[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS'
                     UPDATE ON SHORT- AND LONG-TERM
                      STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTING
                        NEW GI BILL REQUIREMENTS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

                                 of the

                     COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           FEBRUARY 26, 2009

                               __________

                            Serial No. 111-2

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs




                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-416 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ï¿½091800  
Fax: (202) 512ï¿½092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402ï¿½090001

                     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
DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois       BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
THOMAS S.P. PERRIELLO, Virginia      DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico             GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas             VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana                DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
JOHN H. ADLER, New Jersey
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
GLENN C. NYE, Virginia

                   Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director

                                 ______

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

          STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South Dakota, Chairwoman

THOMAS S.P. PERRIELLO, Virginia      JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Ranking
JOHN H. ADLER, New Jersey            JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona             GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico

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

                               __________

                           February 26, 2009

                                                                   Page
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' Update on Short- and Long-
  Term
  Strategies for Implementing New GI Bill Requirements...........     1

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.............................     1
    Prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin.............    21
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member.....................     3
    Prepared statement of Congressman Boozman....................    22
Hon. Ann Kirkpatrick, prepared statement of......................    24

                               WITNESSES

U.S. Department of Veterans, Keith M. Wilson, Director, Office of 
  Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration............     4
    Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson.............................    25

                   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 Hon. 
  Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans 
  Affairs, letter dated March 9, 2009, and VA responses..........    31


                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS'
                     UPDATE ON SHORT- AND LONG-TERM
                      STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTING
                        NEW GI BILL REQUIREMENTS

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2009

             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, Adler, 
Kirkpatrick, Teague and Boozman.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN

    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. 
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic 
Opportunity oversight hearing on the U.S. Department of 
Veterans Affairs' (VA) short- and long-term strategies for 
implementing the new GI Bill requirements will come to order.
    I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative 
days to revise and extend their remarks and that written 
statements be made part of the record.
    Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    I would like to thank everyone for joining us for our first 
Subcommittee hearing of the 111th Congress.
    Rejoining us as our Subcommittee's Ranking Member is the 
distinguished Congressman from Arkansas, John Boozman. I thank 
him for his leadership and his friendship. I look forward to 
working with him and building upon our strong bipartisan 
relationship with all of our Subcommittee Members.
    We welcome many new additions to the Subcommittee; and, as 
they join us, I will recognize and introduce them.
    I do want to make mention, before introducing Congressman 
Teague, that one of our new Members, Congressman Tom Perriello 
of Virginia, will not be able to join us today. I received word 
that Congressman Perriello is attending to a personal family 
matter. Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family.
    Congressman Harry Teague represents New Mexico's second 
district. He is also the lone representative of the entire New 
Mexico delegation serving on either of the House or Senate 
Veterans' Affairs Committees. Congressman Teague has expressed 
an interest in addressing the needs of our rural veterans to 
ensure that they are as effectively served as veterans in more 
populated parts of the country.
    Congressman Teague, welcome to the Subcommittee. I am glad 
you have joined us.
    Mr. Teague. Thank you. Thank you for that introduction.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. As we begin the 111th Congress, we 
realize that we have a full and ambitious agenda. The 
Subcommittee will address the concerns that many of our 
constituents and veterans have expressed.
    A non-exhaustive list of our ambitious agenda includes 
improving upon employment and entrepreneurship opportunities 
for veterans; the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment 
Program; Veterans' Preference; the Uniformed Services 
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act; opportunities for small 
business contracting goals for veteran and service-connected 
disabled veteran business owners; housing programs to ensure 
that veterans are afforded the opportunity of the American 
dream and have the protections to keep their home in 
challenging economic times; and educational programs that meet 
the needs of today's veterans.
    In addition to this full agenda, our Subcommittee will 
continue to provide the needed oversight that is required for 
these important issues. I am hopeful that our oversight will 
produce additional accountability and transparency within the 
VA.
    Today, we will continue with our series of oversight 
hearings that began during the last Congress, which address the 
VA's implementation plans of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, as required 
by Public Law 110-252. This oversight requires our Subcommittee 
to have a close relationship with the VA, and I look forward to 
our continued cooperation and communication as the VA develops 
the new Chapter 33 rules and regulations, and finalizes their 
short- and long-term information technology (IT) plans.
    This hearing provides the VA with an opportunity to present 
clear details to our Subcommittee about where the VA currently 
stands with regard to the implementation of the new GI Bill 
requirements, as well as details about Space and Naval Warfare 
Systems Center's (SPAWAR's) progress. I am confident that the 
VA will provide assurances that there will be no delays or 
unnecessary burdens placed on our veterans. Our goal continues 
to be that veterans will have a smooth transition when 
receiving the educational benefits they have earned and 
deserve.
    Like many of my colleagues, I look forward to working with 
the new Administration to address the needs of all of our 
Nation's veterans. I am pleased that General Eric Shinseki was 
confirmed as the new VA Secretary. Having such a distinguished 
military career, Secretary Shinseki brings with him a great 
wealth of knowledge and experience. I look forward to working 
with him and his new leadership team at the VA.
    I would encourage our panelists to continue an open dialog 
with the Subcommittee so we may ensure that our servicemembers, 
veterans, and their families receive first-class service and 
benefits.
    With that, I would like to recognize our Ranking Member, 
Mr. Boozman, for any opening remarks he may have.
    [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin 
appears on p. 21.]

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN

    Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. It really is an honor 
to be with you and to serve with you on this very important 
Subcommittee that is doing our best, all of us working 
together, trying to provide economic opportunities for our 
veterans. I appreciate you bringing us together today to 
continue our oversight of VA's progress toward implementing the 
new GI Bill.
    Before we begin, I would like to just comment that, on our 
side, Jerry Moran and Gus Bilirakis will be on the 
Subcommittee. Jerry was on the last go-around, and then Gus is 
joining us. Gus' father was a good friend and truly was a 
great--just a great advocate for veterans through the years, 
through his many years of service in Congress; and Gus is 
certainly in that mold.
    Since the Subcommittee last met on this subject, we have 
continued to meet with education and IT staff from VA and 
SPAWAR as well as the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee staff. 
I appreciate their work to stay current on the progress toward 
meeting the August 1, 2009, implementation date for the Post-9/
11 GI Bill.
    As a result of the continuing oversight, I think it is fair 
to say that getting the new GI Bill up and running is proving 
to be a far more complex task than anybody thought. The 
permutations, the amounts paid to the schools are almost 
infinite.
    I would note that VA posted its first compilation of 
maximum tuitions and fees for each State, and I am truly 
surprised by some of the numbers. For example, in Tennessee, 
the maximum fees that could be charged an undergraduate student 
is over $15,000 per semester. There are several other States 
where fees exceed $10,000 per semester. I understand VA is 
reviewing those numbers and is taking a look at how the State 
Approving Agencies are calculating and reporting the cost to be 
covered.
    I must remind everyone that those are State schools, not 
Ivy League prices. But if those numbers hold true, we need to 
have a conversation with the higher education industry. At a 
time when American families are struggling just to keep the 
mortgages paid, the pursuit of higher education by everyone, 
not just veterans, may become problematic with those kinds of 
prices.
    I take some consolation that at least those who serve the 
Nation will have this very generous benefit to fall back on. 
But just as we are concerned about the rising cost of medical 
care placing an enormous burden on the family budget, we must 
also insist that schools do everything that they can to keep 
their costs down.
    Madam Chair, I cannot ignore the fact that during the last 
Congress you introduced, and I had the privilege of co-
sponsoring, H.R. 5684, the ``Veterans Education Improvement Act 
of 2008,'' a GI Bill that built on the success of the 
Montgomery GI Bill and offered all veterans about $19,500 per 
school year without all the complexity of the Post-9/11 
benefits.
    Again, I wish that perhaps we could have moved a little bit 
more in that direction and we wouldn't be fighting some of the 
battles that we are going to be fighting in the next several 
months as far as getting things up and running.
    Finally, I ask our witnesses today to be candid in their 
testimony. I know VA and the SPAWAR staffs are working hard to 
meet the August date as well as the long-term IT solution. But 
we cannot allow a lack of forthright discussion to prevent 
getting the program up and running.
    In that vein, I, for one, am not here to certainly point 
any fingers. Our mission is to help, and I think that you know 
that, and we will help in any way that we can. Missteps are 
bound to happen, but we really do want full disclosure so that 
we can help you as we go forward.
    And, with that, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Boozman appears on p. 22.]
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
    I would like to welcome our panelists testifying before the 
Subcommittee today. Joining us on our panel is Mr. Keith 
Wilson, Director of the Office of Education Service, Veterans 
Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. He is 
accompanied by Mr. Stephen Warren, Acting Assistant Secretary 
for the VA Office of Information and Technology; and Captain 
Mark Krause, Chief Staff Officer, Space and Naval Warfare 
Systems Center Atlantic.
    Thank you all for joining us today.
    Mr. Wilson, you are now recognized.

