[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1911, H.R. 240,
H.R. 1263, H.R. 120, H.R. 2274, H.R. 2301,
H.R. 2302, H.R. 2345, AND H.R. 2329
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 7, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-21
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-457 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BOB FILNER, California, Ranking
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado CORRINE BROWN, Florida
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
BILL FLORES, Texas BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JERRY McNERNEY, California
JEFF DENHAM, California JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan JOHN BARROW, Georgia
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas
Vacancy
Vacancy
Helen W. Tolar, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana, Chairman
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa, Ranking
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
JEFF DENHAM, California
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
July 7, 2011
Page
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1911, H.R. 240, H.R. 1263, H.R. 120,
H.R. 2274, H.R. 2301, H.R. 2302, H.R. 2345, and H.R. 2329...... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairman Marlin A. Stutzman...................................... 1
Prepared statement of Chairman Stutzman...................... 36
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Republican Member.................. 2
Prepared statement of Congressman Braley..................... 36
Hon. Bill Johnson................................................ 3
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under
Secretary for Economic Opportunity, Veterans Benefits
Administration................................................. 28
Prepared statement of Mr. Coy................................ 57
______
American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Susan C.
Aldridge, Ph.D., President, University of Maryland, University
College, Adelphi, MD........................................... 21
Prepared statement of Dr. Aldridge........................... 53
American Legion, Jeff Steele, Assistant Director, National
Legislative Commission......................................... 8
Prepared statement of Mr. Steele............................. 43
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Tom Taratino, Senior
Legislative Associate.......................................... 4
Prepared statement of Mr. Tarantino.......................... 37
National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities,
Arthur F. Kirk, Jr., President, Saint Leo University, Saint
Leo, FL........................................................ 19
Prepared statement of Mr. Kirk............................... 50
Reserve Officers Association of the United States, Major General
David Bockel, USA (Ret.), Executive Director, also on behalf of
Reserve Enlisted Association of the United States.............. 9
Prepared statement General Bockel............................ 46
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Shane Barker,
Senior Legislative Associate, National Legislative Service..... 6
Prepared statement of Mr. Barker............................. 41
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Gold Star Wives of America, Inc., Vivianne Cisneros Wersel,
Au.D., Chair, Government Relations Committee, statement........ 62
Paralyzed Veterans of America, statement......................... 65
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record:
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, to Major General David Bockel, USA
(Ret.), Executive Director, Reserve Officers Association
of the United States, letter dated July 13, 2011, and
General Bockel's responses............................... 67
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, to Arthur F. Kirk, Jr., President,
Saint Leo University, National Association of Independent
College and Universities, letter dated July l3, 2011, and
Dr. Kirk's responses..................................... 68
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, to Susan C. Aldridge, Ph.D.,
President, American Association of State Colleges and
Universities, letter dated July 13, 2011, and response
from Ed Elmendorf, Senior Vice President, Government
Relations and Policy Analysis, American Association of
State Colleges and Universities, letter dated August 18,
2011..................................................... 69
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, to Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under
Secretary for Economic Opportunity, Veterans Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and
VA responses............................................. 72
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1911, H.R. 240,
H.R. 1263, H.R. 120, H.R. 2274, H.R. 2301,
H.R. 2302, H.R. 2345, AND H.R. 2329
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 10:08 a.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Marlin A. Stutzman
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Stutzman, Bilirakis, Johnson,
Denham, Braley, and Walz.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN STUTZMAN
Mr. Stutzman. Good morning and welcome to the Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
We are here to receive testimony on nine bills today,
including bills by Ranking Member Braley and I as well as other
Members. These bills cover a variety of issues ranging from the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) to the U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA)/U.S. Paralympics Program.
As always, we ask witnesses to summarize their statements
and to observe the 5-minute rule.
I introduced H.R. 2301 to reduce the administrative burden
on both the VA and the schools as a means to speed up
processing by cutting down on the number of transactions per
student due to changes in enrollment. The bill would direct the
VA to pay chapter 33 tuition and fees after receiving a bill
from a school reflecting all the changes in enrollment during
the academic period.
After reviewing the testimony, it is obvious that some
institutions may have concerns because of cash flow and other
reasons.
I would point out that veterans make up less than 10
percent of all college students for many schools, but witnesses
have pointed out other problems, some due to State laws and
regulations and technical issues such as needing to update the
schools' information technology (IT) systems and varying
lengths of academic periods.
To that end, the two major stakeholders in this process, VA
and the schools, need to get together and figure out how to
make this work. The schools have a right to expect payment, but
they also have an obligation to their veterans to adjust their
process.
We cannot write a bill that will account for every
variation in how schools operate. On the VA's part, perhaps it
is time for the VA and the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to
adopt a common payment system to make things easier on the
schools.
One thing I can promise you that this will not be the last
time we meet on this particular issue.
I have also introduced H.R. 2302, a bill that would require
the VA to report the estimated cost of conferences and any
other type of meeting that meet certain thresholds. The bill
also would require the VA to report the final cost of those
conferences.
While I have no objection to bringing together VA staff and
others at a conference, I believe a measure of transparency on
the cost is important.
And finally, the VA/U.S. Paralympics Programs appears to be
meeting the goals set in Public Law 110-389. In that law,
former Chairmen Buyer and Filner saw the benefit of using
sports as part of rehabilitating injured servicemembers.
Initial indications are that the program has brought hundreds
of disabled veterans back to adaptive sports and we are seeing
a few of them succeed even at the elite levels.
I am also proud to note that the Turnstone Center for
Adults and Children with Disabilities, located in my district
in Fort Wayne, Indiana, is a participant in the Paralympics
Sports Club's program. Therefore, I believe it is important to
see this program continue and my bill would extend the program
through fiscal year 2018.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on all the
bills. And at this time, I will yield to the Ranking Member,
Mr. Braley.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Stutzman appears on p.
36.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY
Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
About 7 years ago, I had the honor of bringing my mother to
Washington for the dedication of the World War II Memorial.
And I know, Mr. Chairman, you and your family, my family
and I had an opportunity to spend a little bit of the 4th of
July period here.
And I cannot think of a better time to rededicate ourselves
to the work of taking care of America's veterans and having had
the opportunity to be here and celebrate that important
holiday.
I want to thank you for holding this legislative hearing
because the bills included in today's hearing represent some of
the current critical needs veterans have such as foreclosure
protection for servicemembers and spouses, veteran small
business contracting opportunities, housing loans for surviving
spouses of disabled veterans, and the need to extend paralympic
funding.
I am pleased that one of the bills we will be discussing
today is H.R. 1911, the ``Protecting Veterans Home Act,'' a
bill I introduced to help veterans returning from combat who
are facing the foreclosure of their homes.
This legislation would protect veterans from being
foreclosed upon by banks and would give these soldiers time to
get their finances in order after long deployments.
Our veterans often return from combat only to face new
challenges, whether it is an injury or financial crisis caused
by long deployments and time off from their civilian jobs. Our
veterans deserve to know that we are standing up for them.
This bill will give soldiers enough time to get back on
their feet and get their finances in order before being kicked
out of their homes. It is the least we can do for the brave men
and women who serve this country.
Providing veterans the opportunity to succeed means that we
have to generate programs or benefits that will allow them to
establish small businesses, careers, or own a home.
One of the major hurdles veterans face when they become
civilians is that while they are on active duty, their personal
lives and careers are put on hold while their civilian
counterparts do not have those same challenges.
Their service to our country can make it difficult to
obtain a home loan, successfully compete for Federal contracts,
or even put them at risk of losing their home in the event of
financial difficulty.
Today's bills recognize the many challenges that our
veterans face. I look forward to today's discussion on how
these bills will help veterans overcome some of the challenges
they face and welcome any ideas on how to improve them.
I am also anxious to hear from the testimony of our
distinguished witnesses.
And with that, I thank you and yield back.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Braley appears on p.
36.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Braley.
And at this time, I understand, Mr. Johnson, you have an
opening statement and I do not know if Mr. Walz would like to
make one.
Okay. Mr. Johnson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL JOHNSON
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the
time to discuss these important pieces of legislation.
As many of you know, I have introduced H.R. 2329, the
``Ensuring a Response for Servicemembers Act.'' The
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act was created to protect the
legal interests of our troops whose service to our Nation may
interfere with their ability to meet certain financial
obligations. The SCRA temporarily suspends certain judicial
administrative transactions and proceedings during active-duty
military service that would otherwise adversely affect their
legal rights.
Unfortunately, some financial institutions legally bound by
the provisions of the SCRA have been uncooperative and
unresponsive in assisting servicemembers to meet their legal
obligations in a timely manner.
H.R. 2329 will correct this situation by amending the SCRA
to add the requirements for lending institutions in two ways.
They must designate a compliance officer who is responsible
for ensuring that the institution is complying with the
provisions of the SCRA and distributing information to
servicemembers.
And then lending institutions with fiscal earnings of $10
billion or more per year are to maintain a toll-free telephone
number and make that number available on the institution's
primary Internet Web site.
It is not only in our Nation's best interest, but it is our
responsibility to ensure that our troops will be able to
continue to protect and defend our Nation without fear of
financial difficulties stemming from their service.
So I look forward to discussing these today, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Thank you.
And as Mr. Braley mentioned, I think this is a wonderful
opportunity for us to remember our veterans and so I want to
thank each one of you for being here today.
And at this time, I will make the introductions and then we
will yield to you for your testimony.
With us today are Tom Tarantino, thank you for being here,
from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA); Mr.
Shane Barker, thank you as well, from the Veterans of Foreign
Wars (VFW); Mr. Jeff Steele from the American Legion; and also
Major General David Bockel from the Reserve Officers
Association (ROA).
Thank you for being here. And I appreciate each of you and
what you are doing serving our veterans.
So let's begin with Mr. Tarantino, with your testimony and
we will begin with you for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF TOM TARATINO, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE, IRAQ
AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA; SHANE BARKER, SENIOR
LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS
OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES; JEFF STEELE, ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION, AMERICAN LEGION; AND
MAJOR GENERAL DAVID BOCKEL, USA (RET.), EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, ALSO ON
BEHALF OF RESERVE ENLISTED ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES
STATEMENT OF TOM TARANTINO
Mr. Tarantino. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
and Members of the Subcommittee.
On behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's
200,000 member veterans and supporters, I want to thank you for
inviting me to testify at this hearing to share our members'
views on these very important issues.
My name is Tom Tarantino. I am a Senior Legislative
Associate with IAVA and I proudly served 10 years in the United
States 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. Although my uniform is now a
suit and tie, I am proud to work with Congress to ensure that
the entire country has the backs of America's servicemembers
and veterans.
IAVA supports H.R. 210, 240, 1236, 911, 2274, 2329, 2302,
and 2345. And we thank the Committee for their work on these
important bills and urge Congress to swiftly pass them..
For the remainder of my testimony, however, I would like to
address some of our serious concerns with H.R. 2301. It is the
``Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act of 2011.''
IAVA strongly opposes H.R. 2301. And although we believe
this legislation was well intentioned, it could, in its current
form, result in late fees or nonpayment charges to thousands of
student veterans and may cause them to be barred or disenrolled
from their current academic programs.
This bill seeks to move VA educational assistance payments
to the schools to the end of the term. However, that is not how
schools work. This could cause veterans to be disenrolled after
the add/drop period and could potentially delay Basic Allowance
for Housing (BAH) payments throughout the entire term and that
is in the best case.
So without any sort of clause in this law that would
protect veterans from penalties, from fees, and from any other
measures resulting in delayed payments, the unintended
consequence of this bill may be completely and totally
destructive to veterans' academic careers and may act as even a
disincentive for schools to go out and try to enroll veterans.
Additionally, the second part of this bill creates a per
school standard for determining the maximum cost per credit
hour based on full-time enrollment. Gentlemen, this is a
regressive proposal and it violates the whole intent of the
Post-9/11 Educational Improvement Act of 2010. That bill was
meant to correct an error that the VA made when formulating the
regulations for the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
In 2008, those regulations created 50 tuition caps and 50
fee caps that were not connected. It created a system where
veterans could not predict what benefits they got. The benefits
from State to State varied widely.
For example, in California, you could barely, in fact, you
could barely attend public school whereas in Texas or New York,
you could go to any private or graduate school you wanted under
the GI Bill.
Moreover, tuition and fees under a cap system varied 700
percent between 2009 and 2010. They were unpredictable and,
frankly, they were unsustainable, which is why we removed the
tuition and fee caps which was the intent when the GI Bill was
passed in 2008.
This simply adds potentially 30,000 tuition and fee caps,
one per school, and it will disadvantage veterans for not going
to school full time. The way that this works is it creates a
cap based on full-time enrollment on tuition.
The language of the law is a little fuzzy on fees. So under
the best case scenario, when fees are included in that equation
and fees are not rated based on per credit hour, they are
technically--they tend to be very standard whether you take
five, ten, or twelve units.
If a student takes a full load, they will not notice the
difference. They will not care. It will not matter to them.
However, if they take less than a full load, they could be on
the hook for hundreds of dollars because the fee charges do not
reduce with the amount of credit hours you take.
And in my testimony, I have a chart that outlines how this
math works.
I understand where I think Congress was going with this,
but the math does not work out. And that is the best case
scenario. And the worst case scenario, fees are not even
mentioned and the student could be on the hook for the total
cost of fees anyway.
Gentlemen, these calculations just do not work out. And we
support streamlining the GI Bill. That is why we supported the
House version of the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Act,
which was a much more robust bill, but the Committee chose not
to push it forward. And so what we got was an incomplete
version out of the Senate.
And I want to applaud this Committee for its very hard work
in helping fix some of the errors that came out of that Senate
bill. And we are looking forward to passing specifically H.R.
1383 this year.
I want to thank you for your time and your efforts, but,
frankly, H.R. 2301 is fixing something that does not need
fixing. The system that will take place August 1st actually
will work much better administratively and was the original
intent of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
So I thank you for your time and attention and I look
forward to taking any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tarantino appears on p. 37.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Tarantino.
Mr. Barker, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SHANE BARKER
Mr. Barker. Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and
Members of this Subcommittee, on behalf of the 2.1 million
members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
and our auxiliaries, I thank you for this opportunity to
present our views on today's pending legislation.
In the interest of time, I will limit my remarks to a
select number of bills before the Committee.
The VFW is pleased to support H.R. 120, the ``Disabled
Veterans Surviving Spouses Home Loans Act.'' This bill would
extent VA home loan eligibility to surviving spouses of
servicemembers who were disabled when they became deceased.
Regardless of the extent a deceased veteran may have been
disabled, spouses should have access to VA home loan benefits.
Few things could be more important to a surviving spouse than
knowing they can remain in their home after the passing of a
husband or wife and we strongly support this legislation.
The VFW does not support H.R. 240 which requires VA to use
sole-source contracting methods when they can determine a
veteran-owned small business can perform the necessary work. We
are concerned that many such contracts may be routine and
contracting officers may have some familiarity with established
veteran-owed small businesses that would put others at a
disadvantage.
VA should be focusing their energies on processing and
validating applications more quickly and efficiently, which we
believe is the best way to foster more successful veteran-owned
businesses.
The VFW strongly supports H.R. 1263, which would amend the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to protect the spouses of
servicemembers who die on active duty from home foreclosure.
Current law does not provide such protections and we believe
that it should. Giving survivors this added protection is the
right thing to do for those who have lost a loved one in
defense of our country.
The VFW supports H.R. 1911, the ``Protecting Veterans Homes
Act of 2011,'' but believes it should go further to address the
serious challenge of home foreclosure in the military.
Servicemembers and their families need options to
renegotiate the terms of their loan agreement and a lender who
will provide reasonable accommodations, not simply more time
mired in an intractable situation.
We are particularly concerned about those serving in the
Guard and Reserve as many take a pay cut and put their
financial well-being at risk when they deploy.
My written testimony provides concrete suggestions to
achieve this goal. We are adamant that military members should
not lose their homes when they are making good-faith efforts to
make payments on time, but are unable to meet their commitment
solely because they made a choice to defend our freedom and
security.
The VFW supports the intent of H.R. 2301, the
``Streamlining Educational Claims Processing Act of 2011,'' but
it should include specific protections for educational
institutions who would disenroll students or limit their
registration options until they receive payment from VA.
We all know that many veterans have experienced discord
with VA and their college or university because invoices are
not getting paid on time because of complications when they
drop a class or when they deploy, for other reasons including
initial implementation hiccups.
We want to see these and other problems addressed, but we
also urge the Committee to be very cautious in their approach.
In the short time since the Post-9/11 GI Bill was created, it
has been altered significantly and this would be another
significant change.
Veterans are struggling to keep up with these changes when
they should be free to focus on their education. And because
schools use a wide variety of methods to establish the length
of a credit-worthy class, we are also concerned with the
definition of credit this bill would use to prorate payments.
We hope the Committee will address these concerns when
considering changes in an effort to bring equity to the Post-9/
11 GI Bill once and for all.
Finally, the VFW supports H.R. 2329, the ``Ensuring a
Response for Servicemembers Act.'' This bill would address
problems brought to light earlier this year by mandating that
all major lending institutions must employ an SCRA compliance
officer and by requiring the posting of a toll-free number on
the main page of their Web site to connect servicemembers
directly to specially-trained customer service professionals.
It is a common-sense bill that we are pleased to support.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy
to answer any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barker appears on p. 41.]
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Steele, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JEFF STEELE
Mr. Steele. Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity for the American Legion to present its views on
legislation pending before the Committee.
I will limit my remarks to three bills we would like to
highlight for today's hearing.
In 2008, Public Law 110-389 authorized the Department of
Veterans Affairs to award grants to the U.S. Olympic Committee
to plan, manage, and implement an adaptive sports program for
disabled veterans and disabled members of the Armed Services.
In addition, it authorized a monthly subsistence allowance
to qualifying disabled veterans in training or competing for
the Paralympics to help them more easily take part in
competitive sports.
Furthermore, both were authorized during fiscal years 2010
through 2013. H.R. 2345 now before this Committee would extend
these authorizations through 2018.
Since its foundation in 1919, the American Legion has
identified as its most important issue the rehabilitation and
reintegration of the disabled veteran. We are also strong
believers in the physical and psychological benefits that come
from involvement in sports and recreation.
Thus, we support such programs of the U.S. Olympic
Committee to facilitate the rehabilitation and reintegration of
our disabled veterans and servicemembers. We know that sports
and physical activity can have a transformative effect on those
with physical disability and the continued provision of funds
will help to expand and provide greater access to sports
programs for injured veterans and disabled members of the Armed
Forces.
Therefore, the American Legion supports this bill.
H.R. 2329 seeks to encourage compliance with the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by mandating that large lending
institutions subject to the SCRA designate an employee as a
compliance officer who is responsible for ensuring the
institution's compliance with the provisions of the SCRA
relating to the maximum rate of interest on debts incurred
before military service and for distributing information to
servicemembers whose obligations and liabilities are covered by
those provisions.
In addition, it requires these lending institutions to
maintain a toll-free telephone number and make such telephone
number available on the primary interest Web site of the
institution.
Earlier this year when a report that one of America's
largest banks had been overcharging about 4,000 servicemembers
on their home loans and had improperly foreclosed on the homes
of 14 military families, we wholeheartedly joined the chorus of
justifiable outrage about this shocking situation and called
upon all financial institutions that handle mortgage for
military families to review policies and practices to make sure
they are obeying Federal law.
While the bank involved has issued a mea culpa and made
efforts to reassure the men and women of our military their
commitment to make this right, the episode makes it clear that
further strengthening of the SCRA is called for. It is a
national security imperative that servicemembers be able to
fight this Nation's wars without having to worry about their
rights being trampled at home.
The tragic stories of those who have been adversely
affected by the failure of our financial institutions to play
by the rules further highlight the necessity of enhancing the
effectiveness of the legal and regulatory protections for our
servicemembers and veterans.
The American Legion supports this bill.
Finally, H.R. 1263 would amend the SCRA to afford surviving
spouses of servicemembers who die while in the military and
whose death is service-connected the same protections against
sale, foreclosure, and seizure of property currently applicable
to their husbands who while in military service are unable to
meet an obligation on real or personal property.
Military families serve our country with pride, honor, and
quiet dedication. We know that every member of the military
family sacrifices just as much for this country. When one
member of the family goes to war, the whole family goes with
them.
Currently spouses of servicemembers who have died while in
the service have no mortgage protections leaving grieving
families vulnerable to losing their home and being put out on
the street. Extending mortgage foreclosure protection to
surviving spouses will allow these families to explore their
options so they may keep their home.
The American Legion supports this bill.
This completes my statement and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or the Subcommittee might have. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Steele appears on p. 43.]
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Thank you very much.
And, General, thanks for being here and I turn it over to
you for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL DAVID BOCKEL, USA (RET.)
General Bockel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. The Reserve Officers Association thanks you for
the invitation to appear and give testimony.
I am Major General David Bockel, Executive Director of the
Reserve Officers Association. I am also authorized to speak on
behalf of the Reserve Enlisted Association (REA).
Though contingency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are
expected to draw down, currently there are still high levels of
mobilizations and deployments and many outstanding citizen
soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen who
sacrifice much in order to serve. It is important, therefore,
that we do not squander this valuable resource of experience
nor ignore the benefits that they are entitled to because of
their selfless service to their country.
The legislation being discussed today shows support of our
Guard and Reserve members, veterans, and survivors. ROA and REA
support the passages of both H.R. 2274, introduced by
Representation Bilirakis and H.R. 2301, introduced by
Representative Stutzman, both of which would provide better
oversight and streamlining of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Currently many flaws exist in regards to the implementation
of the GI Bill in part caused by a lack of oversight of the
program. Many veterans are left to fall through the cracks of
the Department of Veterans Affairs' system, many waiting months
to receive benefits that they have earned.
Also it is essential to build a more concise system of
payment for educational benefits from the VA under the GI Bill.
ROA and REA appreciate that Congress, the Administrative,
and the U.S. Department of Defense have acknowledged the
importance of family support including spouse support.
ROA and REA urge Congress to pass H.R. 120 introduced by
Representative Virginia Foxx which would provide certain
surviving spouses of veterans with eligibility to both housing
loans and monthly dependency and indemnity compensation from
the VA.
Spouses of deceased veterans must cope with the loss of the
veterans while also getting their finances back in order and
adapting to life without a partner. Furthermore, these spouses
have made sacrifices for the United States and should be
compensated for their losses.
Thus, ROA and REA firmly believe that spouses of deceased
veterans should be able to receive both dependency and
indemnity payments and eligibility for VA's Home Loan Guarantee
Program.
Moreover, ROA and REA support expanding the eligibility of
surviving spouses to receive the survivor benefit plan,
dependency indemnity compensation payments with no offset.
