[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1383, H.R. 802, H.R. 1657, AND H.R. 1671
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 3, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-11
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-186 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BOB FILNER, California, Ranking
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado CORRINE BROWN, Florida
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
BILL FLORES, Texas BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JERRY McNERNEY, California
JEFF DENHAM, California JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan JOHN BARROW, Georgia
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas
Vacancy
Vacancy
Helen W. Tolar, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana, Chairman
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa, Ranking
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
JEFF DENHAM, California
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
May 3, 2011
Page
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1383, H.R. 802, H.R. 1657, and H.R.
1671........................................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairman Marlin A. Stutzman...................................... 1
Prepared statement of Chairman Stutzman...................... 25
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Republican Member.................. 2
Prepared statement of Congressman Braley..................... 25
Hon. Bill Johnson, prepared statement of......................... 26
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Keith M. Wilson, Director,
Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration............ 16
Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson............................. 33
______
American Legion, Robert Madden, Assistant Director, National
Economic Commission............................................ 8
Prepared statement of Mr. Madden............................. 30
American Veterans (AMVETS), Christina M. Roof, National Acting
Legislative Director........................................... 3
Prepared Statement of Ms. Roof............................... 26
Connolly, Andrew, Dubuque, IA................................ 9
Prepared statement of Mr. Connolly........................... 32
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Tom Tarantino, Senior
Legislative Associate.......................................... 4
Prepared statement of Mr. Tarantino.......................... 28
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Shane Barker,
Senior Legislative Associate, National Legislative Service..... 6
Prepared statement of Mr. Barker............................. 29
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Gold Star Wives of America, Inc., Vivianne Cisneros Wersel,
Au.D., Chair, Government Relations Committee, statement........ 36
Military Officers Association of America, Vice Admiral Norbert R.
Ryan, Jr., USN (Ret.), President, letter....................... 37
National Association of Veterans Programs Administrators, Faith
DesLauriers, Legislative Director, and Dorothy Gillman,
President, letter.............................................. 38
Paralyzed Veterans of America, statement......................... 39
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1383, H.R. 802, H.R. 1657, AND H.R. 1671
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:02 p.m., in
Room 340, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Marlin A. Stutzman
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Stutzman, Johnson, Braley, and
Walz.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN STUTZMAN
Mr. Stutzman. Good afternoon, and I call the Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
to order.
Today, we will be taking testimony on H.R. 1383, the
``Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011,'' sponsored by
Chairman Miller and myself; also, H.R. 802, sponsored by
Ranking Member Filner; H.R. 1671, sponsored by Ranking Member
Braley; and H.R. 1657, a bill to improve the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs' (VA's) enforcement of service-disabled,
veteran-owned small businesses and their contracting, which I
introduced. And our intent is to hold a Subcommittee markup
this Thursday followed by a full Committee markup on May 11th.
H.R. 1383, the ``Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011,''
is a bill that would grandfather veterans attending private
schools who are adversely affected by the changes to the GI
bill that passed at the end of last Congress. I am glad that we
were able to make this fix to help vets in the seven States
that would see their tuition and fee payments reduced, all
without increasing the deficit due to the inclusion of an
offset. I see by their testimony that the VA has some
objections to the bill, and I hope we can work through those
concerns.
H.R. 1657 is a bill that I introduced that is designed to
debar companies who are fraudulently claimed to be service-
disabled, veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOBs) from doing
business with VA. For too long, legitimate SDVOBs have lost
contracts to these fraudulent companies, and I hope that the
prospect of debarment for 5 years will be the deterrent we need
to stop this despicable practice.
I would ask all of today's witnesses to summarize your
written statement within 5 minutes, and without objection each
written testimony will be made part of the hearing record.
Before we begin with testimony, I now ask unanimous consent
to have statements from the Gold Star Wives, and the Paralyzed
Veterans of America entered into the record. Hearing none, so
ordered.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Stutzman, and the
statements for the record, appears on p. 25.]
Mr. Stutzman. I now yield to the distinguished Ranking
Member from the great corn State of Iowa for any remarks he may
have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY
Mr. Braley. I want to thank you for holding this hearing
because I think the subjects we are dealing with today are why
the work of this Subcommittee is so important. Today's
legislative hearing includes four bills before us that address
some of the urgent needs of our veterans' population, including
education benefits, extending temporary adaptation grants for
disabled veterans, recognizing small businesses for their
contributions to employing veterans, and penalizing fraudulent
veteran-owned small businesses.
Included in the hearing today is H.R. 1671, the ``Andrew
Connolly Veterans Housing Act,'' that I introduced yesterday.
This bill seeks to extend the temporary residence adaptation
grant, also known as the TRA, through December of 2016. The TRA
permits the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to award a grant to a
service-disabled veteran who is temporarily residing in a
residence owned by a member of the veteran's family and makes
adaptations necessary to meet the veteran's mobility needs. And
I have worked with a number of veterans in my district who take
advantage from these programs.
Currently, the legislation is set to terminate on December
31, 2011, which is why I am extending this to December 31,
2016. This grant is important to service-connected veterans who
return home with devastating injuries. These veterans need a
caretaker while they rehabilitate, and these caretakers are
generally family members. In order to provide disabled veterans
with the independence they need while they recuperate,
different types of adaptations need to be made to a family's
home while the veteran lives temporarily with them.
Finally, I want to recognize one of my constituents, Andrew
Connolly, a disabled veteran who served in Iraq and Egypt, who
has received a specially adaptive housing grant and is here to
talk about how this grant has affected his life.
One of the things that I can tell you about, knowing Andrew
and his wife, Jenny, and his son Brody, who is here, is that
they have a deep appreciation for how these programs provide
opportunities for a new future for families like theirs who are
affected by an unplanned disability.
I want to thank them for traveling from Iowa to be with us
today and for Andrew's continued service by fighting for
veterans' issues. One of the highlights of my career was going
to the open house that Andrew, Jenny and Brody held with the
new home they were able to build from this grant. They gave
away black sweatshirts to everyone there, Mr. Chairman, and it
had a little house logo, and on that logo it said this house
was built on hope and love. I cannot think of any better symbol
of what these grants are supposed to do, and that is why I am
so proud to have them here today.
And, with that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Braley appears on p.
25.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Braley.
I now ask the first panel to come forward.
With us today is Ms. Christina Roof, representing AMVETS;
Mr. Robert Madden from The American Legion; Mr. Tom Tarantino
from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA); and
Mr. Shane Barker from the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States (VFW).
And, of course, Mr. Andrew Connolly, who we met; and it is
great to meet you, sir. Thank you for your service. It is good
to meet your family as well. Thank you for having them all
here. I am looking forward to your testimony.
So let us start with Ms. Roof. You have 5 minutes for
testimony.
STATEMENTS OF CHRISTINA M. ROOF, NATIONAL ACTING LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR, AMERICAN VETERANS (AMVETS); TOM TARANTINO, SENIOR
LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF
AMERICA; SHANE BARKER, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE, NATIONAL
LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED
STATES; ROBERT MADDEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC
COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION; AND ANDREW CONNOLLY, DUBUQUE,
IA
STATEMENT OF CHRISTINA M. ROOF
Ms. Roof. Thank you.
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of AMVETS, I would like
to extend our gratitude for being given the opportunity to
share with you our views and recommendations on these very
important pieces of legislation. The Committee has my full
statement for the record, so in the interest of time today, I
will just address a few of the bills.
AMVETS supports H.R. 1657, to amend title 38 to revise the
enforcement of penalties for misrepresentation of a business
concern as a VOSB or as an SDVOSB. AMVETS applauds Congressman
Stutzman for introducing this piece of legislation, which
AMVETS believes is very long overdue and very much needed.
AMVETS believes H.R. 1657 will not only strengthen, but also
help enforce penalties that have long been in place, yet
severely underutilized by numerous Federal agencies.
AMVETS urges a swift passage of H.R. 1657 and further calls
upon the Subcommittee to focus a substantial amount of their
time during the 112th Congress to finally close all of the
loopholes within the Federal procurement system and to pass
laws that will once and for all rid the Federal procurement
system of fraudulent businesses unlawfully taking contracts and
jobs from veterans.
AMVETS also lends our strong support to H.R. 1671, to
extend the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
provide specially adaptive housing to veterans residing in
temporary housing. Thousands of disabled veterans depend on
these funds to sustain their quality of life and independence.
Furthermore, given the rate at which our Nation's war
fighters are returning from our current conflicts with
debilitating and life-changing injuries, AMVETS urges the swift
passage of this life-sustaining bill and urges Congress not
only to extend this to 2016, but to look to further extending
this to meet the needs of our current serving men and women
who, as we sit here today, are engaged in combat abroad.
Finally, AMVETS supports H.R. 1383, to temporarily preserve
higher rates of tuition and fees. AMVETS believes this will
allow for students currently enrolled in nonpublic institutions
of higher learning the opportunity to finish their degree
without any undue financial burden or stresses.
And while AMVETS applauds Chairman Miller for introducing
this piece of legislation, I feel I will be doing a great
disservice to the AMVETS membership if I do not voice their
concerns regarding the new system of which veterans will
receive their monthly living allowances under the new Post-9/11
GI Bill. AMVETS believes many veterans already utilizing their
educational benefits and entitlements under the Post-9/11 GI
Bill will be caught off guard and experience undue financial
hardship during the time periods between college semesters.
AMVETS urges Congress to revisit this issue, and we even
more strongly urge VA to immediately start performing stronger
outreach and education on all of the changes made to the Post-
9/11 GI Bill to those students already enrolled in institutions
of higher learning.
Chairman Stutzman and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, AMVETS again would like to thank you for inviting
us to share with you our opinions and recommendations today.
This concludes my testimony, and I stand ready to answer
any questions you may have for me.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Roof appears on p. 26.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Ms. Roof.
Mr. Tarantino, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TOM TARANTINO
Mr. Tarantino. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of
the Committee, on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of
America's 200,000 members and civilian supporters, I want to
thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing to share
our members' views on these really important issues.
My name is Tom Tarantino, and I am the Senior Legislative
Associate with IAVA. I proudly served 10 years in the Army,
beginning my career as an enlisted Reservist and leaving
service as an active-duty calvary officer. Throughout those 10
years, my single most important duty was to take care of
soldiers. In the military, they teach us to have each other's
backs. Although my uniform is now a suit and tie, I am proud to
work with Congress to ensure that the entire country has the
backs of America's servicemembers and veterans.
IAVA conceptually supports the establishment of a program
to recognize businesses that contribute to veterans'
employment. While we endorse H.R. 802, IAVA does have concerns
about what the specific program will look like, how it plans to
recognize businesses, and what effect it will have on lowering
the rising veteran unemployment rate. While the VetStar program
certainly couldn't hurt, we remain skeptical that this is the
most effective course of action for Congress to take at this
stage.
In 2010, the unemployment rate for new veterans was a
staggering 11\1/2\ percent. Even as the civilian unemployment
rate begins to decline, we continue to see new veteran
unemployment rise from month-to-month in 2011. With less than
half a percent of Americans fighting in this current war and
only 8 percent of Americans having ever served in the military,
it is critical that we bridge this widening gap between the
civilian workforce and our Nation's veterans. IAVA believes
that more proactive measures need to be taken if we are to turn
the tide of veteran unemployment.
Several weeks ago, we brought 28 Iraq and Afghanistan
veterans from around the country to D.C. for our Storm the Hill
campaign. Our goal was to reduce the veteran unemployment rate
by Veterans Day in 2011. We met with 117 offices and 57 Members
of Congress. We identified five priorities for Congress to
actually tackle to reduce the veteran unemployment rate.
We want to order a study and report on the differences
between military certifications, jobs, and education with their
civilian counterparts.
We want to make Transition Assistance Program mandatory and
call for a review of the program every 3 years.
We want to make the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) violations enforceable and
expand them to in-State National Guard deployments.
We want to encourage entrepreneurship by expanding
successful programs like the Patriot Express Loan Program and
the Veteran Entrepreneur Boot Camp.
And we want to encourage businesses to hire veterans by
simplifying and enacting robust tax relief.
I am proud to report that these ideas came with almost
universal support. And many Members of the House, especially
those sitting on this Committee, have stepped up and are
currently working on legislation that will reduce the number of
veterans coming home from war to an unemployment check. And I
look forward to testifying at future legislative hearings on
those bills and reporting to our 90,000 Operation Iraqi Freedom
(OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) veterans that
Congress once again has their back.
IAVA proudly supports H.R. 1383. This bill will ensure that
a small minority of veterans who, due to poorly constructed and
confusing tuition and fee regulations, would have had their
benefits reduced as a result of the Post-9/11 GI bill's
expansion to more than 400,000 veterans. It will ensure that
they will be able to finish their college education.
The House of Representatives widely included this provision
in their version of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational
Improvement Act of 2010. However, it was excluded from the
version that was signed by the President. IAVA fought hard to
ensure that student veterans would not be negatively impacted
by the improvement and the expansion of the GI Bill; and on
behalf of our members and those student veterans, I want to
thank this Committee for taking this on.
IAVA supports H.R. 1657, strengthening the penalties that
small businesses may incur if they misrepresent themselves as a
veteran-owned or service-disabled veteran-owned small business
seeking government contracts.
Promoting veteran entrepreneurship is key to fighting the
growing tide of veteran unemployment, and small businesses that
falsely claim to be veteran owned when applying for government
contracts harm veterans who provide essential services to the
government. This bill will provide clarity on those penalties.