  STATEMENT OF KEITH M. WILSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EDUCATION 
 SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
  VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY STEPHEN W. WARREN, ACTING 
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY, OFFICE OF 
    INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
 AFFAIRS; AND CAPTAIN MARK KRAUSE, USNR, CHIEF STAFF OFFICER, 
   SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS CENTER ATLANTIC (SPAWAR), 
       DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

    Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
    Good afternoon, Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member 
Boozman and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the 
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss VA's strategy 
for implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
    Accompanying me today are Stephen Warren, Acting Assistant 
Secretary for VA's Office of Information Technology, and 
Captain Mark Krause, Chief of Staff, Space and Naval Warfare 
Systems Command, Atlantic.
    My testimony today will address the short- and long-term 
strategies for developing information technology components for 
implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, to include our project 
timeline and plans for hiring additional staff as requested by 
the Subcommittee.
    At this point, Madam Chair, if it is acceptable to you, I 
would like to forego the remainder of my oral comments. I 
believe there is interest in the PowerPoint slides, so I will 
go directly into those.
    First slide, please.
    I would like to first talk about hiring as well as the 
status of our facility build-outs. I will also talk about our 
training for both existing employees as well as new employees 
that we largely have on board. I will talk about the current 
status of our regulations required to implement this new 
program.
    Mr. Warren and myself will discuss the interim solutions 
that we have in place and are moving forward on to pay benefits 
on August 1st. Mr. Warren will address the issue of the long-
term strategy for IT implementation.
    As the Committee is aware, we are in the process of hiring 
530 additional claims processors to facilitate the largely 
manual process that we will be going live with on August 1, 
2009. The vast majority of those individuals are on board now. 
As of February 17th, we had 418 individuals on board. The 
remainder of the 530 do have report dates and will be on board 
no later than March 1st. So we are very pleased with our 
successes at being able to recruit quality people at all of our 
four sites.
    The status of the build-out of additional space is also on 
track. Two of our facilities were able to carve out additional 
space in their existing facilities. That space is being built 
out to support claims examining processes.
    Two of our facilities required additional space. We have 
contracts awarded, and we are moving forward with the 
additional build-out. Two facilities will be ready for 
occupancy on March 1st. The other two will be ready for 
occupancy on June 1st. All four of those efforts are on track.
    Next slide.
    Training is also well developed. We have had ongoing 
training for our existing staff in place for some time now. 
That has been based on a series of broadcasts over our 
satellite broadcasting system, as well as developing 
standardized training curriculums that will accompany the video 
training at each of our sites.
    We also have training under way for the new staff that are 
on board. That training is going well. We are making use of our 
existing training facilities at each of our offices and moving 
forward as we get groups of people on board that can fill a 
training room. The training is moving forward, and we are 
getting those people trained.
    The next stages for our training are tied to the deployment 
of our interim strategy, IT strategy for payment of benefits. 
As I have discussed previously, that strategy is a three-phased 
approach; and we will talk in more detail about that.
    Phase I of our IT strategy will actually be deployed on 
March 8th. We have completed user acceptance testing of Phase 
I. So, on March 8th, we will have that tool in place; and we 
will begin training our claims examiners on that tool. What we 
will classify as Phase II training will begin later. March 13th 
is when we expect that to begin. And then Phase III training 
will begin on or after August 9th.
    Next slide, please.
    The proposed regulation comment period for our proposed 
regulation concluded on January 22nd. We received a total of 
255 comments from 46 separate entities. And, by entities, that 
could be individuals. It could also be groups that represent a 
large number of either individuals or schools, professional 
groups, et cetera.
    The comments that we received are probably as diverse as 
the piece of legislation itself. A lot of questions on the 
Yellow Ribbon Program, focusing largely but not entirely on 
procedural issues. Individuals wanting to understand how the 
program will be implemented, what schools' responsibilities are 
under that program. Clarification was needed on the role of the 
certifying officials, foreign exchange rates, items such as 
definition of academic year.
    We received one question on Public Health Service and 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration eligibility, 
specific questions on transfer of entitlement as involving the 
kickers, administrative issues concerning the payment structure 
for the program itself, the Post-9/11 GI Bill payment, the 
Yellow Ribbon payments, et cetera. Definition of dependent, 
ensuring that we are consistent with the Defense of Defense 
(DoD) definition. Some questions on rate of pursuit, which is a 
terminology and a requirement for some training under the 
statute.
    We have prepared responses to each of these. We have draft 
regulations that are going through concurrence right now, so we 
expect the final regulations to be out very soon.
    Mr. Warren will talk to Slide 6 and 7.
    Mr. Warren. Consistent with the rollout of the different 
services, what we have done is--and a break from how systems 
have been developed in the past--instead of one big bang at the 
end, we have done an incremental development in terms of laying 
out pieces of functionality consistent with where the Education 
Service needed functionality.
    So what we have is we have broken the IT support that the 
Education Service needs into two categories: the front-end 
tool, which is the, if you will, the user interface that the 
employees will use in terms of making the eligibility 
determination as well as the rest of their work, and the back-
end tool, which is the financial aspect. That front-end tool we 
broke into three pieces, again consistent with how we needed to 
move through the process of making an eligibility 
determination, how to register, and then the authorization for 
the payment, as well as the changes at the end.
    Slide seven will actually lay that out in a pictorial 
diagram to see how we stepped those through, consistent with 
the time frames that the Education Service is going to follow 
with respect to the registration, the eligibility 
determination, and then the payment itself.
    So the front-end tool is phased in three steps. The back-
end tool, which is one of the more complex components, deals 
with the financial payment. That is phased with the second 
area, if you will, the payment calculations.
    So once those calculations are made, we are able to 
warehouse them until we are ready actually to send them over to 
Treasury to cut the payment, if you will, and send it out to 
the veterans. This slide actually lays out the different 
components instead of going into those, and I can get into 
those with questions if there are those.
    Let me lay out this pictorial representation that, 
hopefully, the paper copy is clear versus what is up on the 
screen. We have laid this out, and we have color coded by the 
three major categories. On the left hand side is the 
eligibility aspect in terms of getting the tools in place to 
allow the Education Service folks to make that determination; 
that middle area in terms of payment enrollment, what are all 
the systems necessary to make that happen.
    And then the third one, which is the supplemental 
calculation, again, we have broken it. The middle one is Phase 
I. Phase II, Phase III is an ease of access.
    Probably a key takeaway from this is we are on schedule. 
The changes we have made in terms how we design, how we 
develop, and how do we link with our customer have been very 
effective.
    The Education Service employees have actually been testing 
the tool that they are going to be using for multiple weeks 
already. So instead of the standard mode of building something, 
give it to your customer to test and then, oops, I don't make 
my schedule, we have actually had concurrent testing as the 
functionality has been delivered.
    The system will be turned on for use by the Education 
Service on March 6th. As Keith indicated, they will actually 
start using it on March 8th. So, again, we are meeting 
schedule.
    The line that you see on the diagram shows where we are in 
time. Everything to the left has been met. The milestones to 
the right, we are on schedule to meet them and have a high 
confidence that we will.
    So you are aware, when we talk about the new functionality 
coming online, the front-end tool and back-end tool, those are 
actually 2 of 14 systems that we need to modify to move 
forward. And those other 12 are existing applications that we 
need to make sure we modify to ensure the delivery of that 
benefit. And as you can see, we phased those changes as part of 
this program, as part of this schedule.
    One of the things that the staff had asked for was a 
critical path, if you will. How do you know if you are on 
schedule? How do you know if you are making progress? These are 
the critical milestones that we track and manage at the project 
team level daily, at the Education Service level twice a week, 
and I meet with the Under Secretary for Benefits once a week 
where we evaluate where are we, what progress are we making, 
are we on schedule, are there things that we need to be dealing 
with.
    Unless there are questions on this representation of the 
schedule, and we can catch comments at the end if you would 
like, I would like to hand it back over to Keith who will walk 
through not just the IT component, which this represents for 
the interim solution, but the melding of what the business is 
going to be doing, the Education Service is going to be doing 
as they march through and how these IT components couple up to 
that.
    Mr. Wilson. Slide 8 goes into a little bit more of a 
narrative or bullet format for describing both the IT and non-
IT deliverables that will occur within the life phase of Phase 
I. In other words, even though we are using Phase I, II, III, 
et cetera, for the IT deployments, there are a lot of non-IT 
issues that will be delivered during that time as well.
    As you can see on Slide 8, there are several items that are 
actually completed, indicated by the green checks next to them. 
We have established our program executive office as well as our 
Government structure, finalized business requirements, drafted 
and published our proposed regulations, developed our risk 
management plan and established a risk management review board 
process.
    User acceptance testing on Phase I has been completed. We 
are very close to completing the hiring of the 530 additional 
people. The Chapter 33 contingency plan has actually been 
finalized since this slide was prepared. So that is a complete.
    Deployment of Phase I, as Steph indicated, is scheduled for 
deployment on March 6th; and then we will begin training 
individuals on Phase I on that on March 8th. Phase I--just so I 
can capture in one nutshell what that gives us is Phase I gives 
us the ability to store the information needed, to determine 
eligibility. In other words, this creates the mechanism by 
which we will actually be able to begin determining 
eligibility. Not payment yet. Payment is part of the Phase II 
timetable. But we will be able to begin determining eligibility 
for individuals that are covered by the program.
    Slide 9 talks to the Phase II milestones. We have completed 
the Phase II requirements lockdown. In other words, we have 
finalized what Phase II needs to do to us, for us and from a 
technology perspective.
    The key milestone I believe in Phase II is the second 
bullet there: Begin accepting applications for certificates of 
eligibility on May 1st. That is the goal that we have in place 
right now, and we are managing successfully to that goal.