ROA and REA encourage Congress to support H.R. 1263, which
would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide
surviving spouses with certain protections relating to
mortgages and mortgage foreclosures.
Returning veterans often face new challenges upon their
arrival home such as dealing with injury or having to find a
new civilian job. For troops facing these hardships, getting
their finances together to avoid foreclosure, sale, or seizure
of their homes can seem almost impossible. And some of these
protections provided in SCRA are set to expire at the end of
2012.
ROA and REA strongly support the passage of H.R. 1911, the
``Protecting Veterans Homes Act,'' introduced by Representative
Braley, which would permanently extend protections against
foreclosure for servicemembers and would extend this grace
period from 9 months to 12 months.
ROA and REA also request support of H.R. 2329, the
``Ensuring a Response for Servicemembers Act,'' introduced by
Representative Bill Johnson, which would amend SCRA to provide
financial protection for servicemembers.
ROA and REA further recommend amending SCRA to broaden the
types of leases and contracts which the person entering active
duty can terminate without penalty and to forbid exorbitant
overdraft fees and late fees for the deployed servicemembers.
As an aside, ROA Servicemember Law Center provides fee
information regarding SCRA as well as other legal issues
relating to their service to all members of the military, their
families, and counselors.
ROA and REA appreciate that the House passed H.R. 1657 in
May, which revises the enforcement penalties for
misrepresentation of a business concern owned and controlled by
veterans or is a small business concern owned or controlled by
service-disabled veterans.
ROA and REA support initiatives to provide small business
owners with protection for their businesses to be sustained
while on deployment.
As such ROA and REA ask for Congressional support of H.R.
240, which promotes jobs for veterans through the use of sole-
source contracts by the VA in order to meet contracting goals
and preferences of the VA for small business concerns owned by
and controlled by veterans.
ROA and REA also support passage of H.R. 2302 introduced by
Representative Stutzman that would require VA to inform
Congress of conferences sponsored by VA.
ROA and REA believe this is a good way for Congress to stay
informed of the VA's activities and interests, which leads to
greater transparency.
Finally, ROA and REA support passage of H.R. 2345
introduced by Representative Stutzman, which would extend
authorization for the Secretary of VA to pay a monthly
assistance allowance to disabled veterans training for or
competing for the Paralympic team as well as authorizes the
Secretary to provide assistance to the United States
Paralympics.
Once again, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to testify today. Please let me know if you have
any questions.
[The prepared statement of General Bockel appears on p.
46.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, General.
And I will begin the questions. And my first is to Mr.
Tarantino.
You mentioned your opposition to H.R. 2301. If we would add
a hold harmless provision and drop the section on deleting
credit hours, would you change the position on the bill or what
are some of your thoughts regarding that?
Mr. Tarantino. I think the only way we would conceive of
supporting this bill is dropping the credit hours provision and
ensuring that there are Federal protections for students from
incurring any penalties. That would be the only way we would
conceive of it.
But overall, Congressman, I do not think this is necessary.
A lot of the problems that came with processing the GI Bill was
assigning structures to things that are by their own nature not
very structured, things like tuition and fees. Tuition and
fees, we have this loose understanding of what tuition is and
this loose understanding of what fees are, but there is nowhere
in any regulation or law is it defined.
And so that is why when you assign caps or a structure to
this system, you end up getting outliers that affect thousands
of veterans. And that was the biggest flaw with the VA's
initial regulations.
Mr. Stutzman. So you do not think there is any problem
with--I mean, I remember how it was. You change classes. You
maybe drop a class. Your bill is kind of fluctuating there for
some time. Do you think there is a problem of overpayment
anywhere or----
Mr. Tarantino. I mean, when you talk about overpayment and
underpayment, this is actually a much deeper problem and it
even goes so far into that the Veterans Benefits Administration
(VBA) and VA Debt Management do not even have a method of
effectively communicating with each other.
I mean, and that is a whole other hearing that we could
talk about it. I mean, up until a few months ago, they did not
even have a phone number to call a guy from Debt Management and
the guy in VBA . That is how bad it is.
Mr. Stutzman. Yes.
Mr. Tarantino. But, again, that is a separate issue. I
think it is worth further exploring this, but I think it needs
to be thought out and looked at a little bit more because,
again, we are talking about roughly 30, 40,000 institutions
that all have similar but not exactly the same policies and
procedures when it comes to add/drop dates, when it comes to
fiduciary management, when it comes to student accounts.
And so if we are to put a structure on to something that is
not very structured, we run the risk of causing a lot of
outliers. And in the end, it could be and it usually is the
students that pay the price.
So if we are going to explore changing the payments, I
think it is worth discussing this a lot more and actually, and
I hate to use the word, but really study how this is going to
affect it before we do this.
Mr. Stutzman. Yes.
Mr. Tarantino. You know, when we passed the GI Bill, it was
the result of 2 years of discussion and thought and hearings
and sort of working through, you know, ways that we can fix it.
So I think it is worth talking about and I think it is a
discussion that Congress, the veteran, the student veteran
community, the veteran community, and the higher education
community I think actually come together and figure out a
solution that works.
And I think that is a discussion that I know IAVA is
extremely willing to have and I would hazard to say the higher
education community would definitely like to have because I
think ultimately what we want is a system that works for
students and that both the VA and higher education find easy to
administer. I think our goals are the same. So, yes, I think it
is worth having this conversation more.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Tarantino. Thank you.
Mr. Stutzman. And I am going to go ahead and yield to Mr.
Braley.
Mr. Braley. To follow-up on that, Mr. Tarantino, you had
testified that the bill as it currently exists will
disadvantage veterans not going to school full time. Do you
remember that?
Do you have any sense of the magnitude of those veterans as
part of the overall veterans seeking educational assistance
under this program?
Mr. Tarantino. In sheer terms of numbers of veterans that
are not attending the GI Bill full time, you can try asking the
VA and they might get back to you sometime in 2025.
Mr. Braley. But you raised this concern.
Mr. Tarantino. Right.
Mr. Braley. So I am interested in your perspective on how
serious that problem is.
I can tell you I have about 3,000 Iowa National Guard
soldiers who will soon be returning home from Afghanistan. Many
of them hopefully are returning to jobs they had before they
were deployed, but a lot of them in this high level of
unemployment for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, they will
probably be looking at educational options.
And I assume that a lot of them are going to be working and
going to school at the same time. So I am guessing a lot of
them are going to fall into this. I am just interested in your
perspective to support that statement in terms of how big that
problem is.
Mr. Tarantino. Without having hard core numbers, I would
say it is a severe problem. I mean, and this is just anecdotal
evidence from our membership. A significant number are taking
school part time because you have to work.
I had a full ROTC scholarship and I had to work full time
to get through college.
And so, you know, the nature of modern education and
especially the nature of the Guard and the Reserve, you are
going to have to take part time, especially when you are
talking about the disabled student veteran population who may
not be able to physically get through 15, 12 to 15 units.
So in a system where they are going to have to pay out of
pocket because they cannot take a full load, that is a severe,
severe problem.
Mr. Braley. Thank you.
Mr. Barker, you had raised a concern about H.R. 1911 in
that it did not go far enough in terms of giving veterans the
opportunity to try to negotiate lower terms during the period
of a deployment. And so I have a couple questions for you.
You know, obviously we in Congress are dealing with the
aftermath of a recession that was ignited in part because of
home lending practices and because of that, home lenders are
under great scrutiny in order to have credit-worthy loans to
back up their portfolio.
Have you or anybody in the VFW or any other veterans
service organizations (VSOs), are aware or reached out to home
lenders as a group and asked them to be involved in structuring
a solution to this problem that could or could not result in a
legislative response?
Mr. Barker. The short answer is not to my knowledge.
Mr. Braley. And what is your recommendation to us in terms
of what types of options would best serve veterans in allowing
them the ability to renegotiate terms of their loans with
lenders who are in this predicament we find ourselves in?
Mr. Barker. Sure. It is a simple concept, but it would
require us to find a solution. The basic concept is when
people, especially Guard and Reserve, are deploying and they
take a tremendous pay cut, to re-amortize their loans or just
work out prior to deployment, you know, before people go have a
negotiation in place, have an agreement in place that would
reduce payments, you know, perhaps by the amount of income that
they are losing because of their deployment for that time, for
the time of their deployment and perhaps shortly thereafter so
that they do not get behind on their payments, so that there is
no negative credit impact.
The follow-on complications can be serious for many, many
years. Even if a servicemember and their family has to leave
their home, the complications do not end there. They continue
on. So our idea is to give them the option and have willing
participants, i.e. with the lending institutions to temporarily
renegotiate the terms of their loan during the period of
deployment.
Mr. Braley. I am not unsympathetic to the problem. In fact,
I am very sympathetic to the problem. I can also tell you that
the political reality of the world we work in is if you can
bring stakeholders to the table to try to craft a solution
before it gets to the legislative process, you are going to
have a much better opportunity to get consensus on how you
structure that.
I would just encourage all of the VSOs who are interested
in this issue to work with you, reach out outside of the
hearing that we are conducting today. I would be more than
happy to work with you in trying to come up with a reasonable
solution to this problem.
Mr. Barker. We appreciate that wise counsel.
Mr. Braley. Mr. Steele, you had raised the issue about
mortgage foreclosure protection for surviving spouses and we
all know this is a huge issue.
And one of the things that I am interested in in terms of
your recommendations is when you deal with this problem, you
are dealing with the probate courts of 50 separate States who
become involved in the death of any servicemember. You have the
lending practices of the lenders themselves and how you take
that loan with a surviving spouse who is probably a co-signer
of the loan and becomes legally responsible.
So have you and the American Legion thought through how we
can do a better job of helping surviving spouses wrestling with
this in light of this legislation, know where they need to go
to find their way through this maze and get to a result that
works best for them?
Mr. Steele. The short answer would be no, but we appreciate
the question and that can serve as a prompt for giving thought
to that question.
Mr. Braley. Great.
Mr. Steele. So thank you.
Mr. Braley. We would welcome any suggestions you might
have. This is a big, big challenge for mostly widows who are
struggling to cope with a lot of changes in their lives and
anything we can do to remove that burden from their plate would
be greatly appreciated. So I would welcome that insight as
well.
Mr. Steele. Thank you.
Mr. Braley. Major General, I want to just ask you briefly.
You had talked about the fact that there have been a number of
calls received at the Servicemembers Law Center. Eighty percent
of those calls were on Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
Can you just briefly share with us what the main items of
concern were that were coming in on those calls?
General Bockel. We receive approximately 500 calls a month
and these are, you know, the first line of defense for the
Guard and Reserve and their ombudsman. If they cannot find
relief there, we are the only other source they have. And most
of them are USERRA, as we mentioned.
And as to specifics, do they fit in any particular
category, I cannot really tell which ones are which, but
somebody who was denied employment, somebody who was not put
back in a position they would have attained had they stayed. I
cannot tell you how many of those there are.
But we do get a certain number of SCRA calls. And
interestingly, I was discussing with majority counsel earlier a
government agency that deals with credit protection setting up
a separate branch to deal with SCRA issues.
So it has reached a level that the Federal Government
beyond just this law is taking an interest in. Of course, we
will be involved in that as well.
Mr. Braley. If the organization has the capability of
categorizing and quantifying the nature of those calls, that
could be of benefit to us in helping us understand the nature
of the concerns and where the major attention needs to be
focused. We would appreciate receiving that.
General Bockel. I will make sure that we send you a summary
depending if you just want a----
Mr. Braley. Absolutely.
General Bockel [continuing]. Snapshot of a particular month
or a 6-month period or quarter, something like that. I will
gather that information and we will have it back over to you.
[General Bockel subsequently provided the following
information:]
2011 ROA Servicemember's Law Center Stats as of 10/25/11
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January February March April May June July August September October November December Total
Subject ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USERRA 161 180 288 337 295 223 187 296 272 0 0 0 2,239
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Leave Laws 1 0 2 3 0 7 0 1 5 0 0 0 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Leave Laws 3 5 1 5 5 3 0 7 6 0 0 0 35
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCRA 15 24 6 13 15 15 95 3 14 0 0 0 200
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Family Law 5 45 2 1 3 6 2 9 15 0 0 0 88
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel Admin 4 7 8 5 5 12 27 32 29 0 0 0 129
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA Benefits 4 3 5 1 4 5 8 1 2 0 0 0 33
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Voting 85 50 33 74 60 97 95 140 80 0 0 0 714
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans Preference 0 0 2 5 5 2 2 19 3 0 0 0 38
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Justice 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethics Rules 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel Law (Federal) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other 8 6 13 9 19 9 13 13 29 0 0 0 119
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 288 321 361 454 411 380 430 521 455 0 0 0 3,621
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Braley. Thank you.
With that, I will yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Stutzman. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I would like to thank all of you for your
support of H.R. 2329.
Do you believe, and I have heard in your testimony, I think
I know the answer to this, but just want to make sure, do you
believe this legislation will be effective in assisting
servicemembers, veterans, and their families to receive more
effective and responsive assistance from lending institutions
regarding their mortgages?
I know we have heard some horror stories in previous
hearings. Any of you, all of you.
Mr. Tarantino. I will go ahead and start, Congressman.
Yes. One of the biggest problems with the SCRA that we have
seen out in the wild is that nobody knows about the SCRA.
You know, a few weeks ago, I attended a veterans and law
conference at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago and the
biggest complaint from lawyers around the country, especially
law clinics, is that most employers, they just do not know
about the provisions of the SCRA. This is largely because, you
know, prior to 2001, we had a 20-year period where it was
pretty much a peacetime military and these issues just did not
come up as much. Now they do and the business community is way
behind in catching up.
So I think this is a really sensible way to ensure that the
institutions that could potentially hurt veterans the most and
hurt servicemembers the most have a clear and nondescript way
to have access to not just the information but actually the
protection of the SCRA.
So we thank you very much for the legislation.
Mr. Barker. I think we believe it is a clear indication
from Congress that you are taking it seriously, which we very
much appreciate. We want to be a part of that and we do think
it will help.
Mr. Johnson. Good. Any recommendations on anything else
that we can add that would strengthen the bill to make sure
that our servicemembers, veterans, and their families are
protected where they engage with the lending institutions?
Mr. Barker. I think I would suggest that it may be best to
see how this goes and take it from there, but we think it is a
great start.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. Good.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Braley. Mr. Chairman, may I just follow-up with the
gentleman's comment about awareness and follow-up with Mr.
Tarantino on that?
Mr. Stutzman. Sure.
Mr. Braley. I am a big fan of self-help. I wonder if any
groups or whether you collectively have considered reaching out
to the U.S. Chamber. They had representatives testify in front
of this Subcommittee about the possibility of doing some public
service announcements (PSAs) on the specific issues that you
have identified, Mr. Tarantino, that were raised at this
conference on how employers are lacking basic information about
the law and how it functions. But they certainly have a lot of
resources and those type of PSAs should not be that expensive
to put together, but I can tell you I have never seen any type,
a similar type of a PSA run. And with the high volume of
returning unemployed veterans, I think it would be something
worth exploring.
Mr. Tarantino. I mean, I know that the Chamber has been
incredibly proactive in helping veterans not just with
employment but also with information. That had not occurred to
me. I think that is actually an excellent idea. And, I mean,
that is definitely something we can look into.
And, I mean, the Chamber has been one of the best partners
in the last 2 years in helping veterans with employment issues.
And so it is something that I think would be worth further
discussion.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Thank you to each of you for being
here. That completes our first panel discussion. And I thank
you again for your testimony and for your participation.
Our second panel is comprised of Dr. Susan Aldridge,
President of University of Maryland's University College, who
is here representing the American Association of State Colleges
and Universities (AASCU), and also Mr. Arthur Kirk, Jr., the
President of Saint Leo University, who is here representing the
National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities
(NAICU), and welcome them to the table.
Thank you to both of you for being here today. And, Mr.
Kirk, we will start with you for 5 minutes to hear your
testimony.
STATEMENTS OF ARTHUR F. KIRK, JR., PRESIDENT, SAINT LEO
UNIVERSITY, SAINT LEO, FL, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
INDEPENDENT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES; AND SUSAN C. ALDRIDGE,
PH.D., PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,
ADELPHI, MD, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
STATEMENT OF ARTHUR F. KIRK, JR.
Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member
Braley, and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate having
the opportunity to appear today to discuss pending legislation
dealing with the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
I am, as you heard, Art Kirk, President of Saint Leo
University.
Saint Leo University is an independent Catholic university
founded in 1889. It offers over 40 undergraduate and graduate
degree programs on its residential campus in Florida and to
adult students on 16 military bases in six States, to students
in all States and overseas through our Center for Online
Learning, and on ten Florida community college campuses.
Saint Leo University enrolled 4,743 veterans during the
past academic year, 2,790 or 59 percent of whom were chapter 33
or Post-9/11 veterans. The University awarded 678 associate,
bachelor, and graduate degrees to our veterans. The University
also educated 5,026 active-duty military and Reservists during
the course of this last academic year. All tolled, this equals
37 percent of the students who took at least one course with us
during the year.
I represent today my University, one of the leaders in
educating our veterans and active-duty military, but I also
represent the member institutions of the National Association
of Independent Colleges and Universities, an organization that
represents the diversity of private, nonprofit higher education
in the United States.
The bill that I will address today is H.R. 2301, which
would change the reimbursement procedures for veterans and
colleges and universities.
This bill would reduce the need for the Department of
Veterans Affairs to make adjustments to their payments for
veterans. However, it would also clearly increase the need for
adjustments that would have to be made at the school level for
other financial aid for veterans, particularly title 4 student
financial aid.
Program participation would become much more complicated
both for the veteran students and for schools. Issues related
to billing and to the assignment of responsibility for payment
will be less clear. The management information systems in most
schools will require reprogramming, but the more likely
solution will be more manual adjustments.
A particular concern is the impact this change would have
on small colleges and the veterans who choose to attend them.
While I would be quite pleased if every veteran looking for a
college were to choose Saint Leo, I also deeply believe in the
goal of the GI Bill to give veterans the widest choice possible
of educational options.
Over half of our Nation's private, nonprofit colleges have
fewer than 5,000 students and a quarter have fewer than 2,000.
Many veterans choose to attend these institutions. While they
serve only a fraction of the veterans that we do at Saint Leo,
these schools will struggle with more new procedures and
consequent cash flow problems.
The typical semester is 15 weeks. This bill would move
payment from the beginning of the semester when most students'
accounts are collected to 30 days after the semester ends. That
is 19 weeks in which to wait for payment. The school will, of
course, have had to pay all of their faculty and staff and
other bills during that time.
The problem will not necessarily be limited to small
schools. The medium endowment of private, not-for-profit
colleges is about $18 million. Indeed, while Saint Leo was not
small 14 years ago, we found our cash flow was tight year round
at that time. Delayed payment would have been a hardship for
us. Thankfully we would now have the cash reserves to handle
this.
Another concern for many small colleges would be coping
with changing procedures. Among other things, these changes
would involve things such as manually voiding late payment fees
and future registration blocks, which are automatically set
when a student's bill is not paid.
Saint Leo has several experts to handle the many different
services and administrative procedures for veterans. We also
have personnel who train other staff in these procedures. Small
colleges or colleges with relatively few numbers of veterans
will not have these expert resources.
At Saint Leo University, we are already implementing a
system we believe will resolve the problems this bill seeks to
address. We are implementing a two-step veteran certification
process.
Our veteran certifying officers will enter the veteran as a
student, but will certify zero tuition and fees in VAOnce, the
VA GI Bill database system, at the semester's start. This
allows the veterans to receive their housing and living
stipend.
After the period for adding and dropping the course ends,
we will then reenter in VAOnce and add the tuition and fee
charges for all the courses in which the veteran is actually
enrolled.
In summary, there are some pluses to H.R. 2301. Student
accounts do stabilize after add/drop deadlines. So if passed,
the bill would provide a truer picture in most cases.
The VA would pay after the term, so debt collection letters
to the students or the institutions would decline
significantly. Every one of those letters must be researched.
However, on the downside, cash flow to institutions and
veterans would be problematic for many. More title 4 aid
adjustments for veterans' accounts are likely to be needed. It
will be hard to pay title 4 credit balances to students since
they will not have a credit on their account from the VA.
Veterans would face difficulties registering in many colleges
without payment in advance or in places like Saint Leo without
the bill settled for the previous term before the next term
begins.
Many colleges and university information systems will not
be able to accommodate these changes without at least some
reprogramming.
Greater confusion about who owes what, the veteran, the VA,
or title 4 will ensue. Schools will not know what VA will pay
or what to bill the veteran. Such confusion increases the
barriers to successful completion for our vets.
We believe that the problems that H.R. 2301 is intended to
solve would be better addressed if greater efforts were made to
work within the framework the institutions now use to deliver
financial aid to their students.
We believe, for example, that Saint Leo's approach will
have no adverse effects on the veterans and will reduce the
need for billing adjustments by the VA. An approach like ours
or others that may be devised by other colleges would offer a
better solution.
Saint Leo, NAICU, and many others in the higher education
community stand ready to assist the Subcommittee in identifying
ways to serve our veterans effectively and efficiently.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kirk appears on p. 50.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Kirk.
And, Dr. Aldridge, thank you for being here. Five minutes
for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN C. ALDRIDGE, PH.D.
Dr. Aldridge. Thank you, Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member
Braley, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Susan C. Aldridge and I am the President of the
University of Maryland, University College. And today I
represent and present the perspective of the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities or AASCU.
The University of Maryland, University College has a 64-
year history of serving the military and veterans both
stateside and overseas. Of our 94,000 students, we serve 50,000
active-duty servicemembers and veterans. Even today as I speak,
we are on the ground in Afghanistan and in Iraq delivering
face-to-face courses to active-duty servicemembers.
In summary, AASCU's written statement regarding H.R. 2301
points out that there is a need to streamline the claims
process for the payment of VA education benefits. However, the
bill as introduced, while well-intended, has the potential to
harm rather than benefit student veterans.
I will now bring your attention to three areas of concern
identified by AASCU.
First, a delay in payment up to 30 days after the end of
the quarter, semester, or term is unprecedented and in many
cases will prohibit student veterans from enrolling in
subsequent courses until payment has been made by the VA. This
puts student veterans at a significant disadvantage in
comparison to their civilian contemporaries and will
unnecessarily delay their time to degree.
With our younger veterans facing high rates of
unemployment, we cannot afford to impede their academic
progress.
Second, if H.R. 2301 as introduced is made law,
institutions, particularly public institutions, may be faced
with unpalatable prospects of requiring student veterans to pay
out of pocket until funding is received from the VA.
