[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 147, H.R. 228,
H.R. 297, H.R. 466, H.R. 929, H.R. 942, H.R. 950,
H.R. 1088, H.R. 1089, AND H.R. 1171
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 4, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-5
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-419 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;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
BOB FILNER, California, Chairman
STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking CORRINE BROWN, Florida
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
JERRY MORAN, Kansas MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South
JEFF MILLER, Florida Dakota
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California JOHN J. HALL, New York
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida THOMAS S.P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
VERN BUCHANAN, Florida HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
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
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Ranking THOMAS S.P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
JERRY MORAN, Kansas JOHN H. ADLER, New Jersey
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
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
----------
March 4, 2009
Page
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 147, H.R. 228, H.R. 297, H.R. 466,
H.R. 929, H.R. 942, H.R. 950, H.R. 1088, H.R. 1089, and H.R.
1171........................................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin............................. 1
Prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin............. 27
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member..................... 3
Prepared statement of Congressman Boozman.................... 28
WITNESSES
U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Patrick H. Boulay, Chief, USERRA
Unit........................................................... 19
Prepared statement of Mr. Boulay............................. 45
U.S. Department of Veterans, Keith M. Wilson, Director, Education
Service, Veterans Benefits Administration...................... 21
Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson............................. 51
______
American Legion, Mark Walker, Assistant Director, National
Economic Commission............................................ 13
Prepared statement of Mr. Walker............................. 41
Blinded Veterans Association, Thomas Zampieri, Ph.D., Director of
Government Relations........................................... 14
Prepared statement of Dr. Zampieri........................... 43
Disabled American Veterans, John L. Wilson, Associate National
Legislative Director........................................... 11
Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson............................. 39
Doggett, Hon. Lloyd, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas....................................................... 10
Prepared statement of Congressman Doggett.................... 30
Israel, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York.................................................... 3
Prepared statement of Congressman Israel..................... 28
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, Cheryl Beversdorf, RN,
MHS, MA, President and Chief Executive Officer................. 8
Prepared statement of Ms. Beversdorf......................... 36
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Justin Brown,
Legislative Associate, National Legislative Service............ 7
Prepared statement of Mr. Brown.............................. 33
Welch, Hon. Peter, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Vermont........................................................ 4
Prepared statement of Congressman Welch...................... 30
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
U.S. Department of Labor, John M. McWilliam, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Veterans' Employment and Training Service, statement 54
Alexander, Hon. Rodney, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana, statement.................................. 56
Buyer, Hon. Steve, Ranking Republican Member, Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, and a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, statement.................................... 56
Filner, Hon. Bob, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and a
Representative in Congress from the State of California,
statement...................................................... 57
International Franchise Association, David French, Vice
President, Government Relations, letter........................ 57
National Association of State Workforce Agencies, Thomas S.
Whitaker, President and Deputy Chairman, North Carolina
Employment Security Commission, letter......................... 58
Paralyzed Veterans of America, statement......................... 59
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record:
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Bob Wallace, Executive Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars
of the United States, letter dated March 9, 2009, and
response from Justin Brown, Legislative Associate, National
Legislative Service, VFW................................... 63
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Cheryl Beversdorf, President and Chief Executive Officer,
National Coalition of Homeless Veterans, letter dated March
9, 2009, and NCHV responses................................ 66
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Dave Gorman, Executive Director, Disabled American
Veterans, letter dated March 9, 2009, and response from
John L. Wilson, Associate National Legislative Director,
DAV........................................................ 71
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
John Sommer, Executive Director, American Legion, letter
dated March 9, 2009, and response from Mark Walker, Deputy
Director, National Economic Commission, American Legion,
letter dated April 17, 2009................................ 72
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Patrick Boulay, Senior Attorney, U.S. Office of Special
Counsel, letter dated March 9, 2009, and Mr. Boulay's
responses.................................................. 74
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Hon. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs, letter dated March 9, 2009, and VA
responses.................................................. 76
Hon. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs, to Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, letter dated May 26, 2009, transmitting
Administration views on H.R. 228 and H.R. 297.............. 77
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 147, H.R. 228, H.R. 297, H.R. 466, H.R.
929, H.R. 942, H.R. 950, H.R. 1088, H.R. 1089, AND H.R. 1171
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:09 p.m., in
Room 340, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Herseth
Sandlin [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Herseth Sandlin, Teague, Adler,
Boozman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HERSETH SANDLIN
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity hearing on pending legislation will come to order.
I would like to call attention to the fact that the full
Committee's Ranking Member, Mr. Steve Buyer, and Congressman
Rodney Alexander have asked to submit written statements for
the hearing record. If there is no objection, I ask for
unanimous consent that their statements be entered for the
record.
Hearing no objection, so entered.
[The prepared statements of Congressmen Buyer and
Alexander, and Chairman Filner appear on p. 56 and p. 57.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. 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.
Today, we have 10 bills before us that seek to: establish a
voluntary fund to assist homeless veterans; create a
scholarship program for students seeking an education in the
areas of visual impairment; orientation and mobility; expand
vocational rehabilitation and employment (VR&E) subsistence
allowance; protect wounded veterans in the workforce; create a
program for veterans to meet the needs of the current job
market; establish a 5-year pilot project to assist veterans
seeking training on the purchase of a franchise enterprise;
expand Chapter 33 housing benefits to veterans taking distance
learning courses; improve training for those required to take
National Veterans' Training Institute (NVTI) core training;
authorize the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) to review certain
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
(USERRA) cases; and reauthorize the Homeless Veterans
Reintegration Program.
Let me say a bit more about two of these bills. Some in the
room today will recall at least two Subcommittee hearings we
held in the last Congress highlighting the responsibilities of
Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) Specialist and Local
Veteran Employment Representative (LVER) staff, which are
primarily administered through State employment agencies and
the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).
While several recommendations were highlighted, one
recommendation was to change DVOP and LVER training
requirements at NVTI from the current 3-year timeframe to 1
year from the date of employment.
Unfortunately, the current core training requirements
failed to meet the needs of veterans by permitting DVOP and
LVER to assist veterans when they don't have the proper
training to effectively assist the veterans they seek to help.
Recognizing the need to have properly trained DVOP and LVER
staff, I introduced H.R. 1088, the ``Mandatory Veteran
Specialist Training Act of 2009.'' This legislation would
require DVOPs and LVERs to be trained for their position within
1 year from the date of employment. I look forward to receiving
comments from the Department of Labor and veteran service
organizations (VSO) on this important legislation.
Another bill that I introduced as a result of a previous
hearing in the last Congress is H.R. 1089, the ``Veterans
Employment Rights Realignment Act of 2009.'' On February 13,
2008, the Subcommittee held a hearing on ``Review of Expiring
Programs.''
Pursuant to Public Law 108-454, the U.S. Office of Special
Counsel (OSC) began receiving and investigating certain
Federal-sector USERRA claims on February 8, 2005, and sunset on
December 31, 2007, after Congressional intervention extending
the original sunset. This law gave OSC authority to investigate
Federal-sector USERRA claims brought by persons whose Social
Security numbers end in an odd-numbered digit. Under the
project, OSC received and investigated all Federal-sector
USERRA claims containing a related prohibited personnel
practice allegation, for which OSC has jurisdiction regardless
of the person's Social Security number.
In the hearing, we received testimony from several veteran
service organizations and the Office of Special Counsel that
outlined the results that have increased the Department of
Labor's effectiveness by decreasing their turnaround rate for
pending USERRA cases.
Protecting our Nation's servicemembers and veterans from
potential workforce discrimination is an issue I will continue
to address in this Congress.
I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member of this
Subcommittee, Mr. Boozman, for any opening remarks he may have.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin
appears on p. 27.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that we
are bringing several pieces of legislation before the
Subcommittee, including my bill, H.R. 1171, the ``Homeless
Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization Act of 2009.''
As you know, the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program,
or HVRP, has been cited by GAO as an example of the successful
program designed to put homeless veterans back to work. It is a
relatively inexpensive program funded last year at about $26
million, that provides grants to community-based providers
serving the homeless veteran population.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) now estimates
that about 154,000 veterans are homeless, a level down well
from over 200,000 just a few years ago. I believe that HVRP has
played an important role in reducing the homeless veterans
population by putting them back to work and I congratulate the
Veterans' Employment Training Service (VETS) and all the
grantees for that success.
I am also looking forward to hearing the testimony from the
National Coalition of Homeless Veterans (NCHV), Executive
Director, Ms. Beversdorf, on the state of the homeless
community.
I would also note that we have a number of excellent bills
on today's agenda, and I want to thank you, Madam Chair, and
your staff, for bringing forth two very, very good bills, H.R.
1088 and H.R. 1089.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Boozman appears on
p. 28.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. I would now
like to welcome our colleagues who are testifying on our first
panel before the Subcommittee today. Joining us are Congressman
Steve Israel of New York, and Congressman Peter Welch of
Vermont. We thank you for introducing the bills that we will
consider at this hearing today.
The Chairman of the full Committee is en route. We will
start with you, Mr. Israel; you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF HON. STEVE ISRAEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK; AND HON. PETER WELCH, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE ISRAEL
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member
Boozman and Members of the Subcommittee.
I have introduced H.R. 147 which establishes on the Federal
income tax form a check-off for homeless veterans, similar to
the check off for contributions to the presidential campaign.
One of the deep concerns that I know we all have is the
issue of homeless veterans. But not everyone is aware just how
serious the problem is. Tonight in America, 154,000 veterans
will be homeless. At any point in a veteran's life, about
300,000 experience homelessness over the course of a year. The
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans estimates that one out
of every three homeless men sleeping in a doorway, an alley or
a box in our cities or rural communities has served in the
military.
H.R. 147 creates a section on the annual tax return form
that would allow taxpayers to designate $3 of their income tax
liability to programs that assist homeless veterans without
increasing the taxpayer's tax liability. It is patterned after
the presidential campaign check off which has worked very
effectively.
H.R. 147 creates a Homeless Veterans Assistance Fund within
the Treasury Department where the contributed money would
automatically be deposited and safeguarded by the Treasury and
expenditures from the fund would have to be appropriated. The
bill stipulates that funds can only be used for the purpose of
providing assistance to homeless veterans.
We introduced a bill last year with the support of national
veterans' organizations in the Senate. Senator Hillary Clinton
sponsored it last year as a companion bill.
This year we have 41 bipartisan cosponsors and, once again,
I am pleased to report that the national veterans'
organizations such as the American Legion and the Veterans of
Foreign Wars (VFW) have endorsed the bill.
Thank you, Chairwoman, for the time. I'd be pleased to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Israel appears on
p. 28.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Israel.
Mr. Welch, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER WELCH
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Members of the
Committee.
I am here with a reintroduction of a bill that I worked on
last year with this Committee, Mr. Boozman, and I'm delighted
this year that Mr. Teague is joining as a cosponsor. We are
calling it MOST, and it is about trying to give employment
opportunities to military veterans.
And very specifically, what this bill would do is help
veterans find good-paying jobs. And what this Committee knows
more than anything else is that the real desire of our veterans
when they return is to reintegrate into their lives, productive
lives where they are raising their families, paying their bills
and feeling good because they have got employment that makes a
difference for them.
The Military Occupational Specialty Transition (MOST)
program is designed to target veterans who are unemployed or
underemployed or had a military occupational specialty that may
not have adequately trained them for re-entry into the civilian
force. You know, there's a lot of skills, as again you know,
I'm preaching to the choir here, that are enhanced in the
military. But, also, there are certain skills that are specific
to the military that don't easily transfer. So we have got to
help those folks get jobs.
The VA has estimated that MOST would serve up to about
3,000 veterans every year. It would provide employers with 50
percent or $20,000 of a veteran's wages while he or she was
going through that training period. And of course, that's a big
boost for our employers who are on the knife edge as to whether
or not they are going to hire anybody. And they may want to
hire a veteran, but then they are going to have the training
period, which is a very expensive time for the employer, helped
by the taxpayer, that's going to make a difference in those
decisions.
While H.R. 929 grew out of the Service Members Occupational
Conversion and Training Act (SMOCTA) program, this Committee
supported reauthorization and the House of Representatives
accepted your recommendation last year. We didn't get it
through the Senate, same old story, but we are back to try
again.
And while H.R. 6272 was a straight reauthorization of part
of the 1993 Defense Authorization Act, this bill, H.R. 929, was
changed in the Subcommittee Markup to increase the amount that
could be paid to employers and for other reasons.
Finally, just a personal note, Madam Chair. I so appreciate
working with you and the Ranking Member. It is just delightful
in Congress with all the noise out there, the partisanship and
how it goes back and forth, that we have a Committee Majority
and a Committee Minority and staff who put the veterans first.
And I wish you guys ran the Congress. I mean that is--you are
doing a great job.
I was a new Member last year. I had an idea. Actually, you
know, you were ahead of me on it, but anybody in Congress last
year in our class who had an idea to try to help our veterans,
you wanted to hear it and evaluate it and act on it. So it is
just an example of the way we ought to operate around here and
I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Welch appears on
p. 30.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Welch, we appreciate
the vote of confidence.
We thank you both for these important bills. We are pleased
to consider them today, and again we appreciate working closely
together to advance the bills. Mr. Welch, thank you for the
work you put in to the bill last Congress. We hope to continue
to make headway both in this chamber and the other, this
Congress. Mr. Israel, we appreciate your important bill, one
that we agree the American public would respond to.
Again, we are pleased to consider it. I don't have any
questions for either of my colleagues, but I believe Mr.
Boozman may have one question.
Mr. Boozman. The only question that I would ask, Mr.
Israel, I guess one of the concern, I think your ideas are good
ones and I really want to commend you on that.
I guess a concern is what do we do if we do this and the
appropriators in looking and consider this amount of money is
coming in for that, and then they arbitrarily cut back that
amount of money? I guess that is the only concern that I have
is, can we think of some sort of a way to prevent that from
happening? Can you comment on that for me?
Mr. Israel. Sure, Mr. Boozman, thank you. As an
appropriator, yeah, I understand exactly where you are coming
from.
Mr. Boozman. You can have some tough, well, you have got a
very tough--yeah, you've got a tough job and you have got very
limited resources.
Mr. Israel. Well, you're right. You're right. The bill is
currently written so that the funds would actually be deposited
in a separate account to the Department of the Treasury and the
Secretary of the Treasury would have to promulgate regulations
with respect to how to allocate the funds.
Now, if you choose to advance this bill in any markup, we
would leave it to your discretion to ascertain what the best
way of ensuring that those funds are absolutely frozen in a
separate account and disbursed. So we would leave it to your
discretion.
Mr. Boozman. Well, as an appropriator, you could give us
some good advice regarding that because, again, I think that is
a concern that we would have.
Mr. Welch, we appreciate you with your bill and we really
are going to work with you and see what we can do. I think
there is a little bit of concern about just administering the
program and how you do that. So, like I say, we will be glad to
work with you.
Mr. Welch. Right, and I defer to your judgment on that
because I know the Committee has expertise and I take your
concerns about that as ones that are intended to try to make it
work. Thank you.
Mr. Boozman. Well, thank you. Thank both of you very much.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Adler?
Mr. Adler I guess I wanted to comment about what Mr.
Boozman said a moment ago.
Frankly, Mr. Israel, I'm hoping that your bill gets
considered because there is a public service value just to
having it out there to remind America that we have not yet met
the needs of our heroes, too many of whom are homeless. I am
actually frankly hopeful that Mr. Welch's measure and the GI
Bill for the 21st century make your bill moot in the very near
term and we don't have homeless veterans where we have met the
medical needs, met the disability claims, met the psychological
needs and got them the education and the opportunities for work
that they deserve. And so we want to put you out of business in
that narrow capacity.
Good luck with the bill, though.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Adler.
Mr. Teague.
Mr. Teague. No, I don't have anything to say now. Thank
you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, both for taking the time
out of your busy schedules to be here and discuss your bills.
We will look forward to working with you further. Thank you,
both.
Mr. Israel. Thank you.
Mr. Welch. Thank you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. The Chairman of the full Committee is
on his way, actually, so we are going to wait for a couple more
minutes. We will recess for a few minutes.
[Recess.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Joining us at the witness table, Mr.
Justin Brown, Legislative Associate, National Legislative
Service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States;
Ms. Cheryl Beversdorf, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans; Mr. John Wilson,
Associate National Legislative Director for the Disabled
American Veterans (DAV); Mr. Mark Walker, Assistant Director,
Economic Commission for the American Legion; and Dr. Thomas
Zampieri, Director of Government Relations for the Blinded
Veterans Association (BVA).
In the interest of time and courtesy to all the panelists
here today, we ask that you limit your testimony to 5 minutes,
focusing on your comments and recommendations. Keep in mind,
your entire written statement has been entered into the
Committee record.
Mr. Brown, we will start with you. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENTS OF JUSTIN BROWN, LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE, NATIONAL
LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED
STATES; CHERYL BEVERSDORF, RN, MHS, MA, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL COALITION FOR HOMELESS VETERANS;
JOHN L. WILSON, ASSOCIATE NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; MARK WALKER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMISSION, AMERICAN LEGION; AND THOMAS
ZAMPIERI, PH.D., DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, BLINDED
VETERANS ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT OF JUSTIN BROWN
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ranking
Member Boozman.
On behalf of the 2.2 million members of the Veterans of
Foreign Wars of the United States and our auxiliaries, I would
like to thank this Committee for the opportunity to testify.
The issues under consideration today are of great importance to
our members and the entire veteran population.
During this economic recession, the number of unemployed
veterans has increased to nearly 850,000 as of January 2009.
That is an increase of nearly one-quarter of a million veterans
since last November and an increase of more than 400,000 since
last April. Of these unemployed veterans, nearly 100,000 are
veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Clearly,
veterans are not exempt from the current economic crisis, and
we appreciate this Committee's ambition in addressing these
issues.
The VFW is thankful for the tax incentive provisions in the
economic stimulus, which will aid recently separated
servicemembers in locating employment. This is smart policy and
we hope that businesses find the value in an added incentive to
hiring our Nation's newest combat veterans.
However, while we laud this provision, we are also worried
that the infrastructural spending provisions of the stimulus
will allow circumvention of the Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002.
What this means for veterans is that contractors that receive
stimulus money, via State grants in excess of $100,000, will
not be held accountable to the requirements outlined in the
Jobs for Veterans Act.
In particular, contractors receiving stimulus money may be
bypassing reporting requirements for open employment positions
and the annual filing requirement known as the VETS-100, which
identifies affirmative action issues in regards to veteran
hiring practices and tracks veteran employment percentages.
Also, in recent news, the new budget as proposed by
President Obama could increase the Federal workforce by 100,000
to 250,000 employees. Regardless of the number, we would hope
to see a large number of America's unemployed veterans fill
this new workforce.
We are thankful that the Federal Government has increased
its veterans and disabled veterans percentage of new hires in
the previous 5 years.
In fiscal year 2007, 22.7 percent of all new Federal hires
were veterans, and 5.7 percent were disabled veterans. Veterans
Federal Employment Preference is working, and we hope to see it
continue to do so with the new jobs created by an increased
budget in the economic stimulus. If the Federal Government
maintains or exceeds its hiring rate of 22.7 percent, this
would equate to 20,000 to 60,000 new veteran jobs and
drastically cut the total unemployment of the veteran
population.
As America's largest group representing combat veterans, we
thank you for allowing the Veterans of Foreign Wars to present
its views on these bills. The number of unemployed veterans has
nearly doubled. Our veteran's employment programs and resources
will be pushed to their limits and now, more than ever, we need
them to perform.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony, and I will
be pleased to respond to any questions you or the Members of
this Subcommittee may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown appears on p. 33.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.
Ms. Beversdorf, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF CHERYL BEVERSDORF, RN, MHS, MA
Ms. Beversdorf. Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member
Boozman, Members of the Subcommittee, as a representative of
the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, I am pleased to
be invited to provide our views on several bills that have been
referred to your Subcommittee for consideration.
Of the 10 bills that you cited, I will restrict my comments
to H.R. 147, which would amend the Internal Revenue Code to
allow taxpayers to designate a portion of their income tax
payment to provide assistance to homeless veterans, and H.R.
1171 which would amend Title 38, U.S. Code, to reauthorize the
Homeless Veteran Reintegration Program for fiscal years 2010
through 2014.
Before providing comments on these two bills, I would like
to talk briefly about the issues of homelessness among veterans
and why more funding for programs, services and housing are
needed to address this tragedy. Studies have shown that
veterans are at a greater risk of becoming homeless due to a
number of factors. These include uniquely military skills not
needed in the civilian sector, combat-related health issues,
minimal income due to unemployment, and a shortage of safe,
affordable housing.
Most veterans who are currently homeless served during
prior conflicts or in peace time. However, according to a 2008
RAND Corporation study, nearly 20 percent of military
servicemembers, who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan,
300,000 in all, report symptoms of post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) or major depression, yet only slightly more
than half have sought treatment. This new generation of combat
veterans, both men and woman, also suffer from other war-
related conditions, including traumatic brain injuries, which
puts them at risk for homelessness.
Women veterans report serious trauma histories and episodes
of physical harassment and/or sexual assault while in the
military. VA and homeless veterans service providers are also
seeing increased numbers of female and male veterans with
children seeking their assistance.
According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, there are
an estimated 154,000 veterans who were homeless on any given
night, which is actually a 40-percent reduction since 2001.
If this trend toward reducing the number of homeless
veterans is to continue, more funding is needed for supportive
services, employment and housing options to ensure veterans,
who served prior to and during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars,
can live independently and with dignity.
Now about the two bills. H.R. 147. NCHV sincerely
appreciates Representative Israel's concern for homeless men
and women veterans and the need to provide them with
assistance. We represent community-based organizations in 46
States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam, which
offer this support every day by providing the full continuum of
care to both homeless veterans and their families.
However, to address the needs of veterans who are currently
homeless and also help the homeless and at-risk Operation
Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) veteran
population who are seeking help at VA medical centers and
community-based organizations, additional funding is necessary.
We believe the Homeless Veteran Assistance Fund could be a
major resource from which community-based organizations could
seek funds to provide more supportive services and housing to
these veterans. However, if H.R. 147 is enacted, we believe
additional attention needs to be given to how the fund will be
managed and administered, in addition to what the compliance
requirements will be for the organizations that receive the
funds.
NCHV believes veterans are citizens first. The people of
this country have a responsibility to show respect and
gratitude to the men and women who have served in the military.
Enactment of H.R. 147 would give all Americans an opportunity
to thank these former warriors for their service by making
contributions to a fund that would help those men and women who
need assistance as they return to civilian life.
Now about H.R. 1171. Regarding this bill, NCHV wants to
thank Representatives Boozman and Buyer for introducing this
bill. The HVRP program is the only Federal program wholly
dedicated to providing employment assistance to homeless
veterans.
This program is unique, and as Mr. Boozman said, highly
successful because it doesn't fund employment services, per se,
but rather, it rewards organizations that guarantee job
placement.
In 2008, DOL reported 65 percent of homeless veterans
served through HVRP entered employment and 72 percent of them
retained employment at the 90-day mark.
In fact, in fiscal year 2009, DOL estimated that $25.6
million in HVRP funding would provide approximately 15,330
homeless veterans with employment and training assistance. What
does that cost? Average cost per participant, $1,670; average
cost per placement, $2,407. These costs represent a tiny
investment for moving a veteran out of homelessness and off of
dependency on public programs.
In anticipation of the new wave of men and women veterans
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who may become homeless and
will need effective employment programs to ensure their
economic stability, reauthorization of the HVRP program as
stated in H.R. 1171 is imperative.
In conclusion, NCHV appreciates the opportunity to submit
its views to this Subcommittee regarding these two bills. We
look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure our
Federal Government does what is needed to prevent and end
homelessness among our Nation's veterans.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Beversdorf appears on p.
36.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Ms. Beversdorf.
I would now like to welcome to the dais the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Doggett, and recognize him for purposes of
discussing his bill, H.R. 466, the ``Wounded Veteran Job
Security Act.''
STATEMENT OF HON. LLOYD DOGGETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Doggett. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Mr. Boozman,
Members of the Subcommittee.
I apologize for being late. I chaired the Texas delegation
and you know how everybody talks slow down there in the South
and I could not get out.
I believe I have covered it really in my written testimony
and fortunately the attachments to it that include letters of
support from a number of the groups that are represented here,
the American Legion, the VFW, and the Disabled American
Veterans.
My interest in this piece of legislation grew from a
contact from a constituent and problems that he felt had
occurred in gaps in the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Acts with which this Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity is very familiar.
Basically, a situation with some employers that they found
were not saying that their denial of job rights to a returning
veteran was because of that veteran's absence in service or
because of an injury that the veteran had suffered, but because
the veteran required medical care in frequent visits in that
regard.
One example that I got was of a Texan who suffered a
serious back injury when his Humvee rolled over in Iraq. And
when he returned home and went back to the job, he was told
that his visits for treatment to the local VA hospital were
``unexcused absences,'' and just 6 months after risking life
and limb for his country, his employer dismissed him, saying
that he exceeded the number of unexcused absences that were
allowable.
Another example that was reported to me was of a soldier
who suffered a leg injury while serving in Iraq. He required
physical therapy. I broke my own leg last year. I know how
important that is. And his employer said that the company leave
policy did not allow him to get that type of treatment, and
this injured veteran was dismissed 3 months after returning
from the battlefield.
Hopefully, these are isolated incidents, but I think that
they do deal with something of a, perhaps of a loophole or
misinterpretation in this legislation which this Subcommittee,
and Committee as a whole, have been responsible for enforcing.
And I know also the work of this Committee in trying to do more
to get health care for our veterans and despite the significant
progress we have made with the last couple of VA appropriations
bills, this type of thing can occur with some significance
because, as I am sure is true in your State of South Dakota,
some of these veterans, for something like physical therapy,
may have to travel long distances. So it is not just a matter
of an hour out of the office. It may be half a day out.
And so I believe there is a problem here that needs
attention, and I offer the very narrow legislation that I have
submitted, that some of you have cosponsored, and would ask for
the Subcommittee's valuable recommendation.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Doggett appears on
p. 30.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you very much, Mr. Doggett.
Mr. Boozman or any other Subcommittee Members have
questions or comments?
Mr. Boozman. I don't have any questions. I appreciate you.
Certainly, the two instances that you cite are, we all agree
are unacceptable, inexcusable. And we do need to figure out a
way to do this, so we thank you for bringing this forward.
Mr. Doggett. I thank the Members of the Subcommittee for
your understanding. I'm going to slip over to Ways and Means
now. Thank you very much.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Doggett.
I now recognize Mr. Wilson. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN L. WILSON
Mr. John Wilson. Thank you.
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf
of the 1.2 million members of the Disabled American Veterans, I
am honored to present testimony addressing various bills before
the Subcommittee today. In accordance with our Congressional
charter, the DAV's mission is to ``advance the interests, and
work for the betterment, of all wounded, injured, and disabled
American veterans.'' We are, therefore, pleased to support
various measures insofar as they fall within that scope.
Of the legislation under consideration today, I will
address three in my oral statement.
The first is H.R. 297, the ``Veteran Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment Subsistence Allowance Improvement
Act of 2009,'' which seeks to increase the monthly subsistence
allowance payable to veterans participating in the VA
vocational rehabilitation program. This legislation would, for
example, increase the current subsistence allowance for a
single veteran going to school full-time from approximately
$541 to $1,200 per month.
