[Senate Hearing 111-787]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-787
OVERSIGHT HEARINGS: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW POST-9/11 GI BILL--
LOOKING BACK AND MOVING FORWARD; AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE POST-9/11 GI
BILL
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 21 AND JULY 21, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
63-008 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
Daniel K. Akaka, Hawaii, Chairman
John D. Rockefeller IV, West Richard Burr, North Carolina,
Virginia Ranking Member
Patty Murray, Washington Lindsey O. Graham, South Carolina
Bernard Sanders, (I) Vermont Johnny Isakson, Georgia
Sherrod Brown, Ohio Roger F. Wicker, Mississippi
Jim Webb, Virginia Mike Johanns, Nebraska
Jon Tester, Montana Scott P. Brown, Massachusetts
Mark Begich, Alaska
Roland W. Burris, Illinois
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania
William E. Brew, Staff Director
Lupe Wissel, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
April 21, 2010
Implementation of the New Post-9/11 GI Bill--
Looking Back and Moving Forward
SENATORS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., Chairman, U.S. Senator from Hawaii........ 1
Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Montana...................... 2
Burr, Hon. Richard, Ranking Member, U.S. Senator from North
Carolina....................................................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Brown, Hon. Scott, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts............... 43
Burris, Hon. Roland W., U.S. Senator from Illinois............... 45
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from Georgia.................. 48
Begich, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from Alaska...................... 49
WITNESSES
Wilson, Keith, Director, Education Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs............ 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Response to post-hearing questions submitted by:
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka....................................... 8
Hon. Richard Burr.......................................... 17
Hon. Mike Johanns.......................................... 25
Response to request arising during the hearing by:
Hon. Richard Burr.......................................... 38
Hon. Mark Begich........................................... 55
Warren, Stephen, Principal Deputy Secretary Information
Technology, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs............................................ 25
Response to request arising during the hearing by Hon. Jon
Tester..................................................... 42
Osendorf, Dan, Director, Debt Management Center, U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs............................................ 26
Clark, Robert, Assistant Director, Accession Policy Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness......... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
DesLauriers, Faith, Legislative Director, National Association of
Veterans' Program Administrators............................... 56
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Stephens, William, President, National Association of State
Approving Agencies............................................. 61
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Madden, Robert, Assistant Director, National Economic Commission,
The American Legion............................................ 66
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Reininger, Marco, IAVA Member, Student Veteran, Columbia
University..................................................... 69
Prepared statement........................................... 71
APPENDIX
Farrell, Captain Gerard M., USN (Ret.), Executive Director,
Commissioned Officers Association, U.S. Public Health Service;
prepared statement............................................. 77
Embree, Tim, Legislative Associate, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans
of America; letter............................................. 79
----------
July 21, 2010
Improvements to the Post-9/11 GI Bill
SENATORS
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., Chairman, U.S. Senator from Hawaii........ 87
Burr, Hon. Richard, Ranking Member, U.S. Senator from North
Carolina....................................................... 88
Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Montana...................... 90
Brown, Hon. Scott, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts............... 90
Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington................. 91
Begich, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from Alaska...................... 92
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from Georgia.................. 112
Burris, Hon. Roland W., U.S. Senator from Illinois............... 118
Rockefeller, Hon. John D., IV, U.S. Senator from West Virginia... 120
Prepared statement........................................... 120
WITNESSES
Wilson, Keith, Director, Education Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs............ 92
Prepared statement........................................... 94
Response to post-hearing questions submitted by:
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka....................................... 100
Hon. Richard Burr.......................................... 101
Hon. Mark Begich........................................... 103
Hon. Roland W. Burris...................................... 104
Response to request arising during the hearing by:
Hon. Johnny Isakson........................................ 113
Hon. Jon Tester............................................ 124
Clark, Robert E., Assistant Director for Accession Policy, Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,
U.S. Department of Defense, accompanied by John Brizzi,
Assistant General Counsel...................................... 105
Prepared statement........................................... 106
Hilleman, Eric, Director, National Legislative Service, Veterans
of Foreign Wars................................................ 126
Prepared statement........................................... 127
Embree, Tim, Legislative Associate, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans
of
America........................................................ 132
Prepared statement........................................... 134
Hartle, Terry W., Senior Vice President, American Council on
Education...................................................... 138
Prepared statement........................................... 140
Flink, Judith, Executive Director, University Student Financial
Services, University of Illinois............................... 142
Prepared statement........................................... 144
Attachment............................................... 146
Farrell, Captain Gerard M., USN (Ret.), Executive Director,
Commissioned Officers' Association of the U.S. Public Health
Service........................................................ 149
Prepared statement........................................... 151
Letter for the Record........................................ 158
APPENDIX
Madden, Robert, Assistant Director, National Economic Commission,
The American Legion; prepared statement........................ 161
Decoteau, John, Military Admissions Director, Universal Technical
Institute; prepared statement.................................. 163
Duffy, Peter J., Deputy Director Legislation, National Guard
Association of the United States; prepared statement........... 165
Military Officers Association of America; prepared statement..... 167
Reserve Officers Association of the United States and Reserve
Enlisted Association; prepared statement....................... 170
Martini, Louis F., Director of Military & Veteran Education,
Thomas Edison State College; and Robin Walton, Director,
Community Affairs and Government Relations, Thomas Edison State
College; prepared statement.................................... 172
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW POST-9/11 GI BILL--LOOKING BACK AND MOVING
FORWARD
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
room 418, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Akaka, Tester, Begich, Burris, Burr,
Isakson, and Brown from Massachusetts.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, CHAIRMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Chairman Akaka. This hearing will come to order. Aloha and
good morning to all of you. Today we will review the
implementation of the New Post-9/11 GI Bill. I welcome each of
you to this very, very important hearing.
As one of only three current senators who received benefits
under the original GI Bill after World War II, I know firsthand
the value of this program. My life was changed by the
opportunity to get an education with the benefits that I
earned, and I am very grateful for that opportunity and that
chance. That is why I was so pleased to join Senator Webb in
cosponsoring the bill that created this important new education
benefit, which became effective on August 1, 2009.
Since the program began, the Committee has been actively
monitoring the implementation of the new benefits. I thank both
VA and DOD for the cooperation they have shown to Committee
staff during this oversight work. There are significant and
complex issues relating to the new benefit package. There are
also substantial issues relating to the delivery of benefits to
those who have served.
This morning, we will be exploring what problems have been
encountered to date and how they were addressed. We will also
focus on what needs to be done to ensure that benefits are
delivered in a timely and accurate way. In addition to
representatives from VA and DOD, a number of stakeholders will
also be joining us to share their experiences and the issues
they have encountered.
There is much to do to make this program as good as it can
be. It is time to begin that work. In that vein, I plan before
Memorial Day to introduce legislation that will serve as a
starting point for the discussion about how the program should
be changed. In my view, it is imperative that we all work
together to address the issues involved, which today's
witnesses will discuss in further detail.
It is also important that we not take a piecemeal approach
to whatever issues and fixes we identify, but rather move
forward in a comprehensive, considerate, and deliberate way. So
I look forward to beginning that process, and thank you again
for appearing here today and for your work on this important
matter.
Before we move on, I would like to ask Babette Polzer, the
professional staff member on this Committee who organized
today's hearing, to please rise.
Yesterday, Babette achieved a Senate milestone by reaching
20 years of service to the U.S. Senate. I note that she
accomplished this feat in a somewhat unusual way by being away
from the Senate for 20 years in the midst of her career. But
she has returned, and we are delighted she did so.
Babette, on behalf of the Senate, I am presenting you with
your 20-year plaque and pin. Thank you so much for your service
to the U.S. Senate and to our veterans. Mahalo. [Applause.]
Thank you very much. Her work with the GI Bill has been
instrumental in our success with it.
Let me now call on Senator Tester for any opening remarks
he may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, but after
your opening remarks and after that presentation, I absolutely
cannot top that by any means. I want to thank you for the
hearing, and I look forward to the presentation by the
panelists and to some questions afterwards. So thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Tester.
We would like to welcome our first panel this morning,
representatives from VA and DOD. Our first witness from VA is
Keith Wilson, the Director of VA's Education Service. Also,
Stephen Warren, the Principal Deputy Secretary for Information
Technology. Finally, Dan Osendorf, the Director of VA's Debt
Management Center, will present testimony on recovering advance
payments and overpayments generally. From the Department of
Defense, we are joined by Robert Clark, Assistant Director of
Accession Policy.
So I want to welcome all of you and now ask Mr. Wilson to
proceed with your statement.
STATEMENT OF KEITH WILSON, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION SERVICE,
VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
Mr. Wilson. Good morning, Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member
Burr, and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss VA's
implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. My testimony will
address the challenges we face, the steps taken to improve the
delivery of Post-9/11 GI Bill claims, and the current status of
education claims processing.
Joining me today are Stephen Warren, Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology, and Dan
Osendorf, Director of Department of Veterans Affairs Debt
Management Center.
As this Committee knows well, the Post-9/11 GI Bill passed
by Congress in 2008 is the most extensive educational
assistance program authorized since the original GI Bill was
signed into law in 1944. Secretary Shinseki and the entire VA
Department are committed to ensuring all servicemembers,
veterans and their family members eligible for this important
benefit receive it in a timely manner so they can focus on
their education.
Enactment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill on June 30, 2008, gave
VA approximately 13 months to develop a new, highly complex
eligibility and payment systems for thousands of claimants who
would be eligible to receive the benefits on August 1, 2009. To
meet this challenge, VA began development of an interim claims
processing solution while simultaneously developing a long-term
rules-based solution in cooperation with the Space and Naval
Warfare System Center Atlantic, SPAWAR.
Currently, Post-9/11 GI Bill claims require extensive
manual processing using four separate IT systems that do not
interface with each other. Since May 1, 2009, VA has received
and processed over 578,000 enrollment certifications and
237,000 changes to enrollments. For Fiscal Year 2009, the
average time to process all education benefits, including Post-
9/11 GI Bill claims, was 26 days for original claims and 13
days for supplemental claims. Claims processing took more time
on average during the fall semester due to the increased
workload from the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
For this fiscal year, our average processing time is 53
days for original claims and 21 days for supplemental claims.
However, our average processing time windows for the current
month is 20 days for original claims and 13 days for
supplemental claims. We have issued over $2.7 million in
payments to approximately 246,000 individuals and their
educational institutions.
To ensure veterans who enrolled in the spring term received
their benefits on time, VA took many steps, including issuance
of advanced payments. We set a goal to process any enrollment
certification we received before January 19 for payment on
February 1. We are pleased to report to the Committee that we
were able to achieve that goal.
VA partnered with SPAWAR to develop an end-to-end claims
processing solution that utilizes rules-based industry-standard
technologies for the delivery of education benefits. This is
our long-term strategy for implementing the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
VA's automated systems are scheduled to be released in four
releases with incremental capability being rolled out to our
claims examiners.
Release 1 of this effort was deployed on March 31, 2010,
with reduced functionality. Release 2, scheduled for June 30 of
this year, will serve as the foundation from which VA will
retire the interim solution and automate education benefits
processing. The scope of Releases 3 and 4, currently scheduled
for September and December of this year, respectively, will
contain interfaces to VA legacy systems to pre-populate
information and automate payments.
VA has made significant progress in implementing the Post-
9/11 GI Bill, and we are working every day to ensure veterans
timely receive the education benefits they have earned through
their service and sacrifice. We appreciate the support of this
Committee and the Congress as we carry out this mission.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or any other Members of the
Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Keith M. Wilson, Director, Education Service,
Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Good morning Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of
the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. My testimony
will address the challenges we faced, the steps taken to improve the
delivery of Post-9/11 GI Bill claims, and the current status of
education claims processing. Joining me today is Stephen Warren,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology,
who will discuss the status of implementation of the Long-Term
Solution. I am also joined by Dan Osendorf, Director of the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) Debt Management Center (DMC), who will discuss
recoupment of advance payments.
As this Committee knows well, the Post-9/11 GI Bill, passed by
Congress in 2008, is the most extensive educational assistance program
authorized since the original GI Bill was signed into law in 1944.
Secretary Shinseki and the entire Department are committed to ensuring
all Servicemembers, Veterans, and their family members eligible for
this important benefit receive it in a timely manner so they can focus
on their education.
background and challenges
Enactment of the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Act on June 30,
2008, gave VA approximately 13 months to develop a new, highly complex
eligibility and payment system for thousands of claimants who would be
eligible to receive benefits under the new program on August 1, 2009.
To meet this challenge, VA began development of an interim claims
processing solution, while simultaneously developing a long-term rules-
based processing solution, in cooperation with the Space and Naval
Warfare Systems Center Atlantic (SPAWAR). VA's Office of Information &
Technology (OI&T) designed the interim processing solution
functionality in three separate phases. Each phase delivered a specific
set of functionalities for claims examiners to manually process Post-
9/11 GI Bill claims with some IT augmentation. However, development of
the interim solution was more challenging than anticipated, given the
complexity of the new program and the reduced timeline for delivery.
Prior to the August 1 implementation, OI&T delivered two phases of the
interim solution. Phase three, which provided increased functionality
and additional automation for processing Post-9/11 GI Bill claims, was
originally scheduled for deployment in September 2009 during the peak
enrollment period for processing education claims. Due to the
complexity of the processing steps and requirements for both amended
awards and overlapping terms, phase three was delayed until November
2009. Amended award functionality includes changes in a student's
actual charges for tuition and fees and reduced or increased course
loads. As the law requires VA to pay actual charges, amended awards are
required for every dollar change to a student's tuition and fees.
Post-9/11 GI Bill claims currently require manual processing using
four separate IT systems that do not interface with each other. When an
application or enrollment certification is received, the documents are
captured into the Image Management System (TIMS). The documents are
routed electronically to a claims examiner for processing. The claims
examiner reviews the documents in TIMS and determines the student's
eligibility, entitlement, and benefit rate using the Front End Tool
(FET). The FET is used to calculate and store student information to
support the Post-9/11 GI Bill claims adjudication process. However, the
FET has limited capability for processing the multiple scenarios
encountered in determining eligibility and entitlement under the new
program. As a result, VA, in conjunction with MITRE Corporation,
developed multiple job aids or out-of-system tools and spreadsheets to
augment claims processing.
Once the benefit rate and payment amount are determined, the claims
examiner enters the payment information into the back-end tool (BET).
The BET utilizes the existing Benefits Delivery Network (BDN) to issue
payments. A payment cannot be processed until at least two individuals
approve the award and payment amount. All evidence to support the award
actions taken by the claims examiner, and a senior claims examiner, is
captured into TIMS. This process is completed separately for the
housing allowance, the tuition and fees payment, and the books and
supplies stipend. Due to a lack of integration among systems, the time
to complete a Post-9/11 GI Bill claim is significantly longer than the
processing time for other education benefits.
Because the program implementation date fell in the middle of some
school terms and many students were enrolled in another education
program such as the Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty (MGIB-AD), VA had to
determine rates payable to students in school on August 1, 2009, under
two separate benefit programs and prorate Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.
Further complicating the claims process was overlapping terms. It is
not uncommon for many students to enroll in courses that begin and end
in overlapping time periods at different schools. Processing these
claims involved additional manual calculations for the overlap as well
as separate payments going to more than one school.
To complicate an already challenging situation, the new benefit
program requires VA to determine maximum tuition and fee rates for each
state before the beginning of each academic year. Schools do not
typically set their tuition and fee rates until state support is
determined for the academic year. Many states did not pass their
operating budgets until late July/early August. Correspondingly,
institutions could not set tuition and fee rates until late August.
Delays in determining the 2009-2010 maximum tuition and fee rates
resulted in delayed processing of payments for students attending
school in those states. Finally, VA had to train newly hired employees
on the interim processing solution during the fall enrollment period.
This includes the 530 term employees hired in December 2008, and the
additional 230 term employees provided by Congress under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
current workload and processing status
On May 1, 2009, VA began accepting applications to determine
eligibility for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. On July 7, 2009, we started
accepting enrollment certifications from school certifying officials
for Veterans utilizing their Post-9/1 1 GI Bill benefits for the fall
term and began processing claims for payment. While most schools
submitted their enrollment certifications to VA in a timely manner,
some schools did not for various reasons. This delayed the payment of
benefits to Veterans, since VA could not pay until it received an
enrollment certification from the school. Since May 1, 2009, we have
received and processed over 578,000 enrollment certifications and
237,000 changes to enrollments for Veterans attending school under the
Post-9/11 GI Bill.
For fiscal year 2009, the average time to process all education
benefit claims, including Post-9/11 GI Bill claims, took 26 days for
original claims and 13 days for supplemental claims. Claims processing
took more time on average during the fall semester due to the increased
workload from the Post-9/11 GI Bill. To ensure Veterans who enrolled in
the spring term received their benefits on time, VA set a goal to
process any enrollment certification we received before January 19,
2010, for payment by February 1, 2010. VA is pleased to report to the
Committee that we were able to achieve this goal.
For this fiscal year, our average processing time is 53 days for
original claims and 21 days for supplemental claims. However, our
average processing time for the current month is 20 days for originals
and 13 days for supplementals. We have issued over $2.7 billion in
Post-9/11 GI Bill payments to approximately 246,000 individuals and
their educational institutions.
spring 2010 enrollment
VA took numerous steps to reduce the number of pending claims and
prepare for the spring enrollment period. As a result of these
improvements, VA was able to increase its daily completions of Post-9/
11 GI Bill enrollment certifications from an average of 1,800 per day
during October to nearly 7,000 per day.
On October 28, 2009, VA awarded a contract to Affiliated Computer
Services (ACS) in London, Kentucky, to provide claims processing
support for non-Post-9/11 GI Bill. This effort allows VA to focus
resources on the more complex Post-9/11 GI Bill claims. This contract
is scheduled to expire on April 28, 2010.
VA utilized 230 term employees hired through the funding provided
by Congress under ARRA. We implemented a mandatory overtime policy at
the four regional processing offices (RPOs) requiring all employees to
work three additional days per month. We also utilized 200 ARRA
employees at five VA satellite offices to authorize Post-9/11 GI Bill
payments. Procedures were amended to streamline the entire claims
process and eliminate duplication of efforts and redundant or unneeded
development.
VA worked closely with the Department of Defense (DOD) to ensure
Servicemembers' data would be exchanged electronically for eligibility
determinations under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. VA and DOD also developed
an electronic means whereby information related to spouses and children
with transferred entitlement would be exchanged to process a claim
under the transfer of entitlement provision of the Post- 9/1 1 GI Bill.
When the electronic system was unavailable, VA and DOD ensured the data
were exchanged manually in a timely manner so that benefit payments
were not negatively impacted.
fall 2010 enrollment
On August 1, 2010, payments under the Post-9/11 GI Bill will be
expanded to include the children of those Servicemembers killed while
on active duty. The Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship
will be available for the children of an active duty Servicemember who
died in the line of duty since September 11, 2001. Eligible individuals
can receive up to 36 months of entitlement. VA will begin accepting
applications for this program on May 1, 2010. We anticipate
approximately 2,400 children will be eligible for the Fry Scholarship
in fiscal year 2010. We do not anticipate the delays from last fall
will recur during the fall 2010 semester for veterans applying for
educational benefits. VA expects students will experience significant
improvements in the delivery of their education payments.
long-term solution
VA partnered with SPAWAR to develop an end-to-end claims processing
solution that utilizes rules-based, industry-standard technologies, for
the delivery of education benefits. This is our long-term strategy for
implementing the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The Post-9/11 GI Bill contains
eligibility rules and benefit determinations that will work well with
rules-based technology that requires minimal human intervention.
VA's automated IT system is scheduled to be released in four phases
to provide incremental capability to the users in the field stations.
Release 1 of this effort was successfully deployed on March 31, 2010
which provides: functionality to calculate new original awards;
automated calculation of awards including tuition and fees, housing,
books and supplies, yellow ribbon, Chapter 30 and 1606 kickers;
automated calculation of awards for overlapping terms and intervals,
including interval rules for summer terms; and demographic and service
data from VA DOD Identity Repository (VADIR).
Originally, release 1 was envisioned as having additional
capabilities.However, due to an increased understanding of the
complexity of amended awards, certain capabilities were delayed to
Release 2.'' As our subject matter experts (SME) worked with the SPAWAR
team, it became clear that the amount of software remaining to be
developed exceeded what could be done to meet the March 31, 2010,
milestone requirement. VA deployed Release 1 to a limited set of claims
processors at our Muskogee RPO to fully exercise the Long-Term Solution
such that any ``hidden'' defects are found and corrected before Release
2 is deployed on June 30. The claims processors at the Muskogee RPO are
currently using Release 1 to process original certificates of
eligibility and amended claims.
Feedback from our end-users indicates the Long-Term Solution offers
ease of use and allows increased efficiency. Release 2, currently
scheduled for June 30, 2010, will serve as the foundation from which
the VA will retire the Interim solution and automate the Education
benefits business process. The scope of Releases 3 and 4, currently
scheduled for September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2010 respectively,
will contain interfaces to Education legacy systems in order to pre-
populate data and automate payment. The final scope for these releases
has not been set.
There are a number of challenges to fully implementing the Long
Term Solution. It is important to recognize that the methodology we are
using to deliver this system is based on an agile approach. It is based
on making tradeoffs between schedule and functionality. We have
developed the schedule such that there is a release of software every 3
months. To accomplish this, we adjust the delivered functionally to
what can be done in 3 months. This is a significant change to how VA
has run IT development projects in the past.
advance payments
In October VBA began issuing advance payments to Veterans and
Servicemembers who had not yet received their VA benefits for the fall
enrollment period to ensure that all Veterans and eligible students
were able to focus on their academic studies and not be burdened with
financial concerns. As part of that process, a web portal was
established to allow electronic submission for advance payment. Advance
payments were also made on-site at VA offices around the country. At
that time student Veterans were required to acknowledge that they
understood that the advance payment must be repaid and would be
recouped from future VA payments. VA issued advance payments to 121,095
individuals, totaling $355.5 million for all education programs.
Advance payment recipients were notified in late January and early
February of the reimbursement process. The notification explained that
$750 would be deducted from their monthly education payments beginning
April 1, and that they could make arrangements with the DMC for a
reduced withholding if $750 monthly created a financial hardship.
Individuals not currently enrolled in school received notification on
how payment arrangements could be made to satisfy the debt.
Due to the many Veterans seeking a lower withholding from the April
1 check, DMC added six lines and eight operators to handle the
increased workload associated with the Post-9/11 GI Bill program. Phone
operation hours were also extended an hour. In addition, DMC received
assistance from VBA call centers and created a reduced repayment form
that could be completed and emailed to DMC for processing. VBA added
the form to its Education Web site so individuals could complete the
form themselves and email it to DMC. A notice was also added to the
education Web site explaining that the deadline for requesting a lower
withholding for the April 1 check was March 23, 2010. DMC created
special email boxes for the incoming workload and printed and worked
the requests as they were received. Approximately 12,000 Veterans
established reduced repayment plans in time to affect their April 1
payment.
The DMC continues to get requests for partial refunds of the April
1 check and reduced withholdings from future checks. To provide the
greatest flexibility to our Veterans, repayment plans are being
approved retroactive to April 1, and refunds of amounts collected above
their plans continue to be made. Through mid-April, requests for
reduced withholdings total over 22,000. Of the $355.5 million issued to
advance pay recipients, over $73 million has been collected through
payments and offsets.
outreach
VA also began a robust outreach campaign to make sure that
Servicemembers, Veterans, and their families know about the Post-9/11
GI Bill and how to apply for the benefit. Let me share a few of our
efforts in this area. On February 23 of this year, VA launched a two-
month, nationwide advertising campaign to assist student Veterans and
Servicemembers applying for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The GI Bill
advertising campaign includes half-page ads in top college
publications, online and social media, print, radio, and outdoor
advertising such as posters and flyers. In addition, public service
announcements were delivered to approximately 150 college radio
stations and 750 local stations in areas where there is a high density
of students, as well as military installations.
Student Veterans on college campuses also saw a variety of posters
in registrars' offices, dormitories, cafeterias, student union
buildings, and other high traffic areas. This comprehensive advertising
campaign assisted us in reaching those student Veterans, Servicemembers
and educational administrators who need help in understanding the GI
Bill and their role in the benefits process.
Social media and online advertising are extensively used to reach
the younger generation of student Veterans. VA placed banner ads on
social media sites such as Facebook, Google, MySpace, Yahoo, and other
outlets. Text messaging ads are used to link student Veterans to VA. By
texting ``GIBILL,'' Veterans receive the basic message: ``You Served.
Get Benefits.'' Veterans are then directed to follow three steps: 1)
Review your benefit options online; 2) Submit your application; and 3)
Check with your school certifying official to confirm that your VA
enrollment certification has been sent to VA. VA also developed a hip
pocket guide and checklist with helpful tips to assist Veterans and
Servicemembers in the application process.
We are making a concerted effort to reach out to everyone to
provide the timely benefits that those who served our Nation deserve.
VA sent letters and notices to university presidents, school certifying
officials, state Veterans Affairs directors, Veterans Service
Organizations, Congressional Members, and other education stakeholders
highlighting the importance of timely submission of school enrollment
information.
In addition, in November 2009, VA established a pilot program at
the University of South Florida (USF) called VetSuccess on Campus.
VetSuccess on Campus is a collaborative effort between the university
and VA to provide a supportive on-campus environment where Veterans may
gather and obtain assistance and peer support. This pilot program is
supported by the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Service,
Education Service, and the Veterans Health Administration Readjustment
Counseling Service Vet Center program. Due to the major success of this
program, two other campuses were added to VetSuccess on Campus;
Cleveland State University in Cleveland, Ohio and San Diego State
University in San Diego, California. The program may be expanded to
other campuses across the country.
conclusion
VA has made significant progress in implementing the Post-9/11
Bill, and we are working every day to ensure Veterans timely receive
the educational benefits they earned through their service and
sacrifice. We appreciate the support of this Committee and the Congress
as we carry out this mission.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have.
______
Response to Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Akaka to
Keith Wilson, Director, Education Service, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs
Question 1. Could you please describe in more detail what a ``web
interface'' is and how that will improve the process?
Response. A web interface is the interaction between a user and
software running on a Web server. It has the ability to accept input
and provide output by generating web pages transmitted via the Internet
and viewed by an end-user with a web browser. This approach will help
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reduce some of the development
costs and allow VA to deploy software changes to field users with
minimal disruption.
Question 2. Some of the more complex issues arise when processing
claims from Guard and Reserve members--especially when determining the
periods that the individual was on active duty. Please describe what
steps that have been taken to make this process easier, faster and more
accurate?
Response. VBA obtains servicemembers' data electronically from the
Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) for use in determining eligibility
under all education programs, including the Post-9/11 GI Bill. In
addition, VA and DOD developed an electronic method to obtain
information related to spouses and children to process claims under the
transfer-of-entitlement provisions of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Since all
information is not stored electronically at DMDC, VA and DOD also
manually exchange data.
Question 3. How confident are you that the long-term IT solution
will be in place by the end of this year and what plans have been made
if it is not?
Response. Based on the project schedule, VA has full confidence we
will deliver the system functionality expected by the business
community by December 2010. Release 2 ensures full claims processing
capability in the Post-9/11 GI Bill Long Term Solution (LTS). Delays in
any subsequent release will not negatively impact VA's ability to
process claims.
Question 4. It would seem that the only way that VA was able to
implement ``Release One'' of the Long-Term Solution was to ``pilot'' it
out to only one of the regional processing centers and to scale back
the elements it contained. Where did the planning process fail?
Response. The planning process did not fail. A delay in releasing
Phase III for the Interim Solution hindered VA's ability to have
adequate resources focused on only the LTS. Once fully focused on the
LTS, it became apparent that we would not be able to deliver all of the
originally planned Release 1 functionality. Limited Release 1 of the
LTS deployed March 31, 2010, to only one of the four regional
processing centers (RPOs) per the Veterans Benefits Administration's
(VBA's) deployment plan. The application deployed to the remaining RPOs
on April 12, 2010, and April 19, 2010. The release did not include all
of the projected functionality. Release 1 was released with reduced
functionality. The reduced functionality in Release 1 was caused by a
substantial increase in the understanding of the complexity of amended
awards. As our subject matter experts (SME) worked with the SPAWAR
team, it became clear that the amount of software remaining to be
developed exceeded what could be done to meet the March 31, 2010,
milestone requirement.
Question 5. When will General Counsel guidance to be issued with
respect to crediting for returned payments?
Response. The Office of the General Counsel issued precedent
opinion VAOPGCPREC 3-2010 on May 21, 2010. That opinion addresses
several issues that relate to payments to institutions of higher
learning under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, including the manner in which
they should respond in cases where amounts paid by VA were in excess of
amounts owing for a student's tuition and fees. A copy of the opinion
is attached.
Attachments for Question 5
Question 6. What can to be done to ensure that each of the four
processing centers are operating under the same guidance? Are regular
meetings held--either via teleconferencing or some other means to
articulate clear policies and procedures?
Response. VA provides written policy to all four Regional
Processing Offices (RPOs) and conducts uniform training on a regular
basis to ensure all RPOs are receiving the same information. In
addition, weekly RPO conference calls are conducted to address any
training, policy, or other claims processing issues.
Question 7. The testimony of our witness from the National
Association of Veterans' Programs Administrators suggests that the
lumping of payments for multiple enrollment periods without
documentation or explanation makes it difficult for the schools to
reconcile payments. Please comment on this.
Response. Due to workload concerns and limited information
technology functionality, VA implemented streamlined procedures to
expedite Post-9/11 GI Bill claims processing. Currently, payments
cannot be authorized until at least two individuals review and approve
each payment amount through fiscal transactions and financial
authorizations (FIST/FAUT). A FIST/FAUT transaction must be done
separately for each type of payment (i.e., tuition, housing, books,
yellow ribbon payments, and college fund ``kickers''). Therefore, VA
made the decision to combine similar payment transactions into one
transaction (i.e., two tuition payments or two yellow ribbon payments).
These procedures will remain in place until full implementation of the
long-term solution (LTS). We anticipate the number of claims requiring
FIST/FAUT processing will be significantly reduced once the LTS is in
place.
Checks and electronic payments issued to schools include the
abbreviated name of the student, the file number, and the dates of the
enrollment period covered by the payment. If payments are lumped
together, the period shown will cover multiple enrollment periods. The
schools also receive a weekly ``Vet Rep List'' of the payments issued.
The Vet Rep List does not provide a breakdown of payment amounts by
term when the payments are combined.
Question 8. Please comment on the concept of certifying
``anticipated enrollments'' with a second certification at the end of
the drop/add period?
Response. To ensure Veterans receive their housing allowance and
books and supplies stipends timely, VA is determining the feasibility
of allowing schools to submit enrollment certifications without tuition
and fees in the summer, and resubmit the enrollment certification when
the actual tuition and fees are available.
Question 9. The Yellow Ribbon Program presents an almost entirely
unique set of challenges. Please comment on that and what might help
ease administrative issues there?
Response. Individuals eligible for the 100-percent payment level
who are attending private institutions, enrolled in graduate programs,
or who are not eligible for in-state tuition rates, are eligible for
the Yellow Ribbon Program if their institution participates. The Yellow
Ribbon program allows VA and the school to cover all or a portion of
the tuition that the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit does not cover. Post-9/
11 GI Bill tuition payments are capped at the maximum in-state
undergraduate tuition and fees charged by a public institution of
higher learning in the state in which the Veteran's school is located.
To determine the benefit payable when a student is enrolled in a
private school or graduate program, or is not eligible for in-state
tuition-and-fee rates, VA must establish the highest maximum rate for
each state. Schools participating in the Yellow Ribbon Program use the
maximum rate to help them budget their participation. Most states do
not have their actual tuition and fees established until July, or
later, for their fall enrollments. Determining the maximum charges in a
state is an administratively burdensome task. The maximum charges
include tuition and all fees required for the program, not just
admission fees. There are many variables in the manner schools assess
their charges. For example, some may charge a flat fee for full-time
tuition plus additional fees and others may assess charges by credit
hour. Some charge by semester hour and some by quarter hour. Some
charge a flat fee for full-time enrollment up to 15 credits and then
charge by credit hour for enrollment above 15 credits. Most schools no
longer operate solely on standard semesters or quarters. They offer
terms within terms and terms between fall and spring. Most schools
assess summer charges differently than the fall and spring semesters.
This process could be streamlined by establishing a uniform maximum
benefit level for an academic year for those enrolled in private
schools, graduate programs, or those not charged in-state rates.
Question 10. Veterans' program administrators believe that
designated school officials should have secure web-based access to
veterans' records in order to provide counseling and assistance. What
challenges would this present?
Response. VA intends to allow school officials and Veterans some
access to payment information in later releases of the long-term
solution.
Privacy concerns currently preclude schools from obtaining personal
information on Veterans attending their institutions. If institutions
are granted access to individual data, it must be limited to those who
actually need the protected privacy information in order to aid the
student. There is also the matter of training school certifying
officials on how to understand each benefit to provide adequate
counseling. We have concerns regarding our liability if the school
officials were to make a recommendation that was not in the student's
best interest.
Question 11. The American Legion recommends that VA needs to
provide more outreach to colleges and universities to ensure that
veterans have a full range of knowledge about their benefits. Please
describe what outreach VA has undertaken and what plans are for the
future.
Response. VA attended over 100 training and informational
conferences since the enactment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill to provide
training, disseminate information, and answer questions from the
participants. We also conducted webinar training sessions. We continue
to participate in school's national, regional, and local conferences.
VA ran a Post-9/11 GI Bill spring marketing campaign focused on
increasing awareness of the education benefits process. VA used the
following methods to accomplish our goal:
Print placement in college newspapers
Outdoor placement of posters and visuals at 60 schools
with large Veteran-student populations,
Radio placement in six high Veteran-student markets
On-line marketing targeted at adults in the 18-34 age
range through Burst Media
VA will begin a multimedia, multi-market campaign with a single
cohesive message on July 1, 2010. It will include a new logo, new
outreach materials, and nationwide advertising in both conventional and
cutting edge medias. Additionally, VA solicited and received feedback
from stakeholders on the GI Bill Web site. Based on this input, the GI
Bill Web site was redesigned for ease of navigation and focused
information. The Web site also includes the new logo.
VA's education liaison representatives (ELRs) are the primary
points of contact for school officials. ELRs have a wide range of
responsibilities in support of education benefits programs and work
closely with school officials to inform them of changes in VA policies
and procedures. During the fall enrollment period, ELRs temporarily
assisted with claims processing, which unfortunately limited the time
they could devote to working with the school officials. However, all
ELRs have resumed their normal duties.
In addition to VA's efforts, State Approving Agencies (SAAs) assist
in outreach. Under statute, VA contracts with each state to approve
programs of education and support outreach. The SAAs provide
information to schools, students and employers.
Question 12. What are VA's plans regarding adding rules for the
administration of the new program to its processing manual?
Response. Regional Processing Offices (RPOs) were provided
procedural guidance (policy advisories and training materials) for
processing Post-9/11 GI Bill claims. The information is available on
the Intranet for all RPO staff. VA will incorporate this information in
a processing manual. Several draft chapters have been sent to RPO
personnel for review and comment.
Question 13. Are there any institutions who have disenrolled
students because they have not received payments from VA on their
behalf? If so, please provide the names and locations of the
institutions that have done so, together with the number of students
affected.
Response. VA is not aware of any institutions that disenrolled
students because they did not receive payments from VA. During the
fall, VA heard that some schools were disenrolling students. Each time
we were made aware of a situation, we contacted the school to resolve
the issue.
______
Response to Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Burr to
Keith Wilson, Director, Education Service, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs
Question 1. Many concerns have been raised by veterans' groups and
individual veterans about the delays in providing education benefits
during the fall 2009 semester. In fact, a witness at the April 21,
2010, hearing said that a veteran-student who attends Columbia with him
had ``just received his first check last month.''
Question 1A. For each month during the fall 2009 semester, what was
the average time to process original claims and to process supplemental
claims for all education programs?
Response. The chart below displays the average days to process
claims for all education programs during the fall 2009 semester.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month September October November December
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original........................................................ 34.9 56.3 58.8 60.0
Supplemental.................................................... 21.4 28.3 30.6 21.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1B. For each month during the fall 2009 semester, what was
the average time to process original claims and to process supplemental
claims for the Post-9/11 GI Bill?
Response. The chart below displays the average days to process
Post-9/11 claims during the fall 2009 semester.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month September October November December
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original........................................................ 34.6 59.2 60.5 61.9
Supplemental.................................................... 35.2 48.5 44.5 27.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1C. What is the longest a veteran waited to begin
receiving payments for that semester?
Response. VA's data system is not programmed in a manner that VA
could easily obtain that data. Additional complex data mining would
need to be undertaken in an effort to find that information.
Question 1D. What factors do you believe contributed to these
delays and when did VA become aware of those factors?
Response. VA's existing database and payment system did not support
the payment structure of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Unlike the other
education benefit programs VA administers, the payments are directly
tied to tuition charges and DOD basic housing allowances. With 13
months to implement, the systems could not be modified sufficiently to
support the new program; we therefore had to rely on manual data entry
and some automated tools that were developed during the 13 months.
These limited automated functions developed for the interim solution
were delivered in phases throughout the fall semester.
VA hired and trained over 500 additional employees to compensate
for the lack of automation. These individuals, as well as existing
staff, had to be trained on the tools, the eligibility criteria and the
data entry for multiple payment processing.
Most states did not establish their tuition and fee rates for the
fall semester until the end of July, which delayed certifications from
the schools. In addition, due to necessary systems modifications, VA
was not able to accept electronic enrollment certifications until July
6.
Each student filing for the Post-9/11 GI Bill last fall was filing
for the first time for that program. VA had to establish initial
eligibility and, in many cases, determine if the claimant was eligible
to elect to transfer from his or her existing VA benefit program to the
Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Question 1E. What has been done or is being done to address each of
those factors?
Response. The following actions are not limited to a single factor,
but rather have broad application to many of the factors that
contributed to processing delays:
Developed and deployed short-term automated systems
Developed and deployed standardized job aids for
calculations
Hired temporary employees at Regional Processing Offices
Implemented mandatory overtime
Diverted Education staff from other duties to Post-9/11 GI
Bill claims processing
Reassigned regional office term employees hired under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to Education claims processing
Entered into a contract for non-Post-9/11 GI Bill claims
processing assistance
Streamlined procedures and non-essential claims processing
functions
As we approach this fall, the majority of the recipients will be
returning students. As such, VA will not have to determine initial
eligibility. The first phase of the new long term automated system was
delivered on March 31 and the second phase will be delivered June 30.
These deliveries will streamline some of the processing. The third
phase, due September 30, should reduce much of the manual data entry
for fiscal transactions. The claims processing employees will also have
significantly more experience processing these claims than last fall.
We intend to continue to use overtime to address peak workload periods.
Question 2. The following excerpt was in the testimony from the
National Association of Veterans Program Administrators: ``VA remains
unable to credit returned payments to veterans' accounts, pending
General Counsel guidance. When tuition and fee payments are confirmed
by VA to be a duplicate payment or grossly erroneous, schools are
instructed to return the funds to VA. However, the returned funds are
not being credited to the veteran.''
Question 2A. How many duplicate payments were made to schools
during the fall 2009 semester? What is the total dollar value of those
payments?
Response. VA combined the response to this question with the
response to 2B below.
Question 2B. Were any ``grossly erroneous'' payments made to
schools? If so, how many and in what amounts?
Response. VA Central Office is not aware of any specific ``grossly
erroneous'' payments made to schools. We are aware there were instances
of duplicate payments, but we did not manually tally the instances and
the amount involved. VA conducts quarterly quality claims processing
reviews. As of the first quarter of fiscal year 2010, the Post-9/11 GI
Bill payment accuracy was 95 percent.
Question 2C. What factors caused VA to make excessive or duplicate
payments to schools?
Response. Manual processing that is reliant on multiple manual data
entries to release payment.
Question 2D. What steps could be taken to reduce the possibility of
these overpayments in the future? Will the long-term solution contain
mechanisms to limit or prevent these types of overpayments?
Response. VA anticipates that the automated rules-based
functionality in the long-term solution (LTS) will significantly reduce
the possibility of overpayments under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Release 3,
scheduled for delivery on September 30, will eliminate most of the
manual entry for fiscal transactions (payment amounts).
Question 2E. What are schools expected to do with tuition or fee
payments they should not have received? Has clear guidance on that been
distributed to schools? If so, please provide the Committee with a
copy.
Response. Under current VA policy, a school should return tuition
and fee payments to VA if the school receives an erroneous payment
under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Specifically, we instructed all schools to
return payments to VA if a student never attended; the school received
a duplicate payment for an individual; the school received a payment
for an individual who did not enroll; or the student died during the
term and would have been due a refund. Please see the attached VA
Policy Advisory titled ``Tuition and Fee Return Payments'' dated
November 23, 2009. [See response to Question 5 from Senator Akaka.]
The statute provides that the Post-9/11 tuition and fee payment is
based on the established charges for the program of education.
The term ``established charges'' is defined in statute to mean
actual charges for tuition and fees that similarly circumstanced non-
veterans would be required to pay. Statutes governing Department of
Education funding restrict VA (and any other Federal or local benefit
program) from considering Title IV funding when determining benefit
payments. VAOPGCPREC 3-2010 indicates that such assistance may not be
taken into account in determining ``actual charges.'' Please see the
attached copy of VAOPGCPREC 3-2010. [See response to Question 5 from
Senator Akaka.]
Question 2F. When a school returns funds to one of VA's regional
processing offices, are there policies requiring the regional
processing offices to notify any other VA offices, such as the Debt
Management Center? If so, are those policies being followed?
Response. If the school returned funds because the student withdrew
and the school reports the withdrawal to VA, VA credits the returned
funds to the overpayment. Debt Management Center (DMC) is not involved,
as no debt is reported to DMC. Some school officials assume that some
of the returned funds should be credited to the advance payment debts.
When crediting is appropriate, VA does credit the funds. However, if a
school returned a duplicate payment, VA cannot credit those funds to an
advance payment debt.
Question 2G. Under what circumstances is the Debt Management Center
supposed to create an overpayment in the veteran's name when the school
is paid too much? In practice, when is that being done?
Response. If the school receives a duplicate payment, VA does not
``charge'' the student with an overpayment.
Our Regional Processing Offices (RPOs) create a debt on a student's
record when VA receives notice from the school that the student reduced
his or her enrollment or withdrew from school. In these instances, the
school received the proper amount based on the student's enrollment.
The statute provides that VA may not provide funds for a course that
the student is not pursing. Thus, VA will recalculate the amount the
student is due and any amount over that becomes a debt of the student.
For example: A student enrolls full-time and the charges are $10,000.
VA processes the enrollment certification and releases a $10,000
payment.
Subsequently, the student drops two classes after the school's
drop/add period. VA will recalculate the amount due. In this case,
assume the student was only due $5,000. VA will create a debt on the
student's record for $5,000. The Debt Management Center is responsible
for the collection of the debt.
These procedures are being followed.
Question 2H. When VA receives a check from a school, how does VA
determine the reason the check is being sent back and whether it is an
appropriate amount?
Response. VA must review the student's record. If the school
previously reported a change in enrollment, VA generally will have all
necessary information to recalculate the amount the student was
entitled to, calculate the debt, and credit the returned funds toward
the debt. However, many times the funds are returned by the Bursar's
office and VA does not know why the funds were returned. We must
contact the school for additional information.
Question 2I. Has guidance been provided from the General Counsel on
how to credit payments returned from schools? If so, please provide the
Committee with a copy.
Response. Although VAOPGCPREC 3-2010 does address certain issues
relating to the return of payments, it does not provide specific
guidance regarding how VBA should credit these returned payments.
Question 2J. What lessons have been learned about how to make this
recoupment process more hassle-free for veterans and their families?
Response. The recoupment process was complex this year because of
the special advance payments made to over 122,000 individuals. Our
systems needed modification to recoup the advance payments so that VA
did not offset tuition and fee payments for the spring term sent to the
school on the student's behalf. Additional system modifications had to
be made so that students' entire housing benefits were not withheld to
recoup the advance payments.
As VA is more timely processing claims and the impact of the
initial startup is behind us, the need to release emergency advance
payments has dissipated. As such, the recoupment process will be less
complex.
Question 3. It is my understanding that, when VA started to recoup
advance payments, the Education Service sent a detailed letter to
veterans explaining their options for repaying VA, including the option
to take no action and allow VA to start recouping $750 per month from
future housing allowance checks. The Debt Management Center later sent
a letter to those veterans that included much less information and
instructed veterans either to pay the debt in full or to contact the
Debt Management Center to set up a payment plan. It did not include the
``do nothing'' option.
Question 3A. Why did VA provide two different letters with
different information to some veterans?
Education Service: The two letters had different purposes. The
initial letter was to notify recipients that we would begin collecting
the advance payment on April 1 in the amount of $750 per payment. The
letter provided information on how to return advanced payment checks,
as VA was made aware some individuals had not yet cashed their advance
payments. Additionally, that letter informed them that they would
receive a separate letter from Debt Management Center (DMC) that would
notify them of their rights and responsibilities.
Our initial letter informed the recipients they did not have to
take action if they had repaid the advance payment. They did not need
to contact the DMC unless they wanted an alternative repayment plan.
Question 3B. What steps will be taken in the future to ensure that
veterans are provided with accurate and useful information in a manner
that is less likely to cause confusion?
Response. If VA were to consider emergency advance payments in the
future, we would use any lesson learned from the past to improve the
process.
Question 4. One of those letters about recouping advance payments
included contact information for the Education Service and the other
included contact information for the Debt Management Center. A veteran
from North Carolina told my office that, when he called the Education
Call Center, he was told to call the Debt Management Center and, when
he called the Debt Management Center, they told him to call the
Education Call Center.
Question 4A. Why were veterans provided with two different contact
numbers?
Response. VA provided the Education Call Center number to assist
individuals with general questions or concerns regarding advance
payment recoupment. The Debt Management Center (DMC) number was
provided for specific information about collections that only DMC staff
were qualified to answer or to establish alternative repayment plans.
Sometimes, a caller has questions that are outside the expertise of the
individual assisting the caller. As such, the caller is referred to
another VA representative.
Question 4B. Was clear guidance provided to VA employees on how to
direct calls from veterans who received these letters? If so, please
provide the Committee with a copy of that guidance.
Response. VA issued a policy advisory to VA employees that outlined
the advance payment recoupment procedures. VA prepared and issued a
detailed Question and Answer (Q&A) script for use by the Call Center
employees and for those responding to e-mail inquiries. We also posted
a series of Q&A's on our Web site. Please see attached Policy Advisory
titled ``Advance Payment Recoupment'' dated February 3, 2010. [File was
not attached.]
Question 4C. What steps have been taken or could be taken to make
sure both veterans and VA employees have the correct information about
who should be contacted regarding overpayments of education benefits?
Response. VA did provide employees with correct information and
will continue to address any training deficiencies. For callers, VA
will continue to direct callers to the Debt Management Center for
specific collection questions. Instances will remain when callers will
be re-directed from one source to the other based on individual
circumstances. The Regional Processing Offices establish the debts and
can best provide information on the current enrollment status, whereas
the Debt Management Center (DMC) specializes in the collection status,
repayment plans, and measures DMC will take if the debt is not
recovered.
VA plans to conduct additional training for our Education Call
Center staff to help them become more knowledgeable about DMC general
procedures and better assist individuals with overpayment issues.
Question 5. It is my understanding that the Debt Management Center
was overwhelmed with calls after VA sent letters about recouping
advance payments, which made it difficult for veterans to get through.
In fact, the Debt Management Center posted a note on its Web site
acknowledging it was receiving a high level of calls and providing
advice to veterans who could not get through.
Question 5A. What was the blocked call rate at the Debt Management
Center after those letters were sent?
Response. DMC contacted Sprint to obtain a report showing the
blocked-call rate for their toll-free number. The report received from
Sprint did not reflect the actual call volumes handled by DMC. We
therefore are not able to provide information on the blocked-call rate.
Question 5B. How many employees were answering phones at the Debt
Management Center when these letters were first sent and how many are
answering the phones now?
Response. The Debt Management Center had 26 employees assigned to
24 toll-free telephone lines at the time the letters were sent.
Currently there are 25 employees assigned because one employee is on
extended sick leave.
Question 5C. What, if anything, would VA consider to be the
``lessons learned'' from this experience?
Response. If emergency advance payments are needed in the future,
VA would consider all the information we learned from the past in
making a decision as to how best administer advance payments and
collection. The short timeframe to collect funds during spring
enrollment resulted in large mailings and thus high call volumes.
Question 6. There was a lot of frustration expressed at the
inability to get through to VA at its Educational Call Center after VA
shifted call center employees to processing claims back in December.
Also, there has been some frustration that the call center was not
providing accurate information.
Question 6A. What was the blocked call and dropped call rate while
a compressed Monday to Wednesday schedule was in effect at the
Education Call Center?
Response. The compressed Monday to Wednesday schedule was in effect
from December 10, 2009 to February 18, 2010. During this period, the
blocked call rate was 82.9 percent. The abandoned or dropped call rate
was 20.1 percent.
Question 6B. In total, how many calls went unanswered during that
time?
Response. There were approximately 1.9 million blocked calls and
90,000 abandoned calls during this period. These numbers obviously
include large volumes of redials.
Question 6C. What is the current blocked call rate?
Response. The blocked-call rate for March 2010 was 15 percent. For
April 2010 the blocked-call rate was 2.1 percent.
Question 6D. What was the average experience level of the employees
handling calls during the Fall 2009 semester?
Response. During the fall semester, the average experience level
for telephone representatives was 14 months.
Question 6E. Has any additional training been provided to these
employees?
Response. The Muskogee Education Call Center conducts monthly
refresher training sessions to ensure our call center agents provide
complete and accurate responses to all callers. Employees are reminded
of the necessity to remain courteous, compassionate, and professional
at all times. In addition, the Regional Processing Office addresses
immediate issues with training or instruction as needed.
Question 7. In their written testimony, the National Association of
Veterans Program Administrators provided this feedback: ``Tuition and
fee payments for multiple enrollment periods are lumped into a single
payment, with no clarifying information attached. It is very difficult
for schools to reconcile lump sum payments and accurately post the
funds to the appropriate enrollment periods.''
Question 7A. What, if any, explanation is provided to schools along
with the payments received from VA? Does it explain how the amounts
were calculated?
Response. Checks and electronic payments received by schools
include the abbreviated name of the individual, the file number, and
the dates of the period covered by the payment (if payments are lumped
together the period shown on the check will cover multiple enrollment
periods). The schools also receive a weekly ``Vet Rep List'' of the
payments issued. The Vet Rep List does not provide a breakdown of
payment amounts by term. Schools do not receive notification of how VA
calculated the amounts payable.
Question 7B. Are any efforts being made in the near term to
increase the information provided to schools?
Response. Our intent is that the final phases of the long-term
payment system will include the capability for school officials to have
limited access to specific payment information. Currently, developers
and subject matter experts are fully engaged in the development of the
claims processing aspects of the system. Future enhancements will be
designed upon completion of claims processing and payment components.
Question 7C. Will any efforts be made to provide additional details
to schools when the long-term solution is in place?
Response. See response to question 7B.
Question 8. It is my understanding that some tuition and fee
payments may have been inadvertently sent to the wrong schools because
of errors made by claims processing staff in recording the identifying
information for the schools. In fact, VA provided guidance to schools
on what to do if they ``received payment for an individual that is not
a student at your school.''
Question 8A. How many, if any, payments have been made to the wrong
schools? If incorrect schools have been paid, what led to these errors?
How does VA learn of the mistake if the wrong school was paid?
Response. We believe that as with any processing system that
involves manual data entry there is some likelihood for errors to
occur. Erroneous payments could also result if the student enrolled and
subsequently changed schools after the initial school submitted an
enrollment certification. Generally, we learn of such mistakes directly
from schools.
Question 8B. If this has happened, what is being done to prevent it
from reoccurring in the near term?
Response. When more automation is provided, less opportunity for
human error will exist. VA conducts quality reviews of claims
processing. Any areas that require improvement are identified and
referred to the Regional Processing Office for correction and to
address any training deficiencies.
Question 8C. Will the long-term solution provide any mechanisms to
prevent this type of error from happening?
Response. VA expects the delivery of automated processing with the
long-term solution will reduce the errors attributed to manual data
entry.
Question 9. If a veteran is eligible for an older education
program, like the Montgomery GI Bill, and decides to change to the
Post-9/11 GI Bill, that decision to change programs is irrevocable. I
have heard concerns from some North Carolinians that veterans are
making the decision to opt into the new program without adequate
information or guidance.
Question 9A. Are you aware of any veterans who opted into the Post-
9/11 GI Bill and then realized they would have received higher benefits
under one of the older programs?
Response. The Post-9/11 GI Bill overlays existing benefits and can
cause confusion when individuals are trying to understand the nuances
of the education benefits. Since each individual's situation is
different, VA provides a side-by-side comparison of benefits under each
program on the GI Bill Web site. In addition, a benefits calculator and
extensive benefits information are available on the Web site. This
information helps an individual determine which of the programs provide
the greatest benefit in an individual situation.
VA is aware of a few Veterans who elected the Post-9/11 GI Bill and
subsequently learned they would be limited to the number of months of
entitlement remaining under their relinquished education program. The
public law enacting the Post-9/11 GI Bill limits the entitlement of
those individuals electing to transfer from the Montgomery GI Bill.
Such individuals may receive only the number of months of Montgomery GI
Bill entitlement they have remaining at the point they elect benefits.
In some instances, individuals may realize it would be better to
utilize all their Montgomery GI Bill before electing the Post-9/11 GI
Bill. However, even though information was available to help them make
that decision, some may not have considered that information when
electing to transfer before their Montgomery GI Bill was exhausted.
Additionally, in states with low basic housing allowances, a
student might not directly receive as much as he or she did under a
previous program.
While the information is available on our Web site, in fact sheets,
and at schools, the complexity and variances between the multiple
programs may cause some students to make a decision to elect a new
benefit assuming it was a better benefit without fully reviewing the
available materials.
Question 9B. What steps does VA take to counsel veterans on the
pros and cons of switching to the Post-9/11 GI Bill before they make a
decision? Is there more that could be done in this regard?
Response. As stated in the response to question 9A, VA provides
information on the GI Bill Web site to assist Veterans in determining
the pros and cons of each education program. Veterans can also contact
the Education Call Center for guidance regarding the different VA
education programs.
Streamlining the existing benefits into one program with less
complex rules would assist students in planning. Even though VA
personnel can assist in the decision, if the student changes schools,
the elected benefit might not have been the best choice. VA is willing
to work with Congress to streamline the programs to better serve
Veterans and their families.
Question 10. Under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, VA makes payments
directly to a school for the amount of the veteran's tuition and fees.
Question 10A. If a school did not actually charge the veteran
because, for example, the veteran had scholarships, had an employer
paying for school, or received a waiver of fees because of his or her
veteran status, do the schools ever try to return those payments to VA?
Response. We are aware that some schools have returned such
payments. Please refer to the attached copy of VAOGCPREC 3-2010 which
discusses this matter. [See response to Question 5 from Senator Akaka.]
Question 10B. If so, what happens in those circumstances and how
often has that happened?
Response. When VA receives returned tuition and fee payments for
reasons other than those listed in the response to question 2E, we have
to determine why the money was sent and how to credit the money to the
student's VA account. The money is first credited into a general
account until we can determine how the money should be credited to the
student's account. In those instances where the money was returned
because the student's enrollment changed, VA will credit the returned
money to reduce any overpayment of tuition and fees. We do not have
available the number of cases involved, as the school sometimes returns
one large payment. However, it is happening routinely, especially as
more and more aid is available to Veterans. VA will issue guidance in
the near future to schools and credit monies or return monies as
appropriate.
Because VA's other education benefit programs have been paid as
monthly allowances, VA was not aware of the multitude of programs that
provide aid to student Veterans. Some aid is specifically for tuition
and fees and other aid can be applied to any cost of education. As more
and more questions came from school officials, and schools began
returning money, VA requested legal guidance to address the issue. The
issue is further complicated because some aid comes in after schools
certify enrollment to VA and some aid is available before
certification.
Question 11. According to VA's testimony, the first release of the
long-term solution was deployed on March 31, 2010, but it did not
include all of the functionality that VA originally expected it to
contain and was released as a limited pilot. At the hearing, VA
testified that 16 employees are currently using that system but that it
will be rolled out to other offices.
Question 11A. Is there a process in place for soliciting and
receiving feedback from the employees using the first release? If so,
what type of feedback has VA received?
Response. Yes and we are receiving mostly positive feedback from
our customers.
Question 11B. Please provide a timeline for when the first release
will be rolled out to other offices.
Response. Limited Release 1 of the LTS deployed March 31, 2010, to
one of the four RPOs per VBA's deployment plan. The application
deployed to the remaining RPOs on April 12, 2010, and April 19, 2010.
Question 11C. Are there other planned releases of the long-term
solution that are expected to have less functionality than originally
planned?
Response. As stated in the Honorable Roger Baker's testimony of
January 21, 2010, Release 1of the LTS was scheduled for deployment on
March 31, 2010. VA expected Release 1 to include functionality for a
number of items, including the ability to complete original claims and
the ability to process amended awards. As our subject matter experts
worked with the SPAWAR team, new software requirements were identified
and the complexity of the amended awards functionality was better
understood. It became clear these requirements could not be
incorporated into Release 1 by the March 31, 2010, milestone date.