The increasing budget cuts faced by public institutions do
not provide for a reasonable expectation that tuition and fees
can be deferred past the end of the term. Out-of-pocket costs
will be prohibitive for an unknown but surely high number of
veterans who cannot afford to pay these fees up front.
Third, soon after the passage of the Post-9/11 GI Bill,
institutions brought on additional staff and invested in new
technologies to meet the demands of direct payments by the VA
to the institutions. Given the increasing regulatory demands on
institutions of higher education, the prospect of having to
make further investments is daunting and may not be a feasible
option for many of the State colleges and universities that are
members of AASCU.
AASCU member institutions have proudly answered the call
since the passage of the original GI Bill. We understand and
have responded to the challenges faced by student veterans and
take great pride in having them in our classrooms. Their
success is of great importance to the future of this great
country and we owe all that we have to offer to them.
Therefore, we ask the Committee to reconsider this
legislation. At a minimum, we ask that time be taken to work
with organizations such as Partnership for Veterans Education
to give thoughtful deliberation to the impact that this bill
would have on the timely and affordable attainment of a college
degree for those who have so bravely served and unselfishly
served in defense of our Nation and its citizens.
Thank you very much for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Aldridge appears on p. 53.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you for being here.
And I will start the questioning. To either one of you,
would you agree that the vast majority of changes in enrollment
that trigger a transaction with VA happen during the add/drop
period and, if so, rather than delay payment until the end of
the semester, what if the bill directed the VA to pay after the
drop/add period?
Mr. Kirk. One, we think that the vast majority of changes
in a student's schedule and, hence, charges would occur during
that add/drop period and that that would be a positive step and
I think reduce significantly the charges back and forth.
Dr. Aldridge. Certainly the students' records will be
cleaner at that point in time. There are some institutions that
are members of AASCU that have 8-week terms, so the time frame
is very tight in terms of that 30-day window.
So depending upon when drop/add occurs, we are still
dealing with a fairly tight window if the State requirements
for payment require that the students have their payments paid
in full prior to registering for the next term.
So I think that is at least a viable option to consider,
but we would need to go back and talk to our members about
that, particularly with those institutions that have shorter
length terms.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. The number of paperwork transactions
between the VA and the schools contributes to the high level of
frustration with the Post-9/11 GI Bill by all parties. Your
organizations obviously do not like H.R. 2301.
So how would you suggest we fix the problem and are your
members willing to continue the current process?
Mr. Kirk. I can certainly speak for my institution and I
think the vast majority, if not all the members of the
Independent Colleges and Universities, that we will continue
with the current process and work diligently with whatever
process is required of us.
Again, we have devised a solution in terms of not billing
the VA until after add/drop. That goes into effect in our 8-
week term that begins on August 1st. We think it is going to
significantly reduce the number of transactions.
It does put an added burden on us because now for every
veteran, we are making two entries into the system, but I think
all of our schools, public and private, are absolutely
committed to serving our veterans as best we can.
Mr. Stutzman. That is your school has chosen to wait to
bill until after the drop/add date?
Mr. Kirk. Yes. Because, you know, the issues that the VA is
facing at the end of the term also impact the institutions.
Every one of those debt letters and transactions has to be
researched back and forth. So we are trying to ameliorate the
problem by implementing this ourselves and are hoping it is
going to be a significant improvement.
Mr. Stutzman. Do you know if any other schools have chosen
to make the same decision that you have?
Mr. Kirk. I do not. I would not be surprised that a number
of other schools have because our veteran certifying officers
are talking through list serves and that kind of thing. And we
all recognize there is a problem here.
Dr. Aldridge. I concur with my colleague, Mr. Kirk. I think
the institutions are absolutely committed to these veteran
students and want to do whatever they can to both ameliorate
some of the paperwork issues but keep these students in school.
Many of the institutions have tackled the administrative
burden with a variety of different creative solutions, which is
one of the reasons that I think it will be best for us to sit
down and look at some of the creative solutions that
institutions have come up with to alleviate the burden and
simultaneously not harm the student or prevent them from
continuing their education.
At our institution, we allow students to register for the
second term and do not prevent them from continuing until the
outstanding balance is still outstanding after the second term.
We have shorter terms, however, than some institutions. And so
institutions that have a 15-week term could not do that most
likely.
So I would really encourage an ongoing discussion about
this because I think there are some creative ideas that are out
there that might both address the issue that you are trying to
address through this legislation and also continue to protect
the student and their ongoing education.
Mr. Stutzman. If your semester is shorter, is your add/drop
date, does that come earlier----
Dr. Aldridge. Yes.
Mr. Stutzman [continuing]. In the semester----
Mr. Kirk. Yes.
Dr. Aldridge. Yes. That's right.
Mr. Stutzman [continuing]. Than it would in our semester?
Okay. Thank you.
I will yield to Mr. Braley.
Mr. Braley. Well, let me thank both of you for the
extraordinary efforts both of your institutions are making to
educate our Nation's veterans.
Mr. Kirk, let me start with you. You stated that cash flow
would be a problem for many institutions.
Do you have any sense of how much money we are talking
about would be impacted at an average institution?
Mr. Kirk. It would be sheer speculation. But for many of
our small colleges with 1,000, 1,200, 2,000 students, they
might have 40 or so veterans. And those colleges are most
likely to face cash flow issues year round. They are small. As
I indicated, average endowment $18 million. Not a lot of
reserves there, so it could definitely have an impact on some
institutions.
Mr. Braley. You also stated that it would be better to work
within the existing framework that institutions now use to
deliver financial aid to students.
Are you stating that the VA should use the Department of
Education's system instead of their own?
Mr. Kirk. No. I think we all understand that the VA has
made a considerable investment, but I think bringing the
Department of Education title 4 financial aid folks into the
conversation because it will have impact on the veterans' title
4 financial aid, which they are eligible for, so that we are
all at the table and we do not have unintended consequences of
solving a problem here but creating a bigger one over there
because the veteran will be in the middle.
Mr. Braley. What is it that is keeping everybody from being
at the same table now?
Mr. Kirk. I cannot answer that question, sir. I certainly
volunteer my services and the services of my experts on campus
to participate in that conversation. And I know that the
National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities
would be happy to help put that conversation together.
[Mr. Kirk subsequently provided the following information:]
We are currently processing our first semester/term dealing with
the net payer issues, which I believe is what I was referring to.
Title IV aid is excluded from the net payer issue so VA students
will have their tuition paid by the VA plus receive their Title IV Aid.
The problem we are seeing is state aid such as FRAG and Bright Futures.
These students cannot receive both and were caught off guard by that.
It may not be that they were not informed of the changes by the VA, but
they probably just did not understand the impact. We have weekly team
meetings with our veterans folks from the registrars area, our centers,
student accounts and financial aid staff to develop methods of
identifying and reporting students with financial aid so the Veteran
Certification Officers will know how much to certify with the VA.
The other big problem we are experiencing is with the payments
coming from the VA. It is taking hours of staff time to match payments
up to students. Amounts don't match and payments are coming from
different regional processing offices and even being deposited to the
wrong back accounts. We do hope to see a reduction over time now that
we are not certifying until after drop/add.
Mr. Braley. Dr. Aldridge, how would the VA benefit from
adapting the Department of Education's common origination and
disbursement system in your opinion?
Dr. Aldridge. I do not know the specific details of how the
two systems work together, but I certainly would be willing to
have my staff who work on both of those processes, work with
you. Because we have so many students, I would be happy to have
them work with the staff to address whatever the issues are
that you deem appropriate. And I know that the AASCU staff and
other institutions would meet with you as well.
Mr. Braley. If you would be willing to check on that and
provide us any feedback that you get from them, we would
appreciate that.
Dr. Aldridge. I will.
[The AASCU subsequently provided the information in the
answer to Question #1 of the Post-Hearing Questions and
Responses for the Record, which appear on p. 70.]
Mr. Braley. Based upon your experience and talking to your
peers around the country who deal with these challenges, is it
your opinion that schools are unwilling to work with veterans
and the Veterans Administration to accept payment in arrears?
Dr. Aldridge. No. I think there are difficulties at the
institutions right now. Many State institutions have lost 20,
30, 40 percent of their State allocations for funding because
of the State budget cuts.
So many of these institutions have significant financial
problems, not just capital infrastructure issues, but the
general public does not want to pay more for an education, and
simultaneously the appropriations from the States have
decreased significantly. I think at this critical point in
time, cash flow is an issue for that reason.
These institutions appreciate having the veteran students
on their campuses. Most of these campuses have added additional
staff, have changed processes, have changed mechanisms in their
IT systems in order to accommodate the new requirements, and
have added new services and support systems, have worked with
Wal-Mart and others who have offered grants to help them with
special projects on their campuses to support these students.
So I think there has been a genuine committed effort to
support these warriors, particularly these individuals who are
coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, who need much more
support than students that we have seen in the past. And I
think I am seeing a renewed commitment on the part of the
campuses to do everything they can.
Mr. Kirk. I hesitate to speak for public institutions, but
my understanding in the State of Florida is the Florida public
institutions are prohibited from carrying balances for
students. So----
Mr. Braley. By State law?
Mr. Kirk. I do not know whether it is law or policy.
Dr. Aldridge. Yeah.
Mr. Kirk. I cannot say, but I know that they are
prohibited.
Dr. Aldridge. Yes.
Mr. Kirk. So the institution itself does not have the
option.
Dr. Aldridge. Allow me to address that. It is not a State
law, but there are different governing councils in each of the
different States. Many of the governing boards for universities
do not allow them to carry debt as a State institution. And so
they have very severe restrictions in terms of how long they
can carry a student debt.
So that is our biggest concern in each of these States.
Many of them are required, we are required, for example, by the
State of Maryland to send students to collections within a
specific period of time.
So the students will not be allowed to register if that
payment has not been made unless they pay out of pocket. And
most of these students are not able to pay out of pocket. That
is our greatest concern.
We can probably work through many of the other logistics
that need to be worked through, but there are some cumbersome
requirements State by State that really prevent the
institutions from having bad debt from individuals that have
not paid.
Mr. Braley. Well, given the extensive involvement that the
University of Maryland has with veteran students, if the
university were required to carry all of those veterans' unpaid
balances, do you have any sense of how much money that would
be?
Dr. Aldridge. We have not been able to calculate that, but
I assure you we are working on that.
Mr. Braley. Okay.
Dr. Aldridge. It would not be insignificant.
Mr. Braley. If you are able to quantify that in some way
and share that with the Committee, that would be much
appreciated.
And I will yield back at this time.
Dr. Aldridge. We will do that.
[The AASCU subsequently provided the information in the
answer to Question #2 of the Post-Hearing Questions and
Responses for the Record, which appear on p. 70.]
Mr. Stutzman. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You mentioned a two-step process at Saint Leo that would be
a better solution than the one that exists currently.
What is that process?
Mr. Kirk. Again, at the point at which the veteran enrolls,
we would enter the VA system, indicate that the veteran had
enrolled, but put that they enrolled in zero credit. The
veteran then would begin to receive their housing and support
checks.
At the end of the add/drop period, we would then enter the
system after they had added or dropped any courses. We would
reenter the system and enter the actual courses that they were
enrolled in after add/drop because there is a lot of movement
among students from the point of registration to the end of the
add/drop period.
This would at least eliminate for the VA having to
reconcile any of the dropped courses or the added courses and
so forth.
Mr. Johnson. In other words, you would get a jumpstart on
the administrative process of getting the veteran enrolled?
Mr. Kirk. And we have to make a one-step process a two-step
process, but it saves, we think, so much time at the end for
everyone on our side as well as the VA that we are very hopeful
it is going to significantly ameliorate the problem for the
vast majority of our veteran students.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. How does the Department of Education pay
title 4 funding? Is there anything we can learn from them to
make the GI Bill process simpler for students and schools and
the VA?
Mr. Kirk. I certainly think so because they have been at it
now for over 50 years and process much larger sums, hundreds of
millions of dollars to every institution. So I am sure there
are things that we can learn.
I would not consider myself an expert in title 4 by any
stretch of the imagination. It is a very involved process that
starts with the financial aid form to determine the amount of
aid for which a student is eligible.
The institution then packages it, Pell Grants, potentially
institutional grants, State grants, and loans based on the
amount the student is eligible for including if they are
getting funds from the VA. We cannot over-award financial aid.
We cannot give them more than that form has indicated that they
are eligible to receive.
Those monies come to the institution. The balances for
tuition and, if appropriate, room and board costs are applied
to the student's bill. The excess for living expenses, books
perhaps, and so forth must be refunded to the student within 5
days.
But if I go any farther, I am going to exceed my ability to
really accurately describe that system. But they will be
involved because many of our veterans also are receiving some
title 4 financial aid and it is part of the process. So having
them at the table will be very helpful.
Mr. Johnson. Got you. Okay. Well, thank you very much.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Stutzman. Any further questions?
Okay. Thank you very much for your testimony and for
answering the questions that we had. It has been very helpful.
And we will move on to the next panel
Mr. Kirk. Thank you.
Dr. Aldridge. Thank you.
Mr. Stutzman. Our third panel is comprised of Mr. Curtis
Coy, the Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity of the
Department of Veterans Affairs. And Mr. Coy is accompanied by
Mr. John Brizzi, Deputy General Counsel for the U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs.
And welcome to both of you. Thank you for being here. And
we will begin with your testimony. Mr. Coy, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. COY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITY, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN BRIZZI, DEPUTY
ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Coy. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Braley,
and Members of the Subcommittee.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today for
the very first time on behalf of the Department of Veterans
Affairs to discuss bills that would affect our housing and
education programs as well as our mission of service to our
Nation's veterans.
I am accompanied today by Mr. John Brizzi from the VA
Office of General Counsel.
Four of the bills you are considering today would affect
the VA Home Loan Program.
H.R. 120, the ``Disabled Veterans Surviving Spouses Home
Loans Act,'' would expand eligibility for VA's Guaranteed Home
Loan Program to surviving spouses of certain totally disabled
veterans who pass away due to nonservice-connected causes. This
law would give a covered veteran the peace of mind that his or
her surviving spouse will be able to receive VA home loan
benefits regardless of the veteran's cause of death.
VA cannot offer a position on this bill at this time,
however, because we have not had the opportunity to determine
the full effect of this bill on the Veterans Benefits Housing
Program fund. VA will provide an estimate of the cost of this
bill at a later date.
[The VA provided the costs for H.R. 120 in the answer to
Question #2 of the Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the
Record, which appear on p. 72.]
Mr. Coy. The other three bills that would affect the VA
Home Loan Program are all proposed amendments to the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.
H.R. 1911, the ``Protecting Veterans Home Act, ``would
extend the period of time for which SCRA mortgage protections
would apply from the current 9 months to 12 months and make
this permanent.
H.R. 1263 would expand SCRA protections to the surviving
spouses of servicemembers whose deaths are service-connected.
Currently those protections apply only to active-duty
servicemembers.
H.R. 2329 would require lending institutions to designate
an SCRA compliance officer and larger institutions maintain a
toll-free telephone hotline.
VA generally supports any measures that will help
servicemembers and veterans preserve their homes, but we will
defer to the Department of Defense on the merits of these
particular bills.
Two of the bills before you affect VA education benefits.
H.R. 2274 would require that VA and the Department of
Defense report on the Post-9/11 GI Bill. VA would be required
to report information about utilization of educational
assistance and expenditures under chapter 33 as well as the
number of credit hours, certificates, degrees, and other
qualifications earned by chapter 33 beneficiaries.
Further, VA would need to make recommendations for
administrative and legislative changes to the delivery of
education benefits.
In general, we concur with the requirement to report
annually on the Post-9/11 GI Bill and we have already notified
schools that we will be requiring this information on the
majority of the items in this bill.
H.R. 2301 proposes a number of changes to the VA Education
Program. First, it would define educational terms of quarter,
semester, or term and full-time pursuit as they are established
by the schools themselves.
VA does not support this portion of the bill as drafted
because it would allow each educational institution to
establish a definition for a quarter, semester, or term.
Allowing educational institutions to establish their own
definitions would add an additional level of complexity to
understanding the program.
Currently VA has standards regarding how many weeks of
training constitute quarters and semesters.
Second, H.R. 2301 would require VA to pay educational
institutions for Post-9/11 GI Bill expenses at the end of the
quarter, semester, or term. Currently we make lump sum payments
to educational institutions upon receipt of the enrollment
certification from the school.
We generally support this section of the bill. We believe
this amendment would minimize the probability of overpayments
of educational assistance under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Requiring VA to hold tuition and fee payments to the end of the
enrollment period would allow educational institutions time to
submit or provide updates or changes. However, holding the
claim open for such a period would by definition increase the
amount of time it takes for the VA to complete the claim.
VA is also concerned about the effective date of the
legislation because schools begin submitting enrollment
certifications as early as the month of June for terms that
begin in August. If VA has already processed enrollment for
terms beginning after 1 August of this year, educational
institutions may have already received those payments.
Therefore, we recommend postponing the effective date of
this provision until August 1, 2012.
VA requests clarifications on Section 4 of H.R. 2301 and we
have requested specific guidance in my written statement. And
we would be happy to work with the Committee to fully and
effectively implement this section of the bill.
[VA failed to provide the costs for H.R. 2274 and H.R.
2301.]
Mr. Coy. I will discuss three other bills that involve VA
programs.
H.R. 2345 would extend VA's authority to assist the United
States Paralympics with adaptive sports programs for disabled
vets and disabled members of the Armed Forces by 5 years. It
would also extend VA's authority to award monthly assistance
allowance to veterans training or competing with the U.S.
Paralympics team by 5 years.
Extending these authorities would allow VA and the U.S.
Paralympics to continue developing their adaptive sports
programming while building stronger relationships with partner
organizations and allowing veterans to continue their
rehabilitation for years to come.
Subject to availability of funding, we fully support these
extensions.
H.R. 240 would require contracting officers to enter
contracts with service-disabled veteran-owned or veteran-owned
small businesses for all VA procurements under $5 million.
VA opposes this legislation because the proposed language
would be too restrictive and take discretion for necessary
business judgments away from VA contracting officers.
Furthermore, in pursuit of this existing authority, VA has
consistently achieved its socioeconomic contracting goals for
service-disabled veteran-owned and veteran-owned small
business. We consider it likely that VA would pay higher prices
over time for contracts awarded under the $5 million threshold.
Finally, H.R. 2302 would require VA to notify Congress in
advance of certain covered conferences by VA that would cost
the Department at least $5,000.
VA opposes this bill because it would impose burdensome
notification and reporting requirements on the Department and
would not add any value to VA's existing conference review
process.
It would also discourage legitimate and beneficial
conference activities including in-person gatherings within VA
with other Federal agencies, VSOs, and veterans' advocates and
businesses encouraged to hire veterans.
The definition of covered conferences captures the majority
of operational meetings in VA's day-to-day business.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks and I
would be pleased to respond to your questions or any from the
other Members of the Subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coy appears on p. 57.]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Coy.
I will begin the questions. What is the percentage of
schools that enroll 100 or fewer veterans? Do you have any
idea?
Mr. Coy. Yes, sir. For Post-9/11 schools, there are about
5,500 schools. Of those, only 15 percent have enrollment of 100
or more veterans. Of all schools, there are about 9,500 schools
that participate in the GI Bill and 92 of those schools have
student veteran enrollment over 1,000.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. So roughly 85 percent of schools enroll
100 or fewer veterans?
Mr. Coy. Fewer than 100, yes, sir.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay.
Mr. Coy. And of those schools, of Post-9/11 GI Bill
schools, those 5,500 schools, only 21 of them have enrollments
over 1,000. And of those 21, about 6 of those 21 are full-up
online schools.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. So not necessarily like a University of
Phoenix or something----
Mr. Coy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stutzman [continuing]. Relative? Okay. Do you think
that any of these colleges or these schools would experience a
serious cash flow problem or a significant increase in
administrative effort if the delayed payment provision did
become law?
Mr. Coy. I have to take a look at what the cash flow is for
those schools. I would point out that we generally pay full
tuition costs for those schools in terms of how much they would
have to float. We would have to look at that and I can
certainly get you that for the record, sir.
[The VA subsequently provided the following information:]
VA does not have information on cash flow problems or other
administrative difficulties related to smaller institutions. Therefore,
VA defers questions pertaining to cash flow problems or administrative
difficulties regarding H.R. 2301 to the educational institutions.
Mr. Stutzman. Do you have any idea what kind of impact H.R.
2301 would have on the number of students who have overpayments
to VA?
Mr. Coy. I can get you the exact amount of students that
are currently in that category. I do not have it in front of
me. I am not thinking it is that many, but I do not have the
number in front of me.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. And then also any idea on what dollar
amount in overpayments?
Mr. Coy. No, sir. I do not have that information in front
of me, but I will be happy to provide that to you in a written
response.
[The VA subsequently provided the following information:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt Summary for VA Education Programs as of September 30, 2011
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Number Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 33 Students 156,652 $160,395,245.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 33 Schools 40,328 $57,355,406.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 30 42,654 $66,873,898.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 1606 12,332 $8,873,858.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 1607 4,350 $5,084,319.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 35 24,823 $31,187,993.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Yes. That would be very, very helpful
if that information would be available.
Why did the VA choose not to adopt the Department of
Education's benefit management system?
Mr. Coy. Their payment process? The short answer, sir, is
that I am not sure and I will look into it. But it is my
understanding that they are two entirely different processes in
the way they award money to students. But I will be happy to
provide that for the record.
Mr. Stutzman. Would there be any potential capability of or
compatibility between the two systems or just----
Mr. Coy. The short answer is I do not know, but I will be
happy to find that out. I do not know much about Department of
Education's payment system but will shortly.
[The VA subsequently provided the following information:]
VA has considered the feasibility of employing a system similar to
the Department of Education's (ED) COD system. In 2008, VA met with ED
for a demonstration of its system. At that time VA was still developing
detailed business requirements but knew we would need a system that
could do the following:
1. Issue payments both to students and schools though Treasury
after approval;
2. Allow VA to tie and track payment information to a specific
Veteran;
3. Allow VA to establish accounts receivable and transfer all debt
information to the VA Debt Management System;
4. Allow VA employees to enter adjustments to beneficiaries; and
5. Maintain detailed accounting information at the beneficiary
level.
After meeting with ED, VA determined that the COD system would not
meet all of our requirements.
On June 30, 2011, representatives from VA and ED met to discuss
their respective programs and to get a better understanding of each
system. From this meeting, VA determined that the systems were
incompatible. Major differences exist in the way the programs are
administered, which preclude VA from adopting ED's COD system.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Regarding the cost of conferences,
further scrutiny of the VA not a bad thing for taxpayers, is
it?