And IAVA proudly supports H.R. 1671, that would extend the
authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide
adaptive housing benefits to veterans who are recovering from
injuries at the home of a caregiver through 2016.
For thousands of veterans returning home from Iraq and
Afghanistan with severe injuries, the recovery process is often
long and arduous. Many of them require constant care from a
caregiver years after they leave service, and during this time,
they frequently reside in a home that is not their own or a
permanent residence that they may live on after they recover.
So adaptations like ramps and elevators and all the things that
you need to increase your mobility may need to be done twice.
So by extending this to 2016, Congress shows their strong
support for these veterans for their sacrifice and the extreme
sacrifices they have made for our freedom.
I would like to thank this Committee for continuing to
support Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and their families. By
ensuring that these bills are swiftly made into law, we will
continue to send a signal to veterans of all generations that
Congress and the veterans' community has their backs.
Thank you for your time and attention. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tarantino appears on p. 28.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. We have just been called to votes.
Mr. Barker, we will take your testimony, and then we will run
over and vote, and then we will be back to continue. So, Mr.
Barker, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SHANE BARKER
Mr. Barker. Thank you very much on behalf of the Veterans
of Foreign Wars. We appreciate the opportunity to present our
views on these bills to you today.
We support H.R. 802, legislation to establish an award
program known as VetStar. This would recognize businesses for
their efforts to employ veterans.
We have concerns about this legislation, however. For it to
be successful, funding may be needed to conduct the private-
sector outreach to promote employment in the population of
veterans.
We also believe that the Department of Labor's Veterans'
Employment and Training Service may be better suited to provide
access to the private and public sector employment data and
assistance to verify and acknowledge companies that take this
initiative in employment and in promotion of veterans. Those
who employ our veterans should not go unnoticed, and we look
forward to working with the Committee on this legislation in
the future.
We greatly appreciate the Chairman's initiative in
introducing H.R. 1383, the ``Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of
2011.'' It addresses what is perhaps the most harmful
deficiency with the current Post-9/11 GI Bill; that is, the
lack of provisions to ensure that students are not saddled with
debt or out-of-pocket expenses as a result of changes in
tuition payment rates set to take effect this August.
Over the past 2 years, many students have chosen a
particular degree program with the expectation that the Yellow
Ribbon program they began with would still be there when they
completed their degree. Changes made to the Post-9/11 GI Bill
last year, positive as they were, significantly altered the
Yellow Ribbon program without protecting current degree-seeking
students from the impact. Many could find themselves making the
choice between transferring schools or paying hefty tuition
bills if they choose to remain. H.R. 1383 would preclude
changes made to the Yellow Ribbon program from negatively
affecting students who are already working on their degrees. It
is very good legislation, and the VFW strongly supports it.
We also support H.R. 1657. Veterans preference in hiring
and contracting has been a great benefit to many veterans and
should be protected from abuse. Provisions in this legislation
would create harsher penalties for those who abuse the system
and enhance protections for service-disabled and veteran-owned
businesses involving contracting. It also heightens oversight
of the process, a critical piece.
Finally, the VFW supports H.R. 1671, which would extend the
authority of VA to provide specially adaptive housing
assistance to individuals residing temporarily in housing owned
by a family member. Through the VA's adaptive housing program,
hundreds of our most severely injured veterans have been given
an opportunity to transition back into civilian life while
gaining some sense of independence as they recuperate under the
care of a family member.
With the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we must
continue providing adaptive housing assistance for our severely
injured veterans. This essential benefit unquestionably makes a
difference in the quality of life for many disabled veterans
and their families.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, we appreciate this
opportunity; and we would be happy to take any questions you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barker appears on p. 29.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you very much.
At this time, we will take a short recess while votes are
taken; and we will resume as quickly as possible once we are
back here.
To the Connolly family, I apologize for the break, but you
understand, I am sure. So we are looking forward to your
testimony as well. We will be back as quickly as possible. So
thank you again.
We have two votes, so it shouldn't take us very long. Thank
you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Stutzman. We will continue our Committee meeting here.
I am going to ask for unanimous consent to include letters
from the Military Officers Association and the National
Association of Veterans Programs Administrators to the record
as well. Without objection. Thank you.
[The letters appear on p. 37.]
Mr. Stutzman. At this time, we will continue with
testimony. I appreciate your patience, and we will continue
with Mr. Madden.
Mr. Madden, you have 5 minutes to testify.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. MADDEN
Mr. Madden. Thank you, Chairman Stutzman and Ranking Member
Braley, for allowing the American Legion the opportunity to
present our views on the proposed legislation.
We have seen massive changes made to the education benefits
that servicemembers and veterans receive. Congress took the
initiative in 2007 to work towards a bill that would properly
address the economic needs of our servicemembers and provide
them with an educational benefit that properly addresses their
commitment and service to this great Nation.
As a result of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, there were a few
unintended consequences that revealed some parity or equity
issues resulting in some veterans receiving a grander benefit
than those who chose an uncommon path of education. The
original bill did not allow for those pursuing at a non-degree
grant institution to receive the more robust benefit that those
who did attend a more traditional path of education. This is
one of some of the examples that were addressed in 2010.
Now we are gazing upon a landscape and are again seeing
unintended consequences that need to be addressed through
legislative changes. H.R. 1383 seeks to accomplish one of those
unintended consequences. The American Legion is understanding
of this group of private school student veterans in certain and
specific States who will see a change in their benefits.
There are also additional issues that should and need to be
addressed when considering this bill. Not only are those who
attend private schools with the assumption their tuition and
fees would be covered, but we also need to address the out-of-
State student veterans who are attending public school but will
now fall under the $17,500 cap and will be called upon to pay
additional costs out of their pocket to maintain attendance in
their respective public institutions.
In addition, the loss of interval pay for all education
benefits will affect those attending school during short but
very specific time frames.
We recommend adding the two changes that I have mentioned
here today to help better serve a community who has already
sacrificed so much to preserve our freedoms.
The American Legion supports H.R. 802 and 1657 and the
draft legislation that is being focused on today, based on the
simple measure that they one day continue to provide support,
provide valuable recognition, and help apply the rule of law.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee. I
would be happy to answer any questions that you might have
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Madden appears on p. 30.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you.
At this time, I am going to yield to Ranking Member Braley
for the introduction and recognizing Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am honored to have a constituent of mine testifying
today, Andrew Connolly, who served in the 133rd Combat Brigade
of the Iowa National Guard, also known as part of the Red
Bulls. Andrew served as part of the longest combat deployment
of any unit in Iraq with the Iowa National Guard, and he also
served in Egypt. So we are delighted to have him here and look
forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW CONNOLLY
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
First off, I would like to thank Chairman Stutzman and
Ranking Member Braley for holding this important hearing today.
My name is Andrew Connolly. I am here today to advocate for
adaptive housing grants for veterans. I currently reside at
2820 Illinois Avenue in Dubuque, Iowa.
I served in the United States Army National Guard from
November 2000, to August 2007. During my time of service, I
completed two tours. The first tour took place in the Sinai
Peninsula, Egypt, from May of 2003 to January of 2004. The
second tour of duty was a combat mission in the Al Anbar
province in Iraq from October 2005, to August of 2007.
Our mission in Iraq was convoy security. During the 16
months I spent in Iraq, my unit transported goods to most of
the western allied bases in Iraq. Our largest enemy threats
were the improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.
I personally encountered many IEDs near my vehicle and
experienced one direct hit, which took place on March 9, 2007.
The blast report from the explosive ordnance disposal team
verified it to be a pressure plate land mine with approximately
15 pounds of PE4. My team and I suffered minor injuries and
concussions from the blast.
After completing my tour in Iraq, I immediately returned to
work and enrolled in school. I tolerated the wear and tear on
my body, figuring that the pain and weird feelings would go
away. After serving in Iraq, my disability ratings varied from
different parts of my body. My back and knees both bothered me
quite a bit while in Iraq, which is documented in my medical
files.
A little over a year after my return, I noticed numbness in
my right foot. I thought that I had just tweaked something in
my back due to the injuries that occurred while overseas. After
a couple of months having this irritating numbness, I consulted
with the VA hospital in Iowa City; and they ordered an MRI
right away.
Following the MRI, the neurologist suggested that I come in
for a consultation the next week. It was early February of
2009, and I was struck with some devastating news. The
neurology doctor at the VA closed the door behind him,
proceeded to tell me that I had a slow-growing small mass
located within my spinal cord, and he was 90 percent sure that
it was malignant. So a spinal cord biopsy was scheduled for 2
weeks later. The results came back positive for cancer, and
treatment options were offered.
At this time, I had a million things rushing through my
mind, the first being how long do I have. The next was, how am
I going to get through this financially? The neurologist
reported that the tumor was service-connected and most likely
contributed to the pain and discomfort that I suffered while on
Active Duty.
At the time, I owned a top-bottom duplex that was built in
1890. Fortunately, my family and I occupied the lower unit.
Unfortunately, it was not handicapped accessible. My condition
rapidly deteriorated and complicated our family situation.
My son, Brody, was born on July 31, 2008, with a
neuromuscular disorder called congenital myasthenic syndrome.
This disorder affects all of my son's muscles, thus causing
dependence on a ventilator 24 hours-a-day. He, too, will need
to be in a wheelchair for the rest of his life.
I started radiation and followed up with chemotherapy. I am
still taking chemotherapy and probably will until I can no
longer tolerate it or I move on. As the year 2009 went on, the
right side of my body slowly lost feeling. By the time 2010
came around, my left side began to lose feeling as well. As my
body began to dwindle from the nipples down, I investigated
military grants for paralyzed veterans. I came across the
specially adaptive housing grant and applied for it. I was
denied the grant because I was still able to walk at that time.
The doctor's report stated that this type of cancer would
leave me paralyzed and no cure existed. I was diagnosed with a
grade 2/3 anaplastic astrocytoma cancer of the spine. This
still did not qualify me for the grant.
My leg started to give out on me, and I tripped quite
often. A wheelchair-bound life was creeping into the picture
quite rapidly. My frustration with the VA grew immeasurably,
and I felt trapped, fighting a losing battle. I was 26,
married, and had a beautiful handicapped child to support.
My life spiraled downward, and I fit the grant criteria to
a tee. Ironically, my minimal ability to walk kept it beyond my
grasp.
For 7 years, military leaders preached to us, prepare,
prepare, prepare. This is exactly what I was trying to do. I
was hoping to get the grant paperwork started early so that
when the time came and a wheelchair became a permanent part of
my life, I would be ready. At this time, I was unable to afford
a proper handicapped accessible house for my family.
In April of 2010, I called Ray Zirkelbach, who served with
me in both Egypt and Iraq. Ray, an Iowa House Representative in
the neighboring county, listened to my story. He, too, thought
something should be done about this situation. He forwarded the
e-mail on to Congressman Bruce Braley, who quickly turned
around my application paperwork.
Within 2 weeks of contacting Representative Ray Zirkelbach
and Congressman Bruce Braley, I was approved for the grant, and
a huge weight lifted off my shoulders. With the grant approved,
I was able to build a house that would be suitable for my
family.
Construction on our new house began on June 21, 2010. At
the same time, I became wheelchair bound. Life in our duplex
during the construction of the new house was quite miserable
but temporarily manageable.
In August, 2010, I officially became a paraplegic, losing
all use, function, and feeling below the nipples. At this
point, the neurologist decided it was time to try to remove as
much of the tumor and spinal cord as possible in an attempt to
prolong my life. The surgery itself went perfectly. However,
the surgeons were not able to remove the entire tumor without
causing me to become a quadriplegic or having respiratory
complications.
With paralysis, I fell deeper and deeper into depression.
The lists of tasks I was able to do around the duplex grew
shorter and shorter. I became so reliant on my wife and others
to help me accomplish simple tasks. Taking a shower, for
instance, became an hour-long duty that required an extra set
of hands and an awkward plastic bench that offered terrible
support. I lost all control of bowel and bladder, which made it
impossible for me to use the bathroom in my own apartment.
Since the duplex was built in 1890, all the doorways and
hallways were narrow and produced a knuckle-rubbing experience
every time I moved into a different room. Cooking, doing the
dishes, and even maneuvering around the kitchen became very
difficult. Life in the duplex was unbearable.
Today, I am in my new house. Today, I took a shower by
myself in a 5-by-5 roll-in shower with handicap controls.
Today, I cooked my own breakfast because I was able to reach
all of the ingredients. Today, I was able to watch my son,
Brody, sleeping in his bedroom because I could roll through his
doorway with my wheelchair.
Today, I am praying for all soldiers and veterans, that
they may have the support and dignity they deserve without
having to jump through hoops or have friends in politics. I am
where I am today because I had advocates, not because I will
ultimately die young as a result of serving the country I love.
Adapted housing grant programs, including the temporary
residence adaptation program that is specifically extended by
this legislation, ensure that our brave soldiers get the
assistance they deserve so that they can live as self-
sufficiently as possible.
Thank you again for holding this hearing. It is my hope
that Congress extends the TRA program and continues its support
for all adaptive housing grant programs to come, and I am open
to any questions you might have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connolly appears on p. 32.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Connolly.
Thanks to each of you for your testimony.
I will start the questioning.