    That will be the first time at which point the public will 
see something delivered from us. Those individuals that seek 
entitlement to this program will be able to use the existing 
procedures that we have in place now--in other words, applying 
online--and we will generate certificates of eligibility for 
those individuals during the summer.
    We will be completing our final regulations, I believe, 
well before schedule. Our master schedule right now has that 
plan for May 11th. We are well ahead of that schedule.
    We will begin Phase II training on May 13th, solicit Yellow 
Ribbon agreements. May 15th is what our master schedule shows 
right now. Again, I believe that is one item that we are ahead 
of; and we expect to be able to move that to the left hopefully 
sometime in April.
    Full occupancy at each of our facilities will occur no 
later than June 1st, and then we will complete the interim 
solution Phase II testing on June 19th. And that means that we 
will have validated that we have the capability to pay benefits 
when we expect to.
    We will also be publishing the list of the Yellow Ribbon 
Program schools. That is something again we are ahead of 
schedule on, and we expect to publish that well before the June 
30th time frame. And then, of course, on August 1st, we begin 
paying benefits.
    Phase III provides two things. It, first of all, provides 
us more calculation capability than we have in Phase I and 
Phase II. Phase I and Phase II is largely capturing of 
information that will be keystroked in by individuals. Phase 
III gives us some level of calculating capability for things 
such as determining months of remaining entitlement, things 
such as that. Phase III also will include the capability to 
process amended awards. Amended awards, I am talking about 
those situations where individuals would have a reduction in 
their training time or a withdrawal from training.
    Slide 11 is a summary of our contingency plan. Our 
contingency plan consists of addressing four core 
functionalities that potentially could not be delivered. Within 
those four, it is broken down into about ten subcategories. The 
level of detail on the contingency plan is robust, but it 
varies depending on the type of functionality that could not be 
delivered, and I will provide a couple of examples.
    On the high side, in terms of issues we would be concerned 
with, would be to not have the capability of generating 
recurring payments. Generating recurrent payments is something 
that we traditionally have had in our benefits delivery 
network. In other words, when we generate, authorize an award, 
we authorize it for a period, a block of time, the enrollment 
period. Once we authorize that payment, each of the monthly 
benefit checks will automatically generate behind the scenes. 
It doesn't take our claims examiners to do additional work to 
generate those monthly checks.
    The functionality that we are having delivered by IT will 
create that capability for our Chapter 33 processing, which 
currently does not exist. Our contingency plan if that strategy 
does not--if that IT functionality is not delivered is to hire 
additional staff to do that work. That additional staff would 
consist of about 260 clerk positions, fiscal clerk positions 
that would have the responsibility of each and every month 
going in and generating the appropriate check for the 
appropriate individual. So that would be a significant amount 
of work, obviously.
    On the other extreme of what is addressed in the 
contingency plan would be a situation such as the needed 
modifications to VA-ONCE not being delivered. VA-ONCE is the 
tool that we currently use right now for our interface with the 
schools. The schools go online, and they provide us the 
enrollment information through VA-ONCE. We receive that as 
data.
    VA-ONCE is being modified to allow the schools to provide 
us through that mechanism the additional information we need to 
administer Chapter 33, for example, the tuition and fee 
amounts. We will use the dollar amounts reported through VA-
ONCE to pay the tuition and fee payments to the school. If for 
some reason VA-ONCE is not modified to include the additional 
fields for tuition and fee payments, then we can simply use the 
existing VA-ONCE mechanism and have the schools report that 
information in the existing remarks section. So it would 
require minimal additional work. It would just be a mechanism 
of making sure that they do continue to report that information 
to us as we need to.
    So that is an example of the variances in what is addressed 
in our contingency plan.
    Mr. Warren. Turning now to the long-term solution. We have 
made tremendous progress on getting that interim or short-term 
solution out. A lot of the focus has been on making sure that 
that happens. The date or the milestone we all have in front of 
us in August is to make sure that short-term or interim 
solution gets there. We are now reaching the point where, with 
the progress that we have made and the delivery of some of 
these tools that are starting to roll out, to turn to that 
long-term solution.
    We have had SPAWAR there as a partner with us. We have 
actually used them to strengthen our project team that is 
working on the interim or short-term solution. So we made sure 
we drew upon their expertise, if you will, to make sure we did 
stay on schedule and could meet the milestones we have laid 
out.
    We are expecting in the next month to start finalizing the 
requirements that we gathered as part of putting together that 
short-term solution, which then become the basis for what 
SPAWAR designs, builds--
    So we are now ready to turn to SPAWAR moving out once those 
requirements are refined. A lot of requirements were collected 
as we walked through what the short-term solution required. 
They will then essentially lay that out for us. We will sit 
down with the program experts on the Education Service side, 
validate those are actually the right solutions, right 
requirements and then move forward.
    The long-term solution we are talking about is an end-to-
end solution. What we are doing for the short term, if you 
will, the delivery by 1 August, is an augmented manual process. 
The focus has been on the date. And this package, the long-term 
solution is to put something in place that is a fully automated 
solution. It is using some of the new technologies and tools 
that are the standard in the industry, something referred to as 
service-oriented architecture. It is using rules-based 
processes. The education program today is actually a paperless 
process, but it is a manual paperless process.
    The next step is actually putting rules in place that 
allow, if you will, having the person step back and only be 
oversight to make sure the rules are running correctly or to 
deal with situations that don't fit the simple rules. So, 
again, this long-term solution is to implement that automation, 
not just paperless but automation.
    It is building on some of the things that we use for the 
short-term solution, something called agile development, 
instead of that old way of doing things where you write a big 
document and then you sit down and you develop for a long time 
and then you have the customer look at it, who normally changed 
in the period between writing the requirements and the long 
development and there is a disconnect.
    So agile development is, as you are discussing what it is 
that you want to do, you are building pieces of code, you are 
testing it and making sure the path you are on is the right 
path. And you know during the process, not at the end, that you 
are on track or you are off track.
    As I had indicated, a lot of effort has gone into short 
term. SPAWAR has also been asking the question, when we lay 
this out as a long-term solution, what is the underlying 
infrastructure that needs to be in place, the fabric that will 
support this long-term automated solution to ensure that it 
runs for the future?
    The full operational capacity, we are still planning for it 
and expecting to meet as that December, 2010, date. So that we 
have done this cut over from the short-term solution to this 
longer-term solution.
    We are still counting on New Orleans, the SPAWAR site, to 
be the first operational location. So they will design, build, 
and run. It is very hard to assure that your builder is 
concerned about how it works unless they need to run it. So not 
only are they designing it, they are building it. They actually 
have to run it for us. So there is an incentive to make sure it 
is easy to run, if you will, that there is not a lot of pain 
involved.
    But we are also doing that to allow us to train up the VA 
staff to make sure that these new technologies that we do not 
have a history with, that we can learn from the expertise that 
SPAWAR has developed and utilized in the past. They bring up 
the first site. We then start training and educating our staff 
not only at the operation but in the design end, and then we 
build the backup solution at VA, and then we flip it over and 
start running it at VA, and we retire out what is at SPAWAR.
    So we are using them, if you will, to jump-start a 
modernization not only of the technology at the VA but the 
skill set necessary to run it successfully.
    And that ends our remarks.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson, and the referenced 
slides, appears on p. 25.]
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you both for your testimony.
    We do have one vote, but before we head to that vote and 
return for questions for our panel, I do want to welcome 
Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick to our Subcommittee. She joins us 
as the representative of Arizona's first congressional 
district. Congresswoman Kirkpatrick has expressed a particular 
interest in helping our veterans become gainfully employed and 
improving upon the educational programs offered to our 
veterans.
    Again, we welcome her to the Committee and look forward to 
working with her throughout this Congress. I also want to 
recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman.
    Mr. Boozman. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
    I was just going to say the same thing, that I really enjoy 
looking forward to working with you, Mr. Teague and Mrs. 
Kirkpatrick. We have lots of disagreements up here about a 
variety of different things, but I think you will find on this 
Committee, and the VA Committee in general, that we are all 
working very, very hard for veterans. And if you are interested 
in veterans' employment, you are in the right place. So, again, 
it is a real pleasure to have you guys on board.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
    We just have one vote, so we will be back shortly because 
we have some questions for our witnesses. Thank you.
    [Recess.]
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Thanks for your patience.
    Let me ask a couple of questions before recognizing Mr. 
Boozman for those that he has.
    Mr. Wilson, just to be clear, is VA going to begin 
accepting applications for the new Chapter 33 benefits May 1, 
2009?
    Mr. Wilson. Yes. Our goal is to begin accepting 
applications for certificates of eligibility for the program on 
May 1st.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. How long is it going to take the 
VA to determine Chapter 33 eligibility after receipt of that 
application?
    Mr. Wilson. Our goal for processing original claims this 
year is 24 days. We do not have any plans to back off that goal 
right now. So we expect to be able to continue timely delivery 
of benefits.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. After eligibility is determined, how 
long is it going to take the VA to send the applicant 
notification of the education benefits they will receive?
    Mr. Wilson. That would be part of the process itself.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Within the 24 days?
    Mr. Wilson. Yes. Correct.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. So, that is not just the certification 
eligibility? Is that also calculating the amount of benefits 
they would be entitled to?
    Mr. Wilson. That is correct. That is calculating the 
benefit amount, determining eligibility, and notifying the 
individual of their eligibility.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. How about the schools? Are they 
going to be notified simultaneously?
    Mr. Wilson. No. Our plan is to issue the certificates of 
eligibility directly to the student, and then the student will 
have the responsibility of providing that C of E copy as they 
deem appropriate to the school or schools they would apply to.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Mr. Boozman.
    Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I appreciate the presentation. It looks like you all have 
spent a lot of time, and it really is very helpful.
    I am an optometrist by training. I also learned that, by my 
struggling a little bit with some of the slides, that I am 
going to have to take him in and do a test on his vision. But 
we do appreciate you.
    The staff has indicated a desire to sit in on some of the 
trainer training. Is that a problem? Do you all have any 
problems with them maybe just kind of seeing what is going on, 
seeing how we can be helpful in that regard?
    Mr. Wilson. Absolutely no concerns. We would be happy to 
have individuals come in and observe the training. That would 
not be a problem.
    Mr. Boozman. Good. Thank you very much.
    One of the things--and, again, Mike has kind of reassured 
me a little bit. But, today, if you go to the hospital and you 
don't have any insurance, you pay the highest price. If you are 
insured, even though you have a high deductible, the insurance 
companies cut a deal and you are going to pay a less price than 
the highest price with no insurance. I guess my concern is, 
have we fixed it such that there is not the ability for the 
colleges to work a loophole such that we are not getting the 
very best price for the Government as we go forward with this? 
Do you understand what I am saying?
    Mr. Wilson. I do. The mechanisms--you are talking about 
specifically the tuition and fees?
    Mr. Boozman. Yes.
    Mr. Wilson. The statutory intent or the statutory language 
that we were specifically trying to meet and are meeting with 
the tuition and fee calculations is determining the highest in-
State undergraduate public tuition within each State. That is 
what the statute indicates that we are required to do.
    Delivery, charging, and receipt of education in the 21st 
century is complex. There are a myriad of ways that schools 
charge tuition. There is a myriad of ways that schools charge 
fees. Those vary within States. They vary between public, 
private, even among public and even among private. It is 
extremely complex.
    And the manner in which students attend training in the 
21st century is also an issue that we have to consider. It is 
not uncommon for our students to be taking classes at more than 
one school, for example. They could be taking resident classes 
at two different brick and mortar schools. They could be taking 
brick and mortar classes as well as online classes.
    All of the schools they could be participating in training 
at potentially charge very--based on very different structures. 
And what we were charged with doing is coming up with a 
mechanism that could account for all of these hosts of 
variables, and I believe we have come up with a mechanism that 
does that.
    Mr. Boozman. Good. That is very good.
    I guess as we go forward with this new process that I would 
appreciate--and I know you are doing this, but, again, just to 
make it very clear that gaming the system isn't going to be 
tolerated. On the other hand, I know that the colleges and 
universities have some concern that they are going to be the 
ones that float--have to float fees for extended periods of 
time; and the Chair addressed that a little bit as to that as 
far as timely delivery of their funds and things like that. So 
I think there is a balance both ways. I don't think that we 
want to tolerate either, not timely paying and that sort of 
thing. So we are just going to have to work really hard on 
those things.
    Some veterans may enroll and then find out that perhaps 
college isn't for them. Something comes up. They drop out. What 
is the mechanism as far as what happens at that point? Do we 
try and recoup the fee from the veteran or do we eat that or 
have we even thought that far ahead?
    Mr. Wilson. We have thought of that. VA has had a mechanism 
in place for some time to handle situations where there is an 
overpayment of benefits. That mechanism will remain in place.
    So in terms of creating something new to address a new 
situation, that is not really needed. We have that in place. 
What is potentially different in this situation is the 
mechanism by which payments are made, as opposed to the way we 
made them in the past, is going to--I will use the term--front 
load a lot of the benefit payment. A lot of the tuition and fee 
payments will be going out toward the beginning of the 
semester. So those dollars are already out the door.
    If there is a subsequent drop in enrollment time--or a 
reduction, rather, in enrollment time or a drop of classes, 
then there could be an overpayment of benefits based on two 
things: First of all, the timing involved with the drop or 
reduction and the circumstances involved with the drop in 
reduction. VA does have the ability to apply what we call 
mitigating circumstances when there is a reduction or a drop in 
enrollment. Whether or not we apply mitigating circumstances 
will result in reducing the benefit, either the date of the 
reduction or drop or back to the beginning of the semester, one 
or the other. So that process will be one thing that impacts 
the total overpayment that will exist.
    The other factor will be the school's refund policy, and 
those refund policies vary. So we couldn't really determine 
here and now what an individual's overpayment would or wouldn't 
be because it would have to take into account those factors.
    Mr. Boozman. Okay. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Let me follow up on the line of 
questioning that Mr. Boozman is pursuing, because I am very 
concerned about the different refund policies at the schools, 
and whether or not that is something that we need to get 
involved with. I recall that if you paid tuition in full, at 
the beginning of a semester, and then had a change of heart, 
and decided to leave 3 weeks later or 5 weeks later, you didn't 
get your tuition back. I don't think when it relates to the 
Federal Government, on behalf of our veterans paying school for 
tuition, that that is appropriate.
    You said there is a mechanism in place. In the past, the 
benefits have gone directly to the student. Now that we are 
going to be paying the tuition fees directly to the school, in 
your opinion has the Administration taken a position as to 
whether or not some sort of intervention is necessary, as it 
relates to the payment of these benefits directly to these 
schools. The refund policy, as it relates to Post-9/11 GI Bill 
benefits, has to be unified there has to be a refund to the 
Government in certain circumstances?
    Mr. Wilson. The Administration has not taken a position on 
that issue.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Has the Administration taken a 
position on whether or not there are any true technical matters 
that need to be addressed before the enactment of the Chapter 
33 benefit?
    Mr. Wilson. We are satisfied that our regulatory authority 
has given us what we need to successfully implement the program 
on August 1. There are some minor technical issues that we 
believe could be clarified, but there is nothing that would 
keep us from implementing the program on August 1.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Of those minor technical issues that 
could be clarified, where we have seen some veteran service 
organizations discussing changes to Chapter 33 before 
enactment, do any of those proposed changes make you concerned 
about the implementation date of August 1, 2009?
    Mr. Wilson. We would be concerned with any changes before 
August 1, 2009. We have locked down our functional 
requirements. We are moving forward, and we are meeting our 
goals based on the legislation as it was passed and signed. Not 
knowing the exact language of any potential changes, I wouldn't 
be equipped at this point to comment specifically on impact, 
but we would certainly have concern with any changes.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Wilson, are you familiar with the 
recent article that stated the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of 
America has adopted a position proposing a cap of $13,000 per 
year on benefits under Chapter 33?
    Mr. Wilson. Yes, I am.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Does the Administration have a view on 
that proposal?
    Mr. Wilson. We don't have a view on that proposal.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Back to the issue that Mr. Boozman was 
pursuing, can you describe with a little more detail the 
mechanism you have in place when a veteran chooses to leave his 
or her course of study after a certain period of time?
    Mr. Wilson. Under our current overpayment mechanisms?
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Yes.
    Mr. Wilson. Yes. If an individual withdraws from training 
or reduces training right now, what we do is invite the 
individual to provide to us mitigating circumstances; and, 
based on the specifics that the individual would report to us, 
we would make a decision to either adjust the award at the time 
of the reduction or reduce the award from the beginning of the 
semester.
    For example--and these are just hypothetical examples, just 
to paint a picture--if an individual were to withdraw from 
training or reduce training due to a family crisis, those would 
be the type of things that potentially we would say, yes, that 
seems to be mitigating circumstances. We will reduce the 
payments that you are due from the time of enrollment--or, I am 
sorry, from the time that the reduction occurs.
    What happens then under our current payment structure, 
since we are paying in arrears, we will be able to reduce the 
benefit in time so that the person often wouldn't have an 
overpayment, assuming everything is reported to us timely.
    If the individual does not submit mitigating circumstances 
or would just--well, if they would say nothing at all, we would 
have nothing to base mitigating circumstances on. We would 
reduce from the beginning of the enrollment period; and, in 
those situations, the individual would have a potential 
overpayment based on the difference in their current training 
time compared to what they enrolled at at the beginning of the 
semester.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Under the new benefits, the benefits 
for housing and for books, those benefits are going directly to 
the veteran. But while you have a mechanism in place, it is 
going to be more complex to deal with issues of overpayment 
because payment is going directly to the schools and they all 
have different refund policies. Is that what I am hearing you 
say?
    Mr. Wilson. That is correct. The total amount of the 
overpayment would have to factor in all of the payments that 
went out on behalf of the veteran's training.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Is that anywhere in the plans that you 
have laid out for the Subcommittee today, in part of Phase I or 
Phase II?
    Mr. Wilson. It is in our project plan, yes. There is not 
many changes that need to occur. But that mechanism and 
ensuring individuals are notified of this is part of our 
implementation strategy, yes.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. I think this may be an area the 
Subcommittee staff will want to follow up, and perhaps we will 
have some additional questions in writing for the record.
    Do you have any further questions, Mr. Boozman?
    Mr. Boozman. I guess just one on the SPAWAR. Relative to 
DoD acquisition rules, what category does the development 
program fall into and what level of review would that entail at 
the Pentagon?
    Captain Krause. Sir, I will have to get back with you on 
that. We haven't really--although we did discuss that, we 
didn't really categorize it as a type of a CAP program. I think 
I know, but I would be guessing. So I want to make sure I tell 
you what it would be if it were a DoD program, and I will get 
back with you on that.
    Again, we are--the acquisition strategy we are following is 
a blend of the VA's acquisition and our acquisition, the 
appropriate acquisition milestones and elements that would 
apply to this program. So we are kind of blending them 
together, and we are following that process.
    Right now, we are in the planning and initiation phase of 
the long-term solution and focusing on the requirements 
essentially, the requirements and aggressive risk management 
strategy and a governance structure which we think are the 
three key elements where many software programs go awry and we 
think that is what our focus is right now.
    But I have a stack of documents, and I can provide more to 
your staff that follow the acquisition process that we are 
coming up with.
    Mr. Boozman. I appreciate that.
    [The DoD subsequently provided the following information:]

