[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
H.R. 2433, H.R. 1941, AND H.R. 169
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 15, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-24
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-453 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
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
__________
July 15, 2011
Page
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2433, H.R. 1941, and H.R. 169........ 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairman Jeff Miller............................................. 1
Prepared statement of Chairman Miller........................ 18
Hon. Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member....................... 1
Prepared statement of Congressman Filner..................... 19
Hon. Cliff Stearns, prepared statement of........................ 20
Hon. Corrine Brown, prepared statement of........................ 21
Hon. Russ Carnahan, prepared statement of........................ 21
WITNESSES
Bishop, Hon. Sanford D., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Georgia........................................... 3
Prepared statement of Congressman Bishop..................... 22
Erie Community College, Williamsville, NY, Hon. Jack Quinn,
President...................................................... 6
Prepared statement of Mr. Quinn.............................. 22
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under
Secretary for Economic Opportunity, Veterans Benefits
Administration, statement...................................... 25
U.S. Department of Labor:
Hon. Raymond M Jefferson, Assistant Secretary, Veterans'
Employment and Training Service, statement................... 29
Ismael Ortiz, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Veterans'
Employment and Training Service, supplemental statement...... 31
U.S. Department of Defense, statement............................ 35
American Legion, Robert Madden, Assistant Director, National
Economic Commission, statement................................. 37
Disabled American Veterans, John L. Wilson, Assistant National
Legislative Director, statement................................ 40
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Tom Tarantino, Senior
Legislative Associate, statement............................... 43
Military Officers Association of America, VADM Norbert R. Ryan,
Jr., USN (Ret.), President, letter............................. 45
National Association of State Workforce Agencies, Robert L.
Simoneau, Deputy Executive Director, statement................. 46
Paralyzed Veterans of America, statement......................... 51
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Ryan M. Gallucci,
Deputy Director, National Legislative Service, statement....... 54
Veterans of Modern Warfare, John F. Morgan, President/Chief
Executive Officer, letter...................................... 56
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record:
Hon. Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on
Veterans' Affairs to Hon. Jack Quinn, President, Erie
Community College, letter dated July 26, 2011, Mr. Quinn's
responses.................................................... 57
Hon. Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on
Veterans' Affairs to Hon. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs, letter dated July 26, 2011,
and VA responses............................................. 60
Hon. Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on
Veterans' Affairs to Robert Madden, Assistant Director,
National Economic Commission, American Legion, letter dated
July 26, 2011, and Mr. Madden's responses, letter dated July
19, 2011..................................................... 61
Hon. Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on
Veterans' Affairs to Tom Tarantino, Senior Legislative
Associate, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, letter
dated July 26, 2011, and Mr. Tarantino's responses, dated
August 15, 2011.............................................. 65
Hon. Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on
Veterans' Affairs to Bob Simoneau, Deputy Executive Director,
National Association of State Workforce Agencies, letter
dated July 26, 2011, and Mr. Simoneau's responses............ 67
Hon. Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on
Veterans' Affairs to Ryan M. Gallucci, Deputy Director,
National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States, and Mr. Gallucci responses, dated September 7,
2011......................................................... 70
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
H.R. 2433, H.R. 1941, AND H.R. 169
----------
FRIDAY, JULY 15, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Miller
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Stearns, Bilirakis, Roe,
Stutzman, Denham, Runyan, Filner, Brown, Michaud, McNerney,
Donnelly, Walz, and Carnahan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MILLER
The Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This
hearing will come to order.
And I want to get right to the meat of things. Sixty
thousand veterans were added to the unemployment rolls in the
month of June bringing the total number to over one million
veterans out there that are unemployed today. And that is
unacceptable.
I have a full opening statement that I want to enter into
the record. And without objection, I will do so.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Miller appears on p.
18.]
The Chairman. And we have a long series of votes, so I'm
going to waive the rest of my opening statement and turn to the
Ranking Member, Mr. Filner.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB FILNER
Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The statistic you quoted shows how important this hearing
is and how important it is that we address the issue of jobs
very seriously.
We read about the results of veterans who come home often
with invisible wounds who cannot find the dignity and security
that work provides. We see that evidenced in the skyrocketing
suicide statistics, domestic violence, substance abuse, and
even, of course, in rising homelessness amongst our veterans.
Each of these bills before us today seeks to address the
needs and I want to comment on H.R. 169, which requires the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to highlight the
VetSuccess site on its main Internet page. I hope that the VA
will do that.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your efforts in trying to make
meaningful change in our veterans' lives and you have
introduced some legislation, including H.R. 2433, which is
before us today.
I have some problems with H.R. 2433, Mr. Chairman. I do not
think we can call it a jobs bill, because it is a retraining
bill. That is good, but it does very little to create jobs for
veterans regardless of how this is going to be portrayed.
It focuses on contracting out the Transition Assistance
Program, (TAP), which is a big discussion that I think we need
to have about whether contracting out is the right way to go.
While I fully support widening the opportunities for our
veterans by providing them with additional skills, I think we
have to be realistic about how we frame the bill.
You pointed out the statistics and clearly we have to do
something.
I also want to point out that in order to pay for the
legislation, your bill would extend higher loan fees for our
veterans that utilize the VA Home Loan Guarantee Program and
then use these monies to pay for the monthly stipend and
retraining costs that are created by the bill.
Mr. Chairman, your party has been threatening the whole
stability of our economy by arguing that if you extend a fee or
you do not extend a tax cut, you are raising taxes.
By extending the higher rates for 10 more years, what we
are doing is not only raising taxes but taxing a specific group
of veterans for using their benefit. Your leader, Mr. Cantor,
said we do not believe you ought to be raising taxes right now
in this recession.
So let's be consistent about how we apply the beliefs that
we are throwing around on the Hill. If allowing the Bush tax
cuts to expire was characterized as a tax increase, then not
allowing these higher rates to expire can also be characterized
as a tax increase.
Let's be clear about what we are doing and say in plain
language that we are raising taxes on veterans. So let's be
transparent about the shell game and how we are paying for it
so we are not back here later trying to figure how we deal with
unintended consequences.
Even worse, I think in my opinion, is that in order to pay
for the bill, you will charge our veterans more fees so they
benefit in one program, so we can pay for other veterans and
their benefits in another program.
In this economy when our national housing market is in the
tank where we on this Committee have worked so hard to protect
our veterans from home foreclosures, we must carefully weigh
our actions and be sure that the actions we take are not going
to make it more difficult for a veteran to purchase or keep a
home.
We also have Mr. Bishop with us today who has a viable
alternative and he is going to explain that. It is going to
require broad job skill training. It is a companion bill to
Senator Murray's bill, S. 951.
What Mr. Bishop's bill does is require servicemembers to
learn how to translate the skills they learned in the military
into the working world. It will ensure that more veterans have
jobs waiting for them when they leave the military by
streamlining the path to private and Federal employment.
It requires the U.S. Department of Labor (DoL) to take a
hard look at what military skills and training are translatable
into the civilian sector and work to make it simpler for our
veterans to get the licenses and certification that they need.
I support H.R. 1941, the companion to Senator Murray's
bill. It passed the Senate Committee unanimously and I hope we
can do it here. I think it is a whole step forward.
The questions that we have to ask ourselves today, Mr.
Chairman, are these the policies we want to pursue, what impact
will extending these fees that you have in your bill have on
the housing market, and the ability of our veterans to utilize
the VA Home Loan Program.
Again, I think we could have looked at these questions and
worked them out by going through the Subcommittee process. I
also have not seen the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost
estimate on this.
I hope that we can look at these bills in a bipartisan way,
find the right combination that will, in fact, increase the
employment opportunities for our Nation's veterans.
I thank the Chair.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Filner appears on p.
19.]
The Chairman. I thank the Ranking Member. And now I know
why you would not agree with me to forego our opening
statements.
I would remind you or inform you, if you are not aware,
that the Senate Committee unanimously approved Senator Murray's
bill. It uses the same fees in order to fund her bill.
The House approved the GI Bill grandfathering measure that
use the same fees. And you used funding fees to increase 5
years ago to pay a host of improvements to veteran benefits.
So I appreciate you coming to the side of fiscal
conservatism. I look forward to working with you on those
issues in the future.
Now I would recognize our good friend, Mr. Bishop, who has
joined us to make remarks that he may like to make on behalf of
his bill today.
And welcome back, sir. As a former Member of this
Committee, we are glad to have you back in the Committee room.
You are recognized for 5 minutes to discuss your bill.
STATEMENT OF HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
And I would like to thank Chairman Miller and Ranking
Member Filner and the rest of the Veterans' Affairs Committee,
for inviting me to testify today on behalf of the Hiring Heroes
Act of 2011.
As you are aware, the current economic environment has left
millions of Americans out of work and has made it exceptionally
difficult to find jobs. This problem is particularly acute when
it comes to our Nation's veterans.
Recent data has shown that veterans, especially those who
have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, are facing an unemployment
rate of over 27 percent after leaving the service. This
situation is really unacceptable and it represents a failure of
us here in Congress to really help our Nation's veterans.
As the War in Iraq comes to an end and we begin to draw
down our forces in Afghanistan, even more veterans are going to
be looking for work further compounding the problem.
With this in mind, I thank Senator Murray for taking the
lead on this issue and introducing the Hiring Heroes Act of
2011 in the Senate.
It is also for this reason that I am proud to have
introduced with the help of Ranking Member Filner, Chairman
Bill Young of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Ranking
Member Norm Dicks of the full Appropriations Committee, and
Representative McNerney, the House companion bill to Senator
Murray's legislation.
Here in the House, the measure has already gained 55
cosponsors representing both Republicans and Democrats from
both ends of the political spectrum.
I would like to add that this legislation has gained the
support of various veterans and servicemember groups including
the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Military
Officers Association of America, and Military Families United.
The Hiring Heroes Act has already passed favorably, as the
Chairman noted, out of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee
and it is my hope that this Committee will follow the Senate's
lead and quickly send the measure to the full House for
consideration.
Now, let me discuss briefly the details of the legislation.
Along with modernizing Federal hiring practices, the bill makes
participation in the Transition Assistance Program mandatory
for separating servicemembers. It requires that each
servicemember receive an individualized assessment of jobs for
which they may qualify.
It creates new programs aimed at improving the transition
from servicemember to civilian life including a Competitive
Grant Program for nonprofit organizations that provide
mentoring services and job training that lead directly to job
placements.
It also aims to break down the barriers between the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Labor, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and it makes it easier for
servicemembers to smoothly transition to veteran status.
Finally, I would like to stress that we have an obligation
to help our veterans land on their feet when they come home and
we have an obligation to help them find good-paying jobs to
support their families.
These are the members of our society that have risked the
most for our country. Our current system, although well-
intended, simply does not focus enough on our servicemembers'
transition into civilian life.
Providing more support to our Nation's veterans is simply
the right thing to do. And I look forward to working with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle toward passing the Hiring
Heroes Act of 2011.
I would like to thank the Committee for inviting me to
testify and I will be happy to respond to any questions that
the Committee might have.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Bishop appears on p.
22.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop. We
appreciate you being here to present this important piece of
legislation.
Also, I would like to ask unanimous consent that all
Members can submit their opening statements for the record.
I also ask unanimous consent that the following
organizations' statements or letters of support be inserted
into the record, U.S. Department of Defense, Paralyzed Veterans
of America, Veterans of Modern Warfare, Military Officers
Association, and the Disabled American Veterans.
Hearing no objection, so ordered. For the record, all of
the veterans service organizations supported.
If you could, tell us what you think the most important
component is, not the outcome, but the most important component
is of the legislation that you are proposing.
Mr. Bishop. I think the most important component is being
able to coordinate the efforts of all of the Federal agencies
to make sure that the veterans have a seamless transition.
Obviously gainful employment is extremely, extremely important
to veterans. The lack of gainful employment often contributes
to homelessness as well as joblessness.
And, of course, to the extent that we on behalf of the
American people can give the right kind of transition, the
tools to facilitate that transition, I think the better we will
serve the people who serve America because, after all, they
paid the price for the freedoms that we enjoy in this country.
And we owe them that debt.
The Chairman. Does your bill fund any retraining for
unemployed vets other than the few that would be granted
additional vocational rehabilitation and education (VR&E)
benefits?
Mr. Bishop. Say that again?
The Chairman. I said does your bill fund any retraining for
unemployed vets other than the few that would be granted
additional VR&E benefits?
Mr. Bishop. Well, it creates a Competitive Grant Program
for nonprofit organizations that provide mentorship and job
training programs that are designed to lead to job placements.
It requires the DoD, DoL, and the VA to jointly contract
for a study to identify the equivalencies between certain
military occupational specialties and related skills and
potential civilian employment.
And it allows DoD to create a program to provide work
experience with civilian employees and contractors to
facilitate that transition for servicemembers that are on
terminal leave.
It requires DoD, DoL, and the VA to collaborate in
eliminating the barriers.
So there are some additional requirements, but, the
Congressional Budget Office has scored the legislation and the
report from the Congressional Budget Office indicates that if
enacted on net, the bill would decrease direct spending by $227
million over the period from 2012 to 2016 and by $179 million
over the period from 2012 to 2021.
In addition, the CBO estimates that implementing the bill
would have a discretionary cost of $160 million over the 2012
to 2016 period assuming that the appropriation of the necessary
amounts are made.
But as you can see, the savings clearly outweigh the
expenditures and I think that it is a very sound investment
long term and short term and it is the right thing to do.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Filner.
Mr. Filner. Just briefly.
Thank you, Mr. Bishop, for being here and for introducing
your bill.
I would like to point out that the Chairman mentioned that
Senator Murray's bill has a similar funding mechanism that I
criticized in his bill. That does not mean I am for that part
of Ms. Murray's bill.
I would just clarify that your bill does not include that
funding mechanism at this moment, right?
Mr. Bishop. No, it does not.
Mr. Filner. All right. So we can fully support your bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Any questions from any Members?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Mr. Bishop, thank you very much for being
here today.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much and I appreciate the
consideration of the Committee.
I think it is a good bill and I hope that we will do the
right thing for our veterans as this Committee has always done
over the years. And I thank you for your service.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Our second witness, we will ask him to come forward. Many
of you may remember that he is a former Member of this
Committee and Chairman of the Benefits Subcommittee, the
Honorable Jack Quinn who formerly represented that tropical
haven known as Buffalo, New York. Congressman Quinn is now
President of Erie Community College demonstrating once again
there is life after Congress.
Welcome back to the Hill. Welcome to this Committee. And
you are recognized for the customary 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACK QUINN, PRESIDENT, ERIE COMMUNITY
COLLEGE, WILLIAMSVILLE, NY (FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS)
Mr. Quinn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, boy, is there ever
life after Congress, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by stating that I have a prepared statement
that will be part of the record today and I will limit my
remarks to just 5 minutes verbally with you.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Filner, I never thought I
would talk about the good old days, but I am able to now and I
see this room and my office just down a door or two in Cannon.
Bob was my Ranking Member when I chaired.
And, Bob, I officially want to thank you for those years
and your work on behalf of veterans.
Mr. Stearns, a lot of hours here and Mr. Michaud, the new
folks I do not know, but I want to officially from the world of
education talk with you for a few minutes today about the bill
that is for discussion.
And rather than the other folks who will testify here this
morning, it looks like I am the only one that can talk about
the education side of this.
Mr. Miller and Mr. Filner, that is what I would like to do.
You all will figure out how it is paid for and what ends up
getting passed. I am out of that business for now. I wish you
luck and tell you we need the help. But I would like to spend a
few minutes just talking about the education side of this, if I
may.
And as President of Erie Community College in Buffalo, New
York, we are about, just to give you a snapshot for the
Members, we are about 20,000 students at our college on three
separate campuses, downtown Buffalo, the suburbs north of
Williamsville and south in Orchard Park in Hamburg,
represented, by the way, by three able Members of Congress for
our college-wide system.
And hearing the number this morning of a million veterans
who are unemployed is enough to have all of us sit up and pay
attention.
What I wanted to briefly say is that all schools face, as
we look at our veteran students, the transition from wearing a
uniform under the most difficult circumstances to the
relatively unstructured civilian student life.
I understand that Assistant Secretary Jefferson has a
project underway to revise the Transition Assistance Program.
Hope he considers the concept that will help a veteran
determine whether he or she is ready for college and choose the
right school.
I also welcome the bill's Reauthorizations of Licensing and
Credentialing Program.
And one of the things I worry about as the President of our
college in Buffalo at Erie Community and the State University
of New York (SUNY) system in New York is to provide the right
education and training opportunities to meet these needs of
local employers by making it clearer what a veteran needs to
meet in these local licensing requirements. We can structure
the program the way they are the most needed.
And, Mr. Chairman, I do want to point out the questions
already talked about, the skills that are transferable with our
veterans and would point out something you already know, that
the United States Military is the largest training operation in
the world.
And I would submit to you now in the education field,
particularly at a community college, almost all of what we
train our veterans for are transferrable. Unlike a 4-year
institution, at a community college, you already know, whether
it is Erie Community College in Buffalo or anywhere across the
country, our work many times deals with training and on-the-job
readiness. And I would submit to the Committee, the full
Committee that our veterans are ready to do just that.
Recent numbers show that community colleges remain a top
choice for veterans using their GI Bill education benefits.
When we go back and look at numbers in 2008 and 2009, 40
percent of veteran students used their education benefits at a
community college. Almost half of our veterans are at community
colleges.
That is important for us as the educators and it is
important for all of you as you put the local laws in place.
Two of the things that always crop up when you talk about
community colleges as I have learned across the country is the
low cost of the program and the convenience that they offer as
driving forces in the decisions that veterans make, low cost at
the community level and the convenience.
Veterans will also cite the fact that community colleges
offer hands-on relevant education and training programs that
build on their skills. We are constantly working at our level,
Mr. Chairman, with employers to ensure that the programs, they
offer students the skills they need for high-demand occupations
in their areas.
Community colleges are also extremely nimble in their
ability to quickly create and modify education and training
opportunities to stay abreast of those skills.
And if I may just divert from my written testimony for a
minute, Mr. Chairman, to share a quick story to give you a
glimpse, the full Committee of the kinds of training and the
flexibility community colleges are able to afford.
There is a utility company up in Buffalo called National
Grid. They surveyed their workers and found out that the, for
want of a better word, Mr. Chairman, the pole climbers, the
folks who get up in bad weather and have to do the things that
need to be done were going to be retiring very, very soon.
They came to us to do a skills program in the classroom for
these folks and they came out and put up a dozen poles on our
property, put these men and women that were trained for it, 20
to a class, up on a pole, facilitated the kind of weather that
you might see in the northeast and Upstate New York on rainy,
windy days when the power goes out.
Mr. Chairman, we now run 23 students a year through that
program. They are certified through the utility company and
they get out and they are making $22.50 an hour for starters.
Those become vibrant citizens in our economy in Upstate New
York and western New York State. And they are helping the
company and they are helping themselves.
As I checked our last group of 22, seven were veterans, Mr.
Chairman. We got them in the school cheap. They are trained and
they are on the job.
And I would submit to you this morning that as you look at
the educational opportunities for a lot of the bills that come
through the Committee, to keep our community college sector in
mind. We can expand on the training our vets have received. We
can match it in most cases and we are able to put men and women
from the veteran services and from the veterans' ranks on the
job and working.
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, my remarks are in the record
fully. And I stand ready to assist the Committee in any way I
can and answer any questions you may have this morning. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Quinn appears on p. 22.]
The Chairman. Thank you so much for your testimony.
It is great that you used that one scenario with the
linemen because one of the things that we would like to focus
on and you talked about community colleges having the ability
to be nimble and transform their training programs quickly. We
have so many of the returning veterans today that are trained
for certain jobs that could quickly transfer into the private
sector but because of certification requirements but for the
different States, and we hope to be dealing with the Governors
Association and others to help.
Do you see a way that the community college system could
help in shortening the training? Obviously the training for a
medic, a combat medic----
Mr. Quinn. Uh-huh.
The Chairman [continuing]. I would say they work under
pressure. They know their job, but do not necessarily need to
go through a year's worth of education to become an EMT
(emergency medical technician).
So can the community colleges adapt and is that a good
theory to be working upon?
Mr. Quinn. Mr. Chairman, the answer is unequivocally yes,
that they can. And I will give you another quick example to the
medic.
When I used to fly back and forth to Buffalo for the 12
years I was here, I met some mechanics at U.S. Airways and they
were vets. And this mechanic came to me and said, you know, Mr.
Quinn, I could take that plane apart and put it back together
on the tarmac out there and it took me 2 years to get certified
and licensed through U.S. Air to work on the thing. And that is
crazy.
So the short answer is yes, absolutely. I do not speak for
our national association, the American Association of Community
Colleges (AACC), but I am involved and close to them. They are
located right here in Washington, D.C.
One of the things that we could do is to expand what we do
at Erie, our affiliations. Right now at our school, 20,000
students, we have over 400 affiliations and that means we are
with on the front end some high schools, on the other end some
4-year institutions. We just signed up with Syracuse University
and Cazenovia College in Upstate New York.
We arrange these affiliations, which is nothing more than
an MOU, a memorandum of understanding, so that our teachers,
our educators take a look at what was trained, the courses that
were taken, the training that was taken, and they are able to
certify or verify that it is almost the exact same thing we are
teaching in classes and in training at the college.
Once that is done, I think the paperwork that needs to
follow would be quick. It would not take long at all. The rub
is going to be, Mr. Chairman, and we do it often with DoD and
others, the rub is going to be that we can certify, we can
somehow check off the box that says it is the same kind of
training and education.
I can tell you from hands-on experience it is, it is the
same old story. We need to get ourselves worked through the
paperwork.
The Chairman. You mentioned 4-year institutions, high
schools. What about vocational technical centers?
Mr. Quinn. Absolutely.
The Chairman. Privates?
Mr. Quinn. Private colleges, sure.
The Chairman. It is just a matter of assessing and
certifying?
Mr. Quinn. It is, Mr. Chairman, and let me point out one
other thing to you is we looked nationally and locally for our
community colleges. It is becoming more and more competitive
for students and we are recruiting students. The beauty for us
at the 2-year schools is if they choose, they can go on to a 4-
year school. All those courses, all those credits are
completely transferable.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Quinn. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Filner.
Mr. Filner. I just want to thank Mr. Quinn for being here.
When you are kids together, it is hard to call someone Mr.
President.
Mr. Quinn. I have been called worse.
Mr. Filner. I am glad to see that you finally got an honest
job. I think what you do in the community college is exactly
the answer to many of the problems facing our veterans.
Mr. Quinn. Thank you.
Mr. Filner. I was critical of Mr. Miller's bill on one
level, but certainly the retraining part is critical and we
have to figure out ways to do this more efficiently, as you
point out.
Mr. Quinn. Sure.
Mr. Filner. I hope you will help us with the AACC. Is
that----
Mr. Quinn. Exactly.
Mr. Filner. It has usually been the State. We worked on
this when you were in Congress. The State certification
agencies and the bureaucracies there protect the licenses so it
is hard to break through the bureaucracy. We have to figure out
a way to do that.
I appreciate that you are still working on veterans issues
and you have not aged a bit. You always looked older than all
of us anyway.
Mr. Quinn. I think I mean to say thank you. I am not
certain, Mr. Filner.
Mr. Filner. But thanks for what you are doing----
Mr. Quinn. Thank you.
Mr. Filner [continuing]. And helping us.
Mr. Quinn. And if I may, Bob, just to say officially on the
record I stand ready to assist with our association and any
others that could be of help to the full Committee as you work
on these issues.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Any other Members have questions for Mr. Quinn?
Mr. Michaud.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is good to see you again----
Mr. Quinn. Thank you.
Mr. Michaud [continuing]. Mr. Quinn. Just a couple of quick
questions. You talked about the student population. How many
veterans are currently attending?
Mr. Quinn. Our school, I will give you a raw number, we can
figure the percentages later, right now we have about 20,000
students. That is an unduplicated head count. That is everybody
who is doing training and degree and certificate programs.
We hope to be in September at our school at almost 1,000
vets. So of the percentage that is out there, it is not high
enough. But as we look at other schools in our area, in the
western New York State area, we sort of lead the league with
that because I have hired a director of veterans' affairs. I
have a club at each of my three campuses, a place for the vets
to meet, those kinds of things.
But it is growing and as the colleges, I believe, become
more competitive for students, I think you are going to see a
lot of other places engage themselves in the marketing to
veterans and it is about time. So I would say that number,
1,000 out of 20,000, not enough. But when the word gets out, I
think those numbers will go up.
Mr. Michaud. And how flexible is the college? For instance,
if you have soldiers coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan, it
might not be at the same time----
Mr. Quinn. Right.
Mr. Michaud [continuing]. That the school enrollment
begins. How flexible is the college as far as trying to meet
the needs of the veterans to meet their schedule as well?
Mr. Quinn. Certainly. And I am prejudiced because I work at
one. But I would say that is probably a hallmark of all
community colleges is that flexibility.
For example, like we have what we call our Pathways
Program. We do not have any dropouts at our college. We have
stop-outs. If a veteran or any student comes back and cannot
get the work the first month or 2--and, frankly, Members, that
happens with some vets. They are not ready to go to school when
they come back. They will start it up. They will get going at
it, but then they find out that for a lot of reasons, they are
not able to continue.
We do not call any of those folks dropouts. They are stop-
outs. We bring them back. Our Pathways Program is an ungraded
system that keeps the students, all students, but veterans in
particular in the classroom so we do not lose them, so they
come back. No penalty and no cost.
And when they are ready to get going to the second phase at
our college, and most all the community colleges do it, and we
know that in the best interest of the students and us, it is
better to have them involved in the college in one way or
another.
So I am sold on this whole community college sector like it
is just the way to go. It is flexible enough. Four years. God
bless them. They have a mission as well and it is important.
But for now I just thought when I saw the topic today it is a
perfect match.
Mr. Michaud. And what are some of the problems that you are
hearing from the veterans when they come back as far as, you
know, do they have childcare at the college for those that
might have children? What are some of the problems that they
are talking about?
Mr. Quinn. Of course veterans present extra special
problems, but daycare is one because we deal with
nontraditional students. I had three students last May graduate
in their eighties from our college. We run a nighttime daycare
at our school, for example, for our moms.
Mr. Filner. Do they need daycare?
Mr. Quinn. Pardon me?
Mr. Filner. Do they need daycare?
Mr. Quinn. No, they did not, but their children did.
So they present lots of problems. Some of them are
financial.
What I found out was after dealing with the bureaucracy in
the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force and Coast Guard, Marines,
they came back to another educational bureaucracy. When it came
time to sign up, they talk to the admissions people, to the
bursar, the financial aid. We have somebody that handles
Montgomery GI at our school.
And it is confusing. I mean, sometimes on purpose it is
confusing if you are part of the government. And so what we
have tried to do is streamline all of that. I have a one-stop
phone call at our place where you get the bursar, admissions,
financial aid, and a counselor all at the same time.
So I guess the specific answer, besides all of some
emotional problems, Bob mentioned homelessness. Back at our
school, we are hooked in with the VA Hospital. We are hooked in
with the transitional housing assistance that we worked on some
years ago so that the whole package is deliverable because
veterans come back and present extra special problems.
