission.
H.R. 2721 (no title)
This bill amends title 10, United States Code, ``to require the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop, and the Secretary of Defense
to distribute to members of the Armed Forces upon their discharge or
release from active duty, information in a compact disk read-only
memory format that lists and explains the health, education, and other
benefits for which veterans are eligible under the laws administered by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.'' We defer to DoD and VA.
H.R. 6070, Military Spouses Residency Relief Act
This bill amends the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to guarantee
the residency of spouses of military personnel. We defer to DoD.
H.R. 6272, SMOCTA Reauthorization Act of 2008
This bill reauthorizes the Service Members Occupational Conversion
and Training Act (SMOCTA) of 1992. In addition to the authorized
funding levels contained in the original Act, the bill further
authorizes appropriations in the amount of $60 million annually for
fiscal years 2009 through 2018. This reauthorization impacts Sec. 1143,
title 10 U.S.C. SMOCTA was originally authorized by P.L. 102-484.
The original version of SMOCTA was implemented jointly by DoD, VA,
and the Department of Labor (DoL). The program was authorized in title
10 U.S.C. (DoD), and funded through DoD appropriations. SMOCTA was
initiated during a time when the military was downsizing its active
duty force. Military personnel who soon would be veterans as a result
of this downsizing were targeted as the population to be served.
Military personnel who had no readily transferable skills were the main
focus.
SMOCTA established a veterans' job training program that became
effective October 23, 1992. The program was carried out by payments to
employers who employed and trained eligible persons. Employers had to
apply to VA for approval of a training program. When a program was
approved by the VA regional office of jurisdiction, that office
furnished the employer an approval letter.
SMOCTA provided assistance in the form of reimbursements to
employers with approved programs to offset the cost of training
provided to recently separated servicemembers for stable and permanent
positions that involved significant training (6-18 months). Besides the
reimbursements to employers, SMOCTA provided funds for assessments,
development of training plans and supportive services for the trainee.
Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program Specialists and Local Veterans'
Employment Representatives developed employment and training plans and
assisted in the recruitment, referral and placement of those
individuals.
DoL believes that this program has been superseded by other
initiatives to provide employment and training assistance, such as the
services offered by the Workforce Investment Act 1998 (WIA), and the
Jobs for Veterans Act that mandates a priority of service for veterans
in WIA programs and in all other DoL funded employment and training
programs.
WIA provides individuals more training choices and greater control
over their training. WIA offers comprehensive employment services,
including job counseling, job search and referrals, resume preparation,
and other assistance. It also provides intensive training through
community colleges and other training providers for those who need
skills or need to change or upgrade their skills. These services are
easily accessed through WIA's network of more than 3,000 One-Stop
Career Centers operated by states and local governments nationwide.
Innovative programs such as ``Helmets to Hardhats'' have been training
returning veterans in skilled construction trades. Returning veterans
are also eligible for VA veterans' education assistance.
The VETS Transition Assistance Program (TAP) provides information
to veterans about these programs and resources prior to their discharge
from the service.
Today's military is highly trained and skilled. Their overall lower
than average unemployment rates are a testament to employers' positive
attitudes toward employing this generation of veterans. We are hearing
from employers that they want to hire today's veterans because they see
them as a valuable resource to their enterprises.
H.R. 6221, Veterans-Owned Small Business Protection and
Clarification Act of 2008
This bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
include in each contract entered into by the VA for the acquisition of
goods and services a provision that requires the contractor to comply
with the contracting goals and preferences for small business concerns
owned or controlled by veterans. We defer to VA.
H.R. 6225, Injunctive Relief for Veterans Act of 2008
The bill amends section 4323(e) of title 38, U.S. Code, to require
that injunctive relief and other equitable remedies under the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act be granted by courts at
their discretion in appropriate cases. The Department of Labor has no
objection to the provisions of this bill.
H.R. ------, Pilot College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act of 2008
This bill directs the Secretary of the Department of Veterans
Affairs to conduct a 5-year pilot project to test the feasibility and
advisability of expanding the scope of certain qualifying work-study
activities under title 38, United States Code. We defer to VA.