Therefore, a decision was made in conjunction with VBA, our
customer, to deliver reduced functionality in order to make the
milestone date. The reduced functionality included the ability to
complete original claims and many other capabilities. Another important
consideration in this decision was the critical need for VA staff to
use the LTS software for production work in order to provide assurance
the software was acceptable and reliable for the long term.
Release 2, currently scheduled for June 30, 2010, will serve as the
foundation from which the VA will retire the Interim solution and
automate the Education Benefits business process. The scope of Releases
3 and 4, currently scheduled for September 30, 2010, and December 31,
2010, respectively, will contain interfaces to education legacy systems
in order to pre-populate data and automate payment. The final scope for
these releases is not set.
It is important to recognize that the methodology we are using to
deliver this system to our VBA partners is based on agile approach. It
is based on making tradeoffs between schedule and functionality. We
have fixed the schedule so that there is a release every three months.
To accomplish this we adjust the delivered functionally to what can be
done--not what we would like to do. This is a significant change to how
VA and most of the Federal Government has managed IT development
projects previously. As a result, today we can report that the system
works, it is in limited production, and we are getting positive
feedback from our customers.
Question 11D. What level of assurance can VA provide that the
planned December 2010 full implementation date for the long-term
solution will be met?
Response. Based on the project schedule, VA has full confidence we
will deliver the system functionality expected by the business
community by December 2010.
Question 12. At the hearing, VA discussed the fact that the monthly
housing allowance payments being sent by VA in 2010 do not yet reflect
a cost-of-living adjustment made to the Basic Allowance for Housing
rates and that a fix to that problem likely would not occur until July
2010. A witness at the hearing expressed concern about veterans
receiving ``less money than originally budgeted.''
Question 12A. Did VA notify current participants in the Post-9/11
GI Bill program that their monthly housing allowance payments would not
reflect the cost-of-living adjustment until July? If so, please provide
a copy of the notification.
Response. VA has not notified Post-9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries that
their monthly housing allowance payments would not reflect the cost-of-
living adjustment until July.
Question 12B. Are there any policies in place to more quickly
provide the correct amount of housing allowance payments to veterans
who may be experiencing financial difficulties?
Response. Because of limited automated support at implementation
and because January 2010 rates were not available from DOD until
December 2009, VA only had the capability of creating a single rate
table for 2009. In December, VA's Office of Information and Technology
and SPAWAR were fully engaged in development of the long-term solution.
Additional comprehensive changes to the interim solution were not
undertaken. The system capabilities to accommodate more than one rate
table and perform multiple calculations are included in release 2 of
the long-term solution. Release 2 is scheduled for delivery on June 30,
2010. Release 2 will provide the capability to pay 2009 and 2010 rates,
as well as any future increases.
______
Response to Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Johanns to
Keith Wilson, Director, Education Service, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs
Question 1. Calls to the main call center in Oklahoma too often
result in no information and no other recourse for Post-9/11 recipients
with claim problems. Call center staff are apparently not empowered to
pass callers to higher-level supervisors for resolution of unique
problems. In fact, constituents have told my staff they were advised to
``call their congressman'' by call center staff. Until the call center
can actually initiate action to resolved issues it will continue to
receive repeat calls on the same problems. What is the VA doing to make
the call centers more responsive to real problems?
Response. Education Call Center personnel receive ongoing training
on telephone skills, customer service, and procedural updates. Agents
should not advise callers to contact their Congressional
representatives to resolve a claim related issue. However, an agent may
explain to a caller that only Congress can make changes to legislative
issues. For example, the call center received many calls from former
servicemembers who left service prior to August 1, 2009, who wanted to
transfer their benefits to family members. Such callers would be
informed that Congress would need to change the law in order for VA to
make payment.
In the event a call center agent is not able to resolve a
particular issue, procedures are in place to transfer the call to an
Education Case Manager. Since October 1, 2009, over 1,500 calls have
been transferred in this manner.
Question 2. Constituent calls to the debt collection center to
reconcile incorrectly generated debt notices are usually told all the
debt center does is issue notices based on requests from other offices
in the VA. There does not seem to be a mechanism for working issues
between claim processing and debt collection. What is the VA doing to
better coordinate debt generation offices with debt collection offices
to preclude persistent debt collection notices after problems have
already been solved?
Response. We are not aware of callers routinely being advised that
the Debt Management Center (DMC) only issues notice based on requests
from other offices in VA. DMC telephone agents spend the majority of
their time on the telephone assisting Veterans in reconciling
differences and understanding their benefit payments and accounts. If
an issue exists where DMC cannot assist a Veteran due to additional
paperwork or documentation required by the Education Regional
Processing Offices, the debtor is advised to call the Education Call
Center for further assistance.
Question 3. I would also like to know if VA is considering greater
use of state points of contact for dealing with Post-9/11 benefit
issues. Some of the issues are school specific that can be quickly
identified and worked at the state level while going unnoticed at
national call center.
Response. VA has a designated an education liaison representative
to serve as the point of contact for each state. In addition, each
state appoints a State Approving Agency (SAA) for the purpose of
approving programs of education or training for Veterans (and other
eligible persons) who receive education benefits from VA. The SAAs
operate under contract with VA. SAAs also assist with outreach and
provide information and support to school officials.
To address the high inventory of claims this past fall, VA's ELRs
were temporarily diverted from their main duties of liaison with the
schools to assist with claims processing. The ELRs have returned to
their primary duties, and schools now have better access to their
representative.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson.
Now, Mr. Warren, we would please proceed with your
statement.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN WARREN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY SECRETARY,
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Warren. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Tester.
Chairman Akaka. Good morning.
Mr. Warren. As stated by Mr. Wilson, we partnered with
SPAWAR to actually build this long-term solution for the future
while the VA worked with an interim solution to meet the
commitments that had been made.
Four phases. We deployed that first phase on March 31, as
we had committed to. Even though it was a limited deployment,
the functionality that was contained in it was actually quite
extensive. It was able to calculate new original awards;
automate the calculation of awards, including tuition and fees,
housing, books and supplies, Yellow Ribbon, Chapter 30, 1606
kickers; the automated calculation for awards for overlapping
terms and intervals, including interval rules for summer terms
and demographic and service data from the VA DOD repository
where we share information.
We did a limited deployment to make sure that what actually
deployed out became that platform for the future, as Mr. Wilson
mentioned. So when that next increment comes out at the end of
June, it will be able to retire that interim solution. As Mr.
Wilson mentioned, it is four different systems that have to be
used today in terms of fitting those two together, and the
June 30 deployment will then pick that up, retire the old
system, and simplify what efforts the examiners need to go
through.
The feedback that we are receiving today is that this first
increment offers an ease of use and increased efficiency. We
are looking at reductions in time from 15 to 25 percent to
process those, so that is a great start, again, in a limited
deployment to make sure it is ready going forward.
We still have that second release to release--or second
increment to release the end of June. The third one is
scheduled for the end of September and the final one for
December. So those are still on track.
There are a number of challenges in deploying this long-
term solution. One of the things that is key to recognize is
the methodology that we are using to deploy this system, one
that is using something called an agile methodology. It
involves short increments in defined periods of time. So the
commitment we have made is every 3 months we will deliver more
functionality.
So instead of going many, many years as IT projects in the
government have done in the past--many years without really
getting something--we are on a path to deliver functionality on
3-month increments. We delivered the first increment; it works.
So instead of something that may have happened, we delivered
capability. The next increment comes out in 3 months. The next
increment comes out in 3 months. So we are building on
successes to ensure that our partners in the Veterans Benefits
Administration have the tools they need.
This ends my verbal remarks, and I will answer any
questions.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Warren.
Mr. Osendorf, your statement, please.
STATEMENT OF DAN OSENDORF, DIRECTOR, DEBT MANAGEMENT CENTER,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Osendorf. Good morning, Chairman Akaka, Senator Tester
and Members of the Committee. I appreciate this opportunity. My
testimony will address the recruitment of advance payments.
In October 2009, the VA began issuing advance payments to
veterans and servicemembers who had not received their VA
benefits for the fall enrollment period. This was done to
ensure that they could focus on their academic studies and not
be burdened with their financial concerns. VA notified advance
payment recipients in late January and February of the
reimbursement process for the advanced payments. Notification
explained that $750 would be deducted from their monthly
education payments beginning April 1, and they could make
arrangements with the Debt Management Center for a reduced
withholding if the $750 was causing a financial hardship.
Individuals not currently enrolled in school receive
notification on how payment arrangements could be made to
satisfy the debt.
Anticipating a large number of requests for lower
withholding for the April 1 check, DMC added six telephone
lines and eight operators and extended telephone service hours
an additional hour to handle the increased volume.
In addition, we created a form that allowed them to request
a reduced withholding and could be e-mailed to DMC. This was
also furnished to the VBA education Web site so they could take
telephone calls and forward the forms to us. We created special
mailboxes where they could send the forms to; we could process
them through. In addition, VBA added the form to its education
Web site so individuals could go online, fill out the form
themselves, and then e-mail it to DMC.
On April 1 we had processed approximately 12,000 requests
for lower withholding. We continue to receive requests for
partial withholdings of the April 1 check and reduce
withholdings from future checks. To provide the greatest
flexibility to our veterans, repayment plans are being set
retroactive to April 1 and refunds of amounts collected above
the requested payment amount are being refunded. Through mid
April, requests have totaled over $22,000. Of the $355.5
million issued to advance payment recipients, we have collected
over $75 million through payments and offsets.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or the Members may have.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Osendorf.
Mr. Clark, please proceed with your statement.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. CLARK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ACCESSION
POLICY, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL
AND READINESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Clark. Good morning, Chairman Akaka, Senator Tester,
Senator Brown. I am pleased to appear today to discuss the
Department of Defense's role in the implementation of the Post-
9/11 GI Bill. There is little doubt that this new educational
assistance program represents the most sweeping change in post-
service education benefits since World War II. As the Chairman
eloquently discussed, he believes that he would not be here
today were it not for that landmark bill.
The original GI Bill of Rights, created at the end of World
War II, gave returning servicemembers a comprehensive package
of benefits to compensate for opportunities lost while in the
military and to ease their transition back into civilian life.
That GI Bill offered returning soldiers, sailors, Marines, and
airmen payment for tuition, fees, books and supplies, along
with a living stipend at the educational institution of the
veteran's choice.
Although there have been several GI Bills since the
original, the Post-9/11 GI Bill is the first to directly mirror
this original milestone program, again offering returning
soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen payment for tuition,
fees, books and supplies along with a living stipend at the
educational institution of the veteran's choice. However, one
difference is that the original GI Bill was designed to ease
the transition to civilian life from a conscripted military
during a massive drawdown, during a short period of time.
Today's military is different. Since 1973, we have defended
this Nation with a volunteer force, and our military force has
maintained a consistent level of stability without massive
drawdowns. Therefore, along with the codified purpose to assist
veterans in readjusting to civilian life after wartime service,
the Post-9/11 GI Bill also is designed to have a positive
effect on recruitment for the Armed Forces.
For today's hearing, you asked me to comment on the role
DOD has played in the implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill
and how DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs have and
continue to work together to ensure success in the
administration of this new program. This strong relationship
between DOD and VA during the first year of the Post-9/11 GI
Bill has clearly been a team effort benefiting servicemembers,
veterans and their families.
Specifically, DOD has three major roles in implementation.
The first role in successful implementation of the Post-9/11 GI
Bill is the sharing of service data with VA. We recognize the
road to becoming a veteran always entails passage through
service in the military. Accurate reporting of that service is
vital to the determination of eligibility for post-service
education benefits. We recognize our role in that reporting.
The second and third roles DOD plays in the Post-9/11 GI
Bill implementation both stem from two special provisions in
the statute: the ability to offer a supplemental educational
benefit, commonly referred to as a kicker; and the ability to
offer career servicemembers the opportunity to share or
transfer their earned but unused education benefits to
immediate family members.
Following the model of the very effective Montgomery GI
Bill college funds used since the 1980s, kickers allow the
services to supplement the monthly education assistance for
members we recruit or retain with critical skills or
specialties and for incentivizing further service. The existing
MGIB college funds are funded by the military services but
administered and paid by VA through the use of the DOD
education benefits fund.
Unfortunately, even though kickers are authorized under the
Post-9/11 GI Bill, the authority to use this fund was not
included in the statute. We have requested a technical
amendment to allow use of that fund for kickers associated with
the Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits to rectify this
situation in our 2011 legislative proposal package for the
fiscal year 2011 National Defense Authorization Bill.
DOD's third major role is the implementation of the
provision that allows the Secretary of Defense, for the purpose
of promoting recruitment and retention, to permit members of
the Armed Forces to elect to transfer all or a portion of their
unused educational entitlement to a spouse and/or child. Family
members and quality-of-life groups throughout the Department
have requested such transferability for many years, and we
believe this will have a significant impact in our retention
efforts.
The transferability process is a shared responsibility with
DOD accepting and approving the request to transfer and VA
administering the transferred benefit just as they administer
benefits for servicemembers and veterans. In implementing our
responsibilities under this provision, we established a web-
based paperless process for approval and submission to VA. To
date, over 105,000 requests from career servicemembers have
been approved, transferring unused benefits to over 240,000
family members.
DOD is committed to the success of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
From the beginning, we started outreach to both our internal
and external audiences. To support recruiting, the Post-9/11 GI
Bill has become an integral part of both service recruiting
programs and joint advertising. To support retention, we
established a special page on the Defense Link Web site for the
Post-9/11 GI Bill, participated in numerous interviews and
round tables resulting in articles in almost every military
installation newspaper, published a final rule in the Federal
Register, and printed information and links to both the VA Web
site for the Post-9/11 GI Bill and the DOD Web site on leave
and earnings statements for all military members. We have been
working very closely with VA Education Services since the
enactment and will continue to work side-by-side with staff.
I thank the Committee for the continued dedicated support
to men and women everywhere who currently serve and to those
who have served our great Nation. This concludes my testimony.
I will be glad to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clark follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert E. Clark, Assistant Director for Accession
Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and esteemed Members of the Committee.
I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the Department of
Defense's (DOD) role in the implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, as
enacted in Public Law 110-252, and codified in Chapter 33, title 38,
United States Code. There is little doubt this new educational
assistance program represents the most sweeping change in post-service
education benefits since World War II.
The original ``GI Bill of Rights,'' created at the end of World War
II, gave returning Servicemembers a comprehensive package of benefits
to compensate for opportunities lost while in the military, and to ease
their transition back into civilian life. The noted economist, Peter
Drucker, described that GI Bill by saying, ``Future historians may
consider it the most important event of the 20th century.'' Perhaps the
most far-reaching provision of the GI Bill was the financial assistance
it made available for veterans to attend college. The GI Bill offered
returning Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen payment for tuition,
fees, books, and supplies, along with a living stipend, at the
educational institution of the veteran's choice. With over 7.8 million
veterans receiving education or training, this landmark program changed
the face of higher education, and many have said directly led to the
creation of the American middle class.
Although there have been several GI Bills since the original, the
Post-9/11 GI Bill is the first to directly mirror this original
milestone program, again offering the returning Soldiers, Sailors,
Marines and Airmen payment for tuition, fees, books, and supplies,
along with a living stipend, at the educational institution of the
veteran's choice. However, one difference is the original GI Bill was
designed to ease the transition to civilian life from a conscripted
military force during a massive drawdown during a short period of time.
Today's military is much different--since 1973, we have defended this
Nation with a volunteer force, and our military forces maintain a
consistent level of stability without massive drawdowns. Therefore,
along with a codified purpose to ``* * * assist veterans in readjusting
to civilian life after wartime service * * *'' the Post-9/11 GI Bill
also is designed to have a positive effect on recruitment for the Armed
Forces.
The Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) has been a cornerstone of our
military recruiting efforts since 1985, and a major contributor to the
success of the All-Volunteer Force. Money for future education has been
and remains at the forefront of reasons young Americans cite for
joining the military. There is no doubt that the Post-9/11 GI Bill will
continue to have this impact.
For today's hearing, you asked me to comment on the role DOD has
played in the implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and how DOD and
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have and continue to work
together to ensure success in the administration of this new program.
This strong relationship between DOD and VA during the first year of
the Post-9/11 GI Bill has clearly been a team effort benefiting
Servicemembers, veterans, and their families. Specifically, DOD has
three major roles in this implementation.
The Department's first role in the successful implementation of the
Post-9/11 GI Bill is the sharing of service data with VA. We recognize
the road to becoming a veteran always entails passage through service
in the military. Accurate reporting of that service is vital to the
determination of eligibility for all post-service education benefits.
We recognize our role in that reporting.
Since 2003, the Department has been providing automated daily
updates to Servicemember and veteran personnel data to VA. From the day
the person enlists or is commissioned into the military, DOD sends a
record to VA, and we update this information as it changes. All of this
is stored in VA's VA and DOD Information Repository (VADIR). This is
accomplished by means of a once-daily replication of the Defense
Enrollment and Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) to VADIR. With the
implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, we have included the
identification and transfer of those family members to whom the
Servicemembers have elected to transfer their educational benefits in
VADIR. This provides VA with daily updates to approved Servicemember
transfers of this benefit, and allows VA to administer payments.
For those instances where there are questions about a
Servicemember's or veteran's record, we have in place an effective and
direct line of communication between the VA Regional Processing Offices
and each of the Service Components. DOD provides VA a list of Service
Points of Contact who are able to provide immediate responses either
via telephone or e-mail. Through this formalized process, VA claims
examiners have the ability to quickly get updates or clarifications.
The second and third roles DOD plays in Post-9/11 GI Bill
implementation both stem from two special provisions in the statute--
the ability to offer a supplemental educational benefit, commonly
referred to as ``kickers,'' and the ability to offer eligible career
Servicemembers the opportunity to share or transfer their earned, but
unused, education assistance benefits to their immediate family
members.
``Kickers'' as authorized in section 3316, title 38, United States
Code, allow the Services to provide additional monthly educational
assistance to recruit or retain members with critical skills or
specialties and for incentivizing additional service. Following the
model of the very effective MGIB ``College Funds'' used since the
1980s, these ``kickers'' will assist the Services in recruiting high
quality youth into critical and hard-to-fill military specialties,
encourage these young men and women to serve for longer terms of
service, and incentivize service in the Selected Reserve for those who
separate. Unfortunately, even though ``kickers'' are authorized under
the Post-9/11 GI Bill, the statute as written does not allow us to use
them. The current MGIB ``College Funds'' are funded by the military
Services, but administered and paid by VA through the use of the DOD
Education Benefits Fund (EBF). For each ``College Fund'' offered, the
Service makes an actuarially determined deposit into the EBF, and when
the Servicemember or veteran uses the benefit, VA includes the
supplemental amount in the payment to the individual and draws
reimbursement from the EBF. To allow the Services to use Post-9/11 GI
Bill ``kickers,'' we requested a technical amendment in our 2011
legislative proposal package for the FY 2011 National Defense
Authorization Bill to allow the Service to make deposits into the EBF
and for VA to draw reimbursement from the EBF for ``kickers''
associated with the Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits.
DOD's third major role is the implementation of the provision that
allows the Secretary of Defense, for the purpose of promoting
recruitment and retention, to permit certain members of the Armed
Forces to elect to transfer all or a portion of their unused
educational entitlement to a spouse and/or child. Family members and
quality of life groups throughout the Department have supported
transferability of education benefits. Due to the requirement that
members must commit to additional service to be eligible to transfer
unused education benefits, transferability is a significant incentive
for continued service. The transferability process is a shared
responsibility--with DOD accepting and approving the request to
transfer, and VA administering the transferred benefit just as they
administer benefits for Servicemembers and Veterans.
In implementing our responsibilities under this provision, DOD
established a Web-based paperless process for approval and submission
to VA, the Transferability of Educational Benefits (TEB) system. Career
Servicemembers, either active duty or selected reservist, log into TEB,
a secure site, with their common access card or unique ID and password.
TEB provides them a screen that shows all family members who are
enrolled in DEERS and eligible for military benefits. The individual
may then select the family member(s) and enter the number of months of
benefit each receives. This request goes to the Service for approval.
The Service verifies the member has completed the required additional
service commitment and approves the request. Approved requests are
shared with VA on a nightly basis through VADIR, as earlier described.
Transferability has been well received by our career force. To date,
over 105,000 requests from career servicemembers have been approved--
transferring months of benefit eligibility to over 240,000 family
members.
DOD is committed to the success of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. From the
beginning, we started outreach to both our internal and external
audiences. To support recruiting, the Post-9/11 GI Bill has become an
integral part of both Service and joint advertising. To support
retention, we established a special page on Defense Link for the Post-
9/11 GI Bill, participated in numerous interviews and roundtables,
published a final rule on DOD implementation in the Federal Register,
and printed information and links to VA Post-9/11 GI Bill web sites on
Leave and Earnings Statements for all military members. The Department
has been working very closely with the VA Education Service since
enactment, and will continue to work side-by-side with VA staff. The
Post-9/11 GI Bill will have major impacts on DOD recruiting and
retention. Recruiting and retention are the critical goals that guide
how we implement this program. We recognize our duty to staff the All-
Volunteer Force with high-quality, motivated, and well-trained men and
women. As we move through the 21st Century, we must continue to
buildupon the remarkable legacy of the visionaries who crafted the
original and preceding versions and improvements to the GI Bill. I
thank this Committee for its continued, dedicated support to the men
and women everywhere who currently serve and to those who have served
our great Nation. I will be happy to answer any question you might have
at this time.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Clark.
Before we move on here, I would like to ask Mr. Wilson
whether you would like to go through some of your slides before
we get to other statements and questions.
Mr. Wilson. I am prepared to do that now, Mr. Chairman. We
are flexible. One of the key things that we were asked to talk
about was the claims examiner experience. So the slides will
give you and the Committee an understanding of what our claims
examiners are going through to provide the benefits to the
students. If you are prepared for that now, I can do that.
Chairman Akaka. Well, if this is appropriate for you, will
you run the slides please?
Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir.
The VA has prepared four slides that provide an overview of
what it takes to provide benefits to students as compared to
what it takes to provide students under our other programs,
most specifically the Montgomery GI Bill.
The first slide entitled ``Benefits Payments'' is a side-
by-side comparison of the structure and needs under the
Montgomery GI Bill versus the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Under the
existing benefit payment structures existing prior to the Post-
9/11 GI Bill, we were looking at essentially a single monthly
benefit payment specifically to the individual. One payment
went out each month directly to the individual. Benefit
payments were paid essentially according to a fixed-rate scale.
There were some variations in that, but basically, it was a
one-size-fits-all type of program, and it still is. All
benefits were paid again directly to the beneficiary.
Under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, there are up to five different
benefit payments per beneficiary, and there is no set rate. I
think that is one of the key messages on this slide, the actual
payment amounts that are going out will be unique to each
individual. If two individuals receive the exact same payment
amounts, it will be purely coincidental because their tuition
and fee charges will be different; they will be living in
different ZIP codes for the housing rates, et cetera.
There is, as you are aware, lump sum payment for tuition
and fees at the beginning of the semester. There is also a
monthly payment that goes to the student for their housing
allowance. There is also a single payment, the books and
supplies stipend, that is paid at the beginning of the
semester.
In addition to that, if an individual is eligible for
kickers under any of the other benefit programs, then, as
applicable, those kickers are paid separately to the
individual.
The next slide, entitled ``Claims Processing Comparison,''
gives in terms of time, clock time, what it takes to actually
process a claim. And I would point out two numbers on this
slide. The first, under Chapter 30 is the 15 minutes per claim.
Chapter 30 processing of an original claim with an enrollment
certification takes about 15 minutes. There are approximately
16 manual steps of data entry into one system.
Compared with the Post-9/11 GI Bill, it takes about 82
minutes on average to process the same work, an original claim
again with an enrollment certification. About 31 manual actions
are required for that claim: it requires data entry, separate
data entry, and keystroking information into four separate
systems. Those systems do not interface.
The next two slides give more specificity. The first titled
``Chapter 30 Claims Processing Tasks'' is a line-by-line
breakdown of the steps that an individual needs to take to
administer a Chapter 30 payment and whether that process is
automated to some degree or whether it is manual to some
degree. As you can see, the 16 steps are listed here that are
required for the Chapter 30 process. Again, this is a summary.
These are the details of what occurs during those 15 minutes to
process a Montgomery GI Bill claim.
Turning to the last slide, titled ``Chapter 33 Claims
Processing Tasks,'' you can see that there are many more steps
to process a Chapter 30 claim, noting the 33 steps that I
talked about. And these are the individual steps that go into
the 82-minutes it takes to process a claim under Chapter 33. As
you can see, some of those are automated. The majority of those
are manual, requiring a lot of manual keystroking for our
claims examiners.
All total right now, we have about 1,100 individuals
processing claims for all our benefit programs. That is for the
Post-9/11 GI Bill as well as the other education programs we
administer.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you or any
member may have, sir.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson. Let me
begin.
Mr. Wilson, what one change do you believe would be most
important to make in order to streamline and simplify the
implementation of a new program?
Mr. Wilson. I have to limit that to one? The program itself
is a fabulous program, and anything that I would say, I would
not want to detract from the significance of this program.
From the user perspective--the students, the veterans'
perspective--what I hear a lot about is the confusion of having
more than one GI Bill program. As you are aware, the programs
that we had prior to the Post-9/11 GI Bill are still in
existence, and individuals need to make those decisions on what
the best program is for them based on their unique situations.
It is not always the Post-9/11 GI Bill; it is not always the
Montgomery GI Bill, but that decision process causes a lot of
confusion for our students, and it makes it that much more
cumbersome for us to administer.
There are a lot of other technical issues with the payment
structure and timing. For example, paying the tuition and fees
and setting the tuition and fee structure at the beginning of
the year causes us a lot of problems because at the time that
the States are setting their tuition rates, that is the same
time that schools are submitting enrollment information to us
and we want to pay correct benefits. So, the crunch time that
occurs in the fall with the establishment of rates is very
challenging.
Chairman Akaka. Mr. Warren, could you please describe in
more detail what the purpose of a Web interface is and how that
will improve the process?
Mr. Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The processes that
were laid out on the charts for Mr. Wilson actually reflect the
steps that the employees are going through today for the
interim approach. The interim approach was a manually augmented
effort. With the time we had for implementation, that was the
best we could do: four different tools, multiple screens.
The long-term solution that we are working through, the
first increment that has been deployed and is in use, takes all
those steps and automates them. The goal is to give a single
environment which the education employee can go through and
things happen for them. So, the goal is to take all those steps
and reduce the time.
We are seeing some benefit with the first release that is
out on the table in terms of usability and access. We still
have the different data feeds, which is a large part of this. I
need to look in different systems to make decisions. Those get
pulled in as we go forward. So as we hit Increment 2 the
majority of those manual steps should be retired, so it becomes
automated.
So, that is looking at it from the VBA or the VA employee's
standpoint. There also is the intent of putting a self-service
portal out there for the veteran to use as well, so that they
can access information. So Increment 4, looking in the December
timeframe or the one after, offers the ability for the veteran
to log in and actually see where they are in the process, so
there would be a little bit more confidence regarding when the
check will come, if something is missing, and where it is in
process. So hopefully, that answered your question, sir.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you.
Mr. Osendorf, could you explain what happened on April 1
when VA recovered the wrong amount of emergency pay from 6,000
veterans? Also, what steps have been taken to ensure that this
will not happen moving forward?
Mr. Osendorf. It was a glitch in the system that if the
veteran was ending his entitlement in that semester, the system
would grab the entire last check and ignore the deduction that
was set on the account. When the VA discovered that, they
immediately identified those particular people and got checks
issued to them for the difference between what should have been
withheld and what was actually withheld. That glitch has been
fixed.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you.
Mr. Clark, when new recruits enter the service, what advice
are they given about the need to make a $1,200 contribution to
the Montgomery GI Bill?
Mr. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Mr. Wilson stated,
the Montgomery GI Bill still remains in effect even though the
Post-9/11 GI Bill has come online. And by law, by statute,
every new member who enters the military who is eligible is
automatically enrolled in the Montgomery GI Bill. They must
make a positive step to disenrolling.
From the very beginning we put word out to all of the
training sites to ensure that these new members realized that
there are limitations on the ways that the Post-9/11 GI Bill
can be used. It is limited to institutions of higher learning,
where the Montgomery GI Bill can be used for on-the-job
training, apprenticeship programs, vocational programs, flight
training, and many other ways of training. So, we have advised
them to keep in mind what their post-service options may be.
I am pleased to report that although they have dropped off
a little bit, traditionally for the last 10 or so years over 95
percent of our new recruits have decided to stay enrolled in
the Montgomery GI Bill. We are still seeing between 90 and 95
percent of our new recruits remaining enrolled in the
Montgomery GI Bill to retain their options. We tell them even
if you enroll and remain enrolled in the Montgomery GI Bill,
you can always convert over to the Post-9/11 GI Bill if that
would be a better post-service program for you.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much.
Let me call on our Ranking Member for his statement and
questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, RANKING MEMBER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Aloha, and my
apologies for my tardiness today. I would ask unanimous consent
that my opening statement be a part of the record.
Chairman Akaka. Your statement will be made a part of the
record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Burr follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Richard Burr, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senator from North Carolina
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for calling this hearing
to discuss the implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. I also want to
thank our witnesses for being here today. Your input will help us
understand what worked well and where mistakes were made in standing up
this new education program. More importantly, it will help us identify
how veterans and their families can be better served as we move
forward.
This education program was created for those who have served in the
Armed Forces since the devastating attacks on September 11, 2001. When
these brave men and women choose to pursue their educational goals,
their benefits need to be accurate, timely, and hassle free.
Unfortunately, the first semester of this program did not go
smoothly for many of these veterans. As we'll discuss today, some
veterans experienced long delays, frustrations, and financial strains
while waiting to receive their education benefits. And many schools had
to find ways to accommodate veterans while waiting for VA to pay the
bills.
Recognizing these unacceptable delays, VA took a number of steps to
get benefits to veterans more quickly. For instance, VA issued over
120,000 emergency advance payments and redirected more than 150
employees from VA's Education Call Center to processing claims.
Although those and other measures did speed up the payments, they also
created other problems.
Some veterans initially had a hard time cashing VA's handwritten
emergency checks and many emergency payments were sent to individuals
who were not eligible to receive them. Also, there was a significant
amount of frustration caused by the fact that calls to VA went
unanswered.
Other veterans ran into difficulties in paying VA back for the
emergency advance payments. Some received two separate letters from VA,
containing different information about the repayment process. And those
who tried to call VA to discuss their options may have reached only a
busy signal. On top of that, thousands of veterans initially had more
money withheld from their April housing checks than VA had agreed to
hold back.
In addition, some veterans have faced problems resulting from
incorrect payments sent to their schools. As an example, a veteran from
my home state of North Carolina had his monthly housing allowance
cutoff by VA in order to recoup a duplicate tuition payment made to his
school--even though the college had already sent the money back to VA.
Unfortunately, as we'll hear today, that was not an isolated incident.
In light of these and other issues surrounding the implementation
of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, I hope to have a candid discussion today
about what went wrong, what steps have already been taken to deal with
those problems, and, more importantly, what else can be done to improve
the delivery of these benefits to veterans in North Carolina and across
the country.
In that regard, I am encouraged by signs that the current semester
is proceeding more smoothly and I appreciate the hard work of VA
employees in making that happen. But, even with those improvements, I
think it is important to fully understand what stumbles occurred in
standing up this program. That way VA, Congress, and other stakeholders
have the opportunity to learn from these experiences and try to ensure
that veterans will not endure similar problems in the future.
On a final note, Mr. Chairman, I want to mention how pleased I am
to be working with you on a draft bill to make technical changes to the
Post-9/11 GI Bill. I believe that draft will be a useful starting point
in discussing how we may be able to improve this program for our
Nation's veterans and their families.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Senator Burr. Thank you. I would point out to the Chair
that the last paragraph of my opening statement praises his
willingness to work with me as we try to draft a technical
corrections bill, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that.
After the February hearing on the progress--or excuse me;
it was actually on the budget request--I sent a number of post-
hearing questions to the VA. Since then, I have received
answers to a small handful of those questions.
Now, that was February, March, April, 60 days. So I am
going to take the opportunity today to try to get some answers
to some questions. OK? And if you would like to continue not to
provide answers to them, then I am going to make a request to
the Chairman that he peruse my questions to see if this should
not be a request that we make from the Committee because I
think that these are important questions, hence, important
answers for us to do the proper oversight of any agency or any
program.
So, how many individuals received advance payments and were
later determined not to be eligible to receive those payments?
And I will open it up to whomever.
Mr. Wilson. I will do the best I can to take a shot at
that. First of all, let me apologize for the responses not
being provided to you. That is not the way we like to do
business, and I will follow up when I get back to the office.
[Responses were not received within the Committee's
timeframe for publication.]
We have preliminary data, but the core issue that we are
looking at right now is validating the data. The Inspector
General, VA Inspector General Office, is looking at the Post-9/
11 GI Bill payments, including the advance payments, and once
they have validated the information, then we will be able to
have something solid that we can talk about with a level of
confidence.
Senator Burr. How much in total was disbursed to
individuals who were not entitled to advance payments?
Mr. Wilson. I would not know the answer to that. We need
that information from the Inspector General before we can
determine how many individuals and then by extension how much
money that would have been.
[Responses were not received within the Committee's
timeframe for publication.]
Senator Burr. So would it be safe to say that you also
would not know how much has been recouped?
Mr. Osendorf. I have got total recoupment: $75 million on
all advance payments that were issued, but I do not have any
information as to whether they were eligible or ineligible in
my system.
Senator Burr. So what other advance payments would we have
recovered if they were not entitled? Why would we have
recovered other dollars? We overpaid?
Mr. Wilson. For every individual that received an advance
payment, when their claim was processed the total amount that
was due, based on their claim situation, was paid. So they were
paid $3,000 in addition to the amount that they were entitled
to, based on their enrollment status. So our process for
recouping the payments is to recoup that $3,000 that they were
paid beyond what they were entitled to under the program.
Senator Burr. But at $75 million worth of recouped money,
we still do not know whether we have recovered everybody's
$3,000 advance.
Is that an accurate statement?
Mr. Osendorf. We have not collected everybody's $3,000
advance.
Senator Burr. So if, in fact, we intended to overpay by
$3,000, the total value of overpayments of $3,000 made would be
what?
Mr. Osendorf. That's $355.5 million in total advance
payments made.
Senator Burr. Can you break that down for me for
individuals? My math is not real good.
Mr. Osendorf. I believe it is 121,095.
Senator Burr. OK. So we do not know of that population who
was ineligible to receive a payment?
Mr. Wilson. That is correct.
Senator Burr. Does VA intend to provide advance payments in
the future?
Mr. Wilson. The short answer to that is no. We did not like
going down the advance payment road to begin with, but we felt
it was something that we had to do to make sure our students
were receiving the money they needed to stay in school.
Since we worked our way through the fall enrollment in
August, our ability to process claims has greatly increased. We
believe we have the resources in place to continue to provide
timely payments. At the beginning of the fall semester, we were
processing, and had the capability of processing, about 1,800
claims a day. Opening into the spring semester, it was about
7,000 a day which, obviously, our timeliness is that much
better. We expect to be able to maintain that level of
performance.
Senator Burr. If somebody does not repay that advance
payment that is owed back, what recourse do you have?
Mr. Osendorf. They will go through the regular VA
collection process. They will get a series of letters. They
will be referred to a credit reporting agency. They will be
referred to the Treasury Offset Program for----
Senator Burr. Will their tuition payment for next year go
out?
Mr. Osendorf. It should be offset against the overpayment.
Senator Burr. Should be or will be?
Mr. Osendorf. It will be. The system is automatically
designed to do that.
Senator Burr. During the Fiscal Year 2011, how many full-
time individuals will be assigned to the Education Call Center?
Mr. Wilson. I will have to get those numbers for the
record, Senator. I am not aware of the exact numbers. What I
can tell you is we do not expect a decline. We have no plan to
decline the number or trickle down the number of people that
are in the call center. It is approximately 200, but I will get
the exact number.
Senator Burr. Does the 2011 budget request include funding
for sufficient education claims processing staff so that the
Education Call Center employees will not be redirected to
claims processing?
Mr. Wilson. I do not have any direct information on the
2011 budget. I would be happy to provide those numbers for the
record.
[Responses were not received within the Committee's
timeframe for publication.]
Senator Burr. I thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, but I would ask the
Chair to consider talking with me about a formal Committee
request of the questions. I submitted 300 questions to the
Veterans Administration. I got 111 responses after well over 60
days. As you can tell from some of these, there are budgetary
issues. They are issues that will affect future payments of
eligible individuals. There may be individuals that lack an
understanding that they were overpaid.
Until we get answers to questions, we do not know the next
questions to ask. Therefore, we are going to have individuals
that are in precarious situations. And if, in fact, we are
going to go through a technical corrections bill, we ought to
figure out what is broken, and that is why we need the answers
to the questions. I look forward to working with the Chair and
thank the Chair.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
it, and I appreciate the panels being here.
The GI Bill that we passed is a major accomplishment. I
think you folks know that, and you have pointed it out in your
testimony. Making sure that we have the education assets
available to our veterans returning from the war zone so they
can integrate back into civilian life and be a success is as
equally important in my mind as the health care benefits that
they are offered and living up to that obligation.
But I have my concerns. I have talked to students and
school personnel about the program, the new GI Bill. Their top
complaint is communication. They do not believe that the VA is
doing a good enough job listening. Part of the problem in
Montana is there is no VA employee on the ground to deal with
this. I have requested one several times, in fact. We have been
turned down. We have been told that they need to go to VA
personnel in St. Louis because that is who can handle that
problem. To be blunt, it ain't working.
For example, Montana State University has seen one
certifying officer in the last year. I think it is fair to say
that many of the tribal colleges where you have high, high,
high enrollment in the Armed Services and a large number of
veterans, have not had a visit from the VA, period, since this
bill has been started.
So we have some problems there. I think the bottom line is
this, we need to get some VA personnel on the ground listening
to Montanans about the concerns they have with implementation
of this program.
Do you have any comment in regard to that?
Mr. Wilson. I would agree conceptually with what the school
certifying officials have been raising concerns about.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Wilson. As you are aware, we were in a situation in the
fall that we did not like being in. We had an all-hands-on-deck
effort. We had our education liaison representatives--the
school's key VA contact--working claims, processing claims. We
had a lot of our call center folks processing claims as well.
We did not like doing that, but it is a tough decision we made
to get the checks out the door.
Senator Tester. How about moving forward?
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
Senator Tester. The past is done. We need to move forward.
Mr. Wilson. Yes, and we have----
Senator Tester. Can I get any sort of commitment we are
going to get some folks on the ground, additional folks? And I
am not just going to say Montana. I am going to say rural areas
because I think they are all in the same boat.
Mr. Wilson. I will be happy to take that message back and
have discussions with the operational folks. I cannot provide
you an answer on the here and now.
Senator Tester. I appreciate that, and we will probably be
approaching it from our end again, too. I think it is
critically important. We have got a high percentage of vets
that live in rural America. There are geographic issues that
fall into a State like Montana and other rural areas that need
to be addressed, and if we do not address them, people cannot
take full advantage of the benefits that they have earned from
being in the service.
Mr. Warren, you had talked about the systems interface.
Right now, it is manual. Over the long term, it is going to be
automated. When is the automation going to occur?
Mr. Warren. The automation. So the first phase has rolled
out, and there is some automation in it for a limited number.
Senator Tester. Not much by the charts.
Mr. Warren. That actual chart shows just the interim. It
does not show what functionality or capability came with
Release 1 because----
Senator Tester. All right. So when is the first interim
going to happen?
Mr. Warren. The first full set of capability is in that
June 30 timeframe. So I would----
Senator Tester. This year?
Mr. Warren. This year, so----
Senator Tester. And how many of those will have checkmarks
in the automated column then?
Mr. Warren. I would say it is probably close to 80 percent.
Senator Tester. Eighty percent. So, 80 percent of those on
that list that we are looking at right there, that says
``Chapter 33 Claims Processing Tasks,'' will be automated.
So how much do you anticipate that will cut down on the
time, the 82 minutes it takes to process the claims?
Mr. Warren. I would like to confirm the 80 percent for the
record.
[The information requested during the hearing follows:]
Response to Request Arising During the Hearing by Hon. Jon Tester to
Stephen W. Warren, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information
and Technology, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
For the record the Mr. Warren offers the following updates
regarding systems interface. These percentages represent a steady
increase and vast improvement in the system:
Release 1 deployed 5%
Release 2, to perform at 20% on or before June 30, 2010
Release 3, will operate at almost 50% on or before
September 30, 2010
Release 4, to perform at 80% on or before December 30,
2010
Thank you for the opportunity for confirmation and I am happy to
provide additional information or content upon request.
Senator Tester. That is fine.
Mr. Warren. I will go back and do that.
The improvement we are seeing right now for a clean claim,
we are looking at 15 and 20 minutes based upon whether it is a
certificate of eligibility or processing. So it is a reduction
of about 15 to 20 percent. Now, that is a clock time for a
simple one.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Warren. For the average one, to be honest, we actually
need to see the steps that the VCE goes through as they process
it. But the expectation is, we are at 15 to 20, we are moving
to 50 or more. But again, until it is actually on the ground
and the user----
Senator Tester. So you know how it works.
When is it going to be 100 percent automated or will it
ever be 100 percent automated?
Mr. Warren. The majority of capability from the VA employee
standpoint should be automated by December.
Senator Tester. This year?
Mr. Warren. This year. So again----
Senator Tester. And will that cut the time for processing
down to 15 minutes or less, like the old program? I mean, you
must have goals. I mean, automated processing should save you
something.
Mr. Warren. Yes, the goal is to reduce it down to a
reasonable amount of time. I think it is difficult to compare
something which is a single thing to multiple decisions that
need to be made. But with bringing automation on board, yes, it
should bring it down to something comparable.
Senator Tester. OK. That is fine.
Mr. Wilson. If I could add to that, please.
Senator Tester. Sure, absolutely.
Mr. Wilson. In terms of making sure that we are clear on
the expectations for the June release and the ultimate full
automation, what June will do, as Mr. Warren indicated in his
testimony, will get us off our current environment.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Wilson. But in June, there will still be a lot of
manual work from our claims examiners.
Senator Tester. Sure. But less than you have now.
Mr. Wilson. Pardon me?
Senator Tester. But less than you have now.
Mr. Wilson. There will be probably about 10 to 15 percent
less.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Wilson. But the manual process as we have it right now
will largely be intact in June. So we will still be doing this
by brute force largely in June. Now, the next steps that will
occur will be moving into automation. It will be pre-population
of data in Release 3. It will be integration of the existing
data feeds. And what that will ultimately do--our goal is to
process claims without human intervention.
Senator Tester. Perfect.
Mr. Wilson. And if that happens, then that gets us away
from the whole issue of timeliness because a human being will
not need to touch it and slow it down. Ultimately, that is our
goal.
Senator Tester. I am with you. I am just curious what the
timeframe is to reach that goal, what the expectations are,
because ultimately at the end, it will cut down administrative
costs. We can flow more of these dollars to the veterans on the
ground. That is the bottom line, plus they will get better
service.
Mr. Wilson. We will go into next fall largely a manual
process, and we have made the commitment to keep the people on
board. The process is in place right now, so that we can at
least maintain the level of performance we had in the spring.
Senator Tester. Thank you.
I have run way over. I have more questions. I hope to do a
second round, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Akaka. We will have a second round.
Thank you, Senator Tester.
Senator Brown, you have questions?
STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT BROWN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Brown of Massachusetts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here and on this Committee.
I am new here, but, obviously, in the military, I
understand the issues pretty succinctly back home from dealing
with a lot of VA and education issues in Massachusetts for
Guard and Reservists. I know this does not apply, per se,
obviously to that situation.
But one of the things that I have been wondering is do you
have the tools and resources to do your job and do it more
effectively and more efficiently?
Mr. Wilson. We believe we have the tools and the resources
in place now to continue to provide services commensurate with
what we did in the spring, which obviously was much better than
the fall. In terms of the next step for that, in terms of
effectiveness, we are funded for the full development of the IT
that we are in the process of rolling out right now. And I
would ask Mr. Warren to correct me if you believe this is
incorrect, but I believe we have the funding to improve that
effectiveness and productivity.
Senator Brown of Massachusetts. And one of the things that
has been brought to my attention, which I have always kind of
been concerned with, is that the VHA rates were announced in
mid-December for the upcoming year and they were implemented by
the January 15 paycheck. And the veterans attending college on
the Post-9/11 GI Bill should have received the same increase at
the same time. For example, somebody going to UMass Boston
would have received an extra $261 plus in January. It is
obviously April 21 now, and that veteran has not seen that
increase and nor has anyone else.
Now, I understand the VA announced this past Monday to fix
the plan, fix the problem. But that veteran still will not see
the additional money until July. So I am wondering, number 1,
how did this happen? Number 2, are those accurate dates? And,
number 3, how are you going to ensure it does not happen again?
Mr. Wilson. I will talk about it from probably a higher
level and ask Mr. Warren to get into any IT details.
The interim solution that we had talked about, the method
in which we are paying claims right now in the timeframe we
were given, we had the capability of creating a single rate
table. And the tool that we are using right now only has the
capability for the 2009 rates. There is no relationship and no
ability to create a relationship to more than one rate.
What will occur with our Release 2 which we have been
talking about that is scheduled for June 30, is that
functionality. It provides that relationship to more than one
rate table, and that is what would give us the ability of
paying the multiple rates, 2009 and 2010 rates.
Mr. Warren. And the July timeframe, to your point, bringing
the tool on place allows us to simplify what the VA employee
has to go through. Now, to go back and do the recalculation, we
need to convert all of the data sets for all of the folks that
received a benefit. So the July timeframe is to give us the
opportunity--once the new system is online that holds multiple
rates in it, we would take all the previous payments and all
the previous files and convert them into the new system, so
then we can calculate.
Senator Brown of Massachusetts. Right. So do you think it
is going to be resolved by July or is this something we are
going to systemically have a problem with every year?
Mr. Warren. The capability will come online in this tool
such that it has the ability to change rates as we go forward.
So the tool that we are deploying is something for the future
that allows us the ability to work with multiple rates. It is
able to actually automate this whole process based on rules.
What we had before was an augmented manual process. With the
time that was available to put it in place, we built the tools
we could.
Senator Brown of Massachusetts. I understand. So how do you
address the back pay issue? Is there going to be an issue of
people receiving monies that were due? How are you going to
bring them current?
Mr. Wilson. There will be no issue of individuals receiving
the payment. They will be made whole when we have that
capability to process those claims. Right now, we would be
processing those claims manually after June 30. We are looking
at methods in which we can try to automate that so that we do
not have a negative impact on the timeliness of our other
processing work or a negative impact on our schedule for
rolling out all of the IT tools we need.
Senator Brown of Massachusetts. And what about dealing with
modifications to offer apprenticeship programs, technical
training, flight training, prep courses for college admission?
Is there any plan to do that, and, if so, when and how?
Mr. Wilson. There is no plans from the perspective of we
are administering the program as it is laid out in the statute
right now. Mr. Warren can probably speak to that better than I,
but my understanding of the IT system is that it is developed
in an architecture that gives us a wide degree of flexibility.
So, as things do change, we have the ability to quickly account
for those changes and pay benefits, continue to pay benefits
timely without a negative impact on service.
Senator Brown of Massachusetts. One final question, Mr.
Chairman, and then I will be done. I appreciate your
indulgence.
As a Guardsman presently serving, and also many of my
brothers and sisters who serve, when they are activated under
Title 32, they are not eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, as
you know. If, in fact, through our efforts we make any changes
to that, are you able to absorb those additional 32,000 or
whatever amount, that may potentially be eligible?
Are you able to handle that type of influx?
Mr. Wilson. Subject to the IT functionality, yes.
Senator Brown of Massachusetts. Great.
Mr. Wilson. We currently are able, as I believe you are
aware, to pay benefits to those individuals under the
Montgomery GI Bill on our other programs.
Senator Brown of Massachusetts. Correct.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Brown.
Senator Burris, for your questions, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROLAND W. BURRIS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,
gentlemen. I just have a few quick questions. I hope we can
deal with that so that I can then ask some more.
Now, are payments, any payments made directly to the
schools? How are the payments made?
Mr. Wilson. The payments are made through our current
fiscal transaction process, and they go directly through EFT,
electronic funds transfer, assuming the school has an EFT
account, into their bank account that they indicated to us.
Senator Burris. To the school or to the student?
Mr. Wilson. To the school. The tuition and fee payments go
directly to the school. The housing payments and book payments
go directly to the student.
Senator Burris. Housing and book payment. How do you do
verification? If I tell you my rent is $500 a month and really
rent is $300 a month, how do you do the verification of that?
Mr. Wilson. We do not verify the actual payment amounts.
The statute allows us to pay a flat rate that is equal to the
DOD basic allowance for housing rate for an E-5 with
dependents.
Senator Burris. I thought you said it was based on
individuals, so each individual might have a different
situation. So now you are saying that it is a flat rate for
their rent that they pay.
Mr. Wilson. No. What I am referring to, Senator, is the
entire cadre of payments that go out to an individual will be
unique to them, taking into account the housing allowance that
they receive directly.
Senator Burris. So how do you measure the housing
allowance?
Mr. Wilson. That payment goes directly to them. The school
is paid the tuition and fee amount on the veteran's behalf
based on the actual charges from the institution.
Senator Burris. Mr. Wilson, if I lived in Chicago and I was
going to Loyola or DePaul and I am a veteran, my rent would be
higher than if I lived in Carbondale, IL, and went to Southern
Illinois University. So please give me a quick overview of how
you verify the information I put on my application? How do you
determine that that stipend will be comparable to my living
standards?
Mr. Wilson. We pay the stipend based on the zip code of the
school. We know that school, and we have a relationship with
the school certifying official that verifies attendance for us.
Senator Burris. OK. But you cannot verify what the veteran
has put on his application that he is paying in rent.
Mr. Wilson. No, we are not required to do that under the
statute.
Senator Burris. OK. So how do you determine the flat
amount?
Mr. Wilson. We determine the flat amount based on the zip
code of the school that the individual is attending and its
relationship to DOD's basic allowance for housing rates.
Senator Burris. OK. That was more complicated than I
anticipated. I thought I could get through that quickly.
You said that there are 1,100 processors working on claims.
Where are they located; here in Washington or throughout the
country?
Mr. Wilson. They are at four locations across the country,
Buffalo, NY; Atlanta, GA; St. Louis, MO, and Muskogee, OK. We
also have individuals from some of our other regional offices
assisting currently.
Senator Burris. I was talking to General Shinseki and he
told me how you got inundated with all of these applications,
which just overloaded the system. So, there are four processing
locations where all this is happening.
If I was going to Southern Illinois University in
Carbondale, where would I file my application if I was a
veteran?
Mr. Wilson. I believe for Illinois it would be St. Louis,
but I would have to get that information for the record.
Senator Burris. And now we are a suburb of St. Louis,
right?
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
Senator Burris. OK. Just a little joke. Smile, Mr. Wilson.
Are there any type of verifications that you folks do for
students? I know with a lot of these Pell grants and other
grants to go to universities and colleges, there is a lot of
fraud going on.
Who is doing some of the verification? Is it all left up to
the Inspector General or how are we doing any verification? I
guarantee you that there is going to be a percentage of
individuals who maybe are not even a veteran, but they claim to
be a veteran, that try to game the system.
Are we prepared for that?
Mr. Wilson. We are. In terms of the veteran's status, we
receive real-time data directly from DOD, and we validate the
person's veteran status based on that. That is the first thing
we do. Number 2, we do not pay any benefits until a school
certifying official located at that specific schools reports to
us that that student is enrolled. They give us the training
time. They give us the exact tuition and fee amounts. So the
school independently reports those numbers.
Now, in terms of oversight for that mechanism, there are
two ways of doing that. VA has individuals that go out to
schools and we actually verify the information. We look at
their records. We verify the information they report to us. In
addition to that, the State Approving Agencies that have been
under contract to VA since 1947 at the State level do that same
type of work. They are out at schools looking at their records
as well.
Senator Burris. Very good.
Now, Mr. Wilson, as you know, a major problem this year
stemmed from tying living expenses to certification of
enrollment and tuition payments. How can we ensure that a
similar situation will not occur next year?
Mr. Wilson. The core method that we have in place to ensure
that that does not happen again is our processing capability
that we currently have. We went into the spring being able to
process 7,000 claims a day, which is far in excess of what we
went into the fall with: being able to process 1,800 claims a
day.
So that capacity to keep up with the workload coming in at
those peak periods is there. That is at the core of the process
we have in place. In addition, as we receive additional
functionality, as more IT functionality is delivered, that
builds on that capability.
Senator Burris. Mr. Chairman, may I have the liberty to ask
one more question because I will have to leave to preside. I
just want to have one more question.
Is it possible?
Chairman Akaka. Fine.
Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson, my office has received reports that the
overworked VRE and the counselors are pushing veterans to the
GI Bill despite the fact that many of the service-disabled
veterans might need the supportive services that VRE provides.
Mr. Wilson, are you aware of the problems? And if so, what
is being done about it?
Mr. Wilson. All of the voc rehab counselors across the
country have been trained in great detail on VA's education
programs, which includes the Post-9/11 GI Bill. As an
individual indicates that he or she wants to pursue training in
the voc rehab program, or Chapter 31 program, the counselors
sit down with those individuals and they work one-on-one to
determine what is the best program. They look at things both
from a financial basis as well as a non-financial basis, taking
into account their disabilities, such things as their length of
delimiting date for their GI Bill benefits, things like that.
So it is decided on a case-by-case basis. I am not aware of any
mechanisms that exist to try to funnel people into any specific
program.
Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity.
Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Burris.
Now, Senator Isakson, please proceed with your questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson, isn't it true that on the question that Senator
Burris asked regarding housing that the Veterans Administration
establishes a housing allowance rate per zip code around the
country, and then the solider is reimbursed or the veteran is
reimbursed based on that assignment? If the housing they are
renting is actually more, they pay the difference; if it is
less, the money is theirs.
Is that not correct?
Mr. Wilson. Yes, that is correct.
Senator Isakson. Which is the same as most per diem
allowances in terms of the government system.
Explain the Yellow Ribbon program to me.
Mr. Wilson. The Yellow Ribbon program is a unique portion
of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. At its core, the GI Bill allows us to
pay the maximum in-state undergraduate costs at any public
institution in each State. So at its core, anybody pursuing an
undergraduate degree at a public institution is covered fully.
We pay for that.
Now, if an individual is in a situation where they have
expenses that exceed that, that is where the Yellow Ribbon
kicks in. Situations that may exceed that would be: an
individual pursuing training at a private school, for example;
or they are pursuing graduate training where the charges are
higher than undergraduate charges; or they are being charged
out-of-state tuition.
In those types of situations, the Yellow Ribbon agreement
allows the VA to enter into agreements with specific schools
uniquely to each school. And under those agreements, the school
can agree to waive up to the half of the difference between
their charges and what the State maximum is, and VA will match
the amount that the State offsets. So if a school wanted to
participate fully in the Yellow Ribbon program, any student's
charges would be fully covered at that private institution as
well.
Senator Isakson. Explain where there would be an
application of an out-of-state tuition.
Mr. Wilson. Each State has different policies, procedures,
local regulations on----
Senator Isakson. The time of residence then, they may not
have been there long enough to qualify. OK.
Mr. Wilson. That is exactly the type of thing, yes.
Senator Isakson. And in your Yellow Ribbon agreement, let's
just take a situation where a university has a $10,000
differential for out-of-state tuition. It allows them to waive
up to $5,000 and the VA to match it.
Is that what I understand?
Mr. Wilson. Yes, that is correct.
Senator Isakson. So if a veteran did not reside in Georgia
long enough to qualify for in-state tuition at the University
of Georgia, and if that out-of-state tuition was $10,000, you
would reimburse up to half of that out-of-state tuition?
Mr. Wilson. That is correct.
Senator Isakson. But you do that through a negotiated
contract with the university.
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
Senator Wilson. And I would assume most universities are
cooperative in negotiating that; is that correct?
Mr. Wilson. We have about 1,300 Yellow Ribbon agreements
across the country at about 1,100 schools.
Senator Isakson. OK. With regard to States where there is a
tuition benefit that a veteran may earn, Georgia has the HOPE
Scholarship program; I know California has free tuition
programs, do you offset benefits based on that State benefit?
Mr. Wilson. It will depend on the mechanics of how that
program is administered in the State. Broadly speaking, yes.
What we pay under the Post-9/11 GI Bill is actual charges. Now,
whether or not those charges would exist in a State, that would
impact what we would pay, how much we would pay under the Post-
9/11 GI Bill. So those type of programs, if there is no
charges, then we make no payments.
Senator Isakson. So, unlike the assignment of a value for
housing per zip code, in the case of tuition, you would
actually verify whether or not there is a benefit the veteran
is receiving, and then only reimburse the non-benefit amount?
Mr. Wilson. That is correct. The school certifies to us the
amount of the charges.
Senator Isakson. Thank you very much to all of you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Isakson.
Senator Begich, your questions, please.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have a few, but first I apologize for being late, so let
me ask. I always give my colleague next to me a lot of
harassment. He probably took my binder, asked all my questions.
He did. See? But let me ask first a general question.
Do you or are you in the process of surveying the students
who have accessed the Post-9/11 Bill in getting some sort of
response on issues that they say are problems or positive
things? Can anyone answer that?
Mr. Wilson. We are constantly working with our
stakeholders, most specifically our students. We receive
information on their concerns several ways. First of all, they
can contact us directly and do that. We also have our existing
relationships with the school certifying officials at the
schools, with the State Approving Agencies in the States, as
well as services organizations.