I guess my question to you, Mr. Connolly--I just really
appreciate your story, and you are an inspiration. And thank
you again for your service. It is just remarkable. And I am
sure you have many questions, and I think what you are here
today and supporting is really just a small token of
appreciation from our country to you and what you have been
willing to give. And I cannot say thank you enough. To you and
your son and to your wife, I wish you the very best.
But during the time when your disease progressed, needing a
wheelchair, was there a time when you could walk with the
assistance of a cane or a similar device? For how long?
Mr. Connolly. Yes. I started using the cane probably around
April, just a single one-arm cane. And then I switched to four-
arm canes for a while. And then I started tripping quite a bit
with those and had to move into the wheelchair almost at the
same time I started to build the house.
Mr. Stutzman. How many months was that before you were
confined to a wheelchair that you were using it about, from
when you were able to walk without any assistance to the
wheelchair?
Mr. Connolly. Well, from diagnosis in 2009, February of
2009, I was able to walk on my own up until April. And then in
June I was wheelchair bound from then on.
Mr. Stutzman. Quite rapidly then. So once you were approved
for the grant--that seems to be the biggest holdup for you, was
getting approved. What has your experience been like since you
have been approved, getting the house built? You have a new
house for you and your family.
Mr. Connolly. Yeah. Once Congressman Braley had--once I
contacted him, everything has gone real smoothly. Our house was
built fairly quick. Our contractor did a great job. And the
VA--the support that I have had from the VA has been pretty
good. But since I have been approved, everything has gone
pretty darn smooth.
Mr. Stutzman. What about with your son, Brody? What type of
assistance and help have you been able to receive? Are there
programs there? What kind of challenges and also assistance is
there for you?
Mr. Connolly. Well, I haven't really worked with the VA for
our son very much. We also have Medicaid for him, and they deal
mostly with Brody. But with this grant and the new house, it
has made life for Brody and us so much easier. We have a
separate bathroom for him that is handicap accessible, and it
has helped out quite a bit.
Mr. Stutzman. The next question--and I am kind of keeping
track of time in my head, and I don't want to take from the
other Members' times. So if you could start then. I will just
finish up here in just a couple of minutes.
But to the veterans service organizations (VSOs), you had
mentioned and you had listed problems with the recent GI bill
fix act from last Congress, including the interval payments and
the need to grandfather groups of students who would be
adversely affected by the law. Can you explain why did your
organizations support the legislation that then created these
problems in the first place? And I will just let any of you
address that.
Mr. Tarantino. Well, first of all, Congressman, we had
worked very hard with the House of Representatives to create a
fairly robust bill that worked. It wasn't the bill we got, for
several reasons. First of all, we had trouble getting the bill
out of the Committee. The Committee was not choosing to move.
And, honestly, you don't let the perfect be the enemy of the
good.
The bill that came out of the Senate expanded GI benefits
to 400,000 veterans, 85,000 National Guardsmen the day it was
signed. These were upgrades that were critically needed by not
just our members, but by all the veterans using the GI bill. So
while the bill we got was not the perfect solution, it was the
solution that we got and that is going to vastly improve the
lives of veterans and their families come August 1st and that
is the bottom line.
What we are looking to now is we are looking for the House
to take leadership and fix some of the things that were left
out of the Senate version that ultimately got passed.
Mr. Madden. The American Legion, as a resolution-based
organization, we had certain policies that directed what we
supported and what we did not support. Every policy that was,
as Mr. Tarantino spoke about earlier, was in the bill that was
introduced, the Senate--was the bill, but it did address in
more than one way every resolution that we had affecting
education. So, ultimately, in the long run, we were going to
support the bill that additionally provided over 400,000
servicemembers the opportunity to attend school that were
previously not allowed to.
Mr. Stutzman. With that, I will go ahead and close my
questioning out and turn it over to Mr. Braley.
Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Andrew, I have had the pleasure of having a number of
constituents testify at hearings in Washington, and I can tell
you I have never heard more moving testimony than what you
shared with us, and there was a reason why you could hear a pin
drop during your testimony. So thank you for making the effort
to come out and share your story.
I think one of the important things about these adaptive
housing grants under the Veterans Administration is what I call
the multiplier effect, and that is how we get a lot more bang
for our buck from that initial investment than just the VA
dollars coming into an individual veteran's life. Could you
share with us a little bit about your own experience, about how
the community of Dubuque where you live embraced you and your
family and made the value of this project worth much more than
just the simple dollars you received?
Mr. Connolly. Oh, sure. The support that I have had is just
unreal. My family, my friends, people that I don't even know
have all chipped in while building our house. And I just can't
say enough thank you. My pens have run out of ink to try to
thank so many people that have helped with building this house.
And it was in the newspaper and on television, and people
just want to help other--help the veterans out that are in the
community once they hear about it. And I know, like with the
roofing, I had help with roofing and siding. And it is like a
multiplying effect. Just more people want to help out. It is
awesome. It is such a great feeling that they are there for us.
Mr. Braley. It is my understanding that a number of people
in the building trades in the city of Dubuque just came by to
donate their time and help out with the construction of the
home so that the value that you got from that money went a lot
further than would have otherwise. Is that right?
Mr. Connolly. That is for sure, yes.
Mr. Braley. One of the things that I think is so
significant about your testimony is something that you
mentioned in your testimony, Mr. Tarantino, and I want to talk
specifically about your third recommendation, where you said to
make USERRA violations enforceable and expand USERRA to include
in-State National Guard deployments.
Mr. Connolly and the Iowa National Guard served the longest
combat deployment of any unit in Iraq. It was featured in an
hour-long 60 Minutes special on Veterans Day. And we have
changed the emphasis that we place on our Guard and Reserve
units, bringing them to an almost active-duty rotation. And yet
there is still some troubling discrepancies between the types
of benefits afforded to people in the Guard and Reserve, and I
will just give you an example.
When Mr. Connolly came back from Iraq, it was brought to my
attention that many of the members of his unit had their orders
cut short 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 days so that they did not qualify
for an additional $250 a day in GI Bill education assistance
benefits. And you can imagine how angry I and many other people
who represented constituents affected by that policy were with
the U.S. Department of Defense. We got that problem solved and
found out that tens of thousands of Guard members around the
country did not even know those benefit had been denied.
Then we got into a problem with respite leave compensation
for people serving in an hazardous area for prolonged periods
of time were being denied up to $250 a day of additional
compensation.
So the concern I have for all of you is it is great to have
policies and statutes that govern how benefits should be
awarded, but if the Pentagon and the Department of Defense
aren't respecting the purpose behind those laws, you still have
a problem. Could you elaborate on why that recommendation is
important?
Mr. Tarantino. This is tied to that issue, and I am
speaking for someone who served as a Reservist back in the
1990s. It was pretty common for the Army to send you on a 179-
day AT or deployment. Because once you hit 180 days, suddenly
you get all these veterans' benefits. We always used to laugh
about that morbidly, because that is just the way it worked.
I am happy to say that these have gotten better. But there
has been--especially since our National Guard and Reserve have
borne a terrible burden throughout this entire conflict over
the last 10 years. If you are a National Guardsman, you have a
very specific job; and that job was not designed to be three,
four rotations into a combat zone within a 10-year period.
Because when you come back, you still have duty in-State.
I looked at my own State, California, which tends to burn
down every year. And we use our National Guard for in-State
firefighting. This is not a Federal disaster. These are State
disasters.
So you are really looking at a situation where you have to
leave your job to get called up, go and defend your hometown
from burning down, but your job isn't protected when you come
back off. And that is really what is the crux of it. There is a
lot of things that we need to do to tweak USERRA to make it
more effective, to make it more enforceable.
But this was one really big, gaping hole that a lot of our
members are starting to feel pain. They are protected when they
go overseas. But when they have to do a month-long stint
fighting a fire or doing flood relief, they are starting to
find that their jobs aren't protected. And, frankly, that is
just not right.
Mr. Braley. I just want to follow up on that. Because when
Mr. Connolly and his colleagues came back, they immediately
faced an ice-storm disaster in my district that put a half a
million people without electricity. Then the worst tornado in
the United States in 2008, the worst flooding in our State in
history. And I saw them all over my State, and now there are
3,500 members of the Iowa National Guard serving in
Afghanistan. This is a problem I think that we have swept under
the rug far too long, and that is why I appreciate all of your
attention to these issues.
And I yield back.
Mr. Johnson [presiding]. Thank you. And thank you all for
being here. Sorry I was late. I had another hearing this
morning--or this afternoon, rather.
I am Bill Johnson from Ohio, and I am going to yield myself
my question time, if that is okay.
Have you folks thought about H.R. 1657? How can we further
strengthen the laws to deter fraudulent companies from claiming
to be service-disabled, veteran-owned businesses and taking
contract dollars away from those legitimate ones? Do you think
H.R. 1657 is going to be an adequate deterrent?
Ms. Roof. I think it is a great start. What I have said
repeatedly and what AMVETS believes is that you can't come up
with new laws or strengthen laws until you start enforcing
them. I hate to be blunt about it, but there are laws in place
that are not being enforced. And I think H.R. 1657 is a great
step in a direction of enforcing--not only enforcing current
penalties but giving them some teeth, for lack of a better
term.
Mr. Madden. It is already hard enough for Federal agencies
to reach that 3 percent goal that they are supposed to do so.
When you add these individuals who are fraudulently qualified
as service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses, you are
taking away--and we agree with the AMVETS on this, that it is
just creating teeth, adding more additional penalties,
debarring them after 30 days. It is a good start.
Mr. Johnson. But what I hear you saying is that is not
enough if we are not enforcing, correct?
Ms. Roof. Yes, sir. I think it could be said that for any
law, though. Any law is great in the book. But until you
enforce it, it is just that, in a book.
Mr. Johnson. Do any of your organizations provide any type
of an award or public recognition to employers who hire
veterans? And do you know of any other private-sector awards
that properly recognize these veteran-friendly employees?
Mr. Madden. Right now, I think for quite a long time, the
American Legion has had an award that goes out to small,
medium, and large businesses that hire and retain veterans. We
provide it every year to different departments in different
States that offer suggestions. So we have been giving it for a
long time.
I am not sure--I do not know offhand of any other
organizations or any other magazines that might do it as well.
Mr. Johnson. Any others?
Ms. Roof. We currently have a program, Employer of the
Year. I can get you more information for the record on that. It
is not my forte. But AMVETS does have a couple of programs like
that, actually.
[Ms. Roof subsequently provided the following information:]
AMVETS Employer of the Year
The AMVETS National Employer of the Year Awards recognize
outstanding companies who demonstrate the highest commitment to
hiring veterans. In light of the high rate of unemployment
among veterans, recognition of those employers who, as a
standard practice, go out of their way to hire the veteran
becomes even more important. There are many firms that utilize
veterans' preference, even though they may not be government
contractors, and AMVETS wants to make sure we recognize them.
The employers to receive the awards will be selected from
nominations submitted by AMVETS department employment
committees. Departments, posts or individuals may make
recommendations to their respective employment committees and
employers may nominate themselves.
Mr. Johnson. I have one final question.
I find it a bit interesting that many of you have listed
problems--that has already been asked? Okay. I was counseled.
Asked and answered. That is a good thing. Thank you very much.
And, with that, I will yield back to the Chairman.
Mr. Stutzman [presiding]. I think that will be all the
questions we will take, but I do want to turn it over--yield to
Mr. Braley just for a couple of closing remarks with this
panel.
Mr. Braley. Thanks again for holding this hearing, Mr.
Chairman.
I think Ms. Roof's comment was instructive. Because having
a law is one thing. Enforcing a law is quite a different story.
And, sadly, you have to have money to enforce laws. The dilemma
that we face in this climate that we are experiencing is that
it takes money to enforce the law, and yet it saves money if
you spend money to enforce the law. And that is the challenge
we face, is making sure we are funding the enforcement arm of
these agencies to do their job and make sure that we are not
promoting behavior that punishes legitimate veteran-owned small
businesses.
So, with that, I will yield back.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. This concludes the time of this
panel. I will excuse you all and thank you again for coming.
And at this time, we will call for the second panel,
consisting of Mr. Keith Wilson, Mr. Jan Frye, and Mr. John
Brizzi from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
STATEMENT OF KEITH M. WILSON, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION SERVICE,
VETERANS BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY JAN R. FRYE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR ACQUISITIONS AND LOGISTICS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS; AND F. JOHN BRIZZI, DEPUTY ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Wilson. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today
to provide VA's views on H.R. 802, H.R. 1383, H.R. 1657, and a
draft bill to authorize the VA to provide specially adapted
housing assistance to individuals residing temporarily in
housing owned by a family member.
Accompanying me today are Mr. Jan Frye, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Acquisitions and Logistics, and Mr. F. John
Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General Counsel.
H.R. 802 would require VA to establish a VetStar Award
Program, as well as a process for administering this program,
which would recognize businesses for their contributions to
veterans' employment.
A program of recognition for contributions to veterans'
employment is a worthwhile means of encouraging businesses to
continue to employ veterans. Businesses that contribute to
veterans' employment provide a valuable and meaningful service,
allowing VA to excel with regards to its mission to help
veterans become employable and obtain and maintain gainful
employment. VA supports this bill, and estimates that enactment
of this bill, as written, would result in no significant costs.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1383, the ``Restoring GI Bill Fairness
Act of 2011,'' would temporarily preserve higher rates of
tuition and fees for programs of education at nonpublic
institutions of higher learning pursued by individuals enrolled
in VA's Post-9/11 GI Bill as it existed before the enactment of
Public Law 111-377. Section 2 of this bill would modify the
amount of educational assistance payable to specific
individuals to make an exception for those who are enrolled in
a private institution of higher learning in certain States.