Mr. Coy. I am not sure of the question, sir.
Mr. Stutzman. If we would, as far as the conferences go and
with further scrutiny and transparency of the cost of the
conferences that the VA has, that they would spend on a
conference, I do not believe further scrutiny is a bad thing.
Would the VA hold a different position? Obviously you are
opposed to the bill, and why?
Mr. Coy. I have invited Susan Blauert to come forward and
answer that specific question on the conferences.
Ms. Blauert. I am Susan Blauert. I am Deputy Assistant
General Counsel in the Office of General Counsel.
And what our views are laid out as are really a concern
about the breadth and scope of the bill and the impact that the
covered conferences as defined would have.
I do not think we are opposed to transparency per se. We
just have concerns about the breadth and scope of these
particular requirements.
Mr. Stutzman. Well, how do you think it would discourage
conferences if this bill would pass?
Ms. Blauert. How, I do not----
Mr. Stutzman. I believe in the testimony that the VA
opposes the section and one of the reasons was that it would
discourage conferences. Let me see if I can find that right
off.
Do you have that? Where was that at?
Okay. Opposes it because it would discourage conferences
and has too low of a threshold for reporting the expenditures
of a conference.
I mean, obviously $5,000 is a low threshold, but the
transparency, I believe, is very important. And it seems like
some of the conferences have exceeded what most taxpayers would
believe to be appropriate.
Would you agree with that?
Mr. Brizzi. Mr. Chairman, I will try and address this
matter.
VA certainly has no objection in any way to transparency.
And we believe that we are already transparent as to our
expenditures for conferences.
But what this does is put us in a position where, even if
we are going to conduct a very small conference, we may not
necessarily be able to meet one of your requirements, which is
to provide notice to the Congress 180 days in advance of that.
We may simply be in a shorter time frame on organizing some
meetings that we believe would fall under your criteria as it
presently is drafted primarily, because it is an ``or''
situation versus ``and.'' If any one of the three criteria
would apply, then we would be subject to this advanced
reporting.
We certainly have no problem with reporting. I do not want
you to think that in any way that VA is reluctant to be
providing this information.
Mr. Stutzman. Well, I think I understand why you may feel
that the thresholds may be tying your hands a little bit more
than necessary, but I think the point is that we are trying to
get at, with the fiscal situation that we are in, eliminating
frivolous, wasteful conferences that really appear to be
extravagant in spending.
The information that I have here is that there was a
conference in Scottsdale, Arizona, where the VA paid a
contractor over $99,000 and extended the conference over a
weekend. I mean, that typically does not go on hopefully within
government agencies, but it does not make sense right now at a
time when we are trying to control spending in Washington. And
this is the type of action that we are trying to get at.
Mr. Brizzi. Certainly. I cannot disagree with you. We can
respond to that particular matter for the record if you would
like.
[The VA subsequently provided the following information:]
The VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD) forum held in
Scottsdale, Arizona, from January 25 to February 4, 2011. These
conferences are required as part of the VASRD update, and it is
impossible to complete the update of the VASRD without them. VA
attempts to complete updates for four to six body systems each year,
and the nature of the body systems is such that each body system
requires a completely different group of attendees and medical experts.
VA attempts to hold the conferences in the part of the country closest
to the experts we need for the particular body system we are updating.
This particular conference was not extended over the weekend. It
was always scheduled to last for 2 weeks. This is all part of our
effort to accelerate the VASRD update process and better serve our
Nation's Veterans. We completed two body systems the first week of the
conference and two different body systems the second week. The expert
personnel, doctors, raters, VSOs, and other participants for each of
the weeks were different, so none of the technical staff or experts
were held over the weekend. One group left Friday night, and the next
group arrived on Sunday night. We kept our support staff in place,
because it was cheaper to keep them there than fly them back to DC
Friday night and then back to Arizona on Sunday night. The support
staff worked the entire weekend to complete the documents and finalize
the first two body systems and then set up everything for the second
conference. The entire conference was planned to make the best use of
resources.
Mr. Stutzman. That would be fine.
Mr. Brizzi. Thank you.
Mr. Stutzman. Any further comments?
Okay. I will yield to Mr. Braley.
Mr. Braley. Just a few questions. Mr. Coy, what are the
main differences in how the VA pays for tuition versus how the
Department of Education pays for tuition?
Mr. Coy. The short answer, sir, is that I am not entirely
clear on how Education does their payment system. And I will
certainly find out and provide that to you for the record.
I think Mr. Brizzi can shed some light on how Education
pays its grants.
[The VA subsequently provided the following information:]
Few differences exist in how tuition is paid by the
Departments. Both VA and ED send payment information to
Treasury who will then release the payments. Both VA and ED
have the ability to pay by check or by EFT. ED has more
advanced automated tools that schools can use to reconcile
payments received to accounts.
Mr. Brizzi. It is not so much a matter of us choosing one
particular system, simply because we like our system better.
The statutes are vastly different. The two programs are
different in their organization, in their requirements, and in
some respects in the specific purpose for which they are
provided.
So this is not a new discussion, obviously. This has been
brought up many times before and VA's position has always been,
to my memory, that depending on how we are authorized to
operate under the statute, that is the way we proceed.
Mr. Braley. I understand that these types of rationales are
offered and have been offered for years, but we spend a lot of
time here talking about the concept of interoperability and how
government agencies communicate with one another.
If there is a problem that deals with how you streamline
payment for educational funding that serves a similar purposes
and if the agencies are not talking to each other about how
they could coordinate and streamline those payment systems,
then we are failing to do our job because those statutes can
also be amended. The regs that implement those statutes can be
amended.
If there are better ways to serve veterans and make sure
they are getting payment for educational benefits they are
entitled to, I am willing to take that responsibility on.
Mr. Brizzi. I also agree with that. We certainly do have
relationships with, and communications with, the Department of
Education. I think what I am trying to indicate is that we
would be in some respects trying to fit a square peg into a
round hole if we tried to adopt and follow Education's
procedures.
Mr. Braley. Right. And in my experience, Mr. Brizzi, a lot
of times, those square pegs cannot be fitted into a round hole
because the people who have the knowledge base to solve that
problem much as they solved that problem during the Apollo 13
mission are not talking to each other and oftentimes come to us
requesting a legislative response without a consensus decision
on how we can do it better.
So I guess the message I am sending today is that I welcome
input from people who have talked to people in the Department
of Education about how we on this Committee can help improve
and streamline the payment systems, achieve a common purpose,
and do what is important to get our veterans the educational
assistance they earned.
And with that, I will yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. I think that is all the questions that
we have from the Subcommittee.
I want to thank you for being here and for your answers. If
you could submit the information that we had asked for and were
not able to give an answer that would be helpful and we will
look forward to that.
And as always, we are grateful for all the witnesses who
took time and their effort to present their testimony.
I would like to remind the Subcommittee that we will hold a
markup next week on Thursday, the 14th at 10:00 a.m.
And, finally, I would ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks. Hearing none, so ordered.
And this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Marlin Stutzman,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Good morning. We are here to receive testimony on nine bills,
including bills by Ranking Member Braley and me, as well as other
Members. These bills cover a variety of issues ranging from the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to the VA-U.S. Paralympics program. As
always, we ask witnesses to summarize their statements and to observe
the 5-minute rule.
I introduced H.R. 2301 to reduce the administrative burden on both
the VA and the schools as a means to speed up processing by cutting
down on the number of transactions per student due to changes in
enrollment. The bill would direct VA to pay chapter 33 tuition and fees
after receiving a bill from a school reflecting all changes in
enrollment during the academic period.
The testimony I have reviewed makes it clear, that some
institutions may have concerns because of cash flow and other reasons.
I would point out that veterans make up less than 10 percent of all
college students for many schools. But witnesses have pointed out other
problems, some due to State laws and regulations and technical issues
such as needing to update schools' IT systems and varying lengths of
academic periods.
To that end, the two major stakeholders in this process--VA and the
schools--need to come together and figure out how to make this work.
The schools have a right to expect payment, but they also have an
obligation to their veterans to adjust their processes.
We cannot write a bill that will account for every variation in how
schools operate. On the VA's part, perhaps it is time for VA and the
Department of Education to adopt a common payment system to make things
easier on the schools. One thing I can promise you is that this will
not be the last time we meet on this issue.
I have also introduced H.R. 2302; a bill that would require VA to
report the estimated costs of conferences and any other type of meeting
that meet certain thresholds.
The bill would also require VA to report the final costs of those
conferences. While I have no objection to bringing together VA staff
and others at a conference, I believe a measure of transparency on the
costs is important.
Finally, the VA-U.S. Paralympics program appears to be meeting the
goals set out in Public Law 110-389. In that law, former Chairmen Buyer
and Filner saw the benefit of using sports as part of rehabilitating
injured servicemembers.
Initial indications confirm the program has brought hundreds of
disabled veterans back to adaptive sports and we are seeing a few of
them succeed even at the elite levels. Therefore, I believe it is
important to see this program continue. My bill would extend this
program through FY 2018.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on all the bills
and I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Braley.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking
Democratic Member, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
The bills included in today's hearing represent some of the current
critical needs veterans have such as foreclosure protections for
servicemembers and spouses, veterans small business contracting
opportunities, housing loans for surviving spouses of disabled-
veterans, and the need to extend Paralympics funding.
I am pleased that one of the bills we will be discussing today is
H.R. 1911, the Protecting Veterans' Homes Act, a bill I introduced to
help veterans returning from combat who are facing foreclosure of their
homes. This legislation would protect veterans from being foreclosed
upon by banks and would give these soldiers time to get their finances
in order after long deployments.
Our veterans often return from combat only to face new challenges.
Whether it's an injury or a financial crisis caused by long deployments
and time off from their civilian jobs, our veterans deserve to know
that we're standing up for them. This bill will give our soldiers
enough time to get back on their feet and get their finances in order
before being kicked out of their homes. This is the least we can do for
the brave men and women who serve this country.
Providing veterans the opportunity to succeed means that we must
generate the programs or benefits that will allow them to establish
small businesses, careers, or a home. One of the major hurdles veterans
face when they become civilians is that while they are on active duty
their personal lives and careers are put on hold, while their civilian
counterparts don't have these challenges. Their service to our country
can make it difficult to obtain a home loan, successfully compete for
Federal contracts, or even put them at risk of losing their home in the
event of financial difficulty.
Today's bills recognize the many challenges that our veterans face.
I look forward to today's discussion on how these bills will help
veterans overcome some of the challenges they face and welcome any
ideas on how to improve them.
Prepared Statement of Tom Tarantino, Senior Legislative
Associate, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee, on
behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's 200,000 Member
Veterans and supporters, I thank you for inviting me to testify at this
hearing to share our members' views on these important issues.
My name is Tom Tarantino and I am the Senior Legislative Associate
with IAVA. I proudly served 10 years in the U.S. Army beginning my
career as an enlisted Reservist and leaving service as an Active-Duty
Cavalry Officer. Throughout those 10 years, my single most important
duty was to take care of other soldiers. In the military, they teach us
to have each other's backs. Although my uniform is now a suit and tie,
I am proud to work with this Congress to ensure the entire country has
the backs of America's servicemembers and veterans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name/
Bill # Subject Sponsor Position
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 120 Disabled Rep. Foxx Support
Veterans'
Surviving
Spouse
Home Loans
Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 240 Preferentia Rep. Filner Support
l VA
Contracts
to Veteran
Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1263 Mortgage Rep. Filner Support
Protection
s for
Surviving
Spouses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1911 Protecting Rep. Braley Support
Veterans'
Homes Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2274 Annual Rep. Support
Reports on Bilirakis
the NGIB
to
Congress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2301 Streamlinin Rep. Oppose
g Stutzman
Education
Claims
Processing
Act of
2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2302 Reports to Rep. No Position
Congress Stutzman
on VA
Conferenc
es
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2329 SCRA Rep. Support
Transparen Johnson
cy for
Financial
Institutio
ns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2345 Extension Rep. Support
of Stutzman
Benefits
to
Veteran
Paralympia
ns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2301_Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act of 2011
IAVA opposes H.R. 2301. Although we believe that this legislation
was well intentioned, it could, in its current form, result in late
fees or non-payment charges for student veterans, may cause them to be
barred or disenrolled from their academic programs, and cause veterans
to pay a bill that the Government promised to cover.
The bill seeks to move VA educational assistance payments made to
educational institutions to the end of the term. However, without a
clause protecting the veteran from penalties, fees, and other measures
resulting from the delayed payment, the unintended consequences from
this bill may be destructive to some veterans' academic careers, and
will act as a disincentive for schools to enroll veterans.
This measure will likely disadvantage veterans who are attending
college less than full-time. The proposed measure forces schools to
total tuition and fee costs and divide them by what the school
determines as ``full-time'' in order to establish the school's ``cap.''
Students attending full-time will never notice the difference. However,
part-time students will be short-changed because fees are typically
charged at a flat rate regardless of how many units a student takes.
For Example: John attends a university that charges $2400 in
tuition per term. Additionally, there are $2500 in health, student
life, and facilities fees that are charged per term. Full time is 12
units at this school.
Under the proposed formula, John would have a $408 per credit hour
cap.
$2400 Tuition + $2500 Fees = $4900 per term/12 Units = $408 per
credit hour cap
If John takes a full load at 12 units:
$2400 Tuition + $2500 Fees= $4900 per term--(12 Units x $408) = $0
charged to the veteran per term
But if he only takes 8 units:
$1600 Tuition + $2500 Fees= $4,100 per term--(8 Units x $408 cap=
$3264) = $836 charged to the veteran per term
IAVA supports streamlining GI Bill processing at the VA to help
veterans get their benefits in a more expedient and uncomplicated
fashion. However, such efforts must be done with the veteran
beneficiaries in mind. Reducing bureaucracy at the VA is important, but
it cannot occur at the veterans' expense.
__________
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee, on
behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's 200,000 Member
Veterans and supporters, I thank you for inviting me to testify at this
hearing to share our members' views on these important issues.
My name is Tom Tarantino and I am the Senior Legislative Associate
with IAVA. I proudly served 10 years in the U.S. Army beginning my
career as an enlisted Reservist and leaving service as an Active-Duty
Cavalry Officer. Throughout those 10 years, my single most important
duty was to take care of other soldiers. In the military, they teach us
to have each other's backs. Although my uniform is now a suit and tie,
I am proud to work with this Congress to ensure the entire country has
the backs of America's servicemembers and veterans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name/
Bill # Subject Sponsor Position
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 120 Disabled Rep. Foxx Support
Veterans'
Surviving
Spouse
Home Loans
Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 240 Preferentia Rep. Filner Support
l VA
Contracts
to Veteran
Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1263 Mortgage Rep. Filner Support
Protection
s for
Surviving
Spouses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1911 Protecting Rep. Braley Support
Veterans'
Homes Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2274 Annual Rep. Support
Reports on Bilirakis
the NGIB
to
Congress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2301 Streamlinin Rep. Oppose
g Stutzman
Education
Claims
Processing
Act of
2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2302 Reports to Rep. No Position
Congress Stutzman
on VA
Conferenc
es
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2329 SCRA Rep. Support
Transparen Johnson
cy for
Financial
Institutio
ns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2345 Extension Rep. Support
of Stutzman
Benefits
to
Veteran
Paralympia
ns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 120_Disabled Veterans' Surviving Spouses Home Loans Act
IAVA supports H.R. 120. Allowing the spouse of permanently disabled
veteran to be recognized as a veteran when applying for a home loan is
the least that we can do to recognize the sacrifices made by our
military families. Permanently disabled veterans have the unfortunate
fate of enduring physical and emotional hardships--but they don't
agonize alone. This bill will provide a small measure of comfort toward
easing the new emotional and financial challenges after the death of
their veteran. Passing this bill will create a valuable respite for
surviving spouses in providing a safe home for their families, and for
themselves.
H.R. 240_Preferential VA Contracts to Veteran Businesses
IAVA supports H.R. 240. This bill ensures that contracting officers
bypass usual competitive procedures for awarding contracts, if
qualified veteran owned businesses are competing for the contract. If
passed, IAVA believes that this bill can be an effective means in
attempting to reduce veteran unemployment and increasing the success of
the over 2.2 million veteran-owned small businesses nationwide.
H.R. 1263_Mortgage Protections for Surviving Spouses
IAVA supports H.R. 1263. We believe that expanding Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act (SCRA) protections to surviving spouses is necessary
to help ease the already heavy burden born by our Gold Star families.
Currently, the SCRA protects military members from having to suffer the
sale, foreclosure, or seizure of property, if the failure to meet their
obligation resulted as a consequence of their military service. This
bill seeks to extend these same protections to the surviving spouses of
military servicemembers who die while in the service or as a result of
a service-connected injury. Surviving spouses dealing with the loss of
their servicemember should not have to fear the loss of their vehicle
or home in a time of mourning and crisis.
H.R. 1911_Protecting Veterans' Homes Act
IAVA strongly supports the Protecting Veterans' Homes Act. In 2008,
IAVA fought to extend foreclosure protections for veterans from 9 to 12
months. During these difficult economic times, foreclosure rates in
military towns increased at four times the national average, and
homelessness reached 107,000 veterans on any given night. IAVA believes
that permanently extending these protections can be instrumental in
reducing both foreclosure rates and homelessness among veterans. Giving
veterans 3 more months to keep their homes and shelter their families
is a small but meaningful step towards reducing these staggering
statistics.
H.R. 2274_Annual Reports on the New GI Bill to Congress
IAVA supports H.R. 2274. By mandating yearly, separate information
from the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Congress stands to receive multifaceted reports regarding the Post-9/11
GI Bill's effects on retention levels in the Armed Forces, its span to
non-active duty personnel, current efforts to expand knowledge of the
Post 9/11-GI Bill, and levels of utilization and certificates or
degrees earned under the bill. Recommendations from both secretaries
will help identify improvements in the administration of the New GI
Bill to better serve our Next Greatest Generation.
H.R. 2301_Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act of 2011
IAVA opposes H.R. 2301. Although we believe that this legislation
was well intentioned, it could, in its current form, result in late
fees or non-payment charges for student veterans and may cause them to
be barred or disenrolled from their academic programs.
The bill seeks to move VA educational assistance payments made to
educational institutions to the end of the term. However, without a
clause protecting the veteran from penalties, fees, and other measures
resulting from the delayed payment, the unintended consequences from
this bill may be destructive to some veterans' academic careers, and
will act as a disincentive for schools to enroll veterans.
Additionally, the second part of the bill creates a per-school
standard for determining maximum cost per credit hour rates based on
full-time enrollment. This is a regressive proposal that completely
violates the intent of the Post-9/11 Educational Improvements Act of
2010. That bill was supposed to remove the overly complicated,
confusing and unsustainable tuition and fee structure.
This measure will likely disadvantage veterans who are attending
college less than full-time. The proposed measure forces schools to
total tuition and fee costs and divide them by what the school
determines as ``full-time'' in order to establish the school's ``cap.''
Students attending full-time will never notice the difference. However,
part-time students will be short-changed because fees are typically
charged at a flat rate regardless of how many units a student takes.
For Example: John attends a university that charges $2400 in
tuition per term. Additionally, there are $2500 in health, student
life, and facilities fees that are charged per term. Full time is 12
units at this school.
Under the proposed formula, John would have a $408 per credit hour
cap.
$2400 Tuition + $2500 Fees= $4900 per term/12 Units = $408 per
credit hour cap
If John takes a full load at 12 units:
$2400 Tuition + $2500 Fees = $4900 per term--(12 Units x $408) = $0
charged to the veteran per term
But if he only takes 8 units:
$1600 Tuition + $2500 Fees = $4,100 per term--(8 Units x $408 cap=
$3264) = $836 charged to the veteran per term
The suggested calculation forces institutions to set a cap per
credit hour, which, at an equal fee amount, favors full-time over less
than full-time enrollment and could result in higher out of pocket
expenses for part-time student veterans.
IAVA supports streamlining GI Bill processing at the VA to help
veterans get their benefits in a more expedient and uncomplicated
fashion. However, such efforts must be done with the veteran
beneficiaries in mind. Reducing bureaucracy at the VA is important, but
it cannot occur at the veterans' expense.
H.R. 2302_Reports to Congress on VA Conferences
IAVA has no position on H.R. 2302
H.R. 2329_SCRA Transparency for Financial Institutions
IAVA supports H.R. 2329. We believe that this bill will result in
greater transparency and ease for servicemembers to make use of their
rights under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). SCRA provides
significant benefits to the brave men and women who serve in our Armed
Forces at a time of great stress and uncertainty. By requiring lending
institutions to have a named compliance officer to verify the
institution's adherence to SCRA provisions, H.R. 2329helps to ensure
that our deployed warriors do not have to return home to illegal
foreclosures and repossessions. Veterans should not have to fight
another war to have things returned to them that should never have been
taken in the first place.
H.R. 2345_Extension of Benefits to Veteran Paralympians
IAVA supports H.R. 2345. This bill extends the VA's allowance to
veteran Paralympians to 2018. These men and women have sacrificed so
much for their country. Supporting these brave and talented Americans
is the right thing to do, and showcases the amazing drive and
resilience that this generation of warriors have to offer society.
Prepared Statement of Shane Barker, Senior Legislative
Associate, 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. 120, Disabled Veterans' Surviving Spouses Home Loans Act
The VFW is pleased to support H.R. 120, which would further extend
VA home loan eligibility to surviving spouses of servicemembers who
were disabled at the time of death. VFW believes that regardless of
time and level of disability of the deceased veteran, the spouse should
be provided access to VA home loan program benefits. We hope the
Committee enacts this legislation so as to benefit spouses, especially
at a time when home loans are more difficult to finance.
H.R. 240, To amend title 38, U.S.C., to promote jobs for veterans
through sole source contracts by the Department of Veterans
Affairs
The VFW does not support this legislation. By insisting that VA
grant sole source contract when the contract officer determines that a
veteran-owned small business can fulfill the contract requirements,
meets the cost threshold and that the contract is a fair and reasonable
price, it would appear that veteran-owned small businesses would be
granted an advantage. However, many of the projects that would fall
into this contract category are routine contacts and contracting
officers will have familiarity with established veteran-owned small
business, putting new veteran-owned small businesses at a disadvantage
of securing a contract because the contracts will go to the known
businesses. Also, by reducing competition, truly identifying a fair and
reasonable price might be lost for the contracting officer.
An alternate solution for promoting veteran-owned small businesses
would be to ensure that VA has the resources necessary to process
applications from veteran-owned small businesses more quickly, so these
companies can be verified and added to the database of veteran-owned
small businesses, which is a requirement to secure a contract as a
veteran-owned small business.