For example, the Student Veterans of America is an
organization that has groups on over 150 campuses across the
country. We have regular interchanges with them, and we receive
information.
Senator Begich. But do you do like a large business would
do? When I go get service on my car, I get a customer service
survey to ask me how did it work, what went on, what were the
problems you had. Do you have a system like that? And the
reason I ask you that is it gets you direct information from
the consumer rather than through stakeholders and through other
means.
Is that something that you would be interested in doing or
do you do in any form?
Mr. Wilson. If I could answer that from a little bit
broader perspective first and then answer that specifically.
Senator Begich. OK.
Mr. Wilson. We have a very aggressive outreach mechanism in
place. It goes back to the time when an individual was in the
service. We do four direct mailings to an individual during
their active duty, one 6 months into service, 2 years into
service, 6 months prior to separation and at separation. So we
give them redundancy in the information. That is a push of
information.
We also work very hard----
Senator Begich. If I can interrupt for a second, that is to
get them connected to know what those benefits are.
Mr. Wilson. That is correct. We have also worked very
aggressively over the spring on a specific outreach campaign to
make sure we are hitting those issues hard again. We provided
information through print media, radio stations, posters, et
cetera, directly to campuses, to make sure individuals have
information on what they can help us with in terms of
administering the program effectively.
Now, in terms of specifically a customer satisfaction
survey, we are in the process of doing that. We are close to
having the questions finalized, and we will be rolling that
out.
Senator Begich. Excellent, great. In that vein, do you--to
step once more on what you are talking about with the
stakeholders, with universities--and I am going to walk through
just a couple concerns from our University of Alaska because
they have some issues--do you have a process when a university
has issues? What do you do? Walk me through that just so I
understand it.
The university says look, we are not getting this kind of
response from the VA. Several of these items that they have
listed to me, they may get notification. For example, the
consumer gets notified that there is an overpayment and so then
they have to--but the university may have already sent the
overpayment back to the VA.
So how do you--walk me through that first step of what you
do with a university or a college.
Mr. Wilson. There are actually several mechanisms in which
this could be addressed. At its core, the first contact for a
school that has a question like this is their education liaison
representative for that State. As was indicated, not
necessarily in that State, but we do have education liaison
representatives, at least one assigned to each State. So that
is the first place where that communication would occur.
Additionally, depending on the status, if there is
currently an overpayment, et cetera, our processing office
staffs work with Mr. Osendorf's staff to work out the
relationship between any debt that may exist and any payment
that is due or not due from the schools.
If I could add one other thing. As mentioned already, we
work with the school certifying officials as well. They have a
professional organization, the National Association of Veteran
Program Administrators that we have a strong relationship with,
and we work with them specifically on those type of issues as
well.
Senator Begich. Last question because my time is just about
up.
If there are overpayments to students, and also the
emergency payment that was done, the $3,000, if there are
hardships created by repayment or recalculation, how is the VA
working through that?
Mr. Osendorf. The individual will normally contact the Debt
Management Center to discuss the debt. We will work with him.
We normally try to recoup a payment within a 1-year timeframe.
Senator Begich. OK.
Mr. Osendorf. We can go up to three years. If it is going
to go over a year, we ask them to fill out a financial status
report and indicate what the issues are.
Senator Begich. But you will work with them on the
overpayment so it is not an immediate recoup.
Mr. Osendorf. Most definitely.
Senator Begich. Ideally the student should not have spent
it, but they probably did not realize that they had that
payment. So your job then is, again, collect in 1 year, or if
after 1 year, up to 3 years, but that requires kind of their
financial capacity.
Is that what you are trying to judge there?
Mr. Osendorf. Correct, correct.
Senator Begich. OK. I will end on this, how would you judge
those kind of complaints or concerns that people have in
regards to that issue? In other words, because of the $3,000
payment, is that kind of bumped up or is it pretty much not an
issue?
Mr. Osendorf. You have seen a spike because of the volume
of advanced payments, but I think once we get through the
spring semester into the fall, it is going to smooth out.
Senator Begich. OK. Let me end there. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Begich.
We will begin our second round now.
Mr. Wilson, the slides up on the screen show more than 30
steps that would be eliminated by the automated system in
Release 1. But Release 1 is only available in one of the
processing centers.
When will it be released to the other three?
Mr. Wilson. The rollout for Release 1 was modified to be a
limited release because in the timeframe, to stay on schedule,
we simply did not have the capacity of putting in all the
functionality that we could. The group of claims that we can
process under Release 1 are only original claims. So those
individuals that we are already paying benefits to, we will not
be able to move them into this new system until Release 2 when
the data conversion occurs for that.
The initial release--there is a total of 16 people across
the country that are using the system. There is a group that
was first rolled out in Muskogee, and we are also rolling it
out to our other offices, again, on a limited basis, on a
defined basis, so that each of our four offices do get
experience working the new tool. But again, at each of the
offices it will only be original Chapter 33 claims that they
would be working. But it is going to be rolled out by all four
stations.
Chairman Akaka. To build on what Senator Burris was saying,
and to clarify, the VA is making three payments on behalf of
each student, one for a living allowance monthly to the
veteran, another for books annually, and a third to the school
for tuition.
How many schools are receiving these payments?
Mr. Wilson. How many schools? It is at least 247,000
schools because that is the number of Chapter 33 students that
we are paying. Now, we do know that there are about 40,000
students who are attending more than one school. So in addition
to that 247,000 schools that we know we are paying, you can add
another 40,000 for the second school that some of those
students are attending.
Chairman Akaka. Mr. Clark, does the Department have a view
on the effectiveness of transferability as a retention tool;
that is, have any evaluations been undertaken or is any of that
planned?
Mr. Clark. Mr. Chairman, the newness of the program has not
allowed an evaluation yet, although we do plan on continually
evaluating it. However, anecdotally, we do know that this
provision allowing our career servicemembers to share their
benefits with those who they love is very popular. The numbers
that I had in my opening statement, over 105,000 career
servicemembers have been approved, and they have shared that
with over 240,000 of their immediate family members, many of
them already in school. I hear almost daily from someone
talking about how wonderful this is and how much it helped them
make a decision to continue on.
So, we will be continually monitoring this and we will do
formal evaluations after we have time to what we call ``police
up'' the battlefield, get over the initial rush and start
seeing how the program affects the retention of our career
members.
Chairman Akaka. Well, thank you. I may have further
questions, but let me pass it on to Senator Tester for his
questions.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much
appreciate it.
The overpayment issue is something that has been questioned
by many people on this Committee. I am going to give you an
example of what is happening in Montana. I know you guys have
expressed different things happening. Maybe a different thing
happens in the region you live in. But let me give you an
example.
The VA strategy, as it applies to a university like Montana
State University if there is an overpayment for tuition and
fees, is to tell the university to keep it, put it in the
veteran's account, and the VA will put the veteran into
overpayment status. There are some problems with being in
overpayment status. Then VA will tell the veteran that he is in
overpayment status via letter. I think this is unacceptable
because it puts the veteran in an overpayment status that I do
not think is right.
Can you tell me why this is done, if it is done with
regularity, and if there are any plans to change the way this
is done?
Mr. Wilson. I have limited information, but I will provide
what I do have.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Wilson. The mechanism we have set up took into account
the best mechanism we knew at the time, making assumptions
early on, on how these types of issues would be addressed. We
recognize that it is not a perfect situation, and it is complex
with money flowing for more than one part. We are happy to look
at a different way of doing it, but we were really looking at
what--we made assumptions based on what we knew, but if we need
to change those assumptions, we can do that.
Senator Tester. We all agree that this new GI Bill is a
good thing, and we all agree that it is going to have its
glitches as it moves forward. It has its glitches. I mean, you
cannot fix stuff until you know what is wrong.
My question is more moving forward, is putting veterans in
overpayment status something that the VA is going to continue
to do or are we going to fix that?
Mr. Wilson. We would prefer not to have veterans in
overpayment status.
Senator Tester. So we are going to fix it.
Mr. Wilson. We will do everything that we can to put them
in a status other than an overpayment status.
Senator Tester. We will continue to have that dialog if it
continues to occur, and I want to thank you for that.
Last question, and this deals with colleges and
universities that are not notified because of a change in
beneficiary status. The question is, why would you simply
notify the school administrator when you change the veteran's
eligibility rating?
Now, let me give you an example. I have got a case in my
office where a student received a letter from the VA saying
they were 100 percent eligible. He turned it into the school.
The school is expecting a check for 100 percent, but they only
got a 40 percent check. And so the student suddenly has a big
debt to the school. The school is surprised. No one really
knows what transpired to have this take place.
How can we improve that process?
Mr. Wilson. Part of our new IT strategy,. Mr. Warren
alluded to this earlier, is a web self-service portal, the
ability for an individual to go onto a Web site without having
to communicate over phone or letter to us and pull information
down. That is the mechanism that we can use to provide that
type of information. Once an individual is in our system, we
would like the individuals to be able to pull revised
eligibility information down whenever they need it.
Senator Tester. As I said in my opening round of questions,
communication is the biggest problem we have got right now from
our perspective in Montana. The communication thing cannot be
fixed from St. Louis, MO. If you would do your best to get that
fixed, I would sure appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Tester.
Senator Begich.
Senator Begich. Just some quick follow-ups. I want to just
follow up on what Senator Tester just asked in regards to
overpayments. I want to make sure we are clear, Mr. Wilson,
that your comment was happy to look at a different approach.
You want to fix the overpayment, yes, no?
Mr. Wilson. Yes. It is never a good situation for veterans
to be in an overpayment status.
Senator Begich. That is first.
Second, do you believe--like Senator Tester, we had similar
situations within our own university system of overpayments and
it puts people--any time you get a letter, I do not care who it
is from, but if it is from the government and it says you owe
us money, it is not a good feeling, no matter what. And so I
think that is the point Senator Tester is trying to get to, is
we have got to figure out a different system here.
I am familiar with a lot of loan activities. I was the
chair of the Alaska Student Loan Corporation for 7 years. We
dealt with these issues on a regular basis. It is about the use
of technology and how the stakeholders or in this case, the
educational institutions, respond and participate.
Institutions love to hold that money because it is cash-
flow for them, even though it is the student's money. We had to
deal with this all the time. We have had the big universities
come in. They explained to us why we could not change the
student loan program: because it was basic cash-flow to them,
and when they can control that money it is in their best
interest rather than to keep it in, ``the student's account.''
My view was the consumer should not be the one penalized at
the back end. And I want to echo what Senator Tester said, it
is critical that we move forward to try to figure out a system
here.
Do you think there is a time table you could state for the
record of when you could report back to the Committee on how
that process would work, or when you feel that there is a new
system or an improved system on overpayments, that you could
report to us?
Mr. Wilson. Anything I would put out here would be
speculation on my part, so I do not feel comfortable providing
any dates at this point. I would echo and agree completely with
what you said. The key of what we want to do is get veterans in
school and get them to graduate. If they do not graduate,
nobody is the winner on this.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Wilson. Anything that distracts them from being able to
study and graduate is not a good thing. As a recipient of
government letters about overpayments, I know full well what
that does, and we are going to do everything that we can to
keep that from happening.
Senator Begich. Can you for the record at some point here
submit to us what you think a time table will be? Because what
I have learned also, as a person who has been a mayor, who has
managed resources, if you do not have a time table--I do not
want to say nothing gets done, but it sure does take a long
time.
So could you submit something to us that says here is what
you think this issue could be focused on to be resolved or at
least significantly resolved?
Mr. Wilson. I would be happy to do that.
[Responses were not received within the Committee's
timeframe for publication.]
Senator Begich. OK. And the last question, do you have any
data points or measurements for overpayments? In other words,
if I asked you right now how many overpayments have you had and
what percentage of your total volume and how much cash volume
that is, is that data you have somewhere within your realm of
information? Maybe not right this second, but is it something
that you might have?
Mr. Wilson. My gut feeling is yes. I will take that back,
and I will have to do a work-up on it and provide a response
for the record.
[Responses were not received within the Committee's
timeframe for publication.]
Senator Begich. OK. And if you do not it is an obvious
answer to the question, and that is, it is a metric that is a
great way to measure success; if, obviously, you have less,
both in volume of dollars and also quantity of customers,
because they are two different measurements.
So I would be interested in those numbers, and then if you
do not have a metric that you are going to be measuring by in
the future, I would encourage you to I am just thinking back to
my days when I was chair of the Student Loan Corporation for 7
years. These are some of the metrics we used to just make sure
we were achieving success with our customer. Because at the end
of the day, the university was important, but the customer is
the student.
The university or the college or the voc ed program was the
conduit to the student, and our priority was always the
student. There is always a confusion among the institutions
where they think they are the customers, and they are not. So
those institutions that might be represented in the audience
here, I want to make that very clear, that customers are the
people who actually have to pay the loan. It is standard with a
lot of corporations around the country that deal with student
loans, that there is a confusion of who is ultimately the
customer. But I have a great sense that you clearly understand
that.
I will leave off at that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Begich.
Mr. Wilson, I want to thank you and your staff, especially
the claims processors in the four regional centers, for the
hard work. On the whole, I believe VA has done a rather
remarkable job in a very short period of time of getting a
program up and running. So please send our gratitude to them.
Also, Mr. Clark, we want to thank DOD for your part in this.
There have been some problems, some of which have been
critical, but at the end of the day nearly 250,000 individuals
have received benefits under the new program. At this point, I
would like to tell you, the panel, that I have the expectation
that you will continue to strive to meet your time limits and
accuracy goals. And we will try to do our best, also, here.
So thank you again very much, and I want to thank this
panel. We may have some questions for you for the record. Thank
you.
I will call up our second panel this morning, which
includes representatives from some, but certainly not all, of
the many shareholders. So we will have our panelists come
forward.
[Pause.]
Chairman Akaka. First, let me introduce Faith DesLauriers
who will present testimony on behalf of the National
Association of Veterans' Program Administrators, an
organization of school officials who have the most face-to-face
contact with veteran students.
Second, William Stephens, the president of the National
Association of State Approving Agencies. These agencies are
closely involved with both the schools and VA as they fulfill
their responsibilities under the law.
Mr. Robert Madden from the American Legion is joining us as
well today. The American Legion held a symposium several weeks
ago, which included a day-long session on the new GI Bill. Mr.
Madden will give us an overview of that.
And finally, we are pleased to welcome Marco Reininger, an
Army veteran who served in Afghanistan and is now attending
Columbia University with the benefits he earned under the Post-
9/11 GI Bill. Mr. Reininger will share his personal
observations and experiences, plus those of his fellow
veterans.
I want to thank you for your service and welcome you to the
Committee.
Ms. DesLauriers, please begin with your statement.
STATEMENT OF FAITH DESLAURIERS, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF VETERANS' PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS
Ms. DesLauriers. Good morning, Chairman Akaka, Ranking
Member Burr, and Members of the Committee. NAVPA appreciates
the opportunity to share the experiences of our membership as
it relates to the issues we have encountered as veteran program
administrators on colleges and university campuses nationwide,
as well as the shared concerns of the population we serve.
I think it important to note that the membership I
represent here today are the people who have the most contact
with individuals eligible to train under this new GI Bill.
Veteran program administrators, often referred to as certifying
officials, are the face of the GI Bill and are working untold
hours to assist in the administration of this program and to
maintain compliance with the rules governing all veterans
education programs.
It is not business as usual. The program complexities,
counseling, fiscal and reconciliation responsibilities
associated with this GI Bill have increased the processing time
for each claim approximately 300 percent. Skills now required
to accomplish these tasks overlap institutional areas which are
separate and distinct administrative functions. In order that
educational institutions may comply with the statutory and
regulatory requirements governing this GI Bill, written
policies and procedures need to be documented by the VA, shared
efficiently and consistently throughout their administrative
structure and disseminated quickly to the institutions for the
implementation.
We are advised that the VA remains unable to credit
returned payments to veterans' accounts pending general
counsel's guidance. When duplicate or erroneous tuition and fee
payments are returned to VA, the funds are not being credited
to the students' accounts. Consequently, a debt or overpayment
is created and payments withheld from the living and book
stipends to recoup that debt, a debt which does not exist.
Additional guidance for students who need to dispute the debt
is not clear.
Inconsistent guidance and practices exist regarding how and
when Chapter 30 recipients should apply for their irrevocable
conversion to Chapter 33. Schools continue to defer tuition and
fees for students who are or appear to be eligible for the
Post-9/11, pending payment from the VA. However, these students
came to college campuses with the understanding that they would
receive a monthly living allowance to supplement or in some
cases cover their living expenses.
The current system of certification has and will continue
to delay monthly living stipend payments. Books and housing
stipends should not be tied to the certification of tuition and
fees. NAVPA maintains that there is a mechanism in place and
VBA should allow schools to report anticipated enrollment data
sufficient to determine the student's rate of pursuit in order
that book and housing stipends are processed prior to the start
of the term and paid throughout the certified period of
enrollment without unnecessary interruption.
We further recommend that the actual tuition and fees
charged to the student be reported at the end of the school's
published drop/add period. This change in processing could
sharply reduce the number of overpayments. In addition, this
would potentially reduce the number of actions required by the
VA claims examiners and school officials, on average,
approximately 50 percent.
Education institutions will continue to work with the men
and women who serve our country and appreciate and respect
VBA's position, but there should not be an expectation that
schools will carry account balances indefinitely or that they
will continue to defer payments without verification of
entitlement. In keeping, some claims such as Yellow Ribbon
cannot be processed until the school can verify that the
student is eligible at the 100 percent tier, making a
certificate of eligibility key to timely and accurate
processing.
Schools have created a wide range of new policies, internal
processes and mechanisms to identify veterans early in the
admissions process, track and reconcile Chapter 33 claims in an
effort to limit potential overpayments, ensure payments are
correct, and that student financial records with the school, as
well with the student, are not negatively impacted while VA
processing occurs.
While we understand it is a shared responsibility, the
crucial role of school officials in the education benefits
process could better be reflected in the wording used in VA
publications and Web sites to ensure that the students
recognize the need to identify themselves as a veteran, a
service person or a dependent, and to seek out their school
certifying official as soon as possible.
Educational institutions have an increased awareness and
sensitivity to the needs of our veterans and are making
continued efforts to fund and develop programs and systems not
only to welcome our heroes home but to assist in their
transition from military to civilian and college life. It has
been suggested by veterans organizations that college and
universities are or should serve as social service agencies
trained in identifying mental health issues for veteran
students, as well as be able to provide other support services
and programming on campuses.
The limited resources available on most campuses are
strictly designed to promote the well-being of all students
with a goal of increasing student academic success. Students in
need of more intensive social support services must look to the
community for these services, and it is our responsibility as
academic professionals to assist those students to more easily
access those local, State, Federal and private agencies who can
best meet their needs.
NAVPA further recommends that the Department of Veterans
Affairs continue the development of the education Web portal.
We are very pleased to hear that the VA is working on this
project, sir. Schools are overwhelmed with the volume of calls,
misinformation from the call center, and the limited ability to
assist our students in determining the status of their claims
or even eligibility. We believe that the implementation of this
Web portal will not only enhance the service to veterans, but
it will bring efficiencies to the Department of Veterans
Affairs. This concept is needed now more that ever.
In closing, NAVPA requests that the rules, policies and
procedures governing the administration of the Post-9/11 GI
Bill be made consistent with the final regulations and
consistently communicated nationwide. Only then can every
veteran be assured of receiving the same benefit consideration
no matter what school, State or RPO is responsible for
processing that claim.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to share our
experiences as professional GI Bill administrators, to make
recommendations for improvements, and for your support of
meaningful legislation, which would provide equity in all
aspects of the delivery and simplicity of the administration of
the GI Bill. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. DesLauriers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Faith DesLauriers, Legislative Director, National
Association of Veterans Program Administrators
Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr and Members of the Committee,
NAVPA appreciates the opportunity to share the experiences of our
membership as it relates to the issues we have encountered as Veterans'
Program Administrators on college and university campuses, as well as
the shared concerns of the population we serve.
I think it important to note that the membership I represent here
today are the people who have the most contact with individuals
eligible to train under this new GI Bill. Veterans' Program
Administrators, often referred to as Certifying Officials are the face
of the GI Bills and are working untold hours to assist in the
administration of this program and to maintain compliance with the
rules governing all veterans' education programs. It is not business as
usual. The program complexities, counseling, fiscal and reconciliation
responsibilities associated with this program have increased the
processing time for each claim approximately 300%.
rules, guidelines, and communication
Written policies and procedures need to be documented by VA, shared
efficiently and consistently throughout their administrative structure,
and disseminated quickly to institutions for implementation. As of
early April, the VA's processing manual M22-4 does not include rules
for the administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Some states and some RPOs issue policy advisories that are never
duplicated in other regions. This creates different procedures among
various parts of the country leading to veterans receiving different
benefits based on where they attend and what instruction--if any--has
been received by their school.
Some policy advisories and information forwarded to schools
contradicts what we read in 38CFR. Non-duplication of Federal benefits
and overseas study are two examples that come immediately to mind.
Guidance for veterans who need to dispute a debt is not clear.
Instructions received from various VA sources indicate students should
write to either the Debt Management Center or the RPO, or both. There
does not seem to be a clearly articulated process even for this most
critical situation.
va processing and procedures
As of this writing we are advised that the VA remains unable to
credit returned payments to veterans' accounts, pending General Counsel
guidance. When tuition and fee payments (which are paid to the school
on the students' behalf) are confirmed by VA to be a duplicate payment
or grossly erroneous; schools are instructed to return the funds to VA.
Schools are complying and confirming when the checks are cashed.
However, the returned funds are not being credited to the veteran on
whose behalf they were paid and returned. Consequently, a debt or
overpayment is created on the veteran and future payments withheld from
their living and book stipends to recoup the debt which does not exist;
one which has already been satisfied by the school.
Tuition and fee payments for multiple enrollment periods are lumped
into a single payment, with no clarifying information attached. Schools
must calculate the expected award, often based on estimates because we
are not privileged to the eligibility tier on which the payment is
based, and the student is otherwise eligible. It is very difficult for
schools to reconcile lump sum payments and accurately post the funds to
the appropriate enrollment periods.
The web based certification tool (VA-ONCE) should allow the school
to switch a student from Chapter 33 to Chapter 33 Yellow (i.e. Yellow
Ribbon) without duplicating certifications. School should be able to
put zero in Yellow Ribbon block rather than moving the student record
back to a regular Ch 33 program once the annual maximum contribution
has been matched.
Inconsistent guidance and practices exist regarding how and when a
Chapter 30 recipient should apply for their irrevocable conversion to
Chapter 33 to maximize their entitlement. The procedures for
determining the effective date of the conversion are not consistent.
This process can put veterans in the position of losing up to 12 months
of benefit if not done exactly right--clarification of an equitable
solution is critical.
The majority of educational institutions are deferring tuition and
fees (in the amount due from the VA) for students who are, or appear to
be eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. However, these students came to
college campuses with the understanding, a promise if you will that
they would receive a monthly living allowance to supplement or in some
cases cover living expenses. The current system of certification (one
term at a time) will and has delayed monthly living stipend payments.
The living stipend/housing allowance under the Post-9/11 GI Bill
should not be tied to the certification of tuition and fees. The Post-
9/11 GI Bill requires that schools certify one term/semester at a time
in order that actual tuition and fees be reported, rather than
estimated. NAVPA maintains that the VA should create a mechanism that
would allow schools to report ``anticipated enrollment'' data,
sufficient to determine the students' rate of pursuit (training time)
in order that the book and housing stipends are processed prior to the
start of the term and paid throughout the certified period of
enrollment, without interruption.
We further recommend that the actual tuition and fees charged to
the student be reported at the end of the schools published drop/add.
This change in processing could sharply reduce the number of changes in
reported charges due to drop/add activity which now creates very large
numbers of overpayments to students. In addition, this would
potentially reduce the number of actions required of VA claims
examiners and school officials, on average, fifty percent (50%).
Payment of tuition and fees must be made to the school in a timely
manner. The VA defines timely as 30 days from the occurrence. Education
institutions will continue to work with the men and women who serve our
country and appreciate the VBA's position; but, there should not be an
expectation that schools will carry account balances indefinitely, or
that they will continue to defer payments without verification of
entitlement (Certificate of Eligibility). In keeping, some claims such
as Yellow Ribbon cannot be processed until the school can verify that
the student is eligible at the 100% tier, making the Certificate of
Eligibility key to timely and accurate processing.
educational veterans' office processes and roles
In order to reconcile CH 33 payments to schools, institutional
officials have had to create internal processes that duplicate much of
the VA`s function. We must make a preliminary determination of
eligibility, estimate tuition, fees and Yellow Ribbon awards, track
payments on each student's account and reconcile the payments to insure
the amounts paid on their behalf are accurate. If the student payment
does not appear to be the full amount the school must coordinate that
correction with the VA. Overpayments, to include duplicate payments
must be returned to the VA by some means that is not consistent from
one Region to another. Some schools have had to continue the practice
of loaning institutional funds to students in situations described
herein until VA can audit their account and correctly calculate the
student debt, if any.
Assisting students with collecting the information they need to
dispute a debt with VA takes an inordinate amount of time and
concentration by the school administrator and combines expertise in
enrollment certification/reporting, VA claims processing, and good
accounting principles. Schools have created a wide range of new
internal processes and mechanisms to track Chapter 33 claims in an
effort to ensure payments are correct and that student financial
records with the school are not negatively impacted while VA processing
occurs.
Schools have created new policies to ensure students are not
negatively impacted by any delays in receipt of tuition and fee
payments by VA--not as great an issue now as this was in fall 2009, but
still in effect. As the only face-to-face contact point in the process,
schools have devoted a great deal of time and energy to working
directly with students who are trying to evaluate their options when
eligible for multiple GI Bill programs. While there is a great deal of
general information available on the GI Bill Web site, this is such an
individual situation that the process must take into consideration many
state programs, reserve component benefits, etc, that students require
one-on-one assistance on each of their unique circumstances. This has
been done by schools with little training beyond possible attendance at
a single conference or full comprehension of the DVA 38 CFR Part 21
Post-9/11 GI Bill; Final Rules.
The crucial role of school officials in the education benefits
process could be better reflected in the wording used in VA
publications and Web sites to ensure students recognize the need to
seek out their School Certifying Official as soon as possible. Schools
are also working to create processes by which student veterans are
identified and communicated with as early in the admissions/
matriculation process as possible to ensure they know the steps still
remaining to be accomplished in order to receive their education
benefits.
Veterans' Program Administrators/School Certifying Officials are
now more involved in working with parents of students with the advent
of transferred entitlement. This adds another new dimension to their
work. The skills now required to accomplish their tasks overlap
institutional areas including registrar, financial aid, admissions,
academic advising, and student accounting and disability services.
These are separate and distinct administrative functions in most
schools. Veterans' Program Administrators must now more than ever,
receive institutional training in all these areas or have staff members
assigned in each area to accomplish the required analysis for each GI
Bill student.
It has also been suggested by veterans' organizations that colleges
and universities are or should serve as social service agencies;
trained in identifying mental health issues for student veterans as
well as be able to provide other support services and programming on
campuses. These skills are well beyond the scope of responsibilities of
the average Veterans' Program Administrator as the position is
currently viewed on most campuses.
Providing intensive social support services are beyond the scope of
the purpose, funding and function of our institutions and its staff.
The limited resources available on most campuses are strictly designed
to promote the well being of students with the goal of increasing
students' academic success. Students in need of more intensive services
must look to the community for support services and it is our
responsibility as academic professional to assist students to more
easily access those local, state, Federal and private agencies who can
best meet their needs. It is the responsibility of the Department of
Veterans' Affairs to make these resources known to all institutions
approved for veteran training.
NAVPA recommends that the Department of Veterans Affairs develop an
Education Web Portal for easy and accurate access to VA Records
pertaining to Veterans' Education Benefits. Veteran students do not
have an electronic means of accessing meaningful and useful information
from the Department of Veterans' Affairs on their education benefits,
usage and remaining entitlement from their VA records. Educational
institutions are overwhelmed with the volume of calls, misinformation
from the VA Call Center and limited ability to assist students in
determining the status of their claims or even eligibility. Above all,
eligible individuals/students should have access to their VA records.
All information relative to their VA education benefits, eligibility,
applications, enrollment certifications and payments should be made
available to them through this portal. Information should include at
minimum information sent to the veteran via the U.S. mail at the
beginning and throughout each academic year as contained in the Award
letter and now the Certificate of Eligibility under the Post-9/11 GI
Bill.
Designated school officials should have secure access to the portal
for veteran students so they may provide counseling and assistance. VA-
ONCE and WAVE have partially covered these issues; however, all
information is still not available. Veterans should be able to view all
pending issues to include receipt of documentation and current status,
reasons for any delays in processing should also be addressed on this
WEB portal.
We believe the implementation of a secure web portal will enhance
service to veterans, bring efficiencies to the DVA with a corresponding
reduction in telephone service personnel. The efficiencies in personnel
utilizations realized would benefit processing time. This concept is
needed now more than ever with the extreme delays in processing claims
and the complexities of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
In closing, NAVPA requests that the rules, policies and procedures
governing the administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill be made
consistent, nationwide. Due to the complexities of this program schools
are currently working with limited to non-existent information. Often
what little they have was received through informal channels outside
their state and RPO areas of responsibility. It is imperative that VA
create policies consistent with the published final rules, document
them thoroughly, and distribute them consistently at all levels from VA
Central Office through RPOs and ELRs down to the institutions that must
implement them. Only then can every veteran be assured of receiving the
same benefit consideration no matter what school, state, or RPO is
responsible for the processing of their claim.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to share our experiences as
professional GI Bill administrators, to make recommendations for
improvements in the administration of the GI Bills and for your support
of meaningful legislation that would provide equity in all aspects of
the delivery and simplicity of administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. DesLauriers.
And now we will ask Mr. Stephens to proceed with your
statement.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM STEPHENS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF STATE APPROVING AGENCIES
Mr. Stephens. Mr. Chairman, Members and staff of the
Committee, on behalf of the National Association of State
Approving Agencies, we appreciate this opportunity to appear
before you.
There is no question that the Post-9/11 GI Bill is a
tremendous step forward, and it is a good benefit for those
brave men and women who have served our country or are
currently serving our country. There is also no question that a
lot of the implementation became very challenging for all three
of the partners involved in that. The school certifying
officials, they are the front line. They are the ones that the
veterans, dependents, and Reservists talk with.
As State Approving Agencies, we are the face of the GI Bill
at the State level. What we do is interface between the Federal
Government, the VA, and the certifying officials, and we do
this in many different ways.
In response to some of the questions asked earlier of the
first panel, we do annual visits to check and see how things
are going with that. We do a tremendous amount with outreach.
That can vary all the way from mailings that individual States
do to returning veterans, to mass productions of DVDs on the
new GI Bill, to liaison with other organizations to providing
training for certifying officials. The third partner, the VA,
definitely has a very challenging situation with the increased
workload that has occurred.
Looking back, the fall of 2009 was challenging for all
three partners. Speaking for State Approving Agencies, the
first challenge we faced was the establishment of the highest
tuition and fees in each State. Now, what may have seemed like
a relatively straightforward exercise turned out to be
something very complicated. We ran into a timeliness issue.
With many State fiscal years beginning July 1, it is not
possible to establish that highest fee. We also ran into
different issues as far as providing the necessary assistance
to our certifying officials and our veterans. In short, our
workload increased.
Moving forward, looking at things that can be done to
improve the system: first, utilize State Approving Agencies as
far as expanding their outreach efforts, their training efforts
for certifying officials. When we do the supervisory visits, we
can provide additional guidance. We can also look for
additional things then.
Second, since we visit the institutions, we are a good
feedback tool. We can provide you information with that.
Three other changes we would like to bring forward which
would improve the administration of the GI Bill. First, and
this has already been mentioned, is to find a way to break the
tuition and fee payments to the schools and the housing and the
book allowance to the veterans. With States having fiscal years
that begin July 1, it is unlikely, although it does happen,
that the highest tuition and fees will be established by
July 1. Many times, it is later than that. In 2009, there were
States that did not have their highest tuition and fees
established until August. That creates an immediate backlog.
So, by doing whatever can be done to improve that situation
would be a good thing.
Expand the role of the State Approving Agencies to include
entering the approved programs directly into the VA computer
system for the approvals, which can then be reviewed by the
Education Liaison Representative. This will avoid duplication
of effort.
Third, provide State Approving Agencies with the
opportunity to have read-only access to the VA computer
systems. We get a substantial number of calls from veterans and
from school officials. It is not uncommon to have the school
official call with the veteran sitting there. And perhaps when
the VA has been very overworked, well, that could knock it to a
toll-free number if we had that access. We already have the
necessary security training since we are contracted with the
VA.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, and staff, we
appreciate this opportunity. Two other items just to suggest as
an overview of things, which have already both been mentioned.
First, the GI Bill needs to be combined and simplified. Right
now, they are very complicated, Chapter 33 especially. So there
needs to be an effort in that area.
The second thing is, there needs to be expansion so that
eligible veterans going to the non-college degree institutions,
enrolled in apprenticeship, on-the-job training programs and
other similar things need to be included in with the increased
benefits.
That concludes my statement. Thanks again very much. Any
questions you have I would be glad to answer.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stephens follows:]
Prepared Statement of William D. Stephens, President, National
Association of State Approving Agencies
introduction
Chairman Akaka and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
before you today on behalf of the National Association of State
Approving Agencies (NASAA) to provide input on the implementation of
the Post-9/11 GI Bill and to discuss various ideas/suggestions for
moving forward to improve the delivery of earned benefits for those
brave men and women who have served or are currently serving our
country.
State Approving Agencies have been an integral part of the
administration of the various GI Bills since shortly after the
inception of the original GI Bill in June 1944. It has been our
distinct pleasure and honor to have the opportunity to contribute to
the success of these programs. In short, State Approving Agencies are
``the face of the GI Bill at the state level.''
background
There is no question that the events of September 11, 2001, changed
the United States forever. For almost nine years, the role of the
military has expanded as a direct result of our war on terrorism. As
you are aware, there are many different GI Bills that provide benefits
for veterans/reservists/dependents. Beginning August 1, 2009, the
newest GI Bill (the Post-9/11 GI Bill also known as Chapter 33) started
paying increased benefits. This ``war time'' GI Bill has greatly
increased both the access to higher education and the number of
individuals using their earned benefits. The 2009 fall semester brought
many challenges for all those involved in providing the necessary
assistance of the administration of the various GI Bills. When we look
at the administration of the various GI Bills, there are three
components/partners. The ``front line'' for administration of the GI
Bills are the Certifying Officials located at the institutions/
establishments. They are the ones that the veterans/eligible
individuals look to for answers to their questions. Because of the
complexity and other new requirements necessary for effective
implementation, special training and support was needed and continues
to be necessary. The second partner is the State Approving Agencies. As
stated above, we are ``the face of the GI Bill at the state level.'' In
addition to approving the various institutions/establishments as well
as the programs at those facilities, we also have extensive interaction
with the Certifying Officials. That includes annual visits to active
institutions/establishments, various outreach activities designed to
increase GI Bill utilization, various training workshops for Certifying
Officials, as well as liaison with many organizations to improve the
delivery of benefits. The third partner is the Department of Veterans
Affairs. Their role includes not only establishing eligibility and
paying the benefits for eligible veterans/individuals but also working
with both the State Approving Agencies and the Certifying Officials.
All three partners are necessary for the effective delivery of
benefits.
looking back
The 2009 Fall Semester was very challenging for all three partners.
Due to both the complexity of the Post-9/11 GI Bill and the increased
volume of claims, Certifying Officials, State Approving Agency staff,
and Department of Veterans Affairs staff were overwhelmed with
questions, inquiries, and situations they had never experienced before.
At the institution level, staff other than Certifying Officials became
actively involved in the process. This is especially true for Bursars
and other fiscal staff because the tuition and fees are paid directly
to the institution under Chapter 33. State Approving Agencies were
tasked with determining the highest tuition and fees at a public
institution for an undergraduate in-state student. While this may have
seemed straightforward, there were many complications with establishing
those figures. In addition, there is a timeliness issue.
Many state's fiscal year begins on July 1st of each year. Because
the highest tuition (and sometimes fees) are not set until after the
state budget is finalized, it was not possible for the Certifying
Officials for many public (and some private institutions who
participate in the Yellow Ribbon Program) to submit their enrollment
certifications. This caused a delay in their processing and payment of
benefits. Department of Veterans Affairs had the challenging and
complex task of processing the enrollment certifications. This
processing included reviewing the enrollment certifications submitted
by institution officials, verifying that the programs had been approved
by the State Approving Agency, establishing eligibility, and then
paying the veteran/individual. Department of Veterans Affairs hired a
substantial number of additional staff to accomplish this task. In
addition, we are pleased that Department of Veterans Affairs is working
on updating their electronic process. This will improve their
efficiency. Updating the Department of Veterans Affairs electronic
systems is long overdue. We highly encourage the use of technology
wherever possible.
Institution officials responded to this new challenge with
increased effort and determination. They reviewed their internal
procedures to determine what needed to be changed, worked with
veterans/individuals to assist them wherever possible, ensured that the
fiscal staff at their institution was aware that the payment of tuition
and fees was delayed, and assisted both the State Approving Agency and
the Department of Veterans Affairs with identifying problems/issues to
be addressed. State Approving Agencies provided both training and
individual assistance for the institution officials, conducted various
outreach activities to inform eligible veterans/individuals of this new
GI Bill, and worked with Department of Veterans Affairs staff to
identify problems/issues and recommend solutions. Department of
Veterans Affairs staff at the state level (Education Liaison
Representatives and Compliance Survey Specialists) worked closely with
State Approving Agency staff and, where possible, Certifying Officials
to provide the best possible service. At the Regional Processing
Offices, staff worked diligently to process the increased volume of
complex claims. At the national level, Central Office staff worked to
ensure proper guidance was provided to ensure everyone understood
exactly what was needed. Due to the ``interaction'' of the new GI Bill
with already existing regulations and policies, this was a challenge to
accomplish. In addition to the above, we want to acknowledge the
Department of Veterans Affairs decision and implementation of the one-
time emergency advance payment of benefits that enabled veterans to
remain in school until they received their housing allowance and book
stipend. In short, a need was seen and Department of Veterans Affairs
reacted to serve veterans/eligible individuals.
Even with all of the challenges, we feel the implementation went
fairly well. Obviously many lessons were learned; and by all three
partners working together, service can be improved.
moving forward
Looking ahead to changes that can be made to improve the delivery
of service, we feel the following should be considered:
Additional training and support for Certifying Officials. As the
``front line,'' Certifying Officials need to have all of the tools
necessary to serve their veterans/eligible individuals. Training should
be in various formats including: training workshops sponsored by
Department of Veterans Affairs, training provided by the various
Certifying Official organizations, training provided by State Approving
Agencies staff (this can be especially effective because many
Certifying Officials cannot travel out of state for training), as well
as on-line training.
Concerning State Approving Agencies, there are two areas that would
improve the overall effectiveness of the GI Bill. First, increased
emphasis on outreach and training of Certifying Officials. State
Approving Agencies are in the unique position to be able to provide
direct training tailored to the needs of their Certifying Officials.
Second, since State Approving Agency staff visit the institutions on a
regular basis, they could provide additional assistance with ensuring
compliance. Currently State Approving Agency staff does a limited
review of veteran records to ensure institutions are following their
approved policies and procedures. This could be expanded to a more
detailed review and increased number of records to review. In addition,
State Approving Agency staff could also review the fiscal records to
determine if the correct tuition and fees are being charged and are
properly credited for the appropriate veteran/individual. Both of the
above would require increased funding for State Approving Agencies.
State Approving Agency funding has remained the same for five (5) years
while the workload has increased drastically. Just as the amount of
time Certifying Officials and Department of Veterans Affairs staff must
spend on the new GI Bill, State Approving Agency time has increased. As
a general statement, if it takes 10 minutes to ``respond'' to
questions/issues for the other chapters of the GI Bill (Chapter 30,
1606, 1607, etc.), it takes at least four times as long to respond to
Chapter 33 questions/issues.
There are three changes that would definitely improve the
administration of veteran's educational benefits.
1. Expand the role of the State Approving Agencies (with increased
funding) to include entering approved programs directly into the Web
Enhanced Approval Management System (WEAMS). Currently all approval
actions are forwarded in paper form to an Education Liaison
Representative who must then enter the approved program list. This is
very time consuming. A system could be established that permits the
State Approving Agency to directly enter the approved programs, and
they can then be reviewed by the Education Liaison Representative. This
will avoid duplication of effort.
2. Separate the payment of tuition and fees from the payment of the
housing allowance by allowing Certifying Officials to certify prior to
the establishment of the highest tuition and fees for that state.
Currently Certifying Officials must wait until the maximum state
tuition and fees are established for Post-9/11 GI Bill recipients. For
those states with a fiscal year that begins July 1, there is a major
complication. For some states, it was not possible for enrollments to
be sent to DVA until well into August. Prior to this year, Certifying
Officials could submit enrollment information up to 120 days prior to
the start of the semester/term. Many of the larger institutions did
this and thus the workload for Department of Veterans Affairs was more
evenly distributed throughout the year. NASAA recommends that DVA
seriously consider permitting Certifying Officials to certify veteran's
enrollment prior to the state establishing their highest tuition and
fees. This would allow processing of the housing allowance and book
allowance in a timely manner. Following the establishing of the highest
tuition and fees for the state, the institution would submit the
necessary information to DVA for the payment of the tuition and fees.
3. Permit State Approving Agencies ``read only'' access to
Department of Veterans Affairs computer systems so we could more
effectively respond to veterans/individuals inquiries. All State
Approving Agency staff have completed the necessary security training
as required in our annual contract with the Department of Veterans
Affairs. This will also provide staff detailed information on which
records to review which will assist in reducing fraud, waste, and
abuse.
The above three items are provided simply as suggestions to improve
service to veterans/eligible individuals. We realize that there would
be technology and other challenges to implementing these; however, once
implemented the system would be more effective in serving veterans/
reservists/dependents.
Concerning the Department of Veterans Affairs, we suggest they
continue to work toward establishing effective policies/guidance for
the implementation of Chapter 33. They have provided various guidance
that has improved the effectiveness. There are still some areas that
need guidance. These include but are not limited to: establishment of a
list identifying the fees that are considered acceptable to be covered
under Chapter 33, clarifying guidance concerning establishing what is
greater than \1/2\ time for accelerated and summer programs,
clarification of the payment of benefits for non-college degree clock
hour programs at degree granting institutions, and other areas as
identified by State Approving Agencies and Certifying Officials. We
also feel strongly that the continuation of using focus groups that
include representatives from the various organizations that are
comprised of Certifying Officials and State Approving Agency
representatives provides a great base to ensure the perspective from
the ``field'' is represented. We would also suggest including
Department of Veterans Affairs staff from both the Regional Processing
Offices and staff assigned in the various states. Their unique
perspective is very valuable.
closing
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we thank you for the
opportunity to address you today. Two other items we would suggest
serious consideration be given. First, combining and simplifying the
various GI Bills would not only increase veterans/eligible individuals
understanding of their benefits but also would assist Department of
Veterans Affairs processing of claims. Second, the Post-9/11 GI Bill
needs to be expanded to include increased benefits for eligible
veterans/individuals who enroll in programs at nondegree institutions
and apprenticeship/on-the-job training establishments. They have served
and earned benefits the same as those veterans who attend degree
granting institutions.
We are always willing to provide our unique perspective and would
be pleased to respond to any questions that you have.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Stephens.
Mr. Madden, please proceed with your statement.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT MADDEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
ECONOMIC COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION
Mr. Madden. I would like to thank Chairman Akaka and
Ranking Member Burr and the Members of the Committee for giving
the American Legion the opportunity to report on the
implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
The American Legion has been the lead supporter of the
Post-
9/11 GI Bill but has also been a concerned advocate of the
implementation. The 111th Congress has held hearings on the
long-term and short-term implementation strategies for
administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill by the Department of
Veterans Affairs. These hearings updated Congress on VA's
development of the information technology components for the
new law and the progress that has been made toward its
implementation.
The American Legion testified before Congress earlier last
year about its concerns regarding VA's implementation
strategies and made a recommendation that VA be ready to
fulfill its administrative duties right the first time on
August 1, 2009.
Since the passage and implementation of the Post-9/11 GI
Bill, VA has had a rough and rocky start. Thinking that they
were fully prepared to implement the biggest changes in GI Bill
history, VA sought to put their best foot forward in August
2009. What they soon found out was that the system was flawed
and there was no easy way to process the certificate of
eligibility or an actual claim. With a small amount of staff
along with the actual time a claim took to be processed, this
caused VA to present itself an ever-growing backlog of
education claims. Unfortunately, many of these veterans were
waiting weeks and months just to get their certificate of
eligibility, let alone their claim to be processed.
These men and women gave up their jobs in order to better
their employment chances by going to school. This means that
veterans who recently left the military were without a job and
without their education benefit from the VA. The American
Legion received hundreds of calls and e-mails a month to
discuss their financial difficulties, even the possibility of
becoming evicted or homeless. The American Legion responded to
a number of these veterans with our temporary financial
assistance, one of our many programs to assist veterans and
their families.
America's veterans are relying upon this benefit to get
their education to create a stable environment for themselves
and their families. In turn, VA responded to this issue and
made an executive decision to provide individuals who were in
school an emergency payment of $3,000. The American Legion
applauded and still agrees that this was a smart decision to
make but now has seen the backlash from this decision.
Now there are reports of veterans and their family members
losing all of their future payments instead of the proposed
$750 reduction the VA promised from the payment plan. The VA
has taken steps to rectify the situation, but some of the
damage has already been done.
The American Legion takes pride in assisting them but needs
VA's cooperation to get issues resolved. The American Legion
believes that there needs to be more oversight on decisions
that are made to ensure proper implementation so that the
veteran or his or her family member is not the one who suffers.
With all the great benefits the Post-9/11 GI Bill offers,
it has unfortunately left out a few educational choices. The
American Legion is a strong supporter of allowing the Post-9/11
GI Bill to be used for non-degree-granting institutions. This
employment path is a more traditional choice, but vocational
apprenticeships, on-the-job training and flight training are
not payable by the current bill or the Post-9/11 bill.
This disparity has caused much concern for the American
Legion. We have found that not every veteran has the time or is
considering attending a 4-year college. They might have a
family member and need to become gainfully employed as soon as
possible, which is something that non-degree-granting
institutions offer.
Most of these education paths consist of a shorter training
time and can led to immediate employment. The American Legion
believes that veterans should never be limited in the manner
they use their educational benefits.
In addition, the American Legion supports the addition of
the housing allowance for distance learning, the inclusion of
Title 32 active Guard/Reserves to be included, and the
arbitrary date for a transfer of educational benefits to be
eliminated. These fundamental changes would provide equity in
the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Even with some missteps and challenges, the American Legion
is a constant supporter of VA and is working with them to
ensure that veterans and their families get the necessary
assistance during this education transition. What we have found
was a large number of student veterans in academia did not have
sufficient information about the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.
The American Legion believes that VA needs to provide more
outreach to colleges and universities around the country to
ensure that student veterans have a full range of knowledge
concerning their education benefits.
The VA has taken all the necessary steps in order to
provide a fluid transition for veterans and their families. We
have seen numerous bumps along the way, but the VA has had to
make some tough choices such as the emergency payment to
correct those problems.
The American Legion will continue to monitor the continued
transition for the Post-9/11 GI Bill and appreciates the
opportunity to report on our findings. The American Legion
appreciates the opportunity to present this statement for the
record. Again, thank you, Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr
and Members of the Committee for allowing the American Legion
to present its views on this very important issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Madden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Madden, Assistant Director, National
Economic Commission, The American Legion
Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for this opportunity to present The American Legion's views
on the implementation of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance
Act of 2008 today. The American Legion commends the Committee for
holding a hearing to discuss this very important and timely issue.
American men and women are serving in two wars, while also serving
this great nation in various capacities across the globe. For veterans
who have served since September 11, 2001; they are entitled to
education benefits. Not just any education benefits, but the most
comprehensive benefits since the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944.
The original WWII benefit is said to have produced 50 years of economic
prosperity for America. With over 2 million servicemembers having
served since 2001, the Post-9/11 GI Bill can do the same thing for this
country and give this new ``Greatest Generation'' an education.
The American Legion has been a lead supporter of the Post-9/11 GI
Bill, but has also been a concerned advocate of the implementation. The
111th Congress has held hearings on the long-term and short-term
implementation strategies for administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill
by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). These hearings updated
Congress on VA's development of the information technology components
for the new law and the progress that has been made toward its
implementation. The American Legion testified before Congress earlier
last year about its concerns regarding VA's implementation strategies
and made a recommendation that VA be ready to fulfill its
administrative duties `right the first time' on August 1, 2009.
Since the passage and the implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill,
VA has had a rough and rocky start. Thinking that they were fully
prepared to implement the biggest changes in GI Bill history, VA set
out to put their best foot forward in August 2009. What they soon found
out was that the system was flawed and that there was no easy way to
process a Certificate of Eligibility or an actual claim. A processor
for the old Montgomery GI Bill needed only around 30 minutes to process
a claim, but for the components of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, that amount
ballooned to close to 2 hours per claim. Without the right amount of
staff, along with the actual time a claim took to be processed, this
caused VA to present itself with an ever growing backlog of education
claims.
Unfortunately, many of these veterans were waiting weeks and months
just to get their Certificate of Eligibility, let alone their claim to
be processed. These men and women gave up their jobs in order to better
their employment chances by going to school. It should be noted, to be
able to get the most out of the benefit, a veteran or family member
needs take a course load of over half-time. This means that veterans,
who recently left the military, were without a job and without their
education benefit from VA. The American Legion received hundreds of
calls and emails a month to discuss their financial difficulties; even
the possibility of becoming homeless. The American Legion responded to
a number of these veterans with Temporary Financial Assistance, one of
our many programs to assist veterans and their families. America's
veterans are relying upon this benefit to get their education to create
a stable environment for them and their families.
In turn, VA responded to this issue and made an executive decision
to provide individuals, who were in school, an emergency payment of up
to $3,000. The American Legion applauded and still agrees that this was
a smart decision to make, but now is seeing the backlash from this
decision. Now, there are reports of veterans and their family members
losing all of their future payments instead of the proposed $750.00
reduction VA promised from the payment plan. VA has taken steps to
rectify this situation, but some of the damage has already been done.
Many veterans and their families called The American Legion because
they cannot get through to VA and need information. We take pride in
assisting them, but need VA's cooperation to get issues resolved. The
American Legion believes there needs to be more oversight on decisions
that are made to ensure proper implementation, so that the veteran or
his/her family member is not the one who suffers.
Another recurring issue is over payment. There have been reports of
schools being overpaid, which is why many of schools are waiting for
the add/drop period before sending in the veteran's enrollment
certification. In spite of this move by the schools, the veteran is
still being overpaid; consequently, the schools send back the money,
but it is not being reported back to the VA in a timely manner.
Ultimately, the veteran is then denied their housing allowance and
books stipend, until their payment is recouped by VA. This causes an
undue burden for the veteran and his/her family and causes, again,
another financial hardship. Every time a mistake happens, it does not
affect VA, but does manage to cause problems for the veteran. Closer
oversight on these issues would be the fix to many of these problems.
One of the main challenges VA faces is communication. One Regional
Office (RO) says the veteran can do something one way and then another
RO says the veteran cannot. Second, a veteran or family member will
call the 1-800 numbers for education assistance and will ask a
question. That same veteran will call back, get a different operator
and ask the same question. What the veteran receives, on occasion, is
multiple answers. The veteran needs to receive the same answer, so he/
she can properly navigate the education process.
The American Legion also would like to bring to the Committee's
attention a flaw that exists in the Post-9/11 GI Bill. With all the
great benefits the Post-9/11 GI Bill offers, it has unfortunately left
out a few educational choices. The American Legion is a strong
supporter of allowing the Post-9/11 GI Bill to be used for non-degree
granting institutions. This employment path is a more traditional
choice, but vocational, apprenticeship, on-the-job training and flight
training are not payable by the current bill (Post-9/11). This
disparity has caused much concern for The American Legion. We have
found that not every veteran has the time or is considering attending
college. They might have a family and need to become gainfully employed
as soon as possible, which is something that vocational, on-the-job
training, apprenticeship and flight training offer. Instead, a veteran
may choose a more traditional path and attend a non-degree institution,
but cannot use their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to complete these
courses. Most of these education paths consist of a shorter training
time and can lead to immediate employment. The American Legion believes
that veterans should never be limited in the manner they use their
educational benefits.
Currently, there are two bills, H.R. 3813 and S. 3171, which are
companion measures. These bills propose changes to the Post-9/11 GI
Bill to allow veterans to use their educational benefits at non-degree
granting institutions. The American Legion supports both of these
bills. Veterans should be free to choose their school and get the
education they believe is best for them and their family.
Even with some challenges and missteps, The American Legion is a
constant supporter of VA and is working with them to ensure that
veterans and their families get the necessary assistance during this
education transition. The American Legion recently held the ``Veterans
on Campus'' education symposium, which tried to identify best practices
on how to assist veterans in their transition from the military to
college life. What we found was a large number of student-veterans and
academia did not have sufficient information about the Post-9/11 GI
Bill benefits. The American Legion believes that VA needs to provide
more outreach to colleges and universities around the country to ensure
these student-veterans have a full range of knowledge concerning their
education benefits.
The VA has taken all the necessary steps in order to provide a
fluid transition for veterans and their families. We have seen numerous
bumps along the way, but VA has had to make some tough choices, such as
the emergency payment, to correct those problems. The American Legion
will continue to monitor the continued transition for the Post-9/11 GI
Bill and appreciates the opportunity to report on our findings.
The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to present this
statement for the record. Again, thank you Chairman Akaka, Ranking
Member Burr, and Members of the Committee for allowing The American
Legion to present its views on this very important issue.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Madden.
Mr. Reininger, please proceed with your statement.
STATEMENT OF MARCO REININGER, IAVA MEMBER, STUDENT VETERAN,
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Mr. Reininger. Chairman Akaka, Senator Begich, staff of the
Ranking Member Burr and the Members of the Committee, as a
member of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the
Nation's first and largest group dedicated to the troops and
veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on behalf of
the quarter of a million student veterans who have taken
advantage of the new GI Bill this year, it is an honor to be
able to address you today.
I want to especially thank Senator Webb and Chairman Akaka,
and the other Members of this Committee whose hard work and
commitment to veterans secured the largest increase in
veterans' education benefits since World War II. Your
investment in us will help make us the next greatest
generation.
The new GI Bill has unlocked many doors for me that I never
dreamed were possible while I was serving in Afghanistan
conducting investigations into IED attacks. It has always been
my dream to attend an Ivy League university that would
challenge my full academic potential. Today, I am living that
dream as a student at Columbia University studying political
science with aspirations of working with you as a congressional
staffer.
As the vice president of the Columbia University U.S.
Military Veterans group (MilVets) and an active member of IAVA,
I have firsthand knowledge of the successes and failures of the
new GI Bill implementation. I am pleased to report that the
VA's implementation has improved since last fall, but there is
still much to be done.
I applied for my new GI Bill benefits on May 1. When my
first living allowance check was significantly late, I was
incredibly worried. I did not live on campus and had to count
on the generosity of my landlord to forgive my late rent
payments. That was not the case for all student veterans. A
fellow Army veteran was unenrolled from courses shortly before
his final exams because of overdue account balances.
I am thankful the VA finally started issuing emergency
checks in October. When I stood in line at the local New York
City VA office for my advance payment, many of my fellow
veterans from all over the region were extremely hesitant to
accept the emergency payment. They were concerned that it would
come back to haunt them in the future.
I finally started receiving my GI Bill benefits in November
2010. Sadly, many of my friends and fellow students had to
struggle to make ends meet because their GI Bill checks never
arrived. A fellow Columbia veteran friend of mine just received
his first check last month, and that is from enrollment in
fall.
Interestingly enough, the most common complaint I hear from
fellow student veterans is that they did not know when their GI
Bill checks would arrive. Not knowing when your check will
arrive and not being able to get an answer from the VA can
wreak havoc on your life. You have to plan for the worst. A
fellow veteran of mine ate canned beans and sardines three
meals a day for an entire semester trying to scrape up gas
money for his wife and two children back home. How could he
possibly thrive at school when he was consumed with the
responsibility of providing for his family? The new GI Bill was
meant to relieve him of that burden.
So far, this semester has been significantly better. My
fellow student veterans have been receiving their GI Bill
benefits with fewer delays. However, there remains great
uncertainty among vets about their individual accounts and
amounts of future payments. Many of our new incoming student
veterans are still confused about the complicated benefit
calculations, which is a product of misinformation during their
separation process. And some of my veteran friends from Upstate
New York have told me about GI Bill payments that do not
reflect the actual BHA rate for 2010. They have budgeted based
on one number, but now they are receiving something else.
Greater transparency could go a long way, and here is an
idea. The VA could start by posting a widget on their homepage
that reads, ``Now working on GI Bill claims from'' and then
fill in the date. This widget will give student veterans some
idea of where they are in the GI Bill queue. This kind of
information we can count on and plan around.
I also strongly believe that VA needs to do a better job
helping veterans monitor their own GI Bill benefits. If I can
never predict when the VA makes a payment to my school, it is
difficult to account for what individual checks are covering my
tuition and fees. We need a mechanism that would allow me to
track my GI Bill claim from the moment I file to the day when
it actually pays.