Further, it directs VA subsistence allowance for the first
time to those veterans who are not participating in vocational
rehabilitation, but rather, are using the employment arm of
vocational rehabilitation and employment services. This
legislation would provide such veterans a subsistence allowance
for 3 months during this period of active job hunting.
While not opposed to the favorable consideration of this
legislation and we commend Mr. Buyer for its introduction. We
do, however, recommend it be amended to authorize vocational
rehabilitation and employment, Chapter 31 participants, to
receive the higher subsistence allowance offered under the
Post-9/11 GI Bill, Chapter 33.
For example, the higher subsistence allowance equals
approximately $1,570 per month for a single E-5 living in the
D.C. Metro area. A significant increase from the approximate
$541 currently, and an increase in the proposed $1,200, to the
same veteran, in this legislation.
The difference in the subsistence allowance may be
significant enough to cause some to actually opt out of
vocational rehabilitation, which, in the long term, may be
detrimental to their physical and mental health, as well as
their ability to retain employment. We believe this was not the
intent of Congress.
There is precedent which can be found under section 31-08-F
of Chapter 30, which governs the Montgomery GI Bill. It allows
a veteran to receive vocational rehabilitation assistance, but
at the subsistence allowance under the Montgomery GI Bill.
Therefore, we ask for your favorable consideration in
amending this legislation to grant the higher subsistence
allowance offered under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, yet allowing
veterans to continue vocational rehabilitation.
The second piece of legislation I would like to address is
H.R. 288, which directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
establish a scholarship program for individuals who: (1) pursue
a program of study leading to a degree or certificate in either
visual impairment, orientation and mobility, or both; (2)
provided they agree to become a full-time VA employee for 3
years, within the first 6 years after program completion.
While the DAV has no resolution on this issue, we are not
opposed to this legislation. The only amendment we would
recommend is that the scholarship program's emphasis is on
providing such educational opportunities first to service
connected veterans with visual impairment, orientation and/or
mobility disabling conditions.
The third and last piece of legislation I will address is
H.R. 466, the ``Wounded Veteran Job Security Act,'' which
amends Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
Act, prohibiting discrimination and acts of reprisal by
civilian employers against persons who receive treatment for
conditions incurred in or aggravated by service in uniformed
services.
Although the DAV has no resolution on this issue, we are
not opposed to the favorable consideration of this legislation
as it would protect veterans from discrimination and reprisal
as they seek care for their disabilities.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony on behalf of
the DAV. We hope you will favorably consider our
recommendations. I would be happy to answer any questions
Members of the Subcommittee might have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. John Wilson appears on p.
39.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. We appreciate
your recommendations.
Mr. Walker, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARK WALKER
Mr. Walker. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank for this opportunity to present the
American Legion's views on the several pieces of legislation
being considered by the Subcommittee today. The American Legion
commends the Subcommittee for holding a hearing to discuss
these important and timely issues.
H.R. 147, the American Legion supports this provision. This
fund will provide medical, rehabilitative, and employment
assistance to homeless veterans and their families. Homeless
veteran programs should provide supportive services such as,
but not limited to, outreach, health care, case management,
daily living, personal financial planning, transportation,
vocational counseling, employment and training, and education.
This designation of funds would provide these needed services
for America's most vulnerable veterans.
H.R. 228, the American Legion supports this pilot program.
There is a strong need for more medical providers in these
medical fields and this program would provide the necessary
funding for veterans who are interested in these career
opportunities.
H.R. 297, the American Legion supports this provision. This
subsistence increase would allow the veteran to meet his or her
needs and maintain their educational pursuits within the VR&E
program.
H.R. 466, the American Legion supports this amendment to
the USERRA to allow veterans to maintain their employment while
being treated for service-connected disabilities.
H.R. 929, the American Legion supports this legislation.
This program would provide job training in a relevant career
field for veterans who have been unemployed for at least 90 of
the previous 180 days, are not eligible for education or
training services, or do not have a primary or secondary
military occupation specialty that is readily transferable to
the civilian workforce. This program would be the only Federal
job training program available strictly for veterans and the
only Federal job training program specifically designed and
available for use by State veterans' employment personnel to
assist veterans with employment barriers.
H.R. 942, the American Legion supports this provision. The
American Legion views small business as the backbone of the
American economy. This program would defray the cost and allow
training that is required to run a franchise successfully.
H.R. 950, the American Legion believes that paying veterans
a lesser benefit when they receive credit via distance learning
is a concern. The U.S. Department of Defense reports that over
70 percent of its enrollees are receiving credit via distance
learning, and the VA is reporting a similar shift toward
increasing utilization of the distance learning modality.
Accordingly, the American Legion is recommending that the
allowances for distance learning be similar to those for
residential learning. This policy assures equity for veterans,
including such individuals as single parents and veterans with
significant medical disabilities.
H.R. 1088, the American Legion recommends that these
personnel be trained within a year. We agree with this
legislation.
And H.R. 1089, the American Legion has no position on this
enforcement through the Office of Special Counsel of Employment
and Unemployment Rights, Veterans and members of the armed
forces employed by executive agencies.
And lastly, H.R. 1171, the American Legion strongly
supports the reauthorization of HVRP for fiscal years 2010 to
2014. HVRP is the only nationwide program that focuses on
assisting homeless veterans to reintegrate into the workforce.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit these
opinions of the American Legion on these issues. I am willing
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walker appears on p. 41.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Walker.
Dr. Zampieri, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS ZAMPIERI, PH.D.
Dr. Zampieri. On behalf of the Blinded Veterans
Association, I appreciate the opportunity to provide the
testimony today to the Committee.
We aren't going to give up. We appreciate the fact that,
actually, you all passed H.R. 1240 in the last session, and I
appreciated the bipartisan support of the Committee in trying
to get this scholarship program for the blind, rehabilitative
instructors and the orientation mobility instructors.
Since then, the bad news is, of course, the friends of mine
on the Senate side didn't get a chance to pass the bill in the
110th Congress, but I have spent the last week over there. And
I am sure that, if nothing else, they want to get rid of me, so
they said, we'll try this time to get the bill passed. And I
think, Senator Brown actually is going to be introducing the
companion bill in the near future and with, also, bipartisan
support over there.
So, again, we appreciate your bringing this bill up again
before your Committee. And hopefully, we'll get it passed. The
bad news is that as the VA has tried to expand its outpatient
blind rehabilitative programs to more medical centers since we
last testified 8 months ago, or whenever the hearing was, the
number of vacant positions now has increased.
The good news is, the VA is trying to expand its ability to
improve access for blind and low-vision veterans. And actually,
they've opened up 53 new programs.
The bad part of that is, is when you are trying to recruit
these individuals, there are only 30 universities in the whole
country that offer a master's level degree in blind instruction
and orientation mobility. And there's actually a national
shortage of these individuals coming out of these 30 programs
because these programs are very small to begin with.
And so the VA will be able to use this scholarship program,
obviously, as a great recruitment tool to bring these
individuals into the system.
The polytrauma centers and the other blind rehabilitative
centers, especially, have felt the problems with trying to be
able to recruit these individuals. And as mentioned by other
witnesses, these individuals coming back, or polytrauma
patients, not only are they visually impaired, but they often
have other physical injuries, burns, amputations. A significant
number of them, or their polytrauma patients, have PTSD, and
the best place for them to be treated is within a multi-
disciplinary health care system, like the VA operates at its
blind centers in conjunction with the other specialists that
are needed to treat these individuals.
The other pieces of legislation before the Subcommittee
today, BVA supports all of those. I did make a little error in
testimony under H.R. 942. I meant to have a section there where
it talked about returning medics and corpsmen. Actually, it
should have been under Congressman Welch and Congressman
Boozman's bill, H.R. 929.
It is a great resource of individuals returning with combat
life-saving skills. It is not easily transferred into the
private sector, although these individuals that are combat
medics and navy corpsmen can come back and apply to be
emergency medical technicians. In many rural States, those are
volunteer positions on fire departments and rescue squads. They
can't get employment, even though they have these amazing life-
saving skills.
So if there is a way to include corpsmen and medics into
this as a way of helping them in any way as far as getting into
the VA and going back to school and becoming physician
assistants helps meet several things in regards to providing
rural health care, primary care providers that physician
assistants are. So I just want to bring that up.
These other things are also important. Congressman
Doggett's bill, I just want to say that we have also supported
that because I know of servicemembers who have had problems
where they are actually afraid, especially National Guard and
Reservists who come back who have had traumatic brain injuries
(TBIs), tell their employer that I had a TBI. Now, here we are,
constantly trying to figure out better ways to screen, diagnose
and treat these individuals, but I am hearing that there is a
stigma attached now and employers get real suspicious of an
individual who comes back and says, oh, by the way, I had a TBI
or I had PTSD because of my experience in Iraq. And just so you
know, there are cases out there that I am familiar with where
persons have suddenly been treated differently than in the
past.
So any way that you can protect an individual so that they
are not discriminated against because of the fact that, you
know, they are seeking treatment and care for war-related
injury or illness or mental health problems, we fully support
your action here on the Committee.
And I just wanted to mention that today I have a blinded
OIF servicemember who came with me from Walter Reed, and I am
not sure how you all would do this, but you are the experts.
One of the things, too, with Congressman Doggett's bill, and I
know the Committee has looked at, if there is a way to sort of
help the parents or the spouse or a family member who is a
caretaker. We have heard of cases where individuals are trying
to take care of their son or daughter and they start to get
harassed at work, because they are taking time off from work in
order to get their son or daughter to appointments and stuff. I
know this gets complex, in a lot of different ways. But it is
just something that I wanted to draw attention to.
And so, again, we appreciate the opportunity to be able to
testify today and we would be willing to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Zampieri appears on p. 43.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Dr. Zampieri, and thank you
for your tenacity in working with our colleagues on the Senate
side. I appreciate it.
Let me just start out with a couple of questions for Ms.
Beversdorf. First, are you satisfied by the geographic location
of the services provided by the Homeless Veterans Reintegration
Program?
Ms. Beversdorf. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Are you satisfied by the geographic
locations of the services provided by the Homeless Veterans
Reintegration Program? My understanding is the Department of
Labor funds are limited to a number of grantees and a limited
number of States.
To phrase it differently, are there some areas that are
underserved by the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program
because of the geographic locations as identified by the
Department of Labor?
Ms. Beversdorf. There are definitely areas that are
underserved. And part of the problem, frankly, Madam Chairman,
is that only a limited amount of funding is available. While
the program is authorized at $50 million each year, the
Department of Labor has required only a $2 million increase in
funding.
And so, the number of grants that are available, both urban
as well as suburban, is limited. Most of the time DOL has far
more grant applications than they are able to fund because of
limited dollars.
HVRP is a successful program. If there is anything this
Subcommittee can do, it would be to request full authorized
funding for the program this year.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
Mr. Brown, in your testimony, you state that while the VFW
is supportive of the intent of the legislation--I think
referring to H.R. 297--it doesn't address the core issues
facing VR&E. Could you, perhaps, identify for the Subcommittee,
either now or follow up in writing what the VFW deems to be the
top three or five core issues facing VR&E today?
Mr. Brown. I would be happy to follow up in writing, Madam
Chairwoman.
[The DAV response is provided in the response to Question
#1 in the Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record,
which appears on p. 71.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
This question is for anyone on the panel who would like to
comment. Mr. Brown, I think your testimony indicates that VFW
can't support H.R. 950 because it would create inequities among
veterans pursuing distance learning. I'm wondering if VFW could
support the bill, Mr. Walker, you may have referenced this in
your testimony, if it was changed to the student's residence at
enrollment, instead of the institution's location.
Mr. Brown. That would certainly make it more favorable to
the VFW.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay.
Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Mr. Brown, can you elaborate a little bit on
Mr. Welch's bill, H.R. 929?
Mr. Brown. Yes, Congressman. And exactly how would you like
me to elaborate on it, if I may?
Mr. Boozman. Well, you all, do you oppose that?
Mr. Brown. We are not in support of the legislation,
Congressman.
Mr. Boozman. Yes, what I'd like to know is, a little bit
more where if you see a situation that can be fixed or just, do
you have, I guess, a recommendation on fixing the bill?
Mr. Brown. Well, one of the biggest things that struck out
while looking at the bill, in consideration of the total
unemployment right now for veterans, we're looking at about
850,000 people. Even before the economic decline, it was about
half of that. If veterans were to use this benefit to the full
amount of $20,000 a year, for the period of 1 year, an
appropriation of $60 million, that would only affect 3,000
veterans.
So, I guess, one of our biggest issues with the legislation
is that we feel that we really need to look at maybe some other
avenues to really try to affect a larger veteran population.
The legislation seems like it is aimed at a certain demographic
of veterans. In particular I think it cites that anybody that
is eligible for educational benefits is not eligible under this
section.
Also, we think that, you know, that the bill is essentially
just paying employers to hire veterans. And another program
that also kind of does something like that, but their job is to
hire other veterans is the DVOPs and LVERs through the
Workforce Investment Act. They are appropriated at about $160
million. Their job is to hire other veterans. This is a $60
million appropriation that would just pay kind of any
employers.
We just feel like there are more effective ways of trying
to go after this demographic.
Mr. Boozman. Well, that's very reasonable.
Ms. Beversdorf, you mentioned that the authorization was
$50 million and that it was--how much--one of the arguments has
been that there is not enough providers to, if you did dole out
more money, some people are arguing that there are not enough
providers to actually use the money efficiently. Can you
comment on that?
Ms. Beversdorf. NCHV represents 260 community-based
organizations. Many who are not NCHV members also provide
services to the homeless veterans. Many providers have been
applied for HVRP funding and have been turned down even though
they have submitted excellent proposals. DOL is accepting only
the very best proposals.
Approval of the proposals may depend on who is reviewing
them. In terms of eligible providers, many would qualify for
funding. An additional $25 million would increase the number of
people who would apply for the program and who could receive
funding.
Mr. Boozman. I agree. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. Mr. Brown,
could you clarify if it is the VFW's position, as it is the
DAV's position, that you are advocating for the subsistence
allowances offered under the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill be available
for VR&E participants, at that level?
Mr. Brown. The level of what?
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. The level of funding offered under the
Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. In your testimony, VFW estimated that the
Chapter 33 basic allowance for housing is more generous than
what is currently offered for subsistence.
Mr. Brown. Correct.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Do you agree that we should make the
level of subsistence allowance the same level for VR&E
participants under Chapter 31, as it is under Chapter 33?
Mr. Brown. Right. At the minimum. I mean, we are also
talking about disabled veterans as well.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Wilson, that was your testimony
for the DAV as well, right?
Mr. John Wilson. Yes, that's correct.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Walker, is the American Legion
taking a position on this?
Mr. Walker. We have not taken one on that.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. You have not? Okay.
My final question relates to my bill with regard to the
Office of Special Counsel and USERRA complaint issues. Do any
of the veterans service organizations, represented today on
this panel, have a position as to whether or not OSC should be
the lead agency handling USERRA complaint issues?
Mr. Walker. Not at this time.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Not at this time.
Mr. Brown. Not at this time.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay.
Mr. John Wilson. Not at this time, no, ma'am.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. That's all I have.
We thank you for your testimony, your commitment to our
Nation's veterans, your recommendations and your thoughts on
the bills that we have under consideration in this hearing
today. Thank you very much.
I would now like to invite our witnesses on the third panel
to the witness table. Joining us today is Mr. Patrick Boulay,
Chief of the USERRA Unit for the U.S. Office of Special
Counsel, and Mr. Keith Wilson, Director of the Office of
Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Thank you both for being here, and thank you for your
written testimony which will be entered in its entirety into
our hearing record.
Mr. Boulay, we will begin with you. Thank you, again, for
being here at the Subcommittee. We'll recognize you for 5
minutes.
STATEMENTS OF PATRICK H. BOULAY, CHIEF, USERRA UNIT, U.S.
OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL; AND KEITH M. WILSON, DIRECTOR,
EDUCATION SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
STATEMENT OF PATRICK H. BOULAY
Mr. Boulay. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Ranking Member
and Members of the Subcommittee.
Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on important matters of concern to our veterans,
their families and our Nation as a whole.
My name is Patrick Boulay and I am Chief of the USERRA Unit
at the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
OCS is honored to serve as the Federal-sector prosecutor of
the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act,
the law that protects the civilian employment rights of our
veterans.
There are several important bills concerning veterans
benefits and programs that are the subject of today's hearing.
Because OSC's role is limited to USERRA, however, our testimony
today focuses on H.R. 1028, the ``Veterans Employment Rights
Realignment Act of 2009,'' which proposes to expand OSC's role
in USERRA by giving OSC exclusive jurisdiction to not just
prosecute, but also investigate USERRA complaints involving
Federal executive agencies.
Our Nation's military commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and
elsewhere have resulted in unprecedented deployments of our
national Guard and Reserves during this decade.
As a consequence, we have seen, and are likely to continue
to see, increased activity surrounding USERRA in the months and
years ahead as soldiers continue to transition to and from the
civilian workforce. Federal agencies, which employ
approximately 25 percent of the Guard and Reserve, will play an
important role in this process.
As you may know, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel is an
independent Federal executive and prosecutorial agency whose
primary mission is to safeguard the merit system in Federal
employment by protecting Federal employees and applicants from
prohibited personnel practices such as whistle-blower
retaliation.
In 1994, OSC's mission was expanded with the enactment of
USERRA, which is intended to ensure that those who serve in our
Nation's military are not disadvantaged in their civilian
careers because of military service, are promptly reemployed in
their civilian jobs upon their return from duty, and are not
discriminated against in employment based on past, present or
future military service.
This law applies to all employers, Federal, State, local
and private. Congress intends for the Federal Government to be
a model employer under USERRA.
OSC is privileged to play a critical role in the
enforcement of USERRA. Specifically, OSC provides legal
representation and files suit on behalf of Federal employees
and applicants whose USERRA rights have been violated by their
Federal agency employers.
Since USERRA's enactment, OSC has sought to vigorously
enforce USERRA to help fulfill Congress' goal that the Federal
Government be a model employer under the law. We believe that
Federal agencies must set an example for private, State and
local employers to follow. We owe an immeasurable debt of
gratitude to those who serve, and we must make certain that
they are restored to their full employment rights and benefits
when they come home, and that they are not discriminated
against in employment.
Under current law, Federal employees and applicants who
have USERRA complaints must first submit those complaints to
the U.S. Department of Labor. The Department of Labor then
investigates and attempts to resolve their complaints. If DOL's
efforts are unsuccessful in resolving the complaint, the
claimant may request that his or her complaint be referred to
OSC.
Once OSC receives the case, it reviews the investigative
file from the Department of Labor and determines whether to
represent the claimant in a USERRA appeal before the U.S. Merit
Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
Thus, USERRA creates a bifurcated process for Federal
employees and applicants seeking to vindicate their USERRA
rights by splitting the investigative and prosecutorial
functions between two agencies, the Department of Labor and
OSC.
OSC has long enjoyed a cooperative, productive partnership
with DOL enforcing USERRA. Nevertheless, in USERRA cases
referred from DOL to OSC, OSC must rely on DOL's
investigations, which are sometimes incomplete or not fully or
properly analyzed under the law. This often requires OSC to
conduct additional follow-up investigation to make its
determination.
Recognizing the inefficiencies of the bifurcated USERRA
complaint process for Federal employees, as well as OSC's
extensive experience and expertise in investigating and
resolving other Federal employment claims, Congress established
a USERRA demonstration project in 2004, under which OSC
directly received roughly half of all USERRA complaints for
both investigation and possible prosecution.
Under the demonstration project, OSC resolved the USERRA
complaints it received in an efficient and highly effective
manner, obtaining full relief for claimants in one-in-four of
all claims filed with our office.
OSC achieved this unusually high rate of corrective action
through its thorough investigations, expert analysis of the
law, ability to educate Federal agencies about USERRA and a
credible threat of litigation before the Merit Systems
Protection Board.
Claimants whose cases OSC received also benefited from
having a single centralized entity handle their claims from
beginning to end, instead of being transferred within and
between the Department of Labor and OSC.
The demonstration project ended on December 31st, 2007,
without further Congressional action. If enacted into law, H.R.
1089 would expand and make permanent the benefits realized
under the demonstration project by authorizing OSC to not just
prosecute, but to receive and investigate all USERRA complaints
involving Federal executive agencies.
By consolidating the investigative and prosecutorial
functions in one specialized enforcement agency, we believe
H.R. 1089 would make the USERRA complaint process more
transparent, accountable, efficient and effective for military
servicemembers employed or seeking to be employed by the
Federal Government. It would also allow the Department of Labor
to better focus on providing its best service to those employed
by non-Federal employers and to administer other vital veterans
programs.
For these reasons, we believe H.R. 1089 is a win-win
proposition for the men and women who serve in our Nation's
military for Federal servicemembers who would benefit from
OSC's specialized experience and approach, and for non-Federal
servicemembers who would benefit from greater attention and
focus on their claims at the Department of Labor.
Thank your for attention and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Boulay appears on p. 45.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KEITH M. WILSON
Mr. Keith Wilson. Thank you. Madam Chair, Ranking Member
Boozman, thank you. I am pleased to be here today to provide
you comments and views on pending benefits legislation.
Several bills on the agenda today affect programs and laws
administered by the Department of Labor, the Office of Special
Counsel and the Internal Revenue Service. We defer to those
lead agencies and expect that they will best speak to the
following bills, H.R. 147, H.R. 466, H.R. 1088, and H.R. 1089
and the Draft Bill to Reauthorize Homeless Veterans
Reintegration Programs.
I regret we did not have sufficient time to formulate
formal views on two bills, H.R. 228 and H.R. 297. However, we
would be pleased to provide written views for the record.
[The Administration Views for H.R. 228 and H.R. 297 were
provided in a follow-up letter from Secretary Eric K. Shinseki,
dated May 26, 2009, which appears on p. 77.]
H.R. 942, the ``Veterans Self Employment Act of 2009,''
would direct VA to conduct a 5-year pilot to test the
feasibility and advisability of using VA education assistance
to pay for training costs associated with the purchase of a
franchise enterprise.
Currently, there is no provisions under any education
benefit program for payment of benefits to help cover the
training costs associated with the purchase of a franchise
enterprise. The impact on this legislation on VA with regard to
the number of claimants would be minimal. However, there would
be more significant administrative impact in that VA would be
required to develop regulations for proper administration to
program, as well as conduct adequate oversight to ensure
compliance.
VA supports enactment of this act, subject to the
identification of offsets for the additional benefits costs. VA
estimates that enactment of H.R. 942 would result in benefit
costs of $594,000 for fiscal year 2010, and $23.7 million over
10 years.
H.R. 929 is an educational training program which would
require VA to establish a Military Occupational Specialty
Transition program for training to provide eligible veterans
with skills relevant to the job market. VA supports the
initiatives goal of expanding education opportunities that is
currently drafted. This bill would be problematic to implement
and execute. Therefore, we cannot endorse at this time.
Under the program, VA would enter into contracts with
employers who had received payments for providing programs of
apprenticeship or on-the-job training. Under the MOST program,
the Secretary would be required to determine whether a
veterans' military occupational specialty has limited
transferability to the job market and whether the veteran has
not acquired a marketable skill since leaving military service.
Because of these unique determinations, we believe MOST would
be better implemented as a joint program between the Department
of Labor and VA.
The MOST program would allow for payment to employers who
provide a program of apprenticeship or training for eligible
veterans, and it is expected that the employer would hire the
veteran upon completion of the training, but there are no
guarantees. Reimbursing an employer for a portion of the
apprenticeship or on-the-job wages, as well as to ensure that
veterans are protected with rights as employees, it would seem
to be a better program if the employers are required to hire
the veterans at the beginning of the training program.
As written, the program puts the risk upon the veteran and
the VA, with only a hope of future employment for the veteran.
This legislation would require significant development of
regulations and procedures to administer the benefit. As the
proposed legislation appears to be effective the date of
enactment, there would be a considerable delay in VA's ability
to pay claims associated with the MOST program.
H.R. 950 is a bill designed to pay college housing
allowance to veterans who take education courses over the
Internet, in other words, distance learning via the Post-9/11
GI Bill. As currently written, this program poses a risk of
unintended increased costs due to the locality determination of
this subsidy. Therefore, as currently drafted, we oppose the
bill.
Currently, under the bill, individuals who are pursuing a
program of education are eligible to receive a monthly housing
allowance stipend equal to Department of Defense basic
allowance for housing rates for an E-5 with dependents. This
bill would extend this benefit to individuals taking courses
over the Internet, regardless of their location.
This legislation would have an impact on VA business
processes and procedures. Housing stipends are based on basic
allowance for housing (BAH) rates where the school is located,
versus the individual's residence. We anticipate some
individuals would enroll in a distance learning program at the
schools with the highest BAH rate. Presumably, it would be
better to base the housing stipend on where individuals live
and/or their home of record at the time of enrollment.
VA estimates an enactment of H.R. 950 would result in
benefit costs of $20.4 million for fiscal year 2010, and $1.5
billion over 10 years. In view of the cost and because BAH
rates are based on the locality of the school, bear no
relationship to the cost of living associated at a locality, VA
opposes this bill.
Madam Chair, this concludes my statement. I would be happy
to entertain any questions you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keith Wilson appears on p.
51.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Boulay, is it correct to state that the Department of
Labor must accept every USERRA case while OSC can pick and
choose among the cases for which it was referred?
Mr. Boulay. I mean, in a sense, the Department of Labor at
this time receives all USERRA complaints against all employers
and if they investigate it and are unable to resolve the
complaint, the claimant, regardless of the merit of the case,
can ask that the case be referred to OSC. And then OSC must
then determine whether to prosecute the case, pursue
settlement, file the case with the MSPB, et cetera.
So, in a sense, you know, the Department of Labor picks and
chooses in the sense that they try to determine merit through
their investigations, and then only approach an employer if
they think there is something to a case. In terms of trying to
get something for the servicemember, and I suppose we do, too,
in the sense that we are trying to evaluate whether there is
enough evidence to go forward.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Well, let us touch on the issue
of the evidence because you were critical in your testimony of
the Department of Labor's investigations and analyses. Can you
identify some of the most common deficiencies that OSC finds
with the Department of Labor's investigation?
Mr. Boulay. Well, I think there are a number of things that
seem to be common problems. One being that Department of Labor
is just trying to get enough information to figure out if there
is some merit to the case and if they can maybe settle it.
So, you know, oftentimes they might not interview all the
witnesses, they might not ask all the questions, they might not
get all the documents that would be needed to prove a case in
court. So there is some incompleteness. We have also seen that
sometimes they analyze cases, for instance, under the anti-
discrimination part of USERRA, rather than the reemployment
part, or vice versa which, of course, affects how they
investigate the case, and, you know, our ability to evaluate it
if it is not analyzed under the right part of the statute.
And I think that that could be due to the fact that, you
know, the Department of Labor's process for USERRA is very
decentralized. They have these offices throughout the country
which, you know, I am sure benefits our veterans in terms of
them being able to go to a local office.
But, you know, in terms of outcomes in USERRA cases, there
is a lot of inconsistency in the quality we see because there
is not a lot of central oversight.