And normally we would not offer housing assistance
necessarily to a student who is applying at our school. We have
cobbled it all together in one spot at the Veterans Club.
Mr. Michaud. So about 20 seconds left. What major industry
are they being retrained for? Is there any specific sector?
Mr. Quinn. We are not seeing one that jumps out at us, but
I am surprised to see a number getting into nursing that were
not necessarily medical in the service. But as they come back,
because that is a sector, at least in our economy in Upstate
New York, where there is a lot of hiring going on, so we are
finding a transfer to the medical field.
And then a lot of our trades, our building trades that we
do and our construction and green construction fields are
attractive to a lot of folks because the jobs seem to be
available.
Mr. Michaud. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Quinn. Thank you.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Ms. Brown.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Quinn. Hello.
Ms. Brown. Hi.
Mr. Quinn. How are you, Corrine?
Ms. Brown. Thank you for your presentation.
Mr. Quinn. Thank you.
Ms. Brown. My real job in life was I worked 16 years at
Florida Community College in Jacksonville.
Mr. Quinn. Yes.
Ms. Brown. So I am a community college lover.
Mr. Quinn. Thank you.
Ms. Brown. I do have a couple of questions. I am a
community college lover. I wanted that to be on the record. But
I guess my question is, the graduation rate is about 12
percent----
Mr. Quinn. Uh-huh.
Ms. Brown [continuing]. Which is not that high. But I
understand that education is life-long learning and like you
said, they move in and out. But what kind of employment
placement, what kind of success do you have in that area
because this is a major problem?
Mr. Quinn. Sure.
Ms. Brown. I mean, when we have so many veterans returning,
they cannot get jobs. I mean, it is just amazing. People who
are out defending our country and when they come back, their
job is no longer there. And I am so very happy that we have the
educational opportunities for them to train and retrain, but
what kind of success do we have?
Mr. Quinn. Not good enough, frankly. I was lucky enough to
be invited to President Obama's summit on community colleges
about 4 or 5 months ago and participated. The President talks
about those graduation rates not being high enough and what we
are going to do to address those.
All the community colleges across the country are involved
in that. But what I would like to point out in answer
specifically to your question is I take a little bit of umbrage
with those graduation numbers all the time. Before you came in,
I talked a little bit about a pole climbing program we have at
our college. It sounds silly, but what it does is it puts
people to work at good-paying jobs with health benefits and a
small retirement, by the way.
So I guess, Corrine, I would not get ourselves as focused
on the graduation rates as much as job placement. And in some
of these jobs that I am talking about, there is no need for a
4-year education. There is in some cases not even a 2-year
associate's degree. Oftentimes it is training. It is the proper
training and the licensing and the certificate that is
necessary.
And so we have at our place and in the SUNY system in New
York across our 30 community colleges, we have put new emphasis
on just that, job training and job placement.
Ms. Brown. Right. I think that is what I was saying because
when you say graduation----
Mr. Quinn. Right.
Ms. Brown [continuing]. That is saying that we are looking
for a 2-year degree----
Mr. Quinn. Uh-huh.
Ms. Brown [continuing]. Or a 4-year degree.
Mr. Quinn. Uh-huh.
Ms. Brown. But job placement, you could train, let's say
you are a nurse----
Mr. Quinn. Yes.
Ms. Brown [continuing]. Or you are a technician and you
have been placed in a job, so the most important thing is, and
also the support that we give those students while they are in
school----
Mr. Quinn. Of course.
Ms. Brown [continuing]. You know, what kind of support, the
counseling, the, you know, the assistance----
Mr. Quinn. Uh-huh.
Ms. Brown [continuing]. The childcare, the transportation,
all of those things are important.
Mr. Quinn. Correct. And the only other thing I would add,
if I may, is one other thing you will find at the community
college ranks across the country and New York State is a huge
emphasis on internship opportunities. We are finding out that
when we----
Ms. Brown. Internships, co-ops, all of that.
Mr. Quinn. Exactly. When we can intern our vets with very
possibly another veteran who owns some businesses or a
workforce site in our locality geographically that it is a more
instant match for us. So we work pretty closely with the
businesses.
Ms. Brown. Well, I think one of the weaknesses that I think
we have over all this is that we probably need to help more
veterans go into businesses so that they can hire veterans. And
so I hope that is one of the components of your----
Mr. Quinn. Yes.
Ms. Brown [continuing]. Institution. And I guess the last
thing, what we are doing is that we are taking funds from one
area for veterans' programs to put it in another. I guess we
are making decisions about age groups or who will get the
services.
How do you feel about that?
Mr. Quinn. Now that I view this Committee from this angle--
--
Ms. Brown. Yes, that is what we are talking about.
Mr. Quinn [continuing]. I like it better, by the way, and I
would suggest that we find ways to include more money, that
just to take from Peter to give to Paul and move around, while
that is useful in an exercise, that is important because you
get a chance to check on the programs, update them, make sure
they are working.
One of the things we are hearing with these numbers that
the Chairman mentioned when I first walked in this morning, a
million veterans unemployed is something that Member Bishop
talked about. Let's get Labor, Defense, VA all together so that
all, whatever amount of money we are going to have is used the
right way.
Ms. Brown. Well, in closing, you know, I look at it like my
grandmother's sweet potato pie. We have made sure that we have
funded veterans' programs.
Mr. Quinn. Uh-huh.
Ms. Brown. And we are doing big business, but we are not
doing business with veterans. And that is still in my opinion
one of the weaknesses as we move forward----
Mr. Quinn. Sure.
Ms. Brown [continuing]. Because if I am a veteran, I am a
disabled veteran and I have a business, then I am going to hire
other veterans.
Mr. Quinn. Right.
Ms. Brown. So we need to put more emphasis and focus on
that area.
Mr. Quinn. Thank you.
Ms. Brown. But thank you very much.
Mr. Quinn. Thank you.
Ms. Brown. And it has been a pleasure----
Mr. Quinn. Thanks.
Ms. Brown [continuing]. Working with you in the past and
look forward to----
The Chairman. Mr. Stearns.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just be brief.
Jack, welcome back. It is good to see you. Are you playing
any basketball or----
Mr. Quinn. Not as much.
Mr. Stearns. What is the unemployment rate in Buffalo?
Mr. Quinn. Buffalo right now we are hovering a trifle above
9 percent. It is about 8.7, 8.76, I think?
Mr. Stearns. Okay. The fact that the economy is weak across
the Nation, and perhaps Upstate New York is no exception, has
that impacted the funding for the community college from the
State, which creates sort of extra problems for you?
Mr. Quinn. Sure. The way that we are funded in New York
State is that it is the 3 percent that funds the college. A
third comes from the local companies sponsoring us, in my case
Erie, a third comes from the State through SUNY, and a third is
tuition.
We all know the situation in the States with the economy.
We have had a cut the last 2 years and had to raise tuition
$300 a year last year.
Mr. Stearns. Now, does that kind of economic stress on your
college, does that affect the services that you can provide?
For example, are you able to provide, I think you mentioned in
your opening statement, counseling service for these veterans
when they come in?
Mr. Quinn. Yes.
Mr. Stearns. Because I think one of the key areas is that
program you talked about, your Stop-outs instead of dropouts is
very good and tries to improve in some way to say to the
veterans there is a pathway for you here, do not be
discouraged.
But is the fact that some of the veterans need counseling,
is that a part of the community college and how is that being
affected with this economy?
Mr. Quinn. Well, I want to be clear, Cliff, too, that when
we are stressed and stretched with funding problems, it affects
all of our students, not just veterans.
Mr. Stearns. Okay.
Mr. Quinn. The rub here, of course, as we have said this
morning and for many years here, our veterans need some special
attention.
Mr. Stearns. Right.
Mr. Quinn. And sometimes when the funding is cut, it is
disproportionately affected for these veterans. And I have to
say yes. But I do want to be clear when we talk about funding
from our situation, States and the local county, that hurts all
of our students.
The big thing we are seeing, just again on an education
note, Mr. Chairman, having to rely on adjunct professors more
and more instead of full-time professors. And at the end of the
day, that affects your counseling, that affects the advice that
students get for courses, for financial aid, all of it.
So we are stressed and we do not make a distinction except
I know what you are talking about when you say it is veterans.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Quinn. Thank you, Cliff.
The Chairman. Mr. Walz.
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for
holding this hearing.
And, Mr. Quinn, thank you for your service on both sides.
You are in a very unique position.
And I, like my colleague, Ms. Brown, am an unabashed
supporter of community colleges. I think it is a fabulous
transition. And, of course, this group of folks is the best
trained and just some of our best folks and we should be
getting them in. And so I am concerned about this too.
We work hard on both sides making sure that DoD, that we
are preparing folks to come out. And I noticed in your written
testimony you talk about the TAP Program, something we
struggled with here.
And I am kind of interested in this because you are making
the observation that maybe we should make this mandatory like
the Marine Corps. And I was looking at that.
Is that because these guys that are Marines, and being an
Army veteran, I find it hard to believe that there is a higher
quality of person coming out of there, but is the Marine Corps
doing a better job of preparing their folks because of that
program in your opinion?
Mr. Quinn. I do not know a better job, but I would have to
say to you when they make it mandatory, it is more complete. I
am not mincing words because we have some great Army vets. In
fact, my testimony includes two verbatims, two sort of life
stories, one Army, one Navy.
Mr. Walz. Right.
Mr. Quinn. So I would not say necessarily better. But it is
like high school. When you force everybody to take driver's ed,
they are hopefully going to be better drivers. In this case----
Mr. Walz. The one we struggle with, though, is because you
understand you are getting into that issue of the commander's
prerogative to be able----
Mr. Quinn. Yes.
Mr. Walz [continuing]. To lead and to be able to demand
this. But our take is, and I have seen this as being on that
side of things and having out-processing lectures that were
voluntary or mandatory----
Mr. Quinn. Uh-huh.
Mr. Walz [continuing]. If it is time to go home, I know
where they are going. So I very much appreciate that. I just
wanted to kind of get and see. That is something we are
struggling and looking with.
But, again, thanks for the work you are doing.
Mr. Quinn. Thank you.
Mr. Walz. Fabulous.
Mr. Quinn. Appreciate the comment too.
Mr. Walz. I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Donnelly, do you have a question?
Mr. Donnelly. No, I do not.
The Chairman. Any other questions?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Mr. Quinn, thank you so much. It has been a
pleasure to visit with you.
Mr. Quinn. Thank you.
One disclaimer. I want to be careful that I do not speak
for AACC. I hope I did not get them in any trouble here this
morning.
The Chairman. You said that. We understand.
Mr. Quinn. Thank you.
The Chairman. We will be making contact with them.
Mr. Quinn. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
And Mr. Filner said he will handle the trouble part for
you.
Members, we have 18 votes, 16 amendments, a motion to
recommit, a final passage. Here is what I suggest we do.
We have testimony from everybody for my bill that is before
us today and the other bills, excuse me, all three bills. So I
suggest in view of the fact that it may be an hour and a half
or 2 hours before we are able to return that we take all the
testimony into the record, hopefully not offend anybody who is
here today to testify, and call our business done for the day.
Does anybody have an objection?
[No response.]
The Chairman. And if there are any questions for the record
that need to be added, we will be happy to enter those,
statements, letters of support, questions for the record.
No objections. Done. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:46 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeff Miller, Chairman,
Full Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This hearing will come to
order.
Let me get right to the heart of what this hearing is about. Six
hundred thousand veterans were added to the unemployment rolls in June.
That brought the total number of America's out-of-work veterans to over
1 million--a staggering figure. It is that fact alone that brings us
here today to accomplish one goal. Namely, to put America's veterans
back to work.
Having a job provides a sense of self-worth and accomplishment. It
is our workforce that makes America strong. It makes us exceptional,
and it also averts many of the perils that befall our societies, such
as homelessness. It is therefore incumbent upon us all to find
solutions and act.
Otherwise reaching goals such as eliminating homelessness among
veterans will be next to impossible if we don't reduce unemployment at
the same time. There is no better preventive measure than a good-paying
job.
We have already set in place the building blocks for many of
today's veterans. Through the Post-9/11 GI Bill, eligible veterans are
getting college degrees, enrolling in on-the-job training programs, and
training in specialized fields such as aviation in higher numbers than
ever before. Nevertheless, the breadth of the joblessness problem in
today's economy leads me to the conclusion that additional steps are
needed.
To that end, I believe we must advance proposals which embrace
certain fundamental objectives.
First, we must re-evaluate programs that are meant to acquaint our
veterans with the civilian workforce. We owe it to these men and women,
and every taxpayer, to ensure that these programs are effective and
that measures are in place to gauge their viability. If they do not
work, we must find programs that will.
Second, we must give unemployed veterans of past wars temporary
access to education programs to acquire skills, especially in fields
with a shortage of workers, such as technology and health care. Two-
thirds of our unemployed veterans are between the ages of 35 and 64,
and many face skills and training deficits.
Veterans of past conflicts are more likely to face significant
financial obligations such as mortgages and college tuition for their
children. Imagine looking forward to retirement, only to have to begin
again.
Third, we must enforce the job protections in place for veterans,
especially those who serve in the National Guard and Reserve--14
percent of whom are currently unemployed.
Fourth, we must work with the States to eliminate the regulations
that hinder job growth. Our veterans have skills that are of value in
the private sector and are being wasted due to unduly burdensome laws
and regulations across the States.
It is time for the States to recognize the quality of military
training and the power of reciprocity.
We cannot do this in a vacuum, however. We have an obligation to
these men and women, and to all Americans, to decrease our debt, lower
taxes that impede growth, and assure employers, especially the small
businesses that are the engine of our economy and that produce 40
percent of new jobs, that help and leadership is on the way.
The Veterans Opportunity to Work Act (the VOW Act), which I have
introduced, is my attempt at a comprehensive solution. It embraces all
of the objectives I have just outlined. The VOW Act critically
evaluates existing programs to ensure they are effective.
It focuses retraining assistance for veterans of past conflicts,
who have fewer options available to them.
It strengthens re-employment rights to Guard and Reserve members.
And it seeks to eliminate licensing and credentialing barriers
preventing veterans from immediately applying skills learned in the
military to a civilian job here at home.
Furthermore, recognizing that America's small businesses, many of
which are veteran-owned, are suffering more today than other companies,
I have also introduced legislation that would provide small businesses
with a tax credit toward the purchase of capital equipment for every
unemployed veteran they hire.
Again, we must think outside the box to solve this problem, and
H.R. 2433, the VOW Act, is my starting point.
We have two other bills on the agenda that will round out our
discussion this morning. First is H.R. 1941, introduced by our
colleague from Georgia and former Member of this Committee, Sanford
Bishop, and then we have H.R. 169 introduced by Congressman Stearns.
So, without further delay, let's get to work.
I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Filner for
any opening remarks he may have.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member,
Full Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Thank you, Chairman Miller.
All too often we read about the results of veterans who come home--
often with the invisible wounds of war--who can't find the dignity and
security that work provides. We read about it in skyrocketing suicide
statistics, problems at home, substance abuse, and even in rising
homelessness among our veterans.
Today we are here to review H.R. 169, H.R. 1941, and H.R. 2433.
Each bill seeks to address the needs of our veterans. H.R. 169 will
require VA to highlight the VETSuccess site on its main internet page.
I support making the VA Web site as user friendly as possible.
I appreciate the Chairman's efforts to make meaningful change in
the lives of our veterans and their families with this legislation and
his own bill--H.R. 2433--The Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011.
But, I also think we need to be clear about what H.R. 2433 IS and
what it IS NOT. This bill IS NOT a jobs bill where veterans can go get
a job--instead it is a retraining bill. This bill does very little to
create jobs for veterans, regardless of how my Republican colleagues
may portray it. This bill IS about completely contracting out the
Transition Assistance Program (TAP). While I fully support widening the
opportunities for our veterans by providing them additional skills, I
also believe that we need to be realistic about our discussion and how
we frame this bill.
Unemployment among veterans, and all of our citizens, is a national
tragedy. A recent article in the Los Angeles Times dated July 11, 2011,
stated that ``Unemployment among recently returned veterans, already in
double digits, is poised to get worse as more soldiers return from Iraq
and Afghanistan.'' According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
unemployment among Gulf War-era II veterans aged 18-24 was nearly 21
percent in 2010.
In order to pay for this legislation, this bill would extend higher
loan fees on our veterans that utilize the VA Home Loan Guarantee
Program and then use those monies to pay for the monthly stipend and
retraining costs created by this bill.
By not allowing the higher loan fee rates to expire to much lower
rates and by extending the higher rates for 10 years we are effectively
taxing a specific group of veterans for using a benefit. The House
Majority Leader, Mr. Cantor of Virginia, said on July 11, 2011, that
``We don't believe you ought to be raising taxes right now in this
recession, in this economy [.]''
If this is the belief of our colleagues, then we must be consistent
in how we apply these beliefs. If allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire
was characterized as a tax increase, then not allowing these higher
rates to expire can also be characterized as a tax increase. We need to
be crystal clear as to what we are doing, and say in plain language
that we are raising taxes on veterans.
I want to be transparent about this ``shell game'' and how we are
paying for it, so we are not back here later in this session or in
following sessions talking about how we had some ``unintended
consequences'' and we then have to find some way to pay for the pay-
for.
Simply put, in order to pay for this bill, we will charge our
veterans more for the use of their benefit in one program so we can pay
for other veterans and their benefits in another program.
In this economy where our national housing market is in the tank,
where we, on this Committee, have worked so very hard to protect our
veterans from home foreclosures, we must carefully weigh our actions
and be sure that the actions we take are not going to make it more
difficult for a veteran to purchase or keep a home.
But, we also consider today a viable alternative. A bill that will
require broad job skill training for all servicemembers returning home.
H.R. 1941, a bill introduced by Mr. Bishop of Georgia which I have
cosponsored, is the companion bill to Senator Murray's S. 951. This
comprehensive bill requires servicemembers to learn how to translate
the skills they learned in the military into the working world. It will
also ensure that more veterans have jobs waiting for them when they
leave the military by streamlining the path to private and Federal
employment.
This bill requires the Department of Labor to take a hard look at
what military skills and training are translatable into the civilian
sector, and work to make it simpler for our veterans to get the
licenses and certification they need.
I fully support and endorse H.R. 1941. The companion to this bill
passed the Senate Committee unanimously and my hope is that we will
have the same result here in the House. I believe, as does Chairwoman
Murray, that this bill is a huge step forward in re-thinking the way we
treat our men and women in uniform after they leave the military.
Finally, I have questions regarding all of the bills, as I am sure
many of my colleagues do. First, are these the policies we want to
pursue? What impact will extending these fees have on the housing
market and the ability of our veterans to utilize the VA home loan
program? Why didn't these bills follow the normal course of going to
the Subcommittee of jurisdiction and how much do they cost--where are
the CBO cost estimates?
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle as we address these bills and other legislation that may assist
our veterans in finding employment when their service is over.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cliff Stearns
Thank you Chairman Miller for having this hearing today.
Unemployment is at a record high today and unemployment in our
veteran community is higher than at any time that I can remember.
My bill, H.R. 169, would require that the Department of Veterans
Affairs have a drop-down menu titled ``Veterans Employment'' on its
homepage. This drop menu would have links to VetSuccess, USA Jobs, Job
Central and other appropriate employment Web sites. It would also
require the Secretary of VA to advertise and promote the VetSuccess Web
site and require direct outreach to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) veterans.
This bill comes out of discussions I had with the VA over the past
couple of years and from constituents in my district returning from
their service to our country. While the VA has addressed some of my
concerns, they continue to miss the underlying reason for my bill:
customer service and usability. The VA should have a clear link that
will take veterans to a listing of jobs based on zip code.
Today, if you are a veteran and are looking for a job whether in
the private sector or within the government, it can be a daunting task.
For example, when you go to the VA homepage under quick links is
``Federal Jobs for Veterans.'' After clicking on the link, you are
taken to more barricades. This link will take you to ``FedsHireVets''
(feds hire vets), which offers useful tips, but you still have to go
through one more step to access government jobs within your area.
To find private sector jobs, you have to click on the Veteran
Service dropdown menu and navigate multiple links on the VA homepage.
There is no simple link for Veteran Employment or Veteran Jobs. Instead
you need to know that the VetSuccess program is what you're looking
for. If you're unfamiliar with veteran programs, you may not know that
VetSuccess is the web portal for jobs. The title isn't clear.
VetSuccess might be the link for successful navigation of the VA
bureaucracy. The title should clearly and simply mention jobs or
employment.
Then, once you get to the VetSuccess webpage you must register to
look up jobs. You can't just type in your zip code and get a list of
jobs in your local area. My office had to fill out an excessively long
form, and then monitor our spam filter to catch the verification e-
mail, click the e-mail to prove we're human and then we waited for a
follow up e-mail to get our password to finally access the VetSuccess
job portal.
This is too high a hurdle for something so simple as a job listing
for veterans. You should be able to go to this site, type your zip code
and get the job listings. When I go to Monster.com, I don't need to
register to do a quick lookup for the jobs listed within a specified
proximity of my home in Ocala. VetSuccess needs to have similar
accessibility like Monster: immediate access to job listings by zip
code without hiding behind vague titles in a crowded drop menu with
excessive registration requirements.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment for all
veterans was 8.2 percent. The purpose of my bill is to get the VA
thinking about how they should properly address the needs of Veterans,
provide good customer service and lower the barriers to information.
This type of employment information should be easily accessible in plan
language on the VA's homepage and the VetSuccess program should provide
these job listings without making veterans jump through more hoops. Our
veterans have sacrificed so much for our safety and liberties. I want
to ensure our veterans a smooth transition into our workforce after
their service. Again, I appreciate Chairman Miller having this hearing
today and I look forward to what we can accomplish and learn from the
testimonies of our witnesses.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Corrine Brown
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Filner, for calling this
legislative hearing today. It is important to discuss the legislation
that is before this Committee.
The bills before us today are H.R.169, by my neighbor from Florida,
Mr. Stearns. This would emphasize veterans' employment on the VA Web
site. Considering the amount of information available on so many
issues, it is important to include this information where our veterans
can access it best.
H.R. 1941, the Hiring Heroes Act of 2011 is introduced by my good
friend Sanford Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Bishop, for explaining your
legislation to the Committee. This legislation would provide
rehabilitation and vocational benefits to severely wounded members of
the armed forces. I am pleased to be cosponsor of the legislation and
look forward to voting for this bill in the full house.
The third bill is where I have some concerns. I commend the
Chairman for bringing a bill to allow veterans to receive retraining
assistance. However, with unemployment of veterans at an all time high,
and those coming back from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan not having
jobs, I don't understand the reasoning of limiting the age of
eligibility to those between 35 and 60.
I also don't understand the funding mechanism for the program. In
this time of budget tightening, and a refusal to discuss tax increases
for any issue, this bill taxes veterans with higher interest rates to
pay for more government programs. This legislation doubles the interest
rates veterans pay for housing loans. Yes the rates have not gone into
effect yet, but they are law right now, and I am sure in these tough
economic times our veterans can use the estimated $1.6 billion dollars
this change in law will cost them.
The Veterans Home Loan Program is one of the homeowner programs
that works in this country. The foreclosure rate is much lower than
anything in the private sector and I don't think changing this program
will do anyone any good.
I don't need an explanation of this provision, Mr. Chairman. I can
recognize hypocrisy when I see it. You are trying to balance the budget
on the backs of our veterans.
I cannot support this legislation as it is currently written. I
hope that by the time we mark up this bill in Subcommittee and then
full Committee, the provision is fixed.
Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.
Prepared Statement of Russ Carnahan
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, thank you for hosting this
legislative hearing to discuss the important issue of putting America's
veterans back to work.
In this tough economy, jobs are hard to come by, particularly for
many of our veterans. Our young returning combat soldiers, and those
severely injured during military service, have the hardest time
securing employment. We are also seeing difficulty in older vets
obtaining employment as well.
It is vitally important to ensure that our veterans are able to
secure and maintain employment after returning to civilian life. Not
only does employment offer salary and benefits, employment also
provides an important sense of purpose and aides in the transition from
military to civilian life. We in Congress must work with relevant
stakeholders to guarantee that opportunities exist for our veterans to
obtain gainful and meaningful employment.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today, and have a few
questions for them.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia
I would like to thank Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, and
the rest of the House Veterans Affairs Committee for inviting me to
testify today on behalf of the Hiring Heroes Act of 2011.
As you are aware, the current economic environment has left
millions of Americans out of work and has made it exceptionally
difficult for them to find jobs. This problem is particularly acute in
our Nation's veterans community.
Recent data has shown that veterans, especially those who have
served in Iraq or Afghanistan, face an unemployment rate of over 27
percent after leaving the service. This situation is simply
unacceptable and represents a failure of us here in Congress to help
our Nation's veterans. As the war in Iraq comes to an end and we begin
to draw down our forces in Afghanistan, even more veterans will be
looking for work, further compounding this problem.
With this in mind, I thank Senator Murray for taking the lead on
this issue and originally introducing the Hiring Heroes Act of 2011 in
the U.S. Senate.
It is also for this reason that I am proud to have introduced, with
the help of Ranking Member Filner, Chairman Bill Young of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee, Ranking Member Norm Dicks of the full
Appropriations Committee, and Representative Jerry McNerney, the House
companion bill to Senator Murray's legislation. Here in the House, the
measure has already garnered 55 cosponsors, representing Republicans
and Democrats from both ends of the political spectrum.
I would like to add that this legislation has gained the support of
various veterans and servicemember groups including the American
Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Military Officers Association
of America, and Military Families United.
The Hiring Heroes Act has already passed favorably out of the
Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. It is my hope that this Committee
will follow the Senate's lead and quickly send this measure to the full
House for its consideration.
Now let me discuss the details of the legislation:
Along with modernizing Federal hiring practices, this
bill makes participation in the Transition Assistance Program mandatory
for separating servicemembers.
It requires that each servicemember receive an
individualized assessment of jobs for which they may qualify.
It creates new programs aimed at improving the transition
from servicemember to civilian life, including a competitive grant
program for nonprofit organizations that provide mentoring services and
job training that lead directly to job placements.
It also aims to break down barriers between the
Department of Defense, the Department of Labor, and the Department of
Veterans Affairs and makes it easier for servicemembers to smoothly
transition to veteran status.
Finally, I want to stress that we have an obligation to help our
veterans land on their feet when they come home and help them find good
paying jobs to support their families. These are the members of our
society that have risked the most for our country. Our current system,
although well-intended, simply does not focus enough on our
servicemembers transition into civilian life.
Providing more support to our Nation's veterans is simply the right
thing to do, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle and passing the Hiring Heroes Act of 2011.
I thank the Committee for inviting me to testify, and I am happy to
respond to any questions.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jack Quinn, President,
Erie Community College, Williamsville, NY
Good morning Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, and to each of
the Members of the Veterans Affairs Committee.
As you probably know, as a former Member of this Committee I spent
12 years here representing the people around Buffalo, NY and I come
before you today as one who shares your passion for America's veterans
and to speak on behalf of H.R. 2433, the Veterans Opportunity to Work
Act.