This exception would apply to an individual entitled to
educational assistance under the Post-9/11 GI Bill who, on or
before April 1, was enrolled in a private institution of higher
learning in a State in which the amount of maximum tuition per
credit hour is $700, and the combined amount of tuition and
fees for full-time attendance exceeds $17,500. There are seven
States which meet this criteria: Arizona, Michigan, New
Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas.
VA notes that the bill has no impact on the Post-9/11 Bill
Yellow Ribbon program. The Yellow Ribbon program continues to
allow high cost schools to offset those high costs by entering
into agreements with VA to fully cover tuition and fee costs
exceeding $17,500. Depending on a school's level of
participation, Yellow Ribbon agreements will continue to cover
all tuition and fee costs in excess of $17,500.
VA has concerns with the proposed legislation as written,
to include the timeline for implementing this legislation,
which are described fully in my written testimony. VA has had
constructive discussions with the Subcommittee staff regarding
these issues, and will be pleased to continue to be available
to work with the Committee to address these concerns.
VA is aggressively working on the long-term solution needed
to process GI Bill claims. VA plans to implement changes for
the Post-9/11 GI Bill as mandated by Public Law 111-377 across
three phases. The first release deployed on March 5. Future
releases are scheduled for June 6 of this year and October 17
of this year. The enactment of H.R. 1383, as introduced, would
severely hamper VA's long-term solution deployment efforts. The
changes made by this legislation would lead to very complicated
processing scenarios. Additionally, since the amount of
educational assistance would be based on the greater of the
maximum tuition credit hour payments or $17,500, VA would have
to apply a blended set of rules for each claim that falls under
these provisions.
This proposed legislation would have a negative impact on
service delivery for those students using benefits this fall.
VA claims processors would have to thoroughly examine each
claim manually to determine if it meets the provisions, which
would result in labor-intensive manual processing. This would
lead to a significant increase in average processing time for
all claims during the critical fall enrollment period.
H.R. 1657 would revise title 38 to mandate a minimum 5-year
debarment for VA contracting for any business, including the
principals of the business, determined by the Secretary to have
misrepresented its status as a veteran-owned or service-
disabled veteran-owned small business. Further, the bill would
require VA to commence debarment action within 30 days of
determination that the representation had occurred, and to
complete the action within 90 days.
VA shares the Subcommittee's focus on aggressively
protecting the government from disreputable businesses in order
that procurement dollars set aside reach the intended
recipients. VA has taken steps to protect the integrity of our
set-aside process as described in my written testimony. While
we support the general intent of the legislation, VA cannot
support H.R. 1657 in its present form.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson appears on p. 33.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. And thanks for being
here on behalf of the VA. I do have a couple of questions.
You stated several concerns with the grandfather bill.
Chairman Miller has made fixing the provisions in last
December's fix bill, affecting tuition and fees at private
institutions, a high priority. House Resolution 1383 does not
mandate a method, such as within the new automated system, just
an outcome. So the question becomes how does it happen? How can
you make it happen?
Mr. Wilson. As mentioned in my testimony, Mr. Chairman, we
have worked very aggressively with the Committee staff, and we
do appreciate their involvement in this. They are fully aware
of the work that we put into developing a payment system. The
stage that we are at in development of that payment system and
the time allowed to implement the changes are inconsistent.
Basically, what that means is we see no way that we can
change our development to allow for these provisions in time to
not negatively impact a broader scope of individuals during the
fall enrollment. There is simply a lot of work that we continue
to need to do before we begin processing fall enrollments at
the beginning of June. Since we are unable to modify the
development cycle in time that way, the only method for us to
be paying those benefits is what I would refer to as the stubby
pencil method, manual processing. We are very concerned about
anything that would require us to manually process claims
because of the experience we have had previously with initial
implementation of this program, and being required to do a lot
of manual work to pay benefits. We are very concerned about
benefits being paid on time.
Mr. Stutzman. Do you have any idea what that number might
be, what you could anticipate as far as enrollees applying for
the program?
Mr. Wilson. Nationwide we are providing education benefits
to about 800,000 people in all of our education programs. We
haven't fully finished our costing on this piece of
legislation. The number that we do have, though, is a maximum
of about 30,000 people in the seven States would be impacted by
the cap of $17,500. So 30,000 of the 800,000 or so that we
provide benefits to.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Thank you. I wanted to address your
point about there being a difference between, as you call it,
an innocent mistake and outright willful violation of the law
regarding service-disabled veteran ownership and control. And
if you could provide some suggestions in that regard, I would
be happy to consider them. But there appears to be no real
progress on firms that have been rejected by either the U.S.
Government Accountability Office well over a year ago and firms
identified by the VA as not meeting the statutory standard of
ownership and control.
How long do you think it is appropriate to take debarment
action against a firm that has been found to willfully
misrepresent its status?
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Frye to
respond to that question, please.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Yes, sir. Mr. Frye.
Mr. Frye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. I
would like to state for the record that we have taken action
against a number of firms who have misrepresented themselves
and mischaracterized themselves as veteran-owned service-
disabled or veteran-owned small businesses. To date, we have
debarred three firms and five individuals. We have five firms
who are referrals in the queue. And we have one firm and one
individual that have been proposed for debarment. And I would
characterize this number as large. I have been in the VA for
5\1/2\ years in my role as a senior procurement executive, and
I can tell you that debarments outside of Public Law 109-461
have been minuscule. I have not done, I think, more than three
debarments outside of this public law. So we have been very
actively engaged in debarring those firms who have
misrepresented themselves.
Mr. Stutzman. What is a typical debarment? How long of a
time are they not able to do contracting work?
Mr. Frye. Well, I can give you an example. My staff told me
that it took 105 days, workdays, to debar one firm. So that is
an example of how long that it sometimes takes. We do give them
a chance to represent themselves. We give them a chance to have
attorneys represent them, to present their case, and take all
factors in account before we debar them.
Mr. Stutzman. Once they are debarred, though, how long were
they debarred from doing any contract work?
Mr. Frye. In the case of--let me see here, we imposed a 5-
year period on two firms and four individuals. So they got the
maximum 5-year period. We imposed a 6-month debarment period on
one firm and one individual.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. People do things like this, go set up a
different firm, and continue work a different way. Are we
following through and making sure that we are not doing
business with those folks?
Mr. Frye. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly why we debar
the individuals as well as the firm. We want to make sure that
the individual doesn't pull up stakes, roll the tent up, move
it someplace else, and start another firm under another
business name.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Because I just think if somebody does
something like this it is just a despicable act. To take
advantage of the situation, people like that should not be in
business, frankly. I appreciate what you are doing, but I think
that really this is important, that especially in times like
this, when we are asking more folks to be competing with one
another in the private sector, that people are taking advantage
especially of our veterans' circumstances and the situation
that they are in.
With that, I will turn to Mr. Braley for his questions.
Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Frye, I want to
follow up with you on that point. Is it your opinion that H.R.
1657 is a solution in search of a problem, or is there a
widespread problem that the current solutions are not properly
addressing?
Mr. Frye. I wouldn't characterize it the way you have, Mr.
Braley. What I would say is that the VA's authority is limited
to VA contracts. Right now we have no authority to debar firms
except those who fall under Public Law 109-461. That is the way
I would characterize it. So if someone violates the rules
outside the VA, we don't have the authority to move in and
debar them from government contracts elsewhere.
Mr. Braley. So for example, if a veteran-owned business
working under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) and its programs were to participate in
conduct that would be similar to what we are talking about
here, you would not have a remedy to pursue that?
Mr. Frye. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Braley. Have you had conversations with people at SBA
about the common interest you have in eliminating this practice
and what type of joint enforcement efforts could be employed?
Mr. Frye. I don't believe we have had any in-depth
conversations. We talked about it, but no in-depth
conversations that I know of.
Mr. Braley. All right. Thank you. Mr. Wilson, in dealing
with the issues we were talking about on H.R. 1383, is it your
testimony that this is a timing problem or an implementation
problem in terms of the proposal as it exists now? In other
words, is this something if it wasn't for the demands of the
rapidly approaching fall academic year that could be addressed
within the confines of the legislation?
Mr. Wilson. Timing is the issue. We have created a very
robust tool, not fully deployed, but we are processing all of
the claims in the system right now that does allow us
flexibility. But if the calendar doesn't cooperate, there is
not much we can do. The challenge we have right now is timing.
We have completed the development cycle for what we need to
implement for Public Law 111-377, that it impacts the fall
enrollment on August 1. We are in user acceptance testing for
that now. We deployed that on June 7. We begin processing fall
enrollments on June 7. We do that so that there is not a
backlog come August, September. Being able to squeeze any more
development work in between now and then is just simply not
possible. There are just not enough hours in the day to do it.
Mr. Braley. As I listened to your testimony, I got the
impression that your primary concern was the unintended
consequences that a well-intended bill might have the actual
impact of denying well-deserving benefits that they should be
getting simply because of the challenges of addressing the
implementation. Is that correct?
Mr. Wilson. I think that is a fair characterization.
Impacting our ability to pay benefits timely is a very major
concern. And most of our students are completely dependent on
their monthly check from VA to stay in school. If they are not
paid timely, they can't stay in school.
Mr. Braley. You also talked in your testimony about the
issue of a blended set of rules. Can you elaborate on the
problem of applying a blended set of rules?
Mr. Wilson. The blended set of rules, if the bill is
enacted the way it is with the timeline, would require our
claims examiners to manually look at these calculations. In
other words, they would be looking at computer screens, and
they would be making manual determinations on what would
actually be paid. The calculations that exist in the system
right now would no longer apply to the students of private
schools in those seven States. So they would basically have to
create something where they are actually doing math, you know,
stubby pencil math to figure out whether the amount of tuition
and fees paid would be something less than the $17,500,
something more than the $17,500, and then factoring in the
Yellow Ribbon payments if there is a Yellow Ribbon school at
all as well. So there are several things that they would have
to apply their gray matter to do. Our folks are very smart,
they can do that, but it takes time. And that is the challenge
is the time it would be taking us to do that during the fall
semester, when we will have hundreds of thousands of people who
need to be paid timely.
Mr. Braley. Thank you. I see my time has expired. I yield
back.
Mr. Stutzman. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wilson, you have
actually enlightened me a little bit, because I have had some
concerns about the claims processing for quite some time. In
your testimony, you indicate that you are opposed to H.R. 1383
because of the effect that it would have on processing times
and the long-term IT solution. What do you mean by the long-
term IT solution?
Mr. Wilson. When the Post-9/11 GI Bill was originally
enacted in 2008, signed into law in June 2008, VA had 13 months
to set up a payment system. The payment tools and processing
tools that we had in place at the time were structured
fundamentally differently than the variables we had to account
for in the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Basically speaking, Montgomery GI
Bill and the other programs paid a single payment to the
student based on a flat rate. The Post-9/11 GI Bill has several
factors that vary depending upon the individual's situation. So
we are paying a total benefit amount that is unique to each
individual. We didn't have a payment system to do that. What we
set up was a two-track effort, the first track being do the
minimum that we have to so that we can meet the initial
timeline in 13 months and begin paying. We went very heavy on
additional staff to support that model. But also what we
developed at the same time was a completely new automated
payment and processing tool so that we could continue to pay
people timely without a heavy reliance on individuals. So we
have deployed four phases of that long-term payment system. The
completion of that long-term payment system, though, was put on
hold so that we can change it to calculate the new payments
that are required under Public Law 111-377.
Mr. Johnson. One of the concerns that I have had through
our different Committee, Oversight and Investigations, is
asking for a view of the architecture of VA's IT systems. You
know, correct me if I am wrong, but your job, the VA's job is
to care for our veterans. Would it be an accurate statement to
say that saying our IT systems are inadequate to allow us to do
that and to respond quickly, do you find that an acceptable
answer?
Mr. Wilson. I would hesitate to provide a response as
broadly as the manner in which your question was put to me.
What I can tell you is that for the Post-9/11 GI Bill we did
not have adequate tools. Now, what I will also say is that the
relationship we, the business providers in the Veterans
Benefits Administration and elsewhere in VA, specifically the
information technology organization have done to stand up this
new architecture that we have, has been phenomenal. We have
used an agile development methodology. We went from absolutely
nothing to a fully deployed system within about 18 months. And
it is a system that works. It is a system that provides the
payment tools that we need. It is not completely done because
we have had to change it to support the new legislation. But
our users like it. It is a 21st Century tool. And I do know
that our IT environment is using the lessons learned from
chapter 33 to apply to the other developments that are
underway.
Mr. Johnson. But my background as a chief information
officer in corporate America, and 30 years in IT, agility means
you are putting in a system that is easily adaptable, easily
modifiable. But what you are telling me here is that it is not.
Mr. Wilson. I believe in fact it is. What I would say is
that regardless of how agile you set up a system, and the
system that we are setting up for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which
again is not completely done but will be, is 21st century
technology. It is leading-edge technology. But regardless of
how agile that is, if we are not given the calendar time to be
able to modify it without a significant level of risk, we are
going to have an abundance of concern. The time frame that we
are dealing with here leads us to believe that we are on the
path of potentially impacting the fall enrollment negatively.