H.R. 1263, To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide
surviving spouses with certain protections relating to
mortgages and mortgage foreclosures
The VFW supports this legislation as it would protect spouses of
servicemembers who die on active duty from foreclosure. Current law
does not provide these protections; this bill would close that
loophole. We believe that making this small change is the right thing
to do for those who have lost a loved one in defense of our country.
H.R. 1911, Protecting Veterans' Homes Act of 2011
The VFW supports this legislation, but believes it could go a step
further to address the serious challenge of home foreclosure for the
men and women of our military who are struggling to keep their homes.
Servicemembers and their families need options to renegotiate the terms
of their loan agreement, and a cooperative partner in the effort.
Adding an additional 3 months onto the mortgage protection period does
not produce either of those conditions. We are particularly concerned
about the Guard and Reserve components, because many take cuts in pay
and put their financial well-being at risk when they deploy.
We are so concerned that we believe serious thought should be given
to amending the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act in such a way to reduce
mortgage payments on a scale that reflects the loss of income for those
who experience salary decreases during and immediately after
deployments. Our military members should not lose their homes if they
are making good faith efforts to make payments on time, and are falling
short of meeting their commitments solely because they are defending
the freedom and security of this Nation. Servicemembers should have the
option to contact their lender before a deployment to inform them and
make arrangements for reduced payments during the deployment so they
can keep their homes and give their families less to worry about while
they are away. This can be achieved by amending title 50, U.S.C. by
inserting a new subsection (b) in Section 533 that would incorporate
this language.
Veterans are not looking for a free ride. They do, however, want
the civilian world to understand and appreciate their unique
circumstances. We hope to see legislation to provide a meaningful
solution to this persistent challenge.
H.R. 2274, To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense to
submit to Congress annual reports on the Post-9/11 Educational
Assistance Program, and for other purposes
The VFW supports this legislation, as it creates a congressional
reporting mandate for both the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of
Veterans Affairs with regard to the successful use of chapter 33 GI
Bill benefits. Under previous iterations of the GI Bill--particularly
chapter 30--both departments were mandated to report to Congress
regularly on usage, enrollment and successful completion of GI Bill-
financed programs. However, no such provision currently exists under
chapter 33. These periodic reports and the information contained in
them are critical to demonstrating success and identifying potential
shortcomings within the program.
H.R. 2301, Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act of 2011
The VFW supports the intent of this bill to streamline the payment
process for student-veterans utilizing the Post-9/11 GI Bill and to
minimize the paper trail for VA. However, the VFW would encourage the
Committee to include explicit protections for veterans against any
hindrances in their ability to continue their education, such as
threats of disenrollment or restrictions from class registration while
schools await payment from VA. When the Post-9/11 GI Bill was
implemented and initial tuition payments were delayed, the VFW, our
partners within the veterans' community, VA administrators, and even
Members of this committee received scores of complaints from veterans
that schools were either threatening them with disenrollment or barring
their registration for the subsequent semester's classes. While barring
veterans from enrollment may seem like a public relations nightmare for
colleges and universities, we have already seen it once before, and it
took a concerted effort on the part of the veterans' community to
ensure that each individual school did not hold their veterans
accountable for the shortcomings of the VA's payment system. The VFW
also notes that VA must be allowed proper time to implement any such
changes to their processing and payment programs, with proper
notification to the universities and student-veterans of the pending
policy change.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill is only 2 years old, meaning the first
students to take advantage of the program have not even earned their
degrees yet. However, Congress continues to look for ways to change the
benefit and its delivery mechanisms, whether it is through changing the
break payment system, adjusting tuition rates, creating new tuition
caps, and now potentially overhauling the payment system. The VFW urges
restraint in further manipulating the Post-9/11 GI Bill until we can
gauge the initial success of the program, which was designed to
simplify the process for veterans seeking to earn a college degree, but
recently has proven to be a headache for veterans struggling to
understand how and why the benefit keeps changing.
H.R. 2302, To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to notify Congress of conferences
sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The VFW supports this bill, mandating reports to Congress on
conferences hosted or sponsored by VA. While the VFW acknowledges the
benefits to VA and its employees of periodically hosting professional
development seminars to remain at the forefront of relevant industries,
the VFW agrees that Congress should have oversight on how VA chooses to
conduct such events. During a time when Americans have called on
Congress to demonstrate fiscal responsibility, the VFW believes that VA
can demonstrate its solidarity with the American people by improving
transparency with Congress.
H.R. 2329, Ensuring a Response for Servicemembers Act
The VFW supports H.R. 2329, the Ensuring a Response for
Servicemembers Act. Earlier this year we learned that J.P. Morgan Chase
Bank had violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by charging
interest on home loans above the cap that act mandates. It also came to
light that representatives that servicemembers contact over the phone
often are not fully aware of SCRA rules and regulations, and thus, are
not providing the customer service that our servicemembers need. This
bill will mandate that major lending institutions must have a
compliance officer to ensure SCRA laws are fully met. It will also
ensure access to company representatives who are aware of what
protections servicemembers have under the law by mandating a free
number, available on the homepage of these institutions, is established
to link them to specially trained customer service professionals. This
is a common sense bill that we are happy to support.
H.R. 2345, To amend title 38, U.S.C., to extend the authority of
appropriations for the Secretary of VA to pay monthly
assistance allowance to disabled veterans training or competing
for the Paralympic Team
Extending the assistance allowance for veterans who are training
for the Paralympics will allow those veterans who are training or
competing in competition to focus more of their time on training, as
well as assist in showcasing the types of adaptive sports that are
available and the benefits they hold for all disabled veterans. The VFW
sees this as a small cost to promote recovery and healthy lifestyles
for all veterans and we are happy to support this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or the Members of the Committee may have.
Prepared Statement of Jeff Steele, Assistant Director,
National Legislative Commission, American Legion
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY H.R. 120 Legion supports
H.R. 240 Legion supports
H.R. 1263 Legion supports
H.R. 1911 Legion supports
H.R. 2274 Legion suggests
improvements
H.R. 2301 Legion supports
H.R. 2302 Legion has no position
H.R. 2329 Legion supports
H.R. 2345 Legion supports
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to submit The American Legion's
views on the legislation being considered by the Subcommittee today. We
appreciate the efforts of this Subcommittee to address the different
needs of the men and women who are currently serving and those who
served during past conflicts.
H.R. 120: Disabled Veterans' Surviving Spouses Home Loans Act
Includes as a veteran, for purposes of eligibility for housing
loans guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the
surviving spouse of a veteran who at the time of death was in receipt
of or entitled to compensation for a service-connected disability rated
totally disabling if: (1) the disability was so rated for 10 or more
years preceding death; (2) the disability was so rated for at least 5
years since the veteran's discharge or release from active duty; or (3)
the veteran was a former prisoner of war who died after September 30,
1999, and the disability was so rated for at least 1 year preceding
death. Requires any applicable VA housing loan fee to be collected from
such spouse.
Generally, VA pays Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) to
the surviving spouses of military servicemembers who die while on
active duty, and to surviving spouses of veterans whose death resulted
from service-related causes. These surviving spouses are also eligible
for VA Home Loan Guaranty Benefits.
DIC also may be paid to surviving spouses of veterans who were
totally disabled from service-connected conditions at the time of
death, even though their service-connected disabilities did not cause
their deaths. Such surviving spouses qualify according to the same
criteria used in H.R. 120. Although, these qualifying surviving spouses
are eligible for the same DIC benefit as those above, they are not
eligible for similar VA Home Loan Guaranty Benefits. H.R. 120 would
correct this inequity.
The American Legion supports this bill.
H.R. 240
To amend title 38, United States Code, to promote jobs for veterans
through the use of sole source contracts by Department of Veterans
Affairs for purposes of meeting the contracting goals and preferences
of the Department of Veterans Affairs for small business concerns owned
and controlled by veterans.
This legislation is simple; it changes one word in title 38
Sec. 8127(c). It changes the word ``may'' to ``shall'' and is intended
to reemphasize the priority of place of veteran-owned small businesses
in the awarding of certain contracts by the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
It is vital that veteran-owned and service-disabled veteran-owned
businesses receive a fair and proportionate share of Federal contracts,
especially from the agency whose primary function is to help veterans--
the VA, so these veterans can build and maintain successful businesses.
To that end, The American Legion supports legislation that supports
and develops veteran and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses,
while providing them equal opportunity to start and/or grow a small
business, including establishing numerical goals for all veterans to
compete in government procurement. We believe this legislation serves
that end.
The American Legion supports this bill.
H.R. 1263
Amends the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to afford surviving
spouses of servicemembers who die while in the military and whose death
is service-connected the same protections against sale, foreclosure,
and seizure of property currently applicable to their husbands who
while in military service are unable to meet an obligation on real or
personal property.
Military families serve our country with pride, honor, and quiet
dedication. We know that every member of a military family sacrifices
just as much for this country. When one member of the family goes to
war, the whole family goes with them. Currently, spouses of
servicemembers who have died while in service have no mortgage
protections, leaving grieving families vulnerable to losing their home
and being put on the streets. Extending mortgage foreclosure protection
to surviving spouses will allow families to explore their options so
they may keep their home.
The American Legion supports this bill.
H.R. 1911: Protecting Veterans' Homes Act
Amends the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to extend from 9 to 12
months after military service the period of protection against mortgage
sale or foreclosure, as well as the stay of proceedings, in the case of
an obligation on real property of a servicemember that originated
before the period of military service. Amends the Housing and Economic
Recovery Act of 2008 to repeal the sunset date for such periods of
relief.
This bill would help active duty servicemembers who are returning
home and are facing foreclosure stay in their homes. Given the tough
housing and job markets, extending the period of protection as this
bill does will give servicemembers the time they need after returning
from deployment to regain solid financial footing.
The American Legion supports this bill.
H.R. 2274
To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress
annual reports on the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program, and for
other purposes.
With regard to that part of H.R. 2274 within the jurisdiction of
this committee, The American Legion generally supports the spirit of
this legislation, but we recommend the following improvements. First
and foremost, the report should be made available to the public by
placing a link to the report on the GI Bill landing page of the VA Web
site. In addition, the report should include such information as may be
useful to a student-veteran, such as student-veteran attendance by type
of college, graduation and dropout rates, average tuition rates, and
average debt accrued by type. Such information would assist student-
veterans make informed decisions about the use of this earned benefit.
H.R. 2301: Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act of 2011
To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to make payments to educational institutions under the
Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program at the end of a quarter,
semester, or term, and for other purposes.
The American Legion's first and foremost concern with the
administration of the new GI Bill is that veterans depending on this
education benefit are able to apply for and receive chapter 33 benefits
in as timely and seamless a manner as possible. Because H.R. 2301 is
aimed at adjusting the payment relationship between VA and educational
institutions, it is for the most part beyond our purview except to note
that we view favorably the tendency the change would have to mitigate
the number of overpayments incurred by student-veterans. To establish
an overpayment puts unnecessary burdens on both the student and VA in
the effort to recover the overpayment. Therefore, eliminating as much
as possible such overpayments is good for both students and VA.
The American Legion supports this bill.
H.R. 2302
To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to notify Congress of conferences sponsored by the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
The American Legion has no position on this bill at this time.
H.R. 2329
To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide for certain
requirements for financial institutions that are creditors for
obligations and liabilities covered by that Act.
This bill seeks to encourage compliance with the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by mandating that large lending institutions
subject to the SCRA designate an employee as a compliance officer who
is responsible for ensuring the institution's compliance with
provisions in the SCRA relating to the maximum rate of interest on
debts incurred before military service, and for distributing
information to servicemembers whose obligations and liabilities are
covered by those provisions. In addition, it requires these lending
institutions to maintain a toll-free telephone number and make such
telephone number available on the primary Internet Web site of the
institution.
Earlier this year, when reports that one of America's largest banks
had been overcharging about 4,000 servicemembers on their home loans,
and had improperly foreclosed on the homes of 14 military families, we
wholeheartedly joined the chorus of justifiable outrage about this
shocking situation and called upon all financial institutions that
handle mortgages for military families to review policies and
practices, to make sure they are obeying Federal law.
While the bank involved has issued a mea culpa and made efforts to
reassure the men and women of our military their commitment to make
this right, the episode makes it clear that further strengthening of
the SCRA is called for. It is a national security imperative that
servicemembers be able to fight the Nation's wars without having to
worry about their rights being trampled at home. The tragic stories of
those who have been adversely affected by the failure of our financial
institutions to play by the rules further highlight the necessity of
enhancing the effectiveness of the legal and regulatory protections for
our servicemembers and veterans.
The American Legion supports this bill.
H.R. 2345
To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authorization
of appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay a
monthly assistance allowance to disabled veterans training or competing
for the Paralympic Team and the authorization of appropriations for the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide assistance to United States
Paralympics, Inc.
Public Law 110-389 (2008) authorized VA to award grants to the U.S.
Olympic Committee to plan, manage and implement an adaptive sports
program for disabled veterans and disabled members of the Armed Forces.
In addition, it authorized a monthly subsistence allowance to
qualifying disabled veterans in training or competing for the
Paralympics to help them more easily take part in competitive sports.
Further, both were authorized during fiscal years 2010 through 2013.
H.R. 2345 would extend these authorizations through 2018.
Since its foundation in 1919, The American Legion has identified as
its most important issue the rehabilitation and reintegration of the
disabled veteran. We are also strong believers in the physical and
psychological benefits that come from involvement in sports and
recreation. Thus, we support such programs of the U.S. Olympic
Committee that facilitate the rehabilitation and reintegration of our
disabled veterans and servicemembers. We know that sports and physical
activity can have a transformative effect on those with a physical
disability and the continued provision of funds will help to expand and
provide greater access to sports programs for injured veterans and
disabled members of the Armed Forces.
The American Legion supports this bill.
The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
bills being considered by the Subcommittee. I would be happy to answer
any questions that you might have. Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Major General David Bockel, USA (Ret.), Executive
Director, Reserve Officers Association of the United States, and also
on behalf of Reserve Enlisted Association of the United States
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the Reserve Officers
Association (ROA) and the Reserve Enlisted Association (REA) would like
to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify. ROA and REA
applaud the ongoing efforts by Congress to address issues facing
veterans and servicemembers such as educational programmatic hurdles,
problems within the home loan programs, SCRA and more.
Though contingency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are expected
to drawdown currently there are still high levels of mobilizations and
deployments, and many of these outstanding citizen soldiers, sailors,
airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen have put their civilian careers on
hold while they serve their country in harm's way. As we have learned,
they share the same risks and their counterparts in the Active
Components on the battlefield. Recently we passed the 800,000th mark
for the number of Reserve and Guard servicemembers who have been
activated since post-9/11. More than 275,000 have been mobilized two or
more times. The United States is creating a new generation of combat
veterans that come from its Reserve Components (RC). It is important,
therefore, that we don't squander this valuable resource of experience,
nor ignore the benefits that they are entitled to because of their
selfless service to their country
ROA and REA would like to thank the Committee and staff for making
improvements to the Post-9/11 GI Bill, enhancing benefits for
caregivers, and much more.
Amendments to GI Bill
ROA and REA support the passages of H.R. 2274 and H.R. 2301, which
would provide better oversight and streamlining of the Post-9/11 GI
Bill.
Currently, many flaws in implementation of the GI Bill exist due to
a lack of oversight of the program. Many veterans are left to fall
through the cracks of the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) system,
waiting months to receive benefits that they have earned and deserved.
Greater oversight authority of the VA and of the implementation of
the GI Bill is seriously needed. H.R. 2274, introduced by Rep. Gus
Bilirakis (R-FL), would require both the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of the VA to submit an annual report about the efficacy and
operation of the GI Bill during the previous fiscal year. These reports
would assist in singling out the biggest problems in implementing the
GI Bill and would increase accountability for those responsible for
implementing the bill.
H.R. 2301, introduced by Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN), and titled
the ``Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act of 2011,'' would
establish a more concise system of payment for educational benefits
from the VA under the GI Bill. The act States that, for charges
incurred from educational institutions by individuals eligible for GI
Bill educational benefits, the VA must send payments within 30 days of
receipt of the charges.
Currently, funds promised to students eligible for GI Bill benefits
by the VA often arrive late, go missing, or are otherwise inadequate.
Streamlining the payments of GI Bill benefits to veterans would help
create more accountability in the VA and would ensure that veterans are
able to take full advantage of the benefits to which they are entitled.
ROA and REA urge Congress to implement these measures in order to
ensure that veterans are adequately compensated for the service they
have provided our country.
Disabled Veterans' Surviving Spouses Home Loans Act
ROA and REA urge Congress to pass H.R. 120, introduced by Rep
Virginia Foxx (R-NC), and named ``Disabled Veterans' Surviving Spouses
Home Loans Act.'' This Act would provide certain surviving spouses of
veterans with eligibility to both housing loans and monthly dependency
and indemnity compensation from the VA.
Currently, spouses of veterans whose deaths were not service-
related, but who had permanent and total service-related disabilities
for at least 10 years immediately prior to their death, are eligible to
receive monthly dependency and indemnity compensation payments from the
VA, but are not eligible for the VA's Home Loan Guarantee.
Spouses of deceased veterans must cope with the loss of the
veterans while also getting their finances back in order and adapting
to life without a partner. These spouses, by supporting disabled or
coping with the loss of a spouse who was a veteran, have made
sacrifices for the United States and should be compensated for their
losses. Thus,, ROA and REA firmly believe that spouses of deceased
veterans should be able to receive both dependency and indemnity
payments and eligibility for the VA's Home Loan Guarantee.
Please consider H.R. 120, which would provide veterans' surviving
spouses with the benefits they need in order to move on after the death
of their spouses.
Small Business
Reserve Component small business owners are particularly challenged
by deployments. About 22 percent of self employed Reservists find that
their activations impact their personal businesses, causing severe
problems. Many have to sell out partnerships, or close down the
business. And many of these Reserve Component members are employers of
others, therefore many non-military lose their jobs when the business
owner is deployed.
ROA and REA support initiatives to provide small business owners
with protections for their businesses to be sustained while on
deployment.
ROA and REA appreciate the House passing the H.R. 1657, which was
passed in May. This bill amended title 38, United States Code, to
revise the enforcement penalties for misrepresentation of a business
concern owned and controlled by veterans or as a small business concern
owned or controlled by service disabled veterans.
ROA encourages Congress to look at enacting Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protections for
employers who require regularly scheduled mandatory continuing
education and licensing/certification and to make necessary changes to
USERRA to strengthen employment and reemployment protections.
Once again, ROA asks for Congress' support with the H.R. 240, which
promotes jobs for Veterans through the use of sole source contracts by
Department of Veterans Affairs for purposes of meeting the contracting
goals and preferences of the Department of Veterans Affairs for small
business concerns owned and controlled by Veterans.
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
Protecting Veterans' Homes Act
Under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), members of the
Armed Forces are granted 9 months of protection from non-judicial
mortgage foreclosure after returning home from Active Duty. This
temporary moratorium on civil action allows soldiers to return home and
re-adjust to civilian life while at the same time pooling their funds
to repay debts such as mortgages.
Returning veterans often face new challenges upon their arrival
home, such as dealing with injury or having to find a new civilian job.
For troops facing these adversities, getting their finances together to
avoid foreclosure, sale, or seizure of their houses can seem almost
impossible.
Currently, such protections in the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
are set to expire at the end of 2012.
ROA and REA strongly support the passage of H.R. 1911, titled
``Protecting Veterans' Homes Act,'' introduced by Rep. Bruce Braley (D-
IA), which would permanently extend protections against foreclosure for
servicemembers and would extend this grace period from 9 months to 12
months.
Ensuring a Response for Servicemembers Act
Under the SCRA, since 1917, a person entering active duty has been
permitted to terminate a lease on premises. In 2003, Congress broadened
this provision to enable the person entering active duty to terminate a
vehicle lease. In 2008, Congress enacted a new provision to permit a
servicemember to terminate a cell phone contract under certain
circumstances.
ROA and REA appreciate Congress' work on these issues, however,
there are many other kinds of leases and contracts that the person
entering active duty may need to terminate.
ROA and REA request support of H.R. 2329, introduced by Rep. Bill
Johnson (R, Ohio), which would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act to provide for certain requirements for financial institutions that
are creditors for obligations and liabilities covered by that Act.
ROA and REA further recommend amending the SCRA to broaden the
types of leases and contracts which the person entering active duty can
terminate without penalty. For example, a reservist who has his own
small private business and who leases his equipment is being deployed
for a year and has no need for the equipment since he must shut down
his business. However, his lease on the equipment is not up for another
few years and the lesser won't let him out of the contract early and
insists that the reservist still pays for the equipment. Congress needs
to amend the SCRA to include leases and contracts of this nature, in
addition to leases of premises, vehicles and cell phones.
In addition ROA and REA propose further amending the SCRA to forbid
exorbitant overdraft fees and late fees for deployed servicemembers.
There have been instances where deployed servicemembers have been
charged hundreds or thousands of dollars in overdraft fees or late fees
for a low dollar overdraft on a checking account or a late payment on a
credit card. Such exorbitant fees should not be allowed to happen.
Congress needs to amend the SCRA to clarify that the
person returning from the military service has the right to reinstate
income-replacement insurance and other forms of insurance, as well as
health insurance narrowly defined.
Improve SCRA to protect deployed members from creditors
that willfully violate SCRA.
Continue to enact tax credits for health care and
differential pay expenses for deployed Reserve Component employees.
Amending SCRA for Surviving Spouses
In order to best support servicemembers it is essential to also
support the family. ROA is thankful for the Department of Defense's
(DoD), the administration's and Congressional acknowledgment that the
military spouse is part of DoD's family.
ROA and REA encourage Congress to support H.R. 1263, which would
amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide surviving spouses
with certain protections relating to mortgages and mortgage
foreclosures.
This bill would amend section 303 by adding this subsection:
Protection for surviving spouses- with respect to a
servicemember who has died while in military service and whose death is
service-connected, this section shall apply to the surviving spouse of
the servicemember if such spouse is the successor in interest to
property covered under subsection (a).
Expand eligibility of surviving spouses to receive Survivor Benefit
Plan (SBP)_Dependency Indemnity Compensation (DIC) payments with no
offset. Under current law, the surviving spouse of a retired military
member who dies from a service-connected disability is entitled to
Dependency Indemnity Compensation (DIC) from the Veterans'
Administration.
ROA is grateful for the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals decision in
the Sharp vs. United States case that restored eligibility for DIC to
military surviving spouses who remarry after 57 years of age; this only
extends to about 400 spouses. Approximately 45,000 surviving spouse are
left behind.
Servicemembers Law Center
ROA offers a unique area of expertise pertaining not only to
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), but also the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and other Guard/Reserve
issues, through the Servicemembers Law Center run by director Captain
Sam Wright, JAGC, USN (Ret.).