I am now the President of Erie Community College in Buffalo, NY and
I see, on a daily basis, the value of education and training.
Therefore, I believe that preparing veterans to work in tomorrow's job
market may be the most important thing this Committee could do for
those who defend us.
To that end, I am delighted that Chairman Miller has chosen to
introduce a bill whose centerpiece is to re-skill the largest cohort--
632,000--of our 1 million unemployed veterans--those who are between
the ages of 35 and 60.
The Veterans Opportunity to Work Act would provide up to 12 months
of Montgomery GI Bill benefits, currently about $1,426 per month, to
enroll in full time training or education leading to employment in a
high-demand field as determined by the Secretary of Labor.
To ensure these funds are being well-spent, the bill also requires
participants to certify their attendance on a monthly basis, just as it
has been done for as long as I have been around the Montgomery GI Bill.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly mention a challenge that all
schools face with some of our veteran students and that is the
transition from wearing a uniform, often under the most difficult
circumstances, to the relatively unstructured civilian student life. I
understand that Assistant Secretary Jefferson has a project underway to
revise the Transition Assistance Program and I hope he considers
content that will help a veteran determine whether he or she is ready
for college, and choose the right school. I also note that the bill
would make TAP mandatory. I remember from my time on the Committee,
that too many servicemembers were not attending TAP. I would hope the
other services would join the Marine Corps in making TAP mandatory.
I also welcome the bill's reauthorization of a licensing and
credentialing program. One of the things I worry about is the ability
of Erie Community College to provide the right education and training
opportunities to meet the needs of local employers. By making it
clearer what a veteran needs to meet local licensing requirements,
schools can structure their programs more efficiently.
One more thing about the State employment services--during my time
on the Committee, I remember hearing from the Veterans Service
Organizations that too often, DVOPS and LVERs were being diverted away
from serving veterans to non-veteran work. Therefore, I strongly
support the bill's provision that would prohibit full time DVOPS and
LVERs from serving non-veterans.
I also see that the bill meets PAYGO requirements and in today's
fiscal climate, that too is a good thing. But as an educator, I would
like to focus on why Chairman Miller's approach, using community
colleges and tech schools, is on target.
As I speak in such strong support for this bill, I cannot reiterate
enough how community colleges are a perfect fit for veteran students.
Recent numbers show that community colleges remain a top choice for
veteran students using their GI Bill educational benefits. In a 2008
article analyzing Department of Veterans Affairs data, the Chronicle of
Higher Education found that nearly 40 percent of veteran students used
their educational benefits at a community college in FY 2007. A more
recent Chronicle article reported that five of the top fifteen
institutions serving veteran students using Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits
were community colleges. Veterans often mention the low cost of
community college programs and the convenience they offer as driving
factors in their decision about what institution to attend.
Veterans also often cite the fact that community colleges offer
hands-on, relevant education and training programs that build on the
skills they learned in the military to help them find good jobs. In
many respects, veterans are much like any other worker seeking the
skills they need to transition from one job to another. Community
colleges constantly work with employers to ensure that the programs
they offer give students the skills they need to qualify for high-
demand occupations in their area. Community colleges are also extremely
nimble in their ability to quickly create or modify educational and
training programs to stay abreast of the skills needs of emerging
industries.
Community colleges are striving to increase the numbers of students
who leave their institutions with postsecondary educational
credentials, and to be successful in that effort we must effectively
serve veteran students. Numerous studies have stressed the importance
of attaining a credential to the student's short and long-term career
prospects. H.R. 2433 is right to focus on degree or certificate
attainment in a high-demand occupation.
In other respects, however, returning veterans are not like other
transitional workers. Many veterans of active duty bring with them
special needs that tax the resources of our institutions as we try to
address them. Community colleges have expressed the need for greater
support in serving veteran students. The increased complexity of the
veterans benefits programs and the unique physical, mental and other
challenges faced by veterans of the recent wars are often cited as the
reasons for this increased need. The Federal response has featured very
modest efforts to meet this need, including the creation and funding of
a new Centers of Excellence for Veterans success program in the Higher
Education Act and an ongoing TRIO program in this area. Private efforts
in this area, including the American Council on Education's ``Serving
Those Who Serve'' initiative, have had some impact as well. Increasing
resources for institutions that serve significant numbers of veteran
students should continue to be a top priority of the Federal
Government.
As you know, today's military requires a high school diploma or a
general equivalency diploma to enlist. Veterans, as the community in
general, come from a variety of educational backgrounds and therefore
require and desire a diverse support system which is unique to the
community college environment. At ECC our students have a variety of
educational academic programs and support options to choose from. If a
student graduated from high school long ago and need to brush up their
skills before taking a placement test, the RISE Program (Reading
Incoming Students for Excellence) is a workshop which prepares students
in math skills, English skills and college success skills. In addition,
the Pre-Collegiate Studies Program, a more in depth program 10 week
program exists to build a student's skills before they enter a
classroom. These programs are typical of the Community College
environment. Community Colleges offer developmental courses (foundation
courses) to those students whose academic skills are below the
proficiency necessary to begin a particular program. Tutoring centers
exist to support these efforts, as well as, to provide support during
the completion of their academic program.
While community colleges have Veteran Affairs Departments,
advisement and counseling centers they also develop relationships with
community partners, such as the VA Hospital and Vet Centers to refer
veterans for services when appropriate.
One of the most important attributes of a low cost community
college education is that a student can re-enter the workforce within 2
years or less by completing a 2 year degree or an even sooner if they
complete one of the many certificate programs offered. Many students
transfer to 4 year institutions after benefiting from their community
college experience.
I would also like to submit for the record two student veteran
stories, in their own words. And before I close, I would like to say
again that it is my hopes that H.R. 2433 gets the support it needs to
become a reality, especially for Veterans Day this year which falls on
11/11/11.
Tina Terhune
``My name is Tina Terhune, I am 34 and am originally from Buffalo,
NY . Visiting my father in Oregon, he sent me to a semester at college
after graduating early from high school at age 17. Upon completion, I
was hooked to continue my education. I joined the Navy at 19,
completing 4 years active duty and 3 years of Reserves in Buffalo on
Porter Ave. I knew I was headed for ECC City Campus. I had a 10 year
laid-out plan to start ECC towards my intended degree into forensics.
Taking classes at an affordable institution like ECC, my out-of-state
and military classes processed into electives easier than I thought. I
hit a snag with my Military money, but was encouraged to continue.
Faculty guided me towards scholarships and awards available to me for
female veterans to scholarships and awards to where I exactly served. I
continue to get pointers on monetary help available to me. Another
reason I knew I was going to continue with ECC was my mother who
studied here in the late 1980's. She brought her two daughters to
class, and I paid attention. Now, I'm packing a full time schedule with
my club interests. I'm secretary for the vets club at ECC. I play with
the physical HyPer Club when schedule permits. I'm also trying to
revitalize the Theatre Club that used to exist as that was my major in
high school. I'm glad that I didn't think my education stopped after my
military money ran out. There were other avenues I was not aware of.
I'm glad for the ECC veteran advisors that kept me to steer the Course!
I hope to pay it forward with other veteran students who think they
cannot continue. I'm living proof and I feel I'm working on a second
chance!
Glenn A. Scott
I'm a 51-year old Army Veteran who served two terms in the United
States Army. During and after the Army I had a long bout with
addictions. With alcohol being my drug of choice, I hit several bottoms
and attended many rehabs.Upon coming to Buffalo from Martinsburg, West
Virginia on January 4, 2008, I drank and roamed the streets of Buffalo
homeless. I sought minimal treatment because I wasn't ready to give up
drinking. Then a moment of clarity hit me. I entered my latest rehab on
June 18, 2009 and have been sober ever since, with hope and ambitions
today. I'm currently enrolled in Erie Community College, and I have
completed two semesters earning a 3.33 GPA. My major is Business/Office
Management. I'm the Vice President of the Veterans Club in the Student
Government Association. I have a list of names of people who have
helped me get to where I'm at today--starting with the college's
president, countless faculty members, and all the teachers that I've
had the privilege to study under. ECC's slogan, ``Start Here, go
anywhere'' really caught my attention. While roaming the streets of
Buffalo, I'd see that slogan on the side of metro buses. I'd say to
myself that someday I'd like to go there. Because anywhere is better
than where I've been, well, that day is here. Today I'm a full time
student with many goals and ambitions. It took a 12-step program, a
higher power, and ECC to change my life, and for that, I'm forever
grateful.''
Statement of Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under Secretary for
Economic Opportunity, Veterans Benefits Administration,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Good morning, Chairman Miller, Ranking Democratic Member Filner,
and Members of the Committee. I am pleased to present the views of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on three bills that would affect
rehabilitation, training, education, and employment programs for
Veterans and Servicemembers. I am accompanied today by Mr. John Brizzi,
Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel.
H.R. 2433
H.R. 2433, the ``Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011,'' would
make changes in the laws relating to the employment and training of
Veterans. We are pleased to provide our views regarding sections 101
and 501 of the bill, but respectfully defer to other departments or
entities, including the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of
Labor (DoL), and the Government Accountability Office, regarding the
bill's remaining provisions.
Section 101(a) would require, during the period beginning on
January 1, 2012, and ending on March 31, 2014, the Secretary of Labor,
through the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to provide for monthly
payments of retraining assistance to certain eligible Veterans. The
number of eligible Veterans who could participate in this program would
be limited to 45,000 during fiscal year 2012 and 55,000 during the
period beginning on October 1, 2012, and ending on March 31, 2014.
Section 101(b) would provide, generally, that each Veteran
participating in the retraining program would be entitled to up to 12
months of retraining assistance, as determined by the Secretary of
Labor. Such assistance could only be used by a Veteran to pursue a VA-
approved program of education or training on a full-time basis offered
by a community college or technical school that would lead to an
associate degree or a certificate and is designed to provide training
for a high-demand position, as determined by the Secretary of Labor.
Under Section 101(c), each Veteran participating in the retraining
program would be responsible to self-certify to VA his or her
enrollment in an approved program of education for each month in which
he or she participates in the program.
Section 101(d) would provide that the amount of the retraining
assistance under the program would be the amount payable under the
Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty.
Section 101(e) would define an eligible Veteran as a Veteran who is
at least 35 years of age but not more than 60 years of age; was last
discharged from active-duty service in the Armed Forces with an
honorable discharge; as of the date of application for assistance, has
been unemployed for a period of time determined by the ``Secretary''
(unspecified, but most likely the Secretary of Labor), with special
consideration given to a Veteran who has been unemployed for at least
26 continuous weeks; is not eligible for assistance under chapters 30,
31, 33, or 35 of title 38, United States Code; and applies for the
retraining assistance by not later than October 1, 2013.
Subsections (f), (g), (h), and (i) of section 101 would provide,
respectively, for:
(1) a report by the Secretaries of Labor and Veterans Affairs (to
be submitted not later than June 1, 2014) that would reflect specified
data or information regarding the retraining program's usage by
Veterans; (2) entry into an agreement between DoL and VA for the
purpose of carrying out the retraining program; (3) funding for
payments under the retraining program from VA's readjustment benefits
account; and (4) the termination of the authority to make payments
under section 101 to be effective on March 31, 2014.
While VA supports the intent of providing Veterans with educational
retraining assistance, VA has several significant concerns regarding
the implementation and administration of this proposed benefit.
It is unclear whether DoL or VA would make the final eligibility
determination under the program. As written, we interpret the language
to indicate that DoL would accept applications and determine
eligibility. However, VA would be required to determine if an
individual is eligible for certain VA educational assistance programs
prior to issuing payments. This decision could potentially change DoL's
initial eligibility determination.
Additionally, it would be very cumbersome for VA to determine that
an individual remains ineligible for VA educational assistance while in
receipt of the training assistance. This would require VA to review
eligibility under multiple educational assistance programs prior to
issuing each payment. This is even more complicated since individuals
may become eligible or lose eligibility for certain assistance without
notice. For example, under the Post-9/11 GI Bill (chapter 33) program,
there is a transfer of entitlement provision that allows a
Servicemember to transfer entitlement to a dependent. Although VA could
determine that a Veteran is not receiving chapter 33 benefits from
their Servicemember-spouse at the time of application, the Veteran
could subsequently become eligible under chapter 33 based on a transfer
of entitlement. A Veteran could also potentially gain eligibility under
the Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance (chapter 35)
program as a surviving spouse or a spouse of a Veteran.
Under the proposed legislation, Veterans eligible for education
benefits under chapters 30, 31, 33 or 35 will not be eligible for the
retraining assistance. However, Veterans eligible for benefits under
chapter 32 of title 38, United States Code, or chapters 1606 and 1607
of title 10, United States Code would be eligible for this new benefit
because the proposed legislation is silent on whether or not these
Veterans would be eligible.
The proposed legislation would provide retraining assistance for 12
months towards a pursuit of program of education that leads to an
associate's degree or certificate. However, we note that most
associate's degrees require 2 years of study.
It is unclear whether a person who has previously used VA education
benefits and either exhausted their benefits or reached the end of
their period of eligibility would be considered eligible for the
Veterans Retraining Assistance Program. VA recommends adding language
to the proposed legislation to clearly state the eligibility criteria
for the program and the agency responsible for making the
determination.
The proposed legislation requires that VA enter into an agreement
with DoL to carry out the program. VA would need to modify existing
processing systems to accommodate the Veterans Retraining Assistance
Program as well as hire and train 120 additional FTE in year one and
another 12 employees in year two (132 total FTE) to accommodate the
anticipated increase in claims received. This estimate is based on the
assumption that applications are received evenly throughout the year.
However, given the annual limit on the number of beneficiaries, VA
expects that the bulk of the workload would be received at the start of
each fiscal year. To process this surge (estimated 65 percent of annual
limits) in applications, we would need 62 permanent employees, as well
as additional temporary employees at the beginning of each year.
Without this level of FTE and temporary employees to administer the
proposed benefit, the timeliness for processing of Veterans' claims for
other VA education programs would be severely and negatively impacted.
To accommodate the time needed to develop an agreement, hire and
train new employees, and amend or develop systems for processing the
benefit, VA recommends an effective date of June 1, 2012.
We will provide an estimate of the cost of enactment of section 101
for the record.
Section 501(a) of the bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3710(a)(12)
to extend the Secretary's authority to guarantee loans secured by
stocks or certificates in cooperative housing. Currently, the law is
scheduled to expire on December 21, 2011. Subsection (a) would extend
the provision through December 21, 2016.
VA supports subsection (a), provided Congress identifies the
necessary cost offsets. Allowing the authority to expire would limit
housing options available to certain Veterans, especially those living
in larger, urban housing markets.
VA estimates that enactment would result in insignificant costs the
first year, $0.8 million over the period of FY 2012 through FY 2016,
and $2.2 million over 10 years.
Section 501(b) would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3729(b)(2) to maintain
statutory loan fees at their current rates through October 1, 2021, and
to delay the time frame in which the loan fees are scheduled to be
further reduced. Currently, loan fees applicable to various types of
loans, including initial loans with little or no down payment, loans
for which Veterans contribute more substantial down payments, and
subsequent loans, are all scheduled to decrease as of October 1, 2011.
Another reduction of such fees is set to occur on October 1, 2013. If
enacted, subsection (b) would extend through calendar year 2021 the
current fee structure for the first two types: initial loans with
little or no down payments and loans for which Veterans will contribute
more substantial down payments. Subsequent-use loans would not be
affected, and would decrease as currently scheduled.
VA does not oppose enactment of subsection (b). If Congress were to
allow the funding fees to reduce as scheduled under current law, the
program would require a larger appropriation to cover expected loan-
subsidy costs associated with newly guaranteed loans.
VA estimates enactment of subsection (b) would provide loan-subsidy
savings in the amount of $206.9 million in the first year, $1.0 billion
over 5 years, and $2.1 billion over 10 years.
Section 501(c) of the bill would amend section 501 of the Veterans'
Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-389) by delaying the
sunset date affecting temporary increases in the maximum guaranty
amounts. In 2004, as part of Public Law 108-454, Congress amended 38
U.S.C. Sec. 3703(a)(1) by adding a new subparagraph (C) to redefine the
maximum guaranty amount as ``the dollar amount that is equal to 25
percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit determined under
section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act (12
U.S.C. Sec. 1454(a)(2)) for a single-family residence, as adjusted for
the year involved.'' Public Law 110-389 temporarily increased such
amounts, through December 31, 2011, to the greater of either 25 percent
of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit or 25 percent of 125 percent
of the area median price for a single-family residence. In no case,
however, could a guaranty amount exceed 25 percent of 175 percent of
the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit. If section 501(c) were enacted,
the temporary increase would be extended through December 31, 2014. If
it were not, the definition of the maximum guaranty amount would again
be limited, as of January 1, 2012, solely to 25 percent of the Freddie
Mac conforming loan limitation.
Provided Congress identifies necessary cost offsets, VA supports
extending the temporary increase in the maximum guaranty amount enacted
in the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2008.
VA estimates enactment of subsection (c) would result in an
increase to loan subsidy costs by $642,000 in the first year, $6.0
million over 5 years, and $24.6 million over 10 years.
H.R. 1941
We are pleased to provide our views on sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9
of H.R. 1941, the ``Hiring Heroes Act of 2011,'' but respectfully defer
to the views of the DoD regarding sections 6, 7, and 12; the DoL
regarding sections 8, 11, and 13; and the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) regarding section 10.
Section 2 of the bill would extend through 2014 a provision enacted
in Title XVI of Public Law 110-181, known as the Wounded Warrior Act,
which authorizes VA to provide rehabilitative services and assistance
to certain severely disabled active-duty Servicemembers in the same
manner as to Veterans. VA proposed a similar provision in its draft
Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2011, transmitted to Congress on
May 19, 2011. While the provisions differ in the length of the
extension, VA supports section 2.
Section 3 of the bill would amend section 3116(b)(1) of title 38,
United States Code, to expand VA's authority to pay employers for
providing on-job training to Veterans. Under current law, VA is
authorized to make payments to employers for providing on-job training
to Veterans who have been rehabilitated to the point of employability
in certain cases. By removing the requirement that Veterans be
rehabilitated to the point of employability before VA can make payments
to employers for providing on-job training, this section would allow VA
to make these payments to employers for providing on-job training to
many more Veterans. VA supports this provision. VA estimates benefit
costs to be $792,000 for the first year, $4.2 million for 5 years, and
$9.1 million over 10 years.
Section 4 of the bill would provide for additional rehabilitation
programs for persons who have exhausted rights to unemployment benefits
under State law. Under section 3102 of title 38, United States Code, as
amended by this section, a person who has completed a chapter 31
rehabilitation program would be entitled to an additional
rehabilitation program if the person meets the current requirements for
entitlement to a chapter 31 rehabilitation program; has, under State or
Federal law, exhausted all rights to regular compensation with respect
to a benefit year; and satisfies certain other requirements.
Section 4 of the bill would also amend sections 3105 and 3695 of
title 38, United States Code, to limit the period of an additional
rehabilitation program to 24 months, but also to exempt Veterans
pursuing an additional rehabilitation program from certain other
limits. Under current section 3105, a rehabilitation program may not be
pursued after 12 years following a Veteran's discharge or release from
active service. Under current section 3695(b), assistance under chapter
31 in combination with certain other provisions of law is limited to 48
months. Section 4 of the bill would amend sections 3105 and 3695(b) to
make these limitations inapplicable to an additional rehabilitation
program.
VA supports this provision because it would help VA serve more
Veterans in need of assistance. VA estimates benefit costs to be
$51,000 in the first year, $294,000 for 5 years, and $724,000 over 10
years.
Section 5 of the bill would amend section 3106 of title 38, United
States Code, to require an assessment and followup on Veterans with
service-connected disabilities who participate in VA training and
rehabilitation. In addition, section 5 would require VA to ascertain
the employment status of a participating Veteran and assess his or her
rehabilitation program not later than 180 days after completion of, or
termination of, his or her participation in that program, and at least
once every 180 days thereafter for a period of 1 year. VA supports this
provision. We believe that providing follow-up is an important
endeavor. No benefit costs would be associated with this provision. VA
estimates administrative costs to be $4.7 million in the first year,
$24.2 million over 5 years, and $55 million over 10 years. In addition,
VA estimates that $250,000 will be needed in FY 2012 to develop an IT
solution to automate follow-up activity.
Finally, section 9 of the bill would require VA, DoD, and DoL to
select a contractor to conduct a study to identify equivalencies
between skills developed by members of the military through various
military occupational specialties (MOS) and the qualifications required
for private-sector civilian employment positions and report on the
results of the study. This section would also require Federal
Government departments and agencies to cooperate with the contractor.
VA, DoD, and DoL would be required to transmit the report with
appropriate comments to Congress.
Section 9 would also require DoD to use the results of the study
and other information to ensure that each member of the military
participating in the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) receives an
assessment of the various private-sector civilian employment positions
for which the member may be qualified as a result the member's MOS. DoD
would have to transmit the individualized assessment to VA and DoL to
use in providing employment-related assistance in the transition from
military service to civilian life and to facilitate and enhance the
transition.
VA does not support this provision to enter into a joint contract
to identify civilian equivalencies of military jobs. Software
applications that analyze military occupational data and provide
equivalent civilian jobs currently exist. Therefore, VA believes a
contract to conduct a study to identify this information is not
necessary. VA is currently utilizing web software available in the
public domain that translates military skills to equivalent civilian
jobs. VA will continue to closely monitor the marketplace to identify
software that may improve our ability to identify civilian equivalents
of military jobs.
VA estimates that if section 9 of H.R. 1941 were enacted there
would be no benefit cost to VA; however, general operating expense
costs would be approximately $175,000.
H.R. 169
H.R. 169 would require that, not later than 60 days after the date
of enactment of the Act, the Secretary include on the main page of VA's
Internet Web site a new hyperlink with a drop-down menu entitled
``Veterans Employment'' that will include direct access to the
VetSuccess Internet Web site, the USA Jobs Internet Web site, the Job
Central Web site, and other employment Web sites that focus on jobs for
Veterans. It would also require the Secretary to promote awareness of
the VetSuccess Internet Web site by advertising in national media and
to inform Veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring
Freedom of the VetSuccess Internet Web site through outreach efforts.
VA supports efforts to increase Veterans' awareness of the
VetSuccess.gov Web site and to promote opportunities for employment of
Veterans through links to appropriate resources. Although we believe we
are currently accomplishing the purpose of this legislation, we do not
object to the enactment of this bill. VA's Vocational Rehabilitation
and Employment (VR&E) program currently conducts outreach to OEF/OIF
Veterans through the Coming Home To Work (CHTW) initiative and through
other avenues such as Disabled Transition Assistance Program (DTAP)
presentations. VR&E informs Veterans of the VetSuccess.gov Web site
through CHTW and by other means, including DTAP presentations and the
distribution of QuickBooks.
One-time costs associated with advertising in national media
outlets are estimated to be $900,000 during the first year. To conduct
a recent media campaign, VA's Education Service spent approximately
$380,000 on developing concepts and materials, identifying and
targeting appropriate markets, and developing a marketing plan. An
additional $520,000 was spent on implementation of the marketing plan.
Implementation included advertising on radio, social media sites
including Facebook and MySpace, Internet sites including Google and
Yahoo, print outlets and text messaging services. VA would expect to
incur similar costs to conduct a media campaign to advertise the
VetSuccess.gov Web site.
No additional costs are related to conducting outreach to OEF/OIF
Veterans to inform them of the VetSuccess.gov Web site because this is
currently done by VR&E. No additional costs are associated with
including hyperlinks on the VA main Internet page because VA has
already budgeted for these types of minor changes.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. Thank you for the
opportunity to share the Department's views. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may
have.
Statement of Hon. Raymond M. Jefferson, Assistant Secretary for
Veterans' Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, and distinguished Members
of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss
legislation pending in this Committee aimed at helping our returning
servicemember transition back to civilian life.
The Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) proudly serves
Veterans and transitioning servicemember by providing resources and
expertise to assist and prepare them to obtain meaningful careers,
maximize their employment opportunities and protect their employment
rights.
Secretary Solis has been an incredible source of guidance and
support, and has made Veterans and VETS one of her top priorities. Our
programs are an integral part of Secretary Solis's vision of ``Good
Jobs for Everyone'' and her unwavering commitment to help Veterans and
their families get into the middle class and maintain financial
stability. We strive to achieve this vision through four main programs:
Jobs for Veterans State Grants;
Transition Assistance Program Employment Workshops;
Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Programs; and
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
Act.
Your letter of invitation seeks input on three bills: (1) H.R. 169,
to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include on the main
page of the Internet Web site of the Department of Veterans Affairs a
hyperlink to the VetSuccess Internet Web site and to publicize such
Internet Web site; (2) H.R. 1941, the ``Hiring Heroes Act of 2011'';
and (3) H.R. 2433, the ``Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011''. I
will limit my remarks to those provisions of H.R. 1941 that would have
a direct impact on VETS and the Department of Labor.
As for the remaining legislation, H.R. 169 would be administered by
the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) and we defer to VA on that
bill. H.R. 2433 was recently introduced on July 7, 2011, and we have
not had an opportunity to thoroughly review and formulate the
Department's views on the legislation in time for this hearing. We
will, however, provide the Committee with our views in a follow-up
Statement for the Record.
H.R. 1941: ``Hiring Heroes Act of 2011''
Section 6: This section would require the mandatory participation
of members of the Armed Forces in the Department of Labor's Employment
Workshop component of the Transition Assistance Program (TAP).
We believe that all transitioning servicemember who plan to enter
civilian employment would benefit from attending the Employment
Workshop, but defer to the Department of Defense (DoD) as to whether it
should be a mandatory component for all transitioning servicemember.
Section 7: This section would require DoL to follow-up on the
employment status of members of the Armed Forces who recently
participated in TAP. In particular, it would require that DoL contact
each participating Veteran no later than 6 months after his or her
completion of the program, and at least once every 90 days thereafter
over the next 6 months in order to ascertain the Veteran's employment
status.
DoL supports the concept of the TAP follow-up, but believes that
the metrics of our redesigned Employment Workshop would properly
satisfy this requirement. As you may recall, we recently testified on
our current initiative to redesign and transform the Employment
Workshop. As part of the redesign, which is already underway, a
comprehensive follow-up program will be implemented to track
participants' success entering the civilian workforce. In particular,
participants will receive customized coaching by phone or online for 60
days after they attend the workshop. This will be ``live'' person-to-
person contact and will focus primarily on assisting participants with
implementing, ``pressure-testing'' (i.e., comparing the written plan
with the participants' actual desires), and revising their Individual
Transition Plans. The follow-up component will also incorporate peer
support techniques. DoL believes that this program may provide the
information that the Committee desires, and we would like to work with
the Committee to provide additional information on this initiative.
Section 8: Among other things, this section would: (1) establish a
competitive grant program for nonprofit organizations that provide
mentoring and training to Veterans; (2) require DoL and nonprofit
organizations to collaborate in order to facilitate the placement of
Veterans in jobs that lead to economic self-sufficiency; (3) require
DoL to conduct an assessment of grant performance no later than 18
months after enactment; and (4) authorize appropriations of $4.5
million for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013.