  LIf the VA Chapter 33 Long Term development program were a 
DoD acquisition program, it would be an Acquisition Category IA 
(ACAT IA) and designated a Major Automated Information System 
(MAIS). This is because, pursuant to Secretary of the Navy 
Instruction 5000.2D, as further defined in Department of 
Defense Instruction No. 5000.02, the program will exceed ``$32 
million in FY 2000 constant dollars for all expenditures, for 
all increments, regardless of the appropriation or fund source, 
directly related to the AIS definition, design, development, 
and deployment and incurred in any single fiscal year.''

  LAn ACAT IA program such as this would normally undergo 
Milestone and Decision Reviews conducted by a Milestone 
Decision Authority, which in this case would be the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration 
(ASD NII)/DoD Chief Information Officer or another designee.

    Mr. Boozman. Some of the questions that we are asking--I 
know that you are concentrating right now on just kind of 
surviving and getting the basic stuff done, although you have 
outlined a very comprehensive plan that seems to be very well 
thought out. So I really do compliment you on that. So some of 
this stuff I know is evolving. And we will just have to see as 
it proceeds things like refunds, that is something that is not 
a big deal at this point, but those are the kind of things that 
become a huge deal in us dealing with and you dealing with it 
at some point in time.
    So, like I say, I appreciate the testimony today; and, 
again, the level that we are moving forward I think is 
encouraging.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
    In speaking with counsel, I just want to get some 
clarification. Again I'm going the submit a question in writing 
for the record, but in the past when there has been 
overpayment, the veteran is liable?
    Mr. Wilson. Correct.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I'm just wanting some clarification, 
in light of the different manner in which payment will be made. 
There will be a system in place in which the VA will seek 
recoupment of any overpayment first from the school that 
received the payment to then be able to calculate, after 
seeking repayment from the school, what the veteran's 
individual liability may be.
    Do you see where I'm going? According to counsel, if there 
is an accumulative $10,000 overpayment, the veteran is no 
longer eligible for any education benefits.
    Mr. Wilson. They would not be eligible for additional 
benefits until the overpayment would be recouped. That's 
correct.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. But from your perspective as you 
administer this new benefit, the first stage of recoupment will 
be to the school.
    Mr. Wilson. No. Counsel and the general counsel has 
indicated that these payments are all being made on behalf of 
the veteran. It is received by the school, but the veteran is 
liable for the amount of payments that are made on his or her 
behalf.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. That is putting the veteran in the 
position of having to negotiate with the school, case by case, 
based on the school's refund policy, to somehow ensure that the 
school is repaying any overpayments.
    Mr. Wilson. The school's refund policies will remain in 
place. In other words, based on those refund policies, if there 
is an amount that is due back based on this reduction or 
withdrawal, that amount will be paid to the veteran from the 
school. So the school's governing refund policies will remain 
in place, they will send overages in that veteran's account to 
that individual, and then VA will deal directly with the 
veteran for any overpayment in the VA benefits paid.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. We will pursue this further with 
you, just to clear up any points that are somewhat murky at 
this stage. This is part of what I think each veteran needs to 
be aware of going forward. We are going to have some veterans 
who have received benefits previously that are now going to 
receive benefits under the new Chapter 33 benefit; and we have 
to make sure they are aware of what their liabilities are going 
forward.
    I don't believe I have any further questions, but let me 
also welcome to the Subcommittee Congressman John Adler, who 
represents the third district of New Jersey, which has a large 
and growing number of veterans. Like Congresswoman Kirkpatrick, 
Congressman Adler has expressed a particular interest in 
assisting veterans become gainfully employed and improving upon 
educational programs offered to our veterans. I assume that 
some of his constituents are also very interested in the 
timetable and administration of the new Chapter 33 benefits.
    Congressman Adler, welcome; if you have any questions for 
our panelists you are more than welcome to ask them at this 
time.
    Mr. Adler. Madam Chair, thank you very much. It is an honor 
to be with this Subcommittee and to try to serve the veterans, 
particularly the young men and women who are returning from 
service.
    Are there more measures we need to provide you, more tools 
to accomplish the goal? Have we done enough in Congress for you 
now to get the program implemented adequately over the summer?
    Mr. Wilson. The legislation itself came with funding. That 
funding has at this point adequately provided us what we need 
for implementing payments on August 1 of 2009.
    Mr. Adler. Thank you.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. You should do that for the record. 
Sometimes we get even more informative responses, even if 
certain questions were asked and answered.
    Mr. Boozman. I do that all the time.
    Mr. Adler. I wanted to follow up just to get comfort on 
your answer to the Chair.
    So students, veterans that are now being students, are they 
going to have to put up money up front?
    Mr. Wilson. The tuition fee payments that are going to be 
made to the school are going to be made directly from VA to the 
school.
    The student will also have issued to them--as I've talked 
about, we are looking--our goal is to issue certificates of 
eligibility beginning May 1 for those individuals that believe 
that they would be eligible for this program. Those individuals 
can take that certificate of eligibility to schools. The 
schools will know, based on that document, that VA will be 
responsible for paying the tuition and fees; and they will know 
the tier of benefit the veteran would be entitled to. So in 
making an assumption that an individual that we are talking 
about now is eligible for the 100 percent tier of the benefit, 
then the school will know that VA is responsible for that 
payment.
    Our goal for processing original claims is 24 days, 
supplemental claims 10 days. We believe, based on those 
timelines, that we should be able to get payment in to the 
schools in a timely manner.
    Mr. Adler. Can you explain in a little more detail the 
effort you have undertaken to advise colleges and universities 
of the program so that they will be welcoming of the veterans 
as applicants?
    Mr. Wilson. We have had an extensive dialog with schools 
throughout the country as well as the professional 
organizations that represent them. We have done two direct 
mailings. We are in the process of doing a third direct mailing 
that comes from VA directly to the presidents of the 
institutions around the country. We provide that information 
directly to any school that has a veteran enrolled in them 
currently.
    We have also had an extensive mechanism with education 
professionals such as the American academy--I'm sorry--American 
Council on Education. We had three regional meetings, one in 
LA, one in Chicago, one here in the District--or in Alexandria, 
actually. We are following that up with a webinar for education 
professionals that were not able to attend those meetings. So 
we have an extensive mechanism in place to reach the 
individuals at the schools.
    In addition to that, we have had an existing mechanism in 
place for some time to communicate directly with the school 
certifying officials. Those are the administrative 
professionals at the schools that we have worked with year in 
and year out to provide us the enrollment information we need 
to pay benefits. So we have a multi-tiered approach at several 
levels at schools throughout the country.
    Mr. Adler. Do you have a sense that there are some 
universities and colleges that are not as welcoming as others 
in this regard?
    I'm sort of frustrated that there are such disparities and 
inadequate reimbursement for those that want to attend a 
private university. But do you have a sense that there are 
universities and colleges that are, I would say, not 
``hostile'' but are not as welcoming of veterans?
    Mr. Wilson. I have no sense of that. No.
    Mr. Adler. Can you talk for a second about the disparity in 
tuition rates among States and implications that has for 
students?
    Mr. Wilson. I can address the tuition and fee structure 
that we are required to implement under the post-9/11 GI Bill. 
The tuition and fee, tentative preliminary information that we 
have put out on our Web site, is based very specifically on the 
statutory requirements of the Post-9/11 GI Bill; and that is to 
establish the maximum in-State undergraduate public tuition 
within each of those States.
    The numbers--the preliminary numbers that we have out there 
should not be and would not accurately represent anything other 
than the specific statutory requirements those numbers were 
used for--are used for. They don't represent averages. They 
don't represent the biggest or the smallest schools, charges 
within a State. They simply represent the situation within each 
State that is the highest in-State undergraduate public tuition 
in that State. And that is the only thing that those numbers 
represent.
    [The VA followed up with additional information in the 
Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record, which 
appear on p. 31.]
    Mr. Adler. I thank you.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
    Mr. Boozman had another follow-up question.
    Mr. Boozman. Again, I know we have spent a lot of time on 
it, but I also have some concerns and really would like for you 
all just to look at the overpayment or how you are going to get 
that. I know as an optometrist, we initially--when Medicare 
came about, they sent the surgery fee or the fees to the 
patient, and then the patient was supposed to give it to the 
doctor. Well, pretty soon everybody figured out that they got 
the money and then they said, we are going to pay you five 
bucks a month, maybe, until you get your fee paid. In other 
words, sometimes it was difficult to get that money from the 
patient. And I think there is all kinds of examples like that.
    But I think it is going to be, in some cases, difficult. I 
think you have much more leverage getting it from an 
institution back than from the veteran, okay. Because by the 
very nature of the veteran being in a situation where they are 
dropping out or something has happened, that probably means 
that there is some hardship or something going on. I know you 
can waive that in certain conditions. So you guys are going to 
have to figure that out.
    I guess what we don't want is, especially when all of this 
is being done by the Government up front, it is not sitting 
down and, you know, signing the paperwork like you would 
normally. I guess you do that. But you might not really 
understand what you are getting into when you have a third-
party payer. Do you see what I'm saying?
    So we either have to be very, very careful about making 
sure that the veteran is very, very aware that this could 
happen--but I do think that, like I say, you guys are going to 
have to figure it out. But I think you have a lot more leverage 
with an institution than you do with the individual.
    Mr. Wilson. We would be happy to work with the Subcommittee 
on that topic.
    Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
    Mr. Wilson and Mr. Warren, thank you both for your 
testimony today. I want to extend a sincere and warm thanks. I 
am very grateful to both of you, because I know that you have 
been working extraordinarily hard and you have been working 
very closely with counsel and with all of us on the 
Subcommittee during the transition as well and under a 
compressed timeframe.
    Again, we are seeking information with these oversight 
hearings, not only to get some of the good news you have 
provided us today on where you are on track and on schedule for 
implementing the benefits and where we are with Phase I and 
Phase II in particular, but also the long-term strategy and the 
good work I know that you are doing with Captain Krause. We 
thank you for being here as well.
    It is not an easy task, but we hope that our efforts 
working with all of you again, we can keep addressing some of 
the issues that tend to arise out of concern for the Committee 
Members, such as this issue of overpayment today. Please 
continue to keep us updated on your milestones, so that we can 
ensure that we are sharing this information with veterans and 
they know what to expect this spring, they know what to expect 
this summer, and hopefully things will go smoothly for all of 
them this fall.
    Thank you very much, to all of you, for your dedication, 
for your testimony, and for your updates on Public Law 110-252; 
and we look forward to additional oversight hearings in the 
weeks ahead.
    This hearing stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:30 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