In the summer of 2009 ROA established the Servicemembers Law Center
(SMLC) as a source of excellence in the areas of employment and
consumer law for active, Guard and Reserve personnel.
The Law Center's goals include the following:
Advise Active and Reserve members who have been subject
to legal problems that relate to their military service.
Develop a network of legal scholars, law school clinics
and private practitioners interested in legal issues of direct
importance to servicemembers.
Advance world-class continuing legal education on issues
relating to USERRA and SCRA.
Broaden the existing database of USERRA and SCRA
research.
In conjunction with bar associations, develop standards
that will help to ensure that lawyers to whom servicemembers are
referred for legal services have the requisite expertise to represent
them effectively.
Recruiting and retaining members of the armed services, especially
those in the National Guard and Reserves, depends in part on assuring
current and future Citizen Warriors that laws and regulations are in
place to protect them effectively from discriminatory practices.
The Law Center is functioning at a modest but effective level. ROA
is pursuing efforts to obtain private or public funding and to identify
public and private entities willing to sustain this effort in order to
expand this service to fuller capacity. This is especially needed
following potential cuts to the National Committee of Employer Support
of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR).
As part of the SMLC and under Captain Wright, the Law Center
maintains the ``Law Review'' data base and indices containing over 700
articles on USERRA and SCRA issues (available at www.roa.org/
law_review_archive). On a monthly basis Captain Wright receives about
500 calls from concerned servicemembers, families and attorneys. On a
monthly basis for the past several months about 80 percent of the calls
were about USERRA.
The Law Center's services include:
Counseling: Review cases, and advise individuals and
their lawyers as to lawfulness of actions taken against deployed Active
and Reserve Component members.
Referral: Provide names of attorneys within a region that
have successfully taken up USERRA, SCRA and other military-related
issues.
Promote: Publish articles encouraging law firms and
lawyers to represent servicemembers in USERRA, SCRA and other military-
related cases.
Advise: File amicus curiae, ``friend of the court''
briefs on servicemember protection cases.
Educate: Quarterly seminars to educate attorneys a better
understanding of USERRA, SCRA and other military-related issues.
The Servicemembers Law Center is available at www.roa.org/
Servicemembers_Law_Center.
Other Bills
ROA and REA support H.R. 2302 to amend title 10, United States
Code, to direct the Secretary of the VA to notify Congress of
conferences sponsored by the VA.
This bill encourages transparency and oversight which are important
aspects of governance. Furthermore it would help to keep Congress
apprised of VA's activities and interest areas.
ROA and REA also support H.R. 2345 to amend title 38, United States
Code, to extend the authorization for the Secretary of the VA to pay a
monthly assistance allowance to disabled veterans training or competing
for the Paralympic Team and the authorization for the Secretary to
provide assistance to the United States Paralympics, Inc.
Conclusion
ROA and REA appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony, and we
reiterate our profound gratitude for the progress achieved by this
committee such as providing a GI Bill for the 21st Century and advanced
funding for the VA.
ROA and REA look forward to working with the Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity and the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, where
we can present solutions to these and other issues, and offer our
support. We hope in the future to have an opportunity to discuss these
issues in person.
ROA and REA encourage this Committee to utilize the Servicemembers
Law Center and reports, which are both valuable assets, and to share
them with your constituents and other Congressional members.
Prepared Statement of Arthur F. Kirk, Jr., President, Saint
Leo University, Saint Leo, FL, on behalf of National
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities
Executive Summary
I am testifying on behalf of Saint Leo University and the National
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU) regarding
H.R. 2301, a bill to change the reimbursement procedures under the
Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program.
Saint Leo University has a long history of serving veteran
students--enrolling 4,743 during the past academic year, 2,790 (59
percent) of whom were Post-9/11 veterans. The NAICU membership includes
over 1,000 institutions nationwide, representing the diversity of
private, non-profit higher education in the United States.
H.R. 2301 would reduce the need for the Department of Veterans'
Affairs (VA) to make adjustments to their payments for veterans.
However, clearly, it also would increase the need to make adjustments
at the school level for other financial aid for veterans--particularly
title 4 student financial aid. Program participation would become much
more complicated, both for the veteran students and for the
institutions they attend. Issues related to billing and to the
assignment of responsibility for payment will be less clear. The bill
will require reprogramming of the management information systems of
most schools; however, the more likely solution will be more manual
adjustments. Meeting these challenges would be particularly difficult
for small colleges--which could limit the options of veterans who wish
to attend them.
There are some pluses to H.R. 2301. Student accounts do stabilize
after add/drop deadlines so, if passed, the bill would provide a truer
picture in most cases. Also, the VA would pay after the term, so debt
collection letters to the student or the institution would decline
significantly, and time spent researching the letters would be reduced.
On the down side, cash flow to institutions and veterans would be
problematic for many. More title 4 aid adjustments for veterans'
accounts are likely to be needed. It will be hard to pay title 4 credit
balances to students, since they won't have a credit on their account.
Veterans would face difficulties registering in many colleges without
payment in advance or, in places like Saint Leo, without the bill being
settled for the previous term before the next term begins. Many
institutional information systems will not be able to accommodate these
changes without, at least, some re-programming. Greater confusion about
who owes what (the veteran, the VA, and title 4) also will ensue. Such
confusion increases the barriers to successful completion for our vets.
We believe that the problems that H.R. 2301 is intended to solve
would be better addressed through greater efforts to work within the
framework the institutions now use to deliver financial aid to their
students. For example, we believe that a two-step certification process
Saint Leo is planning will reduce the need for billing adjustments by
the VA without adversely affecting veterans. An approach like ours, or
others that may be devised by other colleges, would offer a better
solution. Saint Leo, NAICU, and many others in the higher education
community stand ready to assist the Subcommittee in identifying ways to
serve our veteran students effectively and efficiently.
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate having the opportunity to appear today to
discuss pending legislation dealing with the Post-9/11 GI Bill. I am
Art Kirk, president of Saint Leo University.
Saint Leo University is an independent Catholic university founded
in 1889. The University offers over 40 undergraduate and graduate
degree programs on its residential campus in Florida, and to adult
students on 16 military bases in Florida, Virginia, South Carolina,
Mississippi, Texas, and California; to students in all States and
overseas, through our center for online learning; and on 10 Florida
community college campuses.
The University began offering full degree programs on military
bases in 1973, and became the first college or university in the Nation
to grant the bachelor's degree on an Air Force base. We were an early
adopter, in 1997, of online offerings for the military. The
University's mission, to provide opportunities for people of good
character regardless of their religion, compelled the University to
respond to these needs.
Saint Leo University enrolled 4,743 veterans during the past
academic year, 2,790 (59 percent) of whom were chapter 33 or Post-9/11
veterans. The University awarded 678 associate, bachelor's, and
graduate degrees to veterans. The University also educated 5,026 active
duty military and reservists during the course of the last academic
year. All told, this equals 37 percent of the students who took at
least one course with us during the year.
Today I represent not just my university, one of the leaders in
educating our veterans and active duty military. I also represent the
member institutions of the National Association of Independent Colleges
and Universities. With more than 1,000 members nationwide, NAICU
reflects the diversity of private, nonprofit higher education in the
United States. Members include traditional liberal arts colleges, major
research universities, church- and faith-related institutions like
mine, historically black colleges and universities, women's colleges,
performing and visual arts institutions, 2-year colleges, and schools
of law, medicine, engineering, business, and other professions. NAICU
is committed to celebrating and protecting this diversity of the
Nation's private colleges and universities.
The Subcommittee is receiving testimony about a number of bills
today. The one that I will address is H.R. 2301, which would change the
reimbursement procedures for veterans and colleges and universities
under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program.
This bill would reduce the need for the Department of Veterans'
Affairs (VA) to make adjustments to their payments for veterans.
However, clearly, it also would increase the need for adjustments at
the school level for other financial aid for veterans--particularly
title 4 student financial aid. Program participation would become much
more complicated, both for the veteran students and for the
institutions they attend. Issues related to billing and to the
assignment of responsibility for payment will be less clear. The bill
will require reprogramming of the management information systems of
most schools; however, the more likely solution will be more manual
adjustments. I will address this concern more fully in a moment.
A particular concern is the impact of this change on small
colleges, and on the veterans who choose to attend them. While I would
be quite pleased if every veteran looking for a college were to choose
Saint Leo, I also believe deeply in the goal of the GI Bill to give
veterans the widest choice possible of educational options.
Over half of our Nation's private, non-profit colleges have fewer
than 5,000 students, and a quarter have fewer than 2,000. Many veterans
choose to attend these smaller institutions. While their veteran
student population is just a fraction of that at Saint Leo, these small
schools will struggle far more with the new procedures under this bill,
and the consequent cash flow problems. The typical semester is 15
weeks. This bill would move payment from the beginning of the semester,
when most student accounts are collected, to 30 days after the semester
ends. That's 19 weeks in which to wait for payment. Meanwhile, the
institution will, of course, have had to pay faculty and staff salaries
and other bills during that time.
This problem won't necessarily be limited to small colleges. The
median endowment across all private, not-for-profit colleges is only
about $18 million. Indeed, while Saint Leo was not small 14 years ago,
we did find that our cash flow was tight year-round at that time.
Delayed payment would have been a hardship for us. Thankfully, we would
now have the cash reserves to handle this.
Even if it is difficult to do so, private colleges may be able, by
using cash reserves or lines of credit, to enroll students and defer
collections as proposed. However, public colleges and universities will
face unique challenges if this bill is enacted. Most public
institutions must collect full tuition from their students, or from the
students' financial aid providers, at the beginning of the term.
Veterans will face barriers to enrolling at public universities and
colleges, given that many will not be in a position to pay their
tuition and fees up front, and then wait for their reimbursement months
later.
As I noted earlier, another concern for the many smaller colleges
would be coping with changes in procedures. Among others, these changes
would involve such matters as manually voiding late payment fees and
future registration blocks--which trigger automatically when a
student's bill is not paid.
Saint Leo has several experts in the specialized services and
administrative procedures essential to enrolling veterans. We also have
skilled staff members who train others in these procedures. Small
colleges or colleges with relatively small numbers of veterans are
likely to lack these expert resources.
Saint Leo University already is implementing a two-step veteran's
certification process that, we believe, will resolve the problems this
bill seeks to address. Our Veterans Certifying Officers will enter the
veteran as a student, but will certify zero tuition and fees in
VAOnce--the VA GI Bill database system--at the semester's start. This
allows the veteran to receive their housing and living stipend. After
the period for adding and dropping courses ends, we then will reenter
the student in VAOnce, now adding the tuition and fee charges for all
the courses in which the veteran is actually enrolled.
In summary there are some pluses to H.R. 2301:
Student accounts do stabilize after add/drop deadlines,
so the bill would provide a truer picture in most cases.
The VA would pay after the term, so debt collection
letters to the student or the institution would decline significantly.
Every one of these letters must be researched, and the time spent doing
so would be reduced.
However, on the down side:
Cash flow to institutions and veterans would be
problematic for many.
More title 4 aid adjustments for veterans' accounts are
likely to be needed.
It will be hard to pay title 4 credit balances to
students, since they won't have a credit on their account.
Veterans would face difficulties registering in many
colleges without payment in advance or--in places like Saint Leo--
without the bill for the previous term being settled before the next
term begins.
Many college and university information systems will not
be able to accommodate these changes without, at least, some re-
programming.
Greater confusion about who owes what (the veteran, the
VA, and title 4) will ensue. Schools won't know what VA will pay, or
what to bill the veteran. Such confusion increases the barriers to
successful completion for our vets.
We believe that the problems that H.R. 2301 is intended to solve
would be better addressed through greater efforts to work within the
framework the institutions now use to deliver financial aid to their
students. We believe, for example, that Saint Leo's approach will have
no adverse affects on the veterans, and will reduce the need for
billing adjustments by the VA. An approach like ours, or others that
may be devised by other colleges, would offer a better solution.
I'd also like to briefly mention the two other provisions of H.R.
2301:
Section 3 sets an effective date of August 1 of this
year--less than a month from now. Making the proposed changes on such
short notice would be highly disruptive for students, institutions, and
the VA alike. All of the procedural concerns outlined in my testimony
would be magnified.
Section 4 specifies the means by which established
charges per credit hour are to be determined. It is our understanding
that the provision is designed to avoid situations in which charges to
a student taking only one course are significantly higher than the per-
credit charge if the student were taking a full load. However, since
established charges per credit hour will no longer be used as the basis
for determining the chapter 33 tuition benefit, this provision will not
have any effect that we can discern. Rather, its most likely effect
will be to create confusion about how it is to be interpreted. For that
reason, we would suggest that the language be dropped.
Saint Leo, NAICU, and many others in the higher education community
stand ready to assist the Subcommittee in identifying ways to serve our
veteran students effectively and efficiently.
Finally, on a related topic, allow me to take this opportunity to
extend our appreciation to the Members of this Subcommittee, and to the
full Veterans' Affairs Committee, for your work in moving the
``Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011'' (H.R. 1383). The bill
provides an important ``hold-harmless'' for veterans who otherwise
would see their Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition-and-fee benefits reduced
August 1. Enactment of this bill would assure that student veterans
attending private institutions in several States will not face an
unexpected increase in expenses while mid-way through their higher
education programs.
Prepared Statement of Susan C. Aldridge, Ph.D., President,
University of Maryland University College, Adelphia, MD, on
behalf of American Association of State Colleges and Universities
Executive Summary
Potential negative impacts on veteran students of H.R. 2301,
``Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act of 2011''
Registration holds due to unpaid balances that would have
to be resolved manually on a case-by-case basis
In States where public institutions are not legally
permitted to allow students with unpaid balances to register for a
subsequent semester/quarter, mandatory interruption of studies until VA
paid the institution
Inability to receive refunds (for veteran students who
also receive other forms of financial assistance than Post-9/11 GI Bill
funds) to pay for college expenses unrelated to tuition and fees since
students would show an account balance due until VA paid the
institution, creating considerable financial hardship
Potential requirement to pre-pay tuition and fees and be
reimbursed when VA paid the institution a month after each semester/
quarter/term, creating considerable financial hardship
Increased confusion regarding benefit eligibility under
the Post-9/11 GI Bill since payments would be for the previous
semester/quarter/term
Potential negative impacts on higher education institutions of H.R.
2301, ``Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act of 2011''
Violation of State laws in States where public
institutions are already required to prevent students with unpaid
balances from registering for subsequent terms
Potential violations of State accounting rules for public
institutions and/or previously established State accounting policies
(particularly if forced to carry unpaid balances between fiscal years)
Cash flow problems, particularly for institutions with
large veteran student populations
Increased Post-9/11 GI Bill processing burden on school
certifying officials as well as financial aid offices, bursar/
cashiering offices, accounting offices, and other institutional
personnel, particularly in understanding H.R. 2301's concurrent impact
with the ``net cost'' provision of Public Law 111-377, ``Post-9/11
Veterans Educational Assistance Improvement Act of 2010,'' also
effective August 1, 2011
Increased infrastructure and staffing expenses since
institutions would be required to either modify existing electronic
registration, payment, and fund balance systems or to process all
veteran student accounts by hand each term
Unclear financial impact on institutions of students who
drop out mid-term given the shift in payment date by VA under H.R.
2301--will institutions be paid for the instruction that they have
delivered up to that point?
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee, my name is Susan Aldridge and I am president of
the University of Maryland, University College. Today, however, I am
here to present the perspective of the American Association of State
Colleges and Universities (AASCU). This statement is related to the
potential effects of legislation currently being considered by this
Subcommittee on its 420 institution and system members located in 49
States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin
Islands. Thank you for holding this hearing and providing the
opportunity to present this testimony.
In addition, AASCU is the contract administrator for the
Department-of-Defense-funded Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC).
The SOC Consortium is a network of approximately 1,900 colleges and
universities offering educational services to our Nation's Armed Forces
and veterans. In order to be included in the Consortium, an institution
must establish flexible policies appropriate for the unique demands on
servicemembers and dependents. These policies address items such as
enrollment, credit evaluation of military training, and transfer of
credit.
The legislation that AASCU would like to focus its comments upon
today is H.R. 2301, the ``Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act
of 2011.'' While AASCU agrees in principle with the concept behind H.R.
2301--to simplify the payment process of Post-9/11 Veterans Educational
Assistance Act benefits, which has been arduous for higher education
institutions and veteran students alike--this particular legislation
will not simplify the funds payment process. Unfortunately, it will
complicate it even further and cause even more delays for veteran
students in receiving the benefits to which they are entitled.
As AASCU testified to the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity of
the Committee on Veterans Affairs in September 2010,i the
VA's problems in implementing the Post-9/11 GI Bill are well-documented
in both prior hearing testimony and the press. VA itself has gone on
record that its previous performance was unacceptable. The GAO's
February 2011 report on VA education benefits and its May 2011 report
specifically on the administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill program
provide further documentation of this state of affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU)
``Testimony on Post-9/11 GI Bill Benefits Program,'' presented by Dr.
Alan G. Merten, President, George Mason University, September 16, 2010.
Retrieved July 1, 2011 from http://www.congressweb.com/aascu/docfiles/
AMerten%20Testimony%20Veterans%20Cmte%2009162010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2301, however, would not fix VA's processing issues. Instead,
it would financially penalize institutions and veteran students for a
problem they did not create. AASCU is fully cognizant that VA is
experiencing a historic culture shift (some might say culture shock) in
terms of veteran education benefits processing and that the VA was
originally given very little time to implement the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
We have acknowledged this in previously published testimony and policy
briefs. However, making veteran students and institutions of higher
education bear the brunt of the VA's inevitable adjustment process
hardly seems equitable. Other ways can--and should--be found to
alleviate Post-9/11 GI Bill payment delays.
For instance, it would seem reasonable for the VA to seek further
assistance in managing the Post-9/11 GI Bill program from the U.S.
Department of Education, another Cabinet agency that long ago managed a
large-scale transition to electronic processing involving all title 4-
eligible institutions of higher education. In fact, the May 5, 2011 GAO
review of the Post-9/11 GI Bill program, Veterans' Educational
Benefits: Enhanced Guidance and Collaboration Could Improve
Administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill Program, concluded that ``VA
may be able to achieve greater efficiencies by building stronger
partnerships with schools, Education, and other expert external
organizations. For instance, Education has learned many management
lessons and overcome some of its management challenges over the years
by refining its systems and administrative processes for delivering
student aid.'' ii
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ii\ Veterans' Educational Benefits: Enhanced Guidance and
Collaboration Could Improve Administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill
Program, GAO-11-356R, p. 3. Retrieved July 1, 2011 from http://
www.gao.gov/new.items/d11356r.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the report also stated that ``VA did not continue its
coordination with Education because of the limited applicability of
Education's systems and procedures, according to VA officials.''
Notwithstanding the obvious statutory differences between title 4
financial aid and chapter 33 veterans education benefits, this
statement from VA that the established Department of Education (ED)
computer systems enabling the disbursement of billions of dollars to
tens of millions of title 4 aid recipients are of ``limited
applicability'' does not take into account that, according to the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 16 percent of military
undergraduates (including veterans) received Federal Pell Grants in
2007-08.iii Therefore, veteran students are not completely
isolated from ED systems and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iii\ Issue Tables: A Profile of Military Servicemembers and
Veterans Enrolled in Postsecondary Education in 2007-08, Table 5-A.
Retrieved July 1, 2011 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009182.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that veteran students can qualify for both ED and VA funds
and that institutions are well-versed in ED's electronic processing
methods, it would seem reasonable for VA to more seriously explore
adapting pre-existing systems such as ED's Common Origination and
Disbursement (COD) system used by financial aid administrators, loan
servicers, and other appropriate stakeholders to administer title 4
grants and loans. A separate GAO review of VA's implementation of its
own IT system to support the Post-9/11 GI Bill iv suggested
technological areas in need of improvement, so it also seems reasonable
that exploring adaptations and management techniques ED used during its
earlier construction of the COD would benefit VA in this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iv\ Veterans Affairs Can Further Improve Its Development Process
for Its New Education Benefits System, GAO-11-115, ``Highlights.''
Retrieved July 1, 2011 from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11115.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While VA's response to the GAO review of Post-9/11 GI Bill
implementation stated that ``VA will again contact ED and the higher
education community to determine the applicability of any of their
processes in VA's administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill,'' H.R. 2301
seems to inadvertently discourage VA from working collaboratively with
other Cabinet agencies to ease its own burdens and deliver educational
funds to veteran students and institutions in the most efficient, cost-
effective way possible. Given the budget crisis facing this country, we
do not consider this a judicious mode of action.
That overall comment being made, AASCU would now like to address
some specific logistical concerns regarding the detrimental impact of
H.R. 2301 on higher education institutions and veteran students. Our
colleagues at AACRAO, NACUBO, and NASFAA--to name a few higher
education associations with particular subject matter expertise in
admissions and registration, business and finance, and financial aid--
could provide even more nuanced critiques of H.R. 2301's potential
impact on their constituencies. We encourage the Subcommittee to also
call upon them for comment and analysis.
The first detrimental impact of H.R. 2301 concerns tuition and fee
payment deferment at registration. In general, higher education
institutions can permit students to register for a term and have their
tuition and fees (and room and board, where applicable) ``deferred'' in
full or in part based on expected financial aid from all sources. These
sources are generally Federal, State, institutional, or third-party aid
such as employer reimbursements or external scholarships.
However, the student is ultimately responsible for the unpaid
tuition and fee balance should any deferred aid not arrive. And if that
aid does not arrive before the end of the term, the student is normally
barred from registering for any subsequent term until the debt is
satisfied. Some States specifically forbid public institutions of
higher education to register students who have unpaid balances from a
previous term.
Florida is one such example. According to the Florida State
University System Board of Governors' ``7.002 Tuition and Fee
Assessment, Collection, Accounting and Remittance'' regulation
v (bolding AASCU's), State colleges and universities are
required to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\vi\ State University System of Florida Board of Governors
Regulations, chapter 7, ``Tuition and Fees,'' Section BOG 7.002,
``Tuition and Fee Assessment, Collection, Accounting, and Remittance,''
sec. (7). Retrieved July 1, 2011 from http://www.flbog.org/about/
regulations/regulations.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``establish by regulation, procedures for the payment of tuition
and associated fees. Such regulation shall provide that a student's
course schedule will be canceled if payment, or appropriate
arrangements for payment, has not occurred by the deadline set by each
university, which shall be no later than the end of the second week of
classes . . . .However, the president may choose to temporarily suspend
further academic progress in lieu of canceling a student's course
schedule in those cases where the student has partially paid tuition
and the university guarantees full payment from an authorized and
existing fund before the submission of the final student data course
file or the end of the semester, whichever is later; otherwise, the
student credit hours shall not be counted for State funding purposes.