Whereas, at OSC we are a small agency, we are located here
in D.C. We have a few field offices, but everything is done,
you know, everything--when we have a USERRA case under the
demonstration project, all the cases come in for the USERRA
unit through me as the chief, and I review them before their
determination is finalized. So we get more consistency that
way.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Let me ask just a couple of
questions on the number of cases referred under the current
process. How many cases are referred from the Department of
Labor to OSC in an average year?
Mr. Boulay. Well, in the past, that number was generally
anywhere from 10 to 20 cases on average.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. On average. How about last year?
Mr. Boulay. Last year, well, I think last year I believe it
was in that range, however, we were still kind of dealing with
the demonstration project.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Right.
Mr. Boulay. So that tends to depress the numbers. Actually,
this year, I think in part because of a new law that imposes
deadlines and Department of Labor's improvement in notifying
veterans that they can come to OSC, we are actually on pace to
get about 40 or 50 referrals this year, in this fiscal year. So
we are seeing an uptick, but obviously we would see, you know,
I think in the vicinity of 300 to 400 cases, if we were
getting--that is about the number of total Federal cases a
year, 300 to 400.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay, let us say you get them.
Mr. Boulay. Yes.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Is the OSC prepared to handle the
increased workload?
Mr. Boulay. Yes, we are, and that's because, you know, we
had a USERRA unit in operation, a fairly large group during the
demonstration project. Our personnel have been spread out a
little bit into different departments as the work had
decreased, but we can bring them back together.
And you know, this wasn't even hard when we got the
demonstration project because this is not a stretch for us. We
investigate cases. We enforce USERRA. It wasn't a stretch for
us to start investigating USERRA cases as well. They are very
similar to the other cases we also investigate, like whistle-
blower cases.
So it is really not, you know, a big stretch for us to have
to do this. And you know, we think there would be a need for
some additional staff and resources, but we have already kind
of projected that, and I don't think it would be that
difficult.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Would you need additional staff
resources?
Mr. Boulay. We would need some additional resources, you
know, beyond our existing staff to, you know, handle the larger
volume.
Under the demonstration project, we were only getting half
of the cases.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Right.
Mr. Boulay. So we would need, you know, some additional
staff.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. But you haven't done any estimates on
how many additional staff you would need if this bill were to
become law?
Mr. Boulay. Well, we actually have.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay.
Mr. Boulay. And we estimate that we would need, I believe,
19 full-time employees. We have a handful right now.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Nineteen additional.
Mr. Boulay. Well, that is 16 additional employees and an
increase, I think, in the vicinity of $2.5 million in funding
to cover that.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Final question. Should there be a
mandatory referral to OSC from the Department of Labor, or
would making OSC the lead agency be better in your opinion?
Mr. Boulay. Well, I think definitely making OSC the lead
agency would be better because then it wouldn't place the
burden on the claimant, for one thing, to ask for a referral
and if we got involved in the cases sooner and we were able to
do our investigation, we could approach an agency, a Federal
agency sooner on the claimant's behalf, perhaps get settlement.
I think it would just be much more efficient.
I mean a mandatory referral kind of takes it out of the
hands of the claimant. I mean, they have that right as a matter
of law. So I just think, again, just us being able to do these
cases from beginning to end, given our experience and our
mission, would definitely be a benefit and allow us to really
make the Federal Government the model that it is supposed to
be.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really don't have
any questions. We appreciate you all being here. We appreciate
your testimony.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, Mr. Wilson, we are not going to
let you out that easily.
Mr. Keith Wilson. I would be disappointed otherwise.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Just a couple of quick questions for
you. I asked this question to a prior panel on H.R. 950. If the
bill was amended to pay the student housing stipend, based on
their current residence from which they were taking the
distance learning courses, rather than the location of the
institution, would VA support the bill? Or would VA be more
inclined to support the bill?
Mr. Keith Wilson. It would take away one of our core
concerns about the bill. I would preface that, though, with our
need to take into account what we have in place right now with
implementation of a new GI Bill.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Right.
Mr. Keith Wilson. Because we would have to take into
account any impact it would have with our functional
requirements, rollout, et cetera.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. You also stated that the MOST
program would be better implemented between the Department of
Labor and the VA, correct?
Mr. Keith Wilson. Correct.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Just elaborate for the Subcommittee a
bit further on how a joint program would be better?
Mr. Keith Wilson. The specific determinations that the
Secretary would be required to make are largely items that we
would not necessarily have the expertise in, and perhaps the
Department of Labor would have better expertise in that area.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. One final question. You state
that H.R. 929 would be challenging to implement. Do you have
any thoughts on how the implementation might be streamlined?
Mr. Keith Wilson. Not at this point. I would be more than
happy to work with the Subcommittee or provide more details on
that. At this point I don't.
[The VA response is provided in the response to Question #2
of the Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record,
which appears on p. 76.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. We appreciate that.
Well, thank you both for your testimony, for being here
before the Subcommittee. We thank you for your statements this
afternoon, as well as the statements of the other witnesses on
the previous panels. Again, we look forward to following up on
some of the suggestions that have been made, both by the
veteran service organizations, our advocates for homeless
veterans, and the agencies that are represented here. We do
hope to mark up a number of these bills this month. The full
Committee hopes to take action on them by the end of the month.
Your comments and recommendations are timely and we
appreciate them. I know some of our witnesses joined us today
on rather short notice.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity that we had to
visit with you today. The hearing now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m. the Committee 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 call to attention the fact that the Committee
Ranking Member, Steve Buyer, Congressman Rodney Alexander and Blinded
Veterans Association have asked to submit written statements for the
hearing record. If there is no objection, I ask for unanimous consent
that their statements be entered for the record. Hearing no objection,
so entered.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members have five legislative days
to revise and extend their remarks and that written statements be made
part of the record. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Today we have 10 bills before us that seek to: establish a
voluntary fund to assist homeless veterans; create a scholarship
program for students seeking an education in the areas of visual
impairment, orientation and mobility; expand VR&E subsistence
allowance; protect wounded veterans in the workforce; create a program
for veterans to meet the needs of the current job market; establish a
5-year pilot project to assist veterans seeking training on the
purchase of a franchise enterprise; expand Chapter 33 housing benefits
to veterans taking distance learning courses; improve training for
those required to take National Veterans' Training Institute (NVTI)
core training; authorize the Office of Special Counsel to review
certain USERRA cases; and reauthorize the Homeless Veterans
Reintegration Program.
Some of our audience members will recall at least two Subcommittee
hearings we held in the last Congress highlighting the responsibilities
of Veteran Outreach Program Specialist (DVOPS) and Local Veterans
Employment Representative (LVER) staff, which are primarily
administered through state employment agencies and the U.S. Department
of Labor.
While several recommendations were highlighted, one recommendation
was to change DVOP and LVER training requirement at NVTI from the
current 3 year timeframe to 1 year from date of employment.
Unfortunately, the current core training requirements fail to meet
the needs of veterans by permitting DVOP and LVERs to assist veterans
when they do not have the proper training to effectively assist the
veterans they seek to help.
Recognizing the need to have properly trained DVOP and LVER staff,
I introduced H.R. 1088, the Mandatory Veteran Specialist Training Act
of 2009. This legislation would require DVOPs and LVERs to be trained
for their position within 1 year from the date of employment. I look
forward to receiving comments from the Department of Labor and veteran
service organization on this important legislation.
Another bill that I introduced as a result of a previous hearing is
H.R. 1089, the Veterans Employment Rights Realignment Act of 2009. On
February 13, 2008, the Subcommittee held a hearing on ``Review of
Expiring Programs.''
Pursuant to Public Law 108-454, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel
(OSC) began receiving and investigating certain Federal sector USERRA
claims on February 8, 2005 and sunset on December 31, 2007 after
Congressional intervention extending the original sunset. This law gave
OSC authority to investigate Federal sector USERRA claims brought by
persons whose social security number ends in an odd-numbered digit.
Under the project, OSC received and investigated all Federal sector
USERRA claims containing a related prohibited personnel practice
allegation over which OSC has jurisdiction regardless of the person's
Social Security number.
In the hearing we received testimony from several veteran service
organizations and the Office of Special Counsel that outlined the
results that have increased the Department of Labor's effectiveness by
decreasing their turnaround rate for pending USERRA cases.
Protecting our Nation's servicemembers and veterans from potential
workforce discrimination is an important issue I will continue to
address in this Congress.
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Good afternoon everyone. Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity
that we are bringing several pieces of legislation before the
Subcommittee including my bill, H.R. 1171, the Homeless Veterans
Reintegration Program Reauthorization Act of 2009.
As you know, the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, or HVRP,
has been cited by GAO as an example of a successful program designed to
put homeless veterans back to work. It is a relatively inexpensive
program, funded last year at about $26 million, that provides grants to
community-based providers serving the homeless veteran population.
VA now estimates that about 154,000 veterans are homeless, a level
down from well over 200,000 just a few years ago. I believe that HVRP
has played an important role in reducing the homeless veteran
population by putting them back to work and I congratulate the Veterans
Employment and Training Service and all their grantees for that
success. I am also looking forward to hearing the testimony from the
National Coalition of Homeless Veterans' Executive Director, Ms.
Beversdorf, on the state of the homeless community.
I would also note that several Members have excellent bills on
today's agenda. I want to thank you and your staff Madam Chair for H.R.
1088 and H.R. 1089.
I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve Israel,
a Representative in Congress from the State of New York
Madame Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today. Let me start off today by telling you about a good friend of
mine. His story is an important one:
Joe Soukup is a veteran who survived Vietnam with a Purple Heart.
In the years that followed his homecoming he went through a painful
divorce, endured several breakdowns and struggled with a drug
addiction. A few years after his service ended he had to live without a
home for 3 years.
In the end he was left with nothing but his truck which he often
parked at the Mayfair Shopping Center in Commack--right in my District.
Joe, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and several
shrapnel wounds from the war was lost, cold, homeless, hopeless and in
pain.
And on February 14, 2007, he felt he had nothing left to live for
and decided to end his life. There was a terrible ice-storm bearing
down on Long Island that day and the truck was almost out of gas. Joe
figured he had just enough gas to drive to a bridge. There, he would
let the ice storm take him to the death he avoided in Vietnam.
Joe then had a thought: if he was going to die, he should do it
with dignity at a Veterans hospital. So he drove to the Northport VA,
in Long Island.
After receiving help and support from several VA staffers Joe
started to turn his life around:
He kicked a drug habit.
He took anger management counseling.
He began understanding that the flashbacks of grisly
combat in Vietnam were just flashbacks.
Although he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, the
government gave him a senselessly low disability rating. He came to my
office for help, and after months of phone calls and frequent pestering
navigating an endless bureaucratic maze we were able to get Joe Soukup
what he was owed. The work paid off--literally. One year ago, March
2008, I called Joe to tell him that we secured a retroactive payment of
$57,834 and monthly checks of $2,527.
Being able to help Joe was one of my proudest moments in Congress,
but at the same time it shouldn't have taken a call to a Congressman's
office for Joe to finally get the benefits he deserved. No Veteran who
has risked their life for this country should ever have to worry about
having a roof over their head after they come home. However, the facts
relating to homeless veterans are heartbreaking:
There are approximately 154,000 homeless veterans on any
given night. (VA)
Twice that many experience homelessness over the course
of a year. (National Coalition for Homeless Veterans)
The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans estimates
that one out of every three homeless men sleeping in a doorway, alley
or box in our cities and rural communities served in the military.
This is not just unfortunate . . . this is unacceptable and an
embarrassment. How can one of the greatest countries in the world let
the men and women who made it so great sleep on the streets?
That is why I introduced House Resolution 147.
This bill creates a section on the annual tax return form that
would allow taxpayers to designate $3 of their income tax liability to
programs that assist homeless veterans without increasing the
taxpayers' tax liability. The method is based on the Presidential
Campaign Fund, where the user can check a box at the top of the tax
form to donate.
H.R. 147 creates a Homeless Veterans Assistance Fund within the
Treasury where the contributed money would automatically be deposited
and safeguarded by the Treasury. Expenditures from the fund would have
to be appropriated and the bill stipulates that funds can only be used
for the purpose of providing assistance to homeless veterans.
The idea for this bill originated with New York's Iron Workers
Local 361 who approached me during the 110th Congress and have been
instrumental in garnering support for this bill.
We introduced the bill last year with the support of national
veterans' organizations. Then Senator Hillary Clinton introduced the
Senate companion bill (S. 19) on November 20, 2008. This year we have
41 bi-partisan cosponsors and once again national veterans'
organizations like The American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars
have offered their support for H.R. 147.
Serving persons faced with homelessness is a constant challenge due
to the myriad of needs they may have, in addition to losing their home.
Veterans add additional dimensions to this challenge as many are faced
with substance abuse, mental health difficulties and other disabling
disabilities, as well as the stigma of being homeless.
45 percent of homeless veterans suffer from mental
illness. (Center for American Progress)
Approximately 70 percent suffer from alcohol or other
drug abuse problems. (VA)
30 percent of the troops returning from war zones have
experienced some level of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (Center for
American Progress).
Many programs exist across the country in effort to provide
services to these veterans, including housing, psychiatric, medical,
vocational and monetary, however this continues to be an underserved
population. Simultaneously, the increased number of individuals
currently returning from Iraq and Afghanistan is complicating this
already insurmountable crisis. Many of these veterans have attempted to
begin a new life outside of the military and have already been faced
with obstacles such as lack of affordable housing and lack of
employment opportunities, both issues simultaneously impacting on one
another in the midst of an economic crisis. This newer population of
veterans, as per studies, has been found to have a lower incidence of
substance abuse but a higher incidence of mental illness. The
population also appears to be a larger group of female veterans than in
the past. Though the problem of homelessness after times of war is an
age-old problem, the dynamics and needs of the population have changed
considerably, thereby creating a more challenging demand for housing
and services.
The U.S. has faced so many challenges throughout its history, but
no matter how grave and great each threat has been our armed forces,
our service men and women, and our veterans have been there to see us
through. All because they have sacrificed so much time and energy to
fight for and defend our country they should be taken care of by their
country when they return.
I hope this Subcommittee will look favorably on this legislation
and I am grateful for the consideration. I hope that H.R. 147 will help
show that our government will go beyond symbols and rhetoric and
distribute tangible relief and assistance that honors those who fight
for us.
I believe that our Veterans and their families are the heart of
this country and they deserve the very best America can offer.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter Welch,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Vermont
Thank you, Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and
Members of the Subcommittee, for the invitation to speak today about
H.R. 929, which would authorize the Military Occupational Specialty
Transition (MOST) program, a program designed to help veterans find
work and train for good-paying jobs.
The MOST program is inspired by and builds upon the success of the
servicemembers Occupational Conversion and Training Act (SMOCTA), which
helped veterans in the early 1990s during a period of force reduction.
During a hearing on my legislation to reauthorize this program in the
110th Congress, the Disabled American Veterans, the American Legion,
the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Vietnam Veterans of America
all came before this Subcommittee and expressed their support for this
bill and my goal of helping all veterans find good-paying jobs. I am
grateful that the Subcommittee held further hearings on my bill and
suggested the changes that are reflected in H.R. 929. As we move
forward with H.R. 929, I hope that the same veterans service
organizations--and others--will recognize the need for the MOST program
and once again voice their support.
The MOST program acknowledges and seeks to address two important
facts: too many veterans are unemployed or can't find good jobs, and
many veterans leave the military without acquiring advanced skills that
are applicable to the civilian workforce. While their leadership
skills, character, and capacity to take on tough challenges are well-
known and sought after by employers, some veterans simply don't have
the skills they need to compete in the workforce. In this time of
economic recession, too many businesses don't have the resources to
provide the on-the-job training that these veterans need.
MOST would address this problem by partnering veterans with
employers willing to provide training, and sharing the cost of training
programs that will give veterans concrete skills to help them compete
in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. Through this
important program, veterans would learn the skills they need to compete
in a time of intense economic turmoil and increasing globalization. The
program would be available for veterans who are not currently eligible
for education or training benefits. The Congressional Budget Office
estimates that MOST could serve as many as 3,000 veterans every year.
The men and women of the United States military are the world's
finest. When I speak with them back home in Vermont and on
Congressional delegation trips to Iraq and Afghanistan, I am
consistently impressed by the dedication, professionalism, and
selflessness of those who wear our country's uniform. It is critical
that, after leaving the military, veterans can find steady employment;
those who have given and risked so much deserve our support.
Unfortunately, far too many veterans are out of work and falling
through the cracks. Last year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued a
report indicating that the unemployment rate among Gulf War-era II
veterans age 18 to 54 (6.5 percent) was higher than that of non-
veterans (4.7 percent). This rate was even higher for younger veterans:
in 2006, unemployment among Gulf War-era II veterans age 25 to 34
registered at 7.5 percent, while the rate for the same age group in the
total population was 4.6 percent.
As our economic struggles continue, it is likely that more and more
veterans will lose their jobs, be unable to find work, or be
underemployed. While I am pleased that we made significant strides in
increasing educational benefits associated with military service during
the last Congress, those benefits will not reach all veterans. For
these reasons, the time could not be better to authorize the MOST
program.
Again, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity
to discuss this important program and would be happy to answer any
questions you have.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lloyd Doggett,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas
Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Committee, I greatly appreciate
you affording me the opportunity to speak on behalf of my bill, H.R.
466, the Wounded Veteran Job Security Act. This legislation clarifies
and strengthens the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act (USERRA) to ensure that employers do not discriminate
against veterans who require medical care for their service-connected
injuries. The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars and Disabled
American Veterans have endorsed my legislation.
The benefit to wounded veterans returning home will be significant,
but in terms of cost to the Federal Government, the Congressional
Budget Office has said that the bill will have ``no significant
impact.''
Over 30,000 troops have been wounded as a result of their service
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of these, over 8,000 have suffered from
Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) and over 1,200 have required amputation
of a limb. Complications arising from amputations can force a veteran
to return repeatedly to the VA for care, and what begins as a migraine
may later be diagnosed as TBI, requiring a battery of time-consuming
tests. Even those veterans living near a facility may find it difficult
to balance their medical treatments with other demands on their time,
but this difficulty is only heightened for the vets who live far from a
facility that can meet their needs. For example, a veteran in Colorado
County, Texas, will find the long drive to the VA hospitals in Houston
or more remote Temple can mean an additional 4 or 5 hours for the
round-trip.
Often, the amount of time required for the treatment of a veteran's
service connected disability exceeds the amount of vacation and sick
leave allotted to the veteran. Some employers have viewed this as
grounds to terminate veterans, leaving them faced with an impossible
choice--whether to continue receiving the treatment that they need or
to keep the job that supports them.
When Congress passed the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act 1994, its first purpose was ``to encourage
noncareer service in the uniformed services by eliminating or
minimizing the disadvantages to civilian careers and employment which
can result from such service.'' The possibility that a wounded veteran
may have to choose between his life and his livelihood constitutes a
significant disadvantage that veterans were never meant to face. By
according veterans the full protection under USERRA that they were
meant to have, this legislation ensures that no veteran must confront
such a choice again.
Enclosures:
Letter of Support from Disabled American Veterans
Letter of Support from The American Legion
Letter of Support from Veterans of Foreign Wars
__________
Disabled American Veterans
Washington, DC.
February 4, 2009
The Honorable Lloyd Doggett
United States House of Representatives
201 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Representative Doggett:
On behalf of the more than one million members of the Disabled
American Veterans (DAV), I would like to thank you for introducing H.R.
466, the Wounded Veteran Job Security Act.
As you know, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act (USERRA) provides protection from employment discrimination
for persons to perform military duty. It also requires employers to
make reasonable accommodations regarding any disability incurred while
in military service. However, USERRA does not require employers to
allow veterans with service-connected disabilities to be absent from
the workplace to receive treatment for these disabilities.
H.R. 466 clarifies and strengthens USERRA to require employers to
accommodate the absences of service-connected disabled veterans for
treatment of their service-connected conditions.
During the DAV's most recent National Convention, held August 9-12,
2008, in Las Vegas, Nevada, delegates approved Resolution No. 080,
supporting the strengthening and clarification of USERRA. Therefore,
the DAV strongly supports the passage of this legislation.
Thank you once again for introducing this important bill and we
look forward to working with you to build better lives for America's
disabled veterans and their families.
Sincerely,
JOSEPH A. VIOLANTE
National Legislative Director
__________
American Legion
Washington, DC.
February 25, 2009
The Honorable Lloyd Doggett
U.S. House of Representatives
201 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Doggett:
On behalf of the 2.6 million members of The American Legion, I
would like to express full support of H.R. 466, a bill that will amend
the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
This legislation prohibits discrimination and acts of reprisal against
persons who receive treatment for illnesses, injuries, and disabilities
incurred in or aggravated while serving in the uniformed services.
Servicemembers who honorably defend this country depend on laws
like USERRA to protect their jobs while they are activated and deployed
to a war zone. It was the intent of Congress in enacting USERRA that no
veteran be denied employment, reemployment advancement or be subjected
to discrimination in employment for serving their country as a member
of the Armed Forces.
Once again, The American Legion fully supports the intent of H.R.
466 and we applaud your efforts to amend USERRA so as to allow veterans
to maintain their employment while being treated for service-connected
disabilities.
Sincerely,
DAVID K. REHBEIN
National Commander
__________
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
Washington, DC.
February 4, 2009
The Honorable Lloyd Doggett
United States House of Representatives
201 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Doggett,
On behalf of the 2.4 million members of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars and our Auxiliaries, I would like to offer our support for your
bill to extend protection from discrimination and acts of reprisal
against veterans to include not only those who suffer illnesses,
injuries and disabilities incurred in or aggravated by service in the
armed forces, but also to those receiving treatment for such service-
connected health conditions.
This important legislation will protect veterans from unfair
treatment and/or prejudice upon their return from defending our Nation
by ensuring they do not face employment discrimination due to health
conditions they may have or be receiving treatment for. Too often young
men and women return home to find themselves without their previous
employment or with other disadvantages incurred from service which
prohibit them from advancing in their jobs. This bill will guarantee
that veterans both obtain and retain the employment they need for a
successful reintegration into civilian society.
Congressman Doggett, this legislation is a great opportunity to
honor and give back to those who have sacrificed so much for our
Nation. Thank you for concentrating on changes that can make a
difference in the lives of our veterans. The VFW commends you and we
look forward to working with you and your staff to ensure the passage
of this important legislation.
Thank you for your continued support for America's veterans.
Sincerely,
DENNIS CULLINAN
Director National Legislative Service
Prepared Statement of Justin Brown,
Legislative Associate, National Legislative Service,
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
Madam Chairwoman and Members of this Subcommittee:
On behalf of the 2.2 million members of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States and our Auxiliaries, I would like to thank
this Committee for the opportunity to testify. The issues under
consideration today are of great importance to our members and the
entire veteran population.
During this economic recession the number of unemployed veterans
has increased to 841,474 as of January 2009. That is an increase of
nearly 250,000 since November 2008 and an increase of more than 400,000
since April of 2008. Of the unemployed veterans nearly 100,000 are
veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. For unemployed veterans this means
that twice as many of their counterparts will be relying on the same
limited resources. Clearly, veterans are not exempt from the current
economic crisis.
The VFW is thankful for the tax incentive provisions in the
economic stimulus which will aid recently separated servicemembers in
locating employment. This is smart policy and we hope that businesses
find the value in an added incentive to hiring our Nation's newest
combat veterans. While we laude this provision, we are worried that the
infrastructural spending provisions of the stimulus will allow
circumvention of the Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002 (JVA). What this
means for veterans is that contractors that receive stimulus money via
state grants in excess of $100,000 will not be held accountable to the
requirements outlined in JVA. In particular, contractors receiving
stimulus money may be bypassing reporting requirements for open
employment positions, and the annual filing of the VETS-100 form which
identifies affirmative action issues in regards to veteran hiring
practices.
H.R. 147, To amend the Internal Revenue Code 1986 to allow taxpayers to
designate a portion of their income tax payment to provide
assistance to homeless veterans, and for other purposes.
The VFW supports H.R. 147, which would provide taxpayers with the
opportunity to designate three dollars of their income tax payment to a
Homeless Veterans Assistance Fund. With nearly 140 million taxpayers in
2007 this program has the potential to raise 420 million dollars for
America's homeless veterans in its first year of implementation. This
would be a substantial sum of assistance and would go a long way toward
alleviating homeless veterans. On any given night, more than 150,000
veterans are homeless, and this fund will help support the programs
that assist them.
H.R. 228, To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a
scholarship program for students seeking a degree or
certificate in the areas of visual impairment and orientation
and mobility.
The VFW supports H.R. 228, which would direct the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to establish and carry out a scholarship program aimed
at remedying the difficulty in recruiting new graduates of university
programs specializing in blind rehabilitation. VA estimates that there
are currently 169,000 legally blinded veterans throughout the country,
of which 47,450 are enrolled in Veterans Health Administration (VHA)
services; this number is projected to reach 55,000 within 10 years. A
new generation of OIF/OEF blinded and impaired low vision veterans will
require a concerted effort by VA to respond to their needs. By offering
students scholarships in exchange for a commitment to work for VA as
Blind Specialists immediately following graduation, this legislation
will provide a means to address a significant gap in VA health care for
visually impaired veterans by aiming at reducing VA's critical shortage
in blind rehabilitation practitioners.
H.R. 297, To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for an
increase in the amount of subsistence allowance payable by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to veterans participating in
vocational rehabilitation programs, and for other purposes.
The VFW supports a Vocational Rehabilitation and Training (VR&E)
for the life of the veteran. The sole purpose of VRE, as authorized
under Chapter 31 of 38 USC, is to employ qualified, disabled veterans.
VRE helps to equip veterans with marketable skills to transition
quickly back into the workforce. While VRE focuses on employment, it is
not designed to forecast the changes in the job market or the changing
nature of a veteran's service-connected injuries. Both the recent
market instabilities and the dynamic nature of OIF/OEF injuries require
lifelong access to training and continuous education to fulfill the
lasting commitment to those veterans who gave a piece of themselves in
defense of our Nation.
VR&E is in need of modernization.
Increase the monthly stipend of VRE to reflect the Basic
Allowance for Housing (BAH) payments under Chapter 33.
Cover all books, fees, and adaptive equipment deemed
necessary to ensure a maximum independence in daily living to the
maximum extent feasible.
Eliminate any impediments to reentry into VRE regardless
of the veteran's age or date of claim of service-connection.
Allow all service-connected disabled veterans access to
career counseling.
Focus the goal of the program on career skills and
career-long employability.
This bill seeks to increase the amounts of full, three-quarter, and
half-time subsistence allowance for veterans receiving VR&E subsistence
payments. Further, it affords a veteran access to 3 months of
subsistence allowance after the Secretary determines the veteran has
reached a point of employability. H.R. 297 improves upon the access to
funding for veterans using VR&E. This bill is a positive step toward
improving upon the VR&E program. We support this bill, but urge this
Committee to review the values of the VR&E program.
The underlying problem with VR&E is the focus of the program; it
seeks to put vets in jobs, not careers. Increasing the compensation
structure is needed for VR&E, but even more dire is the need to improve
upon the values of the program. While we may put more money into VR&E,
we may not achieve the ultimate goal, creating veterans that are
independent, productive citizens. While we are supportive of the intent
of this legislation, it does not address the core issues facing VR&E.
H.R. 466, To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit
discrimination and acts of reprisal against persons who receive
treatment for illnesses, injuries, and disabilities incurred in
or aggravated by service in the uniformed services.