DoL believes that it currently satisfies the intent of this
section. We note that this section seems to closely follow the
parameters of the existing Veterans' Workforce Investment Program
(VWIP) established under section 168 of the Workforce Investment Act of
1998. The VWIP provides employment and training support, through grants
and contracts to service providers, to provide eligible veterans with
additional assistance to transition to meaningful employment within the
civilian labor force. It is unclear whether the intent of this section
differs from the intent of the VWIP. Therefore, we would like to work
with the Committee to discuss the potential overlap between this
section and the VWIP.
Section 9: Among other things, this section would require DoL, DoD,
and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to conduct a joint study to
identify any equivalences between the skills developed by members of
the Armed Forces through various military occupational specialties
(MOS) and the qualifications required for various positions of civilian
employment in the private sector.
Section 9 seems to duplicate existing processes that provide the
capability to crosswalk Servicemember skills to equivalent civilian
occupations. We note that there are several tools that meet the need
for skill equivalencies for separating servicemember, such as the
Department's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) and DoD's
Credentialing Opportunities On-Line (COOL). In addition, the TAP
redesign will include practical exercises to help participants in
translate their skills, abilities, experience, and training on to a
resume, as well as create an Individual Transition Plan. We would like
to work with the Committee to explore ways to strengthen these
resources and improve the transition of Veterans into civilian
employment.
Section 11: This section would require the Department to conduct
outreach and employment assistance to recently-separated Veterans who
receive unemployment compensation for more than 105 days.
The Department supports this section, but requests that the time
period be changed from 105 days to 15 weeks to coincide with the end of
a benefit week for purposes of Unemployment Compensation.
Section 13: This section would reauthorize and modify the
demonstration program for credentialing and licensing of Veterans
contained in 38 U.S.C. 4114.
DoL supports the concept of this section and believes that
credentialing and licensing Veterans will help in transitioning
successfully into the civilian sector. This provision does, however,
raise serious implementation issues.
Licensing and credentialing are functions performed most often by
individual States, which means that the demonstration project would
require DoD to align its military training and assessments to more
closely match States' civilian licensing requirements. We would like to
work with the Committee to help resolve these issues so that the
credentialing and licensing of Veterans can be more successfully
implemented.
Conclusion
We are reminded every day of the tremendous sacrifices made by our
Veterans, Servicemembers and their families. Secretary Solis and the
Veterans' Employment and Training Service believe that America must
honor those sacrifices by providing the Nation's bravest with the best
possible programs and services that we have to offer. We look forward
to continuing our work with this Committee to do just that.
I again thank this Committee for its commitment to our Nation's
Veterans and for providing the opportunity to testify before you. We
would be happy to work with your staffs to provide technical assistance
on any of these or future bills, and I would be happy to respond to any
questions.
Supplemental Statement of Ismael Ortiz, Jr., Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Veterans' Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department
of Labor
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, and distinguished Members
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of Labor's (DoL or Department) views on an important piece
of legislation that would significantly impact our Servicemembers: H.R.
2433, the ``Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011'' (the Act). We
appreciate your continued support of the Veterans' Employment and
Training Service (VETS) and look forward to working with Congress to
help our returning Servicemembers transition back to civilian life.
To that end, the Department offers the following views on
provisions of H.R. 2433 that would have a direct impact on DoL and
VETS. As explained in our analysis, the Department has significant
concerns with some portions of this bill.
H.R. 2433 ``Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011''
Section 101_Veterans Retraining Assistance Program:
Section 101 of the Act would require the Secretary of Labor (the
Secretary) to provide eligible Veterans with monthly payments of
``retraining assistance'' to pursue a post-service education at a
community college or technical school. Although DoL supports the intent
of this section, we believe the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
should be the lead agency for three reasons. First, the payments are
funded out of a VA account. Specifically, section 101(h) requires that
the payments be made from amounts appropriated to the VA's readjustment
benefits account. Second, the bill would require VA to receive the
necessary enrollment certifications from participating Veterans.
Finally, VA is in a better position to determine whether applicants are
eligible for the program because of VA's access to Veteran's service
records.
Section 201_Transition Assistance Program (TAP):
Section 201 would require the Secretary of Labor to contract with
private entities to provide certain services to members of the Armed
Forces who are separating from active duty (and their spouses). The
bill also specifies that the Secretary must enter into these contracts
within twenty-four months of the date on which H.R. 2433 is enacted.
DoL has two concerns with this section. First, the twenty-four
month deadline is far too short. Although VETS intends to transition to
having all facilitation of the TAP Employment Workshop done by contract
facilitators, the move will take time. The transition to all
contractors will take over 2 years to implement fully because of the
following:
First, VETS is currently working with a contractor to
redesign the TAP curriculum that the contract facilitators will
utilize. In order to maintain stability during the various stages of
the curriculum redesign of TAP, we believe it most appropriate to
extend an existing contract that provides VETS with facilitation
services. It would be unnecessarily complicated to redesign TAP while
simultaneously transitioning to a new contractor to provide all-
contract facilitators.
Second, a new award for facilitation services will take
time to plan, compete, award and execute.
Third, once a new facilitation contract has been awarded,
that contractor will need to hire, train, and deploy facilitators
Finally, Status of Forces Agreements for the new
facilitation contractor to work in the host countries overseas will
take months to complete
In order to continue to provide the Nation's warriors and their
families with the seamless support they deserve, the timing should be
revised to provide the Secretary with greater flexibility.
Second, VETS is concerned that the proposed legislation would
require the Secretary to contract for services that are already
assigned by statute to employees in the Disabled Veterans' Outreach
Program \1\ (DVOP) and Local Veterans' Employment Representatives \2\
(LVER) program. Specifically, the bill would reassign the
responsibility for counseling and placement to contractors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 4103A(a) of Title 38 of the U.S. Code requires DVOPs to
``carry out intensive services.'' This broad mandate has been
interpreted to include counseling.
\2\ Under section 4104(b)(2) of Title 38, LVERs are required to
``facilitate employment, training and placement services.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DVOP and LVER programs have been very successful, and have
helped Veterans throughout the United States. In fact, either a DVOP
specialist or a LVER is out stationed half-time or more in 48 of the VA
Regional Offices and in 19 satellite offices. The work of these
individuals helped the Department's Jobs for Veterans State Grants
(JVSG) Program in providing services to nearly 589,000 Veterans, and
helped ensure that over 201,000 Veterans found jobs.
Therefore, due to our concerns regarding the timing of the TAP
redesign and the conflict this section presents with the statutory
responsibilities of DVOP and LVER, DoL does not support this section as
written. However, DoL could support this section if it were amended to
include more flexibility of time in the implementation of the contract
facilitators and to preserve the roles and responsibilities of the
DVOP/LVER positions
Section 202_Mandatory Participation in Transition Assistance Program:
Section 202 would require the mandatory participation of members of
the Armed Forces in the Department of Labor's Employment Workshop
component of the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) unless there is a
documented urgent operational requirement that prevents attendance. We
believe that all transitioning Servicemembers who plan to enter
civilian employment would benefit from attending the Employment
Workshop, but defer to the Department of Defense (DoD) as to whether it
should be a mandatory component for all transitioning Servicemembers.
Section 203_Report on Transition Assistance Program:
Section 203 would require the Secretary of Labor to: (1) report to
Congress, annually, the number of members of the armed forces eligible
for assistance under the Employment Workshop portion of TAP who
participated in the program within 30, 90, and 180 days of being
separated from active duty, and the percentages of which participated
in each time frame; and (2) contract out an audit of the program at
least every 3 years, and submit the results of the audit to Congress,
VA, DoD, and DoL. This audit would be funded through the JVSG program.
We believe that the report required in (e)(1) more properly belongs
to DoD and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DoL does not have
access to the information required in the report. Only DoD and DHS know
when a Servicemember will be separated from active duty. DoL would
report Employment Workshop participation information to DoD in order
for them to note attendance in the Servicemembers' records.
Since the bill assigns the audit contracting requirement to the
Secretary of Labor, it appears to require an audit of the Department's
Employment Workshop, which is the only component under the Secretary's
direct supervision. As this Committee is aware, TAP is an interagency
program designed to assist returning Servicemembers as they transition
back into civilian life. TAP consists of five components and is
delivered in partnership with DoL, VA, DoD, and DHS. The five
components include:
1. Pre-separation Counseling (3 hours)--This is a mandatory
component for all transitioning Servicemembers and is provided by the
military services;
2. TAP Employment Workshops (2.5 days)--These are voluntary on the
part of the transitioning Servicemember and are administered through
DoL and its State partners;
3. VA Benefits Briefing (4 hours)--These briefings are also
voluntary and administered by the VA;
4. Disabled Transition Assistance Program (DTAP) (2 hours)--Also
voluntary and administered by the VA; and
5. One-on-One Coaching--This is a follow-up, provided by the
military services, to the four components outlined above.
The TAP Employment Workshop provided by DoL is but one component of
an interagency program for returning Servicemembers, which addresses
their unique needs as they prepare to reenter civilian life.
The Department's redesign of the TAP Employment Workshop, already
underway, calls for the use of new performance metrics. These metrics
must be fully integrated and implemented before they can be
sufficiently evaluated. In particular, the redesign will include
metrics and gather input from participants at three ``moments of
truth'':
1. At the conclusion of the TAP Employment Workshop--attendees
will evaluate the delivery, content, approach, resources, and setting;
2. During the job search (when attendees are actually applying
what they have learned)--they will evaluate the relevancy and
effectiveness of the workshop's content and approach; and
3. After securing employment--attendees will be asked how useful
the workshop was in helping them obtain a job or career opportunity,
how rapidly the program helped them assimilate into the work culture of
their new organization, and whether the program helped them become
positive contributors to their organization.
The performance metrics for the new TAP Employment Workshop will
allow for the continual analysis of the workshop and, if necessary, for
adjustments to be made. We believe the new performance measurement
system for the DoL Employment Workshop will accomplish the intent of
the audit provision. Consequently, requiring a separate, outside audit
every 3 years would not provide a meaningful benefit for the re-
configured TAP Employment Workshop, and could, in fact, detract from
the implementation of the performance metrics.
Moreover, we note that the Department's Office of the Inspector
General currently conducts audits of the Employment Workshop program.
We believe that this audit could fulfill the Congress's intent, as
would the Comptroller General review in Section 205, which we discuss
later. If an additional audit is needed, we believe it would properly
fall under the jurisdiction of the Government Accountability Office,
rather than being contracted for by the Secretary of Labor, as required
by the bill. Therefore, we do not support this section.
Section 204_Transition Assistance Program Outcomes:
Section 204 would require the Secretaries of Labor and DoD to
jointly develop a method to assess the outcomes for individuals who
participate in the Transition Assistance Program. DoL supports the
intent of this section but notes that the Secretary of VA should also
be included because subparagraph (f)(3) asks for outcomes associated
with education benefits that the VA has responsibility for tracking.
Section 205_Comptroller General Review:
Section 205 would require the Comptroller General of the United
States to conduct a review of the TAP Employment Workshop and submit
the results and recommendations for improving the program in a report
to Congress. DoL supports this section and believes this section
eliminates the need for the audit required by Section 203 of the Act.
Section 301_Reauthorization and Improvement of Demonstration Project on
Credentialing and Licensure of Veterans:
Section 301 would reauthorize and expand the demonstration project
that links military skills to civilian jobs through licensing and
credentialing. DoL supports the intent of this section, but requests
that the dollar limit be removed. The Department believes it is
unlikely that a sufficiently rigorous project could be completed for
less than $180,000. The Department also requests that the potential
entities for this project be expanded to include all public and private
entities to allow for the selection of the best proposal. Finally, the
Department requests that the submission date for the report to Congress
be extended to 120 days after the close of the fiscal year to allow
time for the project to be evaluated.
Section 302_Inclusion of Performance Measures in Annual Report on
Veteran Job Counseling, Training, and Placement Programs of the
Department of Labor:
Section 302 would create new performance metrics to track the
employment rate of Veterans who received services from all DoL-
administered job training programs. The provision would also require
that States track veterans' average salaries and credential attainment.
The section would also require States to significantly modify and
expand their processes to collect information.
The Employment and Training Administration tracks program outcomes
based on a set of common performance measures for entered employment,
retention and average earnings for all workforce system customers,
including Veterans. The Department does not support this provision as
written because it would in effect create a separate performance system
for serving Veterans.
Section 303_Clarification of Priority of Service for Veterans in
Department of Labor Job Training Programs:
Section 303 would further clarify Priority of Service under section
4215 of title 38 U.S.C. and expand what is required in the DoL VETS'
Annual Report. The update to the definition of Priority of Service is
in line with the definition that appears in our regulations at 20 CFR
1010.200(b). DoL would support this change.
DoL also supports the intent of Section 303's expansion of VETS'
Annual Report. The bill would require VETS to include: (1) an analysis
of implementation of providing priority of service; (2) whether the
representation of Veterans in such programs is in proportion to the
incidence of representation of Veterans in labor market, including
within groups that the Secretary may designate for priority under such
programs, if any; and (3) performance measures to determine if Veterans
are receiving priority of service and being fully served by DoL job
training programs. Under the current Priority of Service regulations,
DoL tentatively plans to collect additional information to provide data
on Priority of Service in DoL programs.
Section 304_Evaluation of Individuals Receiving Training at the
National Veterans' Employment and Training Services Institute:
Section 304 would require that all Disabled Veteran Outreach
Program Specialists (DVOP) and Local Veteran Employment Representatives
(LVER) pass a certification test at the end of their National Veterans
Training Institute training (currently operated by the University of
Colorado at Denver). The Department supports this section because it
will enhance our ability to track performance but requests an effective
date of 180 days to allow time to make required changes to courses.
Section 305_Pilot Program on the Use of Veterans Employment and
Training Grant Funds to Provide Direct Training Services to
Unemployed Veterans:
Section 305 would require the Secretary of Labor to carry out a 3-
year program to make grants to and enter into contracts with any of the
ten States with the highest unemployment in the Nation. DoL does not
support this section as written. The Department believes that Veterans
have access to training under the Workforce Investment Act and
therefore the diversion of funds from the JVSG for a secondary training
program is unnecessary.
WIA offers comprehensive employment services, including job
counseling, job search and referrals, resume preparation, and other
assistance. WIA also provides training through community colleges and
other training providers for those in need of a credential or need to
change or upgrade their skills. These services are easily accessed
through WIA's network of nearly 3,000 One-Stop Career Centers
nationwide, and Veterans receive priority of service for WIA programs
and all other DoL-funded employment and training services.
Section 306_Requirements for Full-time Disabled Veterans' Outreach
Program Specialists and Local Veterans' Employment
Representatives:
Sec. 306 of the proposed bill would add additional language barring
full-time DVOPs and LVERs from performing non-Veteran-related duties.
It also adds a requirement that DoL conduct regular audits to ensure
compliance with this prohibition, and says that if there are
violations, then a State's grants can be reduced. We believe the
additional language is unnecessary. The current law, as well as VETS
policy guidance, already makes clear that the role of DVOPs and LVERs
is to help veterans find employment, and the audit requirement would
needlessly divert scarce administrative resources. We recommend that
the Committee strike Section 306 and maintain the current language in
Chapter 41 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code.
Section 307_Report on Findings of the Department of Defense and
Department of Labor Credentialing Work Group:
Section 307 would require a joint report by DoL and DoD on reducing
licensing and credentialing barriers for ten military occupational
specialties. DoL supports this section but recommends subsection (c) be
changed to allow the study to be completed within 12 months from the
date of the award of the contract. The report should be submitted to
Congress no later than 90 days after the completion of the study. This
would allow sufficient time for a thorough study to be conducted.
Section 401_Clarification of Benefits of Employment Covered Under
USERRA:
Section 401 would clarify the definition of the terms ``benefit'',
``benefit of employment'', or ``rights and benefits'' under chapter 43
of title 38--Employment and Reemployment Rights of Members of the
Uniformed Services. The Department supports this section.
Section 502_Extension of Homeless Veterans Reintegration Programs:
Section 502 would extend the Homeless Veterans Reintegration
Program until 2016. The Department supports extending this program.
HVRP is the only Federal employment program designed specifically to
address the employment problems faced by our Nation's homeless
veterans. HVRP provides services to assist in reintegrating homeless
veterans into meaningful employment and to stimulate the development of
effective service delivery systems that will address the complex
problems facing homeless veterans. Employment is the linchpin by which
a homeless veteran may start a successful journey back to society,
regardless of whether the homelessness is long term or short term,
first time or cyclical.
Conclusion
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to submit our views on this
bill. We look forward to working with this Committee to provide the
Nation's bravest and their families with the best possible programs and
services that we have to offer.
Statement of the U.S. Department of Defense
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, and Members of this
distinguished Committee, thank you for extending an invitation to the
Department of Defense to address pending legislation that would
significantly affect our Servicemembers: H.R. 169; H.R. 1941, the
proposed ``Hiring Heroes Act of 2011''; and H.R. 2433, the proposed
``Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011''.
The Department defers to the VA on H.R. 169 as DoD does not have
any specific concerns.
The Department recommends modifying H.R. 1941 and H.R. 2433, and
the Department's comments are limited to sections directly affecting
it.
Summary of the Department's views on pending legislation
H.R. 1941
The Department's comments on H.R. 1941 are limited to sections
directly affecting it.
Section 2: The Department is not opposed to the provisions of
section 2 that would extend Section 1631(b)(1) of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2008 (Public Law 110-181) through December
31 2014. Section 1631(b)(1) allows Servicemembers, with a severe injury
or illness to receive vocational, rehabilitation and employment
benefits (but not compensation) from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
to facilitate their recovery and rehabilitation while still a member of
the Armed Forces. Extending this benefit provides Servicemembers with
disabilities assistance in identifying the training requirements and
resources needed to achieve their rehabilitation and employment goals.
Section 6: The Department continues to work closely with
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Labor, and the interagency, to
enable seamless transition from Servicemembers to Veteran. Our efforts
are consistent and integrated with the President's Veteran Employment
Initiative to help Federal agencies identify qualified Veterans,
clarify the hiring process for Veterans seeking employment with the
Federal Government, and help them to adjust to the civilian work
environment once they are hired. The President's statement highlights
the fundamental purpose for that effort--``Honoring our sacred trust
with America's Veterans means doing all we can to help them find work
when they come home so they never feel as if the American Dream they
fought to defend is out of reach for them and their families.'' DoD
believes that we too must honor our sacred trust with America's
Servicemembers and do all we can to make their transition to Veteran
seamless.
The Department has had recent discussions with the Administration
to further highlight and advance these principles. The DoD Transition
Assistance Program (TAP) must be an integral part in our ability to
achieve the seamless transition. TAP is an important tool to prepare
Servicemembers for life after they separate or retire from the
military. Whatever policy decision is made about its mandatory use will
need to factor provide maximum flexibility for the Service Secretaries
to ensure that there are waiver authorities available to exempt
military personnel from mandatory training when appropriate given the
unique circumstances of individual cases. This should also provide
Service Secretaries with the tools for managing their personnel during
transition.
Section 9: The Department believes that section 9 is unnecessary as
it duplicates existing processes that provide the capability to
crosswalk Servicemember skills to equivalent civilian occupations, and
therefore does not support section 9 of H.R. 1941.
During mandatory (required by statute) preseparation counseling,
Servicemembers are informed about the Occupational Information Network.
The revised DD Form 2648, Preseparation Counseling Checklist for Active
Component (AC), Active Guard Reserve (AGR), and Reserve Program
Administrator (RPA) Servicemembers, states, ``counselors will provide
information on civilian occupations corresponding to Military
occupations (see Occupational Information Network (O*Net Web site) at
www.online.onetcenter.org/crosswalk and related programs . . .''
The Occupational Information Network (O*NET) is under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Labor/Employment and Training
Administration. The O*NET program is the Nation's primary source of
occupational information. Central to the project is the O*NET database,
containing information on hundreds of standardized and occupation-
specific descriptors. The database is continually updated by surveying
a broad range of workers from each occupation. O*NET OnLine contains
crosswalks between the O*NET-Standard Occupational Classification (SOC)
and the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP), Dictionary of
Occupational Titles (DOT), Military Occupational Classification (MOC),
Registered Apprenticeship Partners Information Data System (RAPIDS),
and Standard Occupational Classification (SOC).
Additionally, the Department of Labor's Employment and Training
Administration has a long-standing record of assisting transitioning
Servicemembers with O*NET.
Another program is the United States Military Apprenticeship
Program (USMAP), a partnership between Secretary of Labor, Secretary of
Navy and Secretary of Transportation. Out of 300 enlisted Military
Occupational Specialties (MOS's), 257 are covered under USMAP trades/
occupations employing apprenticeship. Occupations offered through USMAP
cross over into several civilian industries, including servicing,
manufacturing and construction, and transportation/utilities.
Section 10: The Department opposes section 10. The authority under
this section is too broad in its application and scope. It would appear
the language would simply allow veterans to be non-competitively
appointed to the GS system within 180 days of discharge. There appears
to be no provision on how we would establish qualifications. Given we
have a myriad of hiring authorities for veterans, we do not see what
problem this language is trying to solve. Further, it runs the risk of
making it extremely difficult for someone who is not a veteran to gain
entry level employment in light on this authority. We run the risk of
inadvertently giving veterans preference that is far overreaching and
will likely be challenged by the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Section 12: The Department is not opposed to the provisions of
section 12 which would allow the Department to establish a pilot
program to provide separating Servicemembers, who are on terminal
leave, work experience with civilian employees and contractors of the
Department of Defense to facilitate the transition of those members
from service in the Armed Forces to employment in the civilian labor
market. The Department realizes the value of programs that improve the
employment outcomes for our transitioning servicemembers, such as those
that provide exposure to the civilian work environment while working
for the Department. The Department of Labor, Veterans Affairs, and
Homeland Security all jointly develop and contribute to the Transition
Assistance Program, and we look forward to working with them to improve
transition outcomes by using new and creative ideas, such as the one
provided in this section.
H.R. 2433
Comments on H.R. 2433 are limited to sections directly affecting
the Department.
Section 202: As with section 6 of H.R. 1941, we believe TAP is an
important tool to prepare Servicemembers for life after they separate
or retire from the military. However, Section 202 would require
mandatory participation in the DoL Employment Workshop for all
transitioning Servicemembers and only allows exceptions when ``a
documented operational requirement prevents attendance.'' As written,
this section would require personnel to be retained on active duty
until they have completed this TAP component. Therefore, this provision
should include a waiver authority to exempt mandatory attendance in
order to give the Service Secretaries greater flexibility for managing
their personnel during transition.
Section 204: The Department believes that section 204 is
unnecessary and does not support this provision as written. On June 2,
2011, Secretary Jefferson, Assistant Secretary for Veterans Employment
and Training Service, Department of Labor, discussed the redesigned DoL
Employment Workshop in testimony before this Committee's Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity. The redesigned workshop will gather input from
TAP attendees: (1) after the Employment Workshop; (2) during the job
search; and (3) after they secure employment to assess how useful the
workshop was in helping them obtain a job. We believe the redesigned
DoL Employment Workshop, which is scheduled to be implemented November
2011, accomplishes the intent of the proposed legislation to access the
effectiveness of transition assistance employment efforts.
Section 307: The Department supports section 307 mandating the
completion of the joint Department of Defense and Department of Labor
Credentialing Work Group study of 10 military occupation specialties.
We request the Departments be granted sixteen months from the date the
contract is awarded to complete the study, analysis and submit the
report to Congress as required by paragraphs b and c of this section.
Statement of Robert Madden, Assistant Director,
National Economic Commission, American
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The American Legion applauds this Committee for the attention given
to the troubling rise in veterans' unemployment. This slate of
legislation addresses many of the key concerns of our 2.4 million
members. The American Legion supports the passage of H.R. 169, H.R.
1941, and H.R. 2433.
H.R. 2433 addresses one of the little known facts of veterans'
unemployment, which is though the percentages of younger, unemployed
veterans is slightly higher, the vast majority of the ranks of
unemployed veterans are of an older age group and require different
needs such as retraining of job skills and other skills not necessarily
covered by education benefits directed at younger veterans. Reaching
these veterans would provide real and tangible job skills needed in the
changing employment market.
Both H.R. 1941 and H.R. 2433 recognize the essential nature of a
mandatory Transition Assistance Program (TAP) which is fully supported
by The American Legion. There is no reason this necessary hand off
between the military and civilian worlds should not be made mandatory.
Furthermore, better understanding of credentialing and
certification is necessary to help civilian employers recognize the job
skills learned in service closely mirror those required in the non-
military world. There is no good reason a military driver should not be
equally qualified to drive trucks in the civilian world, or that a
corpsman is not qualified to serve as an EMT. Better attention to the
certification and licensure process is needed.
The American Legion supports the passage of all three bills on this
slate of legislation.
__________
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner and distinguished Members of
the Committee:
On behalf of the 2.4 million members of The American Legion I thank
you for this opportunity to submit The American Legion's views on the
legislation being considered by the Committee today. We appreciate the
efforts of this Committee to address the different needs of the men and
women who are currently serving and those who served during past
conflicts.
H.R. 2433: Veterans' Opportunity to Work Act of 2011
To amend title 38, United States Code, to make certain improvements
in the laws relating to the employment and training of veterans, and
for other purposes.
With the growing unemployment numbers facing both our younger and
older generations, it is imperative that our great Nation gives back to
the men and women who have given much to this country. Younger veterans
currently face an unemployment rate of approximately 13.3 percent, the
number of unemployed veterans aged 35-60 is far greater in terms of raw
numbers. While unemployment seems to remain relatively steady for the
general population, America's veterans face unemployment that has
continued to grow for the past several years. As the largest veterans'
service organization serving veterans from all eras, The American
Legion applauds the Committee for seeking to restore employment and
training opportunities to veterans of all eras. We understand the
struggles that veterans from all ages face when either returning to
work after military service or just getting back to work after being
eliminated from their past employment. It is well documented that
veterans who have any sort of education generally have lower
unemployment rates as opposed to those who do not possess any higher
education.
Recent transitioning servicemembers are provided with a robust
education benefit, which earns them up to 36 months of tuition and
fees, a housing allowance and a books stipend, based on their
eligibility. Yet older veterans who have fallen on tough times are
forced to fend for themselves seeking alternative employment. These
veterans often have families and greater financial responsibilities.
Additionally, these older veterans are not eligible for most education
benefits like the new generation of veterans possess. These groups of
veterans are reviewing ways to re-define themselves and their
employment. Factory jobs that were eliminated during the economic
recession might not return and these veterans are faced with an
obsolete vocation and need to transition into thriving career fields.
H.R. 2433 also seeks to provide all servicemembers with the
specific transitional training when leaving military service. The
American Legion has supported, now and in the past, a policy of the
service branches making Transition Assistance Program (TAP) mandatory
for all servicemembers exiting the military. With the Departments of
Labor, Defense and Veterans Affairs making the much needed changes to
the TAP program, we believe this provision is essential to give all
transitioning servicemembers the tools and resources they need to
successfully integrate into the civilian workforce.