That completes my testimony, and I would be happy to provide
responses to questions for the record.
Prepared Statement of Rebecca Noah Poynter,
Owner, OnPoynt Communications, Dallas, TX, and Co-Founder,
Military Spouse Business Association
I am Rebecca Noah Poynter, an Army wife, owner of OnPoynt
Communications and a co-founder of the Military Spouse Business
Association, www.milspousebiz.org. I am a writer and often address
military family topics in national publications including The
Washington Post and The Military Times.
Under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Act which became Federal
law in 1940, military members are allowed to declare a permanent state
of residency while on active duty. Under the law, a servicemember can
claim a single permanent state of residency or ``home state'' for the
duration of his or her military service. The spouse who is not covered
under this law, must change residency with each move to a new state. On
average military families move every two to three years.
As the wife of a U.S. Army soldier, changing residency and not
sharing a home state with my husband, has been an inconvenient,
confusing and expensive burden. The total cost is being paid by nearly
one million active duty military spouses in time, money and income.
This is not by choice either, as it is our spouses, the servicemembers,
who are ordered to move by the military. By constantly moving, military
spouses regularly sacrifice personal choices and professional
aspirations to achieve the mission assigned. In addition to these
sacrifices, military spouses are unfairly and repeatedly penalized by
having to comply with state residency and tax requirements.
Each time a military spouse moves to a new state she must obtain a
driver's license at a cost, re-register her car for a couple of hundred
dollars; and figure out how, when and for whom to vote in the new
state. She is not able to have consistent Congressional representation
nor is she likely to share the same representative as her spouse.
Additionally the majority of military spouses, nearly 70 percent,
are employed or seeking employment (because of a move). If their next
military assignment is to a high income tax state as compared to the
last one, then income can be reduced by as much as 10 percent.
Through my association with Military Spouse Business Association, a
nationwide networking organization established for military spouses who
own their own and obviously portable businesses, I met several spouses
including Navy spouse, Joanna Williamson, who were also frustrated with
administrative and state tax burdens that accompanied every move.
Hearing their stories and knowing my own, it was time as military
spouses to engage in ``a joint mission'' for the betterment of our own
lives.
We took the issue to Congressman John Carter who represents Fort
Hood, the largest military installation in the United States. He said
it was up to Congress to look after our military families and it just
didn't sound fair for married couples to have to reside in different
states nor did the administrative and financial burdens on military
spouses seem necessary.
In May, Congressman Carter introduced the Military Spouses
Residency Relief Act, H.R. 6070. The bill extends to spouses the option
of a permanent state residency as provided to the servicemember,
essentially offering us a home state too.
Military spouses bear the burden of handling the challenges
associated with the constant moving of military life. Here are a few
examples based on the 92 percent likelihood that the spouse is a
female: While he can register the car in his home state, she can't. He
votes in his home state, she votes in the one where they reside. She
has a new congressman at each location; he keeps his familiar
representative. He has one driver's license, which can be renewed by
mail. She must stand in a long line at the state department of motor
vehicles to obtain a new one and pay the fee. When the servicemember is
deployed, the home front frustration amplifies. ``Honey, next time you
have a break there in Iraq, please send me a copy of your military
orders and your driver's license. And where is the power of attorney? I
have to register the car.'' The Military Spouses Residency Relief act
can eliminate these hassles.
H.R. 6070 can also address the ``camouflage barrier'', my nickname
for the financial strife the majority of us as employed spouses face
with every move. A RAND Corp. study confirms the average spouse income
shrinks by more than $5,500 annually as compared to a civilian
counterpart because of moving. My encounter came on the last one; I was
happily working for a big company when we got military assignment
orders to relocate. I was thrilled to transfer my job at the same pay
with the same employer to the new location. Then I discovered the new
state has a high income tax and was shocked to find my income was more
than $500 a month less. It really hurt our family's financial
stability.
With a single permanent state, employed military spouses may
protect their income if they are moved to a high income tax state. For
those with portable businesses or professions, a growing and positive
trend among military spouses, a single home state can lessen
administrative and tax burdens.