The VFW is in support of H.R. 466, the Wounded Veteran Job Security
Act. This legislation would extend the prohibition against
discrimination and acts of reprisal against armed servicemembers to
include persons who receive treatment for illnesses, injuries, and
disabilities incurred in or aggravated by their service. Passage of
this legislation would prohibit employers from discriminating or making
any adverse employment decision against a veteran on the basis of
treatment for an illness, injury, or disability incurred or aggravated
by uniformed service.
H.R. 929, To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a program of
training to provide eligible veterans with skills relevant to
the job market, and for other purposes.
The VFW does not support H.R. 929. This bill is reminiscent of a
similar program known as the Service Members Occupational Conversion
and Training Act of 1992 (SMOCTA). It was created as a mechanism to
help veterans transition to the workforce as DoD was drawing down the
military's size following the Cold war era. SMOCTA provided employers
money for training if they guaranteed a veteran with employment.
However, it is the opinion of the VFW that this training money was a
subsidy to reduce labor costs which was attractive to potential
employers. SMOCTA transformed into a short term employment solution
that subsidized veterans' jobs and failed to provide long-term
employment, training, and specialization. In essence, the government
directly purchased veteran employment. When the appropriation was cut,
many of its participants found themselves searching for new jobs while
lacking transferable certifications or training.
This legislation proposes to provide a veteran with 1 year of
subsidized training/employment up to a $20,000 credit paid to the
employer. With an appropriation of 60 million dollars a year this
program could affect as few as 3000 veterans (.00356 percent of the
total number of currently unemployed veterans), excluding any
administrational costs. The VFW believes that this money might be
better spent offering these veterans a direct educational and/or
training credit of $20,000 to use toward positions DOL identifies as
high demand industries. This would enlarge veterans' options in regards
to training and would prevent employers from taking advantage of ``free
money'' and veterans with little regard to their successful long-term
employability.
H.R. 942, To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a
pilot project on the use of educational assistance under
programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs to defray
training costs associated with the purchase of certain
franchise enterprises.
The VFW does not support H.R. 942, which seeks to expand the uses
of Chapter 30 of title 38, Chapter 32 of title 38, Chapter 35 of title
38, Chapter 1606 of title 10, and Chapter 1607 of title 10, to training
costs associated with the purchase of certain franchise enterprises.
The aforementioned chapters were created for the purpose of providing
veterans with the ability to transition from the military into a degree
or certificate bearing program that would provide lifelong skills. If a
veteran were to use this program and fail in establishing or
maintaining a franchise, their primary education benefit would be
liquidated. It is the belief of the VFW that these educational benefits
are the best transitional benefits available and we do not want to see
them diverted from their initial intent which may encourage programs
that lack a high probability of long-term success.
H.R. 950, To amend chapter 33 of title 38, United States Code, to
increase educational assistance for certain veterans pursuing a
program of education offered through distance learning.
We would like to thank this Committee and staff for all of your
work on the New GI Bill. We believe this new benefit will help reinvest
in our troops and our veterans. The powerful recruiting and retention
aspects will continue to ensure the high standards we have come to
expect from our military.
With the passage of the New GI Bill, creating Chapter 33 of Title
38, we have transformed the way we look at the GI Bill. Chapter 33 is
the promise of a full-ride (paying books, tuition, fees, and a housing
stipend) at any in-state institution in the Nation. Chapter 33
resembles the original WWII GI Bill, which is a dramatic departure from
the Montgomery GI Bill, Chapter 30. In taking this huge step toward a
WWII style benefit, we must continue to examine all of the education
benefits that were previously tied to Chapter 30 rates.
The VFW believes that Congress should standardize, simplify, and
restructure all education programs with, an eye toward equitable
benefits for equitable service, in accordance with Chapter 33.
Remaining Chapter 30 programs (lump sum payments, vocational training,
distance learning) should be moved into Chapter 33. Title 10 section
1606, the guard and reserve Select Reserve GI Bill needs to reflect the
Chapter 33 scale. Chapter 35, survivors and dependents educational
benefits should also be comparable to Chapter 33. Ultimately, phasing
out Chapter 30 and simplifying benefits based on Chapter 33.
H.R. 950 would provide student veterans, who are pursuing purely
distance/correspondence, a living stipend equivalent to student
veterans attending in-class room programs. The VFW does not oppose
providing equitable stipends for students enrolled in distance
learning.
However, this bill would create further inequities among veterans
pursuing an education at institutions of distance learning. Currently,
cost-of-living stipends are paid to the student according to the real
cost of living attached to the zip code of the institution the veterans
attends. Under this bill, the cost-of-living stipend would still be
fixed to the institution, regardless of the actual costs a veteran
faces while attending classes online. This would over compensate
veterans living in areas more affordable than the zip code of their
school while under compensating veterans that live in more expensive
areas relative to their school. For this reason, the VFW cannot support
H.R. 950.
H.R. 1088, To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a one-
year period for the training of new disabled veterans' outreach
program specialists and local veterans' employment
representatives by National Veterans' Employment and Training
Services Institute.
The VFW strongly supports H.R. 1088 which would require all
disabled veterans' outreach program specialists (DVOP) and local
veterans' employment representatives (LVER) to attend the National
Veterans' Employment and Training Services Institute within 1 year of
being employed. The findings of the VFW have been that many DVOP/LVER
positions have been subject to turnover rates in excess of 15 percent
and extreme variables in salary. Therefore, a large number of DVOPs/
LVERs are failing to attend critical skills training at an early stage
of their employment. In fact, half of the DVOPs/LVERs waiting for
training were employed in 2006 or earlier yet 95 percent of them sent
to training were hired after 2006. What this means is that the states
are tending to send newer employees even though older employees have
still failed to participate in the training. Furthermore, the National
Veterans' Employment and Training Services Institute would need
temporarily increased resources in order to catch up with the number of
untrained DVOPs/LVERs.
While the VFW sees the value in providing training to DVOPs/ LVERs
we maintain that DOL needs to conduct the overdue impact evaluation
required by law to assess the effectiveness of one-stop services.
H.R. 1089, To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the
enforcement through the Office of Special Counsel of the
employment and unemployment rights of veterans and members of
the Armed Forces employed by Federal executive agencies, and
for other purposes.
The VFW has no formal position on this legislation at this time.
H.R. 1171, To amend title 38, United States Code, to reauthorize the
Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program for fiscal years 2010
through 2014.
The VFW supports this legislation which reauthorizes The Homeless
Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP), within the Department of Labor's
Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS), provides competitive
grants to community-based, faith-based, and public organizations to
offer outreach, job placement, and supportive services to homeless
veterans. HVRP grants are intended to address two objectives: 1) to
provide services to assist in reintegrating homeless veterans into
meaningful employment, and 2) to stimulate the development of effective
service delivery systems that will address the complex problems facing
homeless veterans.
HVRP is the primary employment services program accessible by
homeless veterans and the only targeted employment program for any
homeless subpopulation. HVRP removes homeless veterans' barriers to
employment by providing specialized support unavailable through other
employment programs. Job placement, training, job development, career
counseling, and resume preparation are among services that are
provided. Additionally, support services such as clothing, provision of
or referral to temporary, transitional, and permanent housing, referral
to medical and substance abuse treatment, and transportation assistance
are also provided to meet the needs of this target group.
As America's largest group representing combat veterans, we thank
you for allowing the Veterans of Foreign Wars to present its views on
these bills. The number of unemployed veterans has nearly doubled. Our
veterans' employment programs and resources will be pushed to their
limits, and now, more than ever, we need them to perform.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony and I will be pleased
to respond to any questions you or the Members of this Subcommittee may
have. Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Cheryl Beversdorf, RN, MHS, MA,
President and Chief Executive Officer,
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Homelessness Among Veterans
Veterans are at a greater risk of becoming homeless due to a number
of factors including having uniquely military skills not needed in the
civilian sector, combat-related health issues, minimal income due to
unemployment, and a shortage of safe, affordable housing.
Most Americans believe our Nation's veterans are well-supported. In
fact, many go without the services they require and are eligible to
receive. Neither the VA nor its state and county equivalents are
adequately funded to respond to these veterans' needs. Moreover,
community-based and faith-based homeless veteran service providers lack
sufficient resources to care for this population.
According to the Department of Veterans Affairs there are an
estimated 154,000 veterans who were homeless on any given night, a 40-
percent reduction since 2001. If this trend toward reducing the number
of homeless veterans is to continue, more funding is needed for
supportive services, employment and housing options to ensure veterans
who served prior to and during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars can live
independently with dignity.
H.R. 147
NCHV believes veterans are citizens first. The people of this
country have a responsibility to show respect and gratitude to the men
and women who have served in the military. Enactment of H.R. 147 would
give Americans an opportunity to thank these former warriors for their
service by making a contribution to a fund that would help those men
and women who need assistance as they return to civilian life. NCHV
conditionally supports H.R. 147 but believes further discussion is
needed regarding the administration and operation of the Homeless
Veteran Assistance Fund.
H.R. 1171
The Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP) is the only
Federal program wholly dedicated to providing employment assistance to
homeless veterans. The program is unique and highly successful because
it does not fund employment services per se; rather it rewards
organizations that guarantee job placement. In 2008, DOL reported 65
percent of homeless veterans served through HVRP entered employment and
72 percent of those who entered employment retained employment at the
90-day mark.
HVRP is the primary employment services program accessible by
homeless veterans and the only targeted employment program for any
homeless subpopulation. In anticipation of the new wave of men and
women veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who may become
homeless and will need effective employment programs to ensure their
economic stability, reauthorization of the HVRP program, as stated in
H.R. 1171 is imperative.
__________
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, Members of the
Subcommittee:
As the representative of the National Coalition for Homeless
Veterans (NCHV), I am pleased to be invited to provide our views on
several bills that have been referred to your Subcommittee for
consideration. Of the ten bills you cited, I will restrict my comments
to H.R. 147, which would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
allow taxpayers to designate a portion of their income tax payment to
provide assistance to homeless veterans, and H.R. 1171, which would
amend title 38, United States Code, to reauthorize the Homeless
Veterans Reintegration Program for fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
Homelessness Among Veterans
Veterans are at a greater risk of becoming homeless due to a number
of factors including having uniquely military skills not needed in the
civilian sector, combat-related health issues, minimal income due to
unemployment, and a shortage of safe, affordable housing.
Most currently homeless veterans served during prior conflicts or
in peacetime. However, according to a 2008 RAND Corporation study
nearly 20 percent of military servicemembers who have returned from
Iraq and Afghanistan--300,000 in all--report symptoms of post-traumatic
stress disorder or major depression, yet only slightly more than half
have sought treatment. This new generation of combat veterans of
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom (OIF-OEF), both men and
women, also suffer from other war related conditions including
traumatic brain injuries, which put them at risk for homelessness. The
evolving gender mix of the military--women represent 15 percent of the
military population--poses new challenges for the Nation's support
system for returning veterans and their families. Women veterans report
serious trauma histories and episodes of physical harassment and/or
sexual assault while in the military. The VA and homeless veteran
service providers are also seeing increased numbers of female and male
veterans with children seeking their assistance.
Most Americans believe our Nation's veterans are well-supported. In
fact, many go without the services they require and are eligible to
receive. According to a Congressional staff analysis of 2000 U.S.
Census data conducted in 2005, one and a half million veterans--nearly
6.3 percent of the Nation's veteran population--have incomes that fall
below the Federal poverty level, including 634,000 with incomes below
50 percent of poverty. Neither the VA nor its state and county
equivalents are adequately funded to respond to these veterans' health,
housing and supportive services needs. Moreover, community-based and
faith-based service providers also lack sufficient resources to care
for this population.
According to the VA 2007 Community Homelessness Assessment, Local
Education and Networking Groups (CHALENG) report, there are an
estimated 154,000 veterans who were homeless on any given night. This
estimate of homeless veterans is down 21 percent from the 2006 estimate
and represents a 40 percent reduction since 2001. The VA stated the
decrease was due in part to the partnership between the VA and
community-based homeless veteran service providers and provides
evidence that the VA's programs to help homeless veterans are
effective.
If the trend toward reducing the number of homeless veterans is to
continue, more funding is needed for supportive services, employment
and housing options to ensure veterans who served prior to the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars can live independently and with dignity. Additionally,
increased funding for VA homeless veteran assistance programs will help
prevent homelessness among the newest generation of combat veterans
from OIF/OEF. With the help of Congress, the VA and other Federal,
state and local agencies, community-based organizations will be able to
develop a coordinated approach to reduce, eliminate and ultimately
prevent homelessness among all of America's veterans.
H.R. 147
If enacted, H.R. 147 would amend the Internal Revenue Code to
establish in the Treasury the Homeless Veterans Assistance Fund and
would allow individual taxpayers to designate on their tax returns
$3.00 of income taxes ($6.00 in the case of joint returns) to be paid
to such Fund to provide assistance to homeless veterans. The Fund would
be administered by Treasury officials. The bill stipulates funds can
only be used for the purpose of providing assistance to homeless
veterans.
H.R. 147 does not provide details regarding Fund management and
administration nor does it provide guidelines for dissemination of Fund
amounts, including grant recipient eligibility, programmatic
expectations, utilization requirements, size of funding requests,
relationship of Fund assistance to other government and non-government
funding resources, program accountability, expected outcomes,
performance measures of success, and evaluation methodologies.
NCHV represents community-based organizations in 46 states and the
District of Columbia that provide the full continuum of care to
homeless veterans and their families, including emergency shelter, food
and clothing, primary health care, addiction and mental health
services, employment supports, educational assistance, legal aid and
transitional housing. Many of these organizations currently receive
funding from grants administered by the Department of Veteran Affairs
and the Department of Labor in addition to other state and local
government sources, for-profit and not-for-profit organizations.
However, to address the needs of the homeless and at-risk OEF-OIF
veteran population, additional funding is needed to provide supportive
services and housing to ensure they will return to productive, self-
sufficient lives.
NCHV believes veterans are citizens first. The people of this
country have a responsibility to show respect and gratitude to the men
and women who have served in the military. Enactment of H.R. 147 would
give Americans an opportunity to thank these former warriors for their
service by making a contribution to a fund that would help those men
and women who need assistance as they return to civilian life. NCHV
conditionally supports H.R. 147 but believes further discussion is
needed regarding the administration and operation of the Homeless
Veteran Assistance Fund.
H.R. 1171
If enacted, H.R. 1171 will amend title 38, United States Code, to
reauthorize the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP) for
fiscal years 2010 through 2014. HVRP is the only Federal program wholly
dedicated to providing employment assistance to homeless veterans. HVRP
is funded by the Department of Labor (DOL) Veterans' Employment and
Training Service (VETS) and requires the Secretary of Labor to conduct,
directly or through grant or contract, such programs as the Secretary
determines appropriate to expedite the reintegration of homeless
veterans into the labor force.
HVRP programs fill a special need because they serve veterans who
may be shunned by other programs and services because of problems such
as severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), long histories of
substance abuse, serious psychosocial problems, legal issues, and those
who are HIV-positive. These veterans require more time-consuming,
specialized, intensive assessment, referrals and counseling than is
possible in other programs that work with veterans seeking employment.
HVRP is unique and so highly successful because it doesn't fund
employment services per se; rather it rewards organizations that
guarantee job placement. HVRP grantees produce highly positive outcomes
for homeless veterans. The success of the program has been documented
by DOL--65 percent of homeless veterans served through HVRP enter
employment and 72 percent of those who enter employment retain
employment at the 90-day mark.
DOL estimated for FY 2009, $25,600,000 in HVRP funding would
provide employment and training assistance to approximately 15,330
homeless veterans and of those approximately 10,665 will be placed into
employment (average cost per participant = $1,670 and average cost per
placement = $2,407). These costs represent a tiny investment for moving
a veteran out of homelessness, and off of dependency on public
programs.
HVRP is the primary employment services program accessible by
homeless veterans and the only targeted employment program for any
homeless subpopulation. In anticipation of the new wave of men and
women veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who may become
homeless and will need effective employment programs to ensure their
economic stability, reauthorization of the HVRP program, as stated in
H.R. 1171 is imperative.
Conclusion
NCHV appreciates the opportunity to submit its views to the House
Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity regarding H.R.
147 and H.R. 1171. We look forward to continuing to work with the
Subcommittee to ensure our Federal Government does what is necessary to
prevent and end homelessness among our Nation's veterans.
Prepared Statement of John L. Wilson,
Associate National Legislative Director,
Disabled American Veterans
Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of the 1.2 million members of the Disabled American
Veterans (DAV), I am honored to present this testimony to address
various bills before the Subcommittee today. In accordance with our
congressional charter, the DAV's mission is to ``advance the interests,
and work for the betterment, of all wounded, injured, and disabled
American veterans.'' We are therefore pleased to support various
measures insofar as they fall within that scope.
H.R. 147
Congressman Israel introduced H.R. 147 in January 2009. This bill
would amend the Internal Revenue Code to establish in the Treasury the
Homeless Veterans Assistance Fund and to allow individual taxpayers to
designate on their tax returns $3.00 of income taxes ($6.00 in the case
of joint returns) to be paid over to such Fund to provide assistance to
homeless veterans. The DAV has a standing resolution recommending
adequate funding and permanency for veterans' employment and/or
training for homeless veterans programs. Given that this legislation
establishes a homeless veterans' trust and to the extent that this fund
would not diminish the government's responsibility to provide for our
Nation's homeless veterans, the DAV would not be opposed to the
favorable consideration of this legislation.
H.R. 228
Congresswoman Jackson-Lee introduced H.R. 228 in January 2009,
which directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish and carry
out a scholarship program of financial assistance for individuals who:
(1) are accepted for, or currently enrolled in, a program of study
leading to a degree or certificate in visual impairment or orientation
and mobility, or both; and (2) enter into an agreement to serve, after
program completion, as a full-time Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
employee for 3 years within the first 6 years after program completion.
It sets maximum assistance amounts of $15,000 per academic year and
$45,000 total. The legislation requires pro rated repayment for failure
to satisfy education or service requirements, while allowing the
Secretary to waive or suspend such repayment whenever noncompliance is
due to circumstances beyond the control of the participant, or when
waiver or suspension is in the best interests of the United States. The
DAV has no resolution on this issue. The DAV is not opposed to this
legislation, provided the scholarship programs emphasis is focused
first on providing such educational opportunities to service-connected
veterans with visual impairment, orientation and/or mobility disabling
conditions.
H.R. 297
Congressman Buyer introduced the Veteran Vocational Rehabilitation
and Employment Subsistence Allowance Improvement Act of 2009 in January
2009 which increases the amount of monthly subsistence allowance
payable to veterans participating in the veterans' vocational
rehabilitation program (a program of training and rehabilitation for
veterans with service-connected disabilities). It further directs the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in the case of a veteran who has reached
a point of employability and is participating only in a program of
employment services, to pay such veteran a subsistence allowance for 3
months while the veteran is satisfactorily pursuing such program.
The DAV has no resolution on this issue. The DAV does support the
legislation as it raises subsistence allowances. However, we recommend
it be amended to authorize Vocational Rehabilitation (Chapter 31)
participants to receive the higher subsistence allowance offered under
the Post-9/11 GI Bill (Chapter 33). This would prevent veterans from
having to choose between a program that provides a greater financial
benefit and one that focuses on their rehabilitation as they seek to
support themselves and their families.
H.R. 466
Congressman Doggett introduced the Wounded Veteran Job Security Act
in January 2009, which seeks to amend title 38, United States Code, to
prohibit discrimination and acts of reprisal against persons who
receive treatment for illnesses, injuries, and disabilities incurred in
or aggravated by service in the uniformed services. Although the DAV
has no resolution on this issue, we are not opposed to the favorable
consideration of this legislation as it would protect veterans from
discrimination and reprisal as they seek care for their disabilities.
H.R. 929
Congressman Welch introduced legislation in February 2009 to amend
title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to carry out a program of job training in skills relevant to
the job market for discharged veterans who are either currently not
paid at more than 150 percent of the Federal minimum wage, or: (1) had
a military occupational specialty of limited transferability to the
civilian job market; (2) are not otherwise eligible for veterans'
education or training services; (3) have not acquired a marketable
skill since leaving military service; (4) were discharged under
conditions not less than honorable; and (5) have been unemployed for at
least 90 of the previous 180 days. It designates the program as the
MOST (military occupational specialty transition) Program and directs
the Secretary to contract with employers to provide on-the-job training
or apprenticeship programs for such veterans. It limits payments under
the program to $20,000 per veteran and 24 months in duration. The DAV
has no resolution on this issue. Additionally, this legislation is
outside the scope of the DAV's mission. We nonetheless have no
opposition to its favorable consideration.
H.R. 942
Congressman Alexander introduced the Veterans Self-Employment Act
of 2009 in February 2009, which directs the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to conduct a 5-year pilot project to test the feasibility and
advisability of the use of educational assistance under certain VA
programs to pay for training costs associated with the purchase of a
franchise enterprise. It prohibits the use of such assistance unless:
(1) training is required and provided in connection with the purchase
and operation of a franchise; and (2) such training, and the training
entity, is approved by the Secretary. It also provides training and
entity approval requirements. The DAV has no resolution on this issue.
Additionally, this legislation is outside the scope of the DAV's
mission. We nonetheless have no opposition to its favorable
consideration.
H.R. 950
Congressman Filner introduced legislation in February 2009 to amend
chapter 33 of title 38, United States Code, to increase educational
assistance for certain veterans pursuing a program of education offered
through distance learning. The DAV has no resolution on this issue. We
nonetheless have no opposition to its favorable consideration.
H.R. 1088
Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin introduced legislation in February
2009 to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a 1-year
period for the training of new disabled veterans' outreach program
specialists and local veterans' employment representatives by National
Veterans' Employment and Training Services Institute. The DAV has no
resolution on this issue. We nonetheless have no opposition to its
favorable consideration.
H.R. 1089
Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin introduced legislation in February
2009 to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the
enforcement through the Office of Special Counsel of the employment and
unemployment rights of veterans and members of the Armed Forces
employed by Federal executive agencies, and for other purposes. The DAV
strongly supports Federal, State and local veterans' preference laws
and related efforts to protect employment and reemployment of veterans.
The DAV would not be opposed to the favorable consideration of this
legislation.
H.R. 1171
Congressman Boozman introduced in February 2009 the Homeless
Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, which
amends title 38, United States Code, to reauthorize the Homeless
Veterans Reintegration Program for fiscal years 2010 through 2014. The
DAV has a standing resolution recommending adequate funding and
permanency for veterans' employment and/or training for homeless
veterans programs. The DAV supports this legislation.
Madame Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony on behalf of DAV. We
hope you will consider our recommendations. I would be happy to answer
any questions Members of the Subcommittee might have.
Prepared Statement of Mark Walker,
Assistant Director, National Economic Commission,
American Legion
Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to present The American Legion's
view on the several pieces of legislation being considered by the
Subcommittee today. The American Legion commends the Subcommittee for
holding a hearing to discuss these important and timely issues.
H.R. 147, seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code 1986 to allow
taxpayers to designate a portion of their income tax payment to provide
assistance to homeless veterans. The American Legion supports this
provision. This fund will provide medical, rehabilitative, and
employment assistance to homeless veterans and their families. Homeless
veteran programs should provide supportive services such as, but not
limited to, outreach, health care, case management, daily living,
personal financial planning, transportation, vocational counseling,
employment and training, and education. This designation of funds would
provide these needed services for America's most vulnerable veterans.
H.R. 228, directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to
establish a scholarship program for students seeking a degree or
certificate in the areas of visual impairment and orientation and
mobility. The American Legion supports this pilot program. There is a
strong need for more medical providers in these medical fields and this
program would provide the necessary funding for veterans who are
interested in these career opportunities.
H.R. 297, Veteran Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
Subsistence Allowance Improvement Act of 2009, amends title 38, United
States Code (USC), to provide an increase in the amount of subsistence
allowance payable by VA to veterans participating in vocational
rehabilitation programs. The American Legion supports this provision.
This subsistence increase would allow the veteran to meet his or her
needs and maintain their educational pursuits within the Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment program.
H.R. 466, Wounded Veteran Job Security Act, amends title 38, USC,
to prohibit discrimination and acts of reprisal against persons who
receive treatment for illnesses, injuries, and disabilities incurred in
or aggravated by military service. The American Legion supports this
amendment to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
Act (USERRA) to allow veterans to maintain their employment while being
treated for service-connected disabilities. Servicemembers who
honorably defend this country depend on laws like USERRA. It was the
intent of Congress in enacting USERRA that no veteran be denied
employment, reemployment, advancement, or be subjected to
discrimination in employment for serving their country as a member of
the Armed Forces.
H.R. 929, amends title 38, USC, to require VA to provide eligible
veterans with skills relevant to the job market. The American Legion
supports this legislation. This program would provide job training in a
relevant career field for veterans who have been unemployed for at
least 90 of the previous 180 days, are not eligible for education or
training services, or have a primary or secondary military occupational
specialty that is not readily transferable to the civilian workforce.
This program would be the only Federal job training program available
strictly for veterans and the only Federal job training program
specifically designed and available for use by state veterans'
employment personnel to assist veterans with employment barriers.
H.R. 942, Veteran Self-Employment Act of 2009, directs VA to
conduct a pilot project on the use of educational assistance under
programs of the VA to defray training costs associated with the
purchase of certain franchise enterprises. The American Legion supports
this provision. The American Legion views small business as the
backbone of the American economy. It is the mobilizing force behind
America's past economic growth and will continue to be the major
economic factor as we move into the 21st Century. This program will
provide veterans with the training that is required to run a franchise
successfully.
H.R. 950, amends chapter 33 of title 38, USC, to increase
educational assistance for certain veterans pursuing a program of
education offered through distance learning. The American Legion
believes that paying veterans a lesser benefit when they receive credit
via distance learning is a concern. Department of Defense reports that
over 70 percent of its enrollees are receiving credit via distance
learning and the VA is reporting a similar shift toward increasing
utilization of the distance learning modality. Accordingly, The
American Legion is recommending that the allowances for distance
learning be similar to those for residential learning. This policy
assures equity for veterans including such individuals as single
parents and veterans with significant medical disabilities.
H.R. 1088, Mandatory Veteran Specialist Training Act of 2009,
amends title 38, USC, to provide a 1-year period for training new
disabled veterans' outreach program specialists and local veterans'
employment representatives by National Veterans' Employment and
Training Services Institute (NVTI). The NVTI was established to ensure
a high level of proficiency and training for staff that provide
veterans employment services. NVTI provides training to Federal and
state government employment service providers in competency based
training courses. Current law requires all DVOPs and LVERs to be
trained within 3 years of hiring. The American Legion recommends that
these personnel be trained within 1 year.
H.R. 1089, Veterans Employment Rights Realignment Act of 2009,
amends title 38, USC, to provide for the enforcement through the Office
of Special Counsel of the employment and unemployment rights of
veterans and members of the Armed Forces employed by Federal executive
agencies. The American Legion has no position on this legislation.
H.R. 1171, Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization
Act of 2009, amends title 38, USC, to reauthorize the Homeless Veterans
Reintegration Program (HVRP) for fiscal years 2010 to 2014. The
American Legion notes there are approximately 154,000 homeless veterans
on the street each night. This number, compounded with 300,000
servicemembers entering the private sector each year since 2001 with at
least a third of them potentially suffering from mental illness,
indicates intensive and numerous programs to prevent and assist
homeless veterans are needed. The purpose of HVRP is to provide
services to assist in reintegrating homeless veterans into meaningful
employment within the labor force and to stimulate the development of
effective service delivery systems that will address the complex
problems facing homeless veterans. HVRP is the only nationwide program
that focuses on assisting homeless veterans to reintegrate into the
workforce. The American Legion strongly supports the reauthorization of
HVRP for fiscal years 2010 to 2014.