    I would like to thank everyone for joining us for our first 
Subcommittee hearing of the 111th Congress.
    Rejoining us as our Subcommittee's Ranking Member is the 
distinguished Congressman from Arkansas, John Boozman. I look forward 
to working with him and building upon our strong bi-partisan 
relationship with all of our Subcommittee Members.
    We welcome many new additions to the Subcommittee. Unfortunately, 
one of those new Members, Congressman Tom Perriello of Virginia, will 
not be able to join us today. I received word that Congressman 
Perriello is attending to a personal family matter. Our thoughts and 
prayers are with him and his family.
    Another new face to the Subcommittee, Congressman John Adler, 
represents the third district of New Jersey, which has a large and 
growing population of veterans.
    Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick also joins us as the representative 
of Arizona's first Congressional district. Both Congressman Adler and 
Congresswoman Kirkpatrick have expressed a particular interest in 
helping our veterans become gainfully employed and improving upon the 
educational programs offered to our veterans.
    Congressman Harry Teague represents New Mexico's second district, 
he is also the lone representative of the entire New Mexico delegation 
serving on either the House or Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. 
Congressman Teague has expressed an interest in addressing the needs of 
our rural veterans to ensure that they are not forgotten.
    As we begin the 111th Congress, we realize that we have a full and 
ambitious agenda. This Subcommittee will address the concerns that many 
of our constituents and veterans have expressed.
    A non-exhaustive list of our ambitious agenda includes improving 
upon: employment and entrepreneurship opportunities for veterans; the 
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program; Veterans Preference; 
the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act; 
opportunities for Small Business Contracting Goals for Veteran and 
Service Connected Disabled Business Owners; Housing programs to ensure 
veterans are afforded the opportunity of the American dream and have 
the protections to keep their home in challenging economic times; and 
Educational programs that meet the needs of today's veterans.
    In addition to this full agenda, our Subcommittee will continue to 
provide the needed oversight that is required for these important 
issues. I am hopeful that our oversight will produce additional 
accountability and transparency within the VA.
    Today, we will continue with our series of oversight hearings, that 
began during the last Congress, which address the VA's implementation 
plans of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, as required by Public Law 110-252. This 
oversight requires our Subcommittee to have close relationship with the 
VA, and I look forward to our continued cooperation and communication 
as the VA develops the new Chapter 33 rules and regulations, and 
finalizes their short- and long-term IT plans.
    This hearing provides the VA with an opportunity to present clear 
details to our Subcommittee about where the VA currently stands with 
regard to the implementation of the new GI Bill requirements, as well 
as details about SPAWAR's progress. I am confident that the VA will 
provide assurances that there will be no delays or unnecessary burdens 
placed on our veterans. Our goal continues to be that veterans will 
have a smooth transition when receiving the educational benefits they 
earned and deserve.
    Like many of my colleagues, I look forward to working with the new 
Administration to address the needs of all of our Nation's veterans. I 
am pleased that General Eric Shinseki was confirmed as the new VA 
Secretary. Having such a distinguished military career, General 
Shinseki brings with him a great wealth of knowledge and experience. I 
look forward to working with him and his new leadership team at the VA.
    I would encourage our panelists to continue an open dialog with the 
Subcommittee so we may ensure that our servicemembers, veterans, and 
their families receive the first class service and benefits they 
deserve.
    Mr. Wilson and Mr. Warren, I would like to extend a sincere and 
grateful thank you from our Subcommittee for all the hard work you have 
done and the many hours you have dedicated in a very compressed 
schedule.
    Thank you for your testimony and your service to veterans. I look 
forward to receiving updates on the progress made to implement Public 
Law 110-252, and to conduct additional oversight hearings during the 
111th Congress.

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member,
                  Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity

    Good afternoon.
    Madam Chair, thank you for brining us together today to continue 
our oversight of VA's progress toward implementing the new GI Bill. 
Before we begin, I would like to introduce our side of the aisle by 
welcoming back Congressman Jerry Moran from the first district of 
Kansas. Jerry is in his seventh term and is a long-time Member of the 
Veterans Affairs Committee. I am also very pleased to welcome a new 
Member of the Subcommittee, Congressman Gus Bilirakis of the ninth 
district of Florida. Gus continues a family tradition of service on the 
Veterans Affairs Committee. Madam Chair, I am also delighted to have 
him as well as our new Members on the Democratic side join us as we 
seek to improve the lives of our veterans.
    Since the Subcommittee last met on this subject, we have continued 
to meet with education and IT staff from VA and SPAWAR as well as 
Senate Veterans Affairs Committee staff. I appreciate their work to 
stay current on the progress toward meeting the August 1, 2009 
implementation date for the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
    As a result of the continuing oversight, I think it is fair to say 
that getting the new GI Bill up and running is proving to be a far more 
complex task than anyone thought. The permutations of amounts paid to 
the schools is almost infinite. I would note that VA has posted its 
first compilation of the maximum tuitions and fees for each State and I 
am truly surprised by some of the numbers. For example, in Tennessee, 
the maximum fees that could be charged to an undergraduate student is 
over $15,000 per semester. There are several other States where fees 
exceed $10,000 per semester.
    I understand VA is reviewing those numbers and is taking a second 
look at how the State Approving Agencies are calculating and reporting 
the costs to be covered. I must remind everyone that those are State 
school, not Ivy League prices. But if those numbers hold true, we need 
to have a conversation with the higher education industry. At a time 
when American families are struggling just to keep the mortgage paid, 
the pursuit of higher education by everyone, not just veterans, may 
become problematic with those kinds of prices. I take some small 
consolation that at least those who serve the Nation will have this 
very generous benefit to fall back on but just as we are concerned 
about the rising cost of medical care placing an enormous burden on a 
family's budget, we must also insist that schools do everything they 
can to keep costs down.
    Madame Chair, I cannot ignore the fact that during the last 
Congress, you introduced and I cosponsored H.R. 5684--the Veterans 
Education Improvement Act of 2008, a GI Bill that built on the success 
of the Montgomery GI Bill and offered all veterans about $19,500 per 
school year without all the complexity of the Post-9/11 benefit. It is 
a shame that despite our best bipartisan efforts to provide a simple-
yet-generous benefit, H.R. 5684 did not make it to the floor despite 
unanimous approval by the Full Committee. It could have been up and 
running right now and we could be spending our time overseeing and 
improving programs like Voc Rehab, HVRP and TAP. I would also note that 
one of the main proponents of the new program, the Iraq and Afghanistan 
Veterans of America have reversed their position and now advocate for a 
fixed benefit amount as proposed in H.R. 5684.
    Finally, I ask today's witnesses to be candid in their testimony. I 
know VA and SPAWAR staffs are working hard to meet the August date as 
well as the long-term IT solution, but we cannot allow a lack of 
forthright discussion to prevent getting the program up and running. In 
that vein, I for one am not here to point any fingers for missteps--
they are bound to happen. But I will expect full disclosure when those 
problems arise.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Maximum charge per credit    Maximum total fees per
                           State                                       hour                       term
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama                                                                      $279.00                   3,004.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska                                                                       $151.00                  $1,512.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona                                                                      $490.14                  $5,056.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas                                                                     $167.00                    $629.46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California                                                                   $254.00                  $4,806.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado                                                                     $419.00                    $714.38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut                                                                  $486.00                  $1,946.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware                                                                     $590.00                  $1,290.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia                                                         $525.00                    $310.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida                                                                      $253.32                  $2,006.28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guam                                                                         $173.00                    $225.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia                                                                      $203.00                    $630.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii                                                                       $248.00                  $1,163.70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho                                                                        $238.00                  $2,582.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois                                                                     $558.08                  $1,432.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana                                                                    $230.05 *                $2,231.52 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa                                                                         $618.00                    $581.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas                                                                       $229.25                    $423.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky                                                                     $295.00                  $1,823.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana                                                                   $63.00 *                $2,541.70 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine                                                                        $270.00                  $4,655.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland                                                                     $436.34                  $7,090.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts                                                      not yet available          not yet available
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan                                                                     $953.00                  $9,897.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota                                                                  $326.92 *                $4,359.28 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi                                                                  $317.95                  $5,723.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri                                                                     $253.00                $1,547.81 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana                                                                    $205.40 *                $8,000.00 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska                                                                     $227.75                  $1,574.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada                                                                       $133.50                    $311.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire                                                                $859.00                  $4,768.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey                                                                 $400.00 *                $5,102.00 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico                                                                   $201.40                  $2,416.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York                                                                   $970.00 *                $2,373.00 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina                                                               $482.50                  $2,045.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Dakota                                                               $219.84 *                $2,638.00 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio                                                                         $477.00                 $12,715.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma                                                                     $363.44                  $4,136.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon                                                                       $407.00                  $1,836.24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania                                                                 $700.00                  $7,203.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico                                                                   $85.00                    $525.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island                                                                 $331.42                    $612.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina                                                               $460.00                    $385.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Dakota                                                                  $88.20                  $2,817.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee                                                                  $265.00 *               $15,130.00 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas                                                                      $1,333.00                 $12,130.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah                                                                         $128.64                  $2,176.28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont                                                                      $460.00                $1,358.00 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virgin Islands                                                               $120.00                    $170.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia                                                                   $225.00 *                $6,630.00 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington                                                                   $336.00                  $4,080.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia                                                              $256.00 *                 $1592.00 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin                                                                  $663.00 *                $4,202.00 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming                                                                     $94.00 *                  $400.63 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Amount is being verified with the State Approving Agency
 Source: Veterans Affairs Department