Probably one of the biggest surprises throughout the whole
process of using my GI Bill benefits was how confused some of
the school financial aid officials were. I expected the VA to
informally train these school certifying officials. The VA must
properly incentivize schools to prioritize processing of GI
Bill paperwork. If the school cannot turn in the paperwork
accurately on time, a student veteran will suffer the
consequences. Thankfully, we were able to turn to IAVA's GI
Bill resource, newgibill.org, where we found answers to our
questions. IAVA has the most up-to-date Web site with the most
accurate benefits calculators and a robust frequently asked
questions page, and also, 24/7 counseling via e-mail and
Twitter. All these things could be implemented on the VA's
side.
I recently received a letter from the VA Debt Management
Center warning me that they were planning to take back the
emergency payment they loaned me in the fall. They advised me
that they would be deducting $750 per month from my living
allowance unless I made other arrangements. Thankfully, I was
reminded by IAVA that I needed to turn in my paperwork by the
April deadline. It was not the VA that told me. Other student
veterans did not have it so smoothly. Some tried to set up
payment plans but still had the full $750 deducted from their
living allowance check even though the VA actually still owed
them money.
There are still major shortfalls such as including Title 32
active duty and streamlining the Yellow Ribbon program by, for
example, removing the separation of tuition and fees. The Post-
9/11 GI Bill is changing lives, and it will change our country
for the better. The question is, how do we make it as easy as
possible for our veteran students to focus on their studies and
not on collection notices.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be
delighted to answer any questions you or the Committee may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reininger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marco Reininger, IAVA Member, Student Veteran at
Columbia University
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee, as a
member of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Nation's first
and largest group dedicated to the Troops and Veterans of the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan and on behalf of the quarter of a million student
veterans who have taken advantage of the new GI Bill this year it is an
honor to be able to address you today. I want to especially thank
Senator Webb, Chairman Akaka and the other Members of this Committee
whose hard work and commitment to veterans secured the largest increase
in veterans' education benefits since WWII. Your investment in us will
help make us the next greatest generation.
The new GI Bill has unlocked many doors for me that I never dreamed
were possible, while I was serving in Afghanistan, conducting
investigations into IED attacks. It has always been my dream to attend
an Ivy League university that would challenge my full academic
potential. Today, I am living that dream as a student at Columbia
University, studying political science, with aspirations of working
with you as a Congressional staffer. I want to help Senators like you
craft new and innovative programs that are crucial for my fellow
veterans.
As the Vice-President of the Columbia University Military Veterans
group and an active member of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America,
I have firsthand knowledge of the successes and failures of the new GI
Bill implementation. I am pleased to report that the VA's
implementation has improved since last fall, but there is still much to
be done.
I will address the following four issues:
1. Late GI Bill checks mean no rent checks and sleepless nights;
2. School certifying officials are overworked and undertrained;
3. Emergency check recoupment is inaccurate and not transparent;
and
4. Living allowances have not been adjusted for the COLA increase.
Late GI Bill checks mean no rent checks and sleepless nights.
I applied for my new GI Bill benefits on May 1st, shortly after
being accepted to Columbia University. I knew that living in New York
City and attending a private school meant that I could not afford any
delays in my benefits. When my first living allowance check was
significantly late, I was incredibly worried. I did not live in
university housing and had to count on the generosity of my landlord to
forgive my late rent payments. Columbia University was also very
accommodating and did not penalize student veterans for late VA checks.
That wasn't the case for all student veterans. A fellow Army veteran
was un-enrolled from courses shortly before his final exams because of
overdue account balances.
I am thankful the VA finally started issuing emergency checks in
October. Without this stop-gap measure, I would have quickly gotten
into severe financial distress. When I stood in line, at the local New
York City VA office, for my $3,000 advance payment, many of my fellow
veterans from all over the region were extremely hesitant to accept the
emergency payment. They were concerned that it would come back to haunt
them in the future. This engrained distrust of the VA is not unusual
among my peers.
I had no choice but to accept the emergency payment. I took the
hand written check and a letter from the VA to my bank, so they
wouldn't place a hold on the check when I deposited it.
In addition to the VA checks, members of our student veterans'
community supported one another by lending each other cash in order to
get by, avoid bad credit scores and collection agencies.
I finally started receiving my GI Bill benefits in November 2010.
Last fall, I was one of the lucky ones who received their GI Bill in a
somewhat timely manner. Sadly, many of my friends and fellow students
had to struggle to make ends meet because their GI Bill checks never
arrived. A fellow Columbia veteran pal of mine just received his first
check last month.
Interestingly enough the most common complaint I hear from fellow
student veterans is that they didn't know when their GI Bill checks
would arrive. Student veterans can scrimp and save in a pinch,
photocopying assigned readings instead of buying the textbooks or being
content to eat Ramen noodles for another week instead of going out to
dinner with our classmates. We can make due, but only if we know that
our GI Bill check is going to arrive on a particular day. Not knowing
when it will arrive and not being able to get an answer from the VA can
wreak havoc on your life. You have to plan for the worst. I know some
veterans who took some drastic measures. A fellow veteran ate canned
beans and sardines three meals a day for an entire semester, trying to
scrape up gas money for his wife and children back home. How could he
possibly thrive at school when he was consumed with the responsibility
of providing for his family? The new GI Bill was meant to relieve him
of that burden.
So far, this semester has been significantly better. My fellow
student veterans have been receiving their GI Bill benefits with fewer
delays. However, there remains great uncertainty among vets about their
individual accounts and amounts of future payments. Many of our new
incoming student veterans are still confused about the complicated
benefit calculations, which is a product of misinformation during their
separation process. And some of my veteran friends, from upstate New
York, have told me about GI Bill payments that do not reflect the
actual BAH rate for 2010. They have budgeted based on one number, but
received something else.
Uncertainty is demoralizing, distracting from studies, and
financially perilous. Greater transparency can go a long way. Here's an
idea: The VA could start by posting a widget on their homepage that
reads: ``Now working on GI Bill claims from (fill in the date).'' This
widget will give student vets some idea of where they are in the GI
Bill queue. This is information we can count on and plan around.
I also strongly believe the VA needs to do a better job helping
veterans monitor their own GI Bill benefits. If I can never predict
when the VA makes a payment to my school, it is difficult to account
for what individual checks are covering in my tuition and fees. We need
a mechanism that would allow me to track my GI Bill claim from the
moment I file, to the day when it actually pays. I can track a book
from an Amazon.com warehouse to my apartment, why can't I get the same
transparency from the VA?
School certifying officials are overworked and undertrained.
Probably one of the biggest surprises, throughout the whole process
of using my GI Bill benefits, was how confused some school financial
aid officials were. I expected the VA to have formally trained these
School Certifying Officials. I assumed that the school officials would
have answers, but they were frantically trying to figure out how the
new GI Bill worked, just as we were.
Thankfully we were able to turn to IAVA's GI Bill resource
(www.newgibill.org), where we found answers to our questions. IAVA has
the most up-to-date Web site, with the most accurate benefits
calculators, a robust Frequently Asked Questions page, and 24-7
counseling via email and Twitter.
Working with school certifying officials it often feels like
processing GI Bill paperwork is an additional burden for them, on top
of an already heavy workload. I was shocked to find out that my school
was only being reimbursed by the VA at the rate of $7/veteran. That is
considerably less than minimum wage. We must properly incentivize
schools to prioritize processing of GI Bill paperwork. If the school
can't turn in the paperwork accurately or on time, a student veteran
will suffer the consequences.
Emergency check recoupment is inaccurate and not transparent.
I recently received a letter from the VA Debt Management Center
warning me that they were planning to take back the $3,000 emergency
payment they loaned me in the fall. They advised me that they would be
deducting $750/month from my living allowance check unless I made other
arraignments. Thankfully, I was reminded by IAVA that I needed to turn
in my paperwork by the April deadline, otherwise the VA would have
deducted the $750 automatically from my living allowance. It wasn't the
VA that told me, it was IAVA. I emailed the VA Debt Management Center,
and they set up a payment plan of $150/month, which is within my means.
Other student veterans didn't have it so smoothly. Some tried to
set up payment plans but still had the full $750 deducted from their
living allowance check. When you are living on a tight budget, $750/
month can mean the difference between focusing on studies and looking
for a second job. Other veterans had their debt applied to their
accounts, even though the VA owed them money.
In preparation for this testimony I read on the VA's and IAVA's Web
site that the VA would be taking care of this problem and that the
``checks would be in the mail.'' Frankly, anytime anyone who makes a
mistake tells me not to worry because ``the check is in the mail'' I
worry even more. I hope this issue is fully resolved soon. Our veterans
need your help.
Living allowances have not been adjusted for the COLA increase.
Last, and I hope not to sound too petty, I believe the VA owes me
some money. The military Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) rates went
up on January 1st, but I never saw an increase in my living allowance
checks. I know the rates for Columbia's ZIP code increased slightly. So
what happened?
I ask because I know if I owed the VA money (which I do), they
would certainly be in quite a hurry to collect (which they are). But
when the VA owes me money, I can't seem to get any answers.
Furthermore, in some of my veteran friends' areas the difference is
quite significant, particularly when one receives less money than
originally budgeted.
The Post-911 GI Bill is changing lives and it will definitely
change our country for the better. The questions are: how much trouble
will this change be? How difficult must it get before student veterans
give up on their education? How do we make it as easy as possible for
our veteran students to focus on their studies and not on collection
notices?
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Reininger.
This question is to each of you. In your testimony you have
made some statements about your experience thus far with the
Post-9/11 GI Bill. We all are looking for ways to improve it.
So my question to each of you is, if you could make a single
change to streamline and improve the new program, what would it
be?
Mr. Madden?
Mr. Madden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to answer the question.
I think someone mentioned earlier here today but--during
the education symposium that we held at the end of February and
the beginning of March, one of the main components that came
out of that was clear communications. Some of the reports, some
of which is anecdotal, we are getting reports from individuals
saying, well, I called Muskogee and I get somebody, and I get
an answer; and then I call back again and I get a different
answer. There does not seem to be the same answer that the
veteran needs to get his claim processed or get his payment as
soon as possible. That is one of the main components that came
out, was that the individual needs to hear clear and concise
answers from everybody and get the same answer from everybody.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you.
Mr. Stephens?
Mr. Stephens. If I had to pick one thing, what I would say
is to include the non-college degree institutions, the
apprenticeships and on-the-job trainings, the flight and
correspondence schools, and the other programs that were left
off.
As I have visited various schools and institutions, and we
visit all different types, I have had to tell veterans who are
not in an institution of higher learning, not in a degree-
granting institution, that they do not have increased benefits.
And I have had them look at me and ask why. I served in Iraq. I
served in Afghanistan. I did the same as the other men and
women there. Why do I not have those? To be quite honest with
you, my answer is because it is not currently in the law, but I
recommend you contact your Member of Congress and try to get it
put in there.
So if I had to make one change, that is the change I would
suggest.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Stephens.
Mr. Reininger. Mr. Chairman, if your question pertains to
streamlining----
Chairman Akaka. Mr. Reininger?
Mr. Reininger [continuing]. The process, one of my
suggestions would be to remove the separation of tuition and
fees. Because the bill as it is reads that public education at
a public university has to be covered for the veteran. I do not
understand why the VA cannot just go ahead and pay a public
university for the veteran's tuition.
Then as it pertains to the Yellow Ribbon program, if there
were a national baseline established for the Yellow Ribbon
program, it would streamline the whole process because there
would be no more States certifying their tuition and fees for
the current fiscal year. There would be more separation of the
two. It is just one payment to the school if it is a public
school and one payment to the school if it is a private school.
I believe that would maybe even be a cost-neutral solution
because it will save many man-hours at the VA.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much.
Do you have a comment to make?
Ms. DesLauriers. I am glad that my colleagues spoke before
me because they filled in all the gaps for me. But I think the
most important thing at this time, an immediate issue that
needs to be resolved is the certification of tuition and fees
being separated from the report of enrollment status in order
that our veteran students can receive their living stipend
without interruption.
Chairman Akaka. Well, thank you for that. Let me pose
another question to all of you. I think each of you has touched
on the importance of more outreach, more outreach and exchange
of information. My question to all of you is, what form do you
believe this outreach should take?
Mr. Madden?
Mr. Madden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know that
Faith DesLauriers can speak more to this, but we understand
that certifying officials are the go-to people and the
individuals who the student veterans rely on on a daily basis,
not only for their claim but for information regarding the
school and how to navigate the process. I think if the VA can
coordinate and provide more training beyond what is already
being provided to the certifying officials, that they will get
the information and it only benefits both parties.
Chairman Akaka. Mr. Stephens?
Mr. Stephens. If I could echo that sentiment also and add a
couple of other things. The training of certifying officials is
very important. They are the front line. Yet we also need to
emphasize what I call the electronic means of communications.
Today's young veterans are on Facebook, Twitter, and all those
things I will never understand--me personally. We need to
continue to do that, put information out there, publish
different written publications, do welcome home letters, do
whatever we can to get the word out there.
Chairman Akaka. Mr. Reininger?
Mr. Reininger. Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue that
thought also. In terms of modern media, Facebook and tools
available on the Internet: if the VA would transition to
implementing those cutting edge technologies, it would create
so much more of an interactive process.
I heard earlier that by December there would be an
opportunity for the veteran to log in and actually check their
account and see what is going on. That kind of information,
that kind of accessibility and transparency, really puts the
veteran at ease. Everybody knows what is going on, and hours
are being saved by doing so. So I believe modern technology is
probably the best idea.
For example, when the new GI Bill was rolled out initially,
IAVA had a Web site with a very simple calculator that told the
veteran exactly how much benefits they were entitled to and
they were supposed to receive. I do not understand why the VA
was not able to do that. If a nonprofit organization with much
less funding can do that within a week, I do not understand why
the second largest government agency is not able to do that
just as well. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much.
Ms. DesLauriers?
Ms. DesLauriers. Yes, sir. Again, my colleagues are making
it very easy for me today. I think that the development of a
Web portal is imperative to this program because the VA is
overwhelmed with the number of phone calls/inquiries it gets.
We certainly appreciate and admire all the work that is being
done and the volume of work this program has put on the VBA. I
believe that the Web portal capturing all relevant information
so that both schools and students can identify whether a
student is eligible and what they are eligible for, can
certainly reduce the anxiety that goes with applying,
receiving, and administering these programs. So I think the Web
portal is very, very important.
Chairman Akaka. Well, I want to thank you. This has been a
good hearing; and I want to thank all of our witnesses, the
first panel as well.
It is clear that the issues involved are quite complex, and
working toward making this program more streamlined, efficient,
and equitable will not be an easy thing to do. But we can put
our minds together and continue to strive at this. I was
interested in a comment, that every 3 months, that programs are
tried and new ones are put in place if it is needed. And that
is one way of moving those along as quickly as we can.
I would note, too, that VA's witnesses have remained here
for this second panel, so they have heard you directly with
your concerns, and we look forward also to an exchange among
you. And we are grateful that all this happened.
As I noted at the opening of the hearing, I will be
introducing--I want to repeat that--introducing legislation
before the Memorial Day break to begin the process of moving
forward in a very deliberate way. I look forward to working
with all of you in this effort.
The record of this hearing will remain open for 1 week for
the submission of written statements, questions, and responses
to questions in writing.
Again, I thank you. This has been a good hearing. This
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Captain Gerard M. Farrell, USN (Ret.), Executive
Director, Commissioned Officers Association, U.S. Public Health Service
introduction
My name is Gerard Farrell. I am a retired Navy Captain and the
Executive Director of the Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S.
Public Health Service (COA). I represent the views of this
Association's 7,000 members, all of whom are active-duty or retired
officers of the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service
(USPHS).
I am limiting my comments to one element of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
It is the provision that permits eligible servicemembers to transfer
their unused GI Bill educational benefits to their dependent family
members. I respectfully ask this Committee to extend this popular
entitlement and powerful recruiting and retention tool to the USPHS
Commissioned Corps and the Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The USPHS Commissioned Corps has
an active-duty force of 6,500. The NOAA Corps has an active-duty force
of only 300.
summary
As a matter of law and precedent, USPHS and NOAA Corps officers
have been included in all GI Bill programs for the past 60 years. USPHS
and NOAA officers are veterans under both Title 10 and Title 42 of the
U.S. Code. Section 213(d) of Title 42 states clearly that USPHS
officers are entitled to ``all'' programs administered by the Veterans
Administration.
USPHS and NOAA officers are entitled to Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits,
with one exception: transferability. At present, they cannot transfer
their own, unused educational benefits to dependent family members.
This is because the statute gives transferability authority to the
Secretaries of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Homeland Security.
But it does not mention the Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services, which is the home of the USPHS Commissioned Corps, or
the Secretary of Commerce, which is the parent agency of the NOAA
Corps. A powerful recruitment and retention tool is thus inaccessible
to the Nation's two smallest uniformed services.
The transferability option was designed as a tool to retain mid-
career servicemembers with critical skills. There is no area of Federal
service more desperately in need of such important retention tools as
the Public Health Service. The critical condition of the Nation's
public health workforce is well-documented.
Because both uniformed services are so small, the cost to the U.S.
Treasury of extending transferability to USPHS and NOAA officers would
be minimal relative to the overall cost of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. I
want to emphasize this point because I am told that cost has, in fact,
recently been raised as an obstacle. No other reason for excluding
USPHS and NOAA has ever been advanced over the 19 months we have urged
Members of Congress and the Administration to find a way to extend
transferability to these two services.
Transferability is a potentially powerful aid not only to USPHS
recruiting, but also, indirectly, to the Department of Defense. That is
because DOD relies increasingly on mental health specialists from the
USPHS to treat traumatized and brain-injured servicemembers returning
from Iraq and Afghanistan.
background
In the original Post-9/11 GI Bill, approved by Congress and signed
by the President in June 2008, USPHS and NOAA were left out entirely.
The reason is not clear. Our assumption always has been that it was an
unintentional oversight, given the fact that both services had been
included in the Montgomery GI Bill.
The Association first brought this matter to the attention of this
Committee on July 11, 2008, with letters to all Committee members and
their key staff people. Senator Webb's staff kindly facilitated a
meeting with the Committee's professional staff on July 24. In
addition, I had the great pleasure of meeting personally with the
Chairman on September 23. I left that meeting much encouraged.
The Veterans Administration partially corrected the original
oversight when it developed implementing regulations last year. Its
final rule was published on March 31, 2009. The agency cited 42 U.S.C.
213, with regard to USPHS, and 33 U.S.C. 3002 and 3072, with regard to
NOAA. The agency said its own General Counsel interpreted these
statutory provisions as expanding the definition of `Armed Forces' in
38 U.S.C.101(10) to also include USPHS and NOAA for purposes of
benefits administered by VA. The agency concluded that service as a
commissioned officer of USPHS or NOAA meets the `active duty in the
Armed Forces' service requirement in section 3311 of Title 38, U.S. C.
It said, ``We agree that commissioned officers of PHS and NOAA are
eligible for benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.''
Well, not entirely. The agency went on to explain that ``while VA
is responsible for administering payment of transferred benefits, the
Department of Defense is responsible for determining eligibility for
transfer of the entitlement to dependents. Specifically, the statute
provides that the Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of
the Army, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the Air Force, and the
Secretary of Homeland Security * * * to determine if individuals
serving in the Armed Forces in their respective departments are
eligible to transfer their entitlement to dependents.'' In short, the
agency decided it had no authority to determine eligibility for
transferring educational benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. It would
defer to the Defense Department.
In a courtesy call shortly before the final rule was published, the
agency's educational affairs director explained to COA why the agency
did not see a way to include USPHS and NOAA officers in
transferability.
Since the VA ruling last year, this Association has appealed to
Congress and to the Administration. We continue to seek support for
corrective action that would fix the rest of the problem by extending
transferability to USPHS and NOAA.
In September, I was pleased to see the introduction in the House of
H.R. 3657, which would accomplish that. It is under review by the House
Veterans' Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity.
There is no Senate companion.
This Association has written to the President and to the Secretary
of Health and Human Services. I have met personally with the Assistant
Secretary for Health and the Surgeon General on several occasions. In
all oral and written communications, the Association has emphasized the
importance of asking Congress for transferability authority. To date,
no such departmental request has been made, and we do not know why.
why transferability is needed
The Department of Health and Human Services currently faces serious
challenges in recruiting and retaining qualified health professionals,
particularly physicians and dentists. This is especially true of the
Indian Health Service. In just one region of one sparsely populated
state, for example, there are more than 200 vacancies. In hard-to-fill
positions, vacancies are likely to remain for two years.
For the first time in many years, the number of physicians in the
USPHS Commissioned Corps has dropped below 1,000. There is also an
acute shortage of dentists.
It is unclear to this Association whether existing incentive
programs do not work or have not been seriously pursued. In any event,
we understand that HHS recently awarded a contract to a major
consulting firm, directing it to develop a recruiting program to fill
500 vacancies for physicians, dentists, and nurses.
The HHS Department's own need for scarce health care professionals
reflects, in part, an increasing need on the part of the Defense
Department. DOD relies to a significant degree on the USPHS to provide
mental health care to traumatized and brain-injured soldiers and
marines who are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2008, for
example, HHS agreed to detail 200 USPHS mental health experts to the
Defense Department in order to deliver improved clinical care to these
servicemembers.
The Military Coalition, a consortium of 34 military and veterans'
organizations, wrote to this Committee in September and emphasized this
fact. The letter (attached) requested a technical change that would
authorize HHS and Commerce to use transferability as a career incentive
for USPHS and NOAA Corps officers. The letter pointed out that ``HHS is
experiencing critical medical and other specialty expertise shortages
in the USPHS at a time when the Service is providing unique
capabilities to the Nation.''
The Military Coalition's letter referred not only to the need for
better treatment of wounded warriors, but also to new USPHS
responsibilities in the areas of emergency preparedness and disaster
response. This includes stepped-up training of first-responders to
protect the public's health in case of a natural disaster or terrorist
attack.
why transferability is so popular
Transferability is the GI Bill benefit that matters most to active-
duty USPHS officers, all of whom are credentialed health
professionals--doctors, dentists, nurses, engineers, mental health
specialists, and others. When they receive their commissions, they
already hold college degrees. In many (if not most) cases, they also
hold advanced or terminal degrees in their fields. While some USPHS
officers choose to use their GI Bill benefits to pursue doctorates in
nursing, psychology, environmental health, or other health-related
disciplines, the vast majority would prefer to transfer their own
unused benefits to their children. That is why transferability
represents potentially powerful recruiting tool. It is also why
transferability is the top legislative priority of COA and its members.
From the perspective of HHS, there would appear to be no downside
to asking for transferability authority from Congress. The HHS
Secretary could use this tool as selectively as she might wish; she
could use it a lot or not at all. As a recruiting and retention aid,
transferability might work where other incentives apparently have
failed. One thing is certain, however: seeking transferability would
demonstrate to active-duty USPHS officers that their HHS leaders
support them. From the Association's perspective, a greater boost to
morale is difficult to imagine.
conclusion
According to Federal law and agency regulations, USPHS and NOAA
officers are--at least theoretically--entitled to all benefits
administered by the Veterans Administration. As a practical matter,
however, they are excluded from the Post-9/11 Bill benefit that means
the most to them. This is the option of transferring their own unused
educational benefits to dependent family members. This inequity can be
remedied by this Committee.
No plausible and substantive reason for not remedying it has been
expressed by anyone.
On behalf of dedicated USPHS and NOAA officers stationed here and
around the world, I respectfully ask the chairman and Members of the
Committee on Veterans Affairs to extend GI Bill transferability to
these two Federal uniformed services.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Tim Embree, Legislative Associate, Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee, on
behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's one hundred and
eighty thousand members and supporters, thank you for allowing us to
submit written testimony to this Committee.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill is the greatest investment in veterans and
their families since World War II. This historic benefit has the
opportunity to send hundreds of thousands of new veterans to college,
and change the economic future of an entire generation of Americans.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill promises to be the cornerstone for building the
``Next Greatest Generation.''
Since its landmark passage, IAVA has been assisting student
veterans navigate this generous, yet complicated, new benefit. More
than 250,000 people have visited our premier GI Bill resource,
www.newgibill.org. Through NewGIBill.org, we offer the most accurate
benefits calculators, Frequently Asked Questions, and one-on-one
support through email and Twitter. Every day, we are helping more and
more student veterans find answers to their GI Bill questions. Just
last week, a servicemember's spouse wrote, ``Just wanted to thank you.
You have no idea how many Web sites I've visited-including VA, DOD,
which didn't have the answers you provided or haven't been updated
since * * * August 2009!''
IAVA interacts daily with veterans and their families struggling to
navigate the new GI Bill. As a result, we've gained unique insight into
where implementation has succeeded and where it has failed. While many
of our members now have had the opportunity to attend school thanks to
the new GI Bill, this success has been tempered by the largest backlog
of GI Bill claims since the VA started tracking their performance. We
have seen how well veterans are served when the VA is collaborative and
communicates with key stakeholders and veterans. But we have also
witnessed the catastrophe of non-communication and bureaucratic
isolationism. By reviewing the VA's rocky implementation of the new GI
Bill, we have identified some key lessons learned for the upcoming
school year:
1) An ounce of good information will prevent a pound of phone
calls: The VA must be diligent about communicating the latest
information on the new GI Bill to new veterans and their families. This
will help set realistic expectations and prevent VA phone queues from
dragging on indefinitely.
2) The VA is not an island: The VA must look beyond itself to
correct lingering problems with the new benefit. It can start with key
stakeholders, such as the VSO community.
3) Don't rob MGIB to pay NGIB: Veterans using the GI Bill deserve
timely benefits and we should not put the old GI Bill on the back
burner because the media is covering the new GI Bill.
4) Benefits must be paid on time: The VA cannot decide to not pay
earned benefits, such as the 2010 living allowance rates because they
don't know how to issue the checks correctly.
5) Slow is smooth, smooth is fast: Hastily processing GI Bill
claims to ``clear the deck'' leads to numerous errors, confusion and
appeals.
6) Only as fast as the VA's slowest computer: The future of this
new GI Bill depends heavily on successful implementation of the VA's
long term IT solution.
Despite the VA's initial missteps, they still have made some
incredible progress over the past year implementing this new program.
However, there are still several key actions that the VA must take to
streamline implementation of the new Post-9/11 GI Bill.
IAVA recommends that the VA:
Involve VSO and other key stakeholders in the development
of future GI Bill rules, marketing campaigns, Web site redesigns and IT
development.
Post a waiting time widget on the VA's GI Bill homepage
stating, ``Now working on GI Bill claims from (fill in the date).''
Retroactively pay student veterans who are owed additional
living allowance payments due to the new BAH rates and hold harmless
any student veterans who would have received a lower living allowance
check.
Reauthorize the Veterans Advisory Council on Education
(VACoE).
Reinstitute the practice of disclosing the date of the
oldest pending GI Bill claim in the Monday Morning Workload report.
Conduct an audit of common GI Bill processing mistakes in
order to prepare for the summer training sessions and public report the
results.
Collaborate with key stakeholders in the development of
the student veteran portal.
Achieve a proper balance of resources dedicated to
processing both new and old GI Bill and publicly report the number of
old GI Bill users as it currently does with the new GI Bill.
The new GI Bill has helped over 250,000 students attend colleges
and universities. And it offers a generous benefit: the average Post-9/
11 GI Bill user has already received $11,159 this year alone. To put
that in perspective, the average payout under the new GI Bill is 20%
higher than the most a student veteran could receive under the old GI
Bill. Student veterans are finally getting enough money to attend
college.
1) An ounce of good information will prevent a pound of phone messages.
``I never got through, the volume of calls was at an
``unprecedented'' level and nobody was available to
help. I tried, every three minutes for 6 hours
straight. Four days in a row.''--IAVA Vet
Last Fall, student veterans were getting desperate. Their rents
were due, schools were threatening to not let them register for classes
and the VA wasn't answering the most important question, when will
their GI Bill checks arrive? ``They told me just to keep waiting,'' an
IAVA vet wrote. The biggest problem facing the VA last term was not the
fact that the GI Bill checks were late, though that was an enormous
problem, it was the fact that the VA couldn't tell veterans when the
checks would arrive.
This uncertainty sparked a panic among student veterans. If the VA
was a bank in the 1920's, we would have seen student veterans flocking
in droves to the VA regional centers trying desperately to get at least
some of their benefits. Instead they tried reaching out to the VA the
only way that was available by calling the GI Bill Hotline (888)
GIBILL1. Over a million student veterans called the GI Bill hotline in
December alone and nearly 90% of those calls were met with busy
signals. Of those lucky enough to get through, 30% dropped the call
because the hold time was just too long.\1\ I bet not even Barry
Manilow at his peak ever got that type of phone traffic for a concert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/01/military--va--
droppedcalls--012210w/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the phones ringing off the hook they cut their losses and
closed the call center for two days a week redirecting those staff
toward processing claims. While IAVA supported this novel approach, we
fault the VA for failing to give student veterans a reasonable
expectation of when they would receive their benefits. The phone lines
told veterans that they would need to wait up to 12 weeks at the same
time the VA was testifying that the average processing time was 47
days.\2\ The VA kept telling veterans hang on. ``They told me just to
keep waiting.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ House Committee on Veterans' Affairs; Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity; Education Roundtable; VA Director of Education Services
Keith Wilson's slide presentation, December 3, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``VA has my paperwork but, can tell me absolutely no timeline
in which I will receive my funds. No money for rent, lights,
you name it.''--Susan (IAVA Vet)
While it goes without saying that if the VA had delivered the
checks in a timely manner there would not have been a panic, we believe
this over simplification of the problem misses the most important
lesson learned from last Fall. There will always be a new error in the
system or reason for a late check but striving to give veterans the
most accurate and up to date information will help them have realistic
expectations of what is to come and most importantly allow veterans to
make plans accordingly. Knowing your GI bill check will be late 5 days
is infinitely easier to deal with than not knowing when the check will
come at all.
Thankfully, the VA has begun to act on this learning point and
launched an aggressive second semester information campaign that
started with a firm promise of when a veteran's GI Bill check would
arrive. We would argue that this firm promise to pay all GI Bill claims
received by January 19th on February 1st not only sent a powerful
message to all student veterans and VA employees but the certainty of
the date was more important than the actual date of delivery. It
restored confidence in a shaken program and we have not seen the wide
scale panics we dealt with last term.
The VA has some developed some powerful information delivery tools
over the past year including a completely revamped GI Bill Web site, a
GI Bill Facebook fan page with over 16,000 fans, and even a Twitter
account with almost 850 followers. The VA even launched a nationwide
campaign to advertise their GI Bill resources to student veterans
across the country. IAVA has applauded the VA for taking each of these
critical steps toward becoming the GI Bill information hub which they
must become.
Regrettably, after a bright start to this term, the VA is slipping
back into old habits. Veterans calling the GI Bill hotline are being
told they need to wait 4-6 weeks and the VA has not announced their
average processing time since December. IAVA recommends posting a GI
Bill waiting time widget on the VA's GI Bill homepage saying, ``Now
working on GI Bill claims from (fill in the date)'' and reinstituting
an old VA practice of disclosing the dates of the oldest pending GI
Bill claims which were reported weekly in the Monday Morning Workload
reports up until last September. Telling veterans how many checks you
have processed and not how long they will have to wait is not helpful
at all. Like a hungry customer waiting to order a deli sandwich, it
always better to know how far down you are in the line then how many
sandwiches the Deli has made for other customers.
2) The VA is not an island.
When student veterans needed help with their GI Bill the VA's phone
lines were nearly impossible to get through. Veterans felt like there
was nowhere to turn to get the answers they needed. Instead of training
a cadre of GI Bill experts among veterans groups and schools to help
disseminate quality GI Bill information the VA's answer was to have all
GI Bill questions go through their fatally flawed phone system.
Why is it that the new GI Bill's tuition benefit is more
complicated to understand than the plot line of an episode of LOST?
Because the VA refused to consult any students, schools or veterans
organizations in the development of their policy and the result was a
completely unexpected system that few truly understand. The VA's
dependence on its own internal insulated wisdom in making critical
decisions about the GI Bill has led to some bizarre and unfortunate
results.
We need to start working together if we want to build the ``Next
Greatest Generation.'' The GI Bill and the promises it brings are
bigger than any one of us and sadly it seems like personalities, pride
and sometime laziness stand in the way of true collaboration. It is
commonly accepted that the world is inexplicitly interconnected and
that all of our actions affect everyone else. We can and must do better
to work together for the sake of all student veterans.
In the beginning, the VA's efforts to collaborate could have served
as a model for other agencies. IAVA was inspired when the VA took to
the road last January and held gigantic town halls in Los Angeles, DC
and Chicago to collect feedback on their proposed regulations.
Additionally VA rulemakers carefully weighed public comments and
drafted well informed GI Bill rules. VA held focus groups with VSOs and
student veterans which helped convince the VA, among other things, to
strike the first line of a letter intended for all 2 million GI Bill
eligible veterans that read, ``Public Law 110-252 created a new
educational assistance program called the Post-9/11 Veterans
Educational Assistance Act of 2008.`` The Veterans Advisory Council on
Education (VACoE) held its final meeting discussing the necessity of
public outreach and the impact of excluding certain groups of veterans
such vocational student from the new GI Bill.
The door to collaboration slammed shut in February when the VA
released their preliminary tuition chart. The VA's proposed tuition
scheme was incredibly flawed because it was confusing and inequitable.
Students, schools, VSOs and legislators were all surprised at the
proposed tuition numbers which had student veterans from some states
receiving as little as $2,000/year and other states receiving over
$40,000/year. Even more surprising is that the VA never consulted
anyone outside of the VA about such a radical departure from the
original language of the law. Once the VA released their proposal
publicly they were unwilling to heed our concerns because they feared a
public backlash. What could have been resolved in an hour long
discussion with key stake holders is now an entrenched policy.
``I was confused * * * and I was wondering why there is a huge
difference in tuition coverage for schools that cost relatively
the same amount.''--Joshua (IAVA Vet)
When the delayed payment crisis peaked last Fall the lines of
communications were still closed. There didn't even appear to be a
``red phone'' where the VA could just call the VSOs and discuss offline
the problems they were facing. So what happened next? Friction,
acrimony, name calling and a lot of bad blood. While the intense media
pressure forced the VA's hand to act and issue emergency checks, the VA
was even less willing to collaborate then before. And while we
acknowledge that unlike the tuition example, friction over the delayed
checks was inevitable the level of frustration and complete lack of
professional and productive dialog Could have been avoided.
More recently the VA has been dealing with the recoupment of these
same emergency checks. Once again we were frustrated to learn the VA
was not consulting with VSOs on a major policy decision, how much
should the VA withhold from the veterans' monthly living allowances. We
were forced to seek information about this issue from personal VA
sources and the initial reports were disturbing. Thankfully VA
leadership heeded our private complaints before we were forced to take
the complaints publicly. Although this issue resolved itself we believe
that this continued lack of collaboration is simply unsustainable.
We want to be partners with the VA to ensure the successful
implementation of this great new program. In order to ensure
collaboration, IAVA strongly recommends that the VA consistently
involve key stakeholders (including VSOs) in ``development'' of future
GI Bill rules, marketing campaigns, Web site redesigns and IT
development. We also believe the VA would greatly benefit from the
advice of outside industry experts and we recommend reauthorizing the
Veterans Advisory Council on Education (VACoE) which historically
provided that expertise.
3) Don't rob MGIB to pay NGIB.
The VA has made remarkable progress this term processing new GI
Bill claims. The backlog which capped out at over 65,000 pending new GI
Bill claims last November is now only 6,000. IAVA applauds the VA's
hard work toward accomplishing this incredible feat. However, we are
concerned that the VA may be focusing a disproportionate amount of
energy on the new GI Bill while the old GI Bill claims are lagging
behind. As the chart below illustrates nearly 91% of the current
backlog is made up of old GI Bill claims with nearly 60,000 claims
outstanding.
Furthermore, while the GI Bill backlog is significantly better than
last term the backlog is still the highest it has ever been at this
point in the school year since the VA started publishing weekly reports
back in 2003. The chart below outlines the 2009-2010 backlog and
compares it with the high and low watermarks of GI Bill backlogs from
2003-2009. In a nutshell, we still have a serious backlog.
As the VA is planning resources for next year we encourage the VA
to continue working toward alleviating the GI Bill backlog, while
paying particular attention toward achieving a proper balance of
recourses dedicated toward processing both new and old GI Bill claims.
4) Benefits must be paid on time.
``The VA lady told me that they had not updated the system
to the 2010 BAH rates yet and that we were still
getting the 2009 rate. Is this correct?''
--Scarlett (IAVA Vet)
On January 1st the military increased their living allowance rates
2.5% nationally and consequently student veterans using the new GI Bill
should have also received an increase in their living allowance checks.
However, the VA simply ignored these mandatory rate changes and never
made any formal announcements either way. The only mention of the issue
by the VA was a tweet on the VA's Twitter account on December 18th.
DeptVetAffairs: For GI Bill students: BAH rates will remain the
same to begin the spring semester. Any changes won't happen until later
in the spring.
This announcement never made it on the VA's GI Bill Web site, their
FAQ page or even the GI Bill Facebook page. IAVA believes that major GI
Bill announcements such as tuition rate changes which have happened
seven times since August 1st and policies concerning living allowance
rates warrant front page news on the VA's GI Bill Web site.
While 2.6% average increase might not seem like something to get
worked up about, please keep in mind that some veterans are owed over a
$1,000 this Spring alone. For example a student veteran attending
University of Massachusetts, Lowell, would have received an increase of
$261/month.
The VA has informally defended their actions by saying they didn't
want to lower GI Bill rates for those students attending schools where
the BAH rate decreased. However, IAVA's analysis of the 2010 BAH rates
shows that over 4,000 schools would receive an increase in living
allowance rates. The VA has also conceded that they didn't have the
computing capacity to modify their payment system in time for the new
term. While, IAVA is sympathetic to these concerns it does not absolve
the VA from making a formal promise to these student veterans to pay
the difference once the system is up and running. This is exactly what
the VA did when they implemented the Chapter 1607 REAP program.
IAVA recommends that the VA formally announce that they will
retroactively pay student veterans who are owed additional living
allowance payments due to the new BAH rates. The VA should also
announce that they plan to hold harmless any student veterans who would
have received a lower living allowance check because the VA did not
have their system in place in time.
5) Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.
``The VA says they paid my tuition twice, but the school
says they only received one payment. Until this is
all straightened out the VA is with holding my
monthly allowance. This is what I live on. It has
been three weeks now and still not resolved and the
VA said it could take months. I cannot afford to
not get my allowance for months. And I don't
understand why I am being held responsible since
this is all between the school and the VA.''--Corey
(IAVA Vet)
When the VA makes a mistake processing a GI Bill claim, student
veterans like Corey are plunged into a bureaucratic nightmare. Student
veterans are forced to fight with the VA and their schools
simultaneously. While often these problems could be solved by a simple
phone call or two the VA phone lines are usually busy.
Here at IAVA we have fielded thousands of questions from student
veterans about their GI Bill benefits including Corey's above. We have
received so many of these types of issues that we were forced to create
separate categories called ``VA processing mistakes'' and ``WITC4''
(What Is This Check For) to track the resolution process. While local
VA regional staffs have been gracious enough to start handling these
cases for us, we are concerned that in the VA's rush to get the checks
out the door many processing mistakes are being made.
IAVA encourages the VA to incorporate into their corporate culture
a key lesson that every deploying servicemember to Iraq and Afghanistan
is taught, ``slow is smooth, smooth is fast.'' This credo is taught to
servicemembers as they are learning everything from overcoming an
obstacle to breaching a building. Servicemembers are reminded that
getting it right the first time is more important than rushing through
and making mistakes.
IAVA acknowledges that many of the problems will be alleviated when
the VA institutes its automated processing system, however that system
will not be up and running until at the earliest December and student
veterans like Corey can't wait that long to get these issues
straightened out. IAVA recommends that the VA should conduct an audit,
or at least a comprehensive sampling, of common GI Bill processing
mistakes in order to prepare for the summer training sessions of their
GI Bill claims processors. The VA should also publicly report the known
error rates so that veterans like Corey don't feel like they are alone
when they have to say to the VA and their school that something is
wrong.
6) Only as fast as the VA's slowest computer:
``Can the VA be persuaded to make GI Bill account
information available to the Vet for review?
Something that lists all the transactions actions
that have occurred. Providing this information
would alleviate anxiety about claims status, reduce
the volume of calls and provide more transparency.
I find it very difficult to comprehend my GI Bill
account and have NO idea if it being handled
correctly. If there is an error, I have no way to
know until the VA sends me a bill or my school
contacts me.''--Chief Petty Officer Gerns
The VA's long term IT solution to processing the new GI Bill has a
lot of promise, including an answer to Chief Gerns' request above. The
long term IT solution is supposed to automate the processing of new GI
Bill claims lowering processing times dramatically while providing a
portal for students to monitor their GI Bill claim similar to how UPS
will let someone track a package. IAVA cannot stress enough how
critical the successful implementation of a fully functioning and
customer friendly IT system will be toward building the next greatest
generation.
To ensure that the long term solution lives up to its full
potential we implore the VA to start collaborating with key
stakeholders, especially in the development of the student veteran
portal. Working together we will be able to develop a model VA benefits
delivery portal that veterans will see as an invaluable resource in
their quest for higher education.
7) The new GI Bill must be upgraded and simplified.
Although the following section is a little outside the scope of
this hearing we believe that any discussion about moving forward with
the new GI Bill must directly deal with the gaps in coverage and
confusing provisions that leave many veterans with a bitter taste in
their mouths and other struggling to afford higher education.
The Military Coalition (TMC) and IAVA recommend the following key
upgrades to the new GI Bill:
A. Valuable Job Training: Grant Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to
veterans who enroll in vocational programs, apprenticeships and On the
Job training (OJT) because a veteran studying to become an EMT or a
mechanic is denied the generous new GI Bill.
B. Full Credit For Full Time Service: Authorize the new GI Bill for
Title 32 Active Guard Reservists (AGRs) because a National Guardsman
working full-time in an armory will be denied the new GI Bill while his
Reservist counterpart working is eligible for the full GI Bill.
C. Fairness For Disabled Veterans: Provide living allowances for
full-time distance learners based on the zip code in which the veteran
lives because a disabled veteran taking online classes is currently
denied the means to support himself.
D. Untangle The Yellow Ribbon Program: The tuition benefit is so
confusing that it would give a tax lawyer a headache to decipher. We
must simplify the benefit by fully covering the cost of tuition at any
public school, while setting a baseline for the Yellow Ribbon program
for all private and graduate schools.
These proposed upgrades will reduce VA processing times, by pruning
unnecessary bureaucratic steps, and also grant many veterans the access
to this generous benefit that they have sacrificed so much to earn. We
also propose the following upgrades to help upgrade and simplify the
new GI Bill:
Extend Yellow Ribbon to National Guard
Grant Active Duty a book stipend
Authorize transfer of GI Bill to adult children
Expand the number of certificate tests covered
Allow medically discharged & retirees to transfer GI Bill
Implement fair change over process from the old to the new
GI bill
Count Boot Camp toward GI Bill eligibility
Ensure enlistment bonuses are paid
Allow PHS & NOAA officers to transfer GI Bill
Align character of discharge requirements with WWII GI
Bill
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE POST-9/11 GI BILL
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m., in
room 418, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Akaka, Rockefeller, Murray, Tester,
Begich, Burris, Burr, Isakson, and Brown of Massachusetts.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, CHAIRMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Chairman Akaka. This hearing on the Senate Committee on
Veterans' Affairs will come to order.
Aloha and good morning to all of you here, especially our
panel and the Members of the Committee. Welcome each of you to
this hearing on the proposed Post-9/11 Veterans' Educational
Assistance Improvements Act of 2010.
As one of the only three current senators who received
benefits under the original GI Bill after World War II, I know
firsthand the value of this program. That is why I was so
pleased to join Senator Webb in cosponsoring the bill that
created this important new education benefit which became
effective August 1 of last year. We know that there is a great
value to this new benefit for the veterans who are currently
taking advantage of it. We have come to understand, however,
that there are significant and complex issues relating to this
new benefit package.
Since the original legislation did not have the usual
vetting by the Committee, it has come to light that there are a
number of provisions in need of modification. Keeping in mind
that the goal is to have a streamlined program for
beneficiaries and administrators, a number of improvements are
also in order so that benefits are delivered in a timely,
accurate, and equitable way.
When I introduced my legislation, I intended for it to
serve as a starting point for discussion about needed changes.
That outcome has been realized. Veteran servicemembers,
institutions of higher learning, and many others have come
forward with suggestions and ideas for improvements. It is
important that we all work together to address issues involved
in a considered and a deliberate way.
What we will hear this morning will help us continue toward
that goal. I stress, however, that this legislation will not
mark a stopping point for work on the New GI Bill. Through the
discourse generated by the introduction of this bill,
additional concerns have been raised. These include addressing
fraud and abuse and ensuring that only programs offering
legitimate education and training are approved for benefits.
Another important issue is eligibility for benefits for
members of the Guard and Reserve. These are important issues,
but it is vital that we move now to put the proposed
streamlining and operational improvements in place as soon as
possible.
As chairman, I will continue to work on the remaining
concerns. So I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and
my colleagues. So let me call now on our ranking member,
Senator Burr, for his opening statements.
Senator Burr?
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, RANKING MEMBER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA
Senator Burr. Aloha, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Akaka. Aloha.
Senator Burr. And thank you for this hearing. Thank you to
all of our witnesses. I welcome you today, and I apologize to
you upfront that I'm going to have to periodically go out. I
have got an energy markup that is in another building, and
unfortunately, sort of overlays with this, and the majority
leader is so insistent on bringing energy to the floor, I do
not want to be left out of the debate.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to join with you to discuss this important topic,
and most importantly, how we can improve the post-9/11 GI Bill
so it will work better for our military personnel, veterans,
and their families.
Mr. Chairman, before I discuss that, I want to comment on
an ongoing problem with getting information from the Department
of Veterans Affairs. On Monday, I noticed with interest that
the VA issued a press release touting VA's commitment to
transparency. Because it's updated, it's open government plan,
and I would tell the representatives from the VA here today,
while I think it's great that the VA had made a commitment to
transparency, I'm much more interested in whether the agency is
actually keeping these commitments. After all, keeping a
commitment is the most important part. I hope this press
release is an indication that the VA will be more responsive to
inquiries from this Committee, the Senate Veterans' Affairs
Committee.
As primary example, VA's lack of transparency to date, and
I would point to the VA's continued failure to answer my
questions about the VA's fiscal year 2011 budget. After the
Committee's budget hearing in February, I sent over 300
questions to the VA, asking for more information about portions
of that important budget. It took three-and-a-half months for
VA to provide answers to the bulk of those questions. But even
then, many of the responses did not contain the information I
had requested or required further clarification. So nearly a
month ago, I sent more than 30 follow-up questions to the VA.
To date, I have not received an answer to over two dozen of my
original questions about the VA's budget, and I have not
received answers to any of my follow-up questions. On top of
that, the VA has not responded to a number of other requests
for information, data, and briefings from my office.
Mr. Chairman, for this Committee to perform its oversight
and legislative functions, we need the full cooperation of the
administration. Receiving accurate, timely, candid responses
from VA is essential to our effort to improve the lives of
veterans, their families, and their survivors. I have asked
each VA nominee if they would live up to the standard, and all
have agreed. But, clearly, that's not happening.
Mr. Chairman, the situation simply can not be allowed to
continue. I appreciate the efforts you have already made to
help with the problem, and hope that we can continue to work
together to find the solution.
Let me just add on a personal note to my colleagues, having
gone through the last 4 months of exchanges, it's become very
clear to me why veterans get frustrated with the Veterans'
Administration. We have got to see the human face behind what
we do in everything that we do, and it's obvious that decisions
are made as it relates to this Committee, to our functions, and
people within the Veterans' Administration do not feel that
we're an important part of the process. That will change.
As for today's topic, Mr. Chairman, there's no doubt that
the Post-9/11 GI Bill provides valuable benefits for many
veterans and their families. But as we will discuss today, this
new program also has a number of shortcomings, including
complexities, inequities of benefits, and technical flaws.
In fact, I have heard from veterans in North Carolina who
are concerned that some Guard members are not eligible for
these benefits. That veterans may not receive fair benefits if
they attend school online, and that students taking vocational
training might not receive any benefits at all.
Another North Carolinian was frustrated that he would have
received more benefits if he had switched to the Post-9/11 GI
Bill after using up his benefits under an older education
program--a pitfall VA did not help him avoid.
All of this shows that there's a lot of work to be done so
that this program will provide fair, user-friendly benefits,
and more importantly, will allow veterans and their families to
make the educational choices that best meet their needs. In our
effort to make improvements, we should carefully consider
whether any proposed changes will advance those specific goals.
On a final note, Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words
about the path forward. At a hearing in April, you mentioned
how important it was that we all work together to fix the
problems with the Post-9/11 GI Bill. I agree, and in fact,
committed at that hearing to working with you on legislation to
do just that. So it was disappointing that you then proceeded
alone at introducing the bill.
As we move forward, I hope we can truly work together to
improve the educational benefits for our Nation's veterans and
for their families. I thank the Chair.
Chairman Akaka. Senator Tester, for your opening statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you for holding this hearing today. I know you have to
leave early, so I'll try to be brief.
When we discussed the implementation of the New GI Bill
back in April, and I thought it was one of the better hearings
that we have had around here, many of us on this Committee had
some real questions and concerns about the limitation of the
Post-9/11 GI Bill. To its credit, the VA addressed many of
them, and has made some suggestions about how we can address
more issues. I hope that we can expect the process for veterans
and for the VA to be a bit smoother this fall than it was last
year.
The Chairman has introduced a very good bill, which
addresses some of the concerns that I have heard from
Montanans. Most importantly, the Chairman's bill makes eligible
for GI benefits a number of National Guardsmen who had been
inadvertently left out of the original bill. It also creates a
modified housing allowance for folks who are enrolled in online
courses. That's important in a highly-rural State like Montana,
where many folks take their courses online.
The Chairman's bill would add a host of new educational
opportunities to the GI Bill eligibility, including more
vocational opportunities. That's important. And it increases
the processing payments to colleges and universities to help
make sure they have the resources to handle veterans' claims.
Those are all critical elements, and that's why I intend to
cosponsor this bill offered by Chairman Akaka.
I would like to also add that for a great many veterans it
is a college veterans' education representative who is the face
of the GI Bill, not the VA, and it's important to remember
that. The schools are the ones who must help the veteran
navigate through the red tape. The colleges are the ones who
tell the veteran how their claim is proceeding within the VA.
That means that communication between the VA and the schools
must be perfect, nothing less.
From what I understand, it's getting better. We still have
a ways to go, but I do believe that things are getting better,
and I hope that trend continues.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hearing.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Tester.
Senator Brown from Massachusetts?
STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT BROWN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Brown of Massachusetts. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning to the folks who are here to testify.
I'm just eager to start the hearing, Mr. Chairman, so, I'll
defer and get right at it. Thank you.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Brown.
Senator Murray?
STATEMENT OF HON. PATTY MURRAY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for holding
this hearing today on legislation to improve the Post-9/11 GI
Bill.
We all know that education benefits are one of the most
important tools for our military to recruit and retain our
troops. If we're really committed to maintaining our Nation's
ability to recruit and retain the best and the brightest, we
have got to make sure that the education benefits offer real
incentives to our servicemembers and to their families, but we
have also got to make sure that these benefits meet our
commitment to provide a smooth transition between military
service and the civilian world for veterans.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill was a big step forward in meeting
this obligation, and I was delighted to work with many people
on this Committee and in this room in getting it passed, and I
look forward to working with this Committee now to improve it
in the coming months. We know the implementation of this was
far from perfect and this Committee does need to learn from the
missteps as we work to improve the program. We know the bill
was just beginning to address these issues, as many of our vets
coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan find that this bill does
not meet their educational needs.
Veterans have told me, as well, about being unable to use
their GI Bill benefits for apprenticeship programs in
particular that they tell me would help them get better jobs.
I, too, have heard from veterans who were not able to use the
benefits to pay for needed distance learning education
programs. And, of course, we have all heard about the red tape
and delays that faced a lot of our veterans who are trying to
get their new benefits.
So I look forward to working with everyone to improve this
program so all of our veterans can really realize the full
benefits of the Post-9/11 Bill. But when it comes to making
sure that veterans have the ability to make it in the civilian
world and the civilian workplace, education benefits are just
one piece of this larger challenge.
Mr. Chairman, I introduced the Veteran Employment
Assistance Act earlier this year to try and address this
challenge comprehensively. Far too often, our veterans go from
the battlefield to the working world, and they face really
unique challenges. I have talked to a number of veterans in my
State, who are disciplined, who are technically-skilled
workers, yet time and time again, they are facing real
difficulties in getting a job in this market.
In fact, some veterans have told me that they leave off of
their resume the fact that they are a veteran because they
believe there is a stigma for veterans trying to get
employment. National Guard members, too, have told me about
coming home to find out they've been laid off from the job they
had because it does not exist at the company anymore, and a lot
of them have told me that the Pentagon and VA Transition
Programs are not working for them. They tell me that they
struggle to have employers in the civilian world really
understand what skills they have learned in the military and
how to translate them to a resume.
So all of those stories have really convinced me that we
need a broad new legislative approach, and the bill I
introduced includes a series of proposals to create new
employment programs, expand some good existing ones, and assess
how to improve the ones that we have now.
One of my bill's provisions is actually before the
Committee today in the form of Senator Klobuchar's Post-9/11
Veterans' Job Training Act. I worked with Senator Klobuchar to
include the Post-9/11 Veterans' Job Training Act in my package
because I believe it provides a really important benefit to
veterans. What it does is expand the Post-9/11 GI Bill to allow
returning veterans to use their benefits for apprenticeship and
worker training programs, and that will help them get the
skills they need so they can provide a stable job for their
families. I think it's a great commonsense provision that will
benefit our veterans, our employers, and our local communities.
I will be working with all of you in the coming weeks to move
that and move the entire Veteran Employment Assistance Act as a
whole forward in the Senate.
So, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having this
really important hearing. I appreciate it.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much. I would like at this
time to welcome our first panel this morning, representatives
from VA and DOD.
Our first witness is Keith Wilson, the director of VA's
Education Service. With him is John Brizzi, Assistant General
Counsel. Now, from the Department of Defense, we're joined by
Robert Clark, assistant director of Accession Policy.
Before we get started, I also want to extend my sincere
thanks to each of you for the valuable assistance you have
provided to the Committee staff on this important issue. It has
been really helpful to us, and I welcome each of you. But
before I call on you for your testimony, let me ask Senator
Begich for any opening statement that you may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Begich. I'll pass, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson, will you please proceed with your statement?
STATEMENT OF KEITH WILSON, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN BRIZZI,
ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, and good morning Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Burr, and other Members of the Committee. I'm
pleased to appear before you today to provide views on several
bills affecting VA's education programs, most notably S. 3447.
I am accompanied today by Mr. John Brizzi of VA's Office of
General Counsel.
Let me start by congratulating you, Mr. Chairman, and your
staff, as well as many other senators who have worked hard to
put forward legislation to make improvements in education
programs administered by VA. The Department appreciates your
and your staff's consultation throughout the entire process.
Implementation of the historic Post-9/11 GI Bill was and is
a top priority. Since inception of this new historic program,
VA has issued nearly $4 billion in payments to over 295
individuals and their educational institutions. Mr. Chairman,
your bill, S. 3447, would enhance certain provisions of the
Post-9/11 GI Bill, as well as make improvements in other VA
Educational Assistance Programs.
Section 2 contains potential impact on military recruitment
and retention, and VA respectfully defers to DOD as well as the
Coast Guard regarding the merits of those proposed changes.
However, we do note that the amendment would be consistent with
qualifying requirements under the Montgomery GI Bill and the
Reserve Educational Assistance Program. We also note that this
section would generate PAYGO costs, which would require an
appropriate and acceptable offset.
Concerning Section 3, VA supports the streamlining of
tuition and fee benefits for students attending public
institutions and establishing a maximum payment cap for
students attending private institutions. The manner in which
institutions assess charges varies wildly from State to State
and from school to school. VA also does not object to expansion
the program to permit payment of vocational, flight,
correspondence, and apprenticeship or on-the-job training
programs, subject to Congress identifying appropriate and
acceptable PAYGO offsets. However, we believe several technical
corrections to the bill as drafted would be necessary to enable
VA to administer this section properly.
Section 4 of S. 3447 would permit individuals to make more
than one licensing and certification test. VA does not oppose
this proposed amendment subject to identifying PAYGO offsets.
VA respectfully defers to DOD concerning Section 5, since
this section impacts military recruitment and retention.
Section 6 would authorize DOD to permit an individual to
transfer his or her entitlement to benefits under the Post-9/11
GI Bill after an individual is no longer a member of the Armed
Forces. The Administration is still reviewing this section and
we will provide written reviews once VA completes a cost
estimate of the entire bill.
Section 7 of the bill would prevent individuals eligible
for National Call to Service Incentives and the Post-9/11 GI
Bill from receiving payments concurrently. VA supports this
provision. VA has also identified other areas of potential
duplication of benefits, and would be pleased to work with the
Committee to include language that would ensure against
duplication of benefits.
Section 8 of the bill would provide VA not approved, non-
accredited courses of education pursued in whole or in part by
distance learning. This change would be similar to the existing
rule for courses of education pursued by independent study. VA
currently does not approve non-accredited distance learning
programs of education. Nonetheless, we would not object to this
amendment.
VA does not object to the proposed increase in the
reporting fee contained in Section 9 subject to identifying
appropriate offsets. In addition, however, VA believes this
section should be further amended to include language requiring
educational institutions to use the reporting fee to support
veterans' programs and VA certifying official activities.