Prepared Statement of Thomas Zampieri, Ph.D.,
Director of Government Relations, Blinded Veterans Association
INTRODUCTION
Madame Chairwoman and Members of the House Veterans Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, on behalf of the Blinded Veterans
Association (BVA), thank you for this opportunity to submit for the
record our strong legislative support for the ``To direct the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs to establish a scholarship program for students
seeking a degree or certificate in the areas of visual impairment and
orientation and mobility'' (H.R. 228). BVA is the only congressionally
chartered Veterans Service Organization exclusively dedicated to
serving the needs of our Nation's blinded veterans and their families.
BVA has worked with VA Blind Service in improving the VA ability to
provide the necessary blind outpatient mobility and orientation
training for blinded veterans for years. With the growing numbers of
wounded in both Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring
Freedom (OEF) who are entering the VA health care and benefits system
today, with history of penetrating eye trauma and over 70 percent of
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), having Post-Trauma Vision Syndrome
(PTVS), more of these highly skilled professionals are necessary and
critical for VA. While the number of legally blind OIF and OEF veterans
enrolled in VA Blind Rehabilitative Service is approximately 132, the
VA has identified 585 with functional visual impairments that benefit
from the rehabilitative skills of these Blind Rehabilitative Outpatient
Specialists (BROS) and Blind Instructors.
As of September 2008, VHA reported 8,747 diagnosed TBI with another
approximately 7,500 in diagnostic testing for possible TBI. Improvised
Explosive Device (IED) blasts contributed to over 64 percent of these
injuries. As of January 30, 2009, a total of 43,993 servicemembers had
been wounded or injured in Iraq. The number though of hostile wounded
requiring air medical evacuation from Iraq between March 19, 2003 and
January 30, 2009 was 9,375, of which an estimated 1,348 had sustained
combat penetrating eye trauma. The number of direct battle eye injuries
however does not include estimated numbers of all moderate to severe
TBI servicemembers that may have visual dysfunction according to VA
research from those tested by either neuro-ophthalmologists or low-
vision optometrists. We stress that only 4 percent of them meet legal
blindness definition.
Veterans with neurological vision dysfunction with their moderate
or severe TBI will require long term VA eye care follow-up in low
vision clinics. Epidemiological TBI studies find that about 70 percent
have associated neurological visual disorders of diplopia, convergence
disorder, photophobia, ocular-motor dysfunction, color blindness, and
an inability to interpret print. Some TBIs result in visual field loss
and 4 percent are found to have legal blindness. Like other generations
of visually disabled veterans who have desired to continue living
independently, the current generation of OIF and OEF veterans deserves
the same opportunity and the ability of the VA to recruit these BROS is
vital to this effort. These VA BROS work in multidisciplinary teams
with VA medical, surgery, psychology, occupational therapists,
pharmacists among others that bring together coordinated specialized
services needed for the complex wounded and these are not found in
civilian low vision or blind independent agencies. These OIF and OEF
wounded are often complex polytrauma patients with 44 percent suffering
from depression or PTSD in conjunction with other injuries, requiring
medication therapy, and BVA would caution this Committee that the best
approach is for those blinded servicemembers to be treated within VA
Blind Centers and not contracted out where other specialists are not
co-located.
BVA would like to stress again to this Committee that data compiled
between March 2003 and April 2005 found that 13 percent of all
casualities evacuated from Iraq were due directly to eye injuries. VA
reports that 86 servicemembers have attended one of the ten VA Blind
Rehabilitation Centers (BRCs), 135 are enrolled in local VA Blind
Visual Impairment Service Teams (VISTs), and others with TBI vision
dysfunction are in the process of being referred. Such rehabilitation
programs must be very individualized for each veteran and their family
members. As has been the case for an older generation of combat blinded
veterans and for those who have recently suffered from age-related
degenerative blindness and require these types of VA specialists, this
legislation will ensure they all have this care.
The legislation H.R. 228 will help our Nation's blind and low-
vision veterans by establishing a scholarship program for students
seeking careers in blind rehabilitation. There are 167,000 legally
blind veterans in the United States, and 46,625 are currently enrolled
in Veterans Blind Rehabilitative Services (BRS). In addition, it is
estimated that there are over 1 million low-vision veterans in the
United States, and incidences of blindness among the total veteran
population of 24 million are expected to increase over the next two
decades. This is because the most prevalent causes of legal blindness
and low vision are age-related diseases like glaucoma, macular
degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, cataracts, and the veteran
population is increasing in age, the current average age is 78 years
old.
The fact is that there are not enough blind rehabilitation
specialists to serve all legally blind and low-vision veterans in the
VA. Currently there are only 38 of these Blind Rehabilitative
Outpatient Specialists (BROS) with 30 vacant positions. Some of the VA
Polytrauma Centers had difficulty for over a year in finding these
masters level graduate Orientation and Mobility Specialists at those
vital centers. Blind rehabilitation training helps give these veterans
awareness of and mobility functioning in their surroundings and enables
them to retain their independence and dignity. Veterans without these
services may find it difficult to be self-sufficient, relying on others
to perform certain daily living skills or even simple tasks on their
behalf. Research on blind and low vision Americans show they are at
high risk of falls, or making medication mistakes, resulting in costly
hospital admissions every year, and of losing their independence to
live at home. Falls are the sixth leading cause of death in senior
citizens and a contributing factor to 40 percent of all nursing home
admissions with annual Federal costs over $48,000 for each nursing home
bed. According to Framingham Eye Study, 18 percent of all hip fractures
among senior citizens--about 63,000 hip fractures a year--are
attributable to vision impairment. The cost of medical-surgical
treatment for every hip fracture is over $39,000, if outpatient
rehabilitation services prevented even 20 percent of these hip
fractures, the annual Federal savings in health care costs would be
over $461 million. Essential outpatient, cost effective services that
would allow blind veterans to safely live independently at home should
be supported by this Congress and the Administration from a health care
policy stand point. Research has found that 25 percent of all falls
resulting in hip fractures result in nursing home admissions with
chronic disability; it is seven times more expensive to care for a
disabled nursing home resident than a healthy independent American over
age 65.
Public Law 104-262, The Eligibility Reform Act 1996, requires the
Department of Veterans Affairs to maintain its capacity to provide
specialized rehabilitative services to disabled veterans, but it cannot
do so when there are not enough specialists to address these needs. In
the 109th congress the Veterans Programs Extension Act was passed,
which included a provision by Congressman Michael Michaud to increase
the number of Blind Rehabilitation Outpatient Specialists by thirty-
five new positions over the next 30 months serving our Nation's
veterans but only 14 have been recruited. However, there are currently
only 19 university programs that graduate this allied health care
professional, and there are not enough counselors certified in blind
rehabilitation to provide for the growing number of blind American
citizens. According to National Council of Private Agencies for the
Blind and Visually Impaired today there are only approximately 3,000
certified in the field in the entire country. Because of this shortage,
some of the ten VA Blind Centers have had longer waiting times for
admissions.
The Vision Impairment Specialists Training Act H.R. 228 helps VA
remedy this recruiting situation by directing the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to establish a discretionary scholarship program for students
seeking a degree or certificate in blind rehabilitation (Vision
Impairment and/or Orientation and Mobility). This will provide an
incentive to students considering entry into the field to consider a VA
career in return for this scholarship funding. In addition, in exchange
for the scholarship award, students are required to work for 3 years in
a health care facility of the Department of Veterans Affairs, to ensure
that our veterans are well cared for.
RECOMMENDATIONS
BVA supports including this occupational specialty in the current
VA educational program and providing for the aging population of
visually impaired and blinded veterans the rehabilitative specialized
staffing needed. VA testified in favor and VHA Blind Rehabilitative
Service strongly supported this same legislation (HR 1240) in the 110th
congress which this Committee passed with bipartisan support BVA again
requests the Committee pass this bill. Chairwoman Herseth-Sandlin and
Ranking Member Boozman, BVA expresses thanks to both of you for this
opportunity to present our testimony for the record and again
appreciates that Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee reintroduced this
bill. The current lack of access in many networks of VA will continue
unless changes are made by enacting this legislation. The future
strength of our Nation depends on the willingness of young men and
women to serve in our military.
The Blinded Veterans Association also supports the following
legislation being considered today:
H.R. 297 ``To amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide for an increase in the amount of subsistence allowance payable
by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to veterans participating in
vocational rehabilitation programs, and for other purposes.''
H.R. 466 Congressman Doggett ``To amend title 38, United
States Code, to prohibit discrimination and acts of reprisal against
persons who receive treatment for illnesses, injuries, and disabilities
incurred in or aggravated by service in the uniformed services.''
Returning veterans with Traumatic Brain Injuries and other disabilities
are reporting problems with employment.
H.R. 929 Congressman Welch and Congressman Boozman ``To
amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to carry out a program of training to provide eligible
veterans with skills relevant to the job market, and for other
purposes.'' Since Vietnam War we have had combat experienced, well
trained veterans return home with military skills and training that can
not be easily transferred into civilian skills and this becomes even
more of a challenge if the veteran is disabled. This legislation would
assist those veterans by providing them with the support to meet their
goals in entering the job market.
H.R. 942 Congressman Alexander bill ``To direct the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a pilot project on the use of
educational assistance under programs of the Department of Veterans
Affairs to defray training costs associated with the purchase of
certain franchise enterprises.''
H.R. 950 Congressman Filner bill ``To amend chapter 33 of
title 38, United States Code, to increase educational assistance for
certain veterans pursuing a program of education offered through
distance learning.'' BVA would recommend to this Committee that
provision to ensure that only accredited and approved university
programs are authorized for this distant educational program. For many
disabled veterans, taking online distant educational courses is easier
to access especially in some degree programs that might not be
available locally, but there are many problems with diploma mills, that
develop their own certification standards and guidelines, that must be
avoided.
H.R. 1088 Congresswoman Herseth Sandler bill ``To amend
title 38, United States Code, to provide for a one-year period for the
training of new disabled veterans' outreach program specialists and
local veterans' employment representatives by National Veterans'
Employment and Training Services Institute.''
Prepared Statement of Patrick H. Boulay,
Chief, USERRA Unit, U.S. Office of Special Counsel
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 1994
(USERRA) protects the civilian employment and reemployment rights of
those who serve our Nation in the Armed Forces, including the National
Guard and Reserves. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) plays a
critical role in enforcing USERRA on behalf of Federal employees and
applicants who file USERRA complaints, helping to fulfill Congress's
goal that the Federal Government serve as a ``model employer'' under
the law. This is especially important because the Federal Government is
the civilian employer of approximately 25 percent of the National Guard
and Reserves.
Existing law requires that USERRA complaints against Federal
agencies must first be filed with the U.S. Department of Labor,
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (DOL-VETS) for investigation
and attempted resolution. If DOL-VETS is unable to resolve the
complaint, the claimant may request referral to OSC for possible
representation of their claim before the U.S. Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB).
Recognizing the inefficiencies in this system (which splits the
``investigative'' and ``prosecutorial'' responsibilities between two
agencies), as well as OSC's extensive expertise and experience in
investigating and resolving other Federal employment claims, Congress
established a USERRA Demonstration Project in 2004 under which OSC
directly received roughly half of all Federal USERRA complaints for
both investigation and possible prosecution (eliminating the two-part
process for such claims).
Under the Demonstration Project, OSC resolved the USERRA complaints
it received in an efficient and highly effective manner, obtaining full
relief for claimants in one-in-four claims. OSC achieved this unusually
high rate of corrective action for Federal employment claims through
its thorough investigations, expert analysis of the law, ability to
educate Federal agencies about USERRA, and a credible threat of
litigation before the MSPB. Claimants whose cases OSC received also
benefited from having a single, centralized entity handle their claims
from beginning to end, instead of being transferred within and between
DOL and OSC.
The Demonstration Project ended on December 31, 2007 without
further congressional action. H.R. 1089, the ``Veterans Employment
Rights Realignment Act of 2009,'' would make permanent and expand the
benefits realized under the Demonstration Project by giving OSC
exclusive jurisdiction to not just prosecute, but also investigate, all
USERRA complaints involving Federal executive agencies. By
consolidating the investigative and prosecutorial functions in one
agency, H.R. 1089 would make the USERRA complaint process more
transparent, accountable, efficient, and effective for military
servicemembers employed, or seeking to be employed, by the Federal
Government. It would also allow the Department of Labor to better focus
on providing its best service to those employed by private, State, and
local entities, and to administer other vital veterans' programs. For
these reasons, we believe H.R. 1089 is a ``win-win'' proposition for
the men and women who serve in our Nation's military.
INTRODUCTION
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee: good afternoon, and thank
you for the opportunity to testify on important matters of concern to
our military veterans, their families, and our Nation as a whole.
My name is Patrick Boulay and I am Chief of the USERRA Unit at the
U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC). OSC is honored to serve as the
Federal sector prosecutor of the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act 1994 (USERRA), the law that protects the
civilian employment and reemployment rights of our veterans.
There are several important bills concerning veterans' benefits and
programs that are the subject of today's hearing. Because OSC's role is
limited to USERRA, however, our testimony today focuses on H.R. 1089,
the ``Veterans Employment Rights Realignment Act of 2009,'' which
proposes to expand OSC's role in USERRA by giving OSC exclusive
jurisdiction to not just prosecute, but also investigate, USERRA
complaints involving Federal executive agencies.
OSC values the tremendous commitment of our military men and women
and their families, and we are committed to protecting the job rights
of those who serve our Nation both as civil servants and as soldiers.
We are proud to employ several past and current members of the Guard
and Reserves, as well as other military veterans, at OSC. Their
valuable skills and dedication to both public and military service are
an honor to our government and our Nation.
Since USERRA's enactment in 1994, OSC has sought to vigorously
enforce USERRA to help fulfill Congress's goal that the Federal
Government be a ``model employer'' under the law. We believe that
Federal agencies must set an example for private, State, and local
employers to follow. We owe an immeasurable debt of gratitude to those
who serve, and we must make certain that they are restored to their
full employment rights and benefits when they come home, and that they
are not discriminated against in employment based on past, present, or
future military service. This is especially true for those who also
work as civilians for the Federal Government.
Our military commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere have
resulted in unprecedented deployments of our national Guard and
Reserves during this decade. As a consequence, we have seen, and are
likely to continue to see, increased activity surrounding USERRA in the
months and years ahead as soldiers continue to transition to and from
the civilian workforce. Federal agencies, which employ approximately 25
percent of the Guard and Reserves, will play an integral role in this
process.
OSC is uniquely suited to ensure that the Federal Government serves
as a ``model employer'' under USERRA. By consolidating the
investigative and prosecutorial functions in one agency, H.R. 1089
would make the USERRA complaint process more transparent, accountable,
efficient, and effective for military servicemembers employed, or
seeking to be employed, by the Federal Government. It would also allow
the Department of Labor to better focus on providing its best service
to those employed by private, State, and local entities, and to
administer other vital veterans' programs. For these reasons, we
believe H.R. 1089 is a ``win-win'' proposition for the men and women
who serve in our Nation's military.
THE U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL (OSC)
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent Federal
investigative and prosecutorial agency, was established by Congress in
1979 to safeguard the merit system in Federal employment by protecting
Federal employees and applicants from prohibited personnel practices,
such as reprisal for whistleblowing; providing a secure channel for the
disclosure of government waste, fraud, and abuse; and enforcing
restrictions on political activity by government employees under the
Hatch Act.
OSC carries out its mission by: (1) investigating prohibited
personnel practice allegations and, where warranted, seeking corrective
action on behalf of Federal employees and applicants and disciplinary
action against Federal officials, including by prosecuting violations
before the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB); (2) receiving
and evaluating disclosures of government wrongdoing and, where
warranted, forwarding such disclosures to subject Federal agencies for
investigation, report, and appropriate action; and (3) providing
advisory opinions, investigating complaints, and prosecuting violations
of the Hatch Act before the MSPB.
OSC employs a staff of attorneys, investigators, and personnel
specialists who are experts in Federal personnel law and are trained to
evaluate, investigate, analyze, and resolve Federal employment
complaints. The Special Counsel, head of OSC, is appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate to a 5-year term. Currently,
William E. Reukauf, a career Senior Executive, serves as Acting Special
Counsel.
OSC'S ROLE AND SUCCESS IN ENFORCING USERRA
In 1994, OSC's mission was expanded with the enactment of USERRA,
codified at 38 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 4301-4333. USERRA is intended to ensure
that those who serve in our Nation's military: (1) are not
disadvantaged in their civilian careers because of their military
service; (2) are promptly reemployed in their civilian jobs upon their
return from duty, with full benefits and seniority, as if they had
never left; and (3) are not discriminated against in employment
(including initial hiring, promotion, retention, or any benefit of
employment) based on past, present, or future military service. The law
applies to Federal, State, local, and private employers.
Under USERRA, a person claiming a violation by a Federal executive
agency may either file an appeal with the MSPB (with or without the
assistance of private counsel) or submit a complaint to the U.S.
Department of Labor, Veterans' Employment and Training Service (DOL-
VETS).
If the USERRA claimant chooses to submit a complaint, DOL-VETS must
investigate and attempt to resolve it. If DOL-VETS is unable to resolve
the complaint, the claimant may request referral to OSC for possible
legal representation before the MSPB. If, after reviewing the complaint
and investigative file, and conducting any necessary follow-up
investigation, OSC is reasonably satisfied that the claimant is
entitled to relief under USERRA, OSC may act as attorney for the
claimant and initiate an action before the MSPB. If OSC declines
representation, the claimant may still file an appeal with the MSPB on
his or her own or with the assistance of private counsel.
USERRA thus expanded OSC's role as protector of the Federal merit
system and Federal workplace rights by giving OSC prosecutorial
authority over Federal-sector USERRA claims. However, it also
established a ``bifurcated'' process in which DOL-VETS first
investigates and attempts to resolve such claims, followed by possible
referral to OSC for prosecution before the MSPB when DOL-VETS is unable
to achieve resolution.
Since 1994, OSC has successfully resolved a number of USERRA cases,
including several before the MSPB, resulting in significant awards to
Federal employees and applicants whose USERRA rights were violated by
the Federal Government, but who were unable to obtain relief before
coming to OSC. Many of the cases were considered unwinnable or had been
languishing for years before arriving at OSC.
In a case involving a Federal employee who had served in the Air
Force, but was refused reemployment when he tried to return to his
civilian job, DOL-VETS did not recommend prosecution by OSC. OSC
disagreed and filed an appeal with the MSPB on the servicemember's
behalf, obtaining full corrective action, including $85,000 in back
pay, reemployment in his former position, and full restoration of
seniority and benefits.
In another case, a Reservist was dismissed from his Federal
employer's supervisory training program because his Reserve duties
conflicted with part of the training schedule and he would be absent
from work on Saturdays, which the agency believed would cause morale
problems. The training program was important because it resulted in
automatic promotion and related benefits. OSC filed suit with the MSPB
and successfully obtained full relief for the Reservist, including a
retroactive promotion with back pay upon completion of the training.
Another case illustrates both OSC's effectiveness and the flaws in
the current ``bifurcated'' USERRA complaint process for Federal
employees. It involved an Alaska national Guardsman who left his
Federal position to serve an extended tour of duty. When he was refused
reemployment upon his return, he filed a USERRA complaint with DOL-
VETS. His case languished for over 5 years before he finally obtained
Federal employment again (he had been forced to find part-time and
temporary work to pay his bills in the interim). However, his new
employment did not restore the five-plus years of pay, seniority, and
benefits (including retirement contributions, vacation time, and sick
leave) he lost as a result of the government's failure to promptly
reemploy him. After repeated requests, his case was referred to OSC in
November 2006. Within a few months of receiving the case, OSC
negotiated a settlement that provided the Guardsman with 65 months of
back pay plus interest, restored his seniority and Federal retirement
benefits as if he had been properly reemployed over 6 years earlier,
and provided him the vacation time and sick leave he had lost.
OSC has long enjoyed a cooperative, productive relationship with
DOL in enforcing USERRA. Nevertheless, in USERRA cases referred from
DOL to OSC, OSC has often found that further investigation is needed to
make a determination or that the claim has not been fully or properly
analyzed by DOL under the law. For instance, in two of the cases filed
by OSC with the MSPB since 2004, DOL recommended that OSC not afford
the claimant representation (i.e., that the claims were non-
meritorious), but OSC disagreed and obtained full relief for the
servicemember. OSC has also found that DOL-VETS investigations are
incomplete in that important documents have not been obtained or key
witnesses not interviewed. Last, a number of cases referred from DOL
have been investigated and analyzed under the wrong part of the statute
(e.g., the anti-discrimination provisions instead of the reemployment
provisions, or vice versa).
Moreover, many of the claimants described above could have received
relief faster had OSC been able to receive and investigate their claims
from the beginning, without the need for attempted resolution and
referral by DOL-VETS. As a government Accountability Office (GAO)
report found, the referral process alone adds an average of over 8
months to the resolution of such claims (i.e., from the time DOL-VETS
completes its investigation and attempted resolution to the time DOL's
Solicitor's Office refers the claim to OSC).\1\ In the last case
described above, this process took years and caused significant
hardship and delayed relief for a deserving servicemember.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See GAO Report No. 07-907, p. 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cases above are only a few examples of OSC's effectiveness in
enforcing USERRA. As explained further below, the timely, highly
favorable results OSC obtains for servicemembers would be greatly
expanded if H.R. 1089 becomes law.
THE USERRA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
In 2004, recognizing the shortcomings of the ``bifurcated'' USERRA
complaint process for Federal employees, as well as OSC's unique
expertise and experience in investigating and prosecuting Federal
employment claims, Congress passed the Veterans Benefits Improvement
Act of 2004 (VBIA). The VBIA included a Demonstration Project to
determine whether OSC could provide better service and results to
Federal employees filing USERRA claims.
Under the Demonstration Project, which ran from February 2005
through December 2007, roughly half of all Federal USERRA claims were
submitted directly to OSC for investigation and prosecution, rather
than first going through DOL-VETS.\2\ During this period, the sometimes
confusing, time-consuming process that shuffled Federal USERRA claims
among different Federal agencies before finally being resolved by OSC
was eliminated for some claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ During the Demonstration Project, OSC had exclusive
investigative jurisdiction over Federal sector USERRA claims where: 1)
the claimant's Social Security Number ended in an odd digit, or 2) the
claimant alleged a Prohibited Personnel Practice as well as a USERRA
violation (regardless of Social Security Number). DOL-VETS retained
investigative jurisdiction over all other Federal sector USERRA claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the Demonstration Project, OSC obtained corrective action
for servicemembers in approximately 25 percent of the USERRA claims it
received, a rate that is significantly higher than that for most
governmental investigative agencies. OSC achieved this high rate of
corrective action through its thorough investigations, expert analysis
of the law, ability to educate Federal employers about the requirements
of USERRA, and a credible threat of litigation before the MSPB. The GAO
study of the Demonstration Project also found that it took OSC less
than 120 days on average to resolve cases (which includes prosecution
as well as investigative time).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See GAO Report No. 07-907, p. 22. GAO found that DOL's case
closure dates were not reliable and, as a result, could not accurately
determine an average case processing time. Id., p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSC's centralized and straight-line process ensured that the USERRA
claims we received were resolved efficiently, thoroughly, and correctly
under the law. The numerous and varied corrective actions OSC obtained
for servicemembers included back pay, retroactive promotions, restored
seniority and retirement benefits, reimbursed leave, improved
performance ratings and bonuses, and priority consideration for future
positions. OSC seeks not to simply settle the USERRA claims it receives
as quickly as possible, but to ensure that the servicemember gets all
of the relief to which he or she is entitled. For this reason,
virtually all of the USERRA cases OSC has resolved resulted in full,
complete corrective action for the servicemember.
In addition to obtaining relief for individuals, OSC also seeks
``systemic'' corrective action in appropriate cases, i.e., broader
changes in agency policies and practices to prevent future USERRA
violations. To this end, we have assisted Federal agencies in modifying
their leave, evaluation, and promotion policies to better comply with
USERRA; provided USERRA training to agency managers, attorneys, and
personnel specialists; and required agencies to post USERRA information
on their Web sites and in common areas.
For example, in one case involving the U.S. Postal Service, OSC was
instrumental in authorizing military leave that was improperly denied
to an eligible employee. In addition, we worked with the agency to
ensure that its managers accommodate employees who perform military
duty by identifying and scheduling replacement workers and posting
USERRA informational posters in locations accessible to employees. The
claimant indicated that after the OSC's involvement, he noticed a
greater interest in the agency's efforts to recognize and support
veterans.
OSC's success under the USERRA Demonstration Project is
attributable to several factors:
1. OSC has extensive experience and expertise in investigating and
resolving Federal employment claims, so the Demonstration Project did
not require significant re-training or hiring of new personnel;
2. OSC staff specializes in Federal personnel law, of which USERRA
is a part, and its primary mission and focus is protecting the merit
system of Federal employment (in contrast to DOL, which administers
numerous, varied Federal programs and laws);
3. OSC's USERRA Unit is centralized in one location, with a small,
specialized group of attorneys and investigators working closely and
collaboratively on a daily basis to investigate and resolve USERRA
claims (in contrast to DOL-VETS, which relies on a decentralized
network of offices throughout the country that also administer several
other programs besides USERRA);
4. All USERRA claims, investigations, and determinations at OSC
are reviewed by the USERRA Unit Chief (in contrast to DOL, which
conducts quality control review on only a very small percentage of its
USERRA cases, which are randomly selected);
5. All USERRA claims, investigations, and determinations at OSC
receive legal and supervisory review throughout the process (in
contrast to DOL, which has investigators handle all claims, with
supervisory review of only a limited number and legal consultation only
on an ad-hoc basis or if the claimant requests referral to OSC); and
6. There is a credible threat of litigation by OSC.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Many of the differences in structure and approach between OSC
and DOL are described on pages 8-16 and 24-25 of GAO Report No. 07-907.
Congress tied the outcome of the USERRA Demonstration Project to a
GAO evaluation. OSC participated in the evaluations conducted by the
GAO, but their report did not meet the April 1, 2007, deadline mandated
by Congress. Instead, the final report was published only 2 weeks
before the congressional August recess, leaving Congress with no
opportunity to act on USERRA before the Demonstration Project would
conclude on September 30, 2007.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Congress extended the Demonstration Project through December
31, 2007, as part of several Continuing Resolutions for the Federal
budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the GAO report did not address the central question that
the Demonstration Project was intended to answer, namely: Are Federal
sector USERRA claimants better served when they are permitted to make
their complaints directly to OSC, for both investigation and
prosecution, bypassing the ``bifurcated'' process of referral between
agencies? We submit that the answer is an emphatic ``yes.''
Unfortunately, the GAO report focused on data outputs, rather than
real-life outcomes for servicemembers.
After the Demonstration Project ended on December 31, 2007, OSC no
longer had authority to directly accept USERRA claims from Federal
employees and applicants for investigation, but retained its critical
role of prosecuting Federal sector USERRA claims referred from DOL-
VETS.