Congressman Carter says of H.R. 6070, ``We're making the inter-
state moves easier on our military families since the reason they're
moving is by order of the U.S. Government.'' Through the Military
Spouses Residency Relief Act, Congress offers us the very things our
Nation's military spouses have truly earned--equality, recognition, and
common sense treatment.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
June 23, 2008
Mr. R. Keith Pedigo
Associate Deputy Under Secretary
for Policy and Program Management
Veterans Benefits Administration
U.S. Department of Veterans of Affairs
810 Vermont Ave, 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 June 19, 2008, I would appreciate it if you could answer the
enclosed hearing questions by no later then July 16, 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) 226-4150.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
______
Questions from the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Hearing on Pending Legislation
June 16, 2008
Question 1: In the report from the Office of Inspector General for
VA, it seems that the VA makes purchases for the Department of Defense.
Yet the VA has a memorandum of agreement with the Department of the
Army to have the Army do purchases for the VA. Why is that?
Response: Additionally, VA has a need to obtain acquisition support
for construction contracts at the field level. As a result, VA entered
into an agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers to utilize their
services at the discretion of the VA field activity. The need is based
on the increased volume of construction projects and limited resources
to support their development and completion.
Question 2: Do you have a rough number of disabled veterans who are
taking advantage of these programs and approximately what percentage
that might be of the total number of disabled veterans?
Response: The number of veterans that participated in the national
programs in FY 2007 was 1,638. An additional 3,000 veterans
participated at the local level festivals for the Creative Arts.
Veterans must be enrolled to participate in the national program;
however, you do not need to have a disability to participate in the
Golden Age Games or the Creative Arts Festival. As of January 2008, the
total number of veterans receiving VA Disability Compensation is 2.9
million; however, not all of these veterans are enrolled in the VA
Healthcare System.
Question 3: What is the travel cost for employees to attend
recreational events?
Response: Estimated travel costs for VA employees attending the
five National Rehabilitative Special Events are $684,000. This is for
360 employees who attend the five events as coaches and caregivers.
Estimated travel costs for veteran participants to attend the five
National Rehabilitative Special Events are $3,230,000. This estimate is
based on 1,750 veterans.
Question 4: What is the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs'
position on H.R. 6221, H.R. 6225, and H.R. 6272?
Response: The views are included in the attached letter from
Secretary Peake to Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin dated August 18, 2008.
Question 5: In your written testimony you state that the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs is currently in the process of
estimating the cost for the enactment of H.R. 4255. Could you provide
that cost estimate?
Response: The Committee did not receive the costs for H.R. 4255, as
introduced, since the provisions of that bill were included in S. 2162,
which became Public Law 110-387 on October 10, 2008.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Washington, DC.
August 18, 2008
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Madam Chairwoman:
When Department witnesses testified at the Subcommittee's June 19,
2008 hearing on eight bills, they promised to provide for the record
VA's views on H.R. 6221, 6225, and 6272 as introduced. I do so in this
letter.
H.R. 6225 would amend the law regarding enforcement of certain
veterans' rights with respect to State or private employers. As this is
a matter within the purview of the Department of Labor, we defer to the
views of that department.
We defer to the views of the Departments of Labor and Defense with
regard to H.R. 6272, which would authorize appropriations for the
Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act of 1992. Those
departments co-administer the ``SMOCTA'' program.
We understand the purpose of H.R. 6221 to be that where VA enters
into interagency agreements to have other executive agencies perform
contracting actions on behalf of VA, any such agency would be required
to comply with the service-disabled veteran-owned small business
(SDVOSB) and veteran-owned small business (VOSB) contracting
requirements of section 8127 of title 38. The bill as currently drafted
would fail to achieve this purpose. Specifically, while the bill would
require VA to include a clause in such interagency agreements that
other agencies shall comply with section 8127, it fails to provide
sufficient authorization for the other executive agencies to act on
such a requirement notwithstanding their own statutory procurement
authorities.