Section 11 of the bill would remove VA's authority to make
interval payments, payments between breaks, terms, quarters, et
cetera. VA does not support this amendment because the interval
payments are paid to the individuals to help with their living
expenses during breaks between enrollment periods. Currently, a
student is not eligible for interval pay if the break is more
than 8 weeks long.
We note that the amendment proposed in S. 3447 would be
effective the date of enactment. VA is working aggressively on
a new payment system to support existing Post-9/11 GI Bill
provisions.
Since we have concerns about changes to the eligibility
criteria impacting our current efforts, as well as our ability
to implement the provisions on the effective date of enactment,
we strongly recommend the amendments made by this bill take
effect no earlier than August 1, 2011.
Mr. Chairman, we will provide the Committee with our
estimates in the entire bill for the record. In the interest of
time, I will defer oral comments on S. 1785, 2769, 3082, 3171,
and 3389, and respectfully refer the Committee to my written
testimony.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I'd be happy to
answer your questions or any questions of the Committee. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Keith M. Wilson, Director, Education Service,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Burr, and other Members
of the Committee. I am pleased to be here today to provide the
Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) views on several bills that would
affect educational assistance benefits for Veterans, Servicemembers,
and their dependents--most notably, S. 3447. I am accompanied today by
Mr. John Brizzi of VA's Office of the General Counsel.
Let me start by congratulating you, Mr. Chairman, and your staff,
as well as the many other Senators who have worked to put forward
legislation to make improvements to the educational programs VA
administers on behalf of our Nation's Veterans. The Department
appreciates your staff's consultation throughout the entire process.
Implementation of the historic Post-9/11 GI Bill was, and is, a top
priority for President Obama, Secretary Shinseki, and the entire
Department. Secretary Shinseki is committed to making sure that all
eligible student Veterans who are interested receive the education
benefits they earned in defense of our Nation. Since inception of this
historic new program, VA has issued nearly $4.0 billion in Post-9/11 GI
Bill benefit payments to over 295,000 individuals and their educational
institutions.
s. 3447
Mr. Chairman, your bill--S. 3447, the ``Post-9/11 Veterans
Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010''--would enhance
certain provisions of the Post-9/11 GI Bill (chapter 33 of title 38,
United States Code), as well as make improvements in other VA
educational assistance programs.
Under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, individuals with qualifying periods of
active duty of 36 months or more are eligible for payment of tuition
and fees up to the highest in-state public school tuition for an
undergraduate degree, monthly housing allowances, and books and
supplies stipends. Individuals with less than 36 months of service are
eligible, in general, for the same benefits. However, their benefits
are proportionately lower (ranging from 90 percent to 40 percent) based
on their length of service. In addition, as a retention incentive, the
Department of Defense (DOD) may permit a member of the Armed Forces to
transfer all or a portion of his or her Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to a
spouse and/or children. S. 3447 would amend the Post-9/11 GI Bill by
expanding eligibility for certain individuals and by modifying the
amount of assistance and types of approved programs.
Section 2 of the bill would amend the eligibility criteria under
chapter 33 by modifying the definitions of qualified active service
performed by members of the Guard and Reserve. The changes would: (1)
clarify that Active Guard Reserve (AGR) members serving under title 10,
United States Code, ``for the purposes of organizing, administering,
recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve components of the
Armed Forces,'' are covered, and provide that all other active service
under title 10 must be in support of a contingency operation (as
defined in 10 U.S.C. Sec. 101(a)); (2) extend coverage to include full-
time National Guard service under title 32, United States Code, for the
purposes of organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or
training the reserve components of the Armed Forces; and (3) extend
coverage to National Guard members serving under section 502(f) of
title 32 when ordered to active service by the President or the
Secretary of Defense for the purpose of responding to a national
emergency declared by the President and supported by Federal funds.
This section also would clarify that an honorable discharge would
be required to establish eligibility under the Post-9/11 GI Bill in the
case of an individual who is released from active duty in the Armed
Forces: (1) due to a medical condition that preexisted service and that
is not service-connected; (2) for hardship; or (3) for a physical or
mental condition that was not characterized as a disability and did not
result from an individual's own willful misconduct, but did interfere
with the individual's performance of duty, as determined by the
Secretary concerned in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense.
Finally, section 2 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3311(d)(2) to exclude
attendance at the Coast Guard Academy as qualifying service under the
Post-9/11 GI Bill and expand the definition of entry-level and skill
training for the Army to include ``One Station Unit Training.''
Because of their potential impact on military recruitment and
retention, VA respectfully defers to DOD and the Coast Guard regarding
the merits of the proposed changes to qualifying active-service
requirements. However, we note that this section will generate PAYGO
costs, which would require an appropriate and acceptable offset.
We note that the amendments regarding qualifying title 10 service
and extending coverage to Guard members under title 32, United States
Code, would be consistent with qualifying active service under the
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) and the Reserve Educational Assistance
Program (REAP). In addition, the proposed amendment clarifying that
certain service must result in an honorable discharge, described above,
is similar to the honorable discharge requirements applicable to other
covered individuals. Last, the amendment excluding, as qualified active
service, attendance at the Coast Guard Academy is also similar to
existing provisions that exclude attendance at the other military
service academies.
Section 3 would modify the amount of educational assistance payable
in the following areas: With regard to tuition and fee payments (which
would still be subject to the 40-100 percent payment tiers in 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 3313(c)), for those enrolled in a public institution of higher
learning, VA would pay tuition-and-fee benefits based on the charges
reported. This would include students enrolled in graduate programs and
students charged out-of-state tuition rates. For those enrolled in a
private or foreign institution of higher learning, VA would base
payment on the lesser of the charged tuition and fees or a maximum
tuition-and-fee cap. The maximum cap would be computed based on figures
obtained from the Department of Education's National Center for
Education Statistics. The figure used would be the average of
established charges at all institutions (public and private) in the
U.S. for a baccalaureate degree for the most recent academic year.
With regard to housing stipends (which would still be subject to
40-100% payment tiers in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3313(c)), for individuals
enrolled in institutions of higher learning in resident programs, the
monthly housing stipend would be prorated based on training time. For
example, a student training at the three-quarter-time rate would
receive three fourths of the monthly housing stipend rather than the
full monthly housing stipend. Students enrolled at foreign institutions
would be subjected to the same rule. However, if the housing allowance
based on training time is greater than the national average basic
housing allowance, VA would pay the lesser amount. For students
enrolled in a distance learning program at more than the half-time
rate, VA would pay 50 percent of the housing allowance otherwise
payable.
Section 3 would also expand benefits to include payment for
enrollment in programs offered by vocational schools, correspondence
school-training establishments, on-the-job training and
apprenticeships, and flight schools. For those individuals pursuing
programs offered by vocational schools, VA would pay the lesser of the
established charges or a maximum fee cap. That cap would be computed
based on figures from the Department of Education's National Center for
Education Statistics. The figure used would be the average of
established charges at all institutions (public and private) in the
U.S. for a baccalaureate degree for the most recent academic year. In
addition, VA would pay a monthly housing allowance based on the
military's basic allowance for housing (BAH) of an E-5 with dependents
based on the Zip Code of the institution.
For those individuals pursuing a program of apprenticeship/on-the-
job training, trainees would receive two monthly stipend payments. One
would be based on the military's basic allowance for housing (BAH) for
an E-5 with dependents. VA would pay the lesser of the BAH rate for the
Zip Code of the employer or the national average of BAH rates. The
other payment would be based on one twelfth of the average established
charges for tuition and fees at all institutions (public and private)
in the U.S. for a baccalaureate degree for the most recent academic
year. The figure would be obtained from the National Center for
Education Statistics. Both payments would decrease over the length of
program. During the first six months of training, the trainee would
receive 75 percent of the monthly stipends. During the second six
months, the trainee would receive 55 percent of the monthly stipends.
For the duration of the program, the trainee would receive 35 percent
of the monthly stipends.
An individual pursuing a course of flight training would receive
assistance in an amount equal to the lesser of the established charges
for the program or 60 percent of the average established charges for
tuition and fees at all institutions (public and private) in the U.S.
for a baccalaureate degree for the most recent academic year. The
figure would be obtained from the National Center for Education
Statistics.
An individual pursuing a program of education through
correspondence courses would receive educational assistance in an
amount equal to the lesser of the established charges for the program
or 55 percent of the average established charges for tuition and fees
at all institutions (public and private) in the U.S. for a
baccalaureate degree for the most recent academic year. The figure
would be obtained from the National Center for Education Statistics. VA
would charge one month of entitlement for each month of assistance
provided.
Finally, section 3 would provide for lump-sum payments for books
and supplies to Servicemembers using VA education benefits while on
active duty and to spouses using transferred benefits while the
servicemember is on active duty. The total amount payable in an
academic year would be $1,000.
VA supports streamlining the tuition-and-fee benefits for students
attending public institutions and establishing a maximum payment cap
for students attending private institutions. The manner in which
institutions assess charges varies widely from state to state and from
school to school. VA also does not object to expansion of the program
to permit payment for vocational, flight, correspondence, and
apprenticeship or on-the-job training programs, subject to Congress
identifying appropriate and acceptable offsetting PAYGO cost savings.
However, we believe several technical corrections to the bill as
drafted would be necessary to enable VA to administer this section
properly. For example, it would be beneficial to streamline the two
monthly stipends payable to an individual pursuing a program of on-the-
job training or apprenticeship into a single monthly benefit. In
addition, as drafted, the assistance proposed in section 3 for certain
types of courses at other than institutions of higher learning would
not be subject to the 40-100 percent tier levels that reflect the
length of an individual's qualifying active-duty service. As a result,
individuals pursuing programs of education under the new provisions
apparently would receive higher housing and tuition benefits than
students attending degree-granting institutions. We would be pleased to
work with the Committee to address identified areas of concern.
Section 4 of S. 3447 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3315 to permit
individuals to take more than one licensure or certification test.
Currently, individuals are eligible to receive a reimbursement of up to
$2,000 for a single licensure or certification test, with no charge
being made to their Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement. As part of the
amendment to section 3315, an individual's entitlement would be charged
based on each reimbursement made. VA would base the entitlement charge
on a dollar amount provided by the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) that represents the average established charges for
tuition and fees at all institutions (public and private) in the U.S,
for a baccalaureate degree for the most recent academic year. VA would
charge one month of entitlement for each reimbursement equal to one
twelfth of the annual NCES figure. VA does not oppose this proposed
amendment, subject to the identification of appropriate and acceptable
PAYGO offsets for any resulting additional costs.
Section 5 of the bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3316 to provide
that individuals eligible to receive supplemental education assistance
(i.e., ``reenlistment kickers'') under the Montgomery GI Bill--Active
Duty (MGIB-AD) or the Montgomery GI Bill--Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR),
would remain eligible for such assistance if the individual elected to
receive the Post-9/11 GI Bill instead of the MGIB. The supplemental
assistance would be paid as an increase to the monthly housing
allowance, and based on the individual's benefit level. Thus, only
individuals eligible for a monthly housing stipend would be eligible to
receive such supplemental assistance. The Department of Defense would
reimburse VA for any supplemental assistance paid. VA defers to DOD as
to the merits of this section.
Section 6 would authorize DOD to permit an individual to transfer
his or her entitlement to benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill after
the individual is no longer a member of the Armed Forces. Under current
law, DOD must approve such a transfer while the individual is still a
member of the Armed Forces. This section would also extend the
transfer-of-entitlement option to members of the Public Health Service
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In addition,
this amendment would require the Secretaries of Defense, Health and
Human Services, and Commerce to reimburse VA for the amounts VA pays
family members. Currently, VA is not reimbursed for payments made to
family members utilizing transferred benefits. The Administration is
still reviewing this section, and we will provide written views once VA
completes a cost estimate for the entire bill.
Section 7 of the bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3322(a) to prevent
individuals eligible for National Call to Service (NCS) incentives and
the Post-9/11 GI Bill from receiving payments concurrently. VA supports
this provision. However, we have identified other areas of potential
duplication of benefits, and would be pleased to work with the
Committee to include language that would ensure against duplication of
benefits.
Section 8 of the bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3676(e) to provide
that VA may not approve non-accredited courses of education pursued in
whole or in part by distance learning. This change would be similar to
the existing rule for courses of education pursued by independent
study. This change is not necessary because current definitions of
resident training and independent study in VA regulations encompass
distance learning. As a result, VA currently does not approve non-
accredited distance learning programs of education. Nonetheless, we
would not object to this amendment.
Section 9 of S. 3447 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3684(c), which
provides that VA may pay an annual reporting fee to any educational
institution that furnishes education or training and submits reports or
certifications to VA. Under current law, the reporting fee is computed
each calendar year by multiplying $7 by the number of individuals
enrolled in VA education and Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
programs. In addition, the law also provides for the payment of $11 for
each individual whose educational assistance checks are sent to a
school for temporary custody and delivery at the time of registration.
These amounts have not been increased since October 1, 1977. Section 9
proposes to increase the respective amounts for such payments from $7
to $12, and from $11 to $15.
VA does not object to the proposed increase in the reporting fees,
subject to Congress identifying appropriate offsets. In addition,
however, VA believes that section 3684(c) should be further amended to
include language requiring educational institutions to use the
reporting fees to support Veteran programs and VA certifying-official
activities.
Section 10 of the bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3108(b) to
authorize Veterans pursuing a vocational rehabilitation program under
Chapter 31 to elect payment of an amount equal to the national average
of the monthly amount of basic allowance for housing payable under
section 403 of title 37 for a member with dependents in pay grade E-5
in lieu of the subsistence allowance payable under Chapter 31. We will
provide written views for the record regarding this section.
Section 11 of the bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3680(a) to remove
VA's authority to make interval payments (payment between breaks in
terms, quarters, or semesters). This amendment would apply to the Post-
9/11 GI Bill, the Montgomery GI Bill, the Reserve Educational
Assistance Program, the Survivors' and Dependents' Educational
Assistance Program, and the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
program. However, an exception would exist to make interval payments
between consecutive terms when a student changes schools and the break
does not exceed 30 days. VA does not support this amendment because the
interval payments are paid to the individuals to help with their living
expenses during breaks between enrollment periods. Currently, a student
is not eligible for interval pay if the break is more than 8 weeks.
Discontinuing interval payment would mean a student would have to seek
employment during the break between fall and spring semester; thus, we
do not support this section as drafted. VA would be pleased to work
with the Committee to identify changes to interval payment that would
not result in a hardship to students.
We note that the amendments proposed in S. 3447 would be effective
on the date of enactment of the Act. VA is working aggressively on a
new payment system to support the existing Post-9/11 GI Bill
provisions. Since we have concerns about changes to the eligibility
criteria impacting our current efforts as well as our ability to
implement the provisions effective the date of enactment, we strongly
recommend the amendments made by this bill take effect no earlier than
August 1, 2011.
Mr. Chairman, we will provide the Committee with our estimate of
the cost of enactment of S. 3447 for the record.
s. 1785
S. 1785 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3675(a) to mandate State
approving agency (SAA) approval of courses of education that have been
accredited and approved by a nationally-recognized accrediting agency
or association if the courses also meet other criteria specified in
section 3675(b), including maintenance of certain records, and certain
other criteria specified in 38 U.S.C. 3676(c). We believe the
amendments proposed in S. 1785 would have no practical impact on SAA
approval activities; thus, we do not support its enactment. SAAs
currently approve accredited courses if they meet all of the criteria
set forth in section 3675. SAAs rarely disapprove accredited courses;
however, if an accredited course were to be disapproved, the most
likely reason would be a failure to meet the requirements of section
3675(b), which already apply to all approvals under section 3675. As
such, we believe enactment of this bill would not result in any
additional cost.
s. 2769
S. 2769, the ``Veterans' Job Training Act of 2009,'' would provide
for payment of a monthly benefit to individuals pursuing full-time
programs of apprenticeship and on-the-job training (OJT) under the
Post-9/11 GI Bill using a graduated structure similar to that under
other VA educational assistance programs, including the Montgomery GI
Bill--Active Duty (MGIB-AD) and Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) programs,
and the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Educational Assistance program. The
measure also would amend current law to include apprenticeship or other
OJT training programs as approved programs of education for purposes of
the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Pursuant to S. 2769, for each of the first 6 months of an
individual's pursuit of an apprenticeship or other OJT program, the
individual would be paid 75 percent of the ``monthly benefit payment
otherwise payable to such individual'' under chapter 33. For the second
6 months of such pursuit, the individual would be paid 55 percent of
such amount, and for each of the months following, the individual would
be paid 35 percent of such amount. In addition, this bill would
authorize payment to such individuals of a monthly housing stipend
equal to the monthly amount of the basic allowance for housing payable
for a servicemember 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 the individual resides. We note that, unlike
the monthly housing stipend authorized under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3313, this
section contains no provision requiring payment of reduced amounts of
such monthly stipend in cases where individuals' aggregated active-duty
service is less than 36 months in duration. For each month an
individual receives a benefit under this bill, VA would charge the
individual's entitlement at a rate that reflects the applicable
percentage (i.e., 75, 55, or 35 percent, as appropriate).
The amendments made by S. 2769 would take effect as if included in
the enactment of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of
2008 (Title V, Public Law 110-252). That is, the effective date would
be August 1, 2009. While VA supports the intent to improve Post-9/11 GI
Bill benefits, VA cannot support enactment of this bill as drafted.
The bill would provide a monthly assistance benefit plus a monthly
housing stipend amount to trainees. This would be in addition to any
wages a trainee may receive. Further, as noted, S. 2769 provides that
the monthly benefit would be equal to a percentage ``of the monthly
benefit payment otherwise payable'' to an individual under chapter 33.
However, unlike the MGIB-AD, which provides for monthly payments of
educational assistance, no ``monthly'' benefits other than housing
stipends are payable to a student or trainee under the Post-9/11 GI
Bill. VA's payment of educational assistance under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3313
(for actual charges of an individual's tuition and fees) is made
directly to the institution of higher learning on a lump-sum basis for
the entire quarter, semester, or term. Thus, it is unclear to what
monthly benefit the provision refers in order to determine the amount
of any payment to an individual.
If enacted, this bill would take effect as if it had been included
in Public Law 110-252, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance
Act of 2008. VA would have to manually re-work all apprenticeship and
OJT cases for individuals wishing to elect to receive assistance under
the Post-9/11 GI Bill for training that occurred on or after August 1,
2009. VA is currently programming a new payment system to implement the
provisions of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Adding new payment provisions
before full deployment of the payment system would severely hamper
deployment efforts. In addition, it would impact service delivery by
adding additional rules while VA is manually processing claims
augmented by limited automated tools. We recommend postponing
significant changes to the Post-9/11 GI Bill until August 2011 so that
enhancements to the program do not have a negative impact on service
delivery. This will also allow VA to complete the long-term payment
system developed to support the Post-9/11 GI Bill program.
We estimate that the enactment of S. 2769 would result in a
benefits cost of $154.5 million during the first year, $806.6 million
over 5 years, and $1.7 billion over 10 years.
s. 3082
S. 3082 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3485(a)(4) to authorize
individuals who are pursuing programs of rehabilitation, education, or
training under chapters 30, 31, 32, 33, or 34 of title 38, United
States Code, or chapters 1606 or 1607 of title 10, United States Code,
to receive work-study allowances for certain activities conducted at
the offices of Members of Congress. These work-study participants would
distribute information concerning VA benefits and services, as well as
other appropriate governmental and non-governmental programs, to
members of the Armed Forces, Veterans, and their dependents. In
addition, the work-study participants would prepare and process papers
and other documents, including documents to assist in the preparation
and presentation of claims for VA benefits.
VA has no objection to the enactment of S. 3082, subject to the
identification of appropriate and acceptable PAYGO offsets for the
resulting additional costs. We have no objection to work-study
participants participating in and promoting the outreach activities and
services contemplated by the bill. We also have no objection to work-
study participants assisting in the preparation and processing of
papers
and other documents, ``including documents to assist in the preparation
and presentation of claims for VA benefits'' (emphasis added) under
proposed new section 3485(a)(4)(G)(ii). We note that work-study
participants would be subject to the 38 U.S.C. chapter 59 limitations
on representing claimants for VA benefits.
We estimate that the enactment of S. 3082 would result in a
benefits cost of at least $727,000 during the first year, $3.6 million
over a 5-year period, and $7.3 million over 10 years.
s. 3171
S. 3171, the ``Veterans Training Act,'' would amend the Post-9/11
GI Bill definition of an approved program of education to include those
offered by an institution, which has: (1) postsecondary instruction
that leads to an associate or higher degree and the institution is an
approved institution of higher learning; or (2) instruction that does
not lead to an associate or higher degree and the institution is an
approved educational institution.
VA supports the intent to improve the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.
However, because the provisions in this bill would unduly complicate
the current Post-9/11 GI Bill program, we are unable to support it.
S. 3171 does not provide specific payment rules for non-degree
granting educational institutions. Under current law, the amount
payable under the Post-9/11 GI Bill is limited to an amount equal to
the maximum charges for an in-state public undergraduate program. To
accommodate various fees and the differences between states, VA
established a maximum credit-hour charge for tuition and maximum fee
charges per term. This ensured that VA made payments in accordance with
the intent of the initial legislation, so an individual eligible for
the 100 percent payment at a public undergraduate institution would not
have to pay tuition and fees.
Most non-degree programs are offered based on clock-hour
measurement with tuition charged for the entire program. However, most
degree-granting institutions charge tuition based on enrollment for the
term, quarter, or semester. For example, a Veteran enrolled in a
specialized computer-training program lasting six months could be
charged $10,000 for the program. The bill does not indicate how VA
should determine the maximum amount payable for such a program.
Current law provides that individuals who transfer from other VA
educational assistance programs to the Post-9/11 GI Bill may be paid
for courses offered by non-degree-granting institutions. However, the
payment of assistance thereunder is limited to the monthly educational
assistance allowance the individual would have received if he or she
remained under the program from which he or she transferred. Thus, this
new legislation would create a payment discrepancy between those who
were eligible to elect the Post-9/11 GI Bill over a different
educational assistance program versus those individuals who are only
eligible for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.
VA is aggressively working on a new payment system to support the
existing Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. Adding new payment provisions
before full deployment of the payment system would severely delay
deployment. As stated earlier, VA respectfully recommends making any
significant changes to the Post-9/11 GI Bill effective after August 1,
2011, so that enhancements to the program do not have a negative impact
on service delivery.
As always, subject to Congress identifying appropriate and
acceptable offsetting PAYGO cost savings, we would be pleased to work
with the Committee to improve the Post-9/11 GI Bill while eliminating
existing payment complexities after deployment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill
payment system.
We estimate that enactment of S. 3171 would result in a benefits
cost of $169.2 million in the first year, $863.0 million over 5 years,
and $1.8 billion over 10 years.
s. 3389
S. 3389 would amend section 3695 of title 38, which currently
limits individuals to 48 months of entitlement under two or more
education benefit programs. This measure would exclude individuals who
have served at least four years on active duty in the Armed Forces from
the current 48-month limitation if they are eligible to receive either
the Post-9/11 GI Bill or Montgomery GI Bill--Active Duty, and the
Montgomery GI Bill--Selected Reserve or Reserve Educational Assistance
Program (REAP) benefits. Individuals eligible for two or more of these
programs would be able to receive up to 72 months of education benefits
combined. This amendment would apply retroactively and be effective
upon the date of enactment.
VA does not support enactment of this legislation because it would
allow individuals to use the same period of active-duty service to
qualify for and use two education benefit programs. For example, an
individual could use active-duty service performed from October 1,
2001, to October 1, 2005, to qualify for REAP and the Post-9/11 GI
Bill, thus earning up to 72 months of entitlement for the same period
of service.
Mr. Chairman, we will provide the Committee with our estimate of
the cost of enactment of S. 3389 for the record.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you or the other Members of the Committee may
have.
______
Response to Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel A. Akaka to
Keith Wilson, Director, Education Service, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs
Question 1. There has been some discussion about making VA the
payer of last resort. Could you explain this in a bit more detail?
Response. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) became one of
various programs that provide funds designated to cover, in whole or
part, a Veteran's tuition and fees. Other programs providing funding
include: Department of Defense (DOD) Reserve Officer Training Corps
(ROTC) scholarships, DOD Health Professionals Scholarships, Merit
Scholarships, employer paid tuition, and State tuition reductions
provided for State National Guard members.
Often the money from the other programs is credited to a student's
account before VA receives an enrollment certification from the school.
Currently, schools submit their enrollment certifications and report
the established charges for the program. Thus, when the school receives
VA payment, an overage exists. Some schools have been returning
overages to VA, some have been refunding money to the student, and
others have requested that VA determine which money should be applied
first.
Asking the schools to report only the charges the student was
required to pay with his or her own funds is a way to eliminate
duplication of benefits, provide clear rules for students and schools,
and streamline the process. Establishing VA as the payer of last resort
will allow schools to report only charges that are not covered by other
programs (other than title IV programs) and would otherwise be paid by
students' individual funds. The Department is committed with working
with Department of Education to ensure that change in this law does not
impact Title IV awards or create inefficiencies between two programs.
Question 2. If VA were to only make payment to institutions after
all other educational assistance were paid, how would you handle small
scholarships and awards that individuals might receive--for example, a
$150 grant from a local church or a $500 scholarship from the local
V.F.W. post?
Response. A legislative change would be required for VA to consider
all tuition-and-fees-based assistance received by the school when
determining payment under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. However, if a change
were implemented and a third-party (e.g., local church, V.F.W. Post)
provided funds directly to the school on behalf of a student, then the
school would be required to exclude such funds when reporting to VA the
total charges that the veteran-student owed. This would only apply when
the other funds were designated as solely applicable to tuition and fee
charges. Some scholarship funds may be used for other education
expenses. VA does not want to disadvantage a Veteran from receiving aid
for purposes other than tuition and fee charges. VA is solely
interested in elimination of duplication of tuition and fee payments
such as DOD-paid tuition.
VA does not currently receive or request information regarding
scholarships, grants or other funds paid directly to the student for
educational expenses. As such, VA has no way of knowing whether any
funds paid to the school by the student were received from personal
sources or from an organization.
Question 3. Moving forward, what do you see as the role of State
Approving Agencies?
Response. VA would utilize State Approving Agencies (SAA) to
perform compliance and oversight visits, increase outreach, and approve
on-the-job training programs and non-accredited courses. To do so,
legislation is necessary to permit the Secretary to accept courses
offered by public institutions, accredited institutions, flight courses
offered by schools holding a Federal Aviation Administration Pilot
School Certificate, and Department of Labor Registered Apprenticeship
programs as approved. Currently, the statute provides that SAA must
approve these programs. VA recently submitted a legislative proposal
that would provide the Secretary this authority. The proposal also
meets with Government Accountability Office and Congressional
recommendations that VA eliminate SAA approval of programs that are
approved by other entities.
______
Response to Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Burr to
Keith Wilson, Director, Education Service, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs
Question 1. In May, VA issued a General Counsel Precedent Opinion
that addressed this question: ``If a VA payment is received by a school
after all or a portion of the tuition and fees have been paid by
another entity, should the school refund the excess to the student?''
The General Counsel's answer to that question indicated, in part, that
schools could ``reapply the assistance to the educational expenses of
other students.''
Question 1A. To clarify, does that mean, if VA pays a school for
tuition or fees on behalf of a Veteran, the school could in some
circumstances use those funds to pay the expenses of a non-Veteran?
Response. No, schools may not use VA funds for non-VA students.
General Counsel (GC) stated this in its opinion. When referring to
``reapplying the assistance to the educational expenses of other
students,'' GC was referring to the ``other'' educational assistance
that had been applied to the Veteran's account.
For example, if the tuition and fees incurred by the Veteran at a
private institution totaled $10,000 and the Veteran received a $10,000
merit scholarship, then the Veteran's tuition and fees would be paid in
full. However, if the Veteran was also eligible for the Post-9/11 GI
Bill and VA paid $8,000 toward the Veteran's tuition and fees (maximum
in-state tuition and fees payable for that state), the school could
apply the full $8,000 VA paid toward the Veteran's account and reduce
the Veteran's merit scholarship from $10,000 to $2,000. In this
instance, the school could reassign $8,000 of the merit scholarship
funds (no longer being utilized by the Veteran) to another student.
Question 1B. If so, what legislative or administrative changes
would be needed to avoid that situation?
Response. If Congress would like to clarify that VA funds are to be
used only for reducing the tuition and fee charges of the individual
for whom VA submitted the payment, Congress could amend section 3313(g)
to so state.
Question 2. One of the witnesses on the second panel mentioned in
her written testimony that educational institutions have tried
unsuccessfully to initiate an on-going dialog between schools and VA.
Question 2A. How frequently do personnel from the Education Service
meet with schools?
Response. VA meets frequently with school officials. VA officials
attended more than 100 training and informational conferences since the
enactment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill to provide training, disseminate
information, and answer questions from participants. We also conducted
webinar training sessions and continue to participate in schools'
national, regional, and local conferences.
VA also has employees who are responsible for maintaining direct
contact with participating schools. VA's education liaison
representatives (ELRs) are the primary points of contact for school
officials. ELRs have a wide range of responsibilities in support of
education benefits programs and work closely with school officials to
inform them of changes in VA policies and procedures.
SAAs also assist in outreach and dialog efforts between VA and
schools. Under statute, VA contracts with each state to approve
programs of education and support outreach. The SAAs provide
information to schools, students, and employers.
Question 2B. In the future, will these types of meetings be held on
a regular basis?
Response. VA will continue the dialog with schools through its ELRs
and conduct outreach efforts to ensure Veterans and school officials
are informed about the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Question 3. The written testimony from Veterans of Foreign Wars
included this information: ``Interval payments come at a cost to the
Veteran, requiring the Veteran to consume GI Bill monthly eligibility
over Christmas break or over summer vacation without providing the
maximum [of] 36 months of benefit[s] available.''
Question 3A. In order to ensure that the record on this issue is
complete, please explain the circumstances under which VA now provides
interval pay and how entitlement is charged for interval pay.
Response. Interval payments are educational assistance benefits
paid during the break (also called interval) between terms at a school
or between terms when transferring from one school to another while the
student is in the same program. Generally, VA will automatically pay
benefits over qualifying breaks that do not exceed eight weeks.
Individuals on active duty and training less than half time are not
eligible for interval payments.
The entitlement of an individual to educational assistance is
charged for the interval period at the rate of one day of entitlement
for each day of full-time pursuit. For the purpose of calculating
entitlement, each month consists of 30 days.
For example, an individual is pursuing training full-time for the
fall semester and is entitled to a $1,200 monthly housing allowance. If
the fall semester ends on December 13, and the individual is not
entitled to (or requested not to receive) interval pay, he or she will
receive a monthly housing allowance payment in the amount of $520 and
be charged 13 days of entitlement. However, if the individual is
entitled to interval pay between the fall and spring terms, then he or
she would receive the full $1,200 monthly housing allowance for the
month of December and be charged a month on entitlement.
Historically, Veterans and eligible dependents have received
payment for breaks between their enrollment periods to help with their
living expenses.
Question 3B. What steps, if any, does VA take to inform Veterans
about the pros or cons of accepting interval pay and their ability to
decline to receive it?
Response. VA provides information on interval payment in the
Frequently Asked Questions section on the GI Bill Web site. This
includes information regarding when intervals are payable, what an
individual must do to receive interval pay, and when VA does not
provide payment for intervals. While an individual can specifically
request not to receive interval pay, he or she must make this request
before VA authorizes payment for the interval. 38 CFR 21.4138(f)(2)(1)
states that VA will make no payment for an interval described in
paragraph (f)(2) of this section if:
(i) The student is training at less than the half-time rate on the
last date of his or her training during the term, quarter, semester or
summer term preceding the interval;
(ii) The student is on active duty;
(iii) The student requests, prior to authorization of an award or
prior to negotiating the check, that no benefits be paid for the
interval period;
(iv) The student will exhaust his or her entitlement by receipt of
such payment, and it is to the advantage of the individual not to
receive payment; or
(v) The interval occurs between school years at a school which is
not organized on a term, quarter or semester basis.
VA also provides technical information on interval payment to
school certifying officials during school conferences throughout the
year. School officials and Veterans can contact the Education Call
Center staff for guidance regarding interval payment.
Question 4. I heard from a constituent who was concerned that he
lost out on benefits when he switched into the Post-9/11 GI Bill with a
month or so of benefits remaining under the Montgomery GI Bill. What
steps does VA take to inform Veterans that, under current law, they
might receive less total benefits if they switch into the Post-9/11 GI
Bill before exhausting their old benefits?
Response. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is structured differently than
other VA education benefit programs, and can cause confusion when
individuals are trying to compare payment types and amounts,
eligibility criteria, and other factors to determine which benefits
program would be most advantageous. Since each individual's situation
is different, VA provides a ``Road Map to Success'' tool and a side-by-
side comparison of benefits under each program on the GI Bill Web site.
In addition, a benefits calculator and extensive benefits information
are available on the Web site. This information provides a step-by-step
guide through the benefit selection and application process, and helps
a student determine which of the programs provide the greatest benefit
in an individual situation.
VA is aware of a few Veterans who elected the Post-9/11 GI Bill and
subsequently learned they would be limited to the number of months of
entitlement remaining under their relinquished education program. The
public law enacting the Post-9/11 GI Bill limits the entitlement of
those individuals electing to transfer from the Montgomery GI Bill.
Such individuals may receive only the number of months of Montgomery GI
Bill entitlement they have remaining at the point they elect benefits.
In some instances, individuals may realize it would be better to
utilize all their Montgomery GI Bill before electing the Post-9/11 GI
Bill. However, even though information was available to help them make
that decision, some may not have considered that information when
electing to transfer before their Montgomery GI Bill was exhausted.
While the information is available on our Web site, in fact sheets,
and at schools, the complexity and variances between the multiple
programs may cause some students to make a decision to elect a new
benefit assuming it was a better benefit without fully reviewing the
available materials.
______
Response to Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to
Keith Wilson, Director, Education Service, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs
Question 1. Mr. Wilson, A Veteran in Alaska told me he does not
want to go to college, he wants to start his own business, have you
explored giving funds to start businesses for the vets that do not want
to go to college, but believe they deserve to have some access to the
Post-9/11 GI Bill?
Response. On June 10, 2010, VA testified before the House Committee
on Veterans' Affairs on pending legislation that included the Veterans
Entrepreneurial Transition Business Benefit Act (H.R. 114). This
legislation proposes to allow a Veteran, eligible under chapter 30 to
elect to use any of his/her financial educational assistance to
establish, own, and operate a business as their primary source of
income. Currently, there are no provisions under any Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) education benefit program for payment of benefits
for individuals to establish, own, and operate a business. While VA
strongly supports assisting in, and advocating for, Veterans'
opportunities in the areas of small business and self-employment, VA
does not support such legislation. VA believes GI Bill education
benefits should be preserved and the program administered as currently
established.
Question 2. Mr. Wilson: do you have numbers of schools that have
been taken off the list of VA approved schools for not providing the
education the vets paid for or for any other reason, would like these
numbers for the last 10 years. Do you have numbers of the default
rates? What are they?
Response. VA identified 376 schools that have been removed from the
approved list of VA schools during the last 10 years for various
reasons, including school closure. However, we have not identified any
schools that were removed for not providing an adequate educational
product. VA does not maintain data regarding default rates.
Question 3. Is there a reason that the VA and USDOE do not
coordinate the accreditation process for loans?
Response. VA does not administer or approve any loan programs.
Generally we accept any program recognized as accredited by the
Secretary of Education.
Question 4. For VA: I would like data on Muskogee service center:
in the last 6 months how many disconnects, wait time?
Response. The National Call Center answered 1,480,499 calls from
February 2010 through July 2010. During this period, VA had 218,235
abandoned calls (disconnected calls); which was 14.7 percent of all
calls received during this period. The average wait time was 3 minutes
and 37 seconds.
______
Response to Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by Hon. Roland W. Burris
to Keith Wilson, Director, Education Service, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs
Question 1. Can you tell me the status of the $3,000 advance
payment checks that went out to Veterans and Servicemembers in
October 2009, to those who had not yet received their VA benefits for
the fall enrollment period?
Question 1A. How much of the money have you recouped?
Response. As of August 16, collections total approximately $170
million with a remaining balance of $182 million to collect. The full
amount has been collected for 35,187 Veterans and Servicemembers, and
the remaining 85,957 Veterans and Servicemembers have an outstanding
balance.
VA expects a surge of collections in August and September when
students return to school. Recipients who do not return to school must
make other arrangements with VA's Debt Management Center to repay the
balance on their advance. Any recipients who do not make repayment
arrangements or from whom we have not collected any amount have been or
will be referred to the Department of Treasury for offset of any
Federal payments and collection action by private contractors.
Question 1B. How do we ensure that we don't have to do second round
of emergency payments going into the next school year, is it an
internal VA policy that needs to be made or can we fix it
legislatively?
Response. The decision to issue emergency payments for the fall
2009 term was an internal VA policy decision. Emergency advance
payments were not needed for the spring and summer 2010 terms, and we
do not anticipate needing emergency advance payments for the 2010/2011
school year that begins this month.
We encouraged schools to submit enrollment certifications earlier
this year, asking them to submit the certifications even if their fall
tuition and fees schedule had not been finalized. Doing so allows VA to
timely process students' housing allowance and books and supplies
stipend. The school may subsequently submit certification of the
tuition and fees to receive payment. In addition, many students are
returning students that VA previously determined eligible for the Post-
9/11 GI Bill program, making the award and payment process much
simpler.
Question 2. The implementation process of the Post-9/11 GI Bill has
not been a smooth journey; but we are starting to make progress. It is
disturbing though, to hear stories about phone lines having long hold
times and are even dropped, a lack of communication between schools and
the VA, and a lack of standardization in policies.
Question 2A. How do we proceed from here to make sure that not only
the process becomes more standardized and streamlined, but that there
is an open communication process between the VA and schools?
Response. VA made a substantial effort to engage various
stakeholders in the Post-9/11 GI Bill implementation process. The
aggressive timeline required for Post-9/11 GI Bill implementation,
coupled with the use of interim manual claims processes, did impact
VA's ability to provide the highest level of service to stakeholders in
some instances.
VA continues to attend professional and educational conferences to
discuss the Post-9/11 GI Bill, hold training for school certifying
officials who work with Veterans at schools, and update the GI Bill Web
site to provide the most comprehensive information available to a
variety of audiences. VA also sent informational letters and made
direct contact with university officials, state Veterans affairs
directors, Veterans service organizations, Members of Congress, and
other stakeholders to discuss the status of Post-9/11 GI Bill
implementation and the potential impacts of this benefit program on
each stakeholder.
Question 2B. How do we put this into legislation?
Response. Over the past several months, VA instituted numerous
streamlining procedures to improve processing timeliness during
implementation using the manual Interim Solution toolset and initial
releases of the Long Term Solution (LTS). Many of these procedures
involved revising policy guidance to ensure that employees are able to
process claims as efficiently as possible with these systems while
continuing to meet quality standards.
VA continues to evaluate current staffing and business processes
and make modifications wherever possible to facilitate timely
processing of claims. Upon full deployment of the LTS IT system in
December 2010, which will automate Post-9/11 GI Bill processing, VA
will be able to achieve a greater level of consistency.
Policy aimed at standardizing processes is established in VA
Headquarters and distributed to each of the four regional processing
offices. When we learn of any inconsistency, we address the concern and
provide additional training as needed.
We believe the majority of the comments about standardized
processes are related to Veterans' receipt of other aid for tuition and
fees in addition to VA payments. VA is not able to direct schools on
how all the various types of financial aid should be handled. For
example, VA cannot always provide direction on which expenses other
financial aid may cover or the timing of receipt of the financial aid.
One suggestion to address these issues is to make VA the last payer of
tuition and fee expenses. VA is willing to work with Congress to
address duplication of financial aid and establish clear rules to
address these concerns.
Question 3. It is my impression that prior to the Post-9/11 GI
Bill, tuition payments were just between the VA and the schools. Why
are students a component of this payment system, and why can't the VA
deal exclusively with the school to calculate and make payments?
Response. Educational assistance allowances under other VA
programs, excluding Vocational Rehabilitation, are paid directly to the
student. The assistance is paid based on a single rate that changes
only with the student's number of credit hours.
Generally, students training under the Post-9/11 GI Bill are
entitled to a direct payment for books and supplies and monthly housing
payments. School officials are responsible for certifying the student's
enrollment. The appropriate payment amounts are calculated based on the
length of the student's enrollment period, number of credit hours,
length of the student's service, and location of the student's school.
Only tuition and fee payments are paid directly to the school.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Clark, will you please proceed with your statement?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. CLARK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ACCESSION
POLICY, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL
AND READINESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Clark. Good morning, Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member
Burr, and esteemed Members of the Committee. I'm pleased to
appear before you today to discuss the potential improvements
to the Post-9/11 GI Bill as proposed in S. 3447 and related
bills.
As I stated this past April before this Committee, post-
service education benefits have been a cornerstone of our
military recruiting efforts since 1985 and a major contributor
to the success of the all-volunteer force. Money for education
has been and remains the forefront of reasons young Americans
cite for joining the military. There's no doubt that the Post-
9/11 GI Bill will continue to have this impact, and we're
seeing that happen with unprecedented recruiting success.
For today's hearing, you asked me to comment on S. 3447, a
bill that offers a series of changes to Chapter 33, Title 38.
In respect of time, I will limit my comments to those changes
that most effect the Department of Defense.
Section 2 of S. 3447 makes changes to the definition of
qualifying active-duty and appears to correct omissions in the
original statute. As written, this subsection would include as
qualifying active-duty the full time National Guard duty
currently eligible for either the Montgomery GI Bill or the
Reserve Educational Assistance Program. DOD does not object to
this section, provided Congress provides identified,
appropriate, and acceptable offsets for the additional benefits
cost. We support equivalent benefits for equivalent service,
and this change would make that go.
The section also makes a technical correction to the
definition of entry- and skill-level training for the Army's
One Station Unit Training, a specific form of initial entry
training without a break between basic combat training and
advanced individual training. DOD is already reporting this
training as entry-level, and we support this technical
correction.
Another provision in this section clarifies that all
separations to remain eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill be
characterized as honorable to be eligible and we support that
provision.
Finally, this section excludes the statutory period of
active service incurred by graduates of the U.S. Coast Guard
Academy. This aligns graduates of the Coast Guard Academy with
the U.S. Military Academy, Air Force Academy, and Naval
Academy, and we support this provision as it provides equity
across the Armed Services.
Today's military stands ready, willing, and able to defend
this Nation, as well as its values and principles. Our young
servicemembers, all volunteers, and we must remember that, are
deployed across the Gulf, many in harm's way. Post-service
education benefits have been a major contributor to recruiting
achievements and retention achievements over the past 25 years.
Additionally, these post-service education benefits have
been an invaluable asset to thousands of veterans, providing
them with funding to enhance their education and increase their
employability and income-earning opportunities while assisting
their transition to civilian life. The Department of Defense is
an education employer. We hire educated, young people, we
invest in them while in service, and we encourage them to
invest further in themselves when they leave. The VA-
administered education benefits, in particular the Post-9/11 GI
Bill, facilitate that investment.
Few things, if any, are more important to the secretary and
to the services than recruiting and retention. We recognize our
duty to man the all-volunteer force with high-quality,
motivated, well-trained, young men and women. The Post-9/11 GI
Bill remains a key to our success. As we move forward in the
21st Century, we must seize the opportunity to build on this
remarkable legacy given to us by the visionaries who crafted
each preceding version of the GI Bill.
I thank this Committee for its unflagging support of the
men and women who have served in providing for the national
defense and look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clark follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert E. Clark, Assistant Director for Accession
Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel &
Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense
Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr, and esteemed
Members of the Committee. I am pleased to appear before you today to
discuss the potential improvements to the Post-9/11 GI Bill as proposed
in S. 3447, ``Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements
Act of 2010,'' and related bills.
As I stated earlier this year in testimony, post Service education
benefits have been a cornerstone of our military recruiting efforts
since 1985, and a major contributor to the success of the All-Volunteer
Force. Money for education has been and remains at the forefront of
reasons young Americans cite for joining the military. There is no
doubt that the Post-9/11 GI Bill will continue to have this impact and
we are seeing that happen--with unprecedented recruiting success.
For today's hearing, you asked me to comment on S. 3447, ``Post-9/
11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010'' and
related bills. S. 3447 offers a series of changes to chapter 33, title
38, United States Code. Since both funding and administration of the
Post-9/11 GI Bill fall under the purview of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA), I will focus my comments on those changes that will
affect the Department of Defense (DOD) and generally defer to VA to
provide responses on those with no significant DOD impacts.
s. 3447, ``post-9/11 veterans educational assistance improvements act
of 2010''
Section 2. Modification of Entitlement to Educational Assistance.
Subsection (a) makes changes to the definition of qualifying active
duty for Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement and appears to correct omissions
in the original statute. As written, this sub-section would include as
qualifying active duty the full-time National Guard duty currently
eligible for either the Montgomery GI Bill or the Reserve Educational
Assistance Program. DOD does not object to this section, provided
Congress identifies appropriate and acceptable offsets for the
additional benefits costs. DOD supports equivalent benefits for
equivalent service and this change would meet that goal. This
subsection also makes a technical correction to the definition of entry
level and skill level training for the Army by adding One Station Unit
Training (OSUT), a specific form of entry level training without a
break between Basic Combat Training and Advanced Individual Training.
DOD is already reporting OSUT as entry level training and supports this
technical correction.
Subsection (b) clarifies that all separations must be characterized
as ``honorable'' to be eligible for Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement. DOD
supports this provision.
Subsection (c) excludes the statutory period of service incurred by
graduates of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy (USCGA) as qualifying active
duty for Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement. This aligns graduates of the
USCGA with graduates of the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Naval
Academy, and the U.S. Air Force Academy. DOD believes this provision
provides equity across the Armed Services and supports the provision.
Section 3. Modification of Amount of Assistance and Types of Approved
Programs of Education.
This section modifies the amount of assistance and types of
programs eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. DOD defers to VA, the
agency responsible for administration and funding of the program, for a
response.
Section 4. Modification of Assistance for Licensure and Certification
Tests.
This section expands and makes changes to the entitlement charge
for licensing and certification tests. Again, DOD defers to VA for a
response.
Section 5. Transfer of Entitlement to Supplemental Educational
Assistance to Post-9/11 Educational Assistance.
This section appears to change the procedure for payment of
Supplemental Educational Assistance earned under the provisions sub-
chapter III, chapter 30, 38 U.S. Code for individuals who choose to
convert from the MGIB to the Post-9/11 GI Bill from a single payment
each academic term to a monthly payment in conjunction with the monthly
stipend. Since this procedural change could have an impact on the
administration of Post-9/11 GI Bill we would defer to VA, the agency
responsible for administration and funding of the program, for a
response.
Section 6. Transfer of Unused Education Benefits to Family Members.
The Administration is still reviewing the section and will not
determine an Administration position on this section until VA completes
a cost estimate for the entire bill. We will provide written views once
the cost estimate is complete.
Section 7. Limitations on Receipt of Educational Assistance under
National Call to Service (NCS) and Other Programs of
Educational Assistance.
The section clarifies that VA administered educational assistance
benefits-under the NCS enlistment option cannot be used simultaneous
with any other VA administered educational assistance program, thus
aligning NCS with other VA administered programs. DOD defers to VA, the
agency responsible for administration and funding of the program for
comment.
Sections 8, 9, 10, and 11 have no impact on DOD; therefore, we defer to
VA for comment.
Of the other bills listed on the agenda, only S. 3389 has any
impact on DOD. This bill would change the 48-month rule for
Servicemembers or Veterans with four years or more of active service
who also received educational benefits through either the Montgomery GI
Bill--Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR, chapter 1606, 10 U.S.C.) or the
Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP, chapter 1607, 10 U.S.C..)
The 48-month rule limits Servicemembers or Veterans with eligibility
under more than one VA administered education programs from receiving
more than 48 months of educational assistance. While this provision
could have minor impact on usage of MGIB-SR and REAP, the major fiscal
impact would be increased usage of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Therefore,
DOD defers to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the agency
responsible for administration and funding of the program for comment.
Today, the military stands ready, willing, and able to defend our
Nation, as well as its values and principles. Our young Servicemembers,
all volunteers, are deployed across the globe, many in harm's way. Post
Service education benefits have been a major contributor to recruiting
achievements over the past 25 years. Additionally, these post service
education benefits have been an invaluable asset to thousands of
veterans, providing them with funding to enhance their education and
increase their employability and income-earning opportunities, while
assisting their transition to civilian life. The Department of Defense
is an ``education'' employer. We hire educated young people, invest in
them while in Service, and we encourage them to invest further in
themselves when they leave. The VA-administered education benefits, and
in particular the Post-9/11 GI Bill, facilitate that investment.
Few things, if any, are more important to the Secretary and to the
Services than recruiting and retention. We recognize our duty to man
the All-Volunteer Force with high-quality, motivated, and well-trained
young men and women. The Post-9/11 GI Bill remains a key to our
success. As we move forward in the 21st Century, we must seize the
opportunity to build on the remarkable legacy given to us by the
visionaries who crafted each preceding version of the GI Bill. I thank
this Committee for its unflagging support of the men and women who
serve, or who have served, in providing for the national defense. I
look forward to your questions.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Clark.
One fast question. Are you satisfied that there are
sufficient safeguards in place to make sure that programs of
education are legitimate?
Mr. Wilson. We do believe that there are satisfactory
safeguards in place. We have a robust mechanism in place in
conjunction with our partners within the States at the State
Approving Agencies. The statute also supports mechanisms to
allow us to weed out inappropriate schools, for instance, the
existing 2-year requirement that's in the statute requiring an
institution to be in place for 2 years. I believe we do have
sound mechanisms in place. Yes, sir.
Chairman Akaka. Mr. Wilson, VA has proposed to accept VA
Title IV approvals for purposes of GI Bill Programs. While I'm
inclined to agree with this proposal, I'm concerned that this
could potentially open the door for some fraud and abuse.
Do you share this concern, and if so, how would you guard
against it?
Mr. Wilson. We would share the concern and guard against it
by ensuring that we continue to keep the flexibility we
currently have. In other words, while we will accept
accreditation for Title IV purposes, in some cases for program
approval, we would never want to take off the table our ability
to continue to go into a school and make sure that they are
doing what they are supposed to in support of our veterans, and
if not, we will continue to have the authority to remove
approval for VA purposes, if needed.
Chairman Akaka. Mr. Clark, I understand the Department's
opposition to my proposal that DOD reimburse VA for the cost of
transferred benefits. That said, I do believe that DOD has too
broadly extended this benefit to all servicemembers as they
reach the required minimum length of service. I believe a more
targeted use of the benefit was envisioned in order to retain
individuals in critical skill areas or difficult-to-replace
personnel.
Would you comment on this, please?
Mr. Clark. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Department, as you are
well aware, in the development and all discussions leading up
to the Post-9/11 GI Bill had concerns about the generous
benefit being more of a draw for first-term members to leave in
order to use this benefit, and we were very pleased to see the
transferability which allows our career servicemembers to share
this benefit that they have earned with their family members,
and we did not believe that this benefit for family members was
to be limited to any specific targeting. We believe that every
soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine that chooses to stay, and
we want to stay, should have the same opportunity to share
their earned benefit with those family members.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson, could you please comment on the extent to which
you believe that basing many benefits on the national average
would make administration of the program easier?
Mr. Wilson. Certainly. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is a fabulous
benefit, and at its core, it's going to provide the opportunity
for many individuals to attend college that they otherwise
would not have even under our previous programs. Taking into
account though all the specific nuances of how charges are made
within each school and within each State, it makes the
administration very complex.
Now, the administration of the program, of course, is one
issue, and that's VA's responsibility, and we will continue to
do our utmost to do that. But the other side of that complexity
is that students have to understand the program in order to get
the best use of it. That complexity, all of those ins and outs,
make it very complex a lot of times for the students to
understand how they can best use the benefit.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much.
Senator Brown, your questions?
Senator Brown of Massachusetts. Thank you, sir.
So, I guess it's kind of a follow-up, and any of the folks
who are testifying can comment on this. The Post-9/11 GI
benefits for veterans and servicemembers who want to pursue
vocational training to 4-year degree programs, et cetera, how
soon would the VA and State Approving Agencies be able to
implement these programs do you think?
Mr. Wilson. We're recommending right now that the effective
date for the enactment be August 1, 2011. That's based on our
current status with implementing the new pay system for the
initial implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. We have had
two releases of the functionality. We will complete the last
core release for functionality around the end of December of
this year, and then we have got some policing of the
battlefield issues that we need, but we believe that we can
meet an August 1, 2011, timeframe.
Senator Brown of Massachusetts. And as a follow-up to
Senator Burr, I'm not having that same experience, but would
the additional workload and resources and the redirection of
resources currently in place in providing assistance to
veterans, is that an accurate portrayal? Do you have the tools
and resources you'll need to implement the program?
Mr. Wilson. I believe we do. We have currently in place in
excess of 1,400 individuals processing claims at our four
offices around the country. I would be the first to say very
clearly that we underestimated the complexity of what we needed
to do going into last fall, and there were unacceptable delays
in the processing of claims.
To give you a little picture of where we're at right now,
going into the fall, we could process about 1,800 claims a day
around the country. Going into the spring semester, which was
very successful, we could process in excess of 6,000 a day. So
we believe by bringing in those additional resources that we
have, streamlining our processes, we were cautiously optimistic
that we're going to have a good fall semester enrollment period
for individuals. We are continuing to be very rigorous in our
oversight on that.
Long-term, we will continue to move down the path of
automating a lot of this work, and that will better allow us to
address the seasonal nature of our work, the high workloads in
the fall periods and the spring periods.
Senator Brown of Massachusetts. On a side note, obviously,
we're getting ready to begin the fall semester, and many more
students will be requesting benefits than they did in January.
Are you ready to handle this influx of potential new
requests? And, if so, what type of improvement do you think
we'll see over the previous time period?
Mr. Wilson. We believe we are ready. We did several things
following the beginning of last fall. As I mentioned, we have
significantly more resources on it and our productive capacity
is much higher than it was going into last fall. So we're in
very good shape there.
Additionally, we implemented an initiative over the summer
that we believe helps us out, as well. We allowed schools
beginning June 1 to begin submitting the enrollment certs for
the fall to VA. We're allowing them to submit that information,
even if they do not have their tuition and fee rates in place.
They can simply submit zero tuition and fees and report those
tuition and fees later to us. That's important because many
States in the July-August timeframe are just at that point
deciding what their tuition and fees are going to be. We have
already processed through completion about 50,000 fall
enrollments under that initiative. So we believe we're in a
very good position.
Senator Brown of Massachusetts. One final question. I have
a little bit of time left. Being the new guy, well, not
anymore. I'm actually not the new guy anymore as of yesterday,
which is nice. [Laughter.]
Yes. We have an inordinate amount of veterans' issues that
we're dealing with in the Boston area. We have a couple of
people working full-time on it directly, and I would just
encourage, yes, you're making strides, but the backlog, the
frustration that we're getting from people that are calling and
dealing with your organization. I do not want to hurt your
feelings or anything, but they are pretty upset. Then that
comes to me, and then I have to pass it down the food chain and
up the food chain. I would just suggest that you do whatever
you have to do to drop some of the fluff stuff and just focus
on the real issues when people are hurting and they need help.
Some of it's very simple. It's such a quagmire of paperwork
and bureaucracy. So instead, I suggest someone picking up the
phone--a warm body--and saying hey, I got your claim, I am on
it, I just want to let you know that. Sometimes, that's all it
takes, and to get that is just like pulling teeth.
So, that's kind of my message and the sense that I am
getting from being here for over 6 months now; and being in the
military and a JAG, as somebody who knows how to maneuver the
system, I can tell you I am having the same problem.
If you could please pass that on to the folks that work for
you to step above and beyond, that would be helpful.
Mr. Wilson. I'd be happy to pass that on. Just one comment
in terms of a response, the secretary has significant, major
issues underway throughout the Department right now, to use his
term, ``Break the back of the backlog.'' He and the rest of the
organization are very, very aggressive on this issue, and we're
confident that we can make strides in that area.
Senator Brown of Massachusetts. I appreciate that.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator
Brown.
Senator Murray?
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Clark, I wanted to ask you a question because in my
conversations with the veterans as I travel around my State, a
lot of them express a real frustration that they can not make
their military experience relate to any kind of post-education
or professional goal. So, in the bill that I have introduced
which I have talked about a few moments ago, the Veteran
Employment Assistance Act, one of our primary goals was to
examine how to take military experience and training and link
it up to civilian education and certification and licensure
requirements.
Does the Department of Defense consider comparable civilian
credit, licensure, and certification requirements when they
create or update their military training curricula?
Mr. Clark. Senator Murray, I would have to take that back.
Senator Murray. So----
Mr. Clark. I do not work in that--I know there is a lot
that is done in military transcripts and a lot of crosswalk to
try to do this, but it being in another office, I would prefer
to take that one for the record.
[Responses were not received within the Committee's
timeframe for publication.]
Senator Murray. OK, I would really like a response back to
that because I think it's very relevant to what our men and
women face when they come home. And as part of that, I wanted
to ask, and maybe you will not answer it then, is if there is a
concern within the Department of Defense that if they modify
current course curriculum to provide for that civilian
education credit or licensure certification requirement that,
somehow, it affects retention.
Mr. Clark. Again, I can not see a direct link to that and
the affect on retention, but not being that familiar with that
separation and the transcript work that is done to try to
crosswalk military training and education with civilian, I
would prefer to take that for the record.