And that is a risk we are not prepared to accept. It is a
challenge.
Mr. Johnson. I am sorry, Mr. Wilson, for cutting you off. I
am out of time. Agility in the IT industry means the ability to
quickly change. So you still haven't clarified for me. You keep
saying that regardless of how agile it is, without the
requisite amount of time to change it to incorporate these new
rules, we are still behind the power curve. If that system were
truly 21st century technology, with agility built in, you
wouldn't be having these problems, and the veterans throughout
America and all the veterans organizations would not be
screaming about the processing backlog.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. I want to make just a couple of
comments and ask a couple of other questions. If the gentlemen
have any other further questions, we will probably be out of
here in just a couple of minutes. But I agree with what Mr.
Johnson was just saying. This can't be that difficult. How many
more employees did the VA hire to implement the new GI Bill?
Mr. Wilson. About 1,100.
Mr. Stutzman. One thousand, one hundred. What are they
doing now?
Mr. Wilson. They are processing claims right now.
Mr. Stutzman. I mean they have been doing this for some
time, right?
Mr. Wilson. Yes, they have.
Mr. Stutzman. So is there any way that they could--it seems
like we have a workforce there that could adapt and adjust
here.
Mr. Wilson. And that is what we will be using. Our original
plan was to move from a very heavily human-based process into a
more automated process. We are continuing to move in that
direction. But because of the new changes under P.L. 111-377,
we need to keep those people on board until we fully deploy.
The challenge is we have never had the opportunity to fully
deploy the system yet, even though we have had four releases,
we have moved mountains, and accomplished a lot in 18 months.
It was a huge undertaking. And I believe we have done a very
good job at meeting that undertaking. We do not have a claims
backlog in the education area, despite what was mentioned
earlier. We have very sound processing times. Students are
being served. And I want to make sure that that is clear. And
we want to be able to continue to provide that level of
service.
Mr. Stutzman. Right. Absolutely. I agree and applaud that
is being done. I want to go back to the Small Business
Enforcement Act. Once a business or individual has been put on
the debarment list, are they put on the excluded parties list?
Mr. Frye. Yes, Mr. Chairman, they are put on the excluded
parties list once they are debarred.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. So they are not showing up anywhere
else. We want to make sure they are not doing business with the
government. Is that right?
Mr. Frye. They should not do business with the government.
If the contracting officers do their job, their job is to look
at the excluded parties list before they award any contract.
They should not be doing business with the government.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Very good. All right. Mr. Braley, any
further questions?
Mr. Braley. No.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Thank you to the panel. And thank you
for being here. I am looking forward to working with you on
this. I know we will be communicating some more. Mr. Braley,
you have any further comments to make?
Mr. Braley. No.
Mr. Stutzman. Mr. Connolly, again thank you very much for
being here. Your testimony was very powerful, and helps all of
us. It makes a big difference when people from back home
experience travel to DC. I know it is not an easy thing to do,
but we are really glad you are here. And thank you to Mr.
Wilson, Mr. Frye, and Mr. Brizzi for being here as well.
So with that we will conclude today's meeting, and we are
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Marlin A. Stutzman, Chairman,
Subcommittee Economic Opportunity
Good afternoon. Today, we will be taking testimony on H.R. 1383 the
Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011, sponsored by Chairman Miller
and myself, H.R. 802 sponsored by Ranking Member Filner, H.R. 1671
sponsored by Ranking Member Braley, and H.R. 1657, a bill to improve
VA's enforcement of service disabled veteran-owned small business
contracting, which I introduced. Our intent is to hold a Subcommittee
markup this Thursday followed by a full Committee markup on May 12.
H.R. 1383, the Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011, is a bill
that would grandfather veterans attending private schools who were
adversely affected by the changes to the GI Bill that passed at the end
of last congress. I am glad that we are able to make this fix to help
veterans in the seven States that would see their tuition and fees
payments reduced all without increasing the deficit due to the
inclusion of an offset. I see by their testimony that VA has some
objections to the bill and I hope we can work through those concerns.
H.R. 1657, is a bill I introduced that is designed to debar
companies who have fraudulently claimed to be a service disabled
veteran owned small businesses from doing business with VA. For too
long legitimate SDVOB's have lost contracts to these fraudulent
companies, and I hope that the prospect of debarment for 5 years will
be the deterrent we need to stop this despicable practice.
I would ask all of today's witnesses to summarize your written
statement within 5 minutes and without objection, each written
testimony will be made part of the hearing record.
Before we begin with testimony, I now ask unanimous consent to have
statements from the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Gold Star Wives,
and the Paralyzed Veterans of America entered into the record. Hearing
none, so ordered.
I now yield to the distinguished Ranking Member from the great
State of Iowa for any remarks he may have.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Today's legislative hearing includes four bills before us that
address some of the urgent needs of our veteran's population. These
bills: provide education benefits; extend temporary adaptation grants
for our disabled veterans; recognize small businesses for their
contribution to employing veterans, and; penalize fraudulent veteran
owned small businesses.
Included in today's hearing is H.R. 1671, the Andrew Connolly
Veterans' Housing Act, which I introduced yesterday. This bill seeks to
extend the Temporary Residence Adaptation (TRA) grant through December
2016. The TRA permits the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to award a
grant to a service-disabled veteran who is temporarily residing in a
residence owned by a member of the veteran's family and make
adaptations necessary to meet the veteran's mobility needs.
Currently the legislation is set to terminate on December 31, 2011,
which is why I am extending this to December 31, 2016. This grant is
important to service-connected veterans who return home with
devastating injuries. These veterans need a caretaker while they
rehabilitate, and these caretakers are generally family members. In
order to provide disabled veterans with the independence they need
while they recuperate, different types of adaptations need to be made
to a family's home while the veteran temporarily lives with them.
Finally, I would like to recognize Andrew Connolly, a disabled
veteran who has received a specially adaptive housing grant and is here
to talk about how this grant has impacted his life. Andrew served in
both Egypt and Iraq as part of the Iowa Army National Guard's 133rd
Infantry and is visiting us today from my district. I would like to
thank him for traveling from Iowa to be here today and for his
continued service by fighting for veteran issues.
I would like to thank all our panelists and I look forward to
receiving feedback on the bills before us today.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Johnson
Thank you Mr. Chairman,
I am pleased for this opportunity to discuss legislation intended
to advance education and employment opportunities for our Nation's
veterans. I would also like to thank members of the veterans' service
organizations and the VA for being here today and sharing your views
and recommendations on H.R. 1383, H.R. 802, H.R. 1657, and also Ranking
Member Braley's legislation regarding specially adaptive housing
assistance.
As I've stated before, I strongly believe that veterans are the
segment of society that most deserves our sincere gratitude and
assistance. It is our responsibility to ensure that veterans returning
home are made aware of the benefits they are entitled to, and that they
receive the necessary assistance to ease their transition back to
civilian life and the workforce.
It is my hope that veterans take advantage of the educational
programs and opportunities offered by the VA. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is
intended to aide veterans in achieving their educational goals by
assisting with tuition and fees, housing, and books and supplies.
However, it is also important that changes made to the benefits
offered to our veterans are not done so in a harmful manner. H.R. 1383,
introduced by Chairman Miller, would temporarily preserve higher rates
for tuition and fees for non-public education programs so that
students, who had previously been guaranteed higher tuition payment
rates than those currently specified in the Post-9/11 Educational
Assistance Program, will not face a reduction in tuition and fees paid
by the VA on their behalf. It is necessary that these students finish
their degree with the benefits they were entitled to when they began
their education program.
Today, we will also discuss H.R. 802, legislation that would
establish the VetStar Award Program to recognize businesses for their
contributions to veterans' employment. While this legislation will not
solve the issue of high rates of veteran unemployment, it is my hope
that H.R. 802 will encourage more businesses to hire veterans.
Additionally, H.R. 1657 will ensure that government contracts
intended for veteran-owned or service-disabled veteran-owned small
businesses will be awarded correctly. Veterans possess a unique
perspective that only those who have served our country can offer. It
is unconscionable for small businesses to falsely claim to be veteran-
owned and take away contracts intended for those who have served and
sacrificed for our country.
I welcome this opportunity to further discuss each of these bills
with my colleagues in addition to the veterans' service organizations
and VA members who are present.
Prepared Statement of Christina M. Roof, National Acting Legislative
Director, American Veterans (AMVETS)
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee, on behalf of AMVETS, I would like to extend our
gratitude for being given the opportunity to share with you our views
and recommendations regarding H.R. 1383, H.R. 802, H.R. 1657 and
Ranking Member Braley's piece of legislation regarding Specialty
Adaptive Housing.
AMVETS feels privileged in having been a leader, since 1944, in
helping to preserve the freedoms secured by America's Armed Forces.
Today our organization prides itself on the continuation of this
tradition, as well as our undaunted dedication to ensuring that every
past and present member of the Armed Forces receives all of their due
entitlements. These individuals, who have devoted their entire lives to
upholding our values and freedoms, deserve nothing less.
Given the fact this testimony will be addressing several pieces of
legislation, I shall be addressing each piece of legislation
separately, as to make AMVETS testimony clear and concise on the
individual subject matters of the bills.
AMVETS supports H.R. 802, to direct the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to establish a ``VetStar Award Program.'' AMVETS believes with
the disproportionately high unemployment of our veteran community
compared to that of their civilian counterparts, employers who actively
seek out and employ veterans deserve to be recognized for their
contributions to our veterans community. Furthermore, the VetStar Award
Program stands to serve as a motivator for other companies to actively
seek out and employ veterans. We must take all necessary actions to
address and immediately rectify the problem of unemployment that is
plaguing today's veterans. AMVETS believes H.R. 802 is another step in
the right direction at doing just that. AMVETS again lends our support
to H.R. 802.
AMVETS supports H.R. 1383, to temporarily preserve higher rates for
tuition and fees for programs of education at non-public institutions
of higher learning pursued by individuals enrolled in the Post-9/11
Educational Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs
before the enactment of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance
Improvements Act of 2010, and for other purposes. AMVETS believes this
will allow for students currently enrolled in non-public institutions
of higher learning the opportunity to finish their degree without any
undue financial burden or stress. While we applaud Chairman Miller for
introducing this piece of legislation, we feel we would be doing a
disservice to our membership if we did not bring up our concerns on the
new system of which veterans will receive their monthly living stipends
under the new Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program of the
Department of Veterans Affairs enacted in late 2010. AMVETS believes
many veterans utilizing their educational entitlements under the Post-
9/11 GI Bill will be caught off guard and experience undue financial
hardships during the periods of time between college semesters. While
AMVETS strongly supports H.R. 1383, we urge the Chairman and this
Subcommittee to address what AMVETS believes will be a large problem,
the living stipend distribution for the Post-9/11 Educational
Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, as amended in
late 2010.
AMVETS supports H.R. 1657, to amend title 38, United States Code,
to revise the enforcement penalties for misrepresentation of a business
concern as a small business concern owned and controlled by veterans or
as a small business concern owned and controlled by service-disabled
veterans. AMVETS applauds Congressman Stutzman for writing a bill that
is long overdue and very much needed, in order to protect Veteran Owned
Small Businesses (VOSB) and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small
Businesses (SDVOSB). AMVETS has long called upon Congress to revise and
enforce penalties for misrepresentation by a business concern as being
a VOSB or SDVOSB. AMVETS finds it reprehensible that any individual or
business entity would knowingly and purposefully take contracts and
jobs away from veterans, as well as blatantly defraud the Federal
Government. AMVETS believes H.R. 1657 will not only strengthen, but
help enforce penalties that have been long in place, yet severely
underutilized by numerous Federal agencies. If VA and the Federal
Government are truly dedicated to protecting the integrity of the
Federal procurement system, as well as the veteran entrepreneurial
community, AMVETS urges the swift passage of H.R. 1657. Furthermore,
AMVETS calls upon this Subcommittee to focus a substantial amount of
their time during the 112th congress to finally closing all of the
loopholes within the VA procurement system and to pass laws that will
once and for all rid the Federal procurement system of fraudulent
businesses unlawfully taking contracts and jobs from veterans. It is
important to remember that due to the high unemployment rates, veterans
are turning to entrepreneurship at rates this country has not seen
since WWII. Given this fact, now more than ever, VOSBs and SDVOSBs must
have a fair chance in a successful Federal procurement and acquisitions
system. AMVETS again lends our strong support to H.R. 1657.
AMVETS supports H.R. TBD, the ``Andrew Connolly Veterans' Housing
Act.'' This piece of legislation will amend title 38, United States
Code, to extend the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
provide specially adapted housing assistance to individuals residing
temporarily in housing owned by a family member. Thousands of disabled
veterans and their families depend on these funds to sustain their
quality of life and independence. Given the rate at which our Nation's
war fighters are returning from our current conflicts, with
debilitating and life changing injuries, AMVETS would like to see the
Committee go a step further and look into extending this program past
2016, as outlined in Section 2102(A) of title 38, United States Code.
We have an obligation to care for those who return from war in a state
different from that of which they left for war in. Furthermore, given
the current state of our Nation's economy many disabled veterans and
their families are having to turn to the support of family members for
temporary housing. Again, AMVETS lends our support to Congressman
Braley's bill, the ``Andrew Connolly Veterans' Housing Act.''
Chairman Stutzman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee,
AMVETS would again like to thank you for inviting us to share with you
our opinions and recommendations on these very important pieces of
legislation. This concludes my testimony and I stand ready to answer
any questions you may have for me.