OSC: POISED TO HANDLE ALL FEDERAL USERRA CLAIMS UNDER H.R. 1089
OSC considers it a privilege to be engaged in Federal sector USERRA
enforcement, and continues to vigorously enforce the law to obtain full
relief for aggrieved servicemembers and improve USERRA compliance by
the Federal Government.
As an example, in September 2008, OSC filed a novel USERRA appeal
before the MSPB on behalf of a Federal Government contract employee who
left his job at the Department of Homeland Security to serve in Iraq.
When he returned and asked for his job back, the government told the
contractor that it did not want him back because it might have to train
him on some new duties and that it would cancel the contract on which
he worked if the contractor brought him back. As a result, the
servicemember was unemployed for over a year and suffered significant
hardship. In the first case before the MSPB to consider this issue, OSC
argued that the Federal Government acted as an employer under USERRA
because it ``controlled his employment opportunity'' within the meaning
of the law, and therefore should be held liable for damages. While the
case is currently still on appeal, it demonstrates OSC's commitment to
servicemembers and willingness to ``push the envelope'' if necessary to
protect their rights.
OSC also filed a successful amicus curiae (friend of the court)
brief in a USERRA case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit. In that case, to which OSC was not a party, the MSPB had ruled
that Federal employees covered by collective bargaining agreements
could only enforce certain USERRA rights through negotiated grievance
procedures, precluding them from the independent third-party review and
judicial enforcement mechanisms available to them under USERRA,
including OSC representation. Recognizing the severe implications of
the MSPB's ruling for a large segment of Federal employees, OSC argued
for reversal. After OSC filed its brief, the MSPB acknowledged that its
ruling was erroneous (adopting many of the same arguments put forth by
OSC) and requested that the Federal Circuit remand the case, which it
did.
If enacted into law, H.R. 1089 would expand and make permanent the
benefits to servicemembers that OSC's track record demonstrates. By
authorizing OSC to directly receive all Federal USERRA claims, H.R.
1089 would eliminate the time-consuming, cumbersome ``bifurcated''
USERRA referral process and allow claimants to obtain faster, more
effective relief. Instead of having to rely on another agency's
investigation and frequently having to conduct additional
investigation, OSC would have control of the investigation throughout,
bringing its unique expertise and experience in investigating and
resolving other Federal employment claims to bear on USERRA claims, as
it did during the Demonstration Project. In these trying economic
times, taxpayers should only have to pay for one investigation per
claim, not two.
Moreover, because OSC can and will file suit with the MSPB, Federal
agencies are more willing to quickly resolve meritorious claims (as
they often did under the Demonstration Project) instead of taking their
chances with the existing referral process. USERRA claimants also
benefit from a more efficient, transparent process that increases
accountability and communication by having a single, centralized entity
handle and resolve their claims from beginning to end.
As described above, OSC has often found deficiencies in DOL's
investigation and analysis of USERRA claims. This is somewhat
understandable given the ``many hats'' DOL's investigators and
attorneys must wear. Authorizing OSC to directly receive and
investigate all Federal USERRA claims, however, would eliminate these
problems and extend the benefits realized under the Demonstration
Project to all Federal servicemembers.
In sum, granting OSC exclusive jurisdiction over all Federal sector
USERRA cases, as H.R. 1089 does, would benefit Federal employee
claimants by having a specialized agency resolve their claims, as
evidenced by OSC's track record in USERRA enforcement and its
performance during the Demonstration Project. For these reasons, and
given OSC's almost thirty years' experience in investigating and
resolving Federal employment claims, Federal sector USERRA
investigation and enforcement is a natural ``fit'' for OSC and its
mission. Such a change would also free DOL-VETS from having to navigate
Federal personnel law (OSC's particular expertise), allowing DOL-VETS
to focus on serving the larger volume of USERRA claimants from the
private sector and those in State and local governments.
Thus, all servicemembers (Federal and non-Federal) would benefit
under H.R. 1089--Federal servicemembers would benefit from OSC's
specialized experience and approach, and non-Federal servicemembers
would benefit from greater attention and focus on their claims at DOL-
VETS.
USERRA ``SURGE'' AHEAD?
Today, the United States is in the middle of the largest sustained
military deployment in three decades. In recent years, the number of
members of the National Guard and Reserve mobilized at one time peaked
at more than 212,000. As of last week, the Department of Defense
reported that 124,594 reserve component members were currently on
active duty for voluntary and involuntary mobilizations.
We do not know when they will start returning home in greater
numbers, boosting demand for USERRA enforcement. With Federal employees
comprising about 25 percent of the National Guard and Reserve, there
will likely be a significant number of USERRA claims filed against
Federal agencies for the foreseeable future. The government must be
prepared to efficiently and effectively handle such claims, and to
ensure that Federal agencies set an example for private, State, and
local employers to follow.
We believe that adequate information has been developed to support
a decision by Congress to assign the task of investigating and
resolving all USERRA claims by Federal employees and applicants to OSC,
as proposed by H.R. 1089. We are poised to assume this important
responsibility and to do our part in making the transition back to
civilian life as smooth as possible for our veterans.
Thank you for your attention and I look forward to your questions.
Prepared Statement of Keith M. Wilson,
Director, Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Madam Chairwoman and other Members of the Subcommittee, good
afternoon. I am pleased to be here today to provide the Department of
Veterans Affairs' (VA) views on pending benefits legislation.
At the outset, I would note that we are dedicated to our
partnerships with other agencies on programs and initiatives that
affect our Nation's Veterans. We humbly take on the role as the
principal advocate for our Nation's Veterans. It is in that vein that
we have provided our insight on several bills on the agenda. Several
other bills on the agenda affect programs or laws administered by the
Department of Labor (Labor), the Office of Special Counsel (Special
Counsel), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). We respectfully defer
to those lead agencies, and expect that they will best speak to the
following bills: H.R. 147 (designation of tax payment to homeless
veterans--IRS), H.R. 466 (prohibiting discrimination against wounded
veterans--Labor), H.R. 1088 (providing for 1-year period of training
for disabled veterans' outreach program specialists (DVOPs) and local
veterans' employment representatives (LVERS)--Labor)), H.R. 1089
(enforcement of employment rights of veterans and certain
servicemembers--Labor and Office of Special Counsel), and the draft
bill to reauthorize the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program
(Labor). I regret we did not have sufficient time to formulate formal
views on two measures, H.R. 228 and H.R. 297. However, we will be
pleased to provide written views on these bills for the record. As to
the proposed legislation that we will speak to today, I want to begin
by stating that every initiative reviewed has admirable goals of
assisting our Nation's veterans, yet not every initiative can be
implemented as currently written, and we provide our commentary as
follows:
H.R. 942
H.R. 942, the ``Veterans Self-Employment Act of 2009'' would direct
VA to conduct a 5-year pilot project to test the feasibility and
advisability of using VA educational assistance benefits provided under
chapters 30, 32, and 35 of title 38, and chapters 1606 and 1607 of
title 10, United States Code, to pay for training costs associated with
the purchase of a franchise enterprise. The amount of educational
assistance benefit payable to an eligible individual for such training
would be made in a lump-sum payment and would be one-half of the
franchise fee or one-third of the remaining amount of education
assistance to which the individual would be entitled, whichever is
less. This payment would not be made unless the training in question
was a requirement for the purchase and operation of the franchise and
the program and the entity or organization offering the training were
approved by VA in accordance with the aforementioned chapters under
titles 10 and 38 and regulations prescribed by VA in accordance with
this Act. VA would be allowed to use State approving agencies for this
purpose.
The bill also would require GAO to conduct periodic evaluations of
the pilot project and, not later than the end of the third year after
its inception, submit to Congress a report to include: (1) the number
of individuals who participated in the project, (2) the number of
franchise enterprises operated by such individuals by reason of such
participation, (3) the aggregate payments made by VA under the project,
(4) recommendations for the continuation of the project, and (5) such
other recommendations for administrative action or legislation as the
GAO determines to be appropriate.
VA would be required to implement the pilot project established by
H.R. 942 as soon as practicable, but not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of the Act.
Currently, there are no provisions under any education benefit
program for payment of benefits to help cover the training costs
associated with the purchase of a franchise enterprise.
The impact of this legislation on VA, with regard to number of
claimants, would be minimal. However, there would be a more significant
administrative impact in that VA would be required to develop
regulations for proper administration of this program, as well as
conduct adequate oversight to ensure compliance.
VA supports enactment of this Act, subject to the identification of
offsets for the additional benefits costs. VA estimates that enactment
of H.R. 942 would result in benefits costs of $594,000 for FY 2010 and
$23.7 million over 10 years.
H.R. 929
H.R. 929 is an educational training program that, as currently
drafted, would be problematic to implement and execute. VA supports
this initiative's goal of expanded education opportunities, but the
policy is currently not implementable by the VA as drafted, and we
cannot endorse it at this time. H.R. 929 would require VA to establish
a Military Occupational Specialty Transition (MOST) program of training
to provide eligible veterans with skills relevant to the job market. To
be eligible, a veteran must: (1) be discharged under conditions not
less than general under honorable conditions; (2) be an individual
whose military occupational specialty at the time of discharge is
deemed by VA to have limited transferability to the civilian job
market; (3) not otherwise be eligible to receive education or training
services under title 38; (4) not have acquired a marketable skill since
leaving military service; and (5) have been unemployed for at least 90
days during the 180-day period preceding the date of the individual's
application for the MOST program, or the maximum hourly rate of pay of
such individual during such 180-day period must not be not more than
150 percent of the Federal minimum wage.
Under the program, VA would enter into contracts with employers who
would receive payment for providing programs of apprenticeship or on-
the-job training. The rate of pay for the training the veteran would
receive would not be less than the rate of pay of nonveterans in
similar jobs, and VA would reasonably expect the veteran would both be
qualified for employment in the field of study at the completion of his
training and that the employer would hire the veteran at that time. The
amount of payment to each employer for any period would be 50 percent
of the wages paid by that employer to the veteran for such period
calculated on an hourly basis. The amount paid to the employer would
not exceed a monthly amount of $1,666.67 or $20,000 in the aggregate
and would only be made during the first 12 months of the veteran's
participation in the program. If the veteran participates in the
program on a less than full-time basis, VA would extend the number of
months of payment not to exceed 24 months and proportionally adjust
them, but not to exceed the $20,000 maximum payment.
The bill further provides that employers participating in the MOST
program would submit a quarterly report to VA certifying the wages paid
and any other information VA may specify. H.R. 929 would also authorize
to be appropriated $60 million for each of fiscal years 2009 through
2018 to carry out this program, and would require VA to provide a
detailed description of the activities carried out under the MOST
program in the annual report prepared by the Veterans Benefits
Administration.
While VA supports the principle of expanding occupational
opportunities for veterans, we do not support enactment of the
legislation as written. Under the MOST program, employers would have to
submit a written application to the appropriate State approving agency
(SAA) for approval of programs not currently approved under 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 3677. Additionally, the Secretary would be required to determine
whether a veteran's military occupational specialty has limited
transferability to the job market, and whether the veteran has not
acquired a marketable skill since leaving military service. This would
be better implemented as a joint program between the Departments of
Labor and VA. Since there could be a significant difference between the
time the SAA approves the training program and the determination of the
veteran's eligibility, we believe the implementation of this bill would
be challenging.
Additionally, the MOST program would allow for payment to employers
who provide a program of apprenticeship or on-the-job training for
eligible veterans, and it is expected that the employer will hire the
veteran upon completion of training, but there are no guarantees. To
reimburse an employer for a portion of apprenticeship or on-the-job
training wages, as well as to ensure that veterans are protected with
rights as employees, it would seem a better program if the employers
are required to hire veterans at the beginning of a trainee program. As
written, the program puts the risk onto the veteran and VA with only a
hope of future employment for the veteran. The Department of Labor also
feels that there is a need to distinguish between ``apprenticeship''
and ``registered apprenticeship'' as implemented under the National
Apprenticeship Act, which I understand it will address in its statement
for the record.
This legislation would require significant development of
regulations and procedures to administer the benefit. As the proposed
legislation appears to be effective the date of enactment, there would
be a considerable delay in VA's ability to pay claims associated with
the MOST program.
The bill would authorize to be appropriated $60 million for each of
fiscal years 2009 through 2018 to carry out the program, for a total
10-year cost of $540 million.
H.R. 950
H.R. 950 is a bill designed to pay college housing allowances to
veterans who take educational courses over the Internet (also defined
as ``distance learning'') via the Post 9/11 GI Bill. As currently
written, this program would seemingly give housing allowances to
Veterans who are training at home, at work, or at some other location.
This does not seem to meet the intent of a housing subsidy for Veterans
who travel to attend an institution of higher learning, and also poses
a risk of unintended increased costs due to the locality determination
of the subsidy. Therefore, as currently drafted, we oppose the bill.
Currently, under the bill (section 3313(c)(1)(B)(i)), individuals
who are pursuing a program of education are eligible to receive a
monthly housing stipend amount equal to the monthly amount of the basic
allowance for housing (BAH) payable under section 403 of title 37 for a
member with dependents in pay grade E-5 residing in the military
housing area that encompasses all or the majority portion of the ZIP
code area in which is located the institution of higher education at
which the individual is enrolled. The bill would extend this benefit to
individuals taking courses over the Internet, regardless of their
location.
This legislation would have an impact on VA business processes and
procedures. Housing stipends are based on BAH rates where the school is
located versus the individual's residence. We anticipate some
individuals would enroll in distance learning programs at the schools
with the highest BAH rate. Presumably, it would be better to base the
housing stipend on where individuals live, and/or their home of record
at the time of enrollment.
VA estimates that enactment of H.R. 950 would result in benefits
costs of $20.4 million for FY 2010 and $1.5 billion over 10 years. In
view of this cost, and because BAH rates based on the location of a
school bear no relationship to the cost of living associated with the
locality where an individual may reside, VA opposes this bill.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. We continue to be
encouraged, and challenged to provide our Nation's veterans with the
best educational opportunities at our disposal, and look forward to
engaging in a dialog to improve upon these admirable initiatives. I
would be happy to entertain any questions you or the other Members of
the Subcommittee may have.
Statement of John M. McWilliam,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Veterans' Employment and
Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor
Madam Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and
Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement for the record
on several bills. With regard to those bills that solely concern
programs that are administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA), specifically H.R. 147, H.R. 228, H.R. 297, and H.R. 942, the
Department of Labor (DOL) respectfully defers to the VA.
H.R. 466, the ``Wounded Veteran Job Security Act,'' would amend
section 4311 of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act (USERRA) to prohibit discrimination and acts of reprisal
against persons who receive treatment for illnesses, injuries, and
disabilities incurred in or aggravated by service in the uniformed
services. The Department would welcome the opportunity to work with the
Subcommittee to provide technical assistance to ensure that the bill
appropriately addresses Congressional intent.
H.R. 929 would amend title 38, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a Military Occupational
Specialty Transition (MOST) program, which would help fund eligible
veterans' participation in on-the-job training and apprenticeship
programs. To qualify for MOST benefits, VA would have to ``determine
whether a veteran's military occupational specialty has limited
transferability to the job market, and whether the veteran has not
acquired a marketable skill since leaving military service.'' Any such
job training program should be a joint program between DOL and VA,
which would leverage the services and training funds already available
through the Nation's workforce investment system, and operated through
One-Stop Career Centers across the Nation.
Even so, the Department does not fully understand the intent and
scope of the bill. For instance, the bill appears to authorize the
payment of MOST funds for Registered Apprenticeship programs operated
under the National Apprenticeship Act (29 U.S.C. 50 et seq.).
Curiously, H.R. 929 contains a provision to restrict the distribution
of MOST funds to employers who VA expects will guarantee apprentices
employment at the conclusion of an apprenticeship; this seems to imply
that MOST-funded apprentices would not be deemed employees of the
employer during the apprenticeship. Under the National Apprenticeship
Act, however, an apprentice in a Registered Apprenticeship program is,
in fact, an employee of the employer during the apprenticeship, and
remains so even after completion of the program, unless the apprentice
or the employer chooses to terminate the employment. The Department
would welcome the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee and the VA
to fully understand the intent of the legislation, particularly with
regard to the application of the National Apprenticeship Act, and to
provide technical assistance to ensure that the bill appropriately
addresses that intent.
H.R. 1088, the ``Mandatory Veteran Specialist Training Act of
2009,'' would amend title 38, United States Code, to reduce from a 3-
year period to a 1-year period the length of time in which new disabled
veterans' outreach program specialists and local veterans' employment
representatives must satisfactorily complete training provided by the
National Veterans' Employment and Training Services Institute (NVTI).
While we support H.R. 1088, we note that NVTI would need to provide
more classes in order to satisfy this requirement.
H.R. 1089, the ``Veterans Employment Rights Realignment Act of
2009,'' would amend USERRA to shift from the Department of Labor to the
Office of Special Counsel (OSC) the responsibility for investigating
and attempting to resolve claims relating to Federal agency employers.
DOL strongly opposes this legislation.
DOL's Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS)is a
veterans-focused agency whose sole mission is to serve the workplace
needs of separating servicemembers and veterans. Currently, VETS is the
single agency authorized to receive and investigate formal complaints
filed by individuals who believe their USERRA rights have been
violated. Servicemembers who lodge such complaints can--and do--benefit
from other services that VETS offers as well. This is because VETS'
programs provide personalized access to a wide array of employment and
training services that can help individuals upgrade their skills and
link them to civilian careers. VETS' unique holistic approach allows it
to identify and address the individual needs of our brave
servicemembers and veterans.
VETS staff has acquired extensive experience and achieved much
success in helping servicemembers resolve USERRA claims. In Fiscal Year
2008 alone, VETS obtained over $1.9 million in back wages and benefits
for USERRA claimants. In addition, as shown by our quarterly report to
Congress under the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, in the
first quarter of its enactment, we met the new statutory case-
processing deadlines in every case we handled. Thus, the Department is
better positioned than ever before to serve the needs of all veterans,
including those who work in the Federal sector.
Currently, if VETS is unable to resolve a USERRA claim involving a
Federal employer, we notify the claimant that his or her claim may be
referred to the OSC for consideration of no-cost representation before
the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Similarly, if no resolution
is obtained in a non-Federal case, VETS notifies the claimant that his
or her claim may be referred to the Department of Justice for
consideration of no-cost representation in appropriate Federal courts.
Historically, less than one-in-ten claimants find it necessary to
request referral of their claims.
VETS is proud of its decades-long record of enforcing USERRA and
USERRA's predecessor laws in the public and private sectors. The agency
has long accomplished its mission through a nationwide network of
highly skilled Federal employees, almost all of whom are veterans
themselves. In addition to being experts on USERRA and related
regulations, VETS investigators have undergone extensive training in
investigative techniques and procedures. Located in all 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, VETS investigators also conduct
outreach and provide technical assistance to employers, servicemembers,
veterans, and veterans' organizations at the national, State and local
levels, as well as where servicemembers are demobilized. We believe
that the Department of Labor can effectively and quickly meet the needs
of veterans because it has an extensive, accessible nationwide network
of offices and subject matter experts who have the necessary,
specialized training and experience.
Section 204 of the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004 (P.L.
108-454) established a demonstration project, which ran from February
2005 through December 2007, whereby certain Federal USERRA complaints
were transferred to OSC for investigation and enforcement, and the rest
were retained for investigation by VETS under the current procedures.
The objective of the demonstration project was to determine whether
transferring USERRA cases involving Federal employers to OSC would
result in ``improved services to servicemembers and veterans'' or
``reduced or eliminated duplication of effort and unintended delays in
resolving meritorious claims.'' A report to Congress on the
demonstration project by the government Accountability Office (GAO-07-
907) was inconclusive as to which agency better handled Federal USERRA
cases.
VETS is committed to continuous improvement of our USERRA program
and our reporting to Congress on investigations. As a result of that
commitment, we have made a number of investments to make our USERRA
program even more effective, and more are planned. For example, we have
enhanced and expanded investigator training, increased supervisory
oversight of investigations, and established procedures to ensure that
complainants are informed of the process and our progress in
investigating their complaints. We have contracted for an external
evaluation of the USERRA investigative process to examine the current
process and identify program improvement strategies to increase
efficiency and effectiveness. An investment in the Department of
Labor's USERRA program is an investment in ensuring the USERRA rights
of all claimants, regardless of where they are employed. Directing
claimants to different agencies based on where they are employed is
unnecessary, inefficient, and could result in disparate treatment of
claimants and interpretation of law by the Federal Government.
Moreover, such an arrangement could confuse claimants about where to go
for assistance. We encourage the Congress not to pass such legislation.
H.R. 1171, the ``Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program
Reauthorization Act of 2009,'' would amend title 38, United States
Code, to reauthorize the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP)
for fiscal years 2010 through 2014. We support the extension of this
program. HVRP is the only Federal employment program designed
specifically to address the employment problems faced by our Nation's
homeless veterans. The purpose of the HVRP is to provide services to
assist in reintegrating homeless veterans into meaningful employment
within the labor force and to stimulate the development of effective
service delivery systems that will address the complex problems facing
homeless veterans. Employment is the linchpin by which a homeless
veteran may start a successful journey back to society, regardless of
whether the homelessness is long term or short term, first time or
cyclical.
I would be happy to provide written responses to any follow-up
questions for the record.
Statement of Hon. Rodney Alexander,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana
Madam Chairwoman,
Thank you for your consideration of H.R. 942, the Veterans Self-
Employment Act of 2009.
In 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Servicemembers'
Readjustment Act into law. This law, also known as the GI Bill of
Rights, provided the means for thousands of veterans to go to college.
While many have taken advantage of the opportunity to further their
professional or technical education through the G.I. Bill, others have
chosen to forego their education and instead directly enter the
workforce after completing their service.
Although attending college may be the answer for many veterans, for
others it is starting their own business. Many veterans who have
invested in the G.I. Bill and have honorably served their Country are
unable to capitalize on these benefits because the G.I. Bill does not
provide opportunities to the veteran entrepreneur. It is in our
Country's best interest to change this.
The Department of Veterans' Affairs should provide veterans, who
have honorably served their Country but do not wish to attend college,
the opportunity to receive training and assistance if they wish to own
their own business. Not only will such a passage reward our veterans
with benefits they have already earned, but it will also be
instrumental in helping to revitalize a wounded domestic economy.
The United States enjoys much of its economic success to the small
business owner. Who better to help own a business than a veteran?
H.R. 942, the Veterans Self-Employment Act of 2009, will implement
a five year experimental project under the authority of the VA to test
the feasibility of the use of educational assistance to pay for
training costs associated with the purchase of a franchise business. In
order to receive this VA-funded training, the training must be directly
related to the purchase and operation of a franchise and must be
approved by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
It is important that we provide our veterans all the assistance
that we can reasonably give them. They have done so much in forming and
preserving the way of life that we cherish so much, and it is
irresponsible and disrespectful to not reward these actions and show
our appreciation. This bill will serve not only as a token of our
appreciation to our veterans by training them to work for themselves,
but also as a valiant tool to help provide real stimulation to our
economy.
Madam Chairwoman, I once again thank you for your time and
consideration.
Statement of Hon. Steve Buyer,
Ranking Republican Member, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
and a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to present my views on my bill, H.R. 297, the Veteran
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Subsistence Allowance
Improvement Act of 2009.
During fiscal year 2008, 14,408 veterans dropped out of or
temporarily interrupted the VR&E program. A major reason that disabled
veterans either decline to enter or drop out or interrupt before
completing their VR&E program is their need to work to support their
families. With the subsistence allowance, a 20 percent disabled veteran
attending an Institution of Higher Learning full time with a spouse and
two children would receive only about $848 per month plus service-
connected disability compensation of $243 for a total of about $1,091
per month for full time training. Unless the spouse works, it is
unlikely that veteran will complete VR&E. Veterans living in high cost
areas face even more difficulties making ends meet.
I asked VA to research the last time we made any substantial
increase in the allowance. Their records go back to 1995. VA staff
could not remember an increase ever being passed and since 1995, other
than the cost of living, there have been no increases.
Clearly, it is time to increase the subsistence allowance. My bill
would increase the basic rate to from the current $541 per month to
$1,200. That same 20 percent disabled vet with three dependents would
now get a subsistence allowance of $1,920 plus $243 in compensation for
a total of $2,163 per month. This will improve the veterans' ability to
support their families and to complete the VR&E program.
I look forward to working with the Chair and Ranking Member to
identify opportunities to fund this most important VA program for
disabled veterans.
Statement of Hon. Bob Filner,
Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
and a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Good afternoon Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman
and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak
on H.R. 950.
Last year we successfully passed the Post-9/11 Veterans Education
Assistance Act of 2008 to help pay the full cost of tuition at 4-year
colleges to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This new law
also recognizes the sacrifice of our 1.8 million Reserve and National
Guard troops by better aligning their educational benefits with their
length of service.
This new law will also provide a monthly housing stipend, a yearly
book stipend, match voluntary contributions for more expensive schools,
provide a 15-year window of eligibility to use the education benefits,
and allow certain servicemembers the opportunity to transfer their
entitlements to their dependents.
As stated, current law will provide a housing allowance to
qualified veterans who are attending school at least half-time, and
enrolled in at least one course at an on-site facility. The amount of
the housing stipend is determined by the location of the educational
institution.
While this is an important aspect of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, it
penalizes hard working veterans who are taking courses that are
administered through distance learning. I truly believe we will be
doing a disservice to our rural veterans, injured veterans and veterans
with family commitments by providing a distinction between those who
attend a brick and mortar classroom versus those who study at home and
take their tests on a computer.
For this reason I introduced H.R. 950 which would waive the
requirement that a student must take at least one class on-site in
order to receive the housing stipend. The housing stipend would
continue to be determined by the zip code of the school.
Since introducing H.R. 950, I have received letters of support from
the Fleet Reserve Association and institutions of higher learning such
as the University of Phoenix; American Public University System; Kaplan
University; Walden University and Capella University.
I want to thank my colleagues Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
and Ranking Member John Boozman for their continued work in the
Subcommittee. I share their strong belief that we must remain vigilant
to ensure that the needs of our returning servicemembers are met in the
21st century.
I look forward to working with you to provide the needed oversight
and continue to improve on existing education programs for our veterans
and their dependents. I would be happy to address any questions you may
have.
International Franchise Association
Washington, DC.
March 4, 2009
The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable John
Boozman
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on
Economic
Opportunity
U.S. House of
Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairwoman Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman:
On behalf of the International Franchise Association (IFA), I am
writing today to support H.R. 942, the Veterans Self-Employment Act of
2009. This legislation would allow more veterans to take advantage of
the opportunities in franchising by allowing the veteran to apply a
portion of his or her educational benefits to defray the portion of a
franchise purchase cost attributable to training. We commend you for
holding today's Subcommittee hearing on this bill and share in the goal
of assisting our military veterans in realizing the dream of owning a
small business.
As the largest and oldest franchising trade group, the IFA's
mission is to safeguard the business environment for franchising
worldwide. IFA represents more than 85 industries, including more than
11,000 franchisee, 1,200 franchisor and
600 supplier members nationwide. According to a 2008 study conducted by
PricewaterhouseCoopers, there are more than 900,000 franchised
establishments in the U.S. that are responsible for creating 21 million
American jobs and generating $2.3 trillion in economic output.