Senator Murray. OK, well, sir, I think we need to have eyes
open on this, that sometimes some of the training, et cetera,
is not designed to help somebody get a job when they get home
because of retention concerns. But in today's world, we have to
make sure that what our military men and women are doing as
they transition does transition. They come home to a very tough
job market, and we can not just dump them on the street and say
tough. We need to make sure that what they get actually works
for them in the real world, and I think we really have to work
on that.
So Mr. Chairman, I will yield with this time and wait for
the next panel. Thank you.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Murray.
Senator Isakson?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize for missing your testimony. I do have really
one question that I would like to ask. Do you have any idea,
and this is for anybody that would know, do you know the
breakdown under the New GI Bill of people going to residential
education environments versus online environments? Do you know
the breakdown in that?
Mr. Wilson. I do not know the breakdown off the top of my
head. We can certainly do some researching and get back to you.
I'd be happy to do that.
One comment I would offer though is that the break is not
as clean as either/or. Many of our students are taking hybrid
training. They'll take some courses in residence, but then they
are also taking a class or two at night. Perhaps, even at the
same institution online. So it does get a little bit more
complex.
Senator Isakson. Staying on that same vein for a second,
eArmyU I think is the term you used for the active-duty online
education. Is that not correct?
Mr. Wilson. Yes, that's correct.
Senator Isakson. As I recall, there were about 32 4-year
colleges or universities that were participating in delivering
content to our active-duty personnel.
Are those the same institutions to which people can get
online education through the GI Bill, or is there a different
way of certifying institutions that can offer it and those that
can not?
Mr. Wilson. There would be a different mechanism for
approving the program, but making an assumption that these are
accredited institutions or institutions that VA normally works
with otherwise, those programs would have been approved through
VA's approval process to use for VA purposes.
Senator Isakson. That answers my question. But if you would
give me the information, and I do understand the hybrid nature
in particular of some of the online content while being a
residential student, but I'd like to know the number that are
full-time online and the number that are full-time residential
just for my information, if you would.
Mr. Wilson. I'd be happy to.
[The information requested during the hearing follows:]
Response to Request Arising During the Hearing by Hon. Johnny Isakson
to Keith Wilson, Director, Education Service, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs
Response. VA does not have data that provides a breakout of the
number of students attending in residence and online courses.
Senator Isakson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Isakson.
I regret very much that due to signing of the financial
reform legislation, I am going to have to leave a bit early
today. Senator Tester has graciously agreed to chair the
balance of the hearing in my absence, and I want to thank him.
Thank you very much, Senator Tester for that. In addition, I
want to extend my deepest thanks to all our witnesses this
morning for your insights and input. You've been very, very
helpful prior to this and now with the Committee's work, as
well. So again, I want to say thanks. Let me now turn the gavel
over to Senator Tester.
Senator Tester [presiding]. Well, thank you, Chairman
Akaka, and if I may, I'll just ask questions from here and then
take your seat after you go. I want to thank you for your
leadership, as always, and good luck at the signing.
Mr. Wilson, this is kind of a follow-up on Senator Brown
from Massachusetts' questions. In April, you talked about the
targeting for full functionality of the claims, Automated
Claims System, December 2010. Is that on target? You talked
about functionality. Is that what you meant? It is going to be
fully functional by December 2010?
Mr. Wilson. That's correct.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Wilson. That's what we're on target for, is providing
the functionality to process claims by the end of December.
Senator Tester. Perfect. You also talked about the
Chairman's bill would be much better if it were delayed until
August 2011.
Do you anticipate the upgraded IT system will be adequately
ready to handle the delivery of new benefits proposed by this
bill?
Mr. Wilson. We believe it will be. That's what our estimate
of August 2011 is based on.
Senator Tester. Good. You raised the issue of complexity. I
am glad that you did. I think one of the problems we had last
fall, one of the problems we have today is implementation being
complex for the veteran, and it's been complex for the school.
The question is, what kind of outreach are you doing to
help the schools, particularly in rural parts of the country,
to better understand how to handle certain cases? And what
specifically is the VA doing in terms of listening to the
concerns of school administrators?
Mr. Wilson. There are several mechanisms in place for
training. First of all, all school officials receive online
training from VA. That's VA-sponsored training in terms of
providing the technical information that they need to provide
the VA so that we can pay benefits.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Wilson. Additionally, we have individuals stationed
throughout the country, our Education Liaison Representatives,
who are the first point of contact for all school officials
within their State of jurisdiction. In addition to those
individuals, I think you're aware we have had a longstanding
relationship with the State Approving Agencies. The State
Approving Agencies are also on the ground at the States
providing training and resources.
Senator Tester. OK. So if a school has a concern, they go
to the VA employees that you talked about?
Mr. Wilson. That's correct.
Senator Tester. OK. That's exactly the point I am getting
at. Those VA employees are in four different places in the
country, and correct me if I am wrong. We have a number of
schools in Montana, where it's a long journey to get to those
folks. If you have four people in a number of schools in
Montana, you extrapolate that out to all the States in the
union, and the further away you get, the bigger the problem is.
I have advocated for a VA education rep in Montana. It's
for prestige; it's because, as Senator Brown said, we're the
ones that catch the input, and I think it would behoove us to
have folks on the ground to be able to hear the challenges that
are going on in these schools because I think that's how you're
going to get to solutions. If you could take that message back,
it would be very much appreciated.
Mr. Wilson. I can do that. Could I make a clarification
point?
Senator Tester. Sure. Go ahead.
Mr. Wilson. We do process claims at four locations around
the country. However, we have our liaison representatives
stationed throughout the country, not at those four sites. I
believe our individual responsible for Montana is working out
of our St. Paul Regional Office, and then the State Approving
Agency individual works out of Helena, I believe.
Senator Tester. St. Paul is 1,000 miles away.
Mr. Wilson. Understood.
Senator Tester. OK. All right. During our last hearing on
the subject, you testified--this is Mr. Wilson again--that the
VA had been giving the wrong living stipend because the
military housing allowances were not revised within the
computer system that took effect January 1. You projected the
issue would be resolved by last month.
How's it going?
Mr. Wilson. The payment of the housing allowance is tied to
the functionality and the data conversion involved with Release
2. The technical functionality was delivered on July 3, as
scheduled. The conversion is occurring throughout the month of
July. We have completed conversion of about 153,000 cases to
date. The remainder of the conversion of cases is currently
scheduled to occur next week, the upcoming weekend, and the
following week, and that conversion, that successful conversion
is what allows us to pay that housing allowance.
Senator Tester. Of those 153,000, how many were
overpayments?
Mr. Wilson. None of the 153,000 had overpayments. That
first group that we converted were the individuals who we had
determined eligible, but had not received any payments yet.
Senator Tester. OK. What have been the results of your
review?
Mr. Wilson. Our 153,000 conversion was successful.
Senator Tester. OK, how about looking into the folks who
were overpaid and underpaid?
Mr. Wilson. As part of the conversion, the additional
things that we will get, in addition to the conversion into the
new tool, is the complete list of individuals that are due the
increase, and that payment of the increase is going to be
automated.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Wilson. We will push a check for the difference they
are owed directly to the individual.
Senator Tester. I guess the question is that I think it was
this month you were going to finish looking into who was
overpaid and who was underpaid.
Has that been done?
Mr. Wilson. Yes, yes.
Senator Tester. And what has been the result of that?
Mr. Wilson. There's an estimated 150,000 individuals that
are due some type of additional payment.
Senator Tester. OK, so, that's 150,000 you were talking
about.
And how are you handling those overpayments?
Mr. Wilson. There won't be overpayments.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Wilson. There's about 150,000 underpayments.
Senator Tester. Underpayments.
Mr. Wilson. That we will be resolving.
Senator Tester. So, there were no overpayments?
Mr. Wilson. No. In terms of overpayments, we are following
the same policy that DOD has in place. If an individual is
residing in an area that has a decrease, we grandfather them
into their current rate.
Senator Tester. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. So that would cover everyone who lives in that
area when the decrease occurs.
Senator Tester. Thank you.
Senator Begich?
Senator Begich. Let me just do a quick run. So people who
have received an overpayment, are they being requested to pay
back? Isn't that the ultimate question?
Mr. Wilson. The overpayments, and perhaps I need to seek a
little clarity on the specifics--if an individual has an
overpayment for pursuing VA education benefits, we pursue
collection of that overpayment, and that's the same thing we do
for Montgomery GI Bill, et cetera.
Senator Begich. Right. So that's the question I think was:
How many of those people? How many were in that category?
Mr. Wilson. OK. I understood the question to be related to
the BAH increase, and the BAH increase does not cause
overpayments for those individuals that were in that housing
zone when the decrease occurred because we grandfather them
into the old rate. So we do not pay a decrease, so, there would
be no overpayment for those individuals. And perhaps, I am not
being clear, and if not, I apologize if I am missing the
question.
Senator Begich. I am going to hold that because I have
about six questions I want to rapid fire. I might come back to
that, depending on time, because I want to pursue that.
First, let me get two kind of Alaskan issues out of the
way. Muskogee area and how we respond, that's one of the
service centers; I think of the four, that's our area. We just
get a pile of complaints of service or lack of response or slow
response or delayed response.
Do you have any metric that you keep track of? For example,
call time, wait time, response time, letter response time, e-
mail response time? Do you keep those kind of data points?
Mr. Wilson. We do.
Senator Begich. Do you do that on a regular basis?
Mr. Wilson. Yes, we do.
Senator Begich. So, for example, if I asked you to give the
last 6 months of how long people stay on hold, how many
disconnects there are, in other words, people who hang up
because they are frustrated, how that's been improved or not
improved, do you have those kind of data points?
Mr. Wilson. We do. I'd be happy to provide it to you.
[Responses were not received within the Committee's
timeframe for publication.]
Senator Begich. I would love that. If you could get those
numbers for that office, specifically for the last at least 6
months--and I recognize there's a high enrollment request, but
I want to see through those data points how the flow is.
The second is: Do you coordinate with the Direct Student
Loan folks within the Federal Government to determine--because
yours is not a loan, it's basically a grant to allow folks to
move on to higher education--do you have any connection with
understanding because theirs is watching default rates or
watching capacity of these universities, they are basically
taking money and not doing really the job they should be doing.
What is your way to coordinate to make sure we're not
offering GI benefits at schools that over here are being
questioned on their ability to perform? Do you do that?
Mr. Wilson. Yes, we do that. The mechanisms by which we
approve our programs are separate and distinct, and they are
codified in Title 38. And I would argue actually that our
mechanisms are more robust. Even for a school that is
accredited, there is a mechanism by which they are required to
seek approval for their programs for VA purposes in addition to
that.
Senator Begich. Can I ask you a question? Have you ever
kicked a school off the program?
Mr. Wilson. I do not know the exact answer to that.
Senator Begich. Could you get that for the record?
Mr. Wilson. I'd be happy to find out.
[Responses were not received within the Committee's
timeframe for publication.]
Senator Begich. Because in the perfect world, everything is
good, but I used to chair the Student Loan Corporation for the
State of Alaska for 7 years, Post Secondary Education
Commission. Despite the great schools that are in our country
here and overseas, there are some that just have a lack of
ability to understand what they should be doing with the monies
that the Federal Government provides for these students. So I
would like to see in the last 5 years or 10 years, you pick the
period of time, if anyone's ever been taken off the program and
benefited from the GI benefit?
Mr. Wilson. OK.
Senator Begich. Universities, school, certification
program, it does not matter, just what's the skinny there?
Mr. Wilson. We'd be happy to provide a response. Just in
terms of a clarification, we approve each individual program.
We do not approve the institution overall. We approve specific
programs. There have been, I know, programs that we have not
approved initially. I just do not know whether we have yet
pulled approval once a program has been approved.
Senator Begich. What happens if you have a program that
let's say it's a good program, but the school is in a serious
situation with, for example, the other side of the equation,
the folks that are doing the Pell Grants and the student loans
on the other side. In other words, they've been booted off a
grant program.
Do you still fund the program within a school like that?
Mr. Wilson. We will still allow a veteran to pursue
training at that institution, making the assumption that they
still have to meet our approval criteria. That approval
criteria is still out there for our purposes, and we can go out
whenever we need to, to survey whatever's needed to ensure the
veteran's quality of education is still there.
Senator Begich. OK. My time has expired, but if you could
follow-up and give me some information on that.
Senator Murray talked about certification and how we make
that connection between what services they receive in the
military and then how they can move that forward. My
understanding is--and you can get back to me for the record on
this later--my understanding is the Coast Guard has developed a
program to do that. I am pretty sure it's the Coast Guard,
where they've been able to ensure some of the work they do and
the training that goes on there can literally transfer right
over into certain certifications that then can be utilized in
the private sector without additional expense and cost to
Coasties. So could you follow-up on that and----
Mr. Wilson. I would be happy to look at that. Just in terms
of amplifying a little bit more on Senator Murray's comments,
it does get, based on our experience, a little bit more complex
than one list in the military and another list on the outside.
It's one thing and much cleaner if there is a DOD
certification, for example, and then externally one national
certification.
Senator Begich. Correct.
Mr. Wilson. However, our experience is that most of the
certifications that we deal with are at the State level, and
there's obviously very many different State----
Senator Begich. No, I understand that, but I think the
Coast Guard has done something on the national level. I do not
know why--some discussion I had sometime, and it's just coming
back to me here. So, great. Thank you very much. Thanks for
your testimony.
Mr. Chairman?
Senator Tester. Senator Burris.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROLAND W. BURRIS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Burris. [Microphone malfunction] I'd like to
welcome Judy Flink from the University of Illinois for making
her way here to testify today. Her expertise, over 30 years of
experience in student financial services and higher education,
should include the invaluable [microphone malfunction] and
provide input on how we can make the Post-9/11 GI Bill the best
bill that it can be. [Microphone malfunction.]
And Mr. Wilson, could you provide that information that
Senator Begich requests to all of us on the Committee, please?
Mr. Wilson. I'd be happy to.
Senator Burris. [Microphone malfunction] do that. OK.
Could you tell me [microphone malfunction] registered with
the University of Phoenix?
Mr. Wilson. We do. Yes.
Senator Burris. And that's [microphone malfunction] online
education.
Have you approved that university?
Mr. Wilson. That's correct. The University of Phoenix
conducts both online and resident training.
Senator Burris. Can you tell me the status of the $3,000
advance payment checks that went out to veterans and the
servicemembers in October 2009 and those who have not yet
received their VA benefit for the fall enrollment period? How
much of the money have you recouped?
Mr. Wilson. I do not know the exact numbers. I'd be happy
to provide a response for the record, Senator.
[This question was duplicated in Post-Hearing Questions
from Senator Burris.]
Senator Burris. Would you please do that for us? And how do
we ensure that we will not have to do a second round of
emergency payments [microphone malfunction] the next school
year? Is that an internal VA policy that we need to [microphone
malfunction] or can we fix it?
Mr. Wilson. We believe we're in a much better place going
into this fall than we were last fall, as witnessed by our
success last spring. We will do whatever it takes to make sure
individuals are paid their benefits. However, because we have
been able to increase our productive capacity significantly and
have taken steps to work with schools to begin processing
enrollment certs earlier, we believe we are much better
positioned this fall and believe that we can provide timely
benefits this fall. We will continue to monitor that day by day
very aggressively.
Senator Burris. Now, Mr. Wilson, the implementation process
of the Post-9/11 GI Bill has not been a smooth journey, which
you said. But we are starting to make progress. It is
disturbing though to hear stories about phone lines, hold times
or even dropped calls, a lack of communication between schools
and the VA, and the lack of standardization of policies.
How can we proceed from here to make sure that not only the
process become more standardized and streamlined, that there's
an open communication process between the VA and the schools?
Mr. Wilson. We have worked very hard, and we'll continue to
work hard to make sure that we have an effective relationship
with the school officials. The school officials are crucial to
veterans being able to obtain their benefits timely. They are
the ones on the ground at the school. They, as well as the
State Approving Agencies are the folks on the ground where
these students are. We work very aggressively with the school
certifying officials through our Education Liaison
Representatives around the country, as well as providing
material online, as well as the State Approving Agencies
working with the school officials.
Senator Burris. Mr. Wilson, I understand though when a
payment would go to the school, and you correct me if we have
misinformation on this, and let's just say that there's some
overpayment to the school, rather than the check coming back to
the VA, the check comes back to the student. The student does
not understand what the check is for, and the student may have,
in fact, spent that check, thinking it was a refund of
overpayment that he or she has made. Now, have we gotten our
handles on that issue?
Mr. Wilson. There are a lot of moving parts concerning how
VA pays tuition and fee amounts to the schools, and there are
also non-VA-related requirements. For example, we are always
paying the tuition and fee payment toward the beginning of the
semester now, based on the charges that the school official
certifies to us. Anytime there is a change in enrollment status
during that semester, there will have to be an adjustment of
that amount of tuition and fees.
Sometimes, for instance, the school could have a policy
that says that they refund half of the tuition and fee amounts
if a person drops within a certain amount of time. They will
certify those new tuition and fee amounts to us, and since we
have already paid the full tuition and fee amount upfront at
the beginning of the semester, those situations are going to
result in an overpayment, and those overpayments----
Senator Burris. And the refund would go back where? To the
student or back to us?
Mr. Wilson. If there's a refund, whether the refund goes to
the student or the VA will depend on the circumstances of the
payment amount and who----
Senator Burris. Do you have any data from what information
we have been able to ascertain as to students who now are
getting refunds which they are not entitled to, and they are
spending those refunds, and now the VA is trying to collect
money from the students.
Mr. Wilson. I am not aware of information, but I'll be
happy to----
Senator Burris. Would you please check on that?
Mr. Wilson [continuing]. Do research on that and provide a
response.
[Responses were not received within the Committee's
timeframe for publication.]
Senator Burris. That's the information we are getting.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to have to leave to
preside.
Senator Tester. OK.
Senator Burris. Thank you.
Senator Tester. The senior senator from West Virginia,
Senator Rockefeller. Finally.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Rockefeller. You see, bullying takes place
everywhere. That's what he's doing to me because he's my
friend, and because he's so small.
We have been trying to do a lot of what you're talking
about in West Virginia at Concord University, Mountain State
University, to create sort of a veteran-friendly atmosphere,
and we're taking it very seriously, they are taking it very
seriously. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to put my statement in the
record, with your permission.
Senator Tester. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Rockefeller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
U.S. Senator from West Virginia
Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this hearing and your
strong commitment to oversight and improvement in our existing program.
This is an important role for our Committee and I appreciate all your
efforts.
It is essential to improve the implementation of the GI bill and
make the changes necessary on living allowances, transfer of benefits
to dependents and clear rules on unique circumstance like foreign
study.
But I also want to mention that my state of West Virginia is
working to make our campuses ``veteran friendly'' in a variety of ways.
Some institutions are having introductory classes of all veterans,
others are creating veteran lounges or hiring new outreach counselors
with military experience. This is important work to ease the transition
from combat in Kabul or Basra to a quiet campus with a different set of
rules and discipline.
Next week, thanks to technology, I will be participating in the
Returning Veterans Symposium next week at Concord University. This
event will bring together West Virginia educators and the VA officials
from our VAMCs and Vet Centers to discuss ways to support our veterans
and provide for the best transition. I am proud of West Virginia's
efforts and I am committed to helping them in every way.
We must get the funding right to cover tuition and living allowance
as the Chairman's bill does. I also want to begin the discussion about
the non-financial ways to help our veterans in their transition and
their studies. I look forward to the testimony.
Senator Rockefeller. We need help. I mean, we always need
help on these things. West Virginia is 4 percent flat, 96
percent mountainous. People do not like to travel. A lot of
people, they can not easily go to Web sites, particularly in
our rural areas. A lot of coal miners and others do not have
time for Web sites, and sometimes, they do not have money for
Web sites.
So I appreciate very much what you say about the pending
legislation, but I'd also like to ask about other ways that the
VA and the DOD can support our military personnel and our
veterans as they come back and make this absolutely impossible
transition. My State is working, as I say, to create veteran-
friendly campuses. I am very proud of that effort, and I know
these folks can use help. I am wondering in what ways VA and
DOD can be helpful in taking States that are working in good
faith to try to help veterans make this transition. I know it's
a very general question, but it's a very important question for
me.
Mr. Wilson. The key, I believe, to success at the State
level is the relationship VA has with the State Approving
Agencies. Those individuals are on the ground with VA's
Education Liaison Representatives in the States.
We do not have a physical ELR in every State, as Senator
Tester is aware. But those individuals are on the ground, they
are funded to provide outreach services. Can the outreach
services be more robust? Absolutely. We're constantly looking
at how we can do a better job of getting out there, not just at
campuses, but reaching individuals before they make the
decision on where they want to go to the school. What's key, I
believe, is those individuals that are on the ground in the
States.
Senator Rockefeller. Isn't that sort of like the difference
between a veterans' hospital and a Vet Center? At least in our
State in Appalachia people are afraid of going into big
buildings, universities, colleges, hospitals. They're just not
accustomed to doing that.
There are some that have never been in an elevator before,
and I love them for that because they are so busy trying to
survive and make things come together so that when you say the
word ``outreach,'' I understand your intention. I understand
your good intentions, but outreach is really hard when trying
to convince a veteran to go do something to get themselves
improved. That's why VA Vet Centers work so well, because they
are always on the ground floor, they are always on the corner,
they are in an old Kroger store or something of that sort. They
walk in there and they know they are going to meet fellow
veterans. They are immediately comfortable, and they
immediately go. Well, universities are not like that.
And so, the outreach, I just want to persist on that. You
do not have enough people on the ground, you do not have all
kinds of things that you'd want to have and need to have. But
outreach to me is a very sensitive subject in West Virginia.
You have to somehow connect with the veteran, and I do not know
how that happens. We have so many Vet Centers, they are heavily
used, and we have four visions all going in different
directions, which I never quite understood, but which I accept.
But some people do not like to go to big places.
So talk to me about the rural veteran. He has a lot of them
in his State, too.
Mr. Wilson. I certainly did not want to imply that we
believe the veterans should be coming to us, coming to a
regional office, coming to a VA hospital. That's not our goal
for outreach. Our goal of outreach is being out in the
locations where those individuals are.
The State Approving Agencies are the ones that know those
States best. They know where the veterans are located. If that
means that we go to Vet Centers or they go to Vet Centers, then
that's what they do. They go to Vet Centers. If it means that
they are aware that there's a veteran stand down at a local
service office or hall, a VFW hall----
Senator Rockefeller. Mr. Wilson, make the case to me that
these approving agencies in the States--I mean, I was a
Governor for 8 years, and I can not say that all agencies were
the most efficient that ever were. There are a lot of things
that pay better than State government. So when you say that
they know where the veterans are, I have to relate to that, I
have to believe you, because we're not very good at tracking
people. Some people do not want to be tracked, or make it
difficult to be tracked. Do you understand what I am asking?
Mr. Wilson. I believe I do.
Senator Rockefeller. I am asking an impossible question, of
course.
Mr. Wilson. Yes. I believe I do, and I do not think I can
provide an adequate response. You're absolutely right. Some
States and some locations in VA are better at providing
outreach services than others. That's a fact. We are always
working on improving that. I think the key is, of course, not
requiring individuals to come to us. We have to find the
mechanism to be out where they are.
I mentioned being on campuses, but I think it's important
to be able to reach the veterans before they show up on campus
because the fact is, a lot of folks do not use the GI Bill
benefits. Even though our usage rate for the Montgomery GI
Bill, which is the most recent statistics we have is 70
percent, 70 percent of individuals that are eligible use the
program. That's the highest in history, but that also means
that 30 percent of the individuals for whatever reason are not
using the benefit. Those are the individuals we need to do a
better job of trying to make aware of the programs.
Senator Rockefeller. Yes, and I am over my time. I respect
the 70 percent that are using, and I regret the 30 percent that
are not using it. On the other hand, we're obviously moving in
the right direction, and word of mouth, the VSOs, there are a
lot of things in rural States have to be done informally. And I
think that's going to end up somehow being our answer. People
who keep the statistics, who know where these folks supposedly
are, and then others who just through word of mouth reach out
because I think veterans know where veterans are.
Mr. Wilson. Understood. One of the things that we have done
also to address it is brought in a firm to help us with the
national marketing strategy for the Post-9/11 GI Bill on a
national level, doing the type of research that we have not
done in the past concerning where veterans are at, how do we
reach veterans, and I think most importantly, perhaps, is how
do we reach the veterans' family, looking at the issue broader
than just the individual.
Senator Rockefeller. Yes.
Mr. Wilson. How do we reach those family members? They've
done a very good job, and we're just at the beginning of this,
placing information concerning the Post-9/11 GI Bill in local
and national media, getting ads on radio.
One of the things that they came up with, which I am very
proud of, is helping sponsor a NASCAR during one of the recent
NASCAR events. We were able to get several portions of the car
with GI Bill on it and the contact information on how to get a
hold of us. Our Web site traffic went up one-third.
Senator Rockefeller. That's amazing. Excuse me, Mr.
Chairman, but I mean, this is America now. You put your number
on a NASCAR, and if you----
Mr. Wilson. It worked, sir.
Senator Rockefeller. And if you see the darn thing pass and
you can write it down.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
Senator Rockefeller. Because I guess it goes around so many
times, you can sort of do number by number.
Mr. Wilson. Well, it's interesting, and we're learning a
lot in this area. But what we found out is as you create these
relationships, and it's more than just our Web site going by,
but it's the commentator talking about what's on the car. It's
the driver talking about our GI Bill Program during press
interviews. Their research showed that one in three of our
potential students or their family members are NASCAR
followers. So those are the type of things that really allow us
to get out there, albeit informally.
Senator Rockefeller. Yes.
Mr. Wilson. Getting back to your message.
Senator Rockefeller. No, and I do not mean to be joking
because NASCAR is huge in West Virginia, and I am sure it is in
Montana. Right?
Senator Tester. Yes, it is, actually.
Senator Rockefeller. And you've got cars, do not you?
Senator Tester. Yes. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Senator Rockefeller. I just have
a couple more questions before we wrap this panel up, unless
you have more questions, Senator Rockefeller.
First thing, as far as the educational rep in St. Paul, did
it just get moved to St. Paul because it was in St. Louis?
Mr. Wilson. Let me go back for the record----
Senator Tester. OK. That's fine.
Mr. Wilson [continuing]. And provide a full response.
Senator Tester. Through the efforts of technology, I was
just informed that the ed rep that's either in St. Louis--the
ed rep from Montana retired earlier this year, and there will
not be a new one until December.
Mr. Wilson. OK.
Senator Tester. I just heard at a previous hearing I was at
that Iraq and Afghanistan vets are coming back, and their
unemployment rate is about 12.5 percent, which is higher than
the national average. I mean, there's got to be people out
there that can do this job. Why are we waiting until December
to fill it? We're missing a whole semester in Montana.
And to back up a little bit, it was about 2 or 3 months ago
I had a session in Montana with the college folks that go
through the red tape. This is a big issue. I mean, there was an
incredible amount of frustration in the room. They did not have
access to people that could answer their questions. They did
not fully understand the program to a point where they could
answer the veterans' specific questions. We have got a problem.
How are we going to deal with it? In a place like Montana--and
by the way, Montana probably is not the only State which the
education liaison impacts--how can this continue?
Mr. Wilson. It can not. I'll take the message back; I'll
look into it more.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Wilson. Unfortunately, I can not provide an adequate
response.
[The information requested during the hearing follows:]
Response to Request Arising During the Hearing by Hon. Jon Tester to
Keith Wilson, Director, Education Service, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs
Question. Clarification on where the Education Rep/Liaison is for
Montana (St. Louis or St. Paul).
Response. Ms. Judy Davis was the Education Liaison Representative
for Montana. She recently retired, and the new Education Liaison
Representative for Montana is Mr. Christopher Sutherland. His office is
in the Denver Regional Office, and he works for the St. Louis RPO.
Senator Tester. OK. Fine. One last thing. We had a pretty
good discussion about overpayments last time around in April,
and I appreciate the frankness and your realistic statements
about what you can guarantee and what you could not. Following
that hearing, Senator Begich and I wrote a letter to your boss,
Deputy Undersecretary Cardarelli, and I have got the letter
here. Unfortunately, we have not received a response. Just to
be clear, I do not blame you for that. It's something we'll
take up with Acting Undersecretary Wilkoff. But, in the
meantime, it rightly or wrongly falls to you to have you to
address this significant challenge.
So where are we in fixing the problems so that veterans are
not immediately placed in overpayment? Now, I heard the
conversation with Senator Burris. I can also go back and tell
you that the testimony that we received, because I have it
right in front of me from the hearing back in April, was
something like this. My question was, ``Moving forward, is
putting veterans in overpayment status something that the VA is
going to continue or are we going to fix that?'' Your response
was, ``We would prefer not to have the veterans in overpayment
status.'' I said, ``Are we going to fix it?'' You said, ``We
will do everything we can to put them in a status other than
overpayment status.'' That's not what I heard here today. I
heard that they are still going into overpayment status.
Do we understand what kind of fix we're putting the vets in
by doing that?
Mr. Wilson. I believe we do. In my own personal experience,
I have been in debt to the Federal Government. You do not want
to be in that situation.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Wilson. We fully realize the difficulty that that puts
an individual in. The core issue with overpayments is we will
see more overpayments under the Post-9/11 GI Bill than we have
under our other education programs. Unless there's a statutory
change, because of the manner in which the payments are
structured, we're paying the total charges at the beginning of
the semester.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Wilson. Since we're frontloading those payments, which
we have never done in the past, anytime there is a training
time change, whether that be a reduction or a withdrawal from
class, any time during that semester, there will be some type
of adjustment in the payments.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Wilson. Since they are all out the door for tuition, a
lot of times it will result in an overpayment.
Senator Tester. So what you're saying is that the VA can
not handle this problem without a statutory change?
Mr. Wilson. That's correct.
Senator Tester. Could you give us recommendations on what
that statutory change would say?
Mr. Wilson. Yes. We have been working with the Committee.
We'd be happy to continue to work with the Committee on that
issue.
[The information requested during the hearing follows:]
Response to Request Arising During the Hearing by Hon. Jon Tester to
Keith Wilson, Director, Education Service, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs
Question. VA comments regarding the need for statutory changes to
prevent as many overpayments in the future.
Response. The decision to issue emergency payments for the fall
2009 term was an internal VA policy decision. Emergency advance
payments were not needed for the spring and summer 2010 terms, and we
do not anticipate needing emergency advance payments for the 2010/2011
school year that begins this month.
We encouraged schools to submit enrollment certifications earlier
this year, asking them to submit the certifications even if their fall
tuition and fees schedule had not been finalized. Doing so allows VA to
timely process students' housing allowance and books and supplies
stipend. The school may subsequently submit certification of the
tuition and fees to receive payment. In addition, many students are
returning students that VA previously determined eligible for the Post-
9/11 GI Bill program, making the award and payment process much
simpler.
Senator Tester. That'll be good. Thank you very much. I
appreciate the panel and appreciate your testimony. Mr. Clark,
I wish we could have fired more questions at you, but you got
enough, I guess. So, thank you very much for being here. Thank
you.
Now we welcome the second panel that will include
representatives from many of the GI bill shareholders. First on
the panel will be Eric Hillman, national legislative director
of the VFW. He'll lead off with the views of that organization.
He will be followed by Tim Embree, legislative associate for
the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. I want to
especially thank you and your organization for the help, input,
and development of this legislation.
Our third witness today is Terry Hartle, senior vice
president of the American Council on Education. Fourth, we're
joined by Judy Flink, executive director of Student Financial
Aid Service at the University of Illinois. Finally, Captain
Gerard Farrell is here, representing the Commissioned Officers'
Association of the U.S. Public Health Service.
With that, if you folks would take your seat, and we'll
start out with Mr. Hillman.
Mr. Hillman. Good morning, Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Good morning. Good to have you all here.
Whenever you are ready, Eric, you can rock and fire.
STATEMENT OF ERIC HILLEMAN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE
SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS
Mr. Hilleman. Senator Tester, thank you for the opportunity
to testify today. We certainly thank Chairman Akaka, Ranking
Member Burr, and the Members of this Committee.
On behalf of the 2.1 million men and women of the Veterans
of Foreign Wars and our auxiliaries, we are pleased to testify
on this important issue of GI Bill implementation and upgrades,
specifically commenting on improvements to the Post-9/11 GI
Bill and the legislation introduced by Senator Akaka.
We would like to begin by thanking Senator Webb, Senator
Akaka, and all the Members of the Senate Veterans' Affairs
Committee. Because of their work, their leadership, the Post-9/
11 GI Bill came into being. It is educating hundreds of
thousands of veterans around the Nation.
The VFW is proud to have worked with Congress to pass this
GI Bill. A generation of veterans is now better equipped to
seek higher education. With this huge success behind us, it is
time to reexamine the Post-9/11 GI Bill with an eye toward
simplifying, strengthening, and providing better benefits to
veterans.
The VFW believes a number of changes should be made to the
Post-9/11 GI Bill to address the needs of today's
servicemembers and their families. The original GI Bill
provided training, apprenticeships, OJT, and vocational
training to the World War II generation of veterans. We believe
the Post-9/11 GI Bill should also provide those same
opportunities in the skilled trades to our servicemembers. The
VFW supports the standardization with an eye toward equitable
benefits for equitable service.
The VFW priorities for standardization, simplification, and
strengthening of the GI Bill are as follows: we need to expand
eligibility of programs that currently do not qualify for
Chapter 33 or lump sum payments, vocational training, distance
learning; and Title 32 AGR Guard and Reserve service.
With the increased reliance on the Guard and Reserve to
wage war, secure our borders, and grapple with national
disasters, we need to reward this continuous, noble service
with GI Bill eligibility. Chapter 33 should include certified
vocational programs, non-degree-granting institutions. The
opportunity to learn a skilled trade while receiving a tuition
allowance, book stipend, and BAH would greatly improve the
lives of individuals who are seeking technical degrees. We
should incentivize veterans to invest in technical educations,
as these are the skill sets that help build our cities, connect
our communications, and drive our economy.
Further, on-the-job training should be included in Chapter
33. OJT Apprenticeship Programs should receive a living
allowance based on BAH of the ZIP code of the program; and a
book stipend, which help them purchase tools, equipment, and
pay dues.
Programs such as Helmets to Hardhats have successfully
placed veterans in skilled trades from across the Nation. This
public-private partnership is paving the way for a generation
of tomorrow's journeymen. Further, we believe that redefining
full, three-quarter, and half-time enrollments will help to
address some of the inequities within the legislation.
We must equitably adjust this mechanism. Current law does
not pay the living allowance for half-time students, yet,
students enrolled in one credit or more of half-time receive a
full living stipend. We encourage the Committee to consider
basing BAH payments on stair step programs similar to that
under the Montgomery GI Bill benefit.
The VFW is very enthusiastic about S. 3447. This
legislation is taking the GI Bill in a new direction, a
stronger direction. It recognizes the service of hundreds of
thousands of National Guard members activated in support of
national emergencies. It also seeks to address the important
vocational apprenticeship and on-the-job training programs as
outlined in my written statement. Further, it addresses
multiple issues, such as distance education, correspondence
courses, active-duty book stipends, retention kickers, and
stipends for disabled veterans.
Senator Tester, this legislation will address every area of
concern the VFW has with improving the GI Bill. We can not say
enough about the noble efforts of this legislation. Our written
testimony offers a number of simple suggestions to help
improve, simplify, and strengthen this legislation with a goal
of equitable benefits for equitable service. We look forward to
continuing to work with this Committee, its staff, and the
Congress to improve this valuable benefit that makes a life-
changing difference to so many veterans.
Senator Tester, thank you for this opportunity to testify.
That concludes my statement. I am happy to take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hilleman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eric Hilleman, Director, National Legislative
Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on Improvements to
the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The 2.1 million men and women of the Veterans of
Foreign Wars of the U.S. and our Auxiliaries appreciate the voice you
give them at this important hearing.
Senator Webb, Senator Akaka, and all the members of Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee; the VFW would like this opportunity to
thank you for your leadership and the creation of the Post-9/11 GI
Bill. The VFW is very proud to have worked with the Congress to pass
the Post-9/11 GI Bill. A generation of veterans is now better equipped
to seek higher education, with hundreds of thousands of veterans in
schools across the Nation directly benefiting from the dedication, work
and leadership of this Committee and its staff. With this huge success
behind us, it is time to reexamine the Post-9/11 GI Bill with an eye
toward improving, simplifying and strengthening the benefits it
provides.
The VFW believes a number of changes should to be made to the Post-
9/11 GI Bill to address the needs of today's servicemembers and their
families. The original GI Bill provided training apprenticeships and
vocational training for World War II veterans. We believe the Post-9/11
GI Bill should also provide veterans the same opportunity to seek
careers in skilled trades. The VFW supports the standardization with an
eye toward equitable benefits for equitable service.
vfw priorities for standardization, simplification and strengthening
the post-9/11 gi bill
Expanded eligibility: currently, there are a number of programs
that qualify for education and training under Chapter 30 (lump sum
payments, vocational training, distance learning), but are not
authorized under Chapter 33. We support crediting Title 32 AGR
eligibility as qualifying active duty time for the Chapter 33. With
increased alliance on the Guard and Reserve to wage war, secure our
boarders and grapple with national disasters we need to reward this
continuous noble service with GI Bill eligibility.
Vocational Programs: Chapter 33 should include certified Vocational
Programs (non-degree granting institutions) to allow veterans the
opportunity to learn a trade while receiving a living allowance,
tuition and book stipend. Many veterans have technical skills and
transferable credit that gives them a head start on earning a technical
education. We should incentivize veterans to invest in technical
educations as these skill sets help to build our cities, connect our
communications and drive our economy.
On-the Job Training: further, Chapter 33 should include On-the-Job
Training (OJT)/Apprenticeship programs. Veterans in these programs
should receive a living allowance based on BAH and the zip code of the
OJT program. The living allowance should be tiered similarly to the
MGIB. A book stipend should be paid every six months to aid the veteran
in covering the cost of tools, dues and programs supplies. OJT is one
of the few direct employment programs available to a veteran that
provides an immediate career track. Programs such as Helmets to
Hardhats successfully place veterans in the skilled trades across the
Nation. This public-private partnership is paving the way for a
generation of tomorrow's journeymen.
Redefine Full, Three-Quarter and Half-Time Enrollments: in Chapter
33, we must equitably adjust the mechanism for counting: full, three-
quarter and half-time enrollments. Current law does not pay a living
allowance for half-time students, yet students enrolled with one credit
more than half-time receive the full living stipend. We encourage the
Committee to consider basing BAH payments on a stair step structure
with enrollments of 12 credits or more equal to full time/100 percent
BAH; 9 to 11 credits equal to three-quarter time/75 percent of BAH; and
6 to 8 credits equal to half-time/50 percent of BAH. This would make
rates simpler to understand and greatly reduce the number of over and
underpayments charged to students.
pending bills
S. 1785 would amend Title 38, United States Code, to require State
Approving Agencies (SAA) to approve courses of education that
have been accredited and approved by a nationally recognized
accrediting agency or association, and for other purposes.
VFW cannot support this legislation. We believe that SAA is a
safeguard to the education and training programs offered to veterans.
SAAs play a key role in ensuring veterans utilize their education
benefits and training opportunities at reputable institutions.
Requiring these agencies to approve courses that are recognized by
other national approving bodies is duplicative. This requirement erodes
the value of SAA's ability to protect the valuable GI Bill resources
available to veterans.
S. 2769, the Post-9/11 Veterans' Job Training Act of 2009
The VFW supports the intent of this legislation. S. 2769 would
create a mechanism for importing On-the-Job Training (OJT) and
apprenticeship programs into Post-9/11 GI Bill. This bill develops a
structure paying 75 percent of the monthly benefit for the first six
months, 55 percent of the monthly benefit for the second six months,
and 35 percent of the monthly benefit for the next 12 months. The
result is each month of entitlement would be charged at the same rate
of usage. We believe it accurately deals with accessible steps in
benefit and charge to entitlement. The outstanding concerns with this
bill are the lack of clarity on payment rates and duration of payments.
We encourage a simple table to determine the compensation rate and
the charge to total months of entitlement for OJT programs. We
recommend the following break out based on the BAH E-5 with dependents
rate for the zip code of the program:
100 percent of BAH for the first 6 months, resulting in 6
months of entitlement used.
80 percent of BAH for the second 6 months, resulting in
4.8 months of entitlement used.
60 percent of BAH for the third 6 months, resulting in 3.6
months of entitlement used.
40 percent of BAH for the forth 6 months resulting in 2.4
months of entitlement used.
20 percent of BAH for any remaining months, resulting .2
months of entitlement used per month.
Under this calculation, a veteran over the course of a five-year
apprenticeship would use 24 months of his/her total 36 months of
entitlement. Each veteran should receive a living allowance based on
BAH and the zip code of the OJT program. The annual $1,000 book stipend
should be paid at $500 intervals every six months to aid the veteran in
covering the cost of tools, dues and program supplies. OJT is one of
the few direct employment programs available to a veteran that provides
an immediate career track.
S. 3082 would amend Title 38, United States Code, to authorize
individuals who are pursuing programs of rehabilitation,
education, or training under laws administered by the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs to receive work-study allowances for
certain outreach services provided through congressional
offices, and for other purposes.
We support amending Title 38, United States Code, to authorize
veterans to engage in work-study and certain outreach services provided
through congressional offices, and for other purposes.
As this Committee is well aware, the sunset date of the work-study
pilot, authorizing work-study for outreach/domiciliary care/cemeteries,
recently passed June 30, 2010. Currently, an extension of this program
is tied up in the benefits bill (H.R. 1037) that has yet to be
completed from last year. The VFW would like to stress the importance
of work-study programs in the offices that rely on these talented
veterans, and attest to the education and professional development each
veteran gains by participating in this program. We look forward to
continuing to work with both the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs
Committees to address this legislation and ensure these veterans
continue to earn valuable work experience while studying.
S. 3171, Veterans Training Act
The VFW is concerned that this legislation does not address the
compensation implications of expanding the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill.
Currently, the law states only institutions of higher learning that
lead to an associate degree or higher may be utilized under Chapter 33.
This means that veterans attending vocational schools, apprenticeship
schools, OJT and distance learning programs are excluded from utilizing
Chapter 33.
Many separating servicemembers have no desire to attend a
traditional educational institution because they are more interested in
learning skill sets that are not offered at these institutions. This
legislation would seemingly allow veterans to attend educational
institutions that do not lead to a degree (such as vocational schools,
correspondence schools, business schools, science schools, technology
schools, etc.) within the jurisdiction of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
However, this legislation fails to provide adequate mechanisms for
providing payment to the veterans that choose these educational
programs.
S. 3389, the GI Bill Equitable Education Benefit (EEB) Act
The VFW opposes this legislation. This bill seeks to create a
disproportionate benefit for members of the Guard or Reserve who used
GI Bill benefits prior to September 11, 2001, and subsequently served
four years accumulative active-duty after September 11, 2001. Current
law mandates a maximum time limitation of 48 months for veterans using
two or more educational programs. There are no exceptions to this rule.
Veterans entitled to full benefits under both Chapters 1606 and
1607 of Title 10 are limited to 48 months. Veterans are also
constrained to 48 months in situations where they are fully eligible
for benefits under Chapter 31, VR&E and Chapter 33. Regardless of
eligibility status or combination of service, the law bars exceeding
the 48-month limit. Further, the potential inequities would also cause
confusion among the veterans and disproportionately reward one
veterans' service over another.
S. 3447, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act
of 2010
The VFW is enthusiastic about the direction this legislation is
taking the GI Bill. This legislation recognizes the service of hundreds
of thousands of National Guard members activated in support of national
emergencies. S. 3447 also seeks to address the importation of
vocational, apprenticeship and On-the-Job Training (OJT) programs into
Chapter 33. Further, it addresses multiple issues, such as distance
education, correspondence courses, active duty book stipends, retention
kickers and stipends for disabled veterans.
Senator Akaka, your legislation addresses every area of concern the
VFW has with improving the Post-9/11 GI Bill. We cannot say enough
about the noble intent driving this legislation. We simply offer a
number of suggestions to improve, simplify and strengthen your
legislation with the goal of equitable benefits for equitable service.
The following is a section-by-section break out of the provisions of
the bill.
Section 1 aptly entitles this bill, ``Post-9/11 Veterans
Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010.'' Section 2 rewards
the service of National Guard members who have served on Active Guard
Reserve (AGR). While this language recognizes the largest percentage of
Guard members who have served on AGR, we remain concerned that this
language may exclude Active Guard service performed in the wake of
September 11 at airports, border security operations, and some national
activation in support of disaster relief, such as in the Gulf for
Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill. The VFW feels the Nation should
reward equitable service with equitable benefits. We support rewarding
all members of the National Guard who are activated on national orders.
When the Nation calls, the Guard answers, no questions asked.
Section 3 eliminates the confusing mechanism VA currently uses to
determine fees and tuition by making the promise that if a veteran
attends any course of study at a public school (undergraduate, graduate
or doctorate), the GI Bill will cover the cost. The VFW strongly
supports this improvement and simplification of the GI Bill. Paragraph
(a)(3)(ii) addresses the compensation rate for all private schools and
foreign institutions, thus establishing the entry point for the Yellow
Ribbon Program. This language would compensate up to the average
national cost for an undergraduate degree for all institutions of
higher learning. The VFW supports the intent of the Yellow Ribbon
Program to encourage private schools to share in the cost of education
America's warriors. We are, however, concerned that this language, as
written, may result in a number of veterans enrolled in private
institutions of higher learning receiving less funding than they are
receiving under current law.
Paragraph (b)(2) seeks to resolve the inequity of monthly stipends
paid to veterans with less than full-time course loads. The VFW
supports resolving this inequity. We would urge a simpler step scale to
replace the sliding scale which requires the weighting of averages and
the division of credit hours by the minimum number of course hours
required for full-time enrolment.
The Montgomery GI Bill) used a simple step scale, which could be
applied in this case. A veteran taking 12 credits or more is equal to
full time and 100 percent of BAH; 9 to 11 credits is equal to three-
quarter time and 75 percent of BAH; and 6 to 8 credits is equal to
half-time and entitled to 50 percent of BAH. Thus, charging total
monthly entitlement according to the percentage of BHA used in any
given month. In taking this approach, every veteran can calculate the
BAH for the school's zip code, determine their course load, and
calculate the exact percentage of BAH they would receive. This would
also help to minimize complications for the VA, while minimizing some
of the over and underpayments that can occur when dropping or adding a
class.
Paragraph (b)(2)(iii) provides a half-time stipend for veterans
pursuing a program of distance education on a half-time or more basis.
The stipend would be equal to 50 percent of the national average BAH E-
5 with dependents rate. The VFW supports providing stipends for
distance education; however, one of the primary purposes of the GI Bill
is to serve as a transition program. We encourage every veteran to
attend classes in a traditional classroom setting among their civilian
peers. We believe the GI Bill helps reintegrate veterans into civilian
life by encouraging socialization in the classrooms and lecture halls
of America.
With this in mind, we suggest, paying a living stipend to full-time
distance learners of 50 percent of national BAH average; 9 to 11
credits should be equal to three-quarter time and 37.5 percent of the
national BAH average; and 6 to 8 credits is equal to half-time and
entitled to 25 percent of the national BAH average. Using the national
BAH average eases the calculation for VA when determine the BAH.
Section 3, Paragraph (g)(2) allows veterans pursuing certifications
and education in non- degree granting institutions to receive tuition
payments up to the amount of the average national cost for an
undergraduate degree for all institutions of higher learning. These
veterans would also receive monthly living stipends for the national
average BAH E-5 with dependents rate. The VFW supports this paragraph.
We urge the inclusion of the $1,000 book stipend, paid every six months
to aid the veteran in covering the cost of books, tools and program
supplies.
Paragraph (g)(2)(B) includes On-the-Job Training (OJT)/
Apprenticeship programs. The VFW supports the creation of an OJT
program under Chapter 33, though legislation seeks to structure OJT
under a complicated mix of national tuition rates and BAH. The VFW
encourages a simpler table to determine the compensation rate and the
charge to total months of entitlement for OJT programs. We recommend
the following break out based on the BAH E-5 with dependents rate for
the zip code of the program:
100 percent of BAH for the first 6 months, resulting in 6
months of entitlement used.
80 percent of BAH for the second 6 months, resulting in
4.8 months of entitlement used.
60 percent of BAH for the third 6 months, resulting in 3.6
months of entitlement used.
40 percent of BAH for the forth 6 months resulting in 2.4
months of entitlement used.
20 percent of BAH for any remaining months, resulting .2
months of entitlement used per month.
Under this calculation a veteran over the course of a five-year
apprenticeship would use 24 months of his/her total 36 months of
entitlement. Each veteran should receive a living allowance based on
BAH and the zip code of the OJT program. The annual $1,000 book stipend
should be paid at $500 every six months to aid the veteran in covering
the cost of tools, dues and program supplies. OJT is one of the few
direct employment programs available to a veteran that provides an
immediate career track.
Paragraph (g)(2)(C) develops a compensation rate and tuition/fees
for certified flight training programs under the GI Bill. This language
would compensate a veteran for the program's established charges up to
60 percent of the average national cost for an undergraduate degree for
all institutions of higher learning. Paragraph (g)(2)(D) develops a
compensation rate for exclusively correspondence courses administered
under the GI Bill. This language would compensate a veteran for the
program's established charges up to 55 percent of the average national
cost for an undergraduate degree for all institutions of higher
learning. The VFW supports these provisions.
Section 4 establishes a mechanism to allowing a veteran to take
multiple licensure and certification tests. Each test would cost the
veteran one month of GI Bill entitlement at the rate of the average
national cost for an undergraduate degree for all institutions of
higher learning. While the VFW supports utilization of GI Bill benefits
to take multiple tests, this section would eliminate the current $2,000
maximum a veteran can utilize for a single test without charge to
entitlement. The VFW recommends allowing a veteran to take multiple
licensure and certification tests, spending into the $2,000 threshold,
beyond the $2,000 threshold a veteran then consumes monthly entitlement
for any tests beyond this amount at the rate suggested.
Section 5 ensures that supplemental education assistance under
Chapter 30 Chapter III, transfers into Chapter 33. The VFW supports the
inclusion of these important incentives to assist the Department of
Defense (DOD) in managing its military retention programs.
Section 6 expands the transferability of education entitlements to
members of the Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. The language takes this a step further to
require the ``Secretary Concerned,'' both the Secretaries of Defense
and Health and Human Services (HHS), to reimburse the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs for GI Bill benefits transferred to dependents as part
of the retention and force management plan administered under DOD. The
Defense Department was responsible for crafting regulations to govern
the administration of the benefit. DOD awarded transferability to all
members of DOD who served the prerequisite years and elected to sign up
for the benefit while in uniform. The VFW supports maintaining the
powerful retention tool awarded, administered, and financed by DOD/HHS.
The VFW supports the following sections: Section 7 bars the
duplication of education benefits under Chapter 33. This ensures the
Post-9/11 GI Bill is administered fairly. Section 8 prohibits non-
accredited distance learning and independent study programs from
approval and use under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. This will help to protect
against unscrupulous institutions promising degrees and classes that
fall short of nationally recognized education standards. Section 9
increases the amount paid to institutions through annual reporting
fees, from $7 to $12, and $11 to $15. This modest increase will help to
cover the administrative costs associated with processing and verifying
enrollment.
The VFW enthusiastically supports Section 10 which extends the
national average BAH E-5 with dependents rate to disabled veterans
using education benefits under Chapter 31 or Vocational Rehabilitation
and Education (VR&E). The VFW has long supported increasing the monthly
stipend for VR&E to match the compensation rates associated with
Chapter 33. This increase will allow a veteran to focus more on their
course of study and/or training.
Section 11 would eliminate certain interval payments available to
veterans between semesters. Interval payments come at a cost to the
veteran, requiring the veteran to consume GI Bill monthly eligibility
over Christmas break or over summer vacation without providing the
maximum the 36 months of benefit available. This practice often leaves
the veteran a few months short of eligibility to cover the full cost of
education at a four-year institution. We do not oppose the elimination
of interval payments.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, this concludes our testimony. I am happy to
address any questions you may have.
Senator Tester. Well, thank you for being here. There will
be questions, and I appreciate both your verbal and your
written testimony.
Mr. Embree.
STATEMENT OF TIM EMBREE, LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE, IRAQ AND
AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA
Mr. Embree. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
Members of the Committee, on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan
Veterans of America's nearly 200,000 members and supporters,
I'd like to thank you for allowing us to testify at this
critical hearing on the improvements of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
My name is Tim Embree. I am from St. Louis, MO. I served
two tours in Iraq with the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve. The Post-
9/11 GI Bill will be remembered as one of our country's
shrewdest investments for generations to come if we act now and
we finish the work this Committee began 2 years ago.
IAVA is encouraged by S. 3447, the Chairman's Post-9/11
Veterans' Educational Assistance Improvement Act by simplifying
and streamlining the administrative rules S. 3447 would enable
Department of Veterans Affairs to process GI Bill claims in a
timely manner. S. 3447, which we have come to call New GI Bill
2.0, is a comprehensive effort to address the concerns of tens
of thousands of student veterans and their families. IAVA is
proud to endorse this legislation, contingent upon the
improvements we submitted for the record be included in the
final bill. S. 3447 will help veterans access valuable job
training by granting Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to veterans in
vocational, apprenticeship, and on-the-job training programs.
IAVA member Charles Conrad returned home from war to face a
bleak economy. He had finished two tours, was released from his
stop-loss orders, and was ready to begin the next chapter of
his young life. Charles moved to Pittsburgh and enrolled in the
Pennsylvania Gunsmith School, a well-known vocational school
founded in 1949. Charles, like countless other veterans,
assumed that by combining his military experience with a
vocational certificate, he would make himself marketable in
today's rough job scene.
Unfortunately, the Post-9/11 GI Bill does not pay for trade
schools, and now Charles is left struggling to pay down a pile
of bills. Most people do not realize the majority of World War
II Veterans used their GI Bill benefits to attend vocational
schools. The 78th Congress passed a correction bill 1 year
after the first GI Bill in order to include veterans just like
Charles who want to attend vocational schools, much like we are
asking the 111th Congress to do right now. Allowing veterans to
enroll in the vocational program of their choice would enable
all of our war-fighters to use their hard-earned New GI Bill
benefits.
IAVA recommends following a simplified pay chart for on-
the-job training and apprenticeship students, which we have
submitted for the record, as well. S. 3447 will help National
Guard servicemembers by granting full GI Bill credit for full-
time service, this vital improvement will ensure that thousands
of National Guard troops from Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, and
Mississippi, who are currently protecting our coastline from
the oil in the Gulf will receive credit toward their Post-9/11
GI Bill benefit.
IAVA member Sergeant First Class Bradford Mingle has been
wearing our country's uniform every day for the past 19 years,
including a recent tour in Afghanistan. Sergeant First Class
Mingle is part of the Active Guard and Reserve Program, which
means he works full-time for the National Guard. Imagine
Sergeant First Class Mingle's surprise and anger when he
applied for the New GI Bill, only to have the VA tell him that
he had not served long enough to qualify for full benefits.
According to the current law, only 1 year of Sergeant First
Class Mingle's 19 years of active-duty service actually counted
toward his GI Bill eligibility. Yet, a full-time Reservist
doing the same job as Sergeant First Class Mingle would qualify
for the full GI Bill simply because his or her checks were paid
for by the Federal Government rather than the State government.
The same uniform, same service, vastly different benefits.
Under the current form of the New GI Bill, the tuition
benefits are not only confusing, they are completely
unpredictable. The nationwide tuition caps have fluctuated
wildly since last year, and recently in front of this
Committee, the VA admitted that reforming the tuition and fees
benefit was its top priority fix for the New GI Bill. We need a
GI Bill benefit that is easy to calculate and is easily
understood by those who use the benefit, as well as those who
distribute it.
The New GI Bill 2.0 simplifies the tuition benefit by
abolishing the confusing State cap program and replacing with a
simple promise. Under the proposed New GI Bill 2.0, if a
student veteran attends a public school, the New GI Bill will
pay for the entire cost of tuition and fees, no questions
asked. However, if a student veteran attends a private school,
the proposed rate in S. 3447 is frighteningly low and would
slash benefits for student veterans attending private schools
in over 23 States.
IAVA recommends simplifying the annual tuition
reimbursement rate for private schools by setting a national
baseline of $20,000 per year. This baseline should be increased
by a cost of living adjustment on an annual basis. Creating
this baseline will provide a fair and generous benefit for all
students, and will mean an increase in tuition reimbursement in
45 States.
New GI Bill 2.0 is a much needed comprehensive upgrade,
involving changes large and small. These changes are vital to
the academic success of student veterans pursuing a higher
education. History has shown us the value of investing in our
country's veterans. The Post-9/11 GI Bill will be remembered as
one of our greatest investments in our country's veterans for
generations to come if we act now and finish the work this
Committee began 2 years ago.
IAVA is proud to speak on behalf of the thousands of
veterans coming home every day. We work tirelessly so veterans
know that we have their back.
I appreciate your time today, sir, and from the whole
Committee, and I look forward any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Embree follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Embree, Legislative Associate, Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee: on
behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's nearly two hundred
thousand members and supporters, thank you for allowing us to testify
at this critical hearing on ``Improvements to the Post-9/11 GI Bill.''