Prepared Statement of Tom Tarantino, Senior 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 200,000 Member
Veterans and supporters, I thank you for inviting me to testify at this
hearing to share our members' views on these important issues.
My name is Tom Tarantino and I am the Senior Legislative Associate
with IAVA. I proudly served 10 years in the Army beginning my career as
an enlisted Reservist and leaving service as an Active Duty Cavalry
Officer. Throughout those 10 years, my single most important duty was
to take care of other soldiers. In the military, they teach us to have
each other's backs. Although my uniform is now a suit and tie, I am
proud to work with this Congress to ensure the entire country has the
backs of America's servicemembers and veterans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill # Bill Name/Subject Sponsor Position
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 802 VetStar Award Program Filner Support
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1383 Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act Miller Support
of 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 1657 Misrepresentation of Service Stutzman Support
Disabled Owned Small Business
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. DRAFT Andrew Connolly Veterans Braley Support
Housing Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 802--VetStar Award Program
IAVA conceptually supports the establishment of a program to
recognize businesses that contribute to veterans' employment. While we
endorse H.R. 802, however, IAVA has concerns about what this specific
program will look like, how it plans to recognize such businesses and
what effect it will have lowering the rising veteran unemployment rate.
While a VetStar program certainly couldn't hurt, we remain skeptical
that this is the most effective course of action for Congress to take
at this stage.
In 2010, the unemployment rate for new veterans was a staggering
11.5 percent. Even as the civilian unemployment rate begins to decline,
we continue to see the new veteran unemployment rate rise month-to-
month in 2011. With less than half a percent of Americans fighting in
the current wars and only 8 percent of Americans having ever served in
the military, it is critical that we bridge the widening gap between
the civilian workforce and our Nation's veterans. IAVA believes that
more proactive measures need to be taken if we are to turn the tide on
veteran unemployment.
Several weeks ago, IAVA brought 28 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans
from around the country for our annual Storm the Hill campaign to
discuss solutions for reducing the veteran unemployment rate by
Veterans Day 2011. Meeting with 117 offices and 57 Members of Congress,
we proposed the following policies to reverse the growing number of
unemployed veterans:
1. Order a study and report on the differences between military
certifications, jobs, and education and those for civilian
counterparts.
2. Make the TAP program mandatory and call for a review of the
program every 3 years.
3. Make USERRA violations enforceable, and expand USERRA to
include in-state National Guard deployments.
4. Encourage entrepreneurship by expanding successful Small
Business programs like the Patriot Express Loan Program and the Veteran
Entrepreneurship Bootcamp.
5. Encourage business to hire veterans by simplifying and enacting
a robust tax relief package.
I am proud to report that our suggestions met with almost universal
support. Many Members of the House, especially those sitting in this
room, stepped up and are working on legislation that will reduce the
number of veterans coming home from war to an unemployment check. I
look forward to testifying at a future legislative hearing on those
bills, and reporting to IAVA's 90,000 Member Veterans that Congress has
their back.
H.R. 1383--Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011
IAVA proudly supports H.R. 1383. This bill will ensure that a small
minority of veterans who, due to poorly constructed and confusing
tuition and fee regulations, would have had their benefits reduced as a
result of the Post-9/11 GI Bill's expansion to 400,000 more veterans
will be able to finish College.
The House of Representatives wisely included this provision in
their version of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance
Improvements Act of 2010. The provision, however, was excluded from the
final version that the President ultimately signed into law. IAVA
fought hard to ensure that this small minority of student veterans
would not be negatively impacted by the improvements and expansion of
the Post-9/11 GI Bill. On behalf of our members and those student
veterans, I would like to thank this committee for their commitment to
ensure that these student veterans are not left behind.
H.R. 1657-Misrepresentation of Service Disabled Owned Small Business
IAVA supports H.R. 1657, strengthening the penalties that small
businesses may incur if they misrepresent themselves as veteran-owned
or service disabled veteran-owned small businesses when seeking
government contracts.
Promoting veteran entrepreneurship is key to fighting the growing
tide of veteran unemployment. Small businesses that falsely claim to be
veteran-owned when applying for government contracts harm veterans who
provide essential services and contracts to the Federal Government.
This bill provides clarity on the penalties that may be levied against
those businesses if they take contracts away from veteran
entrepreneurs.
Draft Legislation--Andrew Connelly Veterans' Housing Act
IAVA proudly supports this draft legislation that would extend the
authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide adaptive
housing benefits to veterans who are recovering from injuries at the
home of a caregiver through 2016.
For the thousands of veterans returning home from Iraq and
Afghanistan with severe injuries, the recovery process is often long
and arduous. Many of them require constant care from a family caregiver
for years after they leave service. During this time, they frequently
reside in a home that is not their own and not a permanent residence
where they may live on their own after recovery. Adaptations, like
ramps and elevators, must often be made to their permanent home and
that of their caregiver while they are recovering from their injuries.
While the VA does provide grants for adaptive housing, the benefit is
largely based on the assumption that wounded warriors are living in
their permanent home. Section 2102A of Title 38 allows the VA to issue
a separate grant to adapt the temporary homes of recovering veterans;
however, it is set to expire at the end of this year. By extending this
program to 2016, Congress can show their strong support for those
veterans who have made the most extreme sacrifices for our freedom.
Conclusion
I would like to thank this committee for continuing to support Iraq
and Afghanistan veterans and their families. By ensuring that these
bills are swiftly made law, we will continue to send a signal to
veterans of all generations that Congress and the veterans' community
has their back. Thank you for your time and attention.
Prepared Statement of Shane Barker, Senior Legislative Associate
National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States
Mr. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE:
On behalf of the 2.1 million members of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States and our Auxiliaries, the VFW would like to
thank this committee for the opportunity to present its views on these
bills.
H.R. 802, to direct VA to establish a ``VetStar'' Award program.
The VFW applauds the idea behind H.R. 802, which would recognize
businesses for their contributions to veterans' employment, but
believes that funding to establish criteria and to promote this type of
program would also be needed. In establishing a ``VetStar'' award,
outreach would have to be increased within the private sector to
encourage employment opportunities for veterans, something that the
Department of Labor's Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS)
would be better suited to provide. Also, VETS, under its array of
programs, has access to private and public sector employment data,
which would allow them to verify and acknowledge companies that take
the initiative in employing and promoting veterans.
H.R. 1383, The Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011
The VFW greatly appreciates Chairman Miller's initiative in
introducing this legislation. It addresses what is perhaps the most
harmful deficiency with the current Post -9/11 GI Bill-that is, the
lack of a ``hold harmless'' provision to ensure that students are not
saddled with debt or out-of-pocket expenses as a result of changes in
tuition payment rates set to take effect this August.
Over the past 2 years, many students chose a particular degree
program with the expectation that the Yellow Ribbon Program they began
with would still be there when they completed their degree. Changes
made to the Post-9/11 GI Bill last year, positive as they were, made
significant changes specific to the Yellow Ribbon Program without
protecting current students from the impact. Many could find themselves
making the choice between transferring schools or paying hefty tuition
bills if they choose to remain. H.R. 1383 would preclude changes made
to the Yellow Ribbon Program for students who were already working on
their degrees. This is good legislation and the VFW strongly supports
it.
H.R. 1657, to amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the
enforcement penalties for misrepresentation of a business
concern as a small business concerned owned and controlled by
veterans or as a small business concern owned and controlled by
service disabled veterans.
VFW supports H.R. 1657, as it would provide a more robust
reinforcement of laws for the misrepresentation of small businesses
owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans. Provisions in the
bill include harsher penalties and protections for service-disabled and
veteran owned businesses involved in contracting, as well as increased
oversight into the process. We also believe that this bill would be a
step forward in encouraging positive action with regard to veterans'
preference in contracting.
DRAFT Bill, to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the
authority of VA to provide specially adapted housing assistance
to individuals residing temporarily in housing owned by a
family member.
VFW supports the reauthorization of this critical benefit. Through
VA's adaptive housing grant program, hundreds of our most severely
injured veterans have been given an opportunity to ease back into
civilian life while gaining some sense of independence as they
recuperate under the care of a family member. With the ongoing wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, it is important to continue providing a benefit
that significantly improves the lives of our severely injured veterans.
By extending the grant program through December 31, 2016, you will
increase the flexibility of the benefit while making a difference in
the quality of life for many disabled veterans and their families.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or the Members of the Committee may have.
Prepared Statement of Robert Madden, Assistant Director, National
Economic Commission, American Legion
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
H.R. 1383: The American Legion understands the unintended
consequences of the passage of the Post-9/11 Fix-it Bill in 2010 and
the need to address those in legislative language during the 112th
Congress. H.R. 1383 accomplishes part of what the American Legion sees
that needs to be remedied yet it does include addressing the role of
the State Approving Agencies, interval pay and addition of out-of-state
tuition for public school students.
H.R. 802: The American Legion supports this legislation. The bill
recognizes those companies that hire and retain veterans. It serves as
an incentive to promote veterans' employment and provides awareness for
those who have fought so bravely for this country.
H.R. 1657: The American Legion supports this legislation. The
ability of Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) to
gain Federal contracts is distracted by fraud and abuse by those who
have decided not to follow the rules. SDVOSB owners have sacrificed for
their country and are provided with a gateway into the Federal
contracting world. Those who choose to swindle the system should be
appropriately disqualified and punished, without creating more of a
bureaucratic process for legitimate service disabled veterans who own
businesses.
Draft Legislation: The American Legion supports this legislation.
Adaptive housing assistance is vitally important in light of the
continuing numbers of disabled servicemembers returning from combat
zones as the United States engages in action on multiple fronts
overseas. This aid cannot be allowed to sunset, and therefore the
extension to this aid is needed and supported by The Legion.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these opinions of the
American Legion on these issues.
__________
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Braley, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to present The American Legion's
views on the several pieces of legislation being considered by the
Subcommittee today. The American Legion commends the Subcommittee for
holding a hearing to discuss these very important and timely issues.
H.R. 1383, Restoring GI Fairness Act of 2011, To temporarily
preserve higher rates for tuition and fees for programs of education at
non-public institutions of higher learning pursued by individuals
enrolled in the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program of the
Department of Veterans Affairs before the enactment of the Post-9/11
Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010, and for other
purposes. With the many changes recently made to the Post-9/11 GI Bill
unintended consequences need to be remedied through the legislative
process. While this bill helps address one of those issues relating to
the benefits offered veterans attending private schools, it falls short
in addressing those other issues. Therefore, The America Legion stands
firmly committed to ensure every group somewhat affected by the most
recent changes should be included in all encompassing legislative
change.
The American Legion requests Congress add the following provision
and issues to address all the needs of returning veterans and their
access to education benefits entitled to them:
grandfathering in the private schools (as addressed in
this legislation) but also admitting those who attend out-of-state
public universities who fall under the same $17,500.00 cap;
addition of interval pay to include those months when
veterans are between semesters yet in need of the housing allowance to
meet their financial responsibilities, and;
addressing the role of State approving agencies in
verifying veteran-friendly programs that are specific for the
demographic.
The American Legion's views are established in a consensus that all
veterans are entitled to certain education benefits that will enable
them to continue moving forward, in terms of their success, and we
should continue to increase their accessibility and not eliminate any
portion that might affect their sustainability in attaining a higher
education.
H.R. 802, seeks to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
establish a VetStar Award Program. The American Legion supports this
legislation. The American Legion believes in rewarding those small,
medium and large businesses that contribute to the welfare of veteran
employment. Veterans hire veterans. When possible, it is imperative
that businesses that hire and retain veterans should be recognized for
their continued contribution to the country. The American Legion
currently provides recognition for businesses that hire veterans and
would wholeheartedly agree, through the success of our own program,
this type of behavior should be rewarded. Programs such as the VetStar
Award shed light into the immense work done by American businesses and
contribute to other companies realizing their own veteran hiring
potential.
H.R. 1657, To amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the
enforcement penalties for misrepresentation of a business concern as a
small business concern owned and controlled by veterans or as a small
business concern owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans. The
ability of a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) to
gain government contracts is a right, not a privilege. The American
Legion supports H.R. 1657. The minimal oversight and protection for
SDVOSB needs to come to an end. Time after time, Federal agencies are
allowing fraudulent individuals to gain contracts intended for a SDVOSB
or after the award of a contract discovering the ``SDVOSB company'' was
not run or owned by a service disabled veteran. In a report submitted
in 2009, the Government Accountability Office estimated over $100
million was awarded to ineligible firms who stated they were SDVOSB.
This information and number is only from a 10-case study. In addition,
the GAO report cited that ``agencies show that significant control
weaknesses in the SDVOSB program allow ineligible firms to receive
millions in SDVOSB contracts. The lack of effective fraud-prevention
controls by SBA and agencies awarding contracts allowed these
ineligible firms to receive approximately $100 million of sole-source
or set-aside SDVOSB contracts over the last several years.''
This lack of prevention only goes to undermine the significant
impact that SDVOSB can have in the government contracting realm. We
must prevent this abuse and fraud, maintaining the ease of
accessibility for self-certification, and ensure growth and success for
the legitimate SDVOSB.
Draft legislation, The American Legion supports this legislation.