The IFA has a long and committed history of supporting qualified
veterans as franchised businessowners. In 1991, during the Gulf War,
the IFA--under the leadership of board member Don Dwyer--launched the
Veterans Transition Franchise Initiative, known as ``VetFran.'' Through
VetFran, participating franchise companies pledge to help qualified
veterans acquire franchise businesses by providing financial incentives
not otherwise available to other franchise investors. With the
cooperation of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and with
outreach initiatives to our country's military and veteran
organizations, the program has expanded to include over 330
participating franchise companies. Since 2002, over 1,200 qualified
military veterans have invested in their own franchise business through
the VetFran program.
Each year, more and more men and women are returning home from
active duty service around the world. We believe that in addition to
initiatives such as VetFran, H.R. 942 can help even more of our
Nation's veterans return home to more than simply a job; but a career
as an owner of a small franchised business and an employer and leader
in their local community.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
David French
Vice President, Government Relations
cc: Members of the Subcommittee
Rep. Rodney Alexander
National Association of State Workforce Agencies
Washington, DC.
March 10, 2009
The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable John
Boozman
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on
Economic
Opportunity
U.S. House of
Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairwoman Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman:
The members of the National Association of State Workforce Agencies
(NASWA) constitute State leaders of the publicly funded workforce
investment system vital to meeting the employment needs of veterans.
The mission of NASWA is to serve as an advocate for State workforce
programs and policies, a liaison to Federal workforce system partners,
and a forum for the exchange of information and practices. Since 1973,
NASWA has been a private, non-profit corporation, financed by annual
dues from member State agencies and other sources.
Our members are committed to providing the highest quality of
service to our Nation's veterans, National Guard members and
Reservists. With the ongoing war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, this
is a critical time to ensure high quality workforce services are
available for those who served our country in time of war. We
appreciate the opportunity to share our views on H.R. 929, H.R. 1088,
H.R. 1171 as follows:
H.R. 929, The Military Occupational Specialty Transition (MOST)
program directs the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to carry out a
program of job training in skills relevant to the job market for
discharged veterans.
H.R. 929 would require the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
to establish a Military Occupational Specialty Transition (MOST)
program to provide job training to eligible veterans. NASWA does not
support this legislation because it would be problematic to implement.
This bill is similar to the Service Members Occupational Conversion
and Training Act of 1992 (SMOCTA). The SMOCTA program ran for a number
of years and created opportunities for the U.S. Department of Labor
(USDOL) and the VA to work together to provide training for veterans.
SMOCTA was created as a mechanism to help veterans transition to
the civilian workforce. It languished because the VA was unable to
approve training programs in a timely manner; process all applications;
and make all reimbursements for training to employers. Many employer-
veteran matches made by the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program
specialists (DVOP) and Local Veterans' Employment Representatives
(LVER) could not be completed due to delays in processing and approving
applications.
NASWA suggests this legislation should be implemented as a joint
program or partnership between the USDOL and the VA. The USDOL's,
Veterans and Employment Training Service (VETS) and the States'
workforce system funded by VETS and the Employment and Training
Administration (ETA) have significant experience in employment and
training for veterans.
H.R. 1088 provides a 1-year period for the training of new disabled
veterans' outreach program specialists and local veterans' employment
representatives by the National Veterans' Employment and Training
Services Institute.
While NASWA supports H.R. 1088, we are concerned funding is
insufficient for all DVOPs and LVERs to attend the National Veterans
Training Institute (NVTI) within 1 year of being employed. In the
Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, H.R. 1105, which
passed the U.S. House of Representatives on February 25, 2009, $1.949
million was provided for NVTI; the same level as FY 2008. NASWA
strongly urges FY 2010 funding be increased by approximately $2
million, or nearly double the FY 2008 funding. Otherwise, States
probably would not be able to meet the objective of the bill.
H.R. 1171 reauthorizes the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program
for fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
NASWA strongly supports this legislation which provides grants to
providers of job training and employment services for homeless veterans
by reauthorizing The Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP)
within USDOL's Veterans Employment and Training Service. HVRP is the
only Federal program wholly dedicated to providing employment
assistance to homeless veterans. The success of the program has been
documented by USDOL--65 percent of homeless veterans served through
HVRP enter employment and 72 percent of those who enter employment
retain employment for at least 90 days.
NASWA appreciates the opportunity to present its views and looks
forward to working with the Subcommittee on these important issues.
Sincerely,
Thomas S. Whitaker
President and Deputy Chairman
North Carolina Employment Security Commission
Statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, Members of the
Committee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you
for the opportunity to present our views concerning pending
legislation. PVA appreciates the effort and cooperation this
Subcommittee demonstrates as they address the problems of today's
veterans and the veterans of tomorrow.
H.R. 147, ``Homeless Veterans Assistance Fund''
Paralyzed Veterans of America supports H.R. 147, a bill to amend
the Internal Revenue Code to allow taxpayers to designate a portion of
their income tax payment to provide assistance to homeless veterans.
Homelessness continues to be a problem in our Nation. Unfortunately
veterans, both men and women, make up a disproportionate percentage of
this population. During a recent Joint Hearing of the House and Senate
Committees on Veterans' Affairs, Congressman Bob Filner, Chairman of
the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, reported that one-half of
America's homeless are veterans, with a large number of those being
from the Vietnam era.
By designating $3 to the Homeless Veterans Assistance Fund as
allowed by this legislation, taxpayers can demonstrate their concern
for homeless veterans. Unlike other government programs with a
designated budget amount, this funding total will be difficult to
predict or develop plans for its use. We would hope that funding not
used in a fiscal year, would stay within that trust, and not be
combined with other VA funds. This funding should not be used to
supplant the VA's current successful domiciliary program, but instead
be used by the VA or public sector to increase the options for homeless
veterans.
H.R. 228, the ``Visual Impairment and Orientation and Mobility
Professionals Education Assistance Program''
Paralyzed Veterans of America supports H.R. 228, the ``Visual
Impairment and Orientation and Mobility Professionals Educational
Assistance Program.'' Currently there is a national shortage of health
care workers with degrees or certificates in the fields of visual
impairment and orientation and mobility. The VA is experiencing that
same shortage. The current Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are
responsible for an unexpected number of servicemembers suffering vision
loss, eye injuries and mobility problems. Representatives of the eye
care industry have explained that some eye damage caused by being near
an explosion may not be detected at the time of the incident, but many
months later, after the veteran returns home.
These service connected vision problems and mobility problems from
the current conflict will become the responsibility of the VA health
care system. This legislation will provide up to $45,000 maximum for
tuition and fees for the individual to pursue this field of study and
obtain a degree or certificate. This program could help with the
shortage of health care professionals in this field of blind
rehabilitation.
H.R. 297, the ``Veterans Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
Subsistence Allowance Improvement Act of 2009''
PVA supports H.R. 297, the ``Veteran Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment Subsistence Allowance Improvement Act of 2009.'' This
legislation would pay a small monthly stipend to a veteran that is
enrolled in the Vocational Rehabilitation Program. This would help the
veteran pay rent for housing or provide food for their family while
attending vocational training. The veteran's focus should be on their
program to enhance their job skills and prepare to enter, or reenter,
the workplace. This legislation will help veterans participating in the
vocational rehabilitation program.
H.R. 466, the ``Wounded Veteran Job Security Act''
PVA supports H.R. 466, the ``Wounded Veteran Job Security Act.''
For several decades PVA has been in the forefront of advocating for
health care for veterans, paralyzed veterans, as well as Americans that
have a disability that limits their activities of daily living. PVA's
advocacy efforts have included the protection of individuals seeking
treatment for their injury, illness, or disability. Following the goals
and principles of our organization, we would support this bill that
would prohibit discrimination and acts of reprisal by an employer
against veterans that receive treatment for their condition that was a
result of, or aggravated by, service to this nation.
H.R. 929
PVA supports H.R. 929, a bill to require the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to carry out a program of job training in skills relevant to
the job market for the qualified veteran. With the current unemployment
rate at 8.1 percent, the highest in 25 years, a veteran with limited
job skills because of their Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) is at
a disadvantage in their search for employment. This bill will attempt
to level the field for a veteran seeking to start a career that would
require months, or up to 24 months of training. The intentions of the
bill are good. Similar legislation was passed in the mid-1980s to help
unemployed veterans, but unfortunately it was never funded. Many
employment positions, such as operating computerized equipment,
repairing machinery or equipment, or being a tool and die maker require
months to learn. Some employers invest this time to properly train
their new workers. The railroad industry is a nation wide employer
needing several thousand new workers in the next 2 to 4 years. One
representative from a regional railroad recently told the Department of
Labor, Advisory Committee on Veterans, Employment, and Training and
Employer Outreach (ACVETEO) that they would hire 2500 to 3000 employees
in 2009 with a similar goal in future years. The railroad industry has
been financially solid and knows they face a massive turnover as senior
employees approach the retirement age. They traditionally spend years
training workers, since these necessary job skills are not taught in
college. For situations such as this, the program may give the veteran
who wants to start a career in this industry an edge over other
applicants by helping the employer defray some of that cost.
However, we must caution that programs such as this have potential
for abuse. The VA and the Department of Labor (DOL) should determine if
the amount of training and funding requested is appropriate for the
position. Learning benchmarks and goals would be indicated by a
schedule of progress for the learning period. With many more veterans
entering the work place in the future, this could help some learn the
necessary job skills to support themselves and their families.
The legislation calls for a total of $60 million for each year to
carry out this program from 2009 through 2018. If the program is
marketed properly through DOL and the VA, the dollar amount designated
for this effort could be inadequate. The amount of $60 million could be
sufficient for the program during the first year. Employer awareness
and understanding of the program would require a startup period.
Perhaps as much as $120 million could be used each year during the
second and third year of the program. During the third year the program
should be evaluated for its effectiveness. This is not the answer for
all veterans seeking employment; however, it could help some learn
important job skills as they return to civilian life.
H.R. 942
H.R. 942, a bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
conduct a pilot project on the use of educational assistance under the
programs of the VA to defray training costs associated with the
purchase of a franchise enterprise. PVA has no position on this
legislation. We realize that much training and preparation is required
to own and operate a franchise business. Often there is cost associated
with this training period. Perhaps the franchisor could help finance
this cost, since the veteran is preparing to be their business partner
for the coming years. If the franchise fails, and many new startup
businesses do, or the veteran incurs a disability that will not allow
them to continue with the physical demands of operating that franchise,
again the veteran would need to find other employment. During the time
the veteran plans to sell an unprofitable business, or after the
veteran closes the business they may decide to attend a local community
college or university while preparing for their next occupation. The
veteran would still have available the GI Bill. We realize the
importance of training and preparation when owing a business, but this
may be an unnecessary departure from the purpose of the GI Bill.
H.R. 950
PVA does not oppose H.R. 950. This bill would amend chapter 33 of
title 38, USC, to increase educational assistance for certain veterans
pursuing a program of education offered through distance learning
organizations. The student pursuing their education while living in
their hometown will still have the basic expenses of living, including
food, rent, and utilities. This legislation would help the veteran
during their training or education years without going further into
debt.
Under the current provisions of the ``GI Bill for the 21st
century,'' the cost-of-living stipend is determined by the zip code of
the institution. With the large disparity in the cost of living among
communities, this support should be tied to the area the veteran incurs
these costs, not the location or mailing address of the institution
providing the program.
H.R. 1088
PVA supports H.R. 1088, the ``Mandatory Veterans Specialists
Training Act of 2009.'' This bill would provide for a 1-year period for
the training of new disabled veterans outreach program specialists
(DVOP) and local veterans' employment representatives (LVER). This
training is provided by the National Veterans Training Institute, in
Denver, Colorado, and is an excellent program taught by experienced
trainers. Every State should be willing to take advantage of this
program for their employment representatives.
Training is such an important component to the role of the DVOP and
LVER positions, they should be required to take a refresher course, or
recertification program for those representatives that has been
performing this function for 3 or 4 years. The laws, policies and
employment issues change periodically and these representatives must be
knowledgeable of new changes as they work with the employers in their
communities.
H.R. 1089, the ``Veterans Employment Rights Realignment Act of 2009''
PVA supports H.R. 1089, a bill to provide for the enforcement
through the Office of Special Counsel of the employment and
unemployment rights of veterans and members of the Armed Forces
employed by the Federal executive agencies. PVA supports the increased
enforcement of the effort to insure that the veteran's preference in
employment and reemployment is protected.
H.R. 1171, the ``Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program
Reauthorization Act of 2009''
PVA supports the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP) for
Fiscal Year 2010 which would reauthorize the Homeless Veterans
Reintegration Program within the Department of Labor, Veterans
Employment and Training Service (VETS). This program offers grants to
local nonprofit organizations that specialize in addressing the
problems of the homeless veterans. It is the only Federal employment
assistance program targeted to this special needs population. The
program is responsible in recent years for placing in employment
approximately 15,000 veterans per year with special needs. It has been
evaluated by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) as one of the
more successful programs conducted by the Department of Labor. PVA
supports H.R. 1171, and hopes the program receives, from
appropriations, the funding this Committee authorizes.
Paralyzed Veterans of America appreciates the opportunity to
comment on this important legislation being considered by the
Subcommittee. We look forward to working with you in the future as you
further improve the opportunities for veterans. We would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
March 9, 2009
Mr. Bob Wallace
Executive Director
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
200 Maryland Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20002
Dear Mr. Wallace:
I am sending questions for the record in reference to a hearing
from our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity Legislative Hearing on March 4, 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
__________
JUSTIN BROWN, LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE,
NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE,
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY
CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN,
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WITH RESPECT TO THE HEARING ON MARCH 4, 2009 IN REGARDS TO
H.R. 147, H.R. 228, H.R. 297, H.R. 466, H.R. 929, H.R. 942, H.R. 950,
H.R. 1088,
H.R. 1089, and H.R. 1171
SUBMITTED ON APRIL 17TH, 2009
Question 1: In your written testimony you state that while you
``are supportive of the intent of this legislation, it does not address
the core issues facing VRE.'' What are the top 5 core issue problems
facing VRE today?
Response:
1--The Delimiting Date for VR&E Needs to be Removed
Currently, the delimiting date for VR&E is set to 12 years after
separation from the military, or 12 years following the date a
servicemember learns of their rating for a service connected
disability. This fails to take into account the fact that many service
related injuries will not hinder the veteran to the point of needing
help or rehabilitation until many years following the injury.
Eliminating VR&E's delimiting date would allow veterans to access
the VR&E program on a needs basis for the entirety of their employable
lives. Veterans would still have to be approved by VR&E as having an
employment handicap resulting from their service connected disability
and would still be subject to the total cap of services. However,
dropping the arbitrary delimiting date would insure rehabilitation for
veterans should their service connected disability negatively progress
over time.
2--VR&E's Educational Stipend Needs Parity in Comparison to
Chapter 33
With the passage of the new GI Bill, the discrepancy in benefits
between Chapter 31 and Chapter 33 may have the latent consequence of
incentivizing chapter 33 even though a disabled veteran needs access to
the additional rehabilitation benefits chapter 31 provides. For this
reason the VFW strongly urges Congress to create a Chapter 31
educational housing stipend that is in line with the Chapter 33's
housing allowance; which is E-5, with dependents, basic allowance for
housing (BAH) determined by the zip code of the educational institution
of interest. This would offer our disabled veterans the best all-around
program and would return the VR&E program to offering the best
available overall services to rehabilitating veterans.
3--For Many Disabled Veterans with Dependents VR&E Education Tracks are
Insufficient
For many veterans with dependents the VR&E educational track
provides insufficient support. Veterans with dependents are the second
largest group seeking assistance from VR&E and they are often those
with the most pressing needs to secure meaningful long-term employment.
There are many seriously disabled veterans that are unable to pursue
all of their career options or goals due to the limited resources
provided to disabled veterans with children and spouses. We must not
forget that these veterans are utilizing VR&E because of a disability
they incurred in service to our country. Unfortunately, these heroes
utilize VR&E's employment track at a rate higher than disabled veterans
without dependents. The VFW believes this is likely due to the fact
that immediate employment, while possibly not the best long-term
rehabilitation outlook, immediately provides higher resources to the
family that cannot afford long-term educational rehabilitation.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars would like to see VR&E institute a
program to help veterans with dependents while they receive training,
rehabilitation and education. This could be achieved by establishing a
sufficient allowance to assist with the cost-of-living and in some
cases by providing childcare vouchers or stipends. Childcare is a
substantial expense for many of these veterans. Without aid of some
form, many disabled veterans will be unable to afford the costs
associated with long-term educational rehabilitation.
By assisting these veterans with these expenses, we can increase
the likelihood they will enjoy long-term success and an increased
quality of life. This will lead to decreased usage of VA services and
is a worthwhile proactive approach.
4--VR&E Performance Metrics Need to be Revised to Emphasize
Long-term Success
Currently, VR&E measures the ``rehabilitation rate'' as the number
of veterans with disabilities that achieve their VR&E goals and are
declared rehabilitated compared to the number that discontinue or leave
the program before achieving these goals. ``Rehabilitated'' within the
employment track means that a veteran has been gainfully employed for a
period of 60 days following any VR&E services they received. This form
of performance measure could have the latent consequence of
incentivizing short-term employment solutions over long-term
strategies.
The VFW would like to see all VR&E performance metrics changed to
reflect the employable future of the veteran. At any time if a veteran
becomes unemployed, during his employable future, he would be counted
as such. A veteran's success in completing a rehabilitation program
followed by his employment does not necessarily mean he has been
rehabilitated for the course of his employable future. Changing the
metrics to reflect a career long standing will incentivize long-term
approaches to VR&E programs. If an injury is aggravated following
rehabilitation then a servicemember may need additional rehabilitation
to make him employable.
5--VR&E Needs to Reduce Time from Enrollment to Start of Services
The current VR&E program can take up to several months to begin a
program of training. This occurs primarily because VR&E is required to
validate that entitlement is present. In a recent conversation with
VR&E's central office, the VFW learned that it is extraordinarily rare
that entitlement is not found for the VR&E program. If a veteran has
proven eligibility for VR&E, the VFW believes entitlement ought to be
assumed thereby minimizing the veteran's time in gaining access to VR&E
programs.
The Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor makes entitlement
determinations on the basis of whether the veteran's employment
problems have been caused by:
The veteran's service connected disabilities;
The veteran's non service-connected disabilities;
Deficiencies in education and training;
Negative attitudes about people with disabilities;
The impact of alcoholism and/or drug abuse;
Consistency with abilities, aptitudes, and interests;
Other pertinent factors.
If entitlement were assumed, veterans would still have to be
considered eligible. To be considered eligible for VR&E services, a
veteran must:
Have received, or will receive, a discharge under
conditions other than dishonorable;
Have served on or after September 16, 1940;
Have a service-connected disability employment handicap
rating of at least 20 percent or a serious employment handicap rating
of 10 percent;
Need vocational rehabilitation to overcome an employment
handicap; and
Submit a completed application for VR&E services on VA
Form 28-1900.
Question 2: Is it your estimation that Chapter 22 Basic Allowance
Housing (BAH) is more generous than what H.R. 297 proposes? If so, how
big is the difference?
Response: The VFW is supportive of Chairman Filner's proposal that
VR&E participants of the educational track receive the same stipend as
veterans utilizing Chapter 33; which is, E-5 BAH with dependants based
on the zip code of the institution of attendance.
Question 3: What is your recommendation to help VR&E retool their
programs and focus on career skills?
Response: The VFW believes VR&E's delimiting date needs to be
removed and performance metrics need to be changed to reflect the fact
that disabilities can affect a veteran for the entirety of their
employable future.
Question 4: You state that when SMOCTA funding was cut--
participants found themselves searching for new jobs while lacking
transferable certifications or training. What changes regarding
transferable certifications would you suggest?
Response: Veterans that have exceeded the delimiting dates on
educational and rehabilitation services have very few options available
to them for rehabilitation and/or training. SMOCTA essentially directly
subsidized the short-term solution of low-wage jobs. The VFW believes
in utilizing proactive long-term solutions versus temporary expensive
solutions in approaching veterans' employment issues. In basic, the VFW
believes that a better solution can be created for unemployed veterans
that will provide long-term results and benefits. Such a program should
offer veterans a benefit that will prove valuable over time--i.e.,
certifications, degrees, transferable skills training, etc. Subsidizing
jobs can have the latent consequence of saving the problem for another
day--typically the day you stop subsidizing their employment.
Question 5: You state that VFW believes that the money in the MOST
program would be better spent on a direct educational and training
credit. Do you believe that Chapters 30 and the new Chapter 33 do not
address those direct needs?
Response: They do, but to be eligible for MOST, as written, you
cannot be eligible for any training or education services under Title
38. So the demographic of veterans differ and no one veteran can be
eligible for both of these programs. Chapter 30 has a 10-year
delimiting date and chapter 33 has a 15-year delimiting date.
Question 6: You state in your testimony that NVTI resources need to
be increased. What should be the proper funding level for NVTI?
Response: NVTI, resources would need to be increased to implement
the law proposed by Chairwoman Herseth-Sandlin as it would require all
DVOP's/LVER's to be trained within 1 year. Particularly, because there
would still be a backlog of untrained DVOP's/LVER's that would need to
be addressed. NVTI projects that it will take one million additional
dollars for 2 years, or two million dollars total, for NVTI to train
all DVOP/LVER staff who started in their current position after 2006.
This includes training those who started in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.
This would allow NVTI to ``catch up'' with this group. This additional
funding does not take into account the cost for participant travel. The
travel costs for attending NVTI are paid directly by USDOL/VETS using
non-NVTI contract funding. NVTI projects that the additional travel
would be 700 thousand dollars for 2 years or $1.4 million dollars total
to bring these participants to the training. Therefore the VFW would
recommend $3,400,000 in additional funds over 2 years to catch up.
Following the catching up period, NVTI believes they could keep up
with the 1 year requirement with a funding level of $2.5-3.0 million
dollars per year (not including travel).
Also, this figure fails to account for any untrained DVOP's/LVER's
that were hired prior to 2006.
Question 7: Does VFW have any suggestions on how to improve the
USERRA complaint process?
Response: The VFW is currently in strong support of Representative
Artur Davis's bill H.R. 1474, which would do the following to improve
the USERRA program for servicemembers.
1. Waive state sovereign immunity under the 11th amendment with
respect to the enforcement of USERRA.
2. Make any clause of any agreement between an employer and an
employee that requires arbitration non-enforceable.
3. Increase the number of legal remedies available to USERRA
claimants.
4. Require that attorney fees are paid to claimants who are
successful in their claims.
5. Clarify the definition of successor in interest.
6. Clarify that USERRA prohibits wage discrimination against
members of the armed forces.
7. Require injunctive relief when appropriate.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
March 9, 2009
Ms. Cheryl Beversdorf
President and Chief Executive Officer
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans
333\1/2\ Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20003-1148
Dear Ms. Beversdorf:
I am sending questions for the record in reference to a hearing
from our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity Legislative Hearing on March 4, 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
__________
Deliverable from the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Legislative Hearing
March 4, 2009
Question 1: Is the funding level adequate for Homeless Veterans
Reintegration Programs?
a. If no, what do you recommend?
Response: NCHV believes the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program
(HVRP) funding level is not adequate. The Veterans Housing Opportunity
and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-233) authorized the HVRP
to be appropriated at $50 million for each of fiscal years 2007 through
2009. H.R. 1171, passed by the House on March 30, reauthorizes HVRP for
fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
Based on the program's success in terms of employment outcomes for
one of the most difficult populations to serve and its cost
effectiveness as compared to other employment placement programs, FY
2010 funding should be at the full $50 million authorization level. An
appropriation at this level would enable HVRP grantees to provide
services to over 30,000 homeless veterans and take advantage of the
unused capacity of homeless providers who apply each year but do not
receive a grant.
The HVRP program has been very effective and efficient. Over the
past few years the average percentage of HVRP program participants
placed into jobs has rivaled or exceeded the placement rate for
veterans overall. After inflation, the program's cost to place a
homeless veteran in employment in 2006 ($2500) was less than it was in
2000 ($2,340).
HVRP programs fill a special need because they serve veterans who
may be shunned by other programs and services because of problems such
as severe post-traumatic stress disorder, long histories of substance
abuse, serious psychosocial problems, legal issues, and those who are
HIV-positive. HVRP grantees are required to demonstrate that their
clients' needs in those areas are met and the objective of HVRP
programs is to enable homeless veterans to secure and keep jobs that
will allow them to re-enter mainstream society as productive citizens.
The Department of Labor estimates that almost 15,000 homeless
veterans will be served through HVRP during FY 2008. This figure
represents less than 9 percent of the overall homeless veteran
population, which the Department of Veterans Affairs estimates at
154,000 at any one time. The FY 2009 appropriation level is $26.3
million.
Question 2: Currently, are there some areas that are underserved by
the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Programs? If so, which geographic
areas should DOL seek to target and why?
Response: With each grant competition for the Department of Labor's
(DOL) Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, the agency turns down
more than five out of six proposals received. This is due primarily to
limited funding for the program, as well as the nature of its 3 year
grant cycle.
HVRP urban grants are allocated to only the top 75 most populous
metropolitan areas within the United States while all other non-
metropolitan areas must compete for grants classified as non-urban
grants. As a result, underserved geographical areas exist throughout
all parts of the United States. Additional funding for the program
would allow DOL to award grants that focus on special needs i.e.
chronically homeless veterans, homeless veteran families, homeless
women veterans, as well as grants to more faith-based and community-
based organizations in geographic areas currently not served by the
program, especially in areas where there is a disproportionate high
number of unemployed veterans.
Question 3: What are the key elements that H.R. 147 must have
regarding fund management?
Response: If enacted, H.R. 147 would create a Homeless Veterans
Assistance Fund within the Treasury where the money received from
taxpayers via a portion of their income tax payment would be used to
provide assistance to homeless veterans.
Recommendations for management of the Homeless Veterans Assistance
Fund are attached and address issues of eligible organizations,
governance, grant application, review and determination policies, and
general information.
__________
Homeless Veterans Assistance Fund
Recommendations of the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans
April 12, 2009
The fund will provide assistance in the form of grants to
community-based organizations (CBOs) and local government agencies that
provide direct assistance to homeless veterans, and to organizations
that provide technical assistance and support to those agencies and
organizations.
Eligible Organizations:
Priority 1: Community-Based Organizations--Private nonprofit
community-based (CBO) and faith-based organizations (FBO) that provide
direct assistance to homeless veterans and those who are at risk of
becoming homeless, and their immediate families. Services provided must
include:
1. transitional housing
2. food
3. clothing
4. primary and mental health services
5. case management
6. personal, family and financial counseling
7. employment preparation and placement services
8. transportation assistance
9. referrals for placement in permanent housing
10. followup counseling as indicated
11. Drop-In Resource Centers--to connect veterans in crisis who
are at risk of becoming homeless with services available to help them
12. Participation in a registered community or VA Stand Down
(Stand Down registries are maintained by the VA and NCHV).
Applicants would be required to demonstrate:
1. IRS 501(c)(3) status and Form 990 filings for a minimum of
three years
2. Delivery of services to homeless veterans for a minimum of
three years
3. Ability to provide full range of services--on site or through
contracts with service providers within the grantee's service area
4. Ability to administer Federal grants with respect to
compliance, fiscal responsibility, and reporting requirements
5. Successful outcomes--meeting or exceeding program goals,
acceptable program evaluation methods
6. Administrative oversight costs do not exceed 10 percent of the
grant award
Priority 2: Local Government Agencies--In areas underserved by the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and existing homeless veteran
assistance providers, local (municipal and county) governments would be
eligible for grants to fund direct services to homeless veterans.