America's servicemembers are the most skilled and highly trained
individuals of any other Nation, yet when they are transitioning most
of their military training is not properly equated to its civilian
counterpart. In general, they must either return to school to get their
civilian credentials or choose a different career path. These
employment barriers exist for transitioning servicemembers who seek
employment in line with their military occupational specialty (MOS).
Surely a truck driver who drove convoys through the deserts of Iraq is
qualified to drive the roads of the American Midwest; or the corpsman
who patched up wounded in remote provinces of Afghanistan should be
recognized as capable of performing as an Emergency Medical Technician
(EMT) in any American city.
The American Legion commends the Committee for seeking to perform a
formal study not only to identify the top 10 MOS's, but to analyze
initiatives that are currently available to servicemembers while in
service and how to use those initiatives for all service branches;
consequently, impacting a wider range of men and women. In addition,
The American Legion recommends that all MOS's that have a civilian
counterpart be included in this formal study. Expanding credentials to
servicemembers creates a more professional workforce and is aligned
more fully with recruiting and retention of servicemembers. By
improving the knowledge and skill of servicemembers, we will give them
improved chances for employment after exiting the military and
incentives/reasons should they chose to stay in the service.
The American Legion also supports the re-enactment of the
credentialing work study group. Previously, the credentialing work
group provided Federal agencies with support and guidance on how to
move in promoting employment for transitioning servicemembers. The
credentialing work group would help in fostering new ideas in the area
of credentialing and provide options for overcoming barriers to
employment.
The American Legion supports this bill.
H.R. 1941
Hiring Heroes Act of 2011-Amends the Wounded Warriors Act to extend
until January 1, 2015, the authority of the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs (VA) to provide the same rehabilitation and vocational benefits
to members of the Armed Forces with severe injuries or illnesses as are
provided to veterans.
H.R. 1941 accomplishes many of the same tasks as H.R. 2433. The
goal of this legislation is to: reduce unemployment for recently
transitioned servicemembers and place them in training; expand
Vocational Rehabilitation programs for those who have exhausted their
unemployment benefits; follow up on employment status after
rehabilitation training, making Transition Assistance Program
mandatory; provide grants to non-profits for veterans training,
mentoring and placement; create a study to examine the employment
barriers that transitioning servicemembers face when acquiring civilian
credentials; and utilize a direct hire for veterans who have recently
transitioned from service with an honorable discharge.
Veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are facing double
digit unemployment figures; this bill's goal is to eliminate some of
the employment barriers that exist for recently returning
servicemembers. With less than 1 percent of the population currently
serving, H.R. 1941provides a valuable tool and resource for those who
are exiting the military and are trying to return to a ``normal'' state
of life, including the number one issue they face: employment. As
stated previously, the unemployment figures for recently returning
servicemembers has been steadily increasing. This trend says that as a
country, we should be providing every tool available to knock down
those barriers that exist. Education Rehabilitation is one of the
sharpest tools available to help veterans, active duty, Guard and
Reserve components search for and locate employment. In almost every
situation, education gives a leg up against the competition to veterans
and civilians alike. With the employment climate being competitive,
providing additional training resources is critical in drastically
reducing the unemployment rates for returning veterans.
The American Legion supports the idea of utilizing Vocational
Rehabilitation for those who have exhausted their unemployment
benefits, but sees a potential problem of the number of counselors
available to meet this new demand. Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment counselors already carry a heavy workload with the current
case load. The addition of new veterans would need to be counteracted
with the hiring of new, qualified counselors to meet the fresh demand.
In addition, The American Legion supports the bolstering of follow-up
on participants in the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
program. In too many cases, veterans exit the program before finishing,
thereby mandating a re-visit on a veteran's case, the metric of success
would guide the overall program into a new direction.
The American Legion's policy regarding Transition Assistance
Program has been to recommend the program be made mandatory. The
American Legion commends the Committee for proposing this legislation.
Servicemembers exit the military fulfilling a certain Military
Occupational Specialty (MOS) then return to their home of residence to
find out, despite their duties and qualifications in their respective
MOS, they are not qualified to provide the same support in a civilian
counterpart. This problem is systemic from what is provided at the
military training centers to what additional training a veteran might
need in order to receive the civilian credential. Providing individual
assessments at the TAP program might provide the veterans with
additional resources, but we need to examine how we can bridge the
credentialing gap between the military and civilian divide to better
improve the employability of transitioning servicemembers.
The American Legion commends the Committee for proposing a study of
10 MOS's to identify employment barriers, but would suggest a
comprehensive study of all MOS's that have a civilian counterpart. This
expansion will make a great impact in identifying the employment and
credentialing barriers that exist for transitioning servicemembers.
The American Legion further commends the Committee on bringing a
non-competitive way to bring recently transitioned veterans into the
Federal workforce. However, we are concerned that if this provision
makes it through the legislative process, it would have to be properly
communicated to those who are transitioning through TAP.
The American Legion supports this bill.
H.R. 169
To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include on the main
page of the Internet Web site of the Department of Veterans Affairs a
hyperlink to the VetSucess Internet Web site and to publicize such
Internet Web site.
Helping our wounded warriors and service-connected disabled
veterans is and should maintain a high priority for the Department of
Veterans Affairs. Giving them the proper tools and resources gives this
group of veterans a way to gain an education and then enter a job
market that fits their ability to perform. On too many occasions, The
American Legion is informing service-connected or wounded warriors
about the benefits available through the VetSuccess program. This
legislation would enable one more way for veterans who visit www.va.gov
to find the information about the VetSuccess program and then make an
informed decision about their education and employment path.
The American Legion once again commends the Committee for
aggressively taking on the issue of veterans' unemployment. Veterans
facing unemployment rates at two-thirds higher than the national
average is a national tragedy; it is clear from the work of this
Committee that this issue needs to be resolved. The American Legion
urges Congress to act swiftly to pass this legislation to help put our
American heroes back to work. Furthermore, The American Legion reminds
Congress of the essential role veterans' groups and Congressional
oversight will play in ensuring that once this legislation is signed
into law, it is implemented as intended and actually works to benefits
those deserving veterans.
Statement of John L. Wilson, Assistant National Legislative Director,
Disabled American Veterans
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner and Members of the
Committee:
On behalf of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) and our 1.2
million members, all of whom are wartime disabled veterans, I am
pleased to offer our statement for the record on three bills under
consideration today.
H.R. 2433--Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011
This bill addresses several areas important to veterans. Section
101 establishes a 3-year retraining program, providing up to 12 months
of monthly compensation for eligible veterans. To be eligible, veterans
must be between 35 and 60 years of age and pursue education or training
through an accredited community college or technical school that leads
to either an associate's degree or certification in a high-demand
civilian occupation. Special consideration will be given to those
veterans who have been unemployed for at least 26 continuous weeks.
This program sounds similar to the Servicemembers Occupational
Conversion and Training Act (SMOCTA), which was established in 1993 in
response to the downsizing of the military and its impact on veterans,
particularly those who had no readily transferable skills. SMOCTA
provided assistance in the form of reimbursements to employers to
offset the cost of training recently separated servicemembers. It also
provided funds for assessments, development of training plans, and
supportive services for trainees.
This provision is in concert with the intent of DAV Resolution No.
100, which supports efforts to eliminate employment barriers that
impede the transfer of military job skills to the civilian labor
market.
Section 201 would require the Secretaries of Labor, Defense,
Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs to contract with businesses
that provide Transition Assistance Program (TAP) participants with
counseling, employment and training opportunities and other services as
they plan to leave their respective branches of the military. While TAP
participants should be provided the best in both information and
delivery of services during this important time, we are also aware that
contracts have been let by the Departments of Defense, Labor and
Veteran Affairs to modernize their segments of this program.
While we appreciate the interest in further improvements to this
program, requiring that TAP be contracted out may be too prescriptive
at this time. Therefore we recommend mandates to contract out these
services be held in abeyance until such a time that the changes
currently underway can be fully assessed.
Section 202 would make participation in TAP mandatory for all
military servicemembers except for urgent operational requirements.
This is in line with DAV Resolution No. 230, which acknowledges the
criticality of TAP attendance for military personnel being discharged
from the service. The Department of Defense (DoD) has generally been
opposed to mandatory attendance. This opposition should be overcome by
this section's additional language, which provides waivers in the face
of operational requirements. While the Services naturally have their
focus on their mission, an equally strong case can be made that making
TAP attendance mandatory may make the transition to civilian employment
smoother and reduce the unemployment benefits that DoD would otherwise
have to pay.
In accordance with DAV Resolution 304, we would also recommend that
this section be amended to include mandatory attendance for members of
the National Guard and Reserve, who are not typically afforded the
opportunity to attend.
Section 203 would require contractor-provided reports on course
participation. As with section 201, while we appreciate the interest in
further improvements to this program, this requirement may be too
prescriptive at this time. Therefore, we recommend mandates to have
contractor-provided reports be held in abeyance until such a time that
the changes currently underway can be fully assessed.
Section 204 directs the Secretaries of Labor and Defense to track
how long TAP participants are unemployed after leaving the military,
their initial salaries, or how long they attend college or a technical
school during the first 12 months after discharge. Although DAV does
not have a resolution on this matter, we are not opposed to its
favorable consideration. Tracking data such as this may provide
valuable insights into current and future course structure and methods
of instructions.
Section 301 would reauthorize and mandate the licensure and
certification demonstration project that was recommended in title 38,
Section 4114. The Veterans Benefits, Health Care and Information
Technology Act of 2006 asked, but did not require, that the Department
of Labor (DoL) Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and
Training carry out a demonstration project that would identify the
equivalencies between at least 10 military occupational specialty-
related skills and civilian occupations, as well as ways to eliminate
barriers between military training and civilian licensure or
credentialing for those military occupational specialties. This section
of H.R. 2433 would adjust the parameters of the demonstration project
to evaluate at least five but not more than 10 military specialties.
The important distinction of making such a demonstration project
mandatory is critical as our Nation searches for ways to reduce the
unemployment rates that afflict our veterans. This provision is in line
with DAV Resolution No. 100, which supports efforts to eliminate
employment barriers that impede the transfer of military job skills to
the civilian labor market.
Section 302 would modify the reporting requirements of the DoL with
the addition of data on veteran job counseling, training, placement
programs and earnings as well as those who participated in an
education, certificate or licensure course of study. While DAV does not
have a resolution on this matter, we are not opposed to adoption of
this provision.
Section 303 would require DoL, in concert with State workforce
agencies, to implement new performances measures to evaluate the
priority of services provided to eligible veterans as compared to the
overall customer base. The further clarification and reporting to
ensure priority of service is in line with DAV Resolution 234, which
addresses the role of Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program Specialists
(DVOPS) and Local Veterans' Employment Representatives (LVERs).
Section 304 establishes a requirement that all those who completed
a course of study provided by the National Veterans' Employment And
Training Services Institute be given a pass/fail final exam and the
results of the exam provided to the organization that employs the
participants. DAV has no resolution on this matter.
Section 305 directs the establishment of a 3-year pilot program to
assist unemployed veterans with skills training leading to
qualification for employment. Up to 10 States that have the highest
national unemployment rates could participate in the program. While
this pilot program may provide important assistance to unemployed
veterans, it would do so at the expense of DoL's State grants program,
which funds DVOPS and LVERs. Specifically, it would allow participating
States to use up to 25 percent of State grant funding to cover the cost
of the pilot program. This means that the 10 States with the highest
unemployment levels could reduce DVOP and LVER staff funding by 25
percent in order to provide the training.
In accordance with DAV Resolution 101, which calls for adequate
funding for all veterans' employment and training programs, we would
recommend that this section be amended to exclude funding from State
grant programs and provide additional funding to support this pilot
program.
Section 306 mandates that the sole duty of DVOPS and LVERs will be
to assist eligible veterans in finding suitable employment. In
addition, audits will be performed on a regular basis to ensure this is
the case. DAV has long held that DVOPS and LVERs have been placed in
the difficult position of wanting to assist veterans but being directed
to perform other tasks such as working on public assistance related
programs, including food stamps. DAV supports this provision, which is
in line with DAV Resolution 234.
Section 307 directs the DoD and DoL to enter into a contract to
complete the DoD/DoL Credentialing Work Group study with a focus on
reducing barriers to certification and licensure for transitioning
members of the military as well as veterans.
DAV has long been concerned with the issue of the transferability
of military training into the civilian job market. It is our view that
DoD provides critical training to active duty personnel to ensure their
proficiency in the military specialty. Unfortunately, while this
training meets the needs of the military, it does not meet the
licensure or certification needs of the States in which servicemembers
wish to live and work once they leave the military. Additional
information on how to improve upon the employment prospects of veterans
is welcome. This provision is in line with DAV Resolution No. 100,
which supports efforts to eliminate employment barriers that impede the
transfer of military job skills to the civilian labor market.
Section 401 clarifies the employment benefits covered under the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
USERRA protects servicemembers' reemployment rights when returning from
a period of service in the uniformed services, including those called
up from the reserves or National Guard, and prohibits employer
discrimination based on military service or obligation. This section
would stipulate that such protections extend to any advantage that is
earned as a result of that employment to include rights and benefits
offered by employers.
We recommend this section be amended to include medical treatment
for service-connected conditions in accordance with DAV Resolution 141.
While USERRA requires employers to release employees to perform
military duty, and employers are required to make reasonable
accommodations regarding these disabilities, currently employers are
not specifically required by law to allow veterans with service-
connected disabilities to be absent from the workplace to receive
treatment for these disabilities. Amending this section to expand
employment protections would resolve this discrepancy.
Section 501 extends the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA's) loan
guaranty program for an additional 10 years for the purchase or
construction of cooperative housing units. Programs to provide
cooperative housing are an important resource in the multifaceted
effort to end veterans' homelessness. Therefore, in accordance with DAV
Resolution 223, we support the extension of the guaranty of loans for
the purchase or construction of cooperative housing.
Section 502 reauthorizes the Homeless Veterans Reintegration
Program (HVRP). The HVRP is an important program focusing on employment
of homeless veterans, which provides assistance for those with
significant problems including substance-use disorder, post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD), serious social problems and legal issues. In
accordance with DAV Resolution 223, we support this provision to
provide sustained funding to improve services for homeless veterans.
H.R. 1941--Hiring Heroes Act of 2011
This bill provides enhancements to several programs impacting
veterans.
Section 2 provides a 2-year extension, from December 31, 2012 to
December 31, 2014, of a program that provides rehabilitation and
vocational benefits to severely wounded members of the Armed Forces
under the Wounded Warrior Act.
Extending this benefit provides servicemembers with disabilities
important assistance in identifying the training requirements and
resources they may need in order to achieve their rehabilitation and
employment goals.
This is line with DAV Resolution No. 307, which supports
strengthening of the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E)
program to meet the demands of disabled veterans.
Section 3 would expand the authority of the VA to pay employers to
provide on-the-job training to veterans who have not been rehabilitated
to the point of employability. Presently, the VA can make payments to
employers for providing on-the-job training to veterans who have been
rehabilitated to the point of employability in individual cases when it
is determined that these payments are necessary help a veteran obtain
needed on-the-job training or to begin employment. This provision
extends this flexibility to veterans who have not been rehabilitated to
the point of employability. Although DAV has no applicable resolution,
we are not opposed to its passage.
Section 4 would provide up to an additional 24 months of vocational
rehabilitation and employment services to veterans who have exhausted
both these benefits and State-provided unemployment benefits and begin
the new additional vocational rehabilitation program within 6 months of
the date that the unemployment benefits begin. DAV has no applicable
resolution but is not opposed to its passage.
Section 5 of the measure requires VA to engage, on a periodic basis
for up to 1 year, with each veteran who has participated in its VR&E
program, to determine whether the veteran is employed. This provision
is in line with DAV Resolution No. 307, which calls for VR&E to provide
for placement follow-up with employers for at least 6 months.
Section 6 of this measure would make participation in TAP mandatory
for all military servicemembers, as does Section 202 of H.R. 2433. DoD
has generally been opposed to mandatory attendance in the past.
Opposition to this section of the bill could be overcome by amending it
to include additional language which provides waivers of
servicemembers' attendance in the face of operational requirements.
Mandatory attendance is in line with the intent of DAV Resolution No.
230, which recognizes the importance of TAP and the Disabled Transition
Assistance Program for those servicemembers transitioning to civilian
status.
Section 7 would require the DoL to contact all TAP participants
twice over a 180-day period to determine their employment status.
Although DAV does not have a resolution on this matter, we are not
opposed to its favorable consideration.
Section 8 creates a competitive grant program for nonprofit
organizations that provide mentorship and job training programs that
are designed to lead to job placements. Although DAV does not have a
resolution on this matter, we are not opposed to its passage.
Section 9 requires that each servicemember receive an
individualized assessment of jobs they may qualify for when they
participate in TAP. Although DAV does not have a resolution on this
matter, the provision could benefit transitioning servicemembers.
Therefore, we are not opposed to its favorable consideration.
Section 9 also requires the DoD, the DoL and VA to jointly contract
for a study to identify any equivalencies between military occupational
specialty-related skills and the qualifications required for various
positions of civilian employment in the private sector. Then all those
participating in TAP will be provided an individualized assessment of
their military occupation as it relates to civilian employment
opportunities.
This provision is in concert with the intent of DAV Resolution No.
100, which supports efforts to eliminate employment barriers that
impede the transfer of military job skills to the civilian labor
market.
Section 10 modifies Federal hiring practices to encourage the
hiring of separating servicemembers and would allow them to begin the
Federal employment application process prior to separation. This is in
line with the intent of DAV Resolution 305, which supports veterans'
preference in public employment.
Section 11 would authorize DoL Veterans Employment and Training
Service to conduct outreach efforts through DVOPS and LVERs to
unemployed veterans and assist them in finding employment. While DAV
does not have a resolution on this matter, we are not opposed to its
favorable consideration.
Section 12 would direct DoD to establish a pilot program to provide
separating servicemembers, who are on terminal leave, work experience
with civilian employees and contractors of the DoD to facilitate the
transition of those members from service in the Armed Forces to
employment in the civilian labor market. DAV has no resolution on this
matter but is not opposed to its adoption.
Section 13 directs, as does H.R. 2433, Section 301, that DoL
conduct a licensure and certification demonstration project. The
important distinction of making such a demonstration project mandatory
is critical as our Nation searches for ways to reduce the unemployment
rates that afflict our veterans. This provision is in line with DAV
Resolution No. 100, which supports efforts to eliminate employment
barriers that impede the transfer of military job skills to the
civilian labor market.
H.R. 169
This bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
include on the main page of the VA's Web site a hyperlink to the
VetSucess Web site and to publicize
the Web site. DAV has no resolution on this matter but is not opposed to
its passage.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.
Statement of Tom Tarantino, Senior Legislative Associate,
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
Madam Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee, on
behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's 200,000 Member
Veterans and supporters, thank you for allowing me to submit testimony
sharing our members' views of 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 these 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. And although my uniform is now a suit and tie, I am
proud to work with this Congress to continue to have the backs of
America's servicemembers and veterans.
IAVA would like to thank this Committee for its work on veteran
unemployment, and would like to offer our comments on several of the
bills that the Committee is currently considering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill # Title/Desc. Sponsor Position
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2433 Veterans Opportunity to Miller Support
Work Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1941 Hiring Heroes Act of 2011 Bishop Support
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 169 Publicizing VetSuccess Stearns Support
Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2433
IAVA is proud to endorse H.R. 2433. The most pressing concern for
new veterans in 2011 is unemployment. With 13.3 percent unemployment
for veterans in June 2011 and a rate of 12.3 percent for the year
overall, unemployment is one of the single greatest challenges faced by
veterans. Even though employment is a concern for every American in the
current economic environment, the average unemployment rate for
veterans is 25 percent higher than the rate for civilians. IAVA
supports H.R. 2433, the Veteran Opportunity to Work Act of 2011,
because of the significant steps it takes to help increase veteran
employment.
The first step towards a successful transition to the civilian
workforce is a successful Transition Assistance Program (TAP). Building
on the reforms underway at the Department of Labor (DoL), H.R. 2433
makes TAP mandatory for all separating servicemembers. Additionally,
this bill wisely requires that DoL collect metrics on the effectiveness
of the program.
Additionally, in order to help a veteran transition from the
military to the civilian workforce, we must know how their skills
translate in to the civilian market. H.R. 2433 addresses this head on
by studying how 10 high density Military Occupational Specialties
(MOSs) can translate into licenses and certifications in the civilian
market. Requiring the DoL to contract with an organization of State
Governors as well as private industry leaders to conduct this study
will put decision makers and experts in front of this problem and
promises to yield results where we have failed in the past. Hopefully,
this effort will be the beginning of programs that allow military
veterans to use the skills, training, and experience acquired through
military service in civilian certification processes.
Throughout H.R. 2433, there are provisions that also collect
metrics and enhance performance standards. This is a necessary
component to establish not just historical perspective or current
performance of any program, but to determine the most effective course
of action in the future.
IAVA is pleased to support this bill. We thank Chairman Miller for
his leadership and applaud the work of the Committee and their staff as
a whole to address the problem of veteran unemployment in strong and
creative ways.
H.R. 1941 Hiring Heroes Act of 2011
IAVA is pleased to support H.R. 1941, the Hiring Heroes Act of
2011. H.R. 1941 is a robust bill that contains provisions that utilize
the combined resources of the Department of Defense (DoD), Department
of Labor (DoL) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to combat this
problem.
An essential first step is ensuring that all transitioning
servicemembers attend a Transition Assistance Program (TAP). Nearly 20
percent of all separating servicemembers fail to attend a TAP class.
TAP classes provide important information of job search skills and
strategies as well as veteran benefits. Requiring TAP for all
separating servicemembers will mean that veterans are made aware of VA
programs for educational assistance or vocational training as well as
transitional medical benefits that will help ease their transition to
the civilian world. While requiring TAP attendance will not be the
panacea to veteran unemployment, it will provide a baseline of
knowledge for separating servicemembers and guarantee that they have at
least a general exposure to the full range of benefits to which they
are entitled. It is a low cost and effective first step toward a
solution.
Understanding how military jobs, billets, and certifications
translate into the civilian market and then directly translating
military credentials and licenses into those used by civilian employers
are necessary steps in reducing veteran unemployment. Military skills
and experience in skilled occupations from air traffic controller to
operating room specialist to jet pilot are often lost when
servicemembers become civilians. Because military training and
experience is not necessarily recognized for civilian licensure,
barriers to entry into analogous civilian jobs in the form of costs for
required (often duplicative) education and time to achieve requirements
are high and those skills are lost. H.R. 1941 recognizes this loss to
society and our economy and seeks to prevent it by establishing
civilian equivalency for military jobs. This is a wise and frugal
investment; the expense to train has already been borne by the
military. It is a far costlier choice to allow servicemembers' skills
to disappear.
Other aspects of H.R. 1941 are important in easing the transition
from military to civilian employment and will, we believe, lessen the
staggering 13.3 percent veteran unemployment rate posted for June of
2011. The ability to allow direct appointments into civil service jobs
and establishing a pilot program to allow the DoD to place
servicemembers 180 days from discharge into DoD civilian jobs or jobs
with DoD contractors while on terminal leave are two forward thinking
ideas that represent ``out of the box'' solutions that will help ease
veteran unemployment at low-to-no extra cost to the taxpayer.
H.R. 169 Publicizing VetSuccess
IAVA supports H.R. 169. The VetSuccess Program is an excellent
resource that offers a centralized location to find answers to common
questions about VA resources for employment, education, health care and
more. However, no matter how well resourced or executed a program is,
if the population it serves is unaware that it exists, the program will
not be successful. One of the most common criticisms of benefits
programs is that veterans do not know the benefits exist. If we are to
ensure that the VetSuccess program is successful, the least we can do
is to prominently display it on the VA Web site (where many veterans
initially begin searching).
For example, one of the most valuable steps a veteran can take to
be successful in the job market is to earn a college degree. The Post-
9/11 GI Bill has already opened the doors to success for thousands of
veterans across the country that would have otherwise been out of
reach. VetSuccess on Campus, the VA program that places VA personnel
dedicated to educational benefit counseling on college campuses and
helps mitigate the challenges faced by transitioning veterans, could
play a crucial role in ensuring that student veterans receive their
benefits in a timely and uncomplicated fashion without their academic
success being jeopardized by benefit complications. It could also
ensure that educational institutions are informed and educated on the
procedures and terms of the GI Bill, and that the VA is not burdened
with erroneous or unnecessary certifications and paperwork. However, we
have found that many veterans do not know that the resources exist to
help them navigate the labyrinthine processes they encounter.
This is a perfect example of the benefit of H.R. 169. Publicizing
the resources available before a veteran begins the journey through the
bureaucratic maze will help ensure faster access to benefits for the
veteran and less extra, and often unnecessary, work for program
administrators. H.R. 169 will help ensure the success of VetSuccess by
the simplest of means.
Military Officers Association of America
Washington, DC.
July 14, 2011
The Honorable Jeff Miller
Chairman, Committee on Veterans Affairs
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Miller:
On behalf of the 370,000 members of the Military Officers
Association of America (MOAA), I am writing to thank you for your
leadership in introducing H.R. 2433, The Veterans Opportunity to Work
Act.
H.R. 2433 would re-open Vietnam Era GI Bill educational benefits to
certain veterans who have been chronically unemployed, mandate
attendance in the Transition Assistance Program (TAP), require the
Defense and Departments of Labor to track outcome measures for TAP
participants, re-authorize a pilot program to link military acquired
skills to civilian jobs through licensing and certification, and for
other purposes.
MOAA recommends including a provision in the bill to require
outreach by the VA to unemployed veterans who may be eligible for the
GI Bill benefits authorized in Title I of the legislation. We would
also recommend adoption of Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
(VR&E) program adjustments and other employment-related features in the
Hiring Heroes Act of2011, H.R. 1941.
MOAA pledges its full support for early enactment of H.R. 1941 and
respectfully requests including this letter in the record of any
hearing to consider or mark-up this important legislation.
Sincerely,
VADM Norbert R. Ryan, Jr., USN (Ret.)
President
Statement of Robert L. Simoneau, Deputy Executive Director,
National Association of State Workforce Agencies
NASWA has long advocated for additional training resources
dedicated to veterans as contained in H.R. 2433, the ``Veterans
Opportunity Act of 2001.'' The following summarized our comments:
NASWA supports the veterans retraining assistance program
as described in Title I of H.R. 2433.
NASWA supports extending the requirement for TAP
participation all armed forces.
NASWA asks the Committee to consider extending the
provision of TAP to National Guard and Reserve members.
NASWA supports Section 4114 of Chapter 41, Title 38,
Credentialing and Licensure of Veterans demonstration project, and
supports the changes outlined in H.R. 2433.
NASWA supports a joint recommendation with NGA on Common
Measures, but plans to study and provide recommendations for revised
performance measures.
NASWA supports additional training resources, especially
those dedicated to serving veterans.
NASWA supports the provisions in H.R. 169 and suggest
changing the term, ``JobCentral'' to ``the National Labor Exchange
(NLX), powered by JobCentral.''