                                 
               Prepared Statement of Hon. Ann Kirkpatrick

    Good afternoon, Madame Chair. It is an honor to join you and the 
other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee.
    We are all here today at this particular hearing because under your 
stewardship, the Subcommittee led a grand coalition of bi-partisan 
support in both houses and pushed through the greatest overhaul of the 
GI Bill since 1984.
    When Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the original GI Bill, he stated 
forcefully that ``it [gave] emphatic notice to the men and women in our 
armed forces that the American people do not intend to let them down.'' 
Through the work of this Subcommittee, I believe that we have kept that 
promise alive.
    As I begin work with this Subcommittee, I vow to take seriously the 
responsibility of turning the promise that this new GI Bill offers into 
a fully functioning reality for America's heroes.
    Madame Chair, I look forward to working with you and learning from 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help improve the care and 
service our veterans deserve.

                                 
            Prepared Statement of Keith M. Wilson, Director
     Office of Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration,
                  U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

    Good afternoon Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, 
and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear 
before you today to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
strategy for implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill (Chapter 33 of 
title 38, United States Code). Accompanying me today is Mr. Stephen 
Warren, Acting Assistant Secretary for the VA Office of Information and 
Technology (OI&T), and Captain Mark Krause, Chief Staff Officer, Space 
and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlantic. My testimony will address 
the short- and long-term strategies in developing information 
technology (IT) components for implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, 
to include our project timeline and plans for hiring new employees, as 
requested by the Subcommittee.
Short-Term Strategy
    Our short-term strategy to implement the Post-9/11 GI Bill consists 
of a two-part IT solution; a fiscal payment system which uses the 
existing Benefits Delivery Network (BDN) to issue payments, and a 
``Front End Tool'' for use by VA claims examiners to augment the manual 
processing of claims adjudication.
    We will use internal IT staff to build the needed payment 
processing and delivery mechanisms within the fiscal payment system of 
BDN for the purpose of making payments. This functionality will allow 
for entry of all payment types, to include recurring payments (housing 
allowance), accounting ability, audit trail capability and some 
availability of reports that will meet finance and budgetary 
requirements.
    The Post-9/11 GI Bill Front End Tool (FET) will be used to augment 
the manual process by providing additional support that is accessible 
by processors in each Regional Processing Office (RPO) and VA Central 
Office. OI&T is delivering the functionality of the FET in three 
phases, priortized by the capabilities and resources available from 
OI&T. Phase 1 of this effort will deliver the capability to accept 
applications and manually store eligibility and entitlement 
information. Phase 2 will add specific data elements for processing 
claims under the Transfer of Entitlement provision of the law, provide 
the capability to perform the payment calculations for school 
enrollment periods, and contain additional field validations. Finally, 
Phase 3 will add the capability to perform calculations for aggregating 
service periods and determining entitlement availability and benefit 
levels. The FET will be the primary tool used by VA claims examiners in 
preparing and processing education awards.
    Teams of VA subject-matter experts conducted Phase 1 testing of the 
FET from January 28, 2009, through February 13, 2009. Phase 1 is 
expected to be deployed by March 6, 2009.
    The functionality for Phase 2 of the FET development is expected to 
be available for use by education claims examiners by July 6, 2009. 
Phase 2 includes the capability to calculate payment information based 
on enrollment data, and this availability date coincides with the 
planned production availability of the BDN fiscal payment system, i.e., 
the Back End Tool (BET).
    Development of the BET is on schedule. The BET portion of the 
short-term solution allows for input of multiple fiscal transactions to 
pay the tuition and fees, Yellow Ribbon payments to schools, as well as 
recurring housing, books and supplies, and various other Post-9/11 GI 
Bill payments to the students. User requirements were base-lined on 
December 8, 2008. This initial release accommodates claims 
establishment to allow for productivity tracking until the full short-
term solution is implemented. Full-system testing of the BET is 
tentatively scheduled to begin on May 4, 2009, and will be conducted 
over a 7-week period through June 2009.
    Phase 3 of the FET, which includes functions that were deemed to be 
lowest initial priority, or those that had the least impact on our 
ability to process claims, is expected to be operationally ready in 
September 2009.
    It is important to remember that this IT approach is a short-term 
solution that we expect to retire by December 2010, when the system 
that will be used for the long term is developed and implemented by our 
partners at Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlantic (SPAWAR).
Long-Term Strategy
    Our long-term strategy to implement the Post-9/11 GI Bill will rely 
on support from SPAWAR, to develop an end-to-end solution that utilizes 
rules-based, industry-standard technologies, for the delivery of 
education benefits. The Post-9/11 GI Bill contains eligibility rules 
and benefit determinations that will work well with rules-based 
technology that requires minimal human intervention. VA is currently 
working with SPAWAR on the long-term IT solution, and expects the 
development of this program to take between 18 and approximately 24 
months from enactment to complete.
Hiring at the Regional Processing Offices
    The implementation of the short-term solution will require 
approximately 530 additional claims examiners at the RPOs. VA has begun 
the process of bringing the claims examiners on board as term 
employees. Approximately 418 employees have been hired or committed; of 
those, 164 are veterans. All employees are expected to be on board by 
March 1, 2009.
    Training at each RPO will begin as soon as all employees are on 
station. Initially, the term employees will be trained on VA's 
currently existing education benefits programs. Development of a new 
training curriculum for the Post-9/11 GI Bill began in November 2008. 
The Post-9/11 GI Bill training materials for Phase 1 were completed on 
February 20, 2009, and will be presented to all of the RPO trainers at 
a "train-the-trainer" course to be held at the VBA Training Academy in 
Baltimore, Maryland early next month. The RPO trainers will then return 
to their stations to train the claims examiners on the Post-9/11 GI 
Bill. Training for new employees at each RPO is expected to be 
completed no later than June 1, 2009.
Project Review, Milestones and Scope of Delegated Responsibilities
    To meet the effective date of August 1, 2009, VA has assigned 
project oversight duties, established milestones, and instituted 
frequent oversight review.
    VA Education Service established a Program Executive Office (PEO) 
to manage the development of the overall process for administering the 
Post-9/11 GI Bill. This office is responsible for monitoring and 
coordinating all Post-9/11 GI Bill implementation activities. In 
addition to the PEO, VA contracted with the MITRE Corporation, a 
federally funded research and development center, as well as SPAWAR, to 
develop the long-term IT solution.
    The first critical milestone was met on November 14, 2008, with the 
completion of development of the business requirements for the short-
term payment solution. The next critical milestone for the short-term 
solution was completion of the IT functional requirements on November 
26th. With the completion of these functional specifications, detailed 
design will start with an expected completion date for all components 
of the financial delivery portion by July 6, 2009.
    In parallel, VA's partnership with the Defense Manpower Data Center 
(DMDC) is facilitating modifications to the VA/DoD Identity Repository 
(VADIR). Incorporation of unique Post-9/11 GI Bill data elements is 
well underway, and exchange of test files between VA and DoD is 
scheduled for March 2009.
Regulations Development
    The proposed regulations were published for public review and 
comment in the Federal Register on December 23, 2008. VA received 46 
sets of (255 individual) comments prior to expiration of the comment 
period on January 22, 2009. VA is currently in the process of drafting 
the final rule.
    Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased 
to answer any questions you or any of the other Members of the 
Subcommittee may have.

                               __________

                        [Text Version of Slides]
                    Post-9/11 GI Bill Implementation
                             February 2009
         U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Education Service
                            Washington, D.C.