Services provided must include those listed in Priority 1 through
contracts with service providers within the applicant's jurisdiction.
State Departments of Veterans Affairs (DVA) would be eligible to
apply for grants to distribute in support of homeless veteran programs
provided:
1. No less that 85 percent of funding would be distributed
directly to service providers not included in other community-based or
local government agency applications in their jurisdictions
2. State DVA subgrants would be distributed through a competitive
application process and funds must be utilized to provide the services
listed in Priority 1, with an allowable percentage for administrative
oversight (up to 15 percent).
Applicants would be required to demonstrate:
1. Official local government designation of agency as Homeless
Veteran Assistance Service Agency
2. Participation in Consolidated Plan, HUD Continuum of Care, and
VA CHALENG committees
3. Contracts and Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with service
providers to ensure delivery of full range of required services
4. Successful outcomes--meeting or exceeding program goals,
acceptable evaluation methods--of service providers contracted to
deliver required services
5. Ability to administer Federal grants with respect to
compliance, fiscal responsibility, and reporting requirements
6. With the exception of State DVAs, administrative oversight
costs do not exceed 10 percent of grant award
Priority 3: Local Veteran, Charitable, Civic, Fraternal and Service
Organizations that provide support services to U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs and community-based grantees under this program to
provide direct assistance to homeless veterans. Services eligible for
funding would include:
1. food
2. clothing
3. personal, family and financial counseling
4. employment preparation and placement assistance
5. tools (uniform allowance) for employment placement
6. transportation assistance
7. child care assistance for single parents with dependent
children
8. mentoring (to augment case management)
9. follow-up mentoring (to augment case management)
Applicants would be required to demonstrate:
1. Certified obligation to provide specific services to homeless
or low-income veterans in support of community-based or local
government agencies under this program (through contracts or
memorandums of understanding)
2. Ability to deliver promised services through detailed business
and financial plans, including operations and administrative costs,
reflecting the needs of the agency the applicant is obligated to
support
3. Ability to administer Federal grants with respect to
compliance, fiscal responsibility, and reporting requirements
4. Administrative oversight costs do not exceed 5 percent of grant
award
Priority 4: Technical Assistance--Up to 10 percent of funds
distributed in each fiscal year under the Homeless Veterans Assistance
Fund would be dedicated to organizations that provide technical
assistance to applicants and grantees under this program. This may be
effected by competitive grant or cooperative agreement contract
processes for a minimum of 3 years to enhance program development and
continuity.
Technical assistance under this program should provide:
1. Guidance to applicants on interpretation of and questions
related to the grant notices of funding availability (NOFA)
2. Guidance on proposal development to strengthen competitiveness
of grant applications
3. Information on Federal grant compliance, financial
responsibility and reporting requirements
4. Information on resource development, program development and
administration, and community collaborations to ensure program
efficiencies and effectiveness.
Applicants should be able to demonstrate:
1. IRS 501(c)(3) designation and Form 990 filings for a minimum of
5 years\*\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ This is important to safeguard against potential conflicts of
interest and maximizing efficiencies at the expense of performance and/
or accountability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Comprehensive knowledge of homeless veteran issues and the
systems in place to help veterans who are homeless or at high risk of
becoming homeless
3. Comprehensive knowledge of and experience working with the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs and other Federal agencies that
administer homeless veteran assistance programs
4. A minimum of 5 years working directly with community
organizations, local government agencies and the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs in developing and enhancing services provided to
homeless veterans
5. Proven record of success in providing technical assistance to
organizations that compete for Federal grants designed to support
community-based homeless veteran assistance programs
6. Thorough understanding of Federal grant application,
compliance, financial responsibility and reporting guidelines and
regulations
Homeless Veterans Assistance Fund Governance
Board of Trustees--A Congressional oversight board to review fund
policies, practices and fiscal management bi-annually. Members would
represent select House and Senate Committees with jurisdiction on
veterans and tax issues. Board would be chaired by the representative
of either the House or Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, and would
file an annual report to Congress on activities and outcomes of the
fund.
Board of Directors--Responsible for the program design; Fund
management and operations; allocation and lawful distribution of funds;
program assessment and performance; and recommendations on program
enhancements. Board would meet quarterly, with authority to meet in
additional sessions if necessary. Board would be reimbursed for
reasonable travel, lodging and per diem costs to participate in
meetings. Board chairman would prepare reports for Board of trustees
and attend meetings. Board terms of 4 years, with a limit of two
consecutive terms. Respective Federal agencies would nominate
replacements for retiring members. Federal representatives do not have
to be stationed at the agency national headquarters.
Permanent seats:
1. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Homeless Programs
2. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Residential Rehabilitative
Services
3. U.S. Department of Labor-Veterans Employment and Training
Service
4. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of
Special Needs
5. U.S. Department of Health and Humans Services, Health Care for
the Homeless
6. Interagency Council on Homelessness
7. Community-Based Homeless Veteran Service Provider
Representatives (3)
8. Veteran Service Organization Homeless Veteran Program
Representatives (2)
Central Administrative Office Staff--Senior Grant Administrator,
Assistant Administrator and Operations Staff would be responsible for
daily operations of Central Office; communications with and monthly
reports to Board of Directors; coordination of grant program activities
and timelines; Fund and central office budgets and compliance; grant
proposal review and rating process, reports to Directors on scoring and
approval recommendations; quarterly review of financial reports
(drawdowns and expenditures); and annual audit of program outcomes
relative to applicant goals (Priority groups 1, 2 and 4).
Federal agencies with permanent seats on the fund Board of
Directors would be required to provide a staff member to assist with
grant application review and rating functions, and the agencies would
be reimbursed for that personnel allocation.
Grant Application, Review and Determination Policies
Grants to community-based organizations and government agencies
from the Homeless Veterans Assistance Fund would be competitive and
could be divided into two categories to minimize administrative burden
and costs:
Priority 1, 2 and 4--NOFAs would be published in the Federal
Register detailing program goals, objectives, requirements and
application guidelines. Notice would include information on award
ceilings, special funding priorities, allowable use of funds, and
overview of application grading. Applicants would have 45 days to
submit complete proposals. Application review, grading and ranking for
final selection by region would be performed by Central Office staff
with support from Federal agencies with permanent seats on the Board of
Directors. Recommendation lists would be submitted by the Senior Grant
Administrator to the Directors, based on available funds for
distribution, rankings and regional distribution. Board would give
final approval, request justifications and/or revisions, and issue
final authority to Central Office to announce awards, conclude grant
contracts, and allocate funds to grantee accounts utilizing the Federal
Electronic/ACH Credit Payment Management System. Awards would be
published in the Federal Register; VA, Labor and HUD Web sites;
Homeless Veterans Assistance Fund Web site, and the technical
assistance grantees' Web sites.
Priority 3--Since these grants are for organizations that are
providing support services directly to organizations funded under the
Homeless Veterans Assistance Fund, applicants would submit proposals
for funding assistance directly to the organizations or agencies in
Priority 1 and 2 as ``subcontractors.'' Eligible entities, allowable
activities and application guidelines would be included as a subsection
of the fund NOFA. The applicants in Priority 1 and 2 would, as part of
their program budget plan, identify specific subcontractors and include
a cost analysis on the services that would be provided through those
contracts. Grant awards to organizations in Priority 1 and 2 would
include funds obligated to specified, approved subcontractors. Priority
1 and 2 grantees would be required to conclude contracts before those
funds can be expended, and would ensure distribution of funds as
services are provided. Grantees would be required to report utilization
of those funds according to their approved grant contracts.
General:
Funds distributed from the Homeless Veterans Assistance Fund must
be used for the delivery of services to homeless veterans, technical
assistance for organizations that wish to apply for inclusion in the
program or are receiving grants through the program, and for
administrative and operational costs of the program. Grants would be
awarded for a 2-year period, with renewals for an additional 2-year
period if grantee performance goals are met or exceeded and taxpayer
contributions to the fund are deemed sufficient by the Board of
Directors and Board of trustees.
Activities that would not be allowable under the fund would include
general public education, promotional, conferences, fundraising,
political and travel expenses other than those authorized and budgeted
for the Board of Directors and Central Office staff.
Initially, no more than 50 percent of funds received through an
Income Tax Checkoff program in a given tax year would be available for
distribution the following tax year. Depending on the funds generated
during the fist 3 years of the program, revisions in the allowable uses
of funds to include prevention strategies and increasing the
availability of affordable housing for low-income and homeless veterans
may be considered by the Board of Directors and referred to the Board
of trustees for Congressional approval.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC
March 9, 2009
Mr. Dave Gorman
Executive Director
Disabled American Veterans
807 Maine Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20024
Dear Mr. Gorman:
I am sending questions for the record in reference to a hearing
from our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity Legislative Hearing on March 4, 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
__________
POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FOR JOHN L. WILSON
OF THE
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS
FROM THE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS'AFFAIRS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCH 4, 2009 HEARING
Question 1: In your testimony on H.R. 297, your recommendation is
to authorize VRE (Chapter 31) participants to receive the subsistence
allowance offered under the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. In your opinion is
this better for the veterans?
Response: In the opinion of the DAV, this amendment is better for
the veteran in that participants would receive the higher subsistence
allowance offered under the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill (Chapter 33).
Otherwise, veterans with service-connected disabilities must either
choose the more lucrative G.I. Bill and sacrifice needed Vocational
Rehabilitation and Education (VRE) services, or choose the VRE program
because of service-connected disabilities thereby forcing them to
forego the more lucrative program. Veterans with service-connected
employment handicaps should not have to choose the lesser program
because of their disabilities.
In the long term, this may be detrimental to their physical and
mental health as well as their ability to retain employment. We believe
this was not the intent of Congress. There is already precedent for
such a bridge between legislative programs as seen under title 38,
United States Code, section 3108 F, which governs the Montgomery G.I.
Bill. Given this precedent, and the fact that such an amendment
resolves an unnecessary but potentially significant stumbling block to
some veterans not being able to receive the optimum vocational
rehabilitation or education, we see this as a win for all.
Question 2: Is the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program at the
proper funding level?
Response: In the opinion of the DAV, the funding level should be
such as to permit the Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program (HVRP)
to attain the maximum outreach. The current level of authorization of
$50 million, while not enough to reach the entire homeless population,
is an increase from prior levels.
HVRP is the only Federal program that is dedicated to providing
employment assistance to homeless veterans who may be denied by other
programs and services because of severe problems such as post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD), history of substance abuse, serious
psychosocial concerns, and legal entanglements, to name only a few.
Extensive, specialized, intensive assessment, referrals and counseling
is required in virtually every case.
The program's success, as documented by Department of Labor (DOL),
notes that 65 percent of homeless veterans served through HVRP enter
employment and, of that number, 72 percent retain employment at the 90-
day mark.
It has been estimated by the DOL that for fiscal year 2009, $25.6
million in HVRP funding would provide employment and training
assistance to approximately 15,330 homeless veterans and, of those,
approximately 10,665 will be placed into employment (average cost per
participant is $1,670 and average cost per placement is $2,407). These
costs represent a small investment for a program that has been such a
large success in moving veterans out of homelessness status and off of
public programs. This increased funding for this vital program is a win
for homeless veterans and a win for Congress.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC
March 9, 2009
Mr. John Sommer
Executive Director
American Legion
1608 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Sommer:
I am sending questions for the record in reference to a hearing
from our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity Legislative Hearing on March 4, 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
__________
The American Legion
Washington, DC
April 17, 2009
Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chair
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. House of Representatives
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chair Herseth Sandlin:
Thank you for allowing The American Legion to participate in the
Subcommittee hearing on various legislation on March 4, 2009. I
respectfully submit the following in response to your additional
questions:
Question 1: The MOST bill, H.R. 929, is based on the SMOCTA bill
which involved the VA, DoD, and DOL. Do you believe that the MOST bill
should include the DOL?
Response: Yes, the MOST bill should maintain the inclusion of DOL.
DOL has the expertise and network of employers to assist veterans in
finding suitable and gainful employment. DOL participation will be
vital to the success of the MOST bill, as it was with SMOCTA.
Question 2: Would The American Legion support the bill if employers
were required to hire the veterans as part of a training program before
they were allowed to participate in the MOST program? (Should an
employer hire a veteran first, then participate in the program.)
Response: The American Legion strongly supports the MOST program
and its ability to provide training and employment for vulnerable
veterans. Currently, The American Legion does not have a position
concerning this question.
Question 3: Should the H.R. 942 program be extended to spouses of
100 percent disabled veterans where the spouse is the bread winner for
that family?
Response: Yes, the spouse should be able to participate in this
benefit to assist in their family's need for financial stability. With
the inclusion of the spouse to this training benefit, not only does it
honor the veteran and the contribution of his/her spouse for their
service to the country, but gives ample opportunity to live financially
independent and achieve a high quality of life.
Question 4: Is the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program serving
veterans in all the correct geographic veterans' concentrations across
the country?
Response: HVRP attempts to serve all the correct geographic
veterans' concentrations across the county, but falls short due to
funding. The Department of Labor, Veterans and Training Employment
Service (DOL-VETS) takes into account geographic concentrations
throughout the country with the grants it awards. However, since HVRP
receives about half of the authorized $50 million, serving veterans in
these critical areas cannot be satisfied. Currently, only one in five
applicants gets a grant. HVRP could serve our homeless veterans in
these geographic concentrations better by being fully funded.
Question 5: In The American Legion's view is this program
underfunded?
a. If so, what would be the correct funding level for this
program?
Response: Yes, The American Legion views the HVRP program as being
underfunded. The American Legion recommends that HVRP be funded at $50
million for FY 2010 for this highly successful grant program.
Currently, the HVRP is funded at $23 million.
Sincerely,
Mark Walker, Deputy Director
National Economic Commission
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC
March 9, 2009
Mr. Patrick Boulay
Senior Attorney
U.S. Office of Special Counsel
1730 M Street, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036-4505
Dear Mr. Boulay:
I am sending questions for the record in reference to a hearing
from our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity Legislative Hearing on March 4, 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
__________
Deliverable from the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Legislative Hearing
March 4, 2009
Question 1: Why is representation before the Merit System
Protection Board critical?
Response: OSC representation of USERRA claims before the Merit
Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is critical for several reasons.
First and foremost, it is the exclusive means of enforcing USERRA
rights against Federal executive agencies. Because the Federal
Government has not waived sovereign immunity for USERRA, claims against
Federal executive agencies cannot be brought in U.S. District Courts.
Thus, filing an action with the MSPB is the sole remedy for those
seeking to compel Federal agencies to comply with USERRA and obtain the
relief to which they are entitled. Only the MSPB can issue an order
against a Federal executive agency to comply with USERRA, provide
claimants with relief, and sanction a Federal agency for failing to do
so.
Second, like OSC, the MSPB is uniquely suited to handle employment
claims involving the Federal Government. The MSPB was established by
the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 to protect the merit system of
Federal employment by adjudicating individual employee appeals and
conducting studies of the merit system. The MSPB is far more familiar
with the intricacies of the Federal personnel system and Federal
personnel law than other adjudicative bodies. As a result, it can
expeditiously adjudicate employment disputes between Federal agencies
and Federal employees and applicants in a manner consistent with the
letter and spirit of Federal employment laws, including USERRA.
Moreover, having one adjudicative body handle all Federal employee
USERRA claims ensures that the law is applied consistently. When
Federal district courts adjudicate USERRA claims, it is inevitable that
different courts will apply USERRA dissimilarly and sometimes in a
conflicting manner. By having the MSPB hear all Federal employee USERRA
complaints, however, a consistent body of law is developed. This allows
employees and agencies to better understand USERRA's requirements, and
leads to fairer and more expeditious outcomes. Finally, appeals from
the MSPB are adjudicated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit. The Federal Circuit has expertise in USERRA and other Federal
personnel laws that other Federal appellate courts do not. Therefore,
decisions on appeal by Federal employees or agencies will also be more
consistent and more likely to correctly interpret USERRA than if such
appeals were decided by different appellate courts.
Third, it is unlikely that many claimants would or could
successfully enforce their USERRA rights before the MSPB without OSC
representation. Not only is such representation free of cost to the
claimant, but OSC has particular expertise in prosecuting cases,
including USERRA cases, before the MSPB that no other government agency
or private attorney can offer. Without the option of seeking OSC
representation, many potentially meritorious claims would likely not be
pursued due to the time and cost associated with litigation, especially
if claimants must retain private counsel. And even if Federal employees
pursue their claims without OSC representation, it is more likely that
these lawsuits will be unsuccessful due to a lack of knowledge and
expertise by claimants and private counsel.
Moreover, OSC has demonstrated a willingness and ability to
successfully ``push the envelope'' by pursuing and obtaining relief in
cases considered unwinnable by others or where the law is ambiguous. In
short, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill Congress's
goal that the Federal Government serve as a ``model employer'' under
USERRA without OSC representation before the MSPB.
Fourth, OSC believes its credible threat of litigation before the
MSPB is essential to its success in enforcing USERRA. Because
litigation is costly, time-consuming, uncertain, and can generate
negative publicity, it provides agencies with a strong incentive to
settle cases before an action is filed with the MSPB. In OSC's
experience, once educated about USERRA's requirements and presented
with evidence of a violation, most Federal agencies agree to take the
appropriate corrective action on behalf of the claimant. However, it is
unlikely that such a high rate of voluntary compliance would occur
without the threat of MSPB litigation. Moreover, in cases where an
agency refuses to take the requested action, OSC has the means of
obtaining compliance with the law through its authority to file cases
before the MSPB. This authority must be contrasted with the Department
of Labor (DOL)'s limited authority to attempt to resolve cases without
a credible threat of adjudicative action. DOL cannot compel compliance
with USERRA because it cannot file claims before the MSPB--only OSC has
this authority.
H.R. 1089, which proposes to give OSC authority to prosecute and
investigate Federal USERRA complaints, would likely increase and
expedite voluntary compliance with USERRA by Federal agencies because
it eliminates the need for such complaints to first go through DOL.
Under the current system, there is no threat of MSPB litigation when
complaints are before DOL, giving agencies less incentive to settle. In
addition, claimants with meritorious claims may decide not to request
referral of their complaints to OSC after DOL investigation and
attempted resolution, either because they become discouraged, are not
aware of their right to referral, etc. Thus, agencies can ``take a
chance'' that a complaint will be settled for less than the claimant is
entitled to or will not be forwarded to OSC for possible prosecution.
In contrast, if OSC directly received all Federal USERRA
complaints, the threat of litigation would be imminent, encouraging
Federal agencies to voluntarily resolve meritorious claims, and do so
more quickly (as they often did under the USERRA Demonstration
Project). In addition, OSC would not need to re-investigate complaints
that DOL has tried to resolve to determine whether to provide
representation before the MSPB, as is often required under existing
law. Finally, claimants would not have pressure to accept less than the
full relief to which they are entitled because they wish to resolve the
matter without drawing out the process any further. Thus, under H.R.
1089, Federal USERRA claimants would be able to obtain appropriate
relief more quickly, as evidenced during the USERRA Demonstration
Project, where OSC achieved an exceptionally high 25 percent corrective
action rate for all complaints it directly received.
In summary, the MSPB is the exclusive means of enforcing USERRA
claims against Federal executive agencies, and is uniquely suited to
adjudicating such claims in a consistent manner. Similarly, OSC is
uniquely suited to prosecuting USERRA claims before the MSPB. Unlike
private counsel, OSC is focused on presenting cases before the MSPB,
and has the requisite expertise to do so. Further, OSC is willing and
able to ``push the envelope'' to ensure that the Federal Government
serve as a ``model employer'' under USERRA. In fact, OSC often obtains
settlements from Federal executive agencies that DOL cannot, simply
because the threat of litigation becomes imminent only when OSC becomes
involved. Under H.R. 1089, Federal USERRA claimants would receive the
benefit of having OSC involved in their claims at the earliest possible
time, thereby making the promise of corrective action quicker and more
certain.
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 questions for the record in reference to a hearing
from our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity Legislative Hearing on March 4, 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 Committee on Veterans' Affairs
March 4, 2009
Pending Legislation
Question 1: What is the U.S. Department of Veterans of Affairs
position on H.R. 228 and H.R. 297?
Response: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provided the
Committee with a views letter on May 26, 2009. A copy of that response
is included as a complete reply to this question.
Question 2: You state that H.R. 929 would be challenging to
implement. How can the implementation be streamlined?
Response: While VA supports the principle of expanding occupational
opportunities for Veterans, implementing H.R. 929 as currently drafted
would be a challenge. For example, unlike existing GI Bill programs,
the training programs for the Military occupational specialty
transition (MOST) program must be approved by State Approving Agencies
(SAA) prior to placement of eligible Veterans and before payments can
be made. For employers who do not have existing approved programs, the
SAAs would have to evaluate the training program under the criteria for
on-the-job training programs in chapter 36 of title 38, United States
Code. MOST would also require VA to determine if the training program
was appropriate for participation by an eligible individual. To meet
the intent of the program VA would have to seek out employers, SAAs
would need to pre-approve programs, and then VA would need to match
individuals to jobs based on their skill sets. Under current GI Bill
programs, the beneficiary finds employment and requests to use VA
benefits for the training program. The employer then seeks approval for
the training program when the Veteran is hired or after the Veteran is
hired. The issue of having a significant difference between the time
the SAA approves the training and when a veteran's eligibility is
determined makes implementation challenging.
To address the challenges VA recommends obtaining input from the
Department of Labor (DOL) and leveraging programs they offer to serve
unemployed Veterans. In addition, the bill makes the program effective
the date of enactment and requires VA to develop the regulations
necessary to carry out the program. As such, VA's ability to pay claims
associated with the MOST program would be delayed until regulations
were published for public comment and then re-published as final
regulations.
Question 3: How big would the impact be on VA to conduct oversight
to ensure compliance with H.R. 942?
Response: Conducting oversight to ensure compliance with H.R. 942
would challenge Education Service resources that are already fully
committed to existing programs and implementation of the Post-9/11 GI
Bill. As an entirely new program, VA would be required to conduct
oversight of entities that provide training associated with the
purchase of a franchise. The impact would be similar if SAAs provided
the oversight, it would require the diversion of resources from current
oversight activities unless additional funding is provided.
Administration of the program would be delayed until regulations were
published for public comment and then re-published as final
regulations.
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Washington, DC
May 26, 2009
The Honorable Bob Filner
Chairman
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As requested by the Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, below are
the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on two bills, H.R.
228, to ``direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a
scholarship program to provide financial assistance for students
seeking a degree or certificate in the areas of visual impairment and
orientation and mobility,'' and H.R. 297, the ``Veteran Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment Subsistence Allowance Improvement Act of
2009.''
H.R. 228
H.R. 228 would establish a new scholarship program for individuals
who are accepted for enrollment, or currently enrolled, in a program of
study leading to a degree(s) or certificate(s) in visual impairment or
orientation and mobility. In exchange for the scholarship assistance,
the participants would incur service obligations with the Department.
The bill would limit to $15,000 the total amount of assistance that a
participant who is a full-time student could receive during an academic
year. It would establish a maximum cap of $45,000 on the total
assistance that VA could provide to any participant. H.R. 228 would
also require the Secretary to establish terms of participation for the
program, including the length of a participant's period of obligated
service. Participants who fail to meet their service obligations would
be subject to repayment terms, as specified in the bill.
VA appreciates the importance of Blind Rehabilitation Services, as
evident by its investment of $50 million to enhance its nationwide
continuum of rehabilitative care for Veterans and active duty military
personnel with visual impairments. VHA is the first health care system
to completely integrate such services for patients with visual
impairments into comprehensive health care benefits. This continuum of
care will establish 55 new outpatient clinics targeting those who are
beginning to experience functional loss from visual impairment. New
programs also include: 22 new Intermediate Low Vision Clinics; 22 new
Advanced Ambulatory Low Vision Clinics; and 11 new Outpatient Hoptel
Blind Rehabilitation Clinics. The goal of this initiative is to provide
rehabilitation services that keep visually impaired Veterans and active
duty personnel functioning as independently as possible, and integrated
with their families and communities.
The Department is committed to ensuring that appropriate staffing
of blind rehabilitation outpatient specialists and visual impairment
professionals is maintained to support VA Blind Rehabilitation Services
and this expanded continuum of care. However, because VA's existing
scholarship program already enables us to meet our need for
professionals in these occupations and many others, we do not support
this bill. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) analyzes data
concerning recruitment and retention of health care disciplines
annually. The results of this analysis are published each year in the
Succession and Workforce Development Plan. This plan provides a
detailed, evidence-based analysis that identifies the categories of
health professions which could, or should be, targeted with recruitment
or retention incentives, including scholarship programs. As part of
succession-planning efforts, VHA has funded technical career field
interns in the blind rehabilitation occupation. In 2007, nine interns
were funded, in 2008, 20 interns and again in 2009, 20 interns will be
funded. We feel continued support in the technical career field program
will meet the needs within the Department. We do not believe creation
of an entirely separate scholarship program for this limited group of
individuals would be cost effective.
It is also important to note that under the bill, participants
would be treated far more leniently than participants in VA's existing
scholarship program in the event they breach their service obligations.
Participants in VA's Education Incentive Scholarship Program (EISP)
incur treble damages for breach of their service obligation, whereas
H.R. 228 would provide for repayment of ``an amount equal to the
unearned portion of [the educational] assistance,'' We do not believe
disparate penalties for the same action are justified. The EISP
statutory framework also establishes other categories of liability
depending on the type of breach committed by the participant, e.g.,
failure to accept the scholarship money, failure to complete the
program or to obtain licensure. This bill does not address all of the
other scenarios covered under the EISP.
We estimate the total cost of implementing H.R. 228 to be $521,000
in fiscal year (FY) 2009, $2.72 million over 5 years, and $5.7 million
over a 10-year period.
H.R. 297
H.R. 297 would provide for an increase in the amount of subsistence
allowance payable to Veterans participating in programs of vocational
rehabilitation under chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code, and
expand availability of subsistence allowances for veterans using
employment services under that chapter.
We support, in principle, efforts to facilitate successful
completion of vocational rehabilitation programs under chapter 31, and
we recognize that increasing the amounts of subsistence allowance
provided to Veterans participating in training and employment services
will encourage more veterans to continue their rehabilitation programs.
Increased rates of subsistence allowance would allow Veterans to
pursue rehabilitation on a full-time basis, leading to entry into
employment in a shorter period of time.
However, we are unable to support H.R. 297 at this time. Recent
changes to VA education benefits, including the new Post-9/11 GI Bill,
may affect chapter 31 participation and completion rates. In addition,
as recommended by the Dole-Shalala Commission on Wounded Warriors, VA
is currently completing a review of its compensation program that has
implications for the vocational rehabilitation program. This changing
landscape of comprehensive benefits prevents VA from adequately
evaluating the subsistence allowance increase proposed in H.R. 297. The
Department plans to evaluate its total benefit package and recommend
necessary improvements as part of the FY 2011 Budget.
We estimate that enactment of H.R. 297 would result in benefits
costs of $212.3 million for FY 2010 and $771.4 million over 10 years.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no
objection to the submission of this letter from the standpoint of the
Administration.
Sincerely,
Eric K. Shinseki