In regard to H.R. 1941, NASWA is supportive of efforts to
provide additional services to veterans who have exhausted their
unemployment benefits under State law in H.R. 1941.
__________
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner and Members of the
Committee, on behalf of the National Association of State Workforce
Agencies (NASWA), I thank you for the opportunity to submit written
testimony and to appear before you to discuss the legislation being
addressed today.
The members of our Association are State leaders of the publicly-
funded workforce development system vital to meeting the employment
needs of veterans. This is accomplished through the Disabled Veterans'
Outreach Program (DVOP) and the Local Veterans' Employment
Representatives (LVER) programs, as well as other programs and
initiatives offered through the publicly-funded workforce system.
NASWA serves as an advocate for State workforce programs and
policies, a liaison to Federal workforce system partners, and a forum
for the exchange of information and practices. Our organization was
founded in 1937. Since 1973, it has been a private, non-profit
corporation, financed by annual dues from member State agencies,
grants, and private sector alliance funds.
NASWA thanks the Committee for development of legislation to
enhance services available for military members and veterans, their
families, and to improve the transition of military members to civilian
lives and careers. Helping veterans make a successful transition from
their service in the military to successful civilian careers remains a
significant challenge. I would now like to turn to the specific
provisions of your proposed legislation.
H.R. 2433
``Veterans Opportunity Act of 2011''
Title I_Retraining Veterans
NASWA has long advocated for additional training resources
dedicated to veterans. Although the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and
other employment and training programs funded through the U.S.
Department of Labor provide priority of services for veterans, the
purchasing power of those funds is limited and decreasing. Section 168
of WIA, Veterans Workforce Investment Program (VWIP), dedicates
training resources to veterans, but only a few States receive VWIP
grants, and only a few local areas receive funding.
We acknowledge the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, the ``GI
Bill of Rights,'' revamped by the 1984 bill, the ``Montgomery GI
Bill,'' and especially the Post-9/11 GI Bill of 2008, are excellent
sources of education and training resources for veterans. The Post-9/11
GI Bill significantly enhances educational benefits to cover various
school expenses, including books and supplies. It also provides for the
ability to transfer educational benefits to spouses or children.
Not every veteran can benefit from or take advantage of the GI
Bill. It is difficult to tell how the proposed training in Title I of
H.R. 2433 would be funded and implemented, but the clause, ``Payments
of retraining assistance under this section shall be made by the
Secretary of Labor through the Secretary of Veterans Affairs'' sounds
similar to the Servicemembers Occupational Conversion and Training Act
or ``SMOCTA'' program. NASWA has several times recommended Congress
consider refunding the SMOCTA program, authorized in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (P.L. 102-484), or a
similar job training program. We believe one of the reasons SMOCTA
worked so well is the program was administered jointly by the U.S.
Departments of Labor, Veterans Affairs, and Defense. Funds were
provided by the Department of Defense.
State workforce agencies considered SMOCTA to be one of the best
programs to serve returning military personnel. SMOCTA was established
in response to the impact on veterans who had been affected by the
downsizing of the military, especially personnel who had no readily
transferable skills. SMOCTA provided assistance in the form of
reimbursements to employers to offset the cost of training recently
separated servicemembers for stable and permanent positions that
involve significant training. Besides the reimbursements to employers,
SMCOTA provided funds for assessments, development of training plans,
and supportive services for the trainee.
H.R. 2433 focuses retraining assistance on the pursuit of a program
of education as defined in Section 3452(b) of Title 38, United States
Code; however, it also allows training on-the-job as covered under
Chapter 36 of Title 38.
NASWA supports the veterans retraining assistance program as
described in Title I of H.R. 2433. It promotes the inclusion of on-the-
job training and alternate education programs as outlined in section
101 (b) Retraining Assistance of the legislation. We also appreciate
that special consideration is provided for veterans who have been
unemployed for at least 26 continuous weeks. Our members often cite the
need for additional resources for older veterans. The requirement for
these training funds to be used for a veteran who is at least 35 years
old but not more than 60 years old should help address this issue.
Although we realize this is authorization legislation, we are
concerned whether additional appropriation of funds would be available
for such training services. If additional funds are made available, it
will be important those funds also cover administrative costs.
Title II_Improving the Transition Assistance Program
The Transition Assistance Program (TAP) consists of comprehensive
workshops at selected military installations nationwide. Many of these
workshops have been conducted by State staff under the DVOP or LVER
programs. While States have varying opinions regarding the move to
contract administration of TAP workshops to private vendors, we
understand the intent of ensuring TAP instruction is provided uniformly
across the Nation. NASWA encourages the continued involvement of DVOPs
or LVERs in TAP workshops, to assist in connecting the transitioning
member to the local workforce center during and after the workshop.
NASWA supports the change to require the participation of all
members of the armed forces eligible for assistance provided by TAP.
The benefits of participation in TAP have been proven and have been
acknowledged by most transitioning members who attend the workshops.
The U.S. Marine Corps' policy to require participation in TAP has
resulted in an average 85 to 90 percent participation rate, allowing
for waivers or exemptions. We support extending the requirement for TAP
participation to the all armed forces.
Many of our States have developed and expanded TAP workshops to
include National Guard and Reserve units. We ask the Committee to
consider extending the provision of TAP to individuals in these units
transitioning from active duty to civilian life. Although many of these
individuals, but not all, are job-attached, there still are many other
provisions of TAP workshops that would benefit them.
The requirement for the Secretary of Labor to contract an
appropriate entity to conduct an audit of the TAP program seems
prudent. Section 203 of H.R. 2433 amends Section 144 of Title 10,
United States Code, to indicate the Secretary of Labor shall use funds
made available for the State grant program authorized under Section
4102 of Title 38. We recommend the audit contract not be funded from
allocations made to States for the DVOP and LVER programs, which would
reduce the ability of States to provide direct services to veterans.
Our only concern with Section 204, TAP Outcomes, is this section
greatly expands the number of individuals potentially attending TAP. If
State workforce agencies have the responsibility to track TAP
participants, the reporting and tracking burdens placed on States will
be significant. Current tracking and reporting systems used by the
States often use antiquated computer systems and are difficult to
change. In addition, establishing a method to build and implement an
assessment system could require substantial resources. NASWA urges
Congress to provide funding to make these changes.
One problem we often hear from our members is that the Department
of Defense (DoD) cannot or will not share any personal information
regarding transitioning members. The method to assess outcomes must
include sharing of personal information of transitioning members
between the Department of Labor and DoD; if DoD is not forthcoming with
this information, expansion of the TAP is not likely to achieve the
Committee's goals.
Title III_Improving the Transition of Veterans to Civilian Employment
Often military experience and training do not transfer to civilian
occupations, or more likely, are not understood or accepted by civilian
employers or State or local licensing or credentialing entities.
Unfortunately, this often results in military members unable to obtain
employment in occupations they are proficient in, but lack the civilian
credentials to obtain. Also, when pursuing education or training
requirements for a credential or license, they typically discover they
need to repeat the same type of training or classes they had in the
military.
This is a serious barrier to many transitioning members, which
keeps them from finding employment in the industry or occupation where
they want to work. Through our National Labor Exchange (NLX) employer
partners, we learned one of the most critical obstacles to the
employment of veterans is their inability to secure formal credentials
and certifications, even though they have received nearly equivalent
training while in the military. Veterans must spend resources,
including valuable time, to acquire formal civilian credentials when
many already possess the skills.
NASWA supports Section 4114 of Chapter 41, Title 38, Credentialing
and Licensure of Veterans demonstration project, and supports the
changes outlined in H.R. 2433. Our only concern is with the change in
Section 4114(h) Funding. The change instructs the Assistant Secretary
to carry out the demonstration project by ``using not more than
$180,000 of the funds in each fiscal year that are appropriated . . .
to be derived from amounts available to carry out Sections 4103A and
4014 of this title.'' Although NASWA supports the credentialing and
licensure demonstration project, we are concerned that the funds for
the DVOP and LVER programs are again being diverted from direct
services to veterans.
Section 302, Inclusion of Performance Measures in Annual Report on
Veteran Job Counseling, Training, and Placement Programs of the
Department of Labor, adds a number of performance measures for the
provisions under Chapter 41, Title 38.
NASWA's current policy is to support the NASWA and National
Governors Association's (NGA) proposed common measures for the
reauthorization of WIA. The NASWA/NGA proposal recommends measuring the
percentage of program participants who are employed during the second
quarter after exit, the percentage of program participants employed
during the fourth quarter, the median earnings of program participants
during the second quarter after exit, and the percentage of program
participants who obtain an education or training credential during
participation or within 1 year after exit.
NASWA supports common measures for all programs, including
veterans' programs in the workforce system. Although NASWA currently
supports the NASWA/NGA proposal, we recognize the workforce system in
general, and performance measures in particular, can be improved. One
example suggested by a NASWA member is to establish measures at the
point of entry or during participation, rather than after exit. NASWA
will work with its members to study this and other ideas, and make
recommendations in the future.
We are concerned with staff time required to implement and then
track these measures, and with the cost and programming time to change
computer-based reporting systems. Computer modifications to implement
these additional performance measures could be quite complicated and
expensive. If State workforce agencies are required to perform these
computer modifications within existing budgets, it would diminish
direct services to veterans. If the additional performance measures are
added, we recommend the U.S. Department of Labor include the changes in
its redesign of consolidated reporting and provide the States with
programming options and funding to retrofit State reporting systems.
The additional language to clarify Priority of Service for Veterans
in Department of Labor Job Training Programs is a subtle difference,
but because there still seems to be confusion in implementing Priority
of Service; we appreciate the clarification. The only concern we have
with the additional reporting criteria for the Secretary's Annual
Report on Priority of Service is the potential increase in workload and
costs for local and State workforce staff to track the information
required for the assessment and the Report.
It is not clear what the overall purpose is for conducting a final
pass-fail examination to evaluate the individual's performance in
receiving training as described in Section 304, Evaluation of
Individuals Receiving Training at the National Veterans' Employment and
Training Services Institute.
The intent of the training is to increase the knowledge skills and
abilities (KSA) of staff who undertake the training. The curriculum is
designed to cover specific segments of KSAs staff need to accomplish
their work. As with any training program, trainees come from different
backgrounds and experiences, therefore having an assessment system that
measures the gain in KSAs achieved by each student makes sense, but
these need to be targeted to specific areas. A single final pass-fail
grade may not be attainable, nor achieve the intent of the Committee.
The participants of the various classes start at different
knowledge and experience levels. There are a number of different
classes taught at the Institute and we are not sure if all classes
would have the same requirement, including those for managers and
supervisors. Much of each class is skill-based and requires practice in
the classroom.
Although NASWA does not have an official position on the
requirement for testing, we do question the value of a pass-fail
examination. Each State has the responsibility for evaluating
employees' performance. If a sponsoring State or other entity receives
a report that an employee failed the final examination, it is unclear
whether the expectation is termination of the employee, reassignment to
the same training, or other action. This could be in conflict with a
State policy.
NASWA supports additional training resources, especially those
dedicated to serving veterans. The pilot program to use State grant
funds to enter into grants with the ten States with the highest rates
of unemployment in the Nation to provide training to unemployed
veterans sounds great. However, the legislation says the State may use
up to 25 percent of the State grant for the training program. This
means that the ten States with the highest unemployment levels would
need to reduce its DVOP and LVER staff funding by 25 percent in order
to provide the training. If the funding for sections 4103A and 4004
would be increased significantly, this would be a great option. We
often hear from our members that they wished the State grant would
provide and allow for training veterans; however, this recommendation
is based on additional funding. A 25 percent reduction in the funding
of DVOP and LVER staff in a State would have a significant adverse
impact on services to veterans.
We understand and support the intent of Section 306, Requirements
for Full-Time DVOPs and LVERs; however, States and local workforce
centers should still have some flexibility in order to maintain
efficient delivery of services. In small offices, a DVOP or LVER may
need to cover the telephones or greet customers when no other staff
members are available. At limited times, DVOPs or LVERs serve military
members (not a veteran), non-eligible spouses, or possibly a veteran
who does not want to be identified as such on the records.
NASWA supports Section 307, Report on Findings of the DoD and USDoL
Credentialing Work Group. This study of ten military occupational
specialists has been in the process for some time. An examination of
current initiatives and programs to promote credentialing of members of
the Armed Forces and identify best practices that can be leveraged by
all services to increase the transferability of military education,
training, experience, and skills would help to reduce barriers to
certification and licensure for transitioning members. This study would
enhance the efforts to reauthorize and improve the demonstration
project on credentialing and licensure of veterans described under
Title III, Section 301 or H.R. 2433.
Funding cuts and efforts to improve the workforce system through
automation have allowed States to serve more workers and employers, but
has disrupted the ability to provide in-person, targeted reemployment
services. While nearly all Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants,
including veterans, file for unemployment insurance via telephone or
Internet, there is often limited in-person contact with one-stop career
centers. NASWA is working with the U.S. Department of Labor to improve
this connection.
During a recent hearing before this Committee, NASWA Executive
Director Rich Hobbie mentioned a concept for the employment of
veterans. The concept would require veterans collecting Unemployment
Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers (UCX) to register with their local
one-stop career center as a condition of receiving UCX and receive
reemployment services. This process could be voluntarily piloted in a
few States.
This approach would be targeted and timely, providing early
intervention and information on the full array of job openings and
employment and training services for recently discharged veterans. It
also enhances the Jobs for Veterans Act, taking advantage of the
Priority of Service provision to focus on veterans most likely to have
difficulty finding employment.
If the Committee is interested, NASWA is willing to provide
background information and suggestions for legislative language.
Title IV_Improvements to Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights
NASWA supports the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act (USERRA) and has no concerns on Section 401.
Title V_Extension of Certain Expiring Provisions of Law
NASWA supports Section 502, the extension of the Homeless Veterans
Reintegration Programs (NVRP). The NVRP programs provide important
resources to homeless veterans and to avert veterans from becoming
homeless. Our members work closely with HVRP grant recipients.
H.R. 169
To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include on the
main page of the Internet Web site of the Department of
Veterans Affairs a hyperlink to the VetSuccess Internet
Web site and to publicize such Internet Web site.
Section 1. Promotion of the VetSuccess Internet Web site.
NASWA supports the provisions in H.R. 169 for hyperlinks on the
Department of Veterans Affairs' Web site for VetSuccess, USA Jobs
Internet Web sites, JobCentral Web site and any other appropriate
employment Internet Web sites.
We suggest changing the term, ``JobCentral'' to ``the National
Labor Exchange (NLX), powered by JobCentral.'' NASWA in partnership
with the DirectEmployers (DE) Association created the NLX, which allows
NASWA and its State and business partners to have a direct involvement
in making job connections for our Nation's veterans by creating a free
electronic labor exchange service.
Promoting awareness of the VetSuccess Web site in national media
outlets and conducting outreach to veterans of recent wars to inform
such veterans of the Web site are sound business initiatives.
Although the list of Web sites in the legislation is not inclusive,
we recommend the Web sites listed in H.R. 169 include the ``Key to
Career Success'' Web site, which lists all one-stop career centers in
the country and includes many other resources. The site is available at
http://www.careeronestop.org/MilitaryTranstion/findLocalServices.aspx.
H.R. 1941
``Hiring Heroes Act of 2011''
Section 4. Training and Rehabilitation for Veterans with Service-
Connected Disabilities who have Exhausted Rights to Unemployment
Benefits Under State Law.
NASWA is supportive of efforts to provide additional services to
veterans who have exhausted their unemployment benefits under State
law. We also suggest earlier emphasis on reemployment of veterans who
are likely to exhaust their unemployment benefits. We suggest
legislation be clear whether the State workforce agency or the
Department of Veterans Affairs would be responsible to determine
eligibility for this program. State workforce agencies have
responsibility for the UI programs in their State; the role of the UI
program should be delineated.
Section 5. Assessment and Follow-up on Veterans who Participate in
Department of Veterans Affairs Training and Rehabilitation for Veterans
with Service-Connected Disabilities.
This section directs the Secretary to contact such veteran for
follow-up at 180-day intervals. NASWA suggests legislation be clear
whether the State workforce agency or the Department of Veterans
Affairs' would be responsible for conducting the follow-up. Currently,
DVOP staff conducts the follow-up for Chapter 31 participants referred
to the State workforce agency for placement services.
Section 6. Mandatory Participation of Members of the Armed Forces
in the Transitional Assistance Program of the Department of Defense.
As stated in our comments for Title II of H.R. 2433, NASWA supports
the change to require the participation of all members of the armed
forces eligible for assistance provided by TAP.
Section 7. Follow-up on Employment Status of Members of Armed
Forces who Recently Participated in Transitional Assistance Program of
Department of Defense.
NASWA interprets this section to mean the State workforce staff,
primarily the DVOP, would be required to conduct the follow-up activity
for all Transitional Assistance Program (TAP) participants. This could
result in a substantial increase in workload. Tracking former
participants could be very difficult, and the more time that elapses
after participation, the harder it is to find individuals.
Section 8. Collaborative Veterans' Training, Mentoring, and
Placement Program.
This section includes authorizing appropriations of additional
funds to carry out the program as described in Section 8. NASWA would
be concerned if the program used existing State grants funds. We
appreciate the requirement for grant recipients to collaborate with
DVOPs, LVERs, and the appropriate State and local board as defined in
the Workforce Investment Act. However, collaboration takes time and if
not well-defined, can mean a significant increase in workload for the
DVOPs, LVERs and other staff.
Section 9. Individualized Assessment for Members of the Armed
Forces Under Transition Assistance on Equivalence Between Skills
Developed in Military Occupational Specialties and Qualifications
Required for Civilian Employment with the Private Sector.
As stated in our comments for Title III of H.R. 2433, NASWA
supports efforts to improve the ability of veterans to use their
military experience and training to obtain required civilian
credentials and licenses. A study to identify any equivalence between
the skills developed by members of the Armed Forces through various
specialties and the qualifications required for various civilian
positions should be beneficial to understanding the differences in
requirements and to assist in veterans obtaining civilian credentials
and licenses.
Also, it makes sense to use the results of the study to implement
individualized assessment of all TAP participants of the various
positions of civilian employment in the private sector for which such
member may be qualified as a result of the skills developed by such
member through the member's military occupational specialty.
Section 11. Outreach Program for Certain Veterans Receiving
Unemployment Compensation.
NASWA supports the focus to provide outreach to covered veterans
and provide them with assistance in finding employment. Past
reemployment programs that provided resources to outreach and assist UI
claimants to obtain employment have been very successful.
We reiterate the concept we proposed in response to Title III of
H.R. 2433. The concept would require veterans collecting Unemployment
Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers (UCX) to register with their local
one-stop career center as a condition of receiving UCX and receive
reemployment services. This process could be voluntarily piloted in a
few States.
This approach would be targeted and timely--providing early
intervention and information--on the full array of job opportunities
and employment and training services for recently discharged veterans.
It also enhances the Jobs for Veterans Act, taking advantage of the
Priority of Service provision to focus on veterans most likely to have
difficulty finding employment.
If the Committee is interested, NASWA is willing to provide
background information and suggestions for legislative language.
Section 13. Enhancement of Demonstration Program on Credentialing
and Licensing of Veterans.
NASWA supports a demonstration program on credentialing and
licensing of veterans. Credentialing and licensing after military
service is a significant barrier for many veterans in finding
employment in their field of experience and training.
NASWA and its members remain dedicated to improving the efficiency
of the labor market and its labor exchange function, and improving the
employment opportunities of our Nation's veterans. We are willing to
assist the Committee and the U.S. Department of Labor in any way
possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to address these important issues.
Statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, and Members of the
Committee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you
for the opportunity to offer our views on H.R. 2433, the ``Veterans
Opportunity to Work Act of 2011;'' H.R. 1941, the ``Hiring Heroes Act
of 2011;'' and H.R. 169. The employment challenges facing average
Americans is certainly no secret, but the challenges facing veterans,
particularly disabled veterans, are even greater. PVA is pleased to see
that the Committee has made employment of veterans one of its highest
priorities. In fact, PVA has taken on veterans employment for severely
disabled veterans as one of our primary missions by creating our own
vocational rehabilitation program focused on actually getting veterans
into a career, not just a job, and keeping them employed.
Recent statistics about veterans' unemployment are humbling to say
the least.
Unemployment is particularly a problem for veterans who have served
since September 11, 2011. In fact, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the unemployment rate for post-9/11 veterans rose to 12.1
percent at the end of May from 10.9 percent at the end of April.
Meanwhile, the unemployment rate for non-veterans remained unchanged at
9.1 percent during that same period. Moreover, the unemployment rate
for post-9/11 veterans spikes to nearly 20 percent for male veterans
ages 18 to 24.
And yet, the statistics for severely disabled veterans are even
worse. Currently, approximately 85 percent of veterans with a severe
disability are unemployed. The reasons for this are many, ranging from
the veterans fear of reentering the workplace to employers simply being
unwilling to take on the responsibility of accommodating veterans with
special needs in the workplace. With these thoughts in mind, an agenda
that focuses on employment for veterans of all ages, whether disabled
or not, is critical, and we applaud the Committee for meeting this
challenge head on.
H.R. 2433, the ``Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011''
PVA fully supports H.R. 2433, the ``Veterans Opportunity to Work
(VOW) Act of 2011.'' PVA is intrigued by the provision to create a
veterans retraining assistance program. We are unclear as to why the
program created by this provision would be limited to veterans over the
age of 35. While we understand that a significant number of veterans in
the age bracket proposed by this legislation (35 to 60) are chronically
unemployed, we believe that this program could be beneficial to all
veterans. That being said, given the vast array of programs available
to post-9/11 veterans (many of whom are younger than 35), we appreciate
the fact that the Committee proposes to offer this innovative
assistance to older veterans.
PVA appreciates the emphasis placed on improving the Transition
Assistance Program (TAP) in this legislation. However, we recommend
that the proposed legislation be clarified to include veterans
participating in the Disabled Transition Assistance Program (DTAP). We
have argued over the years that while TAP is questionably effective,
the DTAP has been completely forgotten. In fact, too often disabled
servicemembers are not even aware that there is a TAP available
specifically for them. Additionally, we believe that the Department of
Labor (DoL) has done a poor job of promoting and conducting DTAP.
We also fully support the requirement that participation in the TAP
be made mandatory for all servicemembers prior to discharge. While we
understand that the legislation includes the caveat that TAP will not
be mandatory if a ``documented urgent operational requirement prevents
attendance,'' we believe that such occurrences rarely, if ever, occur.
In fact, in the past, servicemembers primarily did not attend TAP
because their unit commanders placed no importance on the program and
did not readily provide them the opportunity to attend. Fortunately, we
believe this culture is changing, but it has not been completely
overcome. Given the difficulty that recently discharged servicemembers
have achieving meaningful employment, it only makes sense that they be
required to participate in TAP or DTAP.
Although PVA appreciates the focus on assessing outcomes of TAP, we
believe that this assessment can be taken a step further. Often, the
problem with employment tracking is that it does not follow the
individual far enough into the future to ensure that they are retaining
employment for an extended period of time. As such, we believe that
DoL, the VA, and the Department of Defense should develop an in depth
assessment that tracks veterans well beyond discharge.
PVA also supports the provision to reauthorize the demonstration
project on credentialing and licensure of veterans. Credentialing
standards, such as education, training, and experience requirements,
are developed based on traditional methods for obtaining competency in
the civilian workforce. As a result, many transitioning military
personnel who have received their career preparation through military
service find it difficult to meet certification and licensing
requirements due to the lack of civilian recognition of military
training and experience. However, we are unclear as to why the
consultation requirement with ``Federal, State, and industry
officials'' is being changed.
PVA also fully supports the provisions to require State employment
offices receiving Federal grants to maintain a full-time Disabled
Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) specialist and a full-time Local
Veterans' Employment Representative (LVER) whose responsibilities are
to only serve the employment needs of eligible veterans. Too often,
State employment offices take advantage of DVOP and LVER staff to
fulfill other requirements not related to serving veterans. This has
long been a complaint of veterans' service organizations. We appreciate
the fact that the Committee has recognized this problem and is now
considering legislation to prevent this from happening.
Lastly, we would like to offer our strong support for the
reauthorization of the DoL Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program
(HVRP). The HVRP is a valuable program focusing on employment of
homeless veterans. This program has achieved wonderful success since
its inception approximately 25 years ago. The HVRP provides help for
those veterans with significant problems including substance-use
disorder, severe PTSD, serious social problems, legal issues and HIV.
The specialized services needed for these veterans and provided by HVRP
are often their only hope. The HVRP is perhaps the most cost-effective
and cost-efficient program in the Federal Government. And yet in spite
of the success of HVRP, it remains severely under-funded.
Reauthorization of this program would ensure that homeless veterans who
need a high level of support get it.
H.R. 1941, the ``Hiring Heroes Act of 2011''
PVA strongly supports H.R. 1941, the ``Hiring Heroes Act of 2011.''
With veterans' national unemployment rate higher than civilian
unemployment rates for all age categories, the Federal Government must
assist these men and women as they try to assimilate back into the
civilian world. It is estimated that over 27 percent of young veterans
coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan are unemployed. The ``Hiring
Heroes Act of 2011'' is a proactive effort by the various agencies, VA,
DoL, and DoD, to actively assist these newly discharged servicemembers
with identifying a career path and obtaining employment they desire.
The ``Hiring Heroes Act of 2011'' is the first legislation of its kind
to require broad job skills training for all servicemembers returning
home.
Military service to our Nation is preparation for civilian work
opportunities. Today, most military occupations do not offer that
benefit since many military occupational specialties are
nontransferable skills. If all provisions included in the ``Hiring
Heroes Act of 2011'' are fully developed, properly executed, and
available to all servicemembers, this effort will provide a strong
recruitment tool for all branches of service.
H.R. 169
PVA supports H.R. 169. Having readily available information
pertaining to employment opportunities on the Internet is essential for
veterans seeking employment in the 21st Century. This is particularly
true of the newest generation of veterans who rely heavily on internet
and online social media for information. The internet may be the most
valuable tool for veterans who are continuing their education or
looking for employment.
While creating a hyperlink directed towards veterans employment is
seemingly a trivial step, it highlights the importance of this issue.
Additionally, having readily available and easy access to other
important Web sites such as VetSuccess, USA Jobs, Job Central, and
other relevant Web sites would certainly improve information sharing
for veterans seeking employment opportunities. PVA believes that
determining the information to be made available through this hyperlink
should be coordinated between the VA and the Department of Labor,
Veterans Employment and Training Service. We often hear of the
difficulty veterans face when trying to navigate the vast array of
information available when seeking employment. We believe the
provisions of this legislation can help ease their search by placing
these important links on the main page of the Web site of the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, once again PVA would
like to thank you for placing emphasis on one of the greatest
challenges facing our Nation's veterans.
Meaningful employment is a vital part of improving transition for
servicemembers as well as fulfilling our obligation to the men and
women who served in the past. Moreover, employment holds the key to
finally overcoming homelessness among veterans. We look forward to
partnering with you to put veterans back to work. We would be happy to
respond to any questions that you might have.