                                 Agenda

      Chapter 33 Hiring and Facilities

      Chapter 33 Training

      Chapter 33 Regulations

      Interim Solution

          Front End Tool

          Back End Tool

          Key Milestones and Schedule

      Long Term Solution


                                       Additional Staffing and Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Additional 13-month    Expected Occupancy of
                                                Current RPO FTE         Term FTE                New Space
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta                                                     145                    75             March 1, 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo                                                     157                    95              June 1, 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muskogee                                                    351                   260              June 1, 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis                                                 177.5                   100             March 1, 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                     830.5                   530
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      All new term FTE on board by March 1, 2009. As of 2/17/
09, 418 individuals are on board or have report dates.
      Term FTE will occupy training rooms at Regional 
Processing Offices until permanent space is available.
      All contracts for new space have been awarded, and build 
out/construction is underway. IT and telecommunications equipment is 
included in this expansion process.


                                Training
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------

     New employees                Initial Training       Began 2/1/2009
                         Existing benefits   (ongoing based upon
                               Existing IT        date of hire)
                                      applications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Existing and new         Introductory Chapter 33        Began 7/31/08
          employees    Eligibility and Entitlement
                                          Training
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Phase 1 procedures and             3/6/2009
                                 associated system
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Phase 2 procedures and            5/13/2009
                                associated systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Phase 3 procedures and             8/9/2009
                                associated systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Chapter 33 Proposed Regulations
      The comment period for chapter 33 proposed regulations 
ended on 1/22/09.

        VA received 255 comments from 46 entities

      VBA is finalizing a recommendation paper to address 
comments. Comments focused on the following issues:

        Yellow Ribbon Program
        Certifying Officials
        Foreign Exchange Rates
        Definition of Academic Year
        PHS and NOAA Eligibility
        Transfer of Entitlement Kicker Eligibility
        Post-9/11 GI Bill Payments
        Definition of Dependent


                       Chapter 33 Interim Solution

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Front End Tool                       Back End Tool
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 To be implemented in three
   phases with increasing levels of
                     functionality:
                                              To be implemented



------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    Interim Solution Key Milestones
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8416A.001




                           Phase 1 Milestones

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Milestone                              Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Established Ch. 33 PEO and governance----------October 30, 2008-
                                    structures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Finalized Ch. 33 business requirements        December 16, 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Drafted and published proposed         December 23, 2008
                                   regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Developed Risk Management Plan and              January 2009
                 established Risk Review Board
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     User Acceptance testing completed         February 11, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Complete hiring of 530 term employees             March 1, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Ch. 33 Contingency Plan finalized             March 1, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Deploy Interim Solution Phase 1             March 6, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Begin Ch. 33 Phase 1 employee training             March 6, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------



                           Phase 2 Milestones

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Milestone                              Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------

--- Ch. 33 Phase 2 Requirements locked----------January 23, 2009-
                                          down
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin accepting applications for Certificates               May 1, 2009
                                of Eligibility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Final regulations published              May 11, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Begin Ch. 33 Phase 2 training              May 13, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Solicit schools for Yellow Ribbon agreements              May 15, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Full occupancy of new (4 RPOs)              June 1, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Complete Interim Solution Phase 2 Testing             June 19, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Deploy Interim Solution Phase 2              July 7, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Publish list of participating Yellow Ribbon             June 30, 2009
                   schools on GI Bill Web site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Begin administering Ch. 33 benefits            August 1, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------



                           Phase 3 Milestones

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Milestone                              Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Chapter 33 Phase 3 Requirements locked down------------April 10, 2009-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Begin Chapter 33 Phase 3 training              May 13, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Complete Interim Solution Phase 3 testing        September 14, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Deploy Interim Solution Phase 3        September 17, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Chapter 33 Contingency Plan
    The Chapter 33 Contingency Plan is composed of multiple sub-plans 
that provide workarounds for each step in the business process. The 
associated steps and contingency plan trigger dates are listed below.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Back End Tool 6/29/09        Front End Tool 7/6/09

                                         Check payments through       Entirely manual claims
                                                    existing BDN system           process using spreadsheets
                                          Capture award history       Award history and data
                                     through existing The Image Manage-             tracked in existing TIMS
                                                     ment System (TIMS)
                                        No recurring payments--
                                          shift work for additional FTE

     Paperless Application Process (VONAPP): 5/1/09
     Enrollment Certification Process (VAONCE and ECAP): 7/6/09
     Computer Generated Letters (PCGL) to beneficiaries: 3/30/09
     Web-Enabled Approval Management System (WEAMS) updates: 5/2/09
     Chapter 33 Eligibility Data Exchange (VA/DoD): 4/1/09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           Long-Term Solution
                          Scope and Objectives
      Deliver end-to-end solution.
      Development performed in a distributed application 
architecture framework and deployed in a Service Oriented Architecture 
(SOA) environment.
      Rules-based and reusable objects to support the delivery 
of the other education benefits.
      Agile development process for the phased deployment of 
functionality.
      Currently focused on planning, network and infrastructure 
design and requirements analysis.
      Planning for full operational capacity by December 2010.
      Initial operational deployment will reside within SPAWAR 
New Orleans with a COOP facility at an alternative location.
      Future phases will transition operational control from 
SPAWAR to VA.
                   MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs
                               Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
                                                    Washington, DC.
                                                      March 9, 2009
The Honorable Eric K. Shinseki
Secretary
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420

Dear Secretary Shinseki:

    I am sending you deliverables in reference to a hearing from our 
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic 
Opportunity VA's Update on Short- and Long-Term Strategies for 
Implementing New GI Bill Requirements on February 26, 2009. Please 
answer the enclosed hearing questions by no later than Friday, April 
17, 2009.
    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 for the Record
          The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman
                  Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
                   House Veterans' Affairs Committee
                           February 26, 2009
    VA's Update on Short- and Long-Term Strategies for Implementing
                        New GI Bill Requirements
    Question 1: Why is there such a disparity in tuition rates among 
the States?

    Response: States set their own tuition and fee rates based on State 
funding levels. In addition, there are various tuition and fee charges 
among institutions within the same State, as well as among programs 
within the same institution. The list below shows a sampling of the 
various ways institutions assess charges for pursuit of a program of 
education.

      One rate for full-time pursuit (includes any credits 
taken above minimum full-time level)
      One rate up to 12 credits and then a per credit charge 
above 12 credits
      One rate for 12-15 credits and then a per credit charge 
above 12-15 credits
      Per credit hour charge regardless of credits pursued

          Rates same each credit; or
          Rates increase or decrease after 1 credit hour

      Additional credit hour charge for terms between fall or 
spring term
      Additional credit hour charge for accelerated terms 
within fall or spring term
      Additional credit hour charge for mini-terms within fall 
or spring term
      Set rate for the fall and spring term, but by credit hour 
for summer session
      Set tuition fee for summer session

    Adding to the disparity between States is the range of mandatory 
fees assessed students. For example, programs such as aviation degree 
programs include mandatory fees for the required flight portion of the 
program. Under such a program, the fees would be part of the regularly 
charged established fees for students in the program. Also complicating 
the comparison of tuition and fees and determining State tuition, is 
the difference in school calendars (quarters and semesters), summer 
sessions, intersession terms, accelerated terms, and mini-terms.
    Tuition and fees reported by entities such as the College Board or 
National Center for Education Statistics, are generally an average of 
tuition and fees charged for a standard 9-month academic year rather 
than actual established charges for a program of education.
    Under the statutory provisions below, an individual in an 
undergraduate program at a public university will have their tuition 
and fees paid for the fall semester as long as the actual tuition and 
fees charged are the same as those charged similarly circumstanced non-
veterans enrolled in the program of education and are lower than the 
maximum amount of established charges regularly charged in-State 
students for full-time pursuit of approved programs of education for 
undergraduates.
Title 38 United States Code Provisions:
    Section 3313(c)(1)(A) provides that an eligible individual is 
entitled to educational assistance under chapter 33 in an amount equal 
to the established charges for the program of education, not to exceed 
the maximum amount of established charges regularly charged in-State 
students for full-time pursuit of approved programs of education for 
undergraduates by the public institution of higher education offering 
approved programs of education for undergraduates in the State in which 
the individual is enrolled that has the highest rate of regularly-
charged established charges for such programs of education among all 
public institutions of higher education in such State offering such 
programs of education.
    Section 3313(h)(1) defines ``established charges'' to mean: ``in 
the case of a program of education, the actual charges (as determined 
pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary) for tuition and 
fees which similarly circumstanced non-veterans enrolled in the program 
of education would be required to pay.''
    Section 3313(h)(2) further provides that established charges are 
the tuition and fees charged the individual for the term, quarter, or 
semester (for individuals enrolled in a program of education offered on 
a term, quarter or semester basis).
    Section 3452(b) defines the term ``Program of education.'' Such 
definition provides that the term means any curriculum or any 
combination of unit courses or subjects pursued at an educational 
institution which is generally accepted as necessary to fulfill 
requirements for the attainment of a predetermined and identified 
educational, professional, or vocational objective.''
    Question 2: Will schools still be able to certify enrollments for 
the full academic year reporting ``estimated'' tuition and fees, or 
will the certifications have to be done each enrollment period in order 
to provide actual tuition and fees charged to the student?
    Response: Schools will need to certify enrollments for each period. 
section 3313(h) provides that ``established charges'' means the actual 
charges which similarly circumstanced non-veterans are charged for the 
term, quarter, or semester for the program of education. If schools 
were to ``estimate,'' the Department of Veterans Affairs would be 
required to recalculate and re-adjudicate each student's award each 
semester, adding additional processing of these payments, and 
ultimately impacting the delivery of benefits.

                                 