Suspension of academic progress shall preclude students from receiving
grades, transcripts, or a diploma and shall deny registration for
future terms until the student's account has been settled in full.''
Therefore, if H.R. 2301 is made law, particularly at public
institutions governed by State laws forbidding students with unpaid
balances to register, institutions would be faced with the unpalatable
prospect of either
a. carrying veteran students' unpaid account balances from term to
term and possibly fiscal year to fiscal year--which is not only a cash
flow problem for all institutions of higher education, but may even be
illegal for individual State colleges and universities depending on
their State accounting rules and procedures, or
b. requiring veteran students to pay up front for courses and be
reimbursed whenever the VA pays the school.
Both of these prospects are unfair not only to veteran students,
but the institutions serving them. The first could force public
institutions--depending on the State--into a conflict with State debt
management and collection policies in order to accommodate veteran
students receiving Post-9/11 GI Bill funds. Even if institutions did
not find themselves in violation of State law, they would most likely
be forced to carry unpaid balances on their ledgers from fiscal year to
fiscal year given institutions' different fiscal year closing dates
versus the iron-clad payment time frame set up by H.R. 2301. They would
also encounter cash flow issues stemming from the delayed payments by
VA.
In addition, if VA were permitted to send payments 1 month after
the end of each semester, the bursar and cashiering offices at
institutions would then be forced to process all veteran students'
Post-9/11 GI Bill payments at once rather than receiving a steady flow
of payments for veteran students during each semester. This would
create further delays for veteran students in receiving refunds.
The second prospect could restrict veterans' access to college and
ability to use their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits either for their own
education or that of their eligible spouses and dependents--not because
institutions do not want to educate veterans or their families, but
because institutions would not be fiscally able to indefinitely
``front'' their tuition and fee bills for term after term. Instead,
institutions would have to ask veteran students to pay and be
reimbursed, which is contrary to the entire purpose of the Post-9/11 GI
Bill.
In addition, the payment change in H.R. 2301 would create yet
another unfunded mandate for higher education institutions.
Institutions' computerized billing, payment, and refund systems would
either have to be reprogrammed--at significant extra cost to
institutions--or staff would have to spend extra hours processing
manual payments and overrides for veteran students on top of the long
hours they already spend counseling veteran students on their benefit
eligibility and resolving over- and underpayments by VA. Given the
regulatory and counseling burden on higher education as a whole, and
the fact that many school certifying officials perform these duties in
addition to other job duties, this prospect is daunting.
The January 2011 amendments to the Post-9/11 GI Bill specifically
restrict the use of the $12/student fee paid to schools by the VA for
processing veteran students' registration and enrollment. (As noted in
AASCU's previous testimony, institutions serving large numbers of
veterans have voluntarily hired extra staff, created new veterans'
centers, and incurred expenses often far exceeding these monies
received from VA.) Therefore schools would be unable to use these fees
to partly defray the overall infrastructure expenses necessary to
accommodate H.R. 2301. Given the well-publicized finance issues in
public higher education in particular, H.R. 2301 would thus place an
especially unfair compliance burden on public institutions.
For example, 3 of the 7 brick-and-mortar campuses reported by the
VA as having enrolled the most veteran students using Post-9/11 GI Bill
benefits in 2009-10 were AASCU members (Old Dominion University, Troy
University, and University of Maryland--University College). These
institutions enrolled over 5,000 of the 12,000+ veteran students on the
7 campuses. The University of Maryland--University College alone
enrolled over 3,000 veteran students in 2009-10; it currently enrolls
over 4,500 veteran students. Forcing these institutions to perform
manual billing and registration overrides for thousands of veteran
students would be cumbersome, expensive, and labor-intensive--in
addition to not being in the best interests of veteran students.
Therefore, public colleges and universities that enroll veteran
students, befitting their mission as public taxpayer-supported
institutions serving the public good, would be consistently financially
penalized for these enrollments if VA were permitted to delay payments
30 days after the end of each semester. In addition, they would most
likely be forced into conflict with their States' debt management and
collection policies.
The second detrimental aspect of H.R. 2301 is its concurrent impact
with the ``net cost'' provision in Public Law 111-377, which amended
the original Post-9/11 GI Bill. This provision requires institutions to
subtract certain forms of financial assistance awarded to students by
States, institutions, the Federal Government, or other third parties
from their tuition and fee charges reported to VA for Post-9/11 GI Bill
payments.
When AASCU last testified before this committee, our representative
stated that the net cost provision would inflict ``intolerable chaos .
. . on both veteran students and program administrators.'' The
provision was nevertheless signed into law and is scheduled to take
effect August 1, 2011. Given how complicated the new process will be
for students and program administrators compared to the original Post-
9/11 GI Bill payment structure--and how many unforeseen complications
will undoubtedly occur after it takes effect--delaying tuition and fee
payments for 30 days after a semester will create even more problems
for both veterans and institutions.
The third detrimental impact of H.R. 2301 is its potential impact
on payment for students who drop out during a term after attending
classes. Under the current Post-9/11 GI Bill payment process, funds
flow to the institution during the period of enrollment after a
certificate of eligibility has been issued by VA for a veteran student
and the institution has certified that veteran student's enrollment.
VA has strongly encouraged institutions to certify veteran student
enrollment as early as possible--even prior to a semester when the
veteran's actual tuition and fees are unknown.vi
Institutions thus often have to submit two enrollment certifications
for one veteran, the first with zero tuition and fees and a second
amended enrollment certification with the actual tuition and fees when
the veteran registers. If a veteran drops or adds courses later in the
registration process, the original enrollment certification must be
amended. This has created more challenges for both institutions and VA
in terms of processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\vi\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs School Certifying Official
Handbook, 1st ed., May 15, 2011, p. 37. Retrieved July 1, 2011 from
http://gibill.va.gov/documents/job_aids/SCO_Handbook_v1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaying payment for 30 days after the end of a term, for every
term, thus creates uncertainty about whether institutions will be paid
by VA if a veteran student drops out partway through a term after
having attended classes that the institution has delivered in good
faith. H.R. 2301 does not address this issue, and clarification would
be necessary for institutions on this point.
While AASCU has expressed significant concern about H.R. 2301's
effect on higher education institutions in this testimony, we would
like to state for the record that our member institutions--as well as
those public institutions who belong to the Association of Public and
Land-grant Universities (APLU) and the private nonprofit institutions
belonging to the National Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities (NAICU), which is also testifying in front of this body--
are proud to serve veterans and active-duty military students. We all
understand these students' challenges and support their using college
education benefits they have earned through their military service.
Their success is very important to not only our institutions, but our
country.
In addition, we would like to state that the higher education
community has repeatedly reached out to the VA during the Post-9/11 GI
Bill implementation process to offer expert guidance, assistance, and
cooperation. Veteran students are not only veterans, but our students.
The enactment of H.R. 2301 into law would not only place a further
burden on students and institutions struggling to understand and
implement the cascading set of Post-9/11 GI Bill amendments currently
taking effect. It would also be contrary to the entire intent of not
only the Post-9/11 GI Bill but the original GI Bill, because it would
effectively penalize veteran students and institutions alike for
problems not of their making.
We stand ready and willing to partner with VA in creating better
processes to deliver Post-9/11 GI Bill funds to veteran students and
institutions. But H.R. 2301--though well-intended--will harm veteran
students and institutions of higher education alike rather than
streamlining the process by which these funds are delivered.
Prepared Statement of Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under
Secretary for Economic Opportunity, Veterans Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Braley, and Members of
the Subcommittee. I am pleased to present the views of the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) on a number of bills that would affect our
housing and education programs, as well as our mission of service to
our Nation's Veterans. I am accompanied today by Mr. John Brizzi,
Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel.
HOUSING MATTERS
H.R. 120
H.R. 120, the ``Disabled Veterans' Surviving Spouses Home Loans
Act,'' would amend section 3701(b) of title 38, United States Code, to
expand eligibility for VA's guaranteed loan program to surviving
spouses of certain totally disabled Veterans. Currently, a surviving
spouse is eligible for home loan benefits if he or she was married to a
Veteran who either died from a service-connected disability or is
listed for more than 90 days as (i) missing in action; (ii) captured in
the line of duty by a hostile force; or (iii) forcibly detained or
interned in line of duty by a foreign government or power. Subsection
(a) of section 3 would expand eligibility for home loan benefits to
surviving spouses who were married to certain severely disabled
Veterans who died from other than service-connected causes. For the
surviving spouse to be eligible, the Veteran's disability must have
been service-connected and rated totally disabling for (i) a period of
10 or more years immediately preceding death, (ii) a period of not less
than 5 years from the date of the Veteran's discharge or other release
from active duty, or (iii) a period of not less than 1 year immediately
preceding death, if such Veteran was a former prisoner of war who died
after September 30, 1999. Subsection (b) would make the amendment to
section 3701 apply with respect to any loan guaranteed after the date
of the Act's enactment. Subsection (c) would clarify that a loan fee
must be collected pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3729 in the same manner as
such fees are collected from surviving spouses who were married to
Veterans who died from service-connected disabilities.
Enactment of H.R. 120 would give a covered veteran the peace of
mind that his or her surviving spouse will be able to receive VA home
loan benefits, regardless of the veteran's cause of death. However,
before VA can offer a position on the merits of this bill, it must
first determine its full impact on the Veterans Benefits Housing
Program Fund. We have not yet had the opportunity to do so, and will
provide our estimate of the cost of enactment of the bill at a later
date. .
H.R. 1263
H.R. 1263 would amend section 303 of the Servicemembers Civil
Relief Act by expanding the Act's mortgage protections to include a
surviving spouse of a Servicemember whose death was service-connected.
Currently, the protection is limited only to Servicemembers who are on
active duty or those whose active duty ended within the covered period.
VA defers to the Department of Defense regarding the merits of this
bill.
H.R. 1911
H.R. 1911, the ``Protecting Veterans' Homes Act,'' would amend
section 303 of the Servicemember's Civil Relief Act to extend the
period to which the Act's mortgage protections apply.
Section 2(a) of the bill would extend the period within which a
court may stay proceedings and adjust obligations relating to real or
personal property. It would also extend the period within which a court
may provide relief from a sale, foreclosure, or seizure resulting from
a defaulted obligation. Before 2008, a court was permitted to exercise
such protections if the legal action to enforce the obligation was
filed during, or within 90 days after, the Servicemember's period of
military service. With the enactment of Public Law 110-289, the
``Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008,'' the protection was
temporarily extended from 90 days to 9 months. Subsection (a) would
further extend such period another 3 months, so that a Servicemember
could rely on the Act's mortgage protections for a total of 12 months
after his or her period of military service ended.
Section 2(b) would eliminate the December 31, 2012, sunset date
that the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 imposed on the
extended protection and make it permanent.
Subsection 2(c) would specify that the amendments made by the Act
shall take effect on the date of enactment.
VA defers to the Department of Defense regarding the merits of this
proposal.
H.R. 2329
H.R. 2329, the ``Ensuring a Response for Servicemembers Act,''
would amend section 207 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to
require lending institutions to designate an employee of the
institution as a compliance officer responsible for ensuring the
institution's compliance with the maximum interest rate requirements
and for distributing information to Servicemembers whose obligations
and liabilities are covered by such requirements. The bill would
further require lending institutions that hold more than $10 million in
assets during a fiscal year to establish and maintain the next fiscal
year a toll-free telephone number, and to make such number available on
the institution's primary Internet Web site.
VA defers to the Department of Defense regarding the merits of this
bill.
EDUCATION MATTERS
H.R. 2274
Subsection (a) of H.R. 2274 would amend chapter 33 of title 38,
United States Code, by adding a new section 3325 that would require (in
subsection (a)) the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and Defense to
submit to Congress at least once every year (through January 1, 2021)
separate reports on the operation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill (also
referred to as ``chapter 33'').
Pursuant to subsection (b) of proposed new section 3325, the
Secretary of Defense would be required to include information in each
report indicating: (1) the extent to which the benefit levels provided
under chapter 33 are adequate to achieve the purposes of inducing
individuals to enter and remain in the Armed Forces and of providing an
adequate level of financial assistance to help meet the cost of
pursuing a program of education; (2) whether it is necessary for the
purpose of maintaining adequate levels of well-qualified active-duty
personnel in the Armed Forces to continue to offer the opportunity for
educational assistance under chapter 33 to individuals who have not yet
entered active-duty service; and (3) describing the efforts under
section 3323(b) of title 38, United States Code, to inform members of
the Armed Forces of the active-duty service requirements for
entitlement to educational assistance benefits under chapter 33 and the
results from such efforts. The Secretary would also be required to
include such recommendations for administrative and legislative changes
regarding the provision of educational assistance to members of the
Armed Forces and Veterans, and their dependents, as the Secretary
considers appropriate. VA defers to the Department of Defense regarding
these proposed reporting requirements.
Pursuant to subsection (c) of proposed new section 3325, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be required to include in each
report: (1) information concerning the level of utilization of
educational assistance under chapter 33 and the expenditures under that
chapter; (2) the number of credit hours, certificates, degrees, and
other qualifications earned by beneficiaries under chapter 33 during
the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which the report is
submitted; and (3) such recommendations for administrative and
legislative changes regarding the provision of educational assistance
to members of the Armed Forces and Veterans, and their dependents, as
the Secretary considers appropriate.
VA concurs, in principle, with the requirement to report annually
on the Post-9/11 GI Bill. However, we do not currently collect the
number of credit hours, certificates, and other qualifications earned
by individuals under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. We estimate that we would
need at least 12 months to develop a mechanism to track and report such
information.
Subsection (b) of the bill would repeal section 3036 of title 38,
United States Code, which requires the Secretaries of Defense and
Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress at least once every 2 years
separate reports on the operation of the Montgomery GI Bill--Active
Duty, codified in chapter 30 of title 38. VA supports this repeal.
We will provide an estimate of the cost of enactment for this bill
for the record. [VA failed to provide the costs for H.R. 2274.]
H.R. 2301
H.R. 2301, entitled the ``Streamlining Educational Claims
Processing Act of 2011,'' includes a requirement that VA make payments
to educational institutions under the Post-9/11 GI Bill at the end of a
quarter, semester, or term.
Section 2 of the bill proposes to amend section 3301 of title 38,
United States Code, to provide definitions for the terms ``quarter,
semester or term,'' and ``full-time pursuit.'' A ``quarter, semester,
or term'' would be defined as the academic period during which a course
of education is pursued, as established by the educational institution.
The legislation would define ``full-time pursuit'' as the pursuit of a
program of education during any quarter, semester or term, as
established by the educational institution. Currently these terms are
not defined under section 3301.
VA does not support section 2 as presented because the legislation
would allow each educational institution to establish a definition for
a quarter, semester, or term. Allowing educational institutions to
establish their own definitions would add an additional level of
complexity to understanding the program. If enacted, this change would
also have a significant negative impact on VA's Long-Term Solution
(LTS) for processing Post-9/11 GI Bill claims. Currently, VA has
standards regarding how many weeks of training constitute quarters and
semesters. VA would have to make adjustments to the LTS to accommodate
educational institutions' definitions of quarter, semester, or term.
Section 3 of the bill would amend section 3313 of title 38 to
require VA to make payments under the Post-9/11 GI Bill to educational
institutions not later than 30 days following receipt of charges
incurred by the individual at the end of the term. Currently, VA makes
lump sum payments to the educational institutions for tuition costs on
behalf of an individual pursuing a program of education upon receipt of
an enrollment certification from the educational institution concerned.
The changes made by this section would be effective for any quarter,
semester, or term that begins on or after August 1, 2011.
VA generally supports this section. We believe this amendment would
minimize the probability of overpayments of educational assistance
under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. However, we note that its enactment would
potentially impact the timeliness of processing claims. Currently, VA
processes tuition and fee payments upon receipt of an enrollment
certification from a school. Requiring VA to hold tuition and fee
payments to the end of the enrollment period would allow the
educational institution time to submit changes or updates; however,
holding the claim open during such period would, by definition,
increase the amount of time it takes for VA to complete the claim.
Additionally, if educational institutions submit enrollment
certifications before the final charges are determined, VA may
experience a significant increase in the number of claims submitted,
which could negatively impact the average days to process claims.
We also have concerns with the effective date of the legislation.
Educational institutions begin submitting enrollment certifications as
early as the month of June for terms that begin in August. If VA has
already processed enrollments for terms that begin after August 1,
2011, educational institutions may have already received payments for
terms that have not yet begun. Therefore, VA recommends postponing the
effective date of this provision until August 1, 2012.
Section 4 of the bill would amend subsection (h) of section 3313.
It is unclear, however, whether the drafters intend to amend subsection
(h) as currently in effect or whether they intend to amend that
subsection as it will be in effect as of October 1, 2011 (by virtue an
amendment to section 3313 by section 105 of Public Law 111-377).
Effective October 1, 2011, section 105(b) of Public Law 111-377 will
operate to strike current section 3313(h) (Established charges defined)
and redesignate current section 3313(g) (Payment of established charges
to educational institutions) as section 3313(h). Finally, also
effective on October 1, 2011, section 105(b) of the Public Law will add
a new subsection (g) to section 3313 (Assistance for pursuit of
programs of education other than programs of education leading to a
degree). The text of section 4 is confusing in that it would amend
section 3313(h) by striking ``(h) Payment of Established Charges to
Educational Institutions.--Amounts'' and inserting ``(g) Payment of
Established Charges.''--
``(1) Payment to Educational Institutions--Amounts''. (Emphasis
added). We believe the drafters intended the first portion of the
amendment to read ``(h) Payment of Established Charges.--''. Otherwise,
this could be construed as supplanting the newly added language of
subsection (g) discussed above. In addition, the affected subsection
would be amended by the addition of a new paragraph (2), to require
that VA determine the established charges for each credit hour of a
program of education for any term, quarter or semester by dividing the
total cost of the tuition for enrollment in the program of education on
a full-time basis for that term, quarter or semester by the number of
credit hours the educational institution is offering for the program
course.
It is not clear how this amendment would affect VA's determinations
of payments to educational institutions once various amendments that
were made by Public Law 111-377 become effective. Given the uncertainty
surrounding section 4 of the proposal, VA is unable to provide views
regarding that section at this time. We will seek clarification from
the Subcommittee staff and provide comments on this section at a later
date.
We are unable to provide an estimate of the cost of enactment of
H.R. 2301 at this time. However, once we clarify the drafters' intent
regarding section 4, we will provide that estimate for the record. [VA
failed to provide the costs for H.R. 2301.]
OTHER MATTERS
H.R. 2345
Title VII of Public Law 110-389 included provisions authorizing the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to: (1) provide assistance to the United
States Paralympics (USP) to plan, develop, manage and implement an
adaptive sports program for disabled Veterans and disabled members of
the Armed forces (codified at 38 U.S.C. Sec. 521A); and (2) award a
monthly assistance allowance to Veterans training for or selected to
compete on the U.S. Paralympic team (codified at 38 U.S.C. Sec. 322).
The respective funding authorities for these provisions are set to
expire at the end of fiscal year 2013.
Section 1 of H.R. 2345 would amend section 322(d)(4) to extend, for
a period of 5 years (through FY 2018), the authority for appropriations
to fund VA's payment of monthly monetary allowances. Section 2 of the
bill would amend section 521A(g) to extend, for a period of 5 years
(through FY 2018), the authority for appropriations to fund VA's above-
described provision of assistance to the United States Paralympics; it
also would amend section 521A(l) to similarly extend the termination
date for provision of such assistance (through FY 2018).
Extending these authorities would allow VA and the U.S. Paralympics
to continue developing their adaptive sports programming while building
stronger relationships with partner organizations in Veterans'
communities, allowing Veterans to continue their rehabilitation through
sports for years to come. Thus, subject to the availability of funding,
we fully support these extensions.
By its own terms, the cost of enactment of this bill would be $10
million in fiscal year 2014, with a total 5-year cost (FY 2014 through
FY 2018) of $50 million.
H.R. 240
Section 1(a) of H.R. 240 would change the wording in section 8127
of title 38, United States Code, from ``may'' to ``shall,'' to require
contracting officers to contract with service-disabled Veteran-owned or
Veteran-owned small businesses for all VA procurements under $5 million
using other than competitive procedures for purposes of meeting the
contracting goals and preferences established by the Secretary. The
businesses must be deemed responsible and VA has to make an award at a
fair and reasonable price. In addition, Section 1(b) would require VA
to issue interim policy guidance to carry out this authority within 30
days of enactment.
VA opposes this legislation because the proposed language would be
too restrictive, and would remove necessary business judgments that
must be made at the discretion of VA contracting officers to acquire
goods and services by the best means available for each applicable
acquisition. Moreover, full and open competition, not the use of other-
than-competitive procedures, is the most preferred acquisition
methodology, as competition is the best means to achieve a fair and
reasonable price. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 8127(d), VA is currently
required to set-aside acquisitions over $3,000 on a full and open
competitive basis for service-disabled Veteran-owned or Veteran-owned
small businesses on a priority basis when two or more such businesses
are found in market research and an award can be made at a fair and
reasonable price. Furthermore, pursuant to this existing authority, VA
has consistently achieved its socioeconomic contracting goals for
service-disabled Veteran-owned and Veteran-owned small businesses since
the enactment of 38 U.S.C. Sec. 8127 in 2006.
H.R. 2302
H.R. 2302 would amend title 38, United States Code, by adding a new
section 517 to require the Secretary (VA) to notify Congress in advance
of certain ``covered'' conferences sponsored by VA that would cost the
Department at least $5,000.
Subsection (a) of proposed new section 517 would provide that, not
later than 180 days before the date on which a covered conference
begins, the Secretary shall notify the Committees on Veterans' Affairs
of the House and Senate of such conference, including the estimated
costs to the Department.
Subsection (b) of the proposed new section would provide that, not
later than 60 days after the date on which a covered conference ends,
the Secretary shall submit to the Veterans' Affairs Committees a report
that includes an accounting of the final costs of the conference to the
Department.
Subsection (c) of the proposed new section would define the term
``covered conference'' to mean a conference, meeting, or similar forum
that is sponsored or cosponsored by VA and is: (1) held for a period of
3 or more days (beginning at the time of the initial on-site
registration and ending at the time the final event is completed); (2)
attended by 20 or more individuals, including one or more VA employees;
or (3) estimated to cost the Department at least $5,000, including
costs related to transportation and parking, per diem payments,
lodging, rental of halls, auditoriums, or other spaces, rental of
equipment, refreshments, entertainment, contractors, and brochures and
other printed media.