Even if this were corrected, VA could not support this legislation
for several reasons. First, it is unnecessary, because as documented by
the Small Business Administration and VA's Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization, VA has achieved its SDVOSB and VOSB
contracting goals this past fiscal year and has nearly reached them as
of April 30, 2008, for the current fiscal year. Second, VA enters into
such interagency agreements only when it lacks adequate acquisition
staff to conduct needed procurements on a timely basis. VA is concerned
that other agencies would balk at entering into interagency agreements
with VA if they would be subject to VA-specific socio-economic
requirements with which they lack familiarity. This could lead to
situations where necessary VA contracts are not awarded or awards are
delayed, negatively impacting VA's ability to administer its programs
of benefits and service to veterans.
Third, enactment of this provision could increase the costs of such
contracts by limiting the pool of competitors. Also, the language of
the bill contains unclear language relating to ``contracts'' with
``other persons'' to acquire goods and services. VA is uncertain what
this language is meant to address. As indicated above, VA enters into
interagency agreements with other executive agencies to perform
contract actions on behalf of the Department only when VA lacks
sufficient acquisition capacity--it does not do so with individuals or
private sector companies. Finally, VA is concerned with the retroactive
nature of the bill that, if enacted, would apparently require pre-
existing agreements to be amended to reflect the change in law. The
current text of the bill would require VA modify such agreements
existing as of June 1, 2007, which is even prior to the effective date
of section 8127 of title 38.
VA remains strongly committed to SDVOSBs and VOSBs and that
commitment is reflected in VA's small business contracting
achievements. However well-intended, H.R. 6221's enactment would impede
VA's ability to procure goods and services in a timely and cost-
efficient manner.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no
objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the
Administration's program.
Sincerely yours,
James B. Peake, M.D.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
July 1, 2008
Mr. Charles Huebner
Chief, U.S. Paralympics
1 Olympic Plaza
Colorado Springs, CO 80900
Dear Mr. Huebner:
Thank you for testifying before the house Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. As part of the hearing record, I
am requesting your views on the following:
1. Please describe how the USOC/U.S. Paralympics intends to form
partnerships with other organizations specializing in disabled sports.
As part of your response, please include the names of organizations
generally considered to be candidates for partnership.
2. Please expand on your statement regarding expanding Paralympic
programs for disabled military personnel and disabled veterans. Would
such an expansion include international events in which participation
would be limited to disabled veterans and disabled military personnel?
If so, what would be a nominal timeline and milestones to hold the
first of such an event at the international level?
Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.
Sincerely,
John Boozman
Ranking Member
cc: Steve Bull
______
U.S. Paralympics
Colorado Springs, CO
October 24, 2008
The Honorable John Boozman
Congressman, The Great State of Arkansas
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressmen Boozman, Thank you for your letter requesting
information on how the USOC Paralympic Veterans Program is forming
partnerships with other organizations and what our plans are to expand
programs to international events with participation by international
veterans.
The U.S. Olympic Committee has built it's Military and Veterans
program on the philosophy of partnership. This allows the USOC to
collaborate with existing programs and develop new programs in areas of
need. This is the most cost efficient model that will have the most
impact in reaching a larger number of Veterans at the community level.
Organizations that we currently collaborate with in terms of
sharing expertise, equipment, and resources include:
The Paralyzed Veterans of America;
Disabled Sports USA and it's more than 89 chapters;
The Lakeshore Foundation;
The Department of Veteran Affairs and regional VA
facilities;
Warrior Transition Units;
The Semper Fi Fund;
The American Legion;
BlazeSports Clubs; and
The National Recreation and Parks Association and it's
6,000 rec organizations.
We also are forging new partnerships with USOC member organizations
such as the YMCA and Boys and Girls Clubs.
Each relationship is different based on opportunity and need.
Currently, we are developing the 2009 program calendar which
includes numerous events. A draft of the calendar is attached. As we
speak, the USOC is hosting an event at our training center in Chula
Vista that has participation from six soldiers from the United Kingdoms
Battle Back program. This is the first program that has included
international participation. We are looking to expand those
opportunities in 2009.
I hope this answers your questions. Again we appreciate your
leadership in supporting veterans. The USOC and our partners are
projected to provide services for more than 3,900 injured military
personnel and veterans in 2008 with a focus on ensuring physical
activity opportunities are available at the community level.
Amazing Awaits,
Charlie Huebner
Chief of Paralympics
Secretary General, Paralympics