Adaptive housing assistance is vitally important in light of the
continuing numbers of disabled servicemembers returning from combat
zones as the United States engages in action on multiple fronts
overseas. This aid cannot be allowed to sunset, and therefore the
extension to this aid is a needed and supported by The Legion.
The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to present this
statement. Again, thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Braley, and
Members of the Subcommittee for allowing the American Legion to present
its views on these very important issues today.
Prepared Statement of Andrew Connolly, Dubuque, IA
First off, I would like to thank Chairman Stutzman and Ranking
Member Braley for holding this important hearing today.
My name is Andrew Connolly. I currently reside at 2820 Illinois
Avenue in Dubuque, Iowa. I served in the United States Army National
Guard from November, 2000 to August, 2007. During my time of service I
completed two tours. The first tour took place in the Sinai Peninsula,
Egypt from May, 2003 to January, 2004. The second tour of duty was a
combat mission in the Al Anbar Province, Iraq from October, 2005 to
August, 2007. Our mission in Iraq was convoy security. During the 16
months in Iraq, my unit transported goods to most all of the western
allied bases. Our largest enemy threats were the improvised explosive
devices (IED's). I personally encountered many IED's near my vehicle,
and experienced one direct hit, which took place on March 9, 2007. The
blast report from the explosive ordinance disposal team verified it to
be a pressure plate land mine with approximately 15 pounds of PE4. My
team and I suffered minor injuries and concussions from the blast.
After completing my tour in Iraq, I immediately returned to work
and enrolled in school. I tolerated wear and tear on the body figuring
that the pains and weird feelings would go away. After serving in Iraq,
my disability ratings varied for different parts of my body. My back
and knees bothered me quite a bit while in Iraq, which is documented in
my medical files. A little over a year after my return, I noticed
numbness in my right foot. I thought that I had just tweaked something
in my back due to the injuries that had occurred while overseas.
After a couple of months of having this irritating numbness, I
consulted with the VA Hospital in Iowa City and they ordered an MRI
right away. Following the MRI the neurologist suggested that I come in
for a consultation the next week. It was early February, 2009 and I was
struck with some devastating news. The neurology doctor at the VA
closed the door behind him and proceeded to tell me that I had a slow
growing, small mass located within my spinal cord and he was 90 percent
sure it was malignant. A spinal cord biopsy was scheduled for 2 weeks
later. The results came back positive for cancer and treatment options
were offered. At this time I had a million things rushing through my
mind, the first being, ``How long do I have?'' Next was, ``How am I
going to get through this financially?'' The neurologist reported that
the tumor was service-connected, and most likely contributed to the
pain and discomfort I suffered while on active duty.
At the time, I owned a top-bottom duplex built in 1890.
Fortunately, my family and I occupied the lower unit. Unfortunately, it
was not handicapped-accessible. My condition rapidly deteriorated and
complicated our family situation. My son Brody was born on July 31,
2008, with a neuromuscular disorder called congenital myasthenic
syndrome. This disorder affects all of my son's muscles, thus causing
dependence on a ventilator 24 hours-a-day. He too will need to be in a
wheelchair for the rest of his life.
I started radiation and followed up with chemotherapy. I am still
taking chemotherapy and probably will until I can no longer tolerate it
or I move on. As the year 2009 went on, the right side of my body
slowly lost feeling. By the time 2010 came around, my left side began
to lose feeling, as well. As my body began to dwindle from the nipples
down, I investigated military grants for paralyzed veterans. I came
across the Specially Adaptive Housing grant and applied for it. I was
denied the grant because I was still able to walk at that time. Doctor
reports stated that this type of cancer would leave me paralyzed and no
cure existed. I was diagnosed with grade 2/3 anaplastic astrocytoma
cancer of the spine. This still did not qualify me for the grant. My
legs started to give out on me and I tripped quite often. A wheelchair-
bound life was creeping into the picture quite rapidly. My frustration
with the VA grew immeasurably and I felt trapped, fighting a losing
battle. I was 26, married, and had a beautiful, handicapped child to
support. My life spiraled downward. I fit the grant criteria to a
``T''. Ironically my minimal ability to walk kept it beyond my grasp.
For 7 years, military leaders preached to us, ``Prepare, prepare,
prepare!'' That is exactly what I was trying to do. I was hoping to get
the grant paperwork started early so that when the time came and a
wheelchair became a permanent part of my life I would be ready. At this
time I was unable to afford a proper handicapped-accessible house for
my family. In April of 2010, I called Ray Zirklebach, who served with
me in both Egypt and Iraq. Ray, an Iowa House Representative in the
neighboring county, listened to my story. He too thought something
should be done about this situation. He forwarded my email on to
Congressman Bruce Braley, who quickly turned around my application
paperwork. Within 2 weeks of contacting Representative Ray Zirklebach
and Congressman Bruce Braley, I was approved for the grant and a huge
weight was lifted from my shoulders.
With the grant approved, I was able to build a house that would be
suitable for my family. Construction on our new house began on June 21,
2010, the same time I became wheelchair-bound. Life in our duplex
during the construction of the new house was quite miserable, but
temporarily manageable.
In August of 2010, I officially became a paraplegic, losing all
use, function and feeling below the nipples. At this point, the
neurologist decided it was time to try to remove as much of the tumor
and spinal cord as possible in an attempt to prolong my life. The
surgery itself went perfectly, however, the surgeons were not able to
remove the entire tumor without causing me to become a quadriplegic or
have respiratory complications. With paralysis, I fell deeper and
deeper into depression. The list of tasks that I was able to do around
the duplex grew shorter and shorter.
I became so reliant on my wife and others to help me accomplish
simple tasks. Taking a shower, for instance, became an hour-long duty
that required an extra set of hands and an awkward plastic bench that
offered terrible support. I lost all control of bowel and bladder,
which made it impossible for me to use the bathroom in my own
apartment. Since the duplex was built in 1890, all the doorways and
hallways were narrow and produced a knuckle rubbing experience every
time I moved to a different room. Cooking, doing the dishes, and even
maneuvering around the kitchen became difficult. Life in the duplex was
unbearable.
Today I am in my new house. Today I took a shower by myself in a 5,
x 5, roll in shower with handicapped controls. Today I cooked my own
breakfast because I could reach all of the ingredients. Today I was
able to watch my son Brody sleeping in his bedroom because I could roll
through his doorway with my wheelchair. Today, I am praying for all
soldiers and veterans, that they may have the support and dignity they
deserve, without having to jump through hoops, or have a friend in
politics. I am where I am today because I had advocates, not because I
will ultimately die young as a result of serving the country I love.
Thank you again for holding this hearing. It is my hope the
adaptive housing grants program can be extended so that our brave
soldiers get the assistance they deserve, so they can live as self-
sufficiently as possible.
Prepared Statement of Keith M. Wilson, Director, Education Service,
Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Braley, and other
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here
today to provide the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) views on
pending legislation affecting VA's programs: H.R. 802, H.R. 1383, H.R.
1657, and a draft bill to authorize VA to provide specially adapted
housing assistance to individuals residing temporarily in housing owned
by a family member. Accompanying me this afternoon are Mr. Jan R. Frye,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisitions and Logistics, and Mr. F.
John Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General Counsel.
H.R. 802
H.R. 802 would require VA to establish a ``VetStar Award Program,''
as well as a process for administering that program, which would
recognize businesses for their contributions to Veterans' employment.
The program would specify categories and sectors of businesses eligible
for recognition each year and have objective measures for selecting
recipients of the award.
VA supports this bill. A program of recognition for contributions
to Veterans' employment is a worthwhile means of encouraging businesses
to continue to employ Veterans. Businesses that contribute to Veterans'
employment provide a valuable and meaningful service, allowing VA to
excel with regard to its mission to help Veterans become employable and
obtain and maintain suitable employment. This service deserves
appropriate recognition. VA would recommend two categories, ``small
businesses'' and ``other than small businesses,'' and three sectors,
``non-profit,'' ``service,'' and ``manufacturing, farming and other,''
of recipients eligible to receive awards. A review board would be
created to review nominations and select recipients. Recipients would
be recognized with appropriate non-cash award and mementos.
VA estimates that enactment of this bill as written would result in
no significant costs. VA estimates nominal costs associated with staff-
days to review and select nominations, advertising, verification of
winners, and purchasing trophies and plaques.
H.R. 1383
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1383, the ``Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of
2011,'' would temporarily preserve higher rates for tuition and fees
for programs of education at non-public institutions of higher learning
pursued by individuals enrolled in VA's Post-9/11 Educational
Assistance Program as it existed before the enactment of Public Law
111-377, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act
of 2011. Prior to the passage of Public Law 111-377 on January 4, 2011,
individuals using benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill at a private
institution of higher learning were paid the lesser amount of the
established charges (the actual charges for tuition and fees which
similarly-circumstanced non-veterans enrolled in the program of
education would be required to pay) or the established in-state maximum
tuition-and-fee rate at a public institution within that State. With
the enactment of Public Law 111-377, individuals pursuing a program of
education at a private institution of higher learning for the academic
year beginning on August 1, 2011, will be limited to the actual net
cost for tuition and fees assessed by the institution, not to exceed
$17,500.
Section 2 of this bill would modify the amount of educational
assistance payable to specific individuals to make an exception for
those who are enrolled in a private institution of higher learning in
certain States. This exception would apply to an individual entitled to
educational assistance under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, who, on or before
April 1, 2011, was enrolled in a private institution of higher learning
in a State in which the maximum amount of tuition per credit hour in
the 2010-2011 academic year exceeded $700, and the combined amount of
tuition and fees for full-time attendance in the program of education
in such academic year exceeded $17,500. There are 7 States which meet
these criteria: Arizona, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. Beginning on August 1, 2011,
and ending on July 31, 2014, the amount payable under this section
would be the greater of $17,500, or the established charges payable
based on the Department of Veterans Affairs Post-9/11 GI Bill 2010-2011
Tuition and Fee In-State Maximums published October 27, 2010.
H.R. 1383 does not preserve the higher rate for tuition and fees
for students pursuing a program of education in a foreign country,
pursuing at less than half-time rates or while on active duty.
Section 3 of this bill would freeze the cost-of-living adjustment
for the monthly housing allowance provided under section 3313(c)(1)(B)
of title 38, United States Code, at the amount payable on August 1,
2011, for a 24-month period beginning on that date. At the end of the
24-month period, the monthly allowance would become the amount then
authorized by the aforementioned section.
VA has not yet had an opportunity to estimate the cost impacts of
this legislation. We will submit our estimate and updated views on the
bill for the record. However, in addition to any concerns we may have
if the legislation is found to impose PAYGO costs without an identified
offset, VA also has concerns with the proposed legislation as written,
to include the timeline for implementing this legislation, which are
described in detail below. VA has had constructive discussions with
Subcommittee staff regarding these issues, and will continue to be
available to work with to the Committee to address these concerns.
VA is working aggressively on the Long-Term Solution (LTS) for
processing Post-9/11 GI Bill claims. As of January 2011, VA and the
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlanta (SPAWAR) have developed
four releases for the LTS system. The enactment of Public Law 111-377,
which modifies aspects of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, impacted VA's ability
to deploy previously-planned functionality enhancing the capability of
the LTS. VA plans to implement changes to the Post-9/11 GI Bill
mandated by Public Law 111-377 across three releases of the LTS. The
first release was deployed on March 5, 2011; future releases are
scheduled for deployment on June 6, 2011, and October 17, 2011.
The enactment of H.R. 1383 as introduced would severely hamper VA's
LTS deployment efforts. The changes made by this legislation would lead
to very complicated processing scenarios in the LTS with changes in
enrollment and Yellow Ribbon payments. Additionally, since the amount
of educational assistance would be based on the greater of the maximum
tuition per credit hour or $17,500, VA would have to apply a blended
set of rules to each claim that falls under these provisions.
This proposed legislation would also have a negative impact on
service delivery for those students using benefits this fall. VA claims
processors would have to thoroughly examine each claim to determine if
it meets these provisions, which could result in labor-intensive manual
processing. This would lead to a significant increase in the average
number of days to process all education claims.
Regarding section 3, VA defers to the Congress on identification of
an appropriate offset necessary to pay for the cost of the temporary
adjustment for affected Veterans provided by this bill. We note,
however, that such a freeze in cost-of-living adjustment increases for
housing allowances could result in some hardship for a broad range of
students.
VA has identified several other technical concerns with regard to
the bill text. For example, it is unclear if an individual must be
enrolled in the same school and program on or before April 1, 2011, to
be covered under this legislation. It is also unclear how the
legislation would apply to an individual who changes programs or
schools.
Mr. Chairman, as we noted above, we have already had some
discussions with Subcommittee staff regarding these concerns and look
forward to the opportunity to continue those discussions.
While the amendments made by this legislation would take effect on
August 1, 2011, VA strongly recommends language be added to allow VA to
begin making payments in accordance with these provisions no later than
August 1, 2012, to allow for necessary system changes and reduce the
impact on existing beneficiaries.
As stated earlier, VA requests that we be able to provide cost
estimates for H.R. 1383 for the record at a later date.