My name is Tim Embree. I am from St. Louis, MO and I served two tours
in Iraq with the United States Marine Corps Reserves. As a new veteran
eligible for the historic Post-9/11 GI Bill, I am personally grateful
to you for holding this hearing. As a representative of IAVA, I also
extend the gratitude of tens of thousands of our members who can now
afford to attend school, and become the ``Next Greatest Generation,''
thanks to the new benefit.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill, or ``New GI Bill,'' will be remembered as
one of the shrewdest investments in our country's veterans for
generations to come if we act now and finish the work this Committee
began two years ago.
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) is encouraged by
the Chairman's discussion draft of S. 3447, the ``Post-9/11 Veterans
Educational Assistance Improvement Act.'' This discussion draft of
S. 3447 will improve the New GI Bill and ensure that all student
veterans have access to the most generous investment in veterans'
education since World War II. By simplifying and streamlining the
administrative rules, S. 3447 would enable the Department of Veteran
Affairs (VA) to process GI Bill claims in a timely manner. S. 3447,
which we have come to call the ``New GI Bill 2.0,'' is a comprehensive
effort to address the concerns of tens of thousands of student veterans
and their families by:
Offering valuable job training for students studying at
vocational schools
Granting National Guardsmen who respond to national
disasters full GI Bill credit
Providing living allowances for veterans in distance
learning programs
Simplifying and expanding the tuition benefit
Including a book stipend for active duty students
IAVA is proud to endorse this legislation, contingent upon the
following improvements being included in the bill. We therefore have
included several simple and important technical recommendations we
would like to see addressed in the August mark-up.
History has shown us that veteran education and employment must
consistently be at the forefront of the national dialog. The Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee continues to show our veterans,
servicemembers and their families that they are dedicated to the future
of the men and women who have worn our country's uniform. IAVA applauds
this Committee for discussing S. 3447 (New GI Bill 2.0), S. 2769 (the
Post-9/11 Veterans' Job Training Act of 2009), S. 3082 (Authorize work-
study for outreach services provided through congressional offices),
and S. 3171 (The Veterans Training Act) today. We hope today's hearing
signals to both the Senate and House that there is vital work still to
be done for veterans and their families before the end of this
Congress.
i. s. 3447: the post-9/11 veterans educational assistance
improvement act of 2010
A. Invaluable Professional Job Training
S. 3447 will help veterans access valuable job training by granting
Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to veterans in vocational, apprenticeship
and On-The-Job training (OJT) programs. IAVA member Charles Conrad
returned home from war to face a bleak economy. He had finished two
tours, was released from his stop-loss orders and was ready to begin
the next chapter of his young life. Charles moved to Pittsburgh and
enrolled in the Pennsylvania Gunsmith School, a well-known vocational
school founded in 1949. Charles, like countless other veterans, assumed
that by combining his military experience with a vocational
certificate, he would make himself marketable in today's rough job
scene. Unfortunately, Charles was let down by the New GI Bill.
Currently, the Post-9/11 GI Bill does not pay for trade schools--and
now Charles is left struggling to pay down piles of bills.
I was depending on the housing allowance and without it I can't
even afford the school . . . It's a slap in the face to me that
I can't use the Post-9/11 GI Bill . . . It's like saying a
trade school isn't good enough for the new GI Bill, but it is
for the old GI Bill. Is there any way that trade schools will
ever be allowed under the new GI Bill?
Most people don't realize that a majority of WWII veterans used
their GI Bill benefits to attend vocational schools. Although there are
a limited number of vocational programs at the local community colleges
currently authorized, allowing veterans to enroll in the vocational
program of their choice would enable all of our war-fighters to use
their hard-earned New GI Bill benefit.
IAVA Technical Recommendations: S. 3447 should include a book
stipend for all vocational students. Many technical schools require
students to purchase training manuals and specialized equipment for
their highly technical training courses. Also, vocational students
attending public technical schools should have their entire tuitions
covered at the same rates as public college students. Last, the On the
Job Training (OJT) and Apprenticeship section needs to be clarified.
IAVA does not believe that the monthly living allowances should be
based on national tuition rates. We recommend the following simplified
pay chart for OJT and Apprenticeship students.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S3447 Proposed Monthly S3447 New GI Bill Old GI Bill Rates
Apprenticeship & OJT Allowances Rates (MGIB)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First 6 months................................... 100% (Nat'l Avg BAH) $1333/month $1026/month
Second 6 months.................................. 80% (Nat'l Avg BAH) $1070/month $752/month
Third 6 months................................... 60% (Nat'l Avg BAH) $802/month $478/month
Fourth 6 months.................................. 40% (Nat'l Avg BAH) $535/month $478/month
Apprenticeship Only
Additional 6 months.............................. 20% (Nat'l Avg BAH) $267/month None
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Full Credit for Full Time Served
S. 3447 will help National Guard servicemembers by granting full GI
Bill credit for full-time service. The New GI Bill 2.0 classifies state
activations for national disasters (e.g., Hurricane Katrina and the BP
oil spill) and full-time Title 32 Active Guard Reserve (AGR) service as
qualifying service. This correction will help almost 30,000 Army
National Guard and 13,500 Air National Guard servicemembers serving on
Title 32 or ``state'' orders. This vital improvement will also ensure
that the thousands of National Guard troops from Louisiana, Alabama,
Florida, and Mississippi who are currently protecting our coastline
from the oil spewing in the Gulf will receive credit toward their Post-
9/11 GI Bill benefit.
IAVA member Sergeant First Class (SFC) Bradford Mingle has been
wearing our country's uniform every day for the past 19 years,
including during a recent tour in Afghanistan. SFC Mingle is part of
the Active Guard and Reserve program (AGR), which means he works full-
time for the National Guard. Imagine SFC Mingle's surprise and anger
when he applied for the New GI Bill, only to have the VA tell him he
hadn't served long enough to qualify for the full benefits.
I am an AGR soldier with 19 years active duty but I'm not
qualified to get what an Active Army Soldier gets? Is our
service not worth as much? Why are AGR Soldiers always left
out?
According to the current law, only one of SFC Mingle's 19 years of
active duty service actually counted toward his GI Bill eligibility.
Yet a full-time reservist doing the same job as SFC Mingle would
qualify for the full GI Bill simply because his or her checks were paid
for by the Federal Government, rather than the state government. Same
uniform, same service--vastly different benefits.
IAVA Technical Recommendations: This Committee must fix the wording
in Sec. 2 of S. 3447 that requires full-time Title 32 Reservists to be
both AGR ``and'' a state call-up in order to qualify for New GI Bill
credit. A simple word change from ``and'' to ``or'' will end the
confusion. Also, all activations under Title 32 Sec. 502(f) should be
included--not just responses to ``national emergencies.'' Thousands of
reservists continue to protect our country by fulfilling vital homeland
security missions, and they must receive their New GI Bill benefit.
C. Fairness for Disabled Veterans Utilizing Distance Learning
Many disabled veterans and single mothers are attending online
courses to achieve their dream of a college degree. But, under the
current rules, even if they are taking a full course load, they do not
qualify to receive the New GI Bill's substantial monthly living
allowance. If these veterans were able to take just one course at a
local college, they would qualify for the full living allowance. Yet
enrolling in a course at a brick-and-mortar institution is nearly
impossible for a single mother simultaneously struggling to keep food
on the table, for example, or for a disabled veteran who cannot
navigate a flight of stairs without assistance. A living allowance for
students of online institutions would stop many veterans from having to
choose between keeping a roof over a family's head and concentrating on
being a successful student. The allowance would enable them to provide
for their families while increasing their future earning potential
through education. The New GI Bill was supposed to encourage student
veterans to focus on their education and not their financial
situation--but without the New GI Bill 2.0 upgrade, student veterans
pursuing degrees through distance learning are left out in the cold.
IAVA member Specialist (SPC) Weaver was awarded a bronze star for
his meritorious service during two tours in Iraq. He is currently at
home recovering from the fractured spine he sustained after being
ejected from a moving vehicle. SPC Weaver suffers from vertigo, hearing
problems and loss of mobility. Despite his injuries, SPC Weaver still
dreams of completing his education and has been looking to attend
college online, where he can complete his degree at his own pace. In
spite of his service, SPC Jeffrey Weaver cannot benefit from the New GI
Bill in its current form.
This seems quite absurd as it is fact that many service-
disabled veterans are undergoing treatments and have special
needs. Although I am not totally disabled, because of my
current conditions, it would be nearly impossible to collect on
the Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlements. This seems to be an issue
we need to raise to Congress.
IAVA Technical Recommendations: A student veteran pursuing a degree
through a distance program should qualify for a living allowance based
on the zip code of his or her residence. Or, at the very least, the
living allowance should be set at the lowest Basic Allowance for
Housing (BAH) rate for an E-5 pay grade, with dependents. This
adjustment would be an increase of about $140 over the currently
purposed rate.
D. Simplify the Yellow Ribbon Program
New GI Bill 2.0 simplifies the tuition benefit by abolishing the
confusing state cap program and replacing it with a simple promise.
Under the current form of the New GI Bill, the tuition benefits are not
only confusing, they are also completely unpredictable. In California,
tuition caps have been raised three times this year alone. Worse,
nationwide tuition caps have fluctuated wildly since last year.
Recently, in front of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, the VA
admitted ``delays in determining the 2009-2010 maximum tuition, and fee
rates resulted in delayed processing of payments for students attending
school in those states.'' The VA later said that reforming the tuition
and fees benefit was its top priority fix for the New GI Bill. We need
a GI Bill benefit that is easy to calculate and is easily understood by
those whose use the benefit as well as those who distribute it.
Under the proposed New GI Bill 2.0, if a student veteran attends a
public school, the New GI Bill will pay for the entire cost of tuition
and fees--no questions asked. If a student veteran attends a private
school, the VA will pay a nationally-recognized, baseline amount. If a
private school is more expensive than the national baseline, the school
is encouraged to take part in the yellow ribbon program in order to
eliminate the remaining gap in education costs.
IAVA member Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Brian Pummill is in an
extreme, remote location in Afghanistan. LTC Pummill should be focused
solely on the mission at hand, but his thoughts are back at home as he
tries to explain to his college-bound daughter how the New GI Bill's
tuition benefit will work. Even after a long career successfully
navigating military bureaucracy, LTC Pummill is thoroughly perplexed by
the VA's confusing tuition and fee caps.
I don't understand how to calculate how much TUITION AND FEES
the VA will pay Saint Mary's College . . . I see calculations
that just compute this by $321/credit hour, but this doesn't
come close to the MAXIMUM FEES BY TERM of $12,438.00 indicated
for SMC. Since SMC's TUITION AND FEES for 2010-2011 are the
same for ALL FULL-TIME STUDENTS, REGARDLESS OF THE CREDIT HOURS
THEY ARE TAKING, why wouldn't we take the Maximum fees by term
($12,438), multiply that by 2 ($24,876), then divide by 9
months ($2,764/month), to calculate the per month value of the
GI Bill at SMC, if that is the actual cost of Tuition and Fees
to attend SMC. The same calculation by the credit hour,
assuming you take 32 credit hours per year, is only $321.75
times 32, which is only: $10,296.00. How does a student qualify
to be reimbursed at the MAXIMUM TUITION AND FEES PER TERM,
instead of by the credit hour--at SMC, the difference between
these two calculations is staggering.
S. 3447 will simplify the benefit and help servicemembers like LTC
Pummill get their mind back on the mission.
IAVA Technical Recommendations: Simplify the annual tuition
reimbursement rate for private schools by setting a national baseline
of $20,000 per year. This baseline should be increased by an annual
Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA) on an annual basis. Creating this
baseline will provide a fair and generous benefit for all students and
will mean an increase in tuition reimbursements in 45 states. The
proposed rate in S. 3447 is frighteningly low and would slash benefits
student veterans attending private schools in over 23 states.
E. Other Improvements to the New GI Bill
New GI Bill 2.0 is a much needed comprehensive upgrade, involving
changes large and small. These changes are vital to the academic
success of student veterans pursuing a higher education. S. 3447 will
also:
Grant active duty students a book stipend worth $1,000/
year
Increase Vocational Rehabilitation monthly benefits by up
to $780/month
Reimburse students who take multiple accreditation/
certification tests
Allow enlistment kickers to be transferred to dependents
Increase school reporting fees
Simplify the types of discharges that qualify for benefits
IAVA Technical Recommendations: The distribution of monthly living
allowances for part-time students should be modeled on the old GI Bill
(full-time, \3/4\ time and \1/2\ time). This change simplifies the
benefit and will greatly reduce the confusion caused by numerous under-
and over-payments by the VA.
Veterans should not be charged entitlement for the reimbursement of
licensing and certifications up to the first $2,000 per veteran.
Veterans should be reimbursed for an unlimited amount of licenses and
certifications under the current $2,000 cap. Veterans should only be
charged against their entitlement after they have surpassed the $2,000
amount. Furthermore, we do not agree with the section that requires the
Department of Defense to pay for transferred benefits. This should be
studied further, but this particular issue must not be used to
arbitrarily keep us from fulfilling our promise to the men and women
who fight our wars. Also, interval payments are vital to students who
must complete professional internships, and the payments should not be
carved out of the benefit. Finally, the school reporting fee must be
increased to at least $25 per veteran. Often, a school certifying
official is the face of this benefit to our student veterans, and we
must ensure that these officials are reimbursed for doing the extra
work sometimes needed.
ii. s. 1785: require state approving agencies to approve nationally
accredited courses of education
IAVA opposes S. 1785. This legislation would render State Approving
Agencies (SAAs) virtually powerless and leave the New GI Bill open to
widespread abuse. SAAs are at the front line of GI Bill implementation.
Since WWII, SAAs have played a critical role in educating school
certifying officials on GI Bill procedures and protecting against
fraudulent claims.
S. 1785 would require SAAs to automatically approve nationally
accredited schools for GI Bill purposes, but S. 1785 fails to
acknowledge that SAAs are not only responsible for reviewing curriculum
at each approved school, they are also responsible for auditing the
school's GI Bill books. When discrepancies are discovered, the SAA
works with the school to ensure that the school certifying official is
properly inputting all information and that all the books are
reconciled. Withholding GI Bill approval is the only mechanism an SAA
has to ensure compliance.
Under the New GI Bill, which requires schools to self-report
tuition costs, the role of the SAA is critical. The SAA is the only VA
entity that regularly verifies that self-reported numbers are accurate.
Therefore, the SAA protects the VA from overpaying for tuition
benefits. The SAAs account for only around 0.5 percent of the overall
GI Bill budget, but they likely save the VA ten times that amount by
preventing widespread overpayments and reducing administrative hours
devoted to fixing improperly filed enrollment certifications.
S. 1785 would tie the hands of SAAs. State Approving Agencies would
no longer be able to withhold GI Bill approval from schools that have
poor bookkeeping or have possibly committed fraud.
iii. s. 2769: post-9/11 veterans' job training act of 2009
IAVA supports S. 2769, the Post-9/11 Veterans' Job Training Act.
This bill would provide valuable job training for vocational schools
and On-the-Job-Training (OJT) and Apprenticeship programs. S. 2769
simply shifts the OJT and Apprenticeship benefits currently under the
old Montgomery GI Bill to the New GI Bill. This simple change will
ensure that the New GI Bill fully covers all types of essential
programs.
IAVA is concerned, however, about wording in S. 2769 that may
frustrate the bill's intended purpose of including vocational training
programs in the New GI Bill. IAVA believes that Sec. 2(B) of S. 2769
should clarify that the New GI Bill will pay for approved programs
under both 38 U.S.C. 3452(c) and 38 U.S.C. 3452(f). The current
language of S. 2369 only uses 3452(f), which is no different than how
the Post-9/11 GI Bill is currently written.
iv. s. 3082: authorize work-study for outreach services provided
through congressional offices
IAVA supports S. 3082. This common sense legislation expands the VA
work-study program that allows veterans to work in Congressional
offices. IAVA believes that S. 3082 will benefit veterans by granting
them valuable experience in the Federal Government and will benefit
Congressional offices by substantially increasing the number of
veterans helping other veterans.
v. s. 3171: the veterans training act
IAVA strongly supports S. 3171, the Veterans Training Act. This
legislation is properly worded to include vocational schools under the
New GI Bill and we believe it should be the model for S. 3447 and
S. 2769.
vi. s. 3389: the gi bill equitable education benefit (eeb) act
IAVA opposes S. 3389. The intention of this bill purports to fill
an unintended bureaucratic pothole in the Post-9/11 GI Bill, but the
actual language would cause much more confusion than it would fix.
According to Senator Hagan's press statement on the bill, ``Under
current law, servicemembers who receive educational assistance in the
form of an ROTC scholarship or who graduate from one of the service
academies are eligible for full educational benefits under the Post-9/
11 GI Bill. However, members of the Selected Reserve who received
educational assistance under Chapter 1606 of the Montgomery GI Bill
prior to receiving a commission and serving on active duty are not now
entitled to the same four years of benefits under the Post-9/11 GI
Bill.''
IAVA fully supports ensuring that all servicemembers have equal
access to the generous New GI Bill. However, modifying the universal
48-month cap on education benefits for a small group of individuals
would wreak havoc with GI Bill claims processors and would not actually
solve the issue at hand.
IAVA could support S. 3389 if it was modified to adjust where this
issue arises, which is Sec. 3322 of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
vii. conclusion
The Post-9/11 GI Bill, or ``New GI Bill,'' will be remembered as
one of the greatest investments in our country's veterans for
generations to come if we act now and finish the work this Committee
began two years ago. History has shown us the importance of investing
in our country's veterans, and IAVA applauds the phenomenal work this
Committee continues to do on behalf of our Nation's veterans and their
families.
IAVA is proud to speak on behalf of the thousands of veterans
coming home every day. We work tirelessly so veterans know we have
their back. Together, with this Congress and the Department of Veteran
Affairs, we can guarantee that every veteran is confident that America
has their back.
Thank you.
Senator Tester. I appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Hartle.
STATEMENT OF TERRY W. HARTLE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
Mr. Hartle. Thank you very much, Senator Tester. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here with you this morning to
talk about S. 3447, the Post-9/11 Veteran's Educational
Assistance Improvements Act.
I am testifying on behalf of my own organization, the
American Council on Education, as well as 12 other higher
education organizations that wish to be associated with my
testimony. I have prepared a list of those organizations, and
I'd like to ask that it be added to the official record.
Ten years ago, the veterans' groups and the higher
education community established a collaborative venture called
the Partnership for Veterans' Education. I am honored to
testify here today with several of our organizations in that
effort. And we stand ready and committed to working with them
and you to ensure that our Nation's returning veterans have
access to and good opportunity for success in post secondary
education.
Colleges and universities have eagerly embraced the Post-9/
11 GI Bill, and institutions have worked hard to reach out to
veterans, not only welcoming them to campus, but changing the
way they do things on campus in an effort to best meet the
specific needs of veterans.
At ACE, we have been fortunate enough to work with hundreds
of institutions that are doing things, and I mentioned several
of those institutions in my testimony.
As a result of our extensive work in this area, I think
we're well-positioned to comment on the impact of the Post-9/11
GI Bill on student veterans and college campuses, as well as
S. 3447.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill, as already had been mentioned,
provides excellent education benefits for veterans. It's really
landmark legislation. However, several provisions in the
legislation have complicated our ability to implement the law
and S. 3447 addresses these issues. At the end of the day, we
think the bill will improve both benefits for veterans and the
ability of colleges and universities to serve them.
I think that the bill as drafted, S. 3447, offers three
distinct improvements to existing law. First, it provides
greater clarity and accuracy about the benefits that
servicemembers will receive. This will enable them to make
informed decisions about their education plans. Second, the
bill ensures true equity for all veterans who have served. And
third, the bill will simplify benefit schedules and
administration, reducing bureaucracy and institutional costs
while improving services to veterans. And I think these ought
to be the three goals of the Committee as you continue to
refine this legislation: great clarity and accuracy about
benefits; true equity for all veterans; and simplified benefit
schedules and administration.
I think Mr. Embree put a very human face on exactly how
that works under this bill and the improvements that you will
be making. We think that eliminating the State tuition and fee
caps is laudable. The widely varying State caps have resulted
in an extremely cumbersome and inaccurate process that's caused
frustration, anxiety, confusion for the VA, for the
servicemembers, and for institutions. We strongly support the
intent of the legislation to fully cover the cost of public
institutions, while setting a national baseline for private
colleges and universities.
I would point out, however, that the language set forth in
Section 3 employs terminology not currently used by the U.S.
Department of Education that's likely to cause confusion in
implementation. I believe these matters are relatively easily
fixed, and I'd encourage you to put it in terms that will
ensure the Department of Education gives the VA exactly the
information that you intend the VA to have.
We also strongly support the effort to clarify the
eligibility of National Guard members and troops serving in the
Active Guard Reserve Program. We also support the expansion of
benefits to include vocational schools, apprenticeship, and on-
the-job training.
The bill does much to streamline the delivery of benefits,
and we would strongly encourage the Committee to keep the ease
of implementation in the forefront of your decisionmaking as
you continue to work on this legislation.
I would also note that S. 3447 includes several provisions
designed to help offset the cost implications that may arise
from the passage of this bill. While the bill has yet to be
scored, I think the inclusion of offsets and other provisions
to mitigate possible costs demonstrates the Committee's desire
to meet the needs of veterans in a fiscally-responsible way,
and we applaud you for that.
In conclusion, on behalf of ACE, the American Council on
Education and our 2,000 college and university members, we
strongly urge the Committee to support S. 3447. We thank you
for you efforts to strengthen this critical legislation, and we
look forward to working with you as it moves forward.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hartle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Terry W. Hartle, Senior Vice President, American
Council on Education
Chairman Akaka, Sen. Burr and the Members of the Committee, thank
you for inviting me to present the views of American colleges and
universities and express our strong support for S. 3447, the Post-9/11
Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010. My
organization, the American Council on Education (ACE), represents the
entirety of American higher education. Since our founding in 1918 as an
emergency council to ensure the U.S. had a ready supply of technically
trained military personnel in World War I, ACE has been actively
involved in meeting the postsecondary education needs of America's
servicemembers and veterans.
Today, ACE annually evaluates hundreds of military courses and
occupations. In addition to publishing the results of these evaluations
in the Guide to the Evaluation of Educational Experiences in the Armed
Services, ACE collaborates with the Department of Defense (DOD) to
detail this work on nationally recognized transcripts for members of
the Army, Army National Guard, Navy and Marine Corps. The registry for
these transcripts holds the records of more than 6 million
servicemembers who request approximately 200,000 transcripts per year
that are sent to more than 2,200 accredited institutions of higher
education.
With the recent challenges facing our Nation at home and abroad,
there has been renewed focus on ensuring that servicemembers and
veterans have access to and the opportunity to succeed in higher
education. I'm proud to say that ACE has launched several initiatives
in this area, both before and after passage of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
In 2007, ACE launched a program to assist severely injured
servicemembers and their families in making the transition from patient
to civilian to student and to date, more than 580 injured veterans and
their family members have become actively engaged in postsecondary
education as a result of this initiative.
In 2009, ACE launched its Serving Those Who Serve initiative, a
multi-year effort designed to effect major changes in how veterans
learn about their education benefits and postsecondary options and how
institutional leaders can build capacity to serve veterans on their
campuses. As part of this effort, ACE partnered with the Walmart
Foundation to award $2 million in funding to 20 institutions across the
U.S. that operate model programs advancing access and success in higher
education for veterans and their families.
And this year, ACE, with the generous support of The Kresge
Foundation, presented the Veteran Success Jam, a three-day online
brainstorming session that brought together nearly 3,000 veterans and
their families, servicemembers, campus leaders and representatives of
nonprofit organizations and government agencies to discuss the
opportunities and barriers facing veterans in higher education. The Jam
will help to inform and shape ACE's future work on behalf of
servicemembers and veterans.
These efforts are merely the tip of the iceberg. Higher education
has eagerly embraced the Post-9/11 GI Bill and the promise it
represents. Postsecondary institutions have worked hard to reach out to
veterans, not only welcoming them onto campus, but ensuring that
institutions adapt to best meet veterans' specific needs. At ACE we
have been fortunate to work with hundreds of institutions on veterans'
education issues and I want to cite just three examples.
There's Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey, which
convened a task force that published a 70-page report to guide campus
policies and procedures for student veterans. When GI Bill payments
were delayed, FDU allowed veterans to enroll in classes without the
appropriate paperwork, understanding that it would arrive eventually.
Hunter College School of Social Work, which is part of the City
University of New York system, established a program at five local
community colleges, training social work graduate students and peer
mentors to help veterans navigate benefits and services provided by the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and community agencies. When GI
Bill checks did not arrive, the graduate students and peer mentors
quickly directed veterans to emergency funds and the campus food
pantry.
Clackamas Community College in Oregon recognized the need to work
closely with the Oregon National Guard and local community resources to
help veterans transition to the civilian world. Clackamas welcomed more
than 3,000 National Guard members and veterans to campus for a career
and benefit fair, offering all-day childcare while free services and
workshops were provided.
We are proud of the work of these institutions, and thousands
others like them, to help ease the transition from soldier to student.
As a result of our extensive work in this area, I believe we are
well-positioned to comment on the impact of student veterans and
college campuses of the Post-
9/11 GI Bill, which we believe harkens back to the intent of the
original GI Bill.
Despite the Post-9/11 GI Bill's marked improvement over previous
education benefits, some provisions have complicated institutions'
ability to implement the law and have resulted in inaccurate payments
and a labor intensive process. The bill this Committee is considering
today addresses the major issues that have arisen, and we believe that
it will help fulfill Congress's intent and will allow institutions of
higher education to better serve America's veterans.
As we see it, S. 3447 provides three distinct improvements to the
existing bill. It will:
1. Provide greater clarity and accuracy on available benefits,
enabling veterans to better plan their educational paths and make more
informed decisions.
2. Ensure true equity for all those who have served this country.
3. Simplify benefit schedules and administration, reducing
bureaucracy and institutional costs, while improving the service
offered to veteran students.
In particular, the proposed legislation's intent to eliminate the
confusing state tuition and fee caps is laudable. The widely varying
state caps have resulted in an extremely cumbersome and inaccurate
process that has caused frustration and anxiety on the part of the VA,
institutions and student veterans. ACE supports the intent of the
legislation to fully cover the cost of public institutions while
setting a national baseline for private institutions.
However, the terminology set forth in Section 3 references a data
set determined by the National Center for Education Statistics. As
currently worded, the referenced baseline is flawed, ambiguous and will
likely cause a great deal of confusion while reducing current education
benefits in almost half of the states. To keep simplification at the
forefront of this process, ACE recommends further review of this
language to ensure the vocabulary meets the intent of the legislation.
Another possible avenue would be to reference a set number as the
baseline, with a determined annual increase.
We would ask that the Committee carefully consider the method by
which any national average is determined. While such a provision would
greatly simplify the calculation of benefits and has been well-received
by colleges and universities, the level set could have a significant
impact on those veterans attending private, nonprofit institutions.
Moving to a national number would mean that veteran students at some of
these institutions will receive a lower tuition/fee benefit than they
do today. Either the student will have to make up the difference or the
institution will have to expand its Yellow Ribbon agreement in order to
do so, with a potential negative impact on veteran students' education
options.
ACE also supports S. 3447's intent to clarify the eligibility of
National Guard members who have honorably served their country on
active duty including at the site of natural disasters and troops
serving in the Active Guard Reserve. Additionally, the expansion of the
benefit to include vocational schools, apprenticeships, and on-the-job
training harkens back to the inclusionary World War II GI Bill benefit,
which recognized the need for both a traditional college education as
well as work force training.
This bill does much to streamline the delivery of benefits to
veterans, and we encourage the Committee to keep ease of implementation
in the forefront of their decisionmaking. We know from experience that
student needs are best met when campuses are consulted, and we
appreciate this chance to share our views today. We encourage Congress
and the VA to continue this dialog with colleges and universities as
the bill advances.
As we approach the 10th year of the Partnership for Veterans
Education, a collaborative effort between higher education and veterans
organizations, ACE stands eager and committed to continue working
cooperatively to ensure our Nation's returning veterans have access to
and success in higher education. The Partnership for Veterans Education
met recently to discuss common goals and concerns surrounding the Post-
9/11 GI Bill. While we have noted some specific concerns to higher
education institutions in this testimony that warrant further
discussion, the Partnership supports the intent of the Post-9/11 GI
Bill and S 3447: to provide those who have served their country the
best possible opportunity for postsecondary education as a way of
facilitating their transition from military to civilian life.
Finally, in drafting S. 3447, Chairman Akaka has taken laudable
steps to address cost implications that may arise from passage of this
bill. While this bill has yet to be scored, the inclusion of offsets
and other provisions to mitigate possible costs demonstrates a
commitment to meet the needs of veterans in a fiscally responsible way.
In conclusion, on behalf of our 1,800 member colleges and
universities, as well as the American Association of Community
Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities,
the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and
Land-grant Universities, and the National Association of Independent
Colleges and Universities, we strongly urge the Committee to support
S. 3447, and we thank you for your efforts to strengthen this critical
legislation. I am happy to answer any questions you may have, and
welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee going forward.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Hartle.
Judy Flink, executive director of Financial Services for
students at the University of Illinois?
STATEMENT OF JUDY FLINK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY STUDENT
FINANCIAL SERVICES AND CASHIER OPERATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF
ILLINOIS
Ms. Flink. As Senator Tester has mentioned, I serve as the
executive director of the University of Illinois Student
Financial Services for the three campuses. I have worked in
university business offices and have been actively involved in
higher education for over 30 years.
On behalf on myself, colleagues in the AAU Bursar
Organization, colleagues from other educational institutions
around the country, and most importantly, on behalf of the
veterans we serve, I thank you for this opportunity to testify.
In particular, I would like to thank Senator Burris and his
staff for this invitation. It's an honor for me to be here
today.
In 2008, with remarkable leadership from Senator Webb,
Congress passed landmark legislation recognizing the
contribution and needs of millions of Americans who served
their country in our Armed Forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and
elsewhere. This legislation, the Post-9/11 GI Bill, makes
possible educational dreams that not only express a special
thanks to our veterans, but also contribute directly to the
economic recovery and future of America.
America's post-secondary institutions are proud to have
supported the enactment of this bill and welcome the
opportunity to serve veterans in our classrooms. Today,
universities across the country enroll thousands of veterans
who receive support through Federal GI Benefits. Part of my
hope in being here is to promote changes to the program that
will increase that number.
Unfortunately, as you are aware, implementation of the
vitally important education benefits authorized by the bill has
not been smooth. Delays in getting the program up and running,
followed by numerous subsequent flaws in the interface between
the VA and educational institutions have created significant
hardships for our veterans.
My colleagues and I recognize the enormity of implementing
this program and creating the system to manage it. We sincerely
applaud the VA for its work in getting the program up and
running under these difficult circumstances. Our desire is to
strengthen our partnership with the VA in an effort to help the
program run better.
With that in mind, I focused my testimony on flaws in the
system that, if corrected, will more effectively fulfill the
promise of this program. Included with my remarks is a list of
concerns compiled by the University of Illinois and 16 peer
institutions. While this list is not exhaustive, it identifies
major concerns that render access to educational benefits under
this program difficult for veterans and expensive for the
Federal Government and institutions.
Some of these concerns result from legislative provisions,
and many of them result from VA policy and procedures. A number
of our legislative concerns are addressed in S. 3447, Senator
Akaka's Post-9/11 Veterans' Educational Assistance Improvements
Act of 2010, and other legislation under consideration at this
hearing. We support the provisions within these bills that
address our concerns. We applaud Congress for its willingness
to propose the necessary changes that will help us improve the
delivery of the benefits, and we hope this testimony leads to
further opportunity for collaboration between Congress and the
higher education community.
The majority of our concerns are administrative in nature.
VA policies and procedures often fail to accommodate the
education community's existing systems and procedures, thereby
creating needless delay and hardships for our veterans. I will
not belabor the Committee with all of the concerns on our
attached list, but allow me to highlight just two of these.
Perhaps, our greatest concern of university business
officers is the VA's refund policy which requires institutions
to refund tuition overpayments to students who must then refund
them back to the VA. This policy mirrors that of the original
GI Bill, wherein all benefits, inclining tuition, were paid
directly to the student, who was then responsible for paying
their tuition bills to the school and for refunding any
overpayments back to the VA. But, under the Post-9/11 GI Bill,
tuition benefits are paid to the school, not the student.
Therefore, the requirement to refund overpayments to the
student instead of directly to the VA is not only inefficient,
it has put students at risk of losing future benefit
eligibility under the program when they fail to understand and
fulfill their responsibility of returning those funds to the
VA. In all other financial aid programs, overpayments are
refunded directly to the aid source, bypassing the student.
Thus, students have come to expect when they receive a refund
back from the school, they can use it for books and other
expenses. This risk is high. By the time they receive
notification from the VA of the amount they must repay, the
money, unfortunately, may have been spent. The VA will then
suspend their benefit eligibility until payment is received
which would delay or prevent the student from continuing their
education. So they are out of the game.
A second major concern is the VA's remittance of payment
for students for whom the institution has certified a different
amount or for whom the institution has not even completed the
certificate of eligibility. No explanation is provided with
these payments; therefore, the institution must contact the VA
for an explanation of the discrepancy before releasing payment
to the student.
Well, you have heard during our discussion this morning,
those hold times can be up to 40 minutes. My staff will come
and say to me, I got cut off and I had to call again. And the
cycle continues. For months, the VA phone lines were closed on
Thursdays and Fridays. So as my staff was getting frustrated,
so were our veterans. These delays and the result in hardship
to the veterans could be eliminated if the VA included an
adequate explanation to the school when sending payments.
While I have only mentioned two of our concerns, the
attached list is more comprehensive. We are confident, however,
that many of them can be successfully resolved through an open
dialog between the school business officers and the VA. Our
recent attempts to initiate this dialog met with disappointing
results.
We received a written response from the VA, for which we're
grateful, but we were not given the opportunity to discuss the
matter in more detail and have that meaningful dialog that we
feel strongly would help us fix the system.
My peers and I respectfully ask for your assistance to open
this dialog. We believe regularly-scheduled meeting between the
VA and a working group from the education community will enable
both parties to collaborate on proposed program changes and
regulations prior to their implementation. We'd like to be
considered as both a resource and a partner for the VA and
Congress in our mutual endeavor to improve the delivery of
Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition benefits to our veterans. Thank you
again for the opportunity to speak with you today. I hope my
testimony can be a springboard for productive dialog between
all parties who share our commitment to strengthening and
improving service to our veterans. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Flink follows:]
Prepared Statement of Judith Flink, Executive Director, University
Student Financial Services, University of Illinois
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Judith Flink.
I serve as Executive Director of University Student Financial Services
for the three campuses of the University of Illinois. I have worked in
the University's business office and been actively involved in higher
education for over 30 years. On behalf of myself, colleagues in the AAU
Bursar organization, colleagues from other educational institutions
around the country, and most importantly, on behalf of the veterans
attending or seeking to attend our institutions, I thank you for this
opportunity to testify. In particular, I would like to thank Senator
Burris and his staff for this invitation--it is an honor for me to be
here today.
In 2008, with remarkable leadership from Senator Webb, Congress
passed landmark legislation recognizing the contributions and needs of
millions of Americans who served their country in our Armed Forces in
Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. This legislation, the Post-9/11 GI
Bill, makes possible educational dreams that not only express a special
thanks to our veterans, but also contribute directly to the economic
recovery and future of America.
America's postsecondary institutions are proud to have supported
the enactment of this bill and welcome the opportunity to serve
veterans in our classrooms. Today, universities across the country
enroll thousands of veterans who receive support through Federal GI
benefits. Part of my hope in being here is to promote changes to the
program that will increase that number.
Unfortunately, as you are aware, implementation of the vitally
important education benefits authorized by the bill has not been
smooth. Delays in getting the program up and running, followed by
numerous subsequent flaws in the interface between the VA and
educational institutions, have created hardship for veterans and
institutions. My colleagues and I recognize the enormity of
implementing this program and creating the systems to manage it. We
sincerely applaud the VA for its excellent work in getting the program
up and running under difficult circumstances. Our desire is to
strengthen our partnership with the VA in an effort to help the program
run better.
With that in mind, I focus my testimony on flaws in the system that
if corrected will more effectively fulfill the promise of this program.
Included with my remarks is a list of concerns compiled by the
University of Illinois and 16 peer institutions. While the list is not
exhaustive, it identifies major concerns that render access to
educational benefits under this program difficult for veterans and
expensive for the Federal Government. Some of these concerns result
from legislative provisions, and many are the result of VA policy and
procedures.
A number of our legislative concerns are addressed in S. 3447,
Senator Akaka's Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements
Act of 2010, and other legislation under consideration at this hearing.
We support the provisions within these bills that address our concerns.
We applaud Congress for its willingness to propose these necessary
changes that improve the delivery of benefits. And we hope this
testimony leads to further opportunity for collaboration between
Congress and the higher education community. Other legislative concerns
we have, such as the exclusion of Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition benefits
from Federal financial aid needs analysis, will require us to work with
the education committee to amend the Higher Education Opportunity Act.
The majority of our remaining concerns are administrative in
nature. VA policies and procedures often fail to accommodate the
education community's existing systems and procedures, thereby creating
needless delay and hardship for veterans. I will not belabor the
Committee with all the concerns on our attached list. Allow me to
highlight just three of them.
Perhaps our greatest concern as university business officers is the
VA's refund policy which requires institutions to refund tuition
overpayments to students who must then refund them back to the VA. This
policy mirrors that of the original GI Bill wherein all benefits
(including tuition) were paid directly to the students who were then
responsible for paying their tuition bills to the school and for
refunding any overpayments back to the VA. But under the Post-9/11 GI
Bill, tuition benefits are paid to the school not the student.
Therefore, the requirement to refund overpayments to students instead
of directly to the VA is not only inefficient, it also puts students at
risk of losing future benefit eligibility under the program if they
fail to understand or fulfill their responsibility to return those
funds to the VA. This risk is high. In all other financial aid
programs, overpayments are refunded directly to the aid source
bypassing the student. Thus, students have come to expect that when
they receive a refund from the school it is theirs to use for books and
living expenses. By the time they receive notification from the VA of
the amount they must repay, the money may have been spent. The VA will
then suspend future benefit eligibility until payment is received which
would delay or prevent the student from continuing their education.
A second major concern is the VA's remittance of payment for
students for whom the institution has certified a different amount, or
for whom the institution has not even completed a Certificate of
Eligibility. No explanation is provided with these payments. Therefore,
the institution must contact the VA for an explanation of the
discrepancy before releasing payment to the student. When the
institution calls, the VA's phone lines have long delays with hold
times up to 40 minutes. Sometimes calls are dropped altogether due to
the high volume and the institution must dial again. For months, the
VA's phone lines were closed on Thursdays and Fridays. These delays and
their resultant hardship to the Veteran could be eliminated if the VA
included an adequate explanation to the school with each payment.
Our third concern is a lack of published guidance. The VA has
published no clear guidance regarding several key elements of benefit
eligibility. This lack of guidance results in increased administrative
burdens and frustration on the part of veterans. The creation of a
readily accessible Post-9/11 GI Bill policy manual would eliminate the
majority of this frustration and burden.
While I've only mentioned three of our concerns, the attached list
is more comprehensive. We are confident, however, that many of them can
be successfully resolved through open dialog between schools and the
VA. Our recent attempts to initiate this dialog met with disappointing
results. We received a written response from the VA, for which we are
grateful, but were not given the opportunity to discuss the matter in
more detail or open a meaningful dialog.
My peers and I respectfully ask your assistance to open this
dialog. We believe regularly scheduled meetings between the VA and a
working group from the education community will enable both parties to
collaborate on proposed program changes and regulations prior to
implementation. We would like to be considered as both a resource and
partner for the VA and Congress in our mutual endeavor to improve
delivery of Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition benefits to our veterans.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you. I hope my
testimony can be a spring board for productive dialog between all
parties who share your commitment to strengthening and improving
services to our veteran community. I would be pleased to respond to any
questions Members of the Committee might have.
Attachment to Judy Flink Testimony
list of concerns regarding administration of the post-9/11 gi bill
The Post-9/11 GI Bill was signed into law August 1, 2009.
Certification and processing of VA Chapter 33 program benefits began
immediately thereafter. The volume of applicants overwhelmed VA
resources and the program got off to a rough start. Improvements have
been made in VA's process, but the program continues to present
significant challenges to the education community.
Following is a list of VA Chapter 33 issues and suggestions
submitted by administrators from educational institutions (hereinafter
collectively referred to as Institution) around the country. The issues
needlessly delay delivery of benefit payments to veterans and unduly
burden Institutions. The suggestions offer potential solutions.
Issues:
VA refund policy is highly labor-intensive because:
- VA under- and over-payments with no attached explanation
result in long processing delays as Institution attempts to
contact VA for details.
- VA policy is inconsistent--some overpayments must be
refunded to VA, others to the student; some refunds must be
electronic, some by paper check.
- VA policy of refunding to the student is contrary to all
other forms of student financial assistance that require
Institutions to refund to the aid source;
- The policy of refunding to the student results in
inaccurate IRS Form 1098-T reporting. For example, if VA remits
$10,000 Chapter 33 tuition benefits to Institution then the
student drops classes resulting in a $4,000 tuition reduction
and Institution refunds that $4,000 to the student instead of
VA, the Institution will report $10,000 in Box 5 of the
student's Form 1098-T, not the $6,000.
VA payments are not adequately explained:
- VA payments do not match the amount certified by
Institution on the Certificate of Eligibility.
- VA remits payments for students for whom Institution has
not completed a Certificate of Eligibility.
- VA remits duplicate payments for some students.
- VA pays out-of-state tuition after Institution has charged
and certified in-state tuition.
- VA payments lack adequate identifying information--
enrollment term, number of credit hours, percentage of
eligibility, etc. For example, if Institution certifies $5,000
and VA remits only $3,200, Institution is given no explanation
why.
- Some VA payments appear on multiple cycle rosters giving
the false impression that duplicate payments have been
received.
- Some VA deposits contain enrollment dates that do not match
the Institution's.
VA customer service is inadequate:
- Institution cannot contact VA's Buffalo regional office
directly even though they originate the payments; Institution
has to use either the online inquiry system or call the
national 888 number.
- VA's national 888 number results in long delays from hold
times as long as 40 minutes or dropped calls; now the 888
number is closed Thursdays and Fridays to enable VA to ``catch
up''.
- VA representatives often give conflicting information and
when pressed either refer Institution to VA's regional office
in Buffalo (which Institution cannot contact), or instruct
Institution not to question VA's payments (even though
Institution has found many errors and is supposed to be VA's
``partner'').
- VA's online system sometimes reports inquiries ``closed''
without providing an adequate explanation of the resolution.
- VA Education Liaison Representatives (ELRs) are frequently
unavailable due to ``special assignment''.
VA has published no clear guidance:
- VA has published no clear guidance regarding which benefits
will be delayed in the event of an unreimbursed overpayment--
tuition/fee payment to Institution, or living/book payment to
student?
- VA has published no clear deadlines for retroactive
applications (benefits for prior enrollment terms).
- VA has published no clear guidance for Chapter 33 benefit
eligibility for students who receive other forms of tuition
assistance, e.g. Active Military tuition sponsorship, Federal
or state tuition assistance, Institutional tuition waivers,
private tuition specific scholarships or sponsorships, etc.
- VA has published no clear guidance for Chapter 33 benefit
eligibility for students who are discharged from active duty
during the enrollment period.
- VA has published no clear guidance on Chapter 33 benefit
eligibility for waive-able student health insurance.
VA has not required or adequately accounted for DD214
(active duty discharge) data when determining Chapter 33 benefit
eligibility.
VA policy of remitting individual instead of collective
payments is highly labor-intensive.
VA return policy creates needless delays and
administrative burden because:
- Institution must return full payment if any variation in
assessment has occurred subsequent to certification, even if
that variation is a minor reduction in fees.
- Institution must submit an amended certification after
returning payment which removes it from VA's automated process
by requiring VA Claims Adjustor review.
- VA Claims Adjustor must then submit a new payment request
to the U.S. Treasury Department who waits to process the
payment in batch.
Veterans and Institution have no mechanism for determining
the status of a veteran's application (22-1999) and whether the veteran
will qualify for Chapter 33 benefits, so veterans who need the benefits
in order to attend class cannot register.
VA restrictions on distance education unfairly deny
housing stipends to these students.
VA does not notify Institution when student changes
benefit Chapter.
Yellow ribbon payments have been particularly difficult;
although they are included on the original certification, the yellow
ribbon eligibility is segregated and payments for yellow ribbon claims
have not been forthcoming.
Delayed VA payments result in additional labor-intensive
Institution activities:
- Institutions process emergency loans for delayed housing
payments;
- Institutions place provisional credits on student accounts
in order to prevent late payment charges or cancellation of
enrollment for non-payment;
- Institution must conduct a manual reconciliation upon
receipt of VA payments which are almost invariably different
than the anticipated provisional credits;
- Institution holds payments received for a previous
enrollment term until VA confirms the student's eligibility for
the current or subsequent enrollment term in order to verify
accuracy;
- Institution must process multiple Certificates of
Eligibility for students whose active duty and/or enrollment
status changed prior to receipt of VA payment;
- Lump sum payments for multiple terms are difficult to
differentiate by term.
Suggestions:
Open a dialog between VA and Institutions that enables
both parties to understand prior to implementation the system and
process implications of VA proposed new changes and regulations.
Establish a partnership between VA and U.S. Department of
Education (ED) to share resources and expedite delivery of VA benefits.
Revisit the education law passed by Congress last year
that removes VA benefits from consideration when determining student
eligibility for Title IV funds. Federal need based financial assistance
must by definition be determined on need, and need is mitigated by
Federal assistance from another Federal agency.
Create an on-line portal similar to the WAVE portal for
Chapter 30 benefits that would enable veterans and Institution to
determine the veteran's Chapter 33 application status and eligibility
for benefits.
- Veterans need an effective source of accurate information
about their individual benefit eligibility before they apply
for and accept admission to an Institution in order to know
whether they can afford to attend.
- Institutions who are asked to carry the financial risk for
veterans by holding them harmless while awaiting payment from
VA need an effective source of accurate information about their
application and benefit status.
Simply, streamline, standardize, and improve communication
regarding VA overpayment policy:
- Allow Institution to refund/return only the overpayment
amount rather than the full payment followed by an amended
certification.
- Allow Institution to batch overpayment refunds/returns
rather than remitting them individually.
- Standardize VA overpayment policy to mirror ED and other
financial aid policies that return overpayments to the aid
source not student.
- Improve communication regarding status of student refund/
return.
Provide adequate and accurate explanations to Institution
for VA payments that differ from Institution certified amounts; then
remit batch/collective payments to Institution instead of multiple
individual payments.
Allow individuals other than the single certifying
official at Institution to initiate/maintain contact with VA; for
example, individuals who research billing issues should be able to
speak directly with VA payment coordinators to resolve discrepancies.
VA responsiveness to researching mismatched payments has
improved, now originating issues need to be addressed.
Replace the per-credit hour cap with a single dollar
amount cap for each state. This would eliminate the need to calculate
benefits individually for each student based on enrolled credit hours.
Revisit VA restrictions on distance education to allow
veterans Chapter 33 housing stipends while enrolled solely through
distance education courses.
Clarify VA policy on overseas study and expand Chapter 33
benefit eligibility to include courses taken abroad that count toward
the student's degree.
Allow veterans to revert to a more advantageous program if
they discover Chapter 33 is not in their best interest.
- The irrevocable nature of Chapter 33 benefit election
coupled with the lack of clear situation-specific information
to effectively guide their decision has created hardships for
many veterans.
- Remove the Chapter 30 to Chapter 33 conversion penalty
which limits combined use of the two programs to 36 months
unless Chapter 30 is exhausted.
Simplify Chapter 33 eligibility rules and allow all active
service to count; eliminate the requirement to verify the purpose and
authorizing U.S. Code for each active duty period.
Expand Chapter 33 timelines to allow Institution to
complete Certificates of Eligibility far enough in advance to enable VA
to process claims by the start of the term and continue uninterrupted
between terms.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act's Readmission
Requirements for Servicemembers states that returning servicemembers
may not be charged tuition and fees in excess of the rate charged
during the term in which they left school for military service unless
they have veteran or military education benefits. Is it reasonable to
base charges on benefit eligibility?
Improve VA delivery of policy notifications to Institution
Certifying Officials (COs). Recent VA policy updates submitted to COs
via mass e-mail with a link to VA's Web Automated Reference Material
System (WARMS) were missed because many COs could not access the link
to WARMS. All time sensitive information should be included in the
actual email text.
Forward to Institution a monthly report (or copy of
Certificate of Eligibility) listing each applicant and percentage of
Chapter 33 benefit eligibility for that Institution.
Forward to Institution a monthly (or quarterly) report
listing students who owe an overpayment to VA, and when the overpayment
has been paid.
Remove the detailed examination of each course's
applicability to a degree program, attendance, retakes, and need for
remediation. Why does the VA track this level of detail when U.S.
Department of Education does not?
Remove the tracking of each course by start and stop date;
allow Institutions with regular terms of enrollment to use the same
criteria as Title IV for full time enrollment.
Remove the requirement for State Approving Agencies to
approve each program of education at an accredited Institution. If the
Institution meets accreditation standards, shouldn't that be sufficient
for education benefits?
Contributing Institutions:
Margaret Baechtold and Susan Cote, Indiana University
Sandie Rosko, University of Washington
Laurie Schlenke, Michigan State University
Jean Thomson, University of Colorado, Boulder
Bob Lech, University of Pittsburgh
Beth Barrett, Harvard University
Roseann Sieminski, Pennsylvania State University
James Middlemas, University of Michigan
Marty Miller, University of Iowa
Christina Westendorf, Illinois State University
Cathie Easter, University of Wisconsin
Bradley Stene, Northwestern University
Marsha Lovell, UCLA
Cathy Foland, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
Paul Toler, University of Missouri Columbia
John Higgins, Purdue University
Judith Flink, University of Illinois
Senator Tester. Thank you, Ms. Flink.
Captain Farrell?
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN GERARD M. FARRELL, USN (RET.), EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, COMMISSIONED OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE U.S. PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICE
Captain Farrell. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am
privileged to be able to speak with you here today on behalf of
the more than 6,500 active-duty and retired officers who are
members of the Commissioned Officers' Association of the U.S.
Public Health Service. I will confine my remarks exclusively to
Section 6 of Senate Bill 3447, which will extend the
transferability entitlement of the Post-9/11 GI Bill to the
Commissioned Corps of both the U.S. Public Health Service and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
In the original Post-9/11 GI Bill signed into law in 2008,
the PHS and NOAA Commissioned Corps were left out. The
oversight was partially rectified in 2009, during the
development of implementing regulations by the VA. The
Veterans' Administration, citing law and precedent, observed
that PHS and NOAA officers had always been entitled to the GI
Bill benefits, but because of the wording about transferability
in the Post-9/11 statute, the VA could not fix the problem
through rulemaking.
There are three reasons to include PHS officers in the
Post-9/11 GI Bill transferability entitlement. First and most
obvious is that doing so is simply a matter of law and
precedent, as certified by the VA. Second, it will have a
positive impact on retention, and thus, on public health
security--arguably, the most important and fundamental
component of national security. Finally, it involves fair and
equal treatment for all of our uniformed service veterans,
regardless of the uniform in which they happen to serve.
S. 3447 will bring the Post-9/11 GI Bill into conformance
with Title 42, Section 213(d) of the U.S. Code, which reads in
part that ``active service commissioned officers of the Public
Health Service shall be deemed to be active military service in
the Armed Forces of the United States for the purposes of all
laws administered by the secretary of Veterans Affairs.''
The PHS Commission Corps is the second-smallest of the
seven Federal uniform services with an active-duty force of
some 6,500 health professionals. The Corps is not well-known to
the general public, and sometimes not even to policymakers,
yet, the PHS Commission Corps' effective impact on the Nation's
public health far exceeds its small size, and maintaining
public health security is a critical element of national
security.
The U.S. Government recognized this fact in 1889, when it
created the Public Health Service Commission Corps as a
uniformed service. And the inextricable relationship of public
health to national security and now global health security has
only grown more important over time. Indeed, global health
diplomacy has recently become an integral part of our national
military strategy. Think of the PHS Commission Corps as a
public health national security force multiplier.
PHS officers train with their military colleagues,
participate in joint missions, and serve shoulder to shoulder
alongside them in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere around the
world. PHS officers are among the first to deploy with the Navy
to Haiti following the earthquake earlier this year. PHS
officers serve in ever greater numbers throughout the
Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.
The head of the DOD TRICARE Pharmacy Directorate is a PHS flag
officer. The director of Psychological Health for the National
Guard is a PHS officer. PHS officers provide oral health and
dental care for the Coast Guard, but today, are not able to
transfer their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to a family member as
can the Coast Guardsmen alongside whom they serve. I could go
on.
Domestically, PHS officers are assigned to nearly every
stage and have a presence in almost every Federal agency and
right here on Capitol Hill. PHS officers deploy in anticipation
of and in response to every incident involving public health,
including sending one-third of their officers to the Gulf Coast
before, during, and after the 2005 hurricanes, and even today
along the Gulf Coast, monitoring environmental health issues
incident to the Gulf oil leak disaster.
In a field where cultural sensitivity is a key requirement
in providing effective care, and all the uniform services are
concerned about diversity issues, especially in their officer
corps, the PHS Commission Corps stands out as the most diverse
institution in the Federal workforce in terms of ethnicity,
race, and gender. But there is a well-documented crisis in the
public health workforce today. The number of physicians and
dentists in the Corps, for example, has declined precipitously
in recent years, and there are thousands, literally thousands
of unfilled billets throughout the entire Public Health
Service. As stated earlier, this is not only a public health
crisis, but also a crisis for national security.
Finally, I will comment briefly on proposed change in the
funding of the transferability entitlement alluded to earlier
by Chairman Akaka. If I read the bill correctly,
transferability would no longer be funded by the VA, but by the
servicemembers' parent agencies. In the case of the Public
Health Service Commission Corps, that would be the Department
of Health and Human Services. Clearly, this would make
transferability far less appealing to those departments. Such a
change now seems particularly unfair to the Public Health
Service and NOAA Corps, the two smallest uniform services so
far excluded from this entitlement.
Further, shifting a funding responsibility for a veteran's
entitlement to agencies other than the VA would set a strange
precedent, as well as adding still more complexity to the
program's administration, exactly the opposite of the intended
effect of S. 3447. The practical result would be to severely
reduce an extremely popular veteran's benefit and restrict the
ability of all the uniformed services to retain key mid-career
professionals. A better approach might be to establish funding
caps and return to the original idea behind the transferability
benefit, which was to focus laser-like on retaining mid-career
servicemembers with highly-valued skills that are in short
supply.
Even in the best of economic times, qualified public health
physicians, dentists, and nurses who are willing to commit to
public service careers are in short supply. The transferability
entitlement in the Post-9/11 GI Bill offers the Department of
Health and Human Services a valuable tool for recruiting and
retaining scarce health professionals. This tool will be even
further enhanced by retaining the funding as it currently
exists within the Department of Veterans Affairs.
For these reasons, I ask all the Members of this Committee
to support the provision within S. 3447 that would, at last,
extend the Post-9/11 GI Bill transferability to the Public
Health Service and NOAA Commission Corps.
I appreciate the Committee's time, attention, and
consideration, and would be pleased to answer any questions you
may have. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Captain Farrell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Captain Gerard M. Farrell, USN (Ret.), Executive
Director, Commissioned Officers' Association of the U.S. Public Health
Service (COA)
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is
Gerard Farrell. I am a retired Navy Captain. For the past nine years, I
have served as Executive Director of the Commissioned Officers
Association of the U.S. Public Health Service (COA). I am pleased and
honored to be able to speak to you today on behalf of active-duty and
retired officers of the PHS Commissioned Corps.
I will confine my remarks to one part of S. 3447, the Post-9/11
Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010. I refer to
Section 6 and the proposal to extend the transferability entitlement to
the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and
the Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).
This provision would permit PHS and NOAA officers to transfer their
unused educational benefits to dependent family members. This is
attractive to PHS officers because they generally cannot take advantage
of their GI Bill educational benefits. They join the service having
already earned bachelors' degrees and, in most cases, advanced and
terminal degrees as well.
introduction and background
In the original Post-9/11 GI Bill, approved by Congress and signed
into law by the President in 2008, the PHS Commissioned Corps and the
NOAA Corps were left out. This oversight was partially rectified in
2009 during the development of implementing regulations. The Veterans
Administration, citing law and precedent, observed that PHS and NOAA
officers had always been entitled to GI Bill benefits. But because of
the wording about transferability in the Post-9/11 statute, the VA
could not fix the problem through rulemaking. So these two uniformed
services remained left out of the transferability entitlement.
I want to thank Chairman Akaka for meeting personally with me and
retired Assistant Surgeon General Dr. Jerrold Michael in September 2008
to discuss this matter. We thank him for listening and for ultimately
deciding to rectify this situation in the context of proposed overall
improvements to the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
S. 3447 would extend the transferability entitlement to PHS and
NOAA officers. The bulk of my statement today is intended to reinforce
the fact that this is absolutely the right thing to do. Maintaining
public health security is a critical element of national security. The
U.S. Government recognized this fact in 1889 when it created the Public
Health Service Commissioned Corps as a uniformed service. The
relationship of public health to national security has only grown more
important over time.
I also want to offer a snapshot of the PHS Commissioned Corps,
which has been serving the Nation since 1889. It is the second-smallest
of the seven Federal uniformed services, with an active-duty force of
6,500 health professionals under the command of the U.S. Surgeon
General. The PHS Commissioned Corps is not well-known to the general
public, and sometimes not even to policymakers. The PHS Commissioned
Corps is well-known and highly regarded by its sister services. PHS
officers train with their military colleagues, participate in joint
missions, and even serve alongside them in Iraq and Afghanistan. (I
will say more about this later in my statement.)