Statement of Ryan M. Gallucci, Deputy Director, 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. 169, To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include
on the main page of the Internet Web site of the Department of Veterans
Affairs a hyperlink to the VetSuccess Internet Web site and to
publicize such Internet Web site.
The VFW generally supports the intent of H.R. 169. However, we
believe that the problem this bill seeks to rectify goes beyond VA.
Recently, the Office of Personnel Management published its report on
the 2009 Employment of Veterans in the Federal Government initiative,
or Feds Hire Vets. Though the report demonstrated some success in the
initiative, the gains in veteran hires were underwhelming. Numbers
across agencies were inconsistent, while traditionally military-
friendly departments, such as the departments of Defense, Homeland
Security, and Veterans Affairs still comprise nearly 80 percent of
total veterans employed.
After reviewing the numbers, the VFW decided to look at how each
Federal executive agency chose to implement the tasks of the Feds Hire
Vets program through their Web sites, which the VFW believes is the
most easily accessible point of entry for job-seekers. The VFW found
that information for veteran job-seekers was not readily available on
many agency Web sites, and those that included the information often
directed job-seekers into a loop that was difficult to navigate, and
eventually guided job-seekers to USAJOBS.
Though the VFW does not necessarily support a legislative solution
to issues of Web site layout and design, we support the notion that
Federal agencies should practice consistency in their messaging to
veteran job-seekers. The VFW believes that veterans should be able to
easily find resources like VetSuccess and USAJOBS on the landing pages
of Federal agencies, and we hope that Veteran Employment Program
officers will choose to implement this recommendation as a best
practice.
H.R. 1941, Hiring Heroes Act of 2011
The VFW supports H.R. 1941, the Hiring Heroes Act of 2011, and
considers this bill a critical and overdue piece of legislation that
will help our Nation's heroes reenter and remain competitive in the
workforce. During recent difficult economic times, young veterans of
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been disproportionately affected
by a stagnant job market, which is why VFW believes Congress should
take every step necessary to ensure that our Nation's heroes have
viable careers available to them when they leave the military. The VFW
generally supports the provisions of H.R. 1941, but we would like to
focus on several of the bill's sections in our testimony.
First, the VFW agrees that TAP must be mandatory for all
servicemembers leaving the military. This is a missed opportunity to
ensure that all servicemembers have a viable baseline from which to
work once they reenter the civilian workforce. The VFW also believes
that consultation with VA should be included in all TAP programs,
ensuring that veterans transitioning out of the military are at least
aware of the benefits and services to which they are entitled.
The VFW also agrees that direct hiring authority for Federal
agencies and offering civilian work experience for potential civil
service employees while on terminal leave will cut down on red tape for
veterans seeking careers in the Federal workforce. Allowing qualified
veterans a direct path to a civil service career also helps Federal
agencies fulfill their obligations to employ veterans.
Finally, the VFW supports offering two additional years of VocRehab
benefits for unemployed veterans who have exhausted all of their State
and Federal benefits. The intent of VocRehab is to ensure that veterans
who were disabled in the line of duty would be trained and employable
in a new career field. If a veteran has used their VocRehab benefits,
yet remains unemployed, then their initial VocRehab program clearly
failed. To the VFW, VA is obligated to ensure that veterans who
participate in the program truly receive the job skills they need to
remain competitive in the civilian workforce.
The VFW also has a suggestion for improving H.R. 1491. Section 9 of
the bill has the right objective; making the transition from military
to civilian life easier by allowing servicemembers to apply the skills
learned from their MOS to the civilian workforce. The problem with
Section 9 is the approach; calling for a study and report requiring
coordination between the Secretaries of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and
Labor. This approach wastes time on bureaucracy, rather than helping to
place the servicemember in a civilian occupation. Replacing Section 9
with ongoing private sector initiatives--two of which the VFW follows
at Fort Bragg and in Illinois--would streamline this transition by
cutting out bureaucracy. Some of these initiatives utilize mathematical
algorithms through which servicemembers can simply enter their MOS to
populate a list of viable civilian careers; others identify and fill
State credentialing gaps; and industry experts continue to develop ways
to translate such data sets into usable information to guide veterans
on their educational and professional training needs. The VFW is eager
to discuss these initiatives further with Members of the Committee
following this hearing. The VFW believes that the private sector
already has the capacity to bring the departments of Defense, Labor and
Veterans Affairs into the 21st century through these ongoing
initiatives without wasting additional resources on a duplicative
study. Starting over with another study could cause a setback on gains
already made by companies that have identified such gaps and are
already working to close them.
H.R. 2433, Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011
The VFW supports H.R. 2433, the Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of
2011, which is yet another long overdue piece of legislation to help
veterans find meaningful employment during difficult economic times.
The VFW generally supports the provisions of this bill, which will
create substantive new programs for veterans, while also codifying
reporting requirements for the departments of Defense, Labor and
Veterans Affairs to ensure that new and ongoing initiatives are
producing the desired result of placing veterans in viable careers once
they separate from the military.
The VFW supports the proposal to create a new Veterans Retraining
Assistance Program, allowing veterans who have exhausted both their
education benefits and unemployment benefits to take advantage of an
additional 12 months of training, honing the skills necessary to
reenter the competitive job market. This new program would serve an
often overlooked demographic within the veterans' community--workers
ages 35 to 60--who are struggling to make ends meet during difficult
economic times, but either do not qualify for or have exhausted
comprehensive benefits packages like the Post-9/11 GI Bill or Chapter
31 Vocational Rehabilitation benefits.
As the VFW testified in relation to the extension of additional
Chapter 31 benefits to unemployed veterans who have participated in the
VocRehab program, VA education benefits were designed to allow veterans
to cultivate the skills necessary to compete in the civilian workforce.
If veterans have taken advantage of these programs, but remain
unemployable, then the programs clearly failed and further assistance
should be made available. Veterans have been hit disproportionately
hard by the economic downtown. However, the VFW knows that our Nation's
war-fighters still bring tremendous intangibles to the workplace. The
VFW views this short-term benefit as a stop-gap measure to ensure that
those who served our Nation have the resources they need to help
stimulate our economy.
One of the VFW's top priorities for the last few years has been
mandating TAP programs for separating servicemembers across the armed
forces. This bill not only mandates TAP, but calls on concerned
agencies to also compile data on program outcomes such the length of a
veteran's unemployment following separation, starting salaries upon
finding employment, and status of educational and vocational training
programs.
Another overlooked statistic when discussing veterans' transition
into the civilian workforce is underemployment. The VFW believes that
many times veterans with years of relevant work experience as military
professionals are treated as either entry level or even unskilled
workers once they enter the civilian workforce. This is unacceptable,
and the VFW believes that tracking starting salaries for TAP
participants is a critical first step in rectifying this injustice.
The VFW believes that by mandating TAP, creating reporting
criteria, including VA in TAP programs, and possibly integrating
several of the follow-up provisions from H.R. 1941, Congress can ensure
that veterans not only receive a baseline of resources to assist in
their transition off of active duty, but that concerned agencies will
have a vested interest in demonstrating program success.
Ensuring successful implementation of ongoing educational and
employment programs seems to be a consistent goal of H.R. 2433, such as
calling for DVOPs and LVERs to be evaluated upon completion of their
training. The VFW supports this evaluation and the requirements that
all full time DVOPs and LVERs must only perform tasks related to their
specific function. The VFW has consistently heard of DVOPs and LVERs
crisscrossing their responsibilities, ultimately diluting the caliber
of services delivered to veterans eligible for each of the unique
programs. Implementing auditing requirements whereby States could lose
funding for DVOPs and LVERs for failure to comply will help ensure
mission success.
The VFW also supports the pilot program allowing States to allocate
up to 25 percent of DVOP and LVER funding for individual job training.
The VFW believes that this keeps with the intent of DVOPs and LVERs of
assisting eligible individuals in finding gainful employment, and VFW
supports the caveat that all requests must be made to VA on an
individual basis. If existing programs cannot help a veteran become
employable, the VFW believes this last ditch effort is a proper use of
available resources to ensure that the unique needs of the veteran will
be met.
Finally, the VFW supports the approach H.R. 2433 takes to
successfully correlating military service to civilian job skills.
Though this bill also calls for the completion of the DoD, DoL, VA
study, it includes the caveat that existing programs addressing this
issue should be leveraged. As we have testified in the past, private
industry groups are already working to address this issue with
quantifiable success. We believe it is the responsible course of action
to ensure that we are not duplicating effort.
The VFW views both H.R. 1941 and H.R. 2433 as critical pieces of
stand-alone legislation that can each help veteran job-seekers
successfully find viable careers after military service. The VFW
believes that the new benefits programs established by both bills will
help different sectors of unemployed veterans find viable work, and we
believe the provisions included to offset costs are fair. The bills
only minimally overlap when discussing issues such as mandatory TAP and
credentialing of military job skills in the civilian sector. The VFW
welcomes the opportunity to work with the Committee on how to improve
either bill or create a single, comprehensive bill that includes
provisions of both. However, the VFW must reiterate that unemployed
veterans need a comprehensive veterans' employment package yesterday,
which is why we urge Congress to move quickly in passing these
necessary programs and reforms, and the VFW stands ready to assist in
accomplishing that goal.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or the Members of the Committee may have.
Veterans of Modern Warfare
Washington, DC.
Good Morning Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Member of this
Committee.
Thank you for inviting Veterans of Modern Warfare to address you
today.
As you know the national unemployment level is over 9 percent.
Among Veterans, especially this generation of Veterans it's even
higher.
House Resolutions 169,1941 and 2433 are examples of our governments
understanding and appreciation of our service to this country. Through
these bills either the continuation of good programs or the mandating
of specific provisions of established programs will help Veterans
entering the private sector. Through the TAP program and or other
programs in these bills, the Department of Labor will provide to the
returning Veteran the support and training programs necessary to
reinstitute their place in society. Through tax incentives, employers
will be incentivized to hire and train this generation of returning
Warriors.
Veterans of Modern Warfare applauds the sponsors of these bills. A
great deal of publicity has been shed on the 21st Century 9/11 GI Bill.
Which is a wonderful piece of legalization. Unfortunately, as you know,
not every Veteran is a candidate or has the desire to attend a 4-year
college. The passage of House Resolutions 169, 1941 and 2433 will
reassure and support this generation of Veterans returning to our
society.
Veterans of Modern Warfare thank and encourage our Legislators to
continue sponsoring bills that remind Veterans and America, that their
sacrifices and service is appreciated now and forever in the hearts and
minds of our country.
``A country that doesn't stand by it's Veterans, will one day fall,
for lack of the Veteran''
Respectfully,
Joseph F. Morgan
President/Chief Executive Officer
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Washington, DC.
July 26, 2011
Hon. Jack Quinn
President
Erie Community College
121 Ellicott Street
Buffalo, NY 14203
Dear Jack:
In reference to our Full Committee legislative hearing on H.R.
2433, H.R. 1941, and H.R. 169 that took place on July 15, 2011, I would
appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the
close of business on September 7, 2011.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for materials for all full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively and single-spaced. In
addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the
answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Debbie Smith by fax your responses to Debbie at 202-225-2034. If you
have any questions, please call 202-225-9756.
Sincerely,
BOB FILNER
Ranking Democratic Member
JL:ds
__________
Responses from Erie Community College
Question 1: Is there a difference in needs between a veteran that
recently separated from service and one who separated over 15 years
ago?
Response: The comparison of the veteran of today and the veteran of
15 or more years ago can be made by looking at two main points that
impact veterans and 2-year community colleges; economy, operational
tempo, readjustment, and TBI.
The economic indicators from 1996 and prior show a more robust
economy than experienced today. An 8 month recession had ended by March
1991, unemployment in 1996 peaked at 5.4 percent, with veterans
experiencing a 3.9 percent unemployment rate.\1\ In 2011, we are 2
years removed from a defined recession, however recent stock market
swings indicate otherwise. Current unemployment is at 9.1 percent with
veterans experiencing a 15 percent unemployment rate.\2\ Veterans of
today will need educational assistance to become more employable in
today's job market along with tax incentives for employers to hire and
retain work ready veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/.
\2\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The effects of Operational Tempo from multiple deployments over a
10 year sustained war, coupled with readjustment issues stemming from
the deployments and undiagnosed Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) are
placing a greater stress on today's veterans verses those of 15 years
ago.
The Gulf War had ended by February 1991 and conflicts in Somalia,
Bosnia and Kosovo were limited in time, scope, and total troop
deployments. Contrasting that the current veteran has faced a sustained
multi theater 10-year conflict, with many facing multiple deployments
and for the first time since WWII an extensive use of the Reserve and
National Guard. In relation to education this increased OP Tempo has
resulted in many veterans either breaking the educational path or
indefinitely delaying it due to time away from school.
The Department of Veterans Affairs indicated that 313,670 veterans
of the current conflict have been treated for mental health issues as
of December 2010.\3\ A Rand Corp study in 2008 showed 13.8 percent of
1,938 veterans surveyed using the pre-established PTSD checklist (PCL;
9) showed signs of PTSD. Based on the more than two million troops
deployed in both OIF and OEF by the end of 2009, the survey supported
the numbers seeking counseling at VA Hospitals. By comparison the same
survey applied to veterans of the 1991 Operation Desert Strom indicated
a 10.1 percent rate of PTSD equating to approximately 30,000 veterans
with PTSD based on troop deployments.\4\ The number of veterans who
suffer from readjustment disorders, depression and PTSD will place a
greater strain on community based counseling services as these veterans
return to the workforce or to school. Community Colleges with smaller
class sizes and a less intimidating campus sprawl have proven to be the
choice of veterans according to VA data. Today's veteran continues to
look for the atmosphere and support that he or she was accustomed to in
the military, an atmosphere and system of support more readily
accessible on a Community College campus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Bob Brewin, ``Half the Afghanistan and Iraq veterans treated by
VA receive mental health care,'' Broken Warriors, Examining the
invisible wounds of war series, March 2011. http://www.nextgov.com/
nextgov/ng_20110322_2917.php.
\4\ Jaimie L. Gradus, DSc, MPH, ``Epidemiology of PTSD.'' U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs, National Center for PTSD. http://
www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/pages/epidemiological-facts-ptsd.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the 2008 Rand report, probable Traumatic Brain
Injuries (TBI) has been reported in 19 percent of the troops surveyed.
About 68 percent of the more than 33,000 wounded in action in Iraq
experienced blast-related injuries.\5\ The rate of psychological and
neurological injuries suffered by current conflict veterans is on par
with veterans of the Vietnam War.\6\ How does this impact the veteran
returning to school? A veteran suffering from neurological injuries as
a result of a TBI will present mood changes, difficulty concentrating,
memory, attention, or thinking as well as restlessness, or
agitation.\7\ These symptoms will transfer directly to the classroom
setting where veterans will struggle in larger settings. The small
class size of the Community College creates a more welcoming feel for
veterans who can receive greater one on one attention, tutoring, and
ease of transition to an academic setting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Lucille Beck and Barbara Sigford, ``Update on Health Care: VA
TBI Screening Program,'' Department of Veterans Affairs, September
2008.
\6\ National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke,
``Traumatic brain injury: hope through research,'' Bethesda (MD):
National Institutes of Health; 2002 Feb. NIH Publication No.: 02-158.
See: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/tbi.htm.
\7\ Matthew J. Friedman, MD, PhD, and Paula P. Schnurr, PhD, ``PTSD
Treatment: Research and Dissemination,'' National Center for PTSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2: Is legislation necessary to make TAP mandatory.
Response: As discussed during the question and answer period and in
my written testimony, the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) developed
by the DoD is critical in helping military members and their families
make a smooth transition from a military career to the civilian sector.
While all branches of the Armed Services state that the Pre-separation
counseling is required, only the Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force
describe the program as congressionally mandatory for all personnel. So
to answer the question, no new legislation is needed as TAP is already
considered mandatory by 60 percent of the branches. Under the guise of
``Commanders Intent,'' the process used by the Marine Corps has been
further refined to provide personnel with a better skill set on
separation. A uniformed approach across all branches modeled after the
Marine Corps Transition Assistance Management Program (TAMP) and
further follow up through the TurboTap Web site www.turbotap.org would
better serve personnel and Commanders during this period.
Question 3: Tina Terhune was eligible for Chapter 30 of the
Montgomery GI Bill?
Response: The term of eligibility is 10 years. Unfortunately, her
eligibility ran out on 6/26/10 and she was only able to use it for one
summer semester
Question 4: How many high demand associate degrees and/or
certificates are offered at Erie Community College?
Response: The Buffalo and Erie County Workforce Investment Board
distributes a list of ``Demand Occupations'' each year. Currently, ECC
offers 32 degree, certificate and/or non-credit training opportunities
that would be considered ``high demand'' based on this list.
They are:
Autobody Repair
Automotive Technology
Building Analyst
Building Envelope Professional
Business Administration
Business Administration (Transfer)
CNC Precision Machining
Clinical Laboratory Technician
Computer Applications for the Office
Computer Science
Construction Management Engineering Technology
Dental Assisting
Dental Hygiene
Financial Services
Green Building Technology
Health Information Technology
Heating, Ventilating, AC and Refrigeration
Human Services
Information Technology
Liberal Arts and Science--Social Science
Medical Office Assistant
Medical Office Practice
Mental Health Asst--Alcohol Counseling
Mental Health Asst--Substance Abuse
Nursing
Occupational Therapy Asst.
Office Assistant
Office Management
Paralegal
Radiation Therapy Technology
Respiratory Care
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T Chart Comparison
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veteran separated over 15 years ago Recently separated Veteran
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic
More robust economy Economic downturn
Five years since previous Recession Two years since last official
GDP decline 1.4 percent through Recession
Recession GDP decline 5.1 percent through
National unemployment 5.4 percent Recession
Veteran unemployment rate 3.9% National unemployment 9.1 percent
Veteran unemployment 15%
========================================================================
Operational Tempo/Deployments
Operation Desert Storm ended 5 Current conflicts are approaching
years prior 10 years of sustained multi front,
Conflicts from 1993-1999 were multi deployment operations
limited in duration, scope of
mission and overall troop
deployment
Approximately 300,000 troops More than 2 million deployed by the
deployed end of 09
========================================================================
Female Veterans
Number had steadily declined since Comprise 20 percent of current
WWII force
Fastest growing population of
homelessness
Female veterans divorce rate at
9.2%
========================================================================
National Guard and Reserve
Deployments
In 1996 large scale deployments had Largest call up of National Guard
ceased and Reserve since WWII
Most unit or individual deployment Duration of deployment exceeds 1
were short duration peace keeping year
or humanitarian missions Causes issues with education and
career
========================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T Chart Comparison--Continued
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veteran separated over 15 years ago Recently separated Veteran
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mental Health needs
10 percent of Operation Desert 313,760 have sought treatment at
Strom veterans diagnosed with PTSD the VA for mental health issues as
or depression; 30,000 veterans a result of current conflicts
Traumatic Brain Injuries on par
with Vietnam War. 68 percent of
wounded in Iraq are from blast
injuries.
========================================================================
GI Bill
Increase in veterans and dependant
accessing GI Bill has dramatically
delayed access to tuition and
housing allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Washington, DC.
July 26, 2011
The Honorable Eric K. Shinseki
Secretary
U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420
Dear Mr. Secretary:
In reference to our Full Committee legislative hearing on H.R.
2433, H.R. 1941, and H.R. 169 that took place on July 15, 2011, I would
appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the
close of business on September 7, 2011.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for materials for all full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively and single-spaced. In
addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the
answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Debbie Smith by fax your responses to Debbie at 202-225-2034. If you
have any questions, please call 202-225-9756.
Sincerely,
BOB FILNER
Ranking Democratic Member
JL:ds
__________
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Post-
Hearing Questions for Curtis L. Coy, From the Honorable Bob Filner,
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2433, H.R. 1941, and H.R. 169, July 15,
2011
Question 1: What is VA's anticipated cost for adding 132 additional
FTE to administer the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program?
Response: In our testimony, VA indicated the need for 132 FTE to
administer the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program if the claims
were received evenly throughout the year. However, we would expect to
receive the bulk of the workload at the beginning of each fiscal year,
and therefore VA would need 62 permanent FTE and additional temporary
employees to administer this program.
Assuming VA receives 65 percent of the total claims payable in the
first 90 days of each fiscal year (FY), the need in FY 2012 would be 62
permanent FTE and 77 temporary FTE. In FY 2013, the need would grow to
62 permanent FTE and 104 temporary FTE. In FY 2014, the need would be
62 permanent FTE. The administrative costs are estimated to be $9.4
million the first year and $20 million over 3 years. These costs
include payroll and benefits for the new employees, office supplies,
equipment, and additional rent costs.
In addition to VBA administrative costs, IT costs are estimated to
be $851,000 the first year and $1.1 million over 3 years.
Question 2: How much time would VA need to hire and train the 132
FTE?
Response: VA anticipates that it will take 6 months to hire and
train the permanent and temporary employees once an agreement with the
Department of Labor and processing system are in place.
Question 3: Does VA have a National advertising plan to publicize
benefits nationwide?
Response: VA is developing a national advertising plan. This will
be a comprehensive campaign based on market research and strategic
analysis that uses clear, accurate, consistent, and targeted messaging
to educate Veterans, their families and interested groups on VA's
benefits and services.
The National Veterans Outreach office has been charged with two
roles in advertising benefits: (1) Review Departmental advertising
efforts over $10,000 in scope and recommend approval or disapproval;
and, (2) Develop a national advertising strategy (explained below).
The plan will emphasize the use of partnerships including the Ad
Council (www.adcouncil.org), a private, non-profit organization that
marshals volunteer talent from the advertising and communications
industries, the facilities of the media, and the resources of the
business and non-profit communities, to deliver critical public service
announcements to the American public. The campaign will leverage
advertising technology and the voice of partners to deliver VA's
message.
VBA's Benefits Assistance Service (BAS) works closely with VA's
National Veterans Outreach office to develop outreach products and
campaigns to enhance access to VA benefits. BAS promotes national
awareness of self-service activities available through eBenefits. In
collaboration with the rest of VA, BAS is committed to providing
streamlined benefits to Servicemembers, Veterans, and their dependents.
Question 4: How much money has VA spent in the past 3 years on
advertising?
Response: VA issued its first national ``Interim Advertising
Policy,'' August 5, 2010, to provide direction, set standards and
delegate responsibility for advertising.
Prior to the issuance, VA administrations and offices were largely
prohibited from conducting ``marketing and advertising.'' As a result,
there wasn't a specific entity with responsibility of tracking
advertising within VA. Advertising was largely permitted for the
recruitment of health care professionals. Thus, information on
expenditures have not been collected.
However, VA is establishing methods to standardize and track
advertising. The National Veterans Outreach Office was established
within the Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs (OPIA) in FY
2010 to assess and standardize how outreach is being conducted
throughout VA, and to further develop the process for oversight and
tracking of advertising campaigns over $10,000.
The Office is also providing project management of significant
marketing and advertising contracts, and is working to develop a system
to track department-wide performance measures for VA's outreach
programs.
In FY 2010, the Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs
(OPIA) developed the ``What Lies Ahead,'' and ``Care Package,'' public
service announcements as a part of national Veterans awareness campaign
targeting OIF/OEF Veterans at a cost of $5 million.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Washington, DC.
July 26, 2011
Robert Madden
Assistant Director, National Economic Commission
The American Legion
1608 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Robert:
In reference to our Full Committee legislative hearing on H.R.
2433, H.R. 1941, and H.R. 169 that took place on July 15, 2011, I would
appreciate it if you could
answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on Septem
ber 7, 2011.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for materials for all full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively and single-spaced. In
addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the
answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Debbie Smith by fax your responses to Debbie at 202-225-2034. If you
have any questions, please call 202-225-9756.
Sincerely
BOB FILNER
Ranking Democratic Member
JL:ds
__________
American Legion
Washington, DC.
July 19, 2011
Honorable Bob Filner, Ranking Member
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. House of Representatives
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Ranking Member Filner:
I respectfully submit the following responses to your additional
questions from the Full Committee hearing on H.R. 2433, H.R. 1941, and
H.R. 169 conducted on July 15, 2011:
Question 1: According to resolution #342, the Legion seeks
elimination of the VA Home Loan Funding fee. How do you reconcile your
support for a bill that extends the fees at a higher rate when they
were going to decrease?
Response: While The American Legion would like to see the
elimination of the VA funding fee, there are programs that are needed
and required now. Ultimately, The American Legion would like to see the
elimination of the VA Home Loan Funding Fee for veterans.
Question 2: Since States have the biggest role to play in licensure
and credentialing, what are the top 3 things that can be done to assist
veterans with licensure and credentialing?
Response: The lack of attainment of both State licenses and
national certifications can be a significant barrier for transitioning
servicemembers and veterans. It is important to note that State
licensing and national certification are two separate things and
reducing barriers in these areas requires different strategies.
Promoting State licensing of servicemembers and veterans is an
important policy goal, but attention should also be provided to issues
related to national certification. With regard to State licensure, the
top three things that can be done to alleviate barriers include:
1. Ensuring that States pass legislation and change regulations to
allow licensing bodies to recognize equivalent military training and
experience. (The States of WA, CO, UT, VA, and MD currently have
legislation that does this that can serve as models for other States.)
2. Demonstrate to State licensing agencies (and national
certification bodies) the equivalency of military training and
experience by conducting gap analyses between military training and
experience and State licensing requirements and reporting this
information systematically to the State licensing agencies.
3. Encourage States to grant reciprocity for servicemembers,
veterans, and spouses who have attained licenses in the same occupation
that are attained in other States. This would allow servicemembers and
spouses to get licensed in one State during their military service and
then, when they transition out of the service to a different State that
license will be recognized and they will not have to attain a new
license in order to practice.
It is important to note that The American Legion believes that
national certification (e.g., certifications for automotive mechanics,
dental assistants, IT personnel) is equally important as State
licensing. Employers often require these certifications even when there
is no comparable licensure requirement in the State. Moreover, civilian
certifications provide concrete evidence that transitioning
servicemembers' and veterans' skills are on par with their civilian
counterparts. However, many servicemembers leave the military without
these certifications. The American Legion recognizes that reducing
barriers to certification requires a multi-faceted approach. The top
three things that can be done to promote certifications are:
1. Ensure that all servicemembers have equal access to information
on certifications (and licenses) related to their military occupations.
To date, only the Army and Navy consistently disseminate complete
information on credentialing to their servicemembers (through the Army
and Navy Credentialing Opportunities On-Line or COOL initiatives).
While the Air Force has a web-based tool (called CERT), it is not
nearly as comprehensive as the COOL initiatives. Moreover, the Marine
Corps does not have anything to disseminate information on
certifications and licenses to its servicemembers.
2. Promote funding of certifications and licenses. This can be
accomplished in three ways:
Require the military services to fund credentials for
certifications and licenses directly related to the
servicemember's military occupational specialty. Currently the
Navy is the only service that has exercised its authority under
the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2006, which
authorized the expenditure of appropriated funds for
servicemembers to pay for commercial credentials.