H.R. 1657
H.R. 1657 would revise section 8127(g) of title 38, United States
Code, to mandate a minimum 5-year debarment from VA contracting for any
business, including the principals of the business, determined by the
Secretary to have misrepresented its status as a Veteran-owned or
service-disabled Veteran-owned small business (VOSB/SDVOSB). Further,
the bill would require VA to commence a debarment action within 30 days
of determining the misrepresentation has occurred and to complete the
action within 90 days. VA shares the Subcommittee's focus on
aggressively protecting the Government from disreputable businesses in
order that procurement dollars set aside for VOSB/SDVOSBs reach the
intended recipients. VA has taken steps to protect the integrity of the
VOSB/SDVOSB set-aside process. VA has added to its acquisition
regulations the misrepresentation of VOSB/SDVOSB status as a specific
cause of debarment for a period of up to 5 years. Also, VA has
instituted a separate and distinct 8127 Debarment Committee to review,
examine, and refer those who misrepresent themselves to VA's debarring
official. While we support the general intent of the legislation, VA
cannot support H.R. 1657 in its present form.
With regard to the proposed bill, VA questions whether a mandatory
debarment as proposed would be consistent with the general requirement
in debarment actions established by the courts to provide appropriate
due process, notice and an opportunity to be heard, to businesses prior
to a final determination of debarment. VA also submits that there are
varying degrees of misrepresentation of VOSB/SDVOSB status. Some may be
the result of an ``innocent'' mistake whereas others evince a clear
desire to circumvent the VOSB/SDVOSB status requirements by ``seducer''
companies or individuals to steer set-aside dollars to non-status firms
or persons. VA's believes the debarring official should retain the
discretion to make these determinations with respect to any debarment,
including its duration, based on the specific circumstances, including
remedial measures and corrective actions to prevent the misconduct from
recurring.
VA requests the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee to
address its concern of protecting the VOSB/SDVOSB set-aside program
while maintaining an equitable debarment process consistent with the
requirement for an appropriate level of due process, including ways of
improving VA's debarment authority.
VA estimates that enactment of this bill as written would result in
no significant costs since VA already has a standing 8127 Debarment
Committee.
Draft Legislation
The ``Andrew Connolly Veterans' Housing Act'' would amend section
2102A of title 38, United States Code, extending, through December 31,
2016, VA's authority to provide Specially Adapted Housing assistance to
eligible individuals residing temporarily with family members. Under
current law, the authority is set to expire on December 31, 2011.
Although VA supports enactment of this draft legislation, we
recommend that Congress extend the benefit through the year 2021, in
accordance with the Administration's FY 2012 Budget.
VA estimates that the enactment of this proposal would not result
in additional benefit costs or savings.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I would be happy to respond to
questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee may have
regarding our views as presented.
Statement of Vivianne Cisneros Wersel, Au.D., Chair, Government
Relations Committee, Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.
``With malice toward none; with charity for all; with
firmness in the right, as God gives us to see right, let us
strive to finish the work we are in; to bind up the Nation's
wounds, to care for him who has borne the battle, his widow and
his orphan.''
. . . President Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address,
March 4, 1865
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Bradley and members of this
committee, I am pleased to submit testimony for the record on behalf of
Gold Star Wives on legislative issue H.R. 1383, pertinent to the
children of our Nation's military surviving spouses.
My name is Vivianne Wersel, Chair of the Gold Star Wives Government
Relations Committee. I am the widow of Lieutenant Colonel Richard
Wersel, Jr., USMC, who died suddenly on February 4, 2005, 1 week after
returning from his second tour of duty in Iraq.
Gold Star Wives of America, Incorporated (GSW), founded in 1945, is
a Congressionally Chartered organization of surviving spouses of
military servicemembers who died while serving on active duty or as a
result of a service-connected cause. GSW's current members are
surviving spouses of military members who served during World War II,
the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the conflicts in both
Iraq and Afghanistan, and every period in between.
On January 4, 2011, the Post-9/11 GI Bill Veterans Educational
Assistance Act, signed into law, reduces educational benefits and is
scheduled to take effect August 1, 2011. This law would affect
surviving children using the Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry
Scholarship. GSW supports H.R. 1383, which would grandfather veterans
and covered individuals who enrolled in a private institution prior to
April 1, 2011. This bill (H.R. 1383) also would include exempting
veterans from the new nationwide tuition limit of $17,500. The Fry
Scholarship benefit recipients are included as stated ``. . . covered
individuals entitled to educational benefits under Chapter 33 of Title
38, Unites States Code . . .''.
Because of their hard work and academic dedication, some surviving
children excelled and were accepted and enrolled in a high-cost private
institution despite the loss of a parent. One of our surviving children
attends American University (AU) using the Fry Scholarship. She lost
her Dad in 2002 and last week lost her mother. She enrolled full time
at AU for the summer; however, it is uncertain how the tuition will be
paid because of the Post-9/11 GI Bill Veterans Educational Assistance
Act.
Surviving children of active duty deaths post-9/11 are eligible for
the Fry Scholarship, which was designed to mirror the GI Bill. GSW is
greatly encouraged by the Fry Scholarship program and request this
program be included in the Yellow Ribbon Education Program. The Yellow
Ribbon Education Program does not currently apply to children of the
fallen, yet it would help ensure these children have a brighter future.
We believe this was an oversight when the Fry Scholarship was created
with the intention of matching education benefits to mirror the New GI
Bill.
As you may recall from our previous testimonies, GSW seeks improved
education benefits for the surviving spouses and children, to mirror
the GI Bill. When the servicemember dies, the surviving spouse is left
to take over the family and run the household. This would require many
spouses to return to school to learn a trade or finish a degree. For
many post-9/11 surviving spouses, the servicemember paid into the
Montgomery GI Bill, with thoughts that someday the benefit would be
transferable. Unfortunately, after the death, the beneficiary receives
the paid premiums, rather than the benefit. There is no transferability
for the surviving spouse after the death.
We are grateful for Chapter 35, however, it does not keep up with
the rising costs of housing, tuition, books and fees. In the past, GSW,
as well as The Military Coalition, brought these inequities before
Congress. Additionally, the time restrictions to use Chapter 35 should
be removed, allowing surviving spouses of previous war eras to use
their lost benefit.
GSW seeks a voice when there are changes and or concerns with the
Post-9/11 GI Bill or VA education benefits; we are stakeholders. When
there is a reduction in a benefit or a delay in the entitlement, the
burden places a hardship on the surviving spouse as well as the child.
GSW is grateful to Representatives Miller and Stutzman for
introducing H.R. 1383 and for their dedication to veterans and
survivors. In conclusion, each of us faithfully stood by our spouses,
despite hazardous duty, multiple deployments, and numerous family
moves. Some surviving spouses never having an opportunity to have a
family and others forced to serve as both mother and father to their
children. Surviving spouses often lost longevity in their careers or
had to give up careers due to multiple family moves. Now we are faced
with the challenge of numerous inequities for our children.
Let me remind you of President Lincoln's quote engraved on the VA
headquarters building, ``. . . to care for him who has borne the
battle, and his widow and his orphan.''
Military Officers Association of America
Alexandria, VA.
May 2, 2011
The Honorable Jeff Miller
Chairman, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Cannon House Office Bldg., Rm. 335
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515
The Honorable Marlin Stutzman
Chair, Economic Opportunity Subcommittee
Cannon House Office Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Miller and Chairman Stutzman:
On behalf of the 375,000 members of The Military Officers
Association of America (MOAA), I am writing to express our strong
support for your bill, H.R. 1383 that would temporarily ``grandfather''
higher rates for veterans currently enrolled in non-public colleges and
universities under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
MOAA strongly supported needed improvements to the Post-9/11 GI
Bill and we were pleased with the final passage of the Post-9/11
Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010 signed into
law as P.L. 111-377 on 4 January this year. The original version of
that legislation included a grandfather provision to ensure that
students who were already enrolled in private colleges could continue
their educations under the rate structure in effect on 1 August 2009 as
adjusted by annual COLAs. Unfortunately, the grandfather provision was
removed from the bill as it proceeded through the legislative process.
MOAA believes the underlying intent of your legislation
contemplates the potential inclusion of out-of-state public college
students. For some of these currently enrolled veterans, the cost of
enrollment exceeds the new academic year cap of $17,500 for non-public
institutions.
We recognize the enormous budgetary challenges that face all of our
elected representatives in this most difficult period of rising
national debt. MOAA recommends a further temporary, internal adjustment
to program enrollment or housing rates to accommodate currently
enrolled out-of-state students attending public colleges.
MOAA respectfully requests a copy of this letter be included in the
official transcript of the hearing scheduled before the Economic
Opportunity Subcommittee, House Committee on Veterans Affairs on 3 May
2011.
Thank you for your leadership and commitment to the men and women
who wear and have worn our Nation's uniform.
Sincerely,
VADM Norbert R. Ryan, Jr. USN (Ret.)
President
National Association of Veterans Programs Administrators
April 27, 2011
The Honorable Jeff Miller
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Miller:
On behalf of the membership of the National Association of Veterans
Programs Administrators (NAVPA), thank you for introducing H.R. 1383 to
temporarily preserve higher Post-9/11 GI Bill (Chapter 33) rates for
tuition and fees for programs of education at non-public institution of
higher learning. Both your bill as well as Senator Schumer's Senate
Bill 745 would, in part, correct what we believe to be an unintended
injustice to veterans, servicemembers and their dependents currently
enrolled.
While students attending private schools may in some cases
experience the greatest reduction in benefits beginning in fall 2011
under Chapter 33; many non-resident (out-of-state) students attending
public institutions will also experience substantial decreases in their
basic Chapter 33 tuition and fee payments.
A sample of 40 students at four public institutions in three
different States (Indiana, Kentucky, and Washington) showed reductions
in benefits ranging from $936 to $3,864 per year. These figures would
likely vary considerably among all 50 States and among institutions.
There are definitely students whose benefits will increase based on the
new rules, but there are many others whose financial situations will be
negatively impacted as is the case for those attending private schools.
We respectfully request consideration to grandfather all Chapter 33
eligible students enrolled on or before April 1, 2011 and, including
those serving on Active Duty. All eligible students enrolled on or
before April 1, 2011 should receive the greater of the scheduled
payment under the 2010-2011 Chapter 33 rules, or the scheduled payment
under the provisions of P.L. 111-377. We also request that ``Covered
individuals'' include all students (veterans, servicemembers and those
dependents to which benefits have been transferred) regardless of the
State in which they are enrolled.
We realize this will require VA to calculate payments at both rates
for the grandfathered period--and to track those students for whom
grandfathering is appropriate. This effort is reasonable to protect all
individuals who have made both personal and financial commitments to
pursue their educational endeavors based on the benefits available and
promised at the time they applied for admission, were accepted and
enrolled at Institutions of Higher learning throughout the country.
Thank you for your support, your service, and for your
consideration of these recommendations.
Respectfully,
Faith DesLauriers Dorothy Gillman
Legislative Director President
Statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and Members of the
Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), thanks you for the
opportunity to submit a statement for the record regarding the proposed
legislation being considered today. PVA appreciates the fact that you
are addressing these important issues with the intention of improving
benefits for veterans. We particularly support any focus placed on
meeting the complex needs of the newest generation of veterans, even as
we continue to improve services for those who have served in the past.
H.R. 1383, ``Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011''
PVA does not support H.R. 1383 as it is currently introduced. We
support the concept of H.R. 1383 that will temporarily preserve higher
rates for tuition and fees for programs of education at non-public
institutions of higher learning.
PVA opposes Section 3 of H.R. 1383. This section will limit the
cost of living increases of the monthly stipends for veterans who rely
on this funding to support themselves and their families while they
prepare for a career after serving their country. Even though the rate
of total inflation has remained low in recent years, we are witnessing
dramatic increases in transportation costs. Students use their
automobile for travel to school, work, and other obligations and higher
fuel costs are now affecting food, heating and other necessities. With
the price of gasoline increasing each month their monthly stipend must
be adjusted each year to help these veterans remain in school.
H.R. 802, legislation to establish a VetStar Award Program
PVA supports H.R. 802, a bill to establish a VetStar Award Program.
During this time of high unemployment it is unfortunate that the
unemployment rate among veterans is several points higher than the
national average. While the Federal Government has directed its
agencies to increase the hiring of veterans and those agencies that
assist veterans to increase their efforts to help veterans enter the
workforce, veteran's unemployment rate remains unacceptably high. This
bill, H.R. 802 will help to promote and recognize private sector
employers that put forth extra effort to employ veterans.
H.R. 1657, legislation to enforce penalties for misrepresentation of a
business as a small veteran-owned business
PVA supports H.R. 802, a bill to enforce penalties for those that
misrepresent their business when competing for government contracts.
PVA has been a member of the Veterans' Entrepreneurship Task Force
(VET-Force) since its creation. This is a coalition of Service Disabled
Veteran Owned Small Business and Veteran Owned Small Businesses that
work together to identify and remove barriers that prevent these
businesses from participating in government contracts. This problem has
been an ongoing issue with this organization. Misrepresenting a
business for the purpose of receiving a government contract should be a
Federal crime. Financial penalties for businesses that perpetrate this
misrepresentation would discourage businesses from falsifying
information to the Federal Government. PVA supports this legislation.
Andrew Connolly Veterans' Housing Act
PVA supports this legislation that would extend to December 31,
2016, the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide
specially adapted housing assistance to individuals residing
temporarily in housing owned by a family member. Making a home
accessible for mobility impaired veterans is an important issue for
PVA. Extending this program for 5 years will allow more veterans to
take advantage of this benefit which allows them to stay with their
families while rehabilitating and adjusting to their new lives. PVA
strongly supported the legislation to create the temporary housing
grant when it recently became law. PVA supports the extension of this
benefit.