Finally, I will comment briefly on the proposed change in funding
of the transferability entitlement. If I read the bill correctly,
transferability would no longer be funded by the Veterans
Administration, but by the servicemembers' various agencies. In the
case of the PHS Commissioned Corps, that would be the Department of
Health and Human Services.
Clearly, this would make transferability far less appealing to
those agencies. Such a change now seems particularly unfair to PHS and
NOAA, the two small uniformed services so far excluded from this
entitlement. Further, shifting of funding responsibility for a
veteran's entitlement to agencies other then the Veteran's
Administration would set a strange precedent as well as adding still
more complexity to the program's administration--exactly the opposite
of the intended effect of S. 3447. The practical result would be to
severely reduce an extremely popular veterans' benefit and restrict the
ability of all the uniformed services to retain key mid-career
professionals.
A better approach might be to establish funding caps and return to
the original idea behind the transferability benefit, which was ``to
focus, laser-like'' on retaining mid-career servicemembers with highly
valued skills that are in short supply.
legal precedent
As a matter of law and precedent, PHS and NOAA officers have always
been entitled to all GI Bill benefits. This has been the case for more
than 60 years. The single exception has been the transferability
entitlement in the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The provision in S. 3447 that
would extend the transferability entitlement to PHS and NOAA officers
would bring the Post-9/11 GI Bill into conformance with Title 42,
Section 213(d) of the U.S. Code.
This section reads as follows:
Active service deemed active military service with respect to
laws administered by Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Active
service of commissioned officers of the [Public Health] Service
shall be deemed to be active military service in the Armed
Forces of the United States for the purposes of all laws
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (except the
Servicemen's Indemnity Act of 1951) and section 417 of this
title.
In its final rule issued on March 31, 2009 implementing the Post-9/
11 GI Bill, the Department of Veteran's Affairs was unequivocal in
certifying that Title 42, all previous legal opinions, and precedent
did, in fact, entitle the PHS Commissioned Corps to all programs
administered by the Department of Veteran's Affairs. The pertinent
section of that document reads as follows:
We agree that commissioned officers of PHS and NOAA are
eligible for benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. In a
digested opinion from 1985, our General Counsel read the
provisions of 42 U.S.C. 213 regarding PHS and 33 U.S.C. 857-1
and 857-3 (now in 33 U.S.C. 3002 and 3072, respectively)
regarding NOAA as expanding the definition of `Armed Forces' in
38 U.S.C. 101(10) to also include PHS and NOAA for purposes of
benefits administered by VA. See VADIGOP, 6-26-85 (8-28 Reentry
in Active Service). Therefore, service as a commissioned
officer of PHS or NOAA meets the `active duty in the Armed
Forces' service requirement in section 3311 of title 38, U.S.C.
The implementing regulations thus made clear that PHS and NOAA
officers are entitled to Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. But at the same
time, the VA regulation-writers felt stymied by the statutory language
on transferability. The statute mentioned the Secretaries of Defense,
Army, Navy, Air Force and Homeland Security, but did not mention either
the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Secretary of
Commerce. These two departments are the parent agencies of the PHS
Commissioned Corps and the NOAA Corps. S. 3447 would remove that
restrictive language and thereby extend the transferability benefit to
PHS and NOAA officers.
the phs commissioned corps and the military
While the mission of the PHS Commissioned Corps is undeniably and
appropriately different and distinct from those of the other uniformed
services, the character of their service is the same. While other
services may deploy for long periods once every few years, PHS officers
routinely deploy for several weeks at a time, many times in any given
year. PHS officers also deploy, albeit in small numbers, consistent
with the overall size of the Corps, alongside the other uniformed
services around the world.
Most recently, PHS officers have deployed, and are deployed today,
for both long and short tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two PHS officers
deployed to Afghanistan for a year in 2009 were awarded the Bronze Star
Medal for their service.
There is a long history of the PHS Commissioned Corps serving
shoulder-to-shoulder with the other uniformed services. The Corps was
militarized during World War II and remained so through the Korean
Conflict. PHS officers were killed and wounded during those wars. In
the last decade PHS interoperability with DOD has again been growing as
DOD becomes increasingly re-aware of the inextricable link between
public health security and national security. PHS officers deploy
regularly and routinely as part of the Navy's annual health diplomacy
deployments; with the Army and Air Force in the annual Arctic exercises
in Alaska, and elsewhere around the world. PHS officers were among the
first uniformed servicemembers deployed to Haiti in the wake of the
earthquake earlier this year.
the phs commissioned corps at home
On the home front, PHS officers are deployed as needed across the
United States. They serve in remote and sparsely populated areas,
providing comprehensive health care to underserved populations. They
help staff the health and regulatory agencies with the Department of
Health and Human Services (FDA, NIH, CDC, and HRSA, among others) and
they also serve in the Department of Homeland Security and the Bureau
of Prisons.
PHS officers are stationed in nearly all states and the District of
Columbia, with a significant presence in Alaska, Arizona, Georgia,
Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas,
Virginia, and Washington State.
Let me cite North Carolina as an example: Nearly 500 PHS officers
are stationed there. They are spread out across the state--from
Asheville, Durham, Raleigh, Greensboro, Elizabeth City, and Research
Triangle Park, to Butner, Cherokee, and Manteo.
Some PHS officers are detailed to the Defense Department, and are
working at Womack Army Medical Center at Fort Bragg. Others are
assigned to the Traumatic Brain Injury Clinic at Camp LeJeune. These
PHS officers are doctors, nurses, physicians' assistants, mental health
specialists, and physical therapists, and they are treating and
rehabilitating severely injured soldiers and Marines returning from
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Other PHS officers are assigned to the Coast Guard Integrated
Support Command in Elizabeth City. Not everyone realizes that PHS
officers provide nearly all health care for all U.S. Coast Guard
personnel. They wear Coast Guard uniforms.
The Cherokee Indian Hospital in Cherokee, North Carolina, is
staffed by two dozen PHS physicians, dentists, and nurses who are part
of the Indian Health Service. Still other PHS officers stationed in
North Carolina work for Federal health agencies, including the Food and
Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, and Centers for
Disease Control. PHS officers are also assigned to the Environmental
Protection Agency, Department of Homeland Security, and even the
National Park Service.
One hundred and thirty PHS officers stationed in North Carolina
work for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. They staff the prison system's
Federal Medical Center in Butner. They are physicians, dentists,
nurses, pharmacists, psychologists, social workers, and physical and
occupational therapists.
The North Carolina contingent of PHS officers also includes
research scientists, toxicologists and radiologists, sanitary
engineers, biostatisticians and epidemiologists.
I like to point out that the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public
Health Service is among the most diverse of Federal workforces in terms
of ethnicity, race, and gender. Collectively, PHS officers in North
Carolina are fluent in 14 languages, and some officers speak three or
four languages in addition to English. In a field where cultural
sensitivity is a key requirement in providing effective care, the PHS
Commissioned Corps is unsurpassed in operational effectiveness.
public health workforce needs
There is a well-documented need to retain public health service
officers in service to the Nation's health. This matter can be
addressed in part by the inclusion of those officers as eligible for
the full provisions of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
The Public Health Service Commissioned Corps has seen a precipitous
decline in the number of physicians and dentists over the last five
years. Requirements for nurses, pharmacists, engineers, and mental
health professionals remain unfilled. The need is especially acute in
the Indian Health Service. PHS officers are needed to support DOD
treatment plans for mental health issues arising from the ongoing wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is a critical need to retain and to recruit additional PHS
officers in service to the Nation. There is also a critical need to
underscore the seamless relationship among all seven uniformed
services. These facts militate for inclusion of the PHS Commissioned
Corps in Post-9/11 GI Bill transferability.
In recognition of the crisis in the Federal public health
workforce, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act contains
provisions specifically aimed at strengthening and enhancing the role
of the PHS Commissioned Corps. The Patient Protection Act, when fully
implemented, will significantly improve the ability of the PHS
Commissioned Corps to recruit future officers in the key professions;
but the Corps has an immediate and urgent need to improve retention of
key mid-career professionals now. Transferability of the Post-9/11 GI
Bill entitlement will meet that need.
Even in the best of economic times, qualified public health
physicians, dentists and nurses who are willing to commit to public
service careers are in short supply. The transferability entitlement in
the Post-9/11 GI Bill offers the Department of Health and Human
Services a potentially valuable tool for recruiting and retaining these
scarce health professionals. This tool will be even further enhanced by
retaining the funding as it currently exists--in the Department of
Veteran's Affairs.
For all these reasons, I ask all Members of this Committee to
support the provision within S. 3447 that would, at last, extend Post-
9/11 GI Bill transferability to the PHS Commissioned Corps and the NOAA
Corps. I appreciate your time, attention and consideration. I will be
pleased to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.
Senator Tester. Well, I appreciate your testimony, Captain
Farrell, and I appreciate the testimony of everybody who is on
this panel. I also see that Keith Wilson and John Brizzi are
here, and I want to thank them for remaining and listening to
the testimony of the second panel. I very much appreciate that.
I think it's helpful.
I will point out one of the things that Judy Flink said to
you gentlemen while you're here, and that is the fact that we
need more of a partnership, better communication if we're going
to get to the bottom and get all that stuff fixed. I think is
the same thing I am hearing in Montana, by the way, from people
who hold similar positions to yours, Judy. So, I think it could
bear some fruit.
I am going to start with Mr. Hilleman. You had talked very
briefly in your opening statement about enrollments, and I want
you to elaborate on it a little because I do not exactly
understand what you're saying--half enrollments, there's no
living allowance, but one credit and one half time program--
explain what you're talking about there.
Mr. Hilleman. Under current law----
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Hilleman [continuing]. A veteran can game the GI Bill
by enrolling in more than half time or seven credits. So,
there's no BAH stipend for individuals who are half time or
less, but if you're taking seven credits, you get a full BAH
stipend.
Senator Tester. Got you. OK.
Mr. Hilleman. So our proposal is in line with the original
Montgomery GI Bill, creating stair steps and percentages that
give a percentage of the BAH based on enrollment, which could
also address some of the challenges that you had in the
previous panel with questions, Senator Tester. The issue of
over and underpayments with one credit change could be impacted
if they were bracketed by half time between six and eight
credits.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Hilleman. So you go up and down one credit. There's no
over or underpayment. If you go to three-quarter time, 9 to 11
credits, if they move up or down one, it's not too much of an
issue. You still have it between the different percentages.
Senator Tester. Levels.
Mr. Hilleman. It could alleviate some of the challenges.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Hartle, you talked about language in Section 3 is not
language that's used by the Department of Education. Have you
been asked to submit language that would work?
Mr. Hartle. We have not. We would obviously be very happy
to do that.
Senator Tester. Well, I would like to have it.
Mr. Hartle. Certainly.
Senator Tester. I think that if there's an issue in the
language of the bill that could stop proper implementation,
then we need language that's going to work. So, if you could
provide it, that would be great.
Mr. Hartle. Absolutely.
[Responses were not received within the Committee's
timeframe for publication.]
Senator Tester. Judy Flink, I want to thank you for taking
time to pull together some ideas for improving the
administrative issues that we face. Getting these benefits and
processes right requires all hands on deck, and we appreciate
your work. We can not afford to overlook any good ideas.
As executive director of Financial Services, it sounds as
if you had a significant amount of experience working with
veteran students over a significant period of time. You
specifically hit on an issue that I have a great interest in
and that is the overpayments issues, as Mr. Hilleman pointed
out, and the impact on students that go into overpayment
status.
I want to know if you could describe some of the
experiences that you have had with the kind of situation that
has resulted in overpayment, and what can be done to help
alleviate the problem--not only yours, but at other schools?
Ms. Flink. It's pretty universal. If a student enrolls at
the University of Illinois and then they have to opt out for
any reason--sometimes it may be that the programs are just too
rigorous, and then they make a decision that they want to go to
a community college, that the program might be easier for them
to attain. Our point that we have been trying to make with the
VA is we would rather return the money to you because that
timing is very short. Say they dropout in mid-October and they
want to enroll at our community college, Parkland, in January.
By the time we send the money back, VA finally bills the
student; the student might pay them back. They're already
enrolled in Parkland, and the VA is telling them that they do
not have benefits because they may owe money.
Senator Tester. Right.
Ms. Flink. So it gets stuck in this cycle. Or if they come
in full-time, dropped to half-time, we have been saying to the
VA, unfortunately on a number of occasions, and it is a larger
group of public schools that have been saying we simply want to
return the money to VA and get out of the process that's been
implemented because it will make it much easier for the veteran
and less confusing.
Senator Tester. OK. Well, thank you.
This is a question for each one of you. In your testimony,
you all talked about the good things in the bill and the things
that need improvement in the bill. If you were going to pick
one thing that you would like to see changed in S. 3447 as an
improvement, what would it be? We'll start with you, Mr.
Hilleman.
Mr. Hilleman. If absolutely nothing else would be changed,
we would probably have to say the Title 32 AGR deployments.
That is a group of individuals that was inadvertently left out
of the first iteration of the bill, and they have certainly,
through their past and continued service, have earned education
benefits under this law.
Senator Tester. Good.
Mr. Embree?
Mr. Embree. Yes, sir, and thank you for the question. I
think we can all agree on the importance of including folks
from AGR, but I think something that's extremely important, and
what we're hearing from veteran students everyday is tuition
and fees. Folks are really blown away by the problems from the
tuition and fees. Congress did not intend when they wrote the
original Post-9/11 GI Bill for it ever to be implemented that
way. They intended a simple way. So, to actually create a
nationalized baseline for the private schools and to just
simplify and include all public schools, the way S. 3447 says,
is so important right now because there are so many student
veterans and their families affected every day by the debacle
of tuition and fees the way it's currently structured.
Senator Tester. OK. Mr. Hartle?
Mr. Hartle. I completely agree with what Mr. Embree has
said. I think I already indicated that there are some areas
where the language needs to be tightened, and we will be happy
to work with the Committee on that, but that's really not a
fundamental issue. I think the fundamental thing you're doing
in this bill is putting an absolute very clear set of numbers
out there so that people can plan with respect to their post-
secondary education. The benefits to students, the benefits to
institutions that are trying to counsel students will be
enormous. I think that provision alone makes this bill worth
passing. Nothing against any of the other provisions at all,
it's just I think that that would be an extraordinary benefit
for veterans and institutions.
Senator Tester. OK.
Ms. Flink?
Ms. Flink. I agree with Terry. As someone who's in the
trenches and has to help the students build their budgets and
plan for their education, it's critical to make that process
more streamlined and much more easy for them to understand.
Senator Tester. OK. Captain Farrell?
Captain Farrell. I would have to say that the first and
most important thing is to bring the bill into conformance with
existing law, to include all veterans in all facets, in all
entitlements of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, including Public Health
Service and NOAA Corps in the transferability entitlement.
Senator Tester. I have one more question for you, Captain
Farrell. Do you think the Post-9/11 GI benefits and their
expansion will help us recruit and retain good health care
professionals in rural America, also?
Captain Farrell. Absolutely.
Senator Tester. And, as you know, finding and keeping good
folks in medical jobs in rural America is a tough task for the
VA, as well as private providers.
Are there other things that we should be doing to sweeten
the pot for Health Service Commission Corps officers and for
rural providers in general?
Captain Farrell. That's a great question, and I think the
answer is--and it falls into line with the Post-9/11 GI Bill--
which is more educational opportunities. I mean, and
particularly for the Public Health Service Commission Corps
folks, they have a hard time getting continuing education in
the course of their careers as mid-career professionals or as
terminal career professionals in terms of leadership, exposure
and leadership courses, further technical training, clinical
training. That's really tough for the department to fund and
something our small association affiliated foundation tries to
help fill the gap on. So I think that's an important area to
look at.
[Follow-up information provided by Captain Farrell
follows:]
Senator Tester. Well, thank you. Again, I want to thank the
folks from panel one and from panel two. I appreciate your
testimony; appreciate your direct answers to the questions.
I think that as this bill moves forward, it's going to be
critically important that the folks from both panels stay
involved and you can do that in a number of ways, which you
know how to do. If we're going to get this thing ironed out to
make it all it can be to live up to the promises we make to our
veterans, we're going to need your help in doing that. So I
appreciate your testimony at this panel and today and look
forward to your further input down the line. Thank you all very
much. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Robert Madden, Assistant Director, National
Economic Commission, The American Legion
Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr, and fellow Members of the
Committee: The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to submit
our statement for the record on ``Improvements to the Post-9/11 GI
Bill.''
The Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Act of 2008 was signed
into law on June 30, 2008, and was implemented on August 1, 2009. This
new Act goes well beyond helping to pay for tuition and fees; many
veterans who served after September 11, 2001, will get full tuition and
fees, a new monthly housing stipend, and a $1,000 a year stipend for
books and supplies. It also gives certain Guard and Reserve members who
have been activated since 9/11 access to the same GI Bill benefits.
However, the Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Act of 2008 only
covers Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs). Work remains.
Not all veterans attend IHLs. Many veterans prefer traditional
employment and/or may require employment for personal or family
reasons. The American Legion recommends that the following programs be
included under the Post-9/11 GI Bill (Chapter 33): flight training;
correspondence schools; vocational schools; apprentice programs; and,
on-the-job training programs.
Chapter 33 needs to be modified to include non-college degree
programs. Veterans choosing to use their educational benefits for other
than IHLs are able to use them under the existing Chapters 30, 1606, or
1607; however, in those instances the benefit recipients are not
entitled to either the housing stipend or the allowance for books and
supplies. The American Legion believes that veterans should never be
limited in the manner they use their educational benefits.
According to VA, four of the top ten institutions serving veterans
and the active military are online institutions. In fiscal year 2008,
over 645,000 active duty military took voluntary education courses that
were paid by DOD, and 60 percent of these students chose to study
online. Further, in fiscal year 2006, there were approximately 840,000
military students (active and veterans) enrolled in voluntary education
programs both at the secondary and post-secondary level, with
approximately 75 percent of instruction being offered via online
institutions. Due to this trend, paying veterans a lesser benefit when
they receive credit via distance learning is a mistake.
Veterans choose to attend online institutions because of location,
job, family commitments, or disability. Another reason for high
participation of veterans in distance learning is the emphasis on
adults, which is why online universities are noted for their ``GI-
friendly'' policies and practices. Further, online programs are offered
throughout the year, allowing servicemembers and veterans to take
lighter course loads or to finish their degree programs in shorter time
periods. Accordingly, The American Legion is recommending that the
allowances for distance learning be made similar to those in effect for
residential learning. This assures equity for veterans including such
individuals as single parents and veterans with significant medical
disabilities.
In addition, The American Legion strongly recommends that Title 32
Active Guard Reserve (AGR) be included for eligibility under Chapter
33. In 2008, there were almost 30,000 Army National Guard and 13,500
Air National Guard servicemembers serving on Title 32. The American
Legion also recommends a comprehensive review of VA's separate tuition
and fees cap system to ensure that veterans will not lose any value in
their education benefits due to this reimbursement method. A lack of
funding has arisen for veterans attending private schools in states
like Massachusetts, California, and Washington, DC, due to this
separate tuition and fees cap system. Other improvements would include
provisions for lifelong learning and additional financial support for
educational institutions providing programs and services to veterans.
s. 3447
S. 3447, ``Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements
Act of 2010''; a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve
educational assistance for veterans who served in the Armed Forces
after September 11, 2001, and for other purposes.
The American Legion has identified current issues with the Post-9/
11 GI Bill through resolutions passed at our National Executive
Committee meeting in October 2009. S. 3447 is a comprehensive bill
which includes several fixes for which The American Legion has been
advocating.
The following are The American Legion comments and recommendations
on certain provisions in S. 3447.
Section 2
Section two would make eligible for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits
certain members of the National Guard serving on title 32 active duty
orders. The American Legion recommends a change of language in this
section from ``and'' to ``or'' in Section 2 (a)(2). The language as it
now reads requires that eligibility be premised on a Guardsman being
both of the Inspector/Instructor staff and be called up for active
service by the President or Secretary for the purpose of responding to
a national emergency, thereby severely limiting the number of
individuals who would qualify for this benefit, essentially leaving out
many members of AGR who were called up in defense of our country after
September 11, 2001.
Section 3
Section three addresses the tuition and fee cap issue. S. 3447
would fully cover tuition at all degree granting programs at public
institutions. At private institutions, benefits would be paid based on
a national average cost of education indexed for inflation. That
average would be around $12,000, meaning veterans at private
institutions would receive less funding in almost half of states under
the new formula, according to the American Council on Education. The
goal of the Post-9/11 GI Bill is to assist veterans in getting an
education, not burdening them with endless amounts of student loans to
cover their education. The American Legion recommends that the private
school average be set at $20,000, which would ensure veterans have
ample resources to attend private colleges.
In addition, section three addresses veterans who are attending
classes through online institutions. The amount is set at half of the
military's national average Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) for E-5
with dependents rate, which entitles veterans attending distance
learning to $666.00 per month. The American Legion recommends setting
the housing allowance based on the full BAH rate of where the student
resides. Those veterans who work and/or have families need a flexible
way to get a college education and advance their careers. These
veterans deserve the same equitable benefit as those who attend
``bricks and mortars'' education institutions.
Furthermore, section three addresses four groups excluded from the
original Post-9/11 GI Bill: vocational schools, correspondence schools,
apprenticeship/on-the-job (OJT) programs, and flight training. The
American Legion supports allowing veterans to use their Post-9/11 GI
Bill toward a vocational school. Vocational school training does not
require four years to be certified; thus allowing the veteran to return
to the workplace quicker with an acquired skill or trade. S. 3447 does
not allow include a books stipend to the student who attends vocational
schools. The American Legion recommends awarding the annual books
stipend to those who are attending vocational schools.
As mentioned above, S. 3447 includes language concerning
apprenticeship/OJT/flight training programs. The American Legion
supports the addition of these programs to the Post-9/11 GI Bill. By
allowing veterans to participate in apprenticeship/OJT/flight training,
through the Post-9/11 GI Bill, veterans will receive tiered housing
allowances in the sum of 75 percent, 55 percent and 35 percent;
consequently, allowing participants to better support themselves and
their families while receiving training.
Section 4
Section four addresses licensure and certification testing. The
current law allows a one-time test, capped at $2,000. S. 3447 allows
veterans unlimited testing, but charges at the entitlement rate of one
month for each amount equal to 1/12 of the amount of the average of the
established charges at the educational institution. The American Legion
recommends allowing students the opportunity to receive up to $2,000
worth of reimbursement for multiple tests/certifications without a
charge to entitlement. If a veteran should exceed the $2,000, then his/
her entitlement should be charged to the national average of BAH. This
change would utilize the benefit more effectively instead of using a
large portion of entitlement for a test or certification.
Section 6
Section six addresses the transferability of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
The American Legion would urge that the legislation be modified to
authorize all servicemembers with 10 years or more of active-duty
service, who are eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill educational
benefits, but left the Armed Forces before August 1, 2009, be able to
use the transferability entitlement to give to their immediate family
members.
Section 9
This section increases the amount of annual reporting fees paid to
educational institutions by VA. The American Legion supports an
increase, but recommends that amount to be $25.00 per veteran.
Certifying officials on campus play a critical role in the student-
veteran's life. They are responsible for making sure the veteran
receives their earned benefit. The certifying official is usually the
first person the veteran comes into contact with on campus. The
American Legion understands that there is a need for additional
certifying officials on campus. Increasing the reporting amount would
allow educational institutions to increase their level of support for
veterans by hiring more individuals as well as provide additional
services for veterans.
summary
The American Legion continues to support servicemembers, veterans
and their families in gaining an education and supporting their career
choices. The American Legion believes this bill will greatly serve our
veteran population. In addition, by providing these benefits to our
Nation's heroes we are providing a valuable service to the rest of the
country. S. 3447 is a bill about education, but it should also be
viewed as a bill regarding the employment of educated and qualified
veterans. The Post-9/11 GI Bill has been hard earned and is certainly
well deserved for the men and women who have protected, sacrificed, and
served our country honorably. With these modest refinements, this new
education benefit can have the same economic and social effect as the
original GI Bill signed in 1944.
Again, thank you Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr and
distinguished Members of the Committee for allowing The American Legion
to present our views on this very important matter.
______
Prepared Statement of John Decoteau, Military Admissions Director,
Universal Technical Institute
The Post-9/11 GI Bill is the most comprehensive educational bill
presented to veterans since the Servicemens Readjustment Act of 1944
which helped spurn the economic recovery after World War II. However, I
believe that there is room for improvement with the Post-9/11 GI Bill
and believe that veterans can be better served. When the Servicemen's
Readjustment Act of 1944 was passed, a year later a supplemental bill
was introduced after realizing that some groups were left out. Senator
Akaka has introduced S. 3447 which aims to do the same. S. 3447 was
introduced to start to conversation about what groups and disparities
were left out in the initial passage of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. What has
come to surface are highlighted items that are needed to be fixed are
issues such as vocational schools, Title 32 ACTIVE Guard reserve (AGR),
housing allowance for distance learners, transferability of benefits to
dependents, etc. This is a bill of educational technical fixes for our
veterans and their families, but it is also a remedy for employment.
S. 3447 will provide valuable job training, by seeking to allow
non-degree granting institutions (vocational schools) to become
eligible to receive the Post-9/11 GI Bill. In addition, this bill seeks
to grant benefits to those men and women who were called up under Title
32 in help defending our country after a national tragedy. Title 32 AGR
are deserving of the same benefit that other men and women are
receiving but because of a simple mistake, they are left out of Post-9/
11 GI Bill benefits. It is time to restore those benefits and grant
them the same entitlements.
The issue of tuition and fees has been marked with a year of
continuous change with schools and students receiving overpayment, thus
creating unfortunate obstacles for veterans and their families
regarding their financial health. S. 3447 seeks to remedy this
situation by allowing for unlimited tuition and fees for undergraduate
work at public institutions. However, the national rate for private
colleges needs to be adjusted to reflect the higher costs associated
with private colleges. I would recommend increasing the national
average to $20,000.00. This realistic baseline will provide assistance
to veterans who qualify for private institutions for their education.
In addition by raising the national average, this would have a direct
effect on vocational schools as well. While these schools are usually
less in training time, they can be expensive and with the $20,000
baseline, would allow individuals utilizing the Post-9/11 GI Bill to
get training at a zero or minimal cost to the veteran, which is the
benefit veterans at public institutions receive.
Another topic in S. 3447 is the prorated housing allowance for
recipients of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. I recommend prorating living
allowances on the MGIB scale. Pay a living allowance based on full
time, 75% time or 50 % time to make the rates simpler to decipher and
also reduce the number of over and under payments. In addition S. 3447
addresses the living allowance for apprenticeship and on-the-job
training programs. Instead of capping the living allowance at the
national average, I would recommend the living allowance should be
assigned based on the zip code of the program and should be tiered at
75%, 55%, and 35%.
Distance learners, or those who attend college utilizing the World
Wide Web were excluded from receiving the housing allowance. This is a
big part of the Post-9/11 Bill and allows veterans and their families
to support themselves, while the veteran is returning to school.
Veterans who attend solely online classes usually attend, because of
the flexibility that distance learning provides for them and their
families. S. 3447 has language that identifies distance learners to
receive 50% of the BAH rate. Although I support this measure, I would
also remind the Committee that these individuals have the exact same
responsibilities as those who are attend traditional colleges and would
advise to increase the rate equally given for those who attend online
institutions.
Moreover, the current benefit for testing and certifications is a
one-time $2,000.00 maximum benefit. I recommend that when taking tests
or certifications test, that this not be taken from their monthly
entitlements when they take multiple tests. Instead, if the veteran
exceeds the $2,000.00 then it should be charged based on the national
average of BAH (not = time of the average tuition rate). This would
increase the current benefit and would allow the veterans to take the
appropriate tests and use the proportional benefit.
Colleges, Universities, Vocational School, Online Colleges all
receive a stipend for how many veterans they have enrolled in
educational programs at their institution. This money goes back into
veterans program and assists veteran on getting program and veteran
centers for which aid an assist all veterans on campus. S. 3447
addresses a slight increase for reporting fees. I support this slight
increase, I would like to recommend the increase be set at $25.00.
Setting the fee at $25.00 would provide the certifying officials with
additional resources for services for veterans and perhaps allow
educational institutions to substantially increase educational
institutions number of veteran administrators or certifying officials
on campus.
The results of the Serviceman's readjustment act provided for the
greatest generation to be born and to help create and maintain of the
most successful and prosperous time for the United States. With
returning soldiers, tools such as the appropriate education benefit and
other tools that are given to them are what will allow them to lead
successful lives. I believe that we owe these servicemember's the
opportunity to choose their own education and career path. With the
increased additions to S. 3447, we are giving veterans the gear and
tools then need to operate in a difficult climate and economy. These
enable promises will garner the necessary success this country needs to
spur entrepreneurs and the next greatest generation.
The major components of this bill includes valuable job training,
full credit for full time National Guardsmen, providing a living
allowance for distance learners, expanding the yellow ribbon program,
giving active duty Servicemembers the books stipend, increasing
vocational rehabilitation living allowance, allowing kickers to be
transferred, increasing school reporting fees and also clarifies a
slight confusion with discharges. I 100% support these changes and is
grateful to the Committee for addressing these issues and making the
technical fixes.
Most of these technical fixes will provide veterans with a quicker
education time and will allow them to begin working in their respective
career fields in a much timelier manner. S. 3447 is about creating
equality for veterans and not just allowing certain approved programs
to be allowed to use under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Men and women who
have and are defending this great country are entitled to a benefit
that gives them the choice and then every opportunity to succeed in
their education and employment choice.
I would like to thanks Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr and the
rest of the Committee for allowing me to give it views and positions on
the current legislation. I would be happy to answer any questions you
or the rest of the Committee might have.
______
Prepared Statement of Peter J. Duffy, Deputy Director Legislation,
National Guard Association of the United States
background--unique citizen servicemember/veteran
The National Guard is unique among components of the Department of
Defense in that it has the dual state and Federal missions. While
serving operationally on Title 10 active duty status in Operation Iraqi
Freedom (OIF) or Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), National Guard units
are under the command and control of the President. However, upon
release from active duty, members of the National Guard return to the
far reaches of their states as both veterans and continuing serving
members of the Reserve Component but under the command and control of
their Governors. As a special branch of the Selected Reserves they
train not just for their Federal missions but for their potential
domestic missions such as fire fighting, flood control and providing
assistance to civil authorities in a variety of possible disaster
scenarios. The National Guard is always ready and always there to
protect this country and its communities.
While serving in their states, members are scattered geographically
with their families as they hold jobs, own businesses, pursue academic
programs and participate actively in their civilian communities.
Against this backdrop, members of the National Guard remain ready to
uproot from their families and civilian lives to serve their Governors
domestically or their President in distance parts of the globe as duty
calls and to return to reintegrate within the same communities when
their missions are accomplished.
Military service in the National Guard is uniquely community based.
The culture of the National Guard remains little understood outside of
its own circles. When the Department of Defense testifies before
Congress stating its programmatic needs, it will likely recognize the
indispensable role of the National Guard as a vital Operational Force
in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) but it will say little about and
seek less to redress the benefit disparities, training challenges and
unmet medical readiness issues for National Guard members and their
families at the state level before, during and after deployment. We
continue to ask that they be given a fresh look with the best interests
of the National Guard members and their families in mind.
s. 3447--a necessary correction of the error in the post-9/11 gi bill
that excludes title 32 active duty
NGAUS strongly supports S. 3447, introduced by Senator Akaka, which
would correct a major inequity in the current Post-9/11 GI Bill law
that excludes title 32 active duty in the calculation of benefits.
S. 3447 would make eligible for benefits the title 32 active duty of
our Active Guard and Reserve personnel serving for the purpose of
organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing or training the
National Guard; and the active duty of our members under title 32
section 502(f) when authorized by the President or Secretary of Defense
for the purpose of responding to a national emergency declared by the
President and supported by Federal funds. This would represent a major
legislative breakthrough in benefits for the National Guard under the
Post-9/11 GI Bill which mistakenly excluded recognition of certain
title 32 active duty service.
background
Amid deserved celebration and expectations, the bill providing
Educational Assistance for Members of the Armed Forces Who Serve After
September 11, 2001, more commonly known as the Post-9/11 GI Bill, was
hurriedly enacted as part of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008
Public Law 110-252 but with one major omission. Congress erroneously
excluded all National Guard Title 32 active duty service after 9/11
from eligibility for benefits under this program.
The impact of this mistake has been to deny benefits to our
dedicated men and women for their service to our country after 9/11 on
title 32 active duty as AGRs and in mobilized operations such as
Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Jump Start, and in the critically
needed airport security operations in the desperate days immediately
following the 9/11 attacks on the homeland. What is particularly unfair
is the fact that the current law provides benefits for domestic active
duty service of title 10 Reserve AGRs but denies benefits to our title
32 National Guard AGRs who are performing virtually the identical
service.
The time our members have served on title 32 orders in support of
the national emergency following 9/11 needs to count toward their
educational benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. As this Committee
knows, the benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill are graduated based
upon qualifying active duty days as follows:
40% of the full benefit for 90 days of qualifying active duty
service
50% for at least 6 but less than 12 months of qualifying active
duty service
60% for at least 12 but less than 18 months of qualifying active
duty service
70% for at least 18 but less than 24 months qualifying active duty
service
80% for at least 24 but less than 30 months of qualifying active
duty service
90% for at least 30 but less than 36 months of qualifying active
duty service
100% for at least 36 months of qualifying active duty service
(emphasis added)
Because most National Guard members will deploy overseas on title
10 status on tours lasting 12-18 months, it will take more than one and
even perhaps three such deployments for them to earn the full benefits
under the current law. This underscores the importance of any Post-9/11
GI Bill credit that they could accumulate from their qualifying title
32 active duty service in support of domestic operations. Every day of
eligible service under the Post-9/11 GI Bill is critical for National
Guard members.
In a time of limited employment opportunities, our members need to
be given full opportunity, financial assistance and encouragement under
the Post-9/11 GI Bill to pursue higher education to enhance their
employability while waiting for the economy to correct. In April of
this year, the National Guard Bureau reported unemployment rates of 30%
and 41% for California Army National Guard and Ohio Army National Guard
respectively. The 41st Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the Oregon Army
National Guard after returning this year from deployment in Operation
Iraqi Freedom was reporting an unemployment rate last month of 51%. The
correction that S. 3447 would provide to assist our unemployed members
in enhancing their vocational skills is needed immediately.
other inequities in the post-9/11 gi bill will need to be addressed
in the future
Although the legislative accomplishments of S. 3447, if successful,
would be enormously beneficial to the National Guard, remaining
inequities would still need the attention of Congress in the future so
that counterdrug operations of the National Guard and all active duty
performed under title 32 section 502(f) in support of operations or
missions at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense would
be included in the calculation of benefits. This would properly
recognize the service of our members in border control operations and
ongoing disaster relief operations such as we saw in Katrina; are
seeing now in the Gulf from the BP oil spill; and will likely see when
the forest fire and hurricane seasons hit the northwest and southeast
later this summer.
With the current call from many quarters to have the National Guard
mobilize to protect the borders, Congress must keep in mind that it
will do so dutifully, as it always does, away from home on Title 32
active duty orders without earning any benefits under the Post-9/11 GI
Bill for the service. This is patently unfair and, unfortunately,
further evidences how the ready service of the National Guard in
protecting our country can sometimes be taken for granted. This must
change.
The inequities of this situation are apparent when Congress
considers that domestic title 10 active duty service performed behind
desks on military installations is fully eligible for benefits under
the Post-9/11 GI Bill but not the dangerous title 32 active duty
counterdrug operations of the National Guard monitoring drug gang
activity on the border or the title 32 active duty hazardous service of
the Guard done at the request of the President to clean up oil in the
Gulf, and to combat the regularly occurring forest fires, hurricanes,
floods, blizzards, tornados and ice storms around the country. This
does not wash in equity but must remain a battle for another day.
conclusion
NGAUS deeply appreciates the efforts of Senator Akaka and this
Committee in crafting an excellent piece of corrective legislation for
the National Guard in S. 3447 which it strongly supports and hopes that
this Congress passes expeditiously.
______
Prepared Statement of Military Officers Association of America
Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr and Members of the Senate
Committee on Veterans' Affairs: The Military Officers Association of
America (MOAA) respectfully requests that this Statement on Post-9/11
GI Bill Improvements and Other Legislation be entered into the official
record of this hearing.
MOAA does not receive any grants or contracts from the Federal
Government.
MOAA is very grateful to Senator Akaka for introducing, S. 3447,
the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010.
This legislation takes the greatest GI Bill educational program
since World War II and makes it even better. The bill simplifies the
benefit structure, enables the VA to more effectively administer the
program and most importantly makes needed improvements for our Nation's
service men and women and veterans.
S. 3447 addresses major recommendations from MOAA and our
colleagues in the Military Coalition, service organizations, and higher
education associations. Collectively, these groups have been working
together for nearly ten years as the Partnership for Veterans Education
to realize a new GI Bill for the 21st century.
MOAA has long maintained that our fighting men and women and
veterans need a GI Bill that is easy to understand, simple to
administer and matches the aspirations of those who have worn the
Nation's uniform. S. 3447 takes a big step in reaching these
objectives.
MOAA included recommendations on the GI Bill in testimony before a
joint hearing of the Senate and House Veterans' Affairs Committees on
March 4, 2010. We urged the Committees to support ``essential GI Bill
fixes'' including:
Authorize non-degree granting vocational and job training
programs undert the Post-9/11 GI Bill
Permit members of the National Guard serving on Title 32
active duty orders to earn Post-9/11 benefits
Create a housing stipend for full-time distance (online)
students
Merge separate tuition and fees rate calculations into a
single cost-of-attendance metric
Grant the Dept. of Health and Human Services for the U.S.
Public Health Service and the Commerce Dept. for the NOAA Corps the
authority to transfer to eligible dependents Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits
as an incentive for continued service in the USPHS or NOAA Corps.
These fixes and others contained in S. 3447 will have a lasting,
positive impact on our veterans. Moreover, we believe the technical
corrections in the bill may provide cost-savings that could lower the
overall cost of this legislation.
comments and recommendations on certain provisions in s. 3447
Title 32 National Guard Eligibility. Section 3, Modification of
Eligibility, would permit certain members of the National Guard serving
on Title 32 active duty orders to earn benefits under the Post-9/11 GI
Bill. The authority would apply to Title 32 Guard members whose mission
is to organize, train, administer, recruit or instruct the reserve
components. The provision would also authorize benefits for those
called up under Section 502(f) of Title 32 when authorized by the
President or Secretary of Defense for the purpose of responding to a
national emergency declared by the President and supported by Federal
funds.
MOAA strongly supports inclusion of Title 32 Guard duty in the Post-9/
11 GI Bill.
Recommendations: Change ``and'' to ``or'' in Section 2 (a)(2) to
read, `(i) in the National Guard for the purpose of organizing,
administering, recruiting, instructing, or training the National Guard;
or' [emphasis added]. The intent of the provision is to authorize this
type of duty ``or'' the Presidential/Secretary of Defense call-up duty
for benefits.
MOAA also recommends that the provision include language to permit
Title 32 Guard members to earn Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits for
duties that are directly related to homeland security. Examples
would be duty in response to the BP oil spill, immediate
response to Hurricane Katrina prior to Federal activation;
border duty conducted under Title 32 orders.
Simplication of Rate Calculations. Section 3, Modification of
Amount of Assistance and Types of Approved Programs of Education.
Public college/university reimbursement. Subsection 3(a) would
replace the separate tution and fees calculations for public college or
university attendance with a simplified standard: the VA will pay the
established charges for any such program. MOAA strongly endorses a
simplified metric for public college enrollment.
Private college/university reimbursement. Subsection 3(a) also
would change the rate calculation for private colleges (``non-public'')
and foreign schools with the lesser of the established charges or the
average of established charges for a baccalaureate degree at all public
and private colleges in the United States.
Recommendations. MOAA agrees with the concept of a simplified
metric for private college reimbursement. However, as written, we
believe the provision is unclear and could disadvantage veterans who
choose to attend a private college or university. We understand the
challenge in developing a metric that provides fair reimbursement for
private colleges while preserving the intent of the Yellow Ribbon
program. MOAA recommends the Committee work with the Dept. of
Education, the National Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities, the American Council on Education and the Dept. of
Veterans' Affairs to develop a more equitable and technically
sufficient private college rate mechanism.
Housing Allowance to Match Rate of Pursuit. Subsection 3(b) would
modify the housing allowance stipend. For students enrolled on a less
than full-time basis, the housing stipend would match the rate to the
course load; e.g., students enrolled on a \3/4\ time basis would
receive \3/4\ of the living allowance.
Housing allowance for distance learners. Subsection 3(b) also would
establish a housing stipend for full-time distance learners and
veterans who attend foreign colleges. Students enrolled in foreign
schools would receive the national average of the monthly amount of the
basic allowance for housing (BAH) for an E-5 with dependents. Full-time
distance learners would receive 50% of the national average for
enrollment on more than a half-time basis.
MOAA supports adjusting the housing allowance to the educational rate
of pursuit. MOAA also supports establishing a housing allowance
for full-time distance learners.
Non-college-degree training. Subsection 3(c) would provide for the
payment for training in non-college-degree training in the amount of
the lesser of the established charges for the program or the national
amount of the cost of a program as determined by the National Center
for Educational Statistics (NCES). The provision would also authorize a
living allowance for such training. Veterans who enroll in such
programs should be reimbursed in the same way as veterans who attend
public college degree-granting programs. MOAA recommends this provision
be modified along the lines of the public college reimbursement model
in Section 3(a).
On-Job (OJT) and apprenticeship training. Subsection 3(c) also
would establish Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits for veterans who are in OJT
or apprenticeship programs. The reimbursement percentages are modeled
on the OJT and apprenticeship language in the Montgomery GI Bill,
Chapter 30, 38 U.S.C.. MOAA supports the intent of the provision and
the percentage ladder, but is concerned over the reimbursement rate set
at the national average for college undergraduate programs. MOAA would
recommend the Committee explore using the average cost for OJT and
apprenticeship programs or another metric that would provide adequate
reimbursement for veterans enrolled in such programs. A similar
approach also should be considered for the succeeding provisions on
non-degree flight training and correspondence course training.
Active Duty Book Stipend. MOAA strongly supports Subsection 3(d)
that would establish a stipend up to $1000 for books for use of Post-9/
11 benefits on active duty.
Licensure and Certification. Section 4 would permit multiple
reimbursable tests for licensing and certification. MOAA supports.
Supplemental Educational Assistance (``kickers'') Transfer. Section
5 would make a technical correction by authorizing a servicemember who
has earned kickers under the MGIB to transfer those kickers to the
Post-9/11 GI Bill. MOAA supports.
Modification of Transfer Authority. Section 6 would clarify that
the Secretary of Defense is responsible for administering the transfer-
of-benefits authority including responsibility to reimburse the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs for the costs of benefits transferred to
dependents. The provision also would grant other Federal Department
Secretaries, namely the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the
Secretary of Commerce, the authority to use (or not use) the transfer
of benefits incentive to induce extended service for members of the
U.S. Public Health Service and the NOAA Corps, respectively.
MOAA notes that Post-9/11 GI Bill transferability has been
extremely successful in the Deparment of Defense as an incentive to
secure additional service and to remove from the rolls those
approaching retirement to better manage force manpower.
In less than one year, 130,000 members of the Armed Forces have
transferred benefits to over 200,000 spouses and eligible dependent
children.
As an incentive for continued service, the transfer authority
operates just like cash bonuses for reenlistment or service extension.
The Secretary of Defense may adjust the terms of service to target the
incentive to achieve program objectives.
There should be little doubt that transferability has created a
widespread expectation among service families that this benefit is
earned for service and is different from cash incentives.
Once funding responsibility is shifted to DOD--and to the Dept. of
Health and Human Services and the Dept. of Commerce--the Department
will evaluate the transfer benefit against cash bonus programs.
MOAA is concerned that altering the current funding arrangement may
result in the cancellation or curtailment of the transfer authority
going forward. DOD has long preferred to use targeted cash incentives
to meet manpower and skill distribution objectives, rather than a
broadbrush incentive like transferability.
Earlier this decade the Army briefly used transferability under the
MGIB in combination with cash bonuses for reenlistment in designated
skills. The program was a `dud' because the servicemember had to
``eat'' the cost of the transfer by forgoing a substantial portion of
any reenlistment bonus to gain the transfer. Almost certainly, a
similar approach will doom transferability as a viable incentive.
MOAA recommends continuation of a robust transfer of benefits program
in DOD to support over-stressed families who have borne
enormous sacrifice over nearly ten years of war. MOAA
recommends that the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs work
with the Senate Armed Services Committee to preserve
transferability as a career retention incentive. Congress
intended the authority be used to influence continued service
in the Armed Forces especially in the face of multiple
deployments.
MOAA anticipates that should DOD terminate transferability or greatly
restrict its use, there may be an adverse impact on force
retention and readiness.
Increase in amount of reporting fee. MOAA supports raising the
amounts paid to educational institutions to support more reporting of
GI Bill enrollments and certifications.
Subsistence Allowance for Veterans with Service-Connected
Disabilities. Section 10 would modify the subsistence allowance for
disabled veterans using the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
(VRE) program (Chap. 31, 38 U.S.C.) to an amount equal to the national
average of the monthly housing allowance authorized under the Post-9/11
GI Bill.
Under the proposal a disabled veteran with two dependents would
receive approximately $1300 per month subsistence allowance compared to
$800 currently under VRE.
In testimony before the Senate and the House Committees on Veterans
Affairs on 4 March 2010, MOAA strongly recommended that the VRE
subsistence allowance be increased along the lines of the Post-9/11 GI
Bill housing allowance. The provision takes a step in that direction,
but we believe that disabled veterans who are in the VRE program
deserve more than the national average of the Post-9/11 GI Bill housing
allowance.
MOAA recommends the VRE subsistence allowance should be set at the
basic allowance for housing (BAH) for an E-5 with dependents at
the zipcode of residence of the disabled veteran.
MOAA also recommends a technical correction of Section 3108(f)(1)(A) to
specifically authorize Post-9/11 benefits for VRE participants
who elect to go to college in preparation for employment in the
workforce.
other legislation
S. 3171, The Veterans Training Act (Sen. Lincoln, D-AR). S. 3171 is
consistent with the intent of Subsection 3(c) of the Post-9/11 Veterans
Educational Assistance Improvements Act, S. 3447 in that it would
authorize benefits for pursuit of non-degree training at approved
institutions of higher learning. MOAA strongly supports S. 3171.
S. 3389. Sen. Hagan (D-NC). S. 3389 would exempt service men and
women who receive certain educational assistance for service in the
Selected Reserve from limitations on the receipt of benefits under the
Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program for additional service, as
long as such individuals have served on active duty for at least four
years.
MOAA appreciates the intent of S. 3389. Under current law,
servicemembers who have entitlement under multiple GI Bill programs
have a maximum entitlement of 48 months of benefits.
In the case of a member of the National Guard or Reserve who had
used 36 months of Reserve GI Bill benefits under Chap. 1606 or Chap.
1607, 10 U.S.C. and served four years on active duty, the member would
be entitled to 36 months of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits for a total of
72 months of benefits, instead of a total of 48 months under current
law.
S. 3389 also raises an equity question as to whether active duty
servicemembers with an extended period of service--e.g., six years or
longer--should be entitled to a more generous GI Bill educational
benefits package.
Should the Committee take up S. 3389, MOAA recommends modification of
Section 3695, 38 U.S.C., the provision governing multiple
program entitlement so that that the rules governing maximum
entitlement under multiple programs can be applied to all GI
Bill programs.
S. 3389 raises again the issue of inadequate coordination of
benefits between multiple GI Bill programs. MOAA continues to recommend
that the establishment of a GI Bill architecture to eliminate overlap,
confusion and complexity among Title 38 and Title 10 GI Bill programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Reserve Officers Association of the United States
and Reserve Enlisted Association
The Reserve Officers Association of the United States (ROA) is a
professional association of commissioned and warrant officers of our
Nation's seven uniformed services, and their spouses. ROA was founded
in 1922 during the drawdown years following the end of World War I. It
was formed as a permanent institution dedicated to National Defense,
with a goal to teach America about the dangers of unpreparedness. When
chartered by Congress in 1950, the act established the objective of ROA
to: ``* * * support and promote the development and execution of a
military policy for the United States that will provide adequate
National Security.''
The Association's 65,000 members include Guard and Reserve
Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, and Coast Guardsmen who frequently
serve on Active Duty to meet critical needs of the uniformed services
and their families. ROA's membership also includes officers from the
U.S. Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration who often are first responders during national disasters
and help prepare for homeland security.
President:
Rear Admiral Paul Kayye, MC, USNR (Ret.). 919-696-5155 cell
Staff Contacts:
Executive Director:
Major General David R. Bockel, USA (Ret.) 202-646-7701
Legislative Director, Health Care:
CAPT Marshall Hanson, USNR (Ret.)........ 202-646-7713
Air Force Director:
Mr. David Small.......................... 202-646-7719
Army and Strategic Defense Education
Director:
Mr. ``Bob'' Feidler...................... 202-646-7717
USNR, USMCR, USCGR, Retirement:
CAPT Marshall Hanson, USNR (Ret.)........ 202-646-7713
The Reserve Enlisted Association is an advocate for the enlisted
men and women of the United States Military Reserve Components in
support of National Security and Homeland Defense, with emphasis on the
readiness, training, and quality of life issues affecting their welfare
and that of their families and survivors. REA is the only Joint Reserve
association representing enlisted reservists--all ranks from all five
branches of the military.
Executive Director:
CMSgt Lani Burnett, USAF (Ret)........... 202-646-7715
disclosure of federal grants or contracts
The Reserve Officers and Reserve Enlisted Associations are member-
supported organizations. Neither ROA nor REA have received grants, sub-
grants, contracts, or subcontracts from the Federal Government in the
past three years. All other activities and services of the associations
are accomplished free of any direct Federal funding.
introduction
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Senate Veterans'
Affairs Committee on behalf of 1.1 million Reserve Component members,
the Reserve Officers Association (ROA) of the United States and the
Reserve Enlisted Association (REA) of the United States expresses its
appreciation for the opportunity to submit testimony about improvements
to the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Chairman Akaka's bill S. 3447 is truly
appreciated and encouraging.
As contingency operations bring about increased mobilizations and
deployments, many outstanding citizen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen,
Marines, and Coast Guardsmen have put their education on hold while
they serve their country in harm's way. Since September 11, 2001, more
than 750,000 Guard and Reserve servicemembers have been mobilized, with
nearly one third of those having been deployed more than twice. The
Reserve Components have and continue to earn the benefits of the Post-
9/11 GI Bill, unfortunately some are still left out.
discussion
A better educated veteran makes for a better contributor to a
workforce; ROA and REA suggest the following improvements be made to
the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
ROA and REA urge the Committee to include Title 14 and 32 orders
for eligibility of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
The new bill corrected a measure that currently leaves out members
of the National Guard and Reserves with Title 32 service and would
create full eligibility for benefits under the new legislation. While
ROA and REA fully support this measure we are concerned that similarly
the Coast Guard Reserve members under Title 14 orders are still being
excluded. Coast Guard active and reserve members can receive credit for
the Post-9/11 GI Bill under Title 10 orders, but those under Title 14
cannot. Title 14 orders include Coast Guard mobilizations to natural
disasters like Hurricane Katrina, Midwest Floods, and Deepwater Horizon
Oil Spill, and Active Duty Special Work orders for Homeland Security
Operations.
ROA and REA support the addition of on the job training (OJT) and
apprenticeship programs, to the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
With rising unemployment, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom National Guard and Reserve servicemembers, and
transitioning veterans need the opportunity to gain new skills,
education, and experience to compete for jobs especially in our current
difficult economic situation.
It is suggested that the time served since 9/11/2001 be fully
credited, and earlier $$ payments under Montgomery or other GI Bills be
deducted from the value of the earned Post-9/11 benefits.
Many military members who started their service under the
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB), paid into the benefit and as students
received a set amount per month as determined by the Department of
Veterans' Affairs (VA). While they still may qualify for additional
education under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, they end up losing benefits
because eligibility is based on months of use rather than the cash
received for those benefits. For example an ROA member who called
headquarters served in the US Army Reserve and was recalled to active
duty to serve two more tours. The servicemember qualifies for only one
year's worth of the Post-9/11 GI Bill from his duty time, but he loses
the remainder of his eligibility because of the MGIB benefit utilized.
He was paid only about $4,000 of MGIB benefit for his education, which
basically covered the cost of gas and parking during his commute. The
monthly payments he received from the VA were only about $140 per month
which does not compare to the current Post-9/11 benefit or the costs of
a college education.
ROA and REA recommend enacting the Uniformed Services Employment
and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act (SCRA) protections for mobilized Guard and Reserve students
granting academic leave of absences, protecting academic standing and
refund guarantees.
Also interest rates should be adjusted on Federal student loans of
mobilized reservists when the market rate drops below 6 percent.
Reserve Component members have served honorably alongside active
duty members, making numerous sacrifices over the past nine years. Yet
their benefits are not necessarily comparable to their service.
Suggested changes are available for review. ROA and REA are willing to
work with the Committee staff to explore improvements to both USERRA
and SCRA to better protect both active duty and Reserve component
students.
ROA and REA support initiatives to change reimbursement rates not
using a state tuition cap.
The state by state cap on tuition and fees should be eliminated and
replaced with a national ceiling for tuition and fees. Reimbursement
would cover the full cost of tuition and fees for almost everyone
taking undergraduate classes at a public college or university.
For those attending private schools, paying out of state tuition at
public institutions, or enrolled in graduate or doctoral classes, they
would be paid up to the national cap based on the average cost of
tuition and fees for full-time undergraduates at in-state rates for
four year public colleges and universities.
ROA and REA encourage Congress to maintain vigilant oversight to
ensure adequate funds are found and that they are dispersed fairly.
The Department of Defense (DOD) and other Federal agencies would be
responsible for funding the transferability of eligibility benefit
(TEB) program for spouses and dependents. Also DOD would be responsible
for administering TEB changes after servicemember's separation or
retirement.
conclusion
The Reserve Officers Association and the Reserve Enlisted
Association, again, would like to thank the Committee for the
opportunity to present our testimony. We are looking forward to working
with you, and supporting your efforts in any way that we can.
______
Prepared Statement of Louis F. Martini, Director of Military & Veteran
Education, Thomas Edison State College; and Robin Walton, Director,
Community Affairs and Government Relations, Thomas Edison State College
Established in 1972, Thomas Edison State College is one of New
Jersey's 12 senior public institutions of higher education and one of
the oldest schools in the country specifically designed for adults. The
College provides flexible, high-quality, collegiate learning
opportunities for self-directed adults and offers degree and
certificate programs in more than 100 areas of study. Thomas Edison
State College currently has more than 18,000 students from all 50
states and in more than 70 countries around the world. The average age
of our students is 35, and they have chosen Thomas Edison State College
because they want to complete degrees at a college that is of high
quality, is accredited, and is convenient.
Thomas Edison State College partners with Maguire Air Force Base
and Fort Dix to provide degree programs to servicemembers and to
operate their National Test Centers. Active duty military enrollments
at the College have increased dramatically over the past few years, and
currently include more than 9,000 students, many of whom are presently
deployed around the world. Military Advanced Education magazine named
Thomas Edison State College as one of the top ten schools in the
country for servicemembers. We pride ourselves on our ability to serve
our large active duty military and veteran student populations and in
our ability to continue to find innovative educational delivery methods
to best serve their needs.
We want to thank this Committee for all the contributions that you
have made to advance educational opportunities for our Nation's
veterans, especially the passage of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational
Assistance Act of 2008. Unfortunately, a provision was included in that
bill which prohibits our students from being able to take advantage of
the housing allowance, since they are pursuing their education in an
online environment.
We appreciate that the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee decided
to address this issue in S. 3447, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational
Assistance Improvements Act of 2010. We are, however, disappointed that
the legislation only allows our students to be eligible for fifty
percent of the housing allowance. Such a restriction is discriminatory
to students attending ``distance-learning'' institutions in that it
penalizes students purely on the basis of the methods by which they
choose to have their education delivered to them.
Students' cost of education is the same whether they are commuting
to a campus to receive face-to-face instruction or are learning online.
Students deserve to have choices, and the proposed language in the
Post-9/11 GI Bill would restrict those choices. It is well known that
education offered at a distance results in student-learning outcomes
that are the same as outcomes achieved by students learning on campus.
Indeed, most students at ``traditional'' or ``residential''
institutions take many of their classes online, even though they may
live on or commute to a campus.
The proposed restriction would seriously limit choices for
precisely the group of students that the Post-9/11 GI Bill seeks to
serve, and it would also harm legitimate distance-learning programs.
The housing allowance restriction draws an artificial and
discriminatory distinction between students who need housing but
commute to a campus and students who need housing but study at home.
In short, we would respectfully ask that you put the needs of the
students first. We would ask that you consider the quality and content
of the educational ``product,'' the real needs of those whom you seek
to serve with this bill, and the policies and practices that have long
affirmed that education delivered at a distance is just as efficient
and effective as education delivered face-to-face. We are hopeful that
after you make this consideration, you will conclude that cost and
equity, and not educational delivery medium, should be the sole
determining factors in providing for housing allowances for those who
are most in need of choices in this area.
We appreciate your consideration of this testimony and are
available to answer any questions that you may have.