Ensure that the VA promotes the GI Bill licensure and
certification benefit to servicemembers and veterans. Many
servicemembers and veterans are unaware that the GI Bill will
reimburse up to $2,000 per test for licensure and certification
exams. The VA needs to increase awareness of this benefit.
Ensure that the VA publicizes to licensure and
certification agencies the need to get their certifications and
licenses approved by the VA for GI Bill payment. Currently,
data from the Army and Navy shows that less than 50 percent of
the certifications and licenses that are related to Soldiers'
and Sailors' military occupations have been approved for GI
Bill payment.
3. Promote Accreditation of Certification Programs. The lack of
accreditation of certification programs means that servicemembers and
veterans may spend money on certifications that do not have relevant
value. Unlike in higher education where accreditation of institutions
and programs is prevalent, there is currently no systematic monitoring
of the quality of certification programs. Two agencies currently
accredit certification programs--the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) and the National Commission on Certifying Agencies
(NCCA); however, the vast majority of certification programs have not
been accredited. Army and Navy data show that less than 10 percent of
certifications related to their military occupations have been
accredited by either organization. Accreditation of certification
programs is of benefit to military servicemembers, veterans, and
civilians, but it can be costly for certification agencies and there is
no major incentive for them to get accredited. Therefore, The American
Legion recommends that the Department of Labor seriously consider
providing grants to certification agencies that elect to get
accredited.
Question 3: Is the Legion supportive of taking money from one group
of veterans to pay for benefits for another group of veterans?
Response: The American Legion supports increasing veteran's
benefits that provide valuable solutions to problems that face veterans
from all eras of service. When financing a veteran's benefit, the
financing should not be taken from a current benefit in order to pay
for the newly created one, instead funding should come from a direct
source that does not interfere with another veteran's benefit.
Question 4: What are the top 5 employment barriers facing veterans
today?
Response: The American Legion has identified the following
employment barriers facing veterans:
1. Difficulty in translating military training and experience to
civilian jobs. A recent Society of Human Resource Management survey
determined that 70 percent of civilian hiring managers cited their
inability to translate military training and experience to their
civilian jobs as a major challenge in hiring veterans.
2. Lack of attainment of civilian occupational credentials while
in the military. Civilian credentials are instrumental in ensuring
civilian employers that transitioning servicemembers' and veterans'
skills are on par with their civilian counterparts. They are also often
required by civilian employers or by government agencies in order to
perform certain occupations.
3. Lack of a centralized database of veterans' resumes. It is
often difficult for employers to locate/identify qualified
transitioning servicemembers and veterans to fill their job vacancies.
Employers--particularly small business--often see the cost of using a
private sector recruiter that specializes in hiring of ex-military as
too prohibitive. A publicly funded talent bank that is heavily promoted
to veterans and employers would help match qualified veterans with
civilian jobs.
4. Deployments. The multiple deployments of veterans have taken
them out of the job market and networking opportunities, which amounts
to tremendous difficulties with obtaining and/or sustaining meaningful
employment. Due to the recession, there are limited amount of jobs with
heavy competition to fill them. Employers are skeptical to say the
least in hiring veterans (National Guard and Reservists), because of
the inevitable deployments, which has a major impact on business
productivity, particularly small businesses. Furthermore, the longer a
veteran is out of work, it becomes more of a challenge to find gainful
employment, due to the private sector tending to assume that the
veteran's skills have considerably diminished.
5. Stigma of PTSD & TBI (invisible wounds). There is a significant
portion of combat veterans who have been diagnosed with PTSD and/or
TBI. These invisible wounds have been well-documented since the two
wars have progressed, which has caused an immediate concern to the
private sector regarding the capability of combat veterans with these
diagnoses in a civilian work environment. Currently, these invisible
wounds are being researched/studied to provide employers and the public
more details regarding how these mental disabilities effect veterans'
work habits and ability to be productive in a work and/or family
dynamic. Additionally, due to the fact that employers have a modest
understanding about veterans' benefits, they have serious concerns
regarding health care costs of hiring veterans with PTSD and TBI, along
with other physical disabilities. These invisible wounds have set
tremendous obstacles for veterans who are seeking employment.
Question 5: Should the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) be
completely contracted out?
Response: The American Legion is supportive of making the
Transition Assistance Program (TAP) mandatory; similar to the way the
United States Marine Corps requires their troops to attend the TAP
program. The TAP program is undergoing significant changes that have
not been implemented. The American Legion has been advocating for an
innovative and comprehensive TAP program, conducted by trained and
effective leaders. At this time, The American Legion does not have a
position on whether or not TAP should be contracted out; however, we're
strongly recommending sweeping changes to be made to the TAP program
that benefits servicemembers who are reintegrating into civilian life.
Question 6: The government provides programs to help separating
veteran's transition back into their communities. How long should the
government continue to provide such services after servicemembers
separate from the military?
Response: The American Legion strongly believes that the government
should provide assistance and/or services for these transitioning
servicemembers as long as they require help. The government along with
the private sector should be focused on providing the most proficient
programs that provide education, training, employment and business
opportunities, so veterans can productively move onto their next phase
in life without incurring severe difficulties. It is the obligation of
the government and the servicemember, in partnership with entities such
as The American Legion, to create objectives and strategies which will
significantly assist veterans with their journey to a seamless and
successful transition. This is not a one-topic issue but, as we have
learned, this is a multi-faceted issue which if not properly addressed
can bring about: high unemployment rates, homelessness and other
transitional issues. The American Legion will continue to support and
advocate for effective government programs that enhance the employment
and business opportunities for servicemembers as they transition from
the Armed Forces.
Question 7: Section 203 and Section 4114 of H.R. 2433 direct the
Department of Labor to use funds made available for the State grant
program. Are you concerned that this directive may reduce funds to the
States to provide direct services for veterans?
Response: The American Legion supports conducting the research,
analysis, and reporting required in H.R. 2433 related to the Transition
Assistance Program (Section 203) and credentialing (Section 4114) and
is not concerned that it will take away funds for providing direct
services to veterans. The American Legion recognizes the importance of
funds for direct services to veterans; however, we also recognize the
importance of conducting periodic evaluation and review of existing
programs and identifying new methods of reducing employment barriers
for transitioning servicemembers and veterans. If this type of research
is not conducted, it is difficult to ensure that the existing services
provided meet the needs of today's veterans.
Question 8: If DoD needs to share information With NASWA does your
Organization have any privacy or security concerns?
Response: The American Legion does not have a position or
resolution on this topic, therefore will decline comment.
Question 9: The pilot program, established by H.R. 2433, authorizes
25 percent of State funds to be used by States to enter into grants
with the ten States with the highest unemployment which would
essentially mean a 25 percent reduction in funding for Disabled
Veterans Outreach Program Specialists (DVOPS) and Local Veterans'
Employment Specialists (LVERS). Do you support this reduction to the
States with the worst unemployment and how helpful do you think this
will be?
Response: The American Legion does not support this reduction.
DVOPs and LVERs play an important role in providing direct assistance
to veterans who are disabled and/or other eligible veterans seeking
employment. The American Legion seeks legislation that will transfer
all DVOPs and LVERs from the State Agencies to DoL-VETS for supervision
and oversight in order to ensure that the individuals employed to serve
veterans are not used for other programs.
Question 10: In your testimony you mention that older veterans have
great financial responsibilities and often have families. Do you think
that younger veterans may be in the same position?
Response: Yes. The context was not only to look at the younger
generation who are searching for jobs and who might have education
eligibility or other forms of Federal financing, but to also look at
the population of older veterans who are in a forced transitional
phase. These older veterans might have been working at a job for 10-20
years and have had to reinvent themselves to gain a new job skill or
vocation. Typically an older veteran tends to have a wife, children, a
home and possibly greater debt. Veterans of all ages are serving in the
war, but those who have come before the younger generation are not to
be forgotten when discussing the employment of veterans.
Thank you for your continued commitment to America's veterans and
their families.
Sincerely,
Robert Madden, Assistant Director
National Economic Commission
cc: Chairman Stutzman
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Washington, DC.
July 26, 2011
Tom Tarantino
Senior Legislative Associate
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
777 North Capitol Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Dear Tom:
In reference to our Full Committee legislative hearing on H.R.
2433, H.R. 1941, and H.R. 169 that took place on July 15, 2011, I would
appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the
close of business on September 7, 2011.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for materials for all full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively and single-spaced. In
addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the
answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Debbie Smith by fax your responses to Debbie at 202-225-2034. If you
have any questions, please call 202-225-9756.
Sincerely,
BOB FILNER
Ranking Democratic Member
JL:ds
__________
House Committee on Veterans Affairs, Legislative Hearing on
July 15, 2011, Questions for Tom Tarantino, Senior Legislative
Associate, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, August 15, 2011
Question 1: Section 203 and Section 4114 of H.R. 2433 directs Labor
to use funds made available for the State grant program. Are you
concerned that this directive may reduce funds to the States to provide
direct services for veterans?
Response: IAVA staff could not find section 4114 of H.R. 2433.
However, under section 301 of H.R. 2433, Title 38 section 4114 is
discussed. IAVA does not believe that this provision would have a
substantial negative impact upon services for veterans. IAVA has
championed the cause of translating military training into civilian
credentials and we believe that this provision will prove tremendously
valuable to veterans. If IAVA has any criticism of this provision it is
that it does not cover more military occupational specialties.
Section 203 of H.R. 2433 establishes the conduct of an audit of the
program once every 3 years by a veteran-owned small business. While
IAVA clearly would like all funds dedicated for veterans programs to go
directly to those programs, we also understand the need to collect
metrics on the success and effectiveness of those programs. IAVA has
long championed increased collection of information on veterans and
veterans programs; one of the issues we face in our efforts to help our
Nations heroes is a dearth of useful information. The nature of the
requirements of section 203 appear to be of minimal impact, and IAVA
does not believe that this requirement will have a significant negative
impact upon the execution of the VA's mission or individual programs.
Question 2: The pilot program, established by H.R. 2433, authorizes
25 percent of State funds to enter into grants with the ten States with
the highest unemployment would essentially mean a 25 percent reduction
in funding for Disabled Veterans Outreach Program Specialists (DVOPS)
and Local Veterans' Employment Representatives (LVERs). Do you support
this reduction to the States with the worst unemployment and how
helpful do you think this will be?
Response: The likely effectiveness of this program is beyond the
resources of this office to quantify. While a reduction in funding for
DVOPS and LVERs seems, on the surface, drastic and counterproductive to
the goal of helping veterans gain employment, increasing grants to the
States with the highest rates of unemployment appears, on the surface,
to be a good approach to a worthy goal. The real question is: How
effective is the current system and will the new system be more
effective? IAVA supports any measure that results in a more efficient
and effective system that quickly delivers fair and accurate benefits
to veterans. However, IAVA does not support attempts to reduce the VA's
ability to effectively deliver fair and accurate benefits to veterans.
Question 3: Should a State ever lose its funding for its State
grant program that provides direct services for veterans?
Response: If the program is ineffective and wasteful, then ``Yes.''
IAVA's primary concern is the quick and effective delivery of fair and
accurate benefits that help veterans. If programs are effective and
helping veterans, then they should be continued. IAVA believes that any
program that does not meet that standard should be restructured,
rethought, and potentially cut in favor of better ideas.
Question 4: What more should VA be doing to publicize their
benefits to veterans and families?
Response: Mandatory attendance of the Transition Assistance Program
(TAP) by all separating servicemembers will go a long way towards
informing veterans and their families of what the VA has to offer. IAVA
has long advocated for this measure and we continue to push for
mandatory TAP. President Obama's recently proposed veterans employment
initiative, S. 951 sponsored by Sen. Patty Murray, H.R. 1941 sponsored
by Rep. Bishop and H.R. 2433 sponsored by Rep. Miller show that there
is bipartisan support for this common sense measure. IAVA supports the
adoption of mandatory TAP attendance for all servicemembers.
Question 5: Currently, what grade would you give VA on their
efforts to inform veterans about their benefits?
Response: While IAVA has long championed improvement within the
administration and delivery of VA programs and services, IAVA believes
that ``grading'' the VA is counterproductive. Higher grades could lead
to complacency, a false sense that all is well and there is no
improvement to be found. Lower grades needlessly fuel outside criticism
and call for shifting spending away from the VA instead of improving
their delivery. In addition, painting the depth and breadth of the VA
programs with a single stroke does not recognize that there are both
exceptional programs and those in need of improvement. IAVA recognizes
that the VA and its employees strive to provide help to our Nation's
heroes but we reserve the right to provide constructive criticism at
the appropriate time in the appropriate forum.
Question 6: Are you concerned that H.R. 2433 excludes veterans that
qualify Chapter 30, 31, 33, and 35 but not veterans eligible for Title
32, Chapters 1606 and 1607?
Response: There are no chapters 1606 or 1607 in Title 32 of the
U.S. Code. There are however, chapters 1606 and 1607 of Title 10 U.S.C.
that deal with educational assistance for members of the Select
Reserve. IAVA does note that not excluding these chapters is
inconsistent, but does not object to their exclusion. Since the House
Veterans Affairs Committee does not have jurisdiction over issues
pertaining to Title 10 U.S.C., I can only speculate that they were left
out to avoid any jurisdictional issues with the legislation.
Question 7: Community college associate degree programs are for an
average of 2 years. Do you have any concerns that the retraining
program is only for 12 months?
Response: The purpose of the bill is to address retraining, not
initial study for an associate, technical, or baccalaureate degree.
Therefore, the period of time to complete retraining should not be as
long because prerequisites will have already been dispensed with.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Washington, DC.
July 26, 2011
Bob Simoneau
Deputy Executive Director
National Association of State Workforce Agencies
444 North Capitol Street, NE, Suite 142
Washington, DC 20001
Dear Bob:
In reference to our Full Committee legislative hearing on H.R.
2433, H.R. 1941, and H.R. 169 that took place on July 15, 2011, I would
appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the
close of business on September 7, 2011.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for materials for all full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively and single-spaced. In
addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the
answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Debbie Smith by fax your responses to Debbie at 202-225-2034. If you
have any questions, please call 202-225-9756.
Sincerely,
BOB FILNER
Ranking Democratic Member
JL:ds
__________
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives,
Post-Hearing Questions for Bob Simoneau, From the Honorable Bob Filner,
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2433, H.R. 1941, and H.R. 169, July 15,
2011
Question 1: How can we help employers understand the qualifications
veterans and servicemembers have to offer?
Answer: With limited resources, State Workforce Agencies (SWA)
attempt to make labor exchange services as efficient as possible. SWAs
and local one-stop career centers work closely with unemployed veterans
to gain a sense of their skills, and they assist them either to apply
directly for available jobs, or if needed, they offer intensive
services up to and including training.
The SWAs have used web services, such as the National Labor
Exchange (NLX) and the MOS crosswalk page at O*Net, where employers and
veterans can relate the Military Occupational Classification with the
private sector Occupations. Today much of the interaction between job
seekers and employers occur thru Web sites.
The Transition Assistance Program (TAP) can help veterans learn how
to communicate with employers in ways employers understand, and make
connections for potential employment. Requiring all of the armed
services to mandate transitioning members to attend TAP would help
prepare them for connecting with employers.
Promotional efforts to demonstrate the value of hiring a veteran
and to better define the qualifications of a veteran or servicemember
need to be increased. Congressional support for such efforts would help
to maintain this as a priority.
The employer tool kit developed by the U.S. Department of Labor
Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) is an excellent start,
but may need to be marketed better to employers. The link is in a
prominent spot on the VETS Web site, but could be identified better
with an icon or something to attract attention. VETS could promote the
tool kit more directly with employer groups and associations. The tool
kit is available at: (http://www.americasheroesatwork.gov/forEmployers/
HiringToolkit). Many other groups and agencies also have developed
employer tool kits.
Question 2: Do you think that employers are looking for a labor
pool of applicants with marketable and transferable job skill that
veteran's lack?
Question 2(a): What types of jobs are most veterans likely to
qualify for and do those jobs exist or are there enough of those jobs?
Answer: To answer this question with any specificity we would need
to discuss the skills of specific categories of veterans. For example,
if we look at the education levels of veterans, we find veterans have a
wide range of educational backgrounds. In the four categories shown in
Appendix A, veterans have an education distribution equal to or better
than the general population.
We do not have data on unsuccessful matches between the veteran job
seeker and available jobs; real-time labor market information and
analysis may help, but the ability to do this is just now emerging
among States.
We have information on veterans who get training under the
Workforce Investment Act. The data show more than 28,000 veterans
received services in program year 2010, including training, to help
them gain skills needed to obtain new jobs.
Question 3: What grade would you give employers for understanding
the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)?
Question 3(a): What grade would you give to employers for USERRA
compliance?
Answer: NASWA and the SWAs are not involved directly with USERRA.
VETS, especially the State Directors for Veterans Employment and
Training (DVETs), have the primary responsibility for the USERRA
program. Also, representatives for the Employer Support for the Guard
and Reserve (ESGR) assist in processing initial USERRA questions and
complaints. Workforce system staff members, especially DVOPs and LVERs,
are knowledgeable about the basic criteria under USERRA, and refer
veterans to the DVET in their State, or to ESGR representatives.
NASWA does not have specific data on program understanding by
employers; anecdotal evidence would indicate a good deal of
understanding. The Society of Human Resource Managers (SHRM) conducted
a survey in 2010; the results are shown in Appendix B.
Although the SHRM survey is based on a relatively small sample of
employers, it demonstrates a need to improve education of employers
about their responsibilities under USERRA. There is heavy employer
involvement in membership in DirectEmployers, which partners with NASWA
to run the National Labor Exchange and VetCentral.
There is evidence from VETS that the number of official complaints
filed against employers has remained relatively constant for the last 5
years, which may indicate at least there is not a growing problem. In
2010, there were 1,438 new USERRA cases, plus 244 carry over cases.
This compares with the following caseloads:
2005--1,252 cases
2006--1,434 cases
2007--1,365 cases
2008--1,426 cases
2009--1,431 cases
According to VETS, approximately one third of the meritorious cases
each year are resolved, one third of the cases are not supported by
evidence, and one third of the cases are withdrawn or were not eligible
under USERRA.
Appendix A
Educational Attainment by Veteran Status
Percent distribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some college
Less than a High school or associate College
Veteran status high school graduate, no degree graduate
diploma college
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonveterans 14.3 30.8 27.6 27.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans 7.4 32.7 32.8 27.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf War-era II 1.5 29.2 45.9 23.4
veterans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf War-era I 1.5 28.0 41.4 29.1
veterans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WWII, Korean War 10.2 32.3 28.9 28.6
and Vietnam-era
veterans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, annual
averages 2009, at: www.bls.gov/spotlight/2010/veterans.
Appendix B
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8453A.001
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Washington, DC.
July 26, 2011
Ryan M. Gallucci
Deputy Director, National Legislative Service
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
200 Maryland Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Dear Ryan:
In reference to our Full Committee legislative hearing on H.R.
2433, H.R. 1941, and H.R. 169 that took place on July 15, 2011, I would
appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the
close of business on September 7, 2011.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for materials for all full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively and single-spaced. In
addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the
answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Debbie Smith by fax your responses to Debbie at 202-225-2034. If you
have any questions, please call 202-225-9756.
Sincerely,
BOB FILNER
Ranking Democratic Member
JL:ds
__________
STATEMENT OF RYAN M. GALLUCCI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS
OF THE UNITED STATES, RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED
BY RANKING MEMBER FILNER, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH RESPECT TO SUBMITTED
SEPTEMBER 7, 2011, H.R. 169, H.R. 1941, H.R. 2433
Question 1: You recommend replacing Section 9 of H.R. 2433 with
private sector initiatives. Can you give us a brief summary of these
private sector initiatives?
Response: Several initiatives that the VFW has been following
closely include the Military Pipeline, Helmets to Hardhats and the
Teamsters' initiatives on credentialing health care professionals and
commercial drivers. Military Pipeline is an independent program,
currently being tested at Ft. Bragg, which allows servicemembers and
veterans to correlate their military job skills to potential civilian
career fields. Using mathematical algorithms, the proprietary software
also allows veterans to learn of credentialing gaps for career fields
they may wish to pursue. The program's developers are also looking for
ways to responsibly steer servicemembers and veterans down viable
career paths, once credentialing gaps have been established. Helmets to
Hardhats is another program which seeks to streamline the process
through which servicemembers can quickly transition from military
service into construction-related jobs. Though Helmets to Hardhats is
operated as an online opt-in program for veterans interested in
construction-specific careers, the portal has an established network of
regional outreach coordinators to assist veterans in pursuing union and
non-union construction careers, as well as apprenticeships. Finally,
the Teamsters currently operate two separate pilot programs designed to
close credentialing gaps for two of the military's most highly trained,
yet underemployed MOSs, health care professionals and truck drivers.
The Teamsters are currently working in the State of Illinois to close
credentialing gaps for servicemembers trained in these fields and
looking to pursue these kinds of careers in the civilian job market.
These four initiatives only scratch the surface, as countless others
are underway across the country. The VFW believes that credentialing
gaps have already been thoroughly identified through private sector
initiatives, and rather than funneling more taxpayer money into
additional studies of the phenomenon, the interests of veterans would
be better served by reviewing private sector programs and investing in
infrastructure that is already working to fix the credentialing gap.
Question 2: Is VFW supportive of taking money from one group of
veterans to pay benefits for another group of veterans?
Response: The VFW does not support taking money from one group of
veterans to pay for benefits for another group of veterans. However,
the VFW respectfully disagrees with the premise that failing to lower
interest rates on VA home loans is tantamount to increasing fees or
lowering benefits for a certain group of veterans. The VA home loan
benefit remains one of the best veterans' benefits available, and
continues to offer the best rates in the housing market exclusively for
veterans. Since the law was passed, authorizing a rate reduction, the
needs of American veterans have shifted drastically, no longer making
such a rate reduction a viable course of action.
Question 3: You state that another study could cause setbacks on
claims already made. Is there such a thing as too many audits and
studies?
Response: The VFW believes that too much time is wasted on
government studies when need has already been identified. H.R. 1941
proposes another study on closing civilian credentialing gaps,
requiring coordination between DoD, VA, and DoL. The VFW believes that
such studies are duplicative and would waste time, while veterans
continue to remain unemployed. The VFW would support the aforementioned
private sector initiatives in lieu of more studies. However, the VFW
does support proper auditing measures with regard to veterans
employment programs. For example, we fully support proper auditing of
TAP program outcomes, as included in both H.R. 1941 and H.R. 2433, and
auditing of the pilot program to use DVOP and LVER funds for individual
training.
Question 4: You state that if veterans take advantage of a Federal
program and remain unemployed, then the program failed. If a veteran
gets a college degree and remains unemployed like many of his or her
civilian counterparts is that a failure of the program?
Response: The VFW believes that chronic unemployment clearly
demonstrates a failure in academic planning, or a failure to cultivate
the necessary skills to compete in the job market. However, I must
clarify my statement on the extension of certain benefits offered by
H.R. 1941 and H.R. 2433. The VFW believes that the VA is obligated to
extend VocRehab benefits, which are included in H.R. 1941, because the
premise behind VocRehab is that veterans are unemployable and must be
retrained due to service-connected disabilities. The VFW believes that
the extension of Chapter 30-style benefits, which are included in H.R.
2433, would be a critical tool to help veterans reenter the job market,
should they become and/or remain unemployed at the ages of 35-60. For
this particular demographic, careers may have disappeared as the job
market has evolved. Extension of this benefit is not an obligation of
VA, but, rather, a temporary, responsible, stop-gap measure to help
this particular group of veterans find viable careers and stimulate the
economy during difficult economic times.
Question 5: What role should the veteran and the VA play in
determining what type of training is most beneficial for the veteran?
Response: The veteran deserves the opportunity to determine his or
her career path and the opportunity to develop a responsible course-of-
action to succeed in that industry. VA should have the ability to offer
sound advice to veterans on how to make this happen. The VA also has an
obligation to ensure that requisite education and training is conducted
through credible institutions in a timely manner. Over the last few
months, the VFW has learned that vetting processes for institutions
accepting VA education benefits are irresponsibly lax, allowing
predatory institutions of higher learning to take advantage of veterans
eligible for taxpayer-funded benefits. Such institutions should be
ineligible to receive Federal education dollars, and the VA should be
able to offer sound counsel to veterans seeking to utilize their
benefits.
Question 6: You state that veterans with years of relevant work
experience are treated as either entry level or even unskilled once
they enter the civilian workforce. What can be done to remedy this
issue?
Response: The VFW believes that many times this is the result of
military skills not translating well to the civilian job market. The
VFW supports Department of Defense efforts to close credentialing gaps,
ensuring that separating servicemembers are employment-ready once they
leave active duty. The VFW also supports outreach efforts to private
industry to help demonstrate the value of prior service military
employees.
Question 7: Section 203 and Section 4114 of Hr. 2433 directs the
Department of Labor to use funds made available for the State grant
program. Are you concerned that this directive may reduce funds to the
States to provide direct services for veterans?
Response: The VFW believes that this provision in H.R. 2433 gives
leverage to DVOPs and LVERs in the States hardest hit by the economic
downturn to accomplish their mission of employing veterans. The VFW
believes that the 3-year pilot program includes proper safeguards to
ensure that funds are used responsibly when they are set aside for
individual training. The pilot program specifically lays out
eligibility criteria and auditing criteria to prevent fraud. Should
this pilot program come to fruition, VFW would monitor progress closely
and make further recommendations to this Committee on the viability of
expanding the program beyond the original 10 States.
Question 8: If DoD needs to share veteran information with the
National Association of State Workforce Agencies does your organization
have any privacy or security concerns?
Response: The VFW is unclear as to what this question pertains to
with regard to the included legislation, and cannot speak on behalf of
NASWA. However, we believe that DoD could help to remedy the current
veterans' employment crisis by offering home-of-record information to
State employment offices. We believe that this could pose challenges to
DoD with regard to personally identifiable information, but we also
believe that DoD has the capability to ensure that PII beyond home-of-
record could be redacted from any records turned over to State
operators. The VFW believes that for State employment officers to be
able to properly accomplish their mission, they must first know how
many veterans they have been tasked to serve.
Question 9: In your written testimony you mentioned that after
reviewing the OPM report on the 2009 Employment of Veterans in the
Federal Government, the numbers were inconsistent. Do you think that a
direct-hire authority for Federal agencies will help?
Response: The VFW supports direct hiring authority for veterans
transitioning off of active duty. We believe that this would encourage
agencies consistently proven to hire a low percentage of veterans to
tap this group of competent workers. Today, veterans who seek to take
advantage of their 5 point preference must have a DD-214 in hand to
start the often-lengthy Federal hiring process. The prospects are even
worse for service-disabled veterans who must wait for their VA claims
to be adjudicated before starting the hiring process. The resultant lag
time in completing the hiring process can lead to significant financial
hardships, and can result in the Federal agencies losing prime
candidates to leaner private industry employers. If a veteran meets
core competencies, they should be able to simply take off the uniform
on Friday, and put on a suit on Monday, avoiding unnecessary hurdles
and the potential financial hardships that come with the current
Federal hiring system.