VA opposes this bill as it would impose burdensome notification and
reporting requirements on the Department. It would also discourage
legitimate and beneficial conference activities, including in-person
gatherings within VA, and with other Federal agencies, Veterans
Services Organizations and Veterans advocates, and businesses
encouraged to hire Veterans. In addition, the 180-day notification
requirement would limit VA leadership's ability to promptly and
appropriately respond to training, planning, or other emergent
operational needs.
All VA national events require notice to and/or approvals from VA
Executive Management. Any conference that will be attended by more than
100 individuals must be approved in advance by VA's Chief of Staff.
When VA determines a face-to-face conference is the most preferred
manner of conducting training, it complies with Government-wide
regulations to identify potential locations and hotels. All proposed
conference contracts for amounts exceeding $25,000 are reviewed by VA's
Office of General Counsel. Conference contracts also undergo technical
review. The process for determining conference locations is consistent
with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and is driven by the specific
requirements of each conference.
The definition of ``covered conferences'' in H.R. 2302 captures the
majority of operational meetings that are planned in the day-to-day
administration of VA's large health care, benefits and cemetery
systems. Because of the low participant and dollar thresholds, it would
include minor gatherings and those events that feature a substantial
virtual component. The bill's requirements would hinder the
Department's ability to effectively plan day-to-day business activities
and meet emerging business needs, and would not provide any additional
value to the current review process. For example, VA medical center
directors could not conduct timely town hall meetings, the Deputy
Secretary could not conduct a timely Operational Management Review, and
VA medical centers could not conduct timely grand rounds.
In addition, conferences are an indispensable tool for VA training.
The success of VA transformation, cultural change, and effective
implementation of new policies (as well as carrying out changes in
programs resulting from legislative enactments) are dependent on the
ability of VA to carry out effective training. VA conferences also
address maintenance and appearance of 131 national cemeteries,
accountability and quality control procedures, and the administration
of VA benefits related to burial and memorializing of our Nation's
fallen heroes and their eligible family members. Moreover, VHA provides
workforce development and continuing education for more than 239,000
health care professionals and support staff at over 1,400 sites of care
nationwide. Much of this training is necessary for these health care
professionals to obtain and maintain their required licensing and
certifications.
VA is unable to estimate the costs associated with this bill.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
Statement of Vivianne Cisneros Wersel, Au.D.,
Chair, Government Relations Committee, Gold Star
Wives of America, Inc.
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the
right, as God gives us to see right, let us strive to finish the work
we are in; to bind up the Nation's wounds, to care for him who has
borne the battle, his widow and his orphan.''
. . . President Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, March
4, 1865
Chairman Stutsman, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and Members of the
Subcommittee on Economic and Opportunities, thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony on behalf of Gold Star Wives of
America (GSW).
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki once stated, ``Taking
care of survivors is as essential as taking care of our Veterans and
military personnel. By taking care of survivors, we are honoring a
commitment made to our Veterans and military members.'' We thank this
committee for including us today to honor that commitment.
I am Vivianne Wersel, the Chair of the Gold Star Wives' Government
Relations Committee. I am the surviving spouse of Lt Col Richard
Wersel, Jr. USMC who died suddenly on February 4, 2005, 1 week after he
returned from his second tour of duty in Iraq. Gold Star Wives of
America, founded in 1945, is a congressionally chartered organization
of spouses of servicemembers who died while on active duty or who died
as the result of a service-connected disability. It is an all-volunteer
organization. We could begin with no better advocate than Eleanor
Roosevelt, newly widowed, who helped make Gold Star Wives a truly
national organization. Mrs. Roosevelt was an original signer of our
Certificate of Incorporation and a member of the Board of Directors.
Our current membership encompasses surviving spouses of servicemembers
who died while on active duty or as a result of a service-connected
disability during World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the
first Gulf War, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and every period in
between.
Gold Star Wives is an organization of those who are left behind
when our Nation's heroes, bearing the burden of freedom for all of us,
have fallen. We are that family minus one; we are spouses and children,
all having suffered the unbearable loss of our spouses, fathers or
mothers. We are those to whom Abraham Lincoln referred when he made the
government's commitment ``. . . to care for him who shall have borne
the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.''
This hearing encompasses various House bills; some do not reflect
our membership. Today, I will focus on the legislation that pertains to
military and veterans' surviving spouses.
H.R. 120_Disabled Veterans' Surviving Spouses Home Loans Act
Disabled Veterans' Surviving Spouses Home Loans Act--to provide for
eligibility for housing loans guaranteed by the Department of Veterans
Affairs for the surviving spouses of certain totally-disabled veterans.
CRS Summary
Disabled Veterans' Surviving Spouses Home Loans Act--Includes as a
veteran, for purposes of eligibility for housing loans guaranteed by
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the surviving spouse of a
veteran who at the time of death was in receipt of or entitled to
compensation for a service-connected disability rated totally disabling
if: (1) the disability was so rated for 10 or more years preceding
death; (2) the disability was so rated for at least 5 years since the
veteran's discharge or release from active duty; or (3) the veteran was
a former prisoner of war who died after September 30, 1999, and the
disability was so rated for at least 1 year preceding death. Requires
any applicable VA housing loan fee to be collected from such spouse.
This legislation will cover the surviving spouses of totally-
disabled veterans who were not included in earlier legislation for VA
home loan guarantees.
Despite the implication in statement concerning fees in the above
summary, it appears to this legal novice that the VA fee for surviving
spouses of totally-disabled veterans is waived. Earlier legislation
waived the VA fee for surviving spouses included in earlier
legislation.
GSW supports the legislation.
H.R. 240_Sole Source Government Contracts for Small Businesses_Vet
Preference
CRS Summary
Requires (current law authorizes) a Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) contracting officer to award contracts to small businesses owned
and controlled by veterans using other than competitive procedures for
contracts above the simplified acquisition threshold in order to meet
VA small business procurement contracting goals.
After the death of a veteran spouse, the surviving spouse is left
behind to maintain the family's financial stability. Some surviving
spouses were in business with the veteran spouse before their death,
and other surviving spouses have the means and desire to start a
business on their own. GSW supports this bill and suggests that
surviving spouses of veterans who died of a service-connected cause and
own small businesses be included in this legislation.
GSW supports this legislation.
H.R. 1263
CRS Summary
To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide surviving
spouses with certain protections relating to mortgages and mortgage
foreclosures. Amends the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) to
afford surviving spouses of servicemembers who die while in the
military and whose death is service-connected the same protections
against sale, foreclosure, and seizure of property currently applicable
to their husbands who while in military service are unable to meet an
obligation on real or personal property.
With the economic stresses the country now faces, we have many
surviving spouses who worry about losing their jobs and/or when they
will be able to retire. Some are one-step away from a car that stops
running or an unmet house payment. Many of our members have a serious
problem making house payments when their spouse dies. Not all surviving
spouses receive the SGLI and the Death Gratuity today, as both may now
be assigned to others, leaving the surviving spouse unable to meet
their existing financial obligations.
Our concern is that this legislation applies only to surviving
spouses of those who die on active duty. Surviving spouses of
servicemembers who subsequently die of wounds or illness should be
entitled to the same protection.
GSW supports this legislation and suggests that surviving spouses
of servicemembers who subsequently die of wounds or illness be given
this same protection.
H.R. 1911_Protecting Veterans' Homes Act
CRS Summary
Amends the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to extend from 9 to 12
months after military service the period of protection against
mortgage sale or foreclosure, as well as the stay of
proceedings, in the case of an obligation on real property of a
servicemember that originated before the period of military
service.
Amends the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 to repeal the
sunset date for such periods of relief.
GSW supports this legislation that would extend the time period in
the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act from 9 to 12 months after military
service, and repeals the sunset date for such periods of relief in the
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.
GSW supports this legislation.
H.R. 2274
Latest Title: To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense to submit to
Congress annual reports on the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance
Program, and for other purposes.
GSW supports this legislation and suggests that chapter 35,
Dependents Educational Assistance benefits be included in this report.
H.R. 2301_Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act of 2011
Latest Title: Payments will be made to Educational Institutions at
end of semester for Post-9/11 education benefits.
GSW does not support this legislation.
This legislation would reduce the VA administrative costs and
remove some of the turbulence from the processing of tuition benefits;
it also has the potential to put students with limited income like
surviving spouses whose children are entitled to these benefits in
financial jeopardy. Delaying payment of tuition until the end of the
term, quarter or semester would require the student or the surviving
parent to cover the tuition costs out-of-pocket, which would be a
financial hardship for many students and surviving parents.
Many educational institutions have agreed to waiver payment of
tuition for 60-90 days; however, there is currently no waiver in place
that provides for tuition to be paid at the end of the term, quarter or
semester.
Even if the educational institution agreed to waive payment of
tuition until the end of the term, quarter or semester, if the student
is unable to complete the course of study successfully, this bill
shifts the cost of the tuition debt as well as the cost of collecting
the tuition debt from the VA to the educational institution. Due to the
number of severely injured veterans and the veterans who suffer from
TBI and PTSD, there may be many who cannot complete the course of
education covered by the tuition. Educational institutions might cease
to admit students using post 9-11 educational benefits. The VA has
better resources from which to collect such a tuition debt.
H.R. 2329_Ensuring a Response for Servicemembers Act
Text of Legislation
To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide for certain
requirements for financial institutions that are creditors for
obligations and liabilities covered by that Act.
This is an enforcement parameter of the SCRA-to appoint a
compliance officer at creditors- it makes someone at the creditors'
office responsible for compliance (i.e., ensuring interest rates are
lowered accordingly, that homes are not foreclosed when people are
deployed, etc.) For the larger companies, ensures debtors can contact
creditors through a phone number set up for this purpose.
The families of the Nation's fallen have already suffered the
greatest loss; there is no need to make these families struggle
further. We are not living the ``good life'', but rather are living a
modest life and sometimes existing near poverty levels.
There are numerous news articles about the shenanigans some of the
banks and other mortgage holders are pulling on those attempting to
reduce their monthly mortgage payment and avoid foreclosure. This
legislation would be helpful to surviving spouses who need to reduce
their monthly mortgage payment.
GSW supports this legislation.
Gold Star Wives appreciates the compassionate work that Members of
this Subcommittee and the staff do on our behalf. We always stand ready
to provide this Subcommittee with any additional needed information. We
are the voice of the surviving spouses and their children.
Statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and Members of the
Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), thanks you for the
opportunity to submit a statement for the record regarding the proposed
legislation being considered today. PVA appreciates the fact that you
are addressing these important issues that affect the economic
wellbeing of veterans. We support your effort to help these men and
women that have honorably served their nation transition successfully
back to the civilian world.
H.R. 120
PVA supports H.R. 120, legislation that would modify the existing
housing loan program for veterans which provides a loan guarantee by
the Department of Veterans Affairs. This bill would expand the program
to include the surviving spouse of a veteran who was 100 percent
service-connected disabled if the disability was so rated for 10 years
preceding death; the disability was so rated for 5 years since the
veteran's discharge, or the veteran was a former prisoner of war who
died after September 30, 1999, and the disability was so rated for at
least 1 year preceding death.
H.R. 240
PVA supports H.R. 240, which would promote employment for veterans
in the current unfavorable employment market. This bill insures more
veteran owned businesses receive consideration for government
contracts. Veteran owned businesses tend to employ more veterans that
nonveteran owned businesses. This would require VA contracting officers
to award contracts to veteran owned small businesses through the use of
sole source contracting. The use of the sole source contracting policy
would result in contracts to veteran owned businesses that would exceed
the minimal requirement of 3 percent.
H.R. 1263
PVA supports H.R. 1263, legislation to amend the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act to afford surviving spouses of servicemembers who die
while in the military and whose death is service-connected the same
protections against sale, foreclosure, and seizure of property
currently applicable to their husbands who while in the military
service are unable to meet an obligation on real or personal property.
H.R. 1911
PVA supports H.R. 1911, the ``Protecting Veterans' Homes Act''.
This bill would extend the current protection authorized by the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act from the current time of 9 months to 12
months after military service. This protection would apply to the sale
or foreclosure, as well as the stay of proceedings, in case of an
obligation of real property of a servicemember that originated before
the period of military service.
H.R. 2274
PVA supports H.R. 2274, which would require an annual report to
Congress from the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of
Defense providing detailed information on the usage of, and their
future recommendations for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. This report will help
identify the effectiveness of the current program to recruit and retain
members of the Armed Forces. These motivating factors were taken into
consideration when developing this benefit. The report should also help
identify shortcomings in the program, which could include access to, or
inadequate financial assistance. The report will also indicate the
number of certificates, degrees, and completed programs the veterans
and servicemembers have accomplished for each year. This information
will document the success of the program for preparing these men and
women to enter the civilian workforce for current employment, or future
employment after military service. This report will be a valuable tool
for Congress as they make legislative changes to reshape the Post-9/11
GI Bill in the future.
H.R. 2301
PVA supports H.R. 2301, the ``Streamlining Education Claims
Processing Act of 2011.'' Making this change in the payment schedule to
educational institutions will accommodate the changing educational
class loads of the veterans resulting in the correct payment to the
institution at the end of the educational session.
H.R. 2302
PVA does not have a position on H.R. 2302, legislation that would
require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to notify Congress of
conferences sponsored by the VA. We do question the value of this
requirement. This would involve professional staff time to coordinate
such events while complying with the advanced notification time,
determining which events meet the criteria, tracking expenses,
reporting expenses, and submitting reports to Congress. This seems to
be an extreme example of Congress trying to micro-manage one of the
largest agencies in the Federal Government. The goals of conferences
sponsored by the VA are generally educational or to disseminate
information applicable to carrying out its mission. This could include
raising awareness of problems, or better methods or solutions to
address issues within the VA. We feel the VA staff realize their agency
must function within a limited budget which means they would be
selective on topics and critical of the value of conferences they
sponsor.
H.R. 2345
PVA supports H.R. 2345, a bill that would reauthorize the
Paralympics program that has partnered with the VA to expand sports and
recreation opportunities to disabled veterans and injured
servicemembers. We believe that this has certainly been a worthwhile
program as the need for expansion of these activities is necessary. We
appreciate the role that the Paralympics have played in this expansion.
However, as we expressed during original consideration of this
program in 2008, we remain concerned about a general lack of
transparency. We believe a better and more open explanation of what
expansion efforts have actually taken place needs to be expressed.
Additionally, as we testified in 2008, we believe that the grant review
and approval process needs to be more open so that Congress as well as
the American public can see how the money that has been authorized is
being spent.
Lastly, further oversight needs to be conducted to ensure that
administrative costs of these programs are being minimized. The
original law mandated that no more than 5 percent of the Paralympics
funding could support administrative costs and no more than 10 percent
could support administrative costs for grant recipients. While we
believe the Paralympics are doing a reasonable job of meeting this
requirement, we are concerned that the VA General Counsel's opinion on
indirect versus direct costs could allow them to skirt the original
intent of the legislation to hold down actual administrative costs. We
would encourage the Subcommittee to investigate this further.
H.R. 2329
PVA supports H.R. 2329, the ``Ensuring a Response for
Servicemembers Act''. This places increasing requirements on lending
institutions that benefit from conducting business with servicemembers.
They would be required to establish a compliance officer for providing
information to servicemembers and in addition, depending on assets of
the institution, required to establish a toll-free telephone number to
address problems with servicemembers' accounts. This will help address
some problems of the lack of communication with institutions that have
been reported in past hearings dealing with servicemembers conducting
business with lending institutions.
Mr. Chairman, Paralyzed Veterans of America appreciates this
opportunity to express our views on these issues. We look forward to
working with the Subcommittee on these and other issues in the future.
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
July 13, 2011
MG David Bockel, USA (Ret.)
Executive Director
Reserve Officers Association of the United States
One Constitution Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Dear MG Bockel:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed question for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Legislative
Hearing on July 7, 2011. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions
by no later than Thursday, August 18, 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 material for all full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 225-9756.
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Braley
Ranking Member
JL/ot
__________
Question for the Record from the
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
July 7, 2011 Legislative Hearing
Question 1: In your written testimony, you stated that there are
many other kinds of leases and contracts that the person entering
active duty may need to terminate. Can you give us a list of these
leases and contracts for review?
Response: There are many things that a civilian may regard as
``necessities'' that quickly become ``encumbrances'' when he or she is
called to active duty. Under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief
Act (SSCRA), dating back to 1917, a person entering active duty (by
draft, by voluntary enlistment, or by call-up from the National Guard
or Reserve) has had the right to terminate a lease on PREMISES
(apartment, house, office, farm, etc.).
In 2003, Congress enacted the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
(SCRA), as a long-overdue rewrite of the SCRA. In 2003, Congress
continued the right to terminate a lease on premises and added the
right to terminate a lease on a VEHICLE.
Just last year, Congress enacted an effective provision giving the
person entering active duty the right to terminate a CELL PHONE
contract.
While these provisions are good, there are many other leases or
contracts that the person entering active duty will need to terminate.
The Reserve Officer Association would favor a provision giving the
person entering active duty the right to terminate any contract or
lease for goods or services that has more than 3 months to go at the
time the person enters active duty. This should apply to goods and
services for the individual's personal use and for business use.
Examples include:
Professional Health Care Equipment Leases
Professional Legal Equipment Leases, Services Agreements and
Subscriptions.
House Security Alarm Contracts
Cable Television agreements
DirectTV contracts
Gym memberships
Some Utility Contracts.
Currently, the only option under section 591 of the SCRA (50 U.S.C.
App. 591) is to apply to a court for relief from a pre-service
obligations under an equipment lease.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
July 13, 2011
Mr. Arthur F. Kirk, Jr.
President
Saint Leo University, Saint Leo, FL.
National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities
1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Kirk:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed question for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Legislative
Hearing on July 7, 2011. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions
by no later than Thursday, August 18, 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 material for all full
committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 225-9756.
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Braley
Ranking Member
JL/ot
__________
Question for the record of July 7, 2011, Legislative Hearing
from Representative Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Member
of Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity of the House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs
to Dr. Arthur F. Kirk, Jr. (President of Saint Leo University, Saint
Leo, Florida)
Question 1: In your testimony you mentioned that if H.R. 2301 were
to pass, ``issues related to billing and to the assignment of
responsibility for payment will be less clear. '' How can the
legislation be improved to avoid this problem?''
Response: Billing issue: The need to make modifications in a
school's SIS systems and billing processes to accommodate payments at
the end of the term/semester.
Any change to the current payment system will require these types
of modifications by the school, but there are better ways than delaying
payment until after the end of the term.
In my testimony, I noted that Saint Leo is implementing a new two-
step veteran's certification process. Our Veterans Certifying Officers
will enter the veteran as a student, but will certify zero tuition and
fees in VAOnce, the VA GI Bill database system, at the semester's
start. After the period for adding and dropping courses ends, we will
then reenter in VAOnce and add the tuition and fee charges for all the
courses in which the veteran is actually enrolled. We believe this
approach would work better than delaying payments until after the term
has ended.
Billing issue: The need to address school policies that prevent
registration for future terms/semesters for students with outstanding
balances.
Saint Leo could waive the financial holds. However, we would not
always know the amounts expected from the VA. Since many students are
not at 100 percent of eligibility, they often incur out-of-pocket
costs. We would always be running behind and never have a true sense of
what the student owes.
Assignment for responsibility for payment: This question arises in
situations where a student withdraws--particularly if the student
withdraws during a refund period.
I would also mention that the bigger question related to assignment
of responsibility for payment is not tied to H.R. 2301, but rather to
the ``net payer'' provision in effect this August 1. Saint Leo
University has always certified for the full tuition amount and has
never had to consider any other type of aid the student may have
received. As has happened in the past, there have been no final
regulations/guidelines/training issued prior to the effective date. So,
it is not clear yet how this will work.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
July 13, 2011
Susan C. Aldridge, Ph.D.
President
University of Maryland University College
American Association of State Colleges and Universities
1307 New York Avenue, NW
Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Dear Dr. Aldridge:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Legislative
Hearing on July 7, 2011. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions
by no later than Thursday, August 18, 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 material for all full
committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 225-9756.
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Braley
Ranking Member
JL/ot
American Association of State Colleges and Universities
Washington, DC.
August 18, 2011
The Honorable Bruce Braley
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
RE: Questions for the Record, July 7, 2011 Legislative Hearing on H.R.
2301
Dear Ranking Member Braley:
Enclosed please find the requested response to your questions for
the record regarding the July 7, 2011 testimony of the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) and President
Susan C. Aldridge, University of Maryland--University College. If you
or other Members of the Subcommittee have further questions, we would
be happy to address them at your earliest convenience.
Regards,
Ed Elmendorf
Senior Vice President
Government Relations and Policy Analysis
lm/EE
Enclosure
__________
Responses Submitted by AASCU for the Record in Response
to Ranking Member Braley's
Submitted Questions Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Question 1: How would VA benefit from adapting Department of
Education's Common Origination and Disbursement system?
Answer: To electronically disburse Higher Education Act title 4
Federal financial aid, the U.S. Department of Education developed the
Common Origination and Disbursement system (COD). The COD has evolved
into an efficient interface between the Federal Government and
institutions of higher education. The system is used to record and
reconcile awards and disbursements to individual students. Institutions
submit data to the COD using batch files written in Extensible Markup
Language format (XML). These files provide a host of eligibility and
enrollment data to the Department. The COD acknowledges receipt of the
file and issues a report of accepted and rejected data elements. The
COD is used to inform the Department of any changes to enrollment,
eligibility status, and resultant award or disbursement changes. The
award and disbursement information is used to control fund availability
to institutions for disbursement and to reconcile disbursements to
students with funds drawn by the institution.
The benefit of the COD is that it allows institutions to share
information with the Federal Government in a flexible and dynamic
manner. While the VA could benefit from a COD-like system, the current
fabrication of the Post-9/11 GI Bill program is highly rigid. As such,
the efficiencies of the COD would not be helpful given current VA
processes. Should the VA decide to move toward a more flexible and
dynamic process of certification, disbursement, return of funds, and
corrections, the COD would be an excellent model to replicate as
appropriate in the VA program.
Question 2: If the University of Maryland were required to carry
all the veterans' unpaid balances, how much would that be?
Answer: For the past academic year (2010/2011), University of
Maryland University College alone (not including the ten other degree
granting institutions within the University System of Maryland) carried
nearly $30,000,000 in VA payments across the three semesters (Summer
2010, Fall 2010, and Spring 2011). For the previous academic year, that
total was approximately $14,000,000, based upon the Fall 2009 and
Spring 2010 semesters as the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance
Act of 2008 was implemented on August 1, 2009.
Question 3: How much more money have veterans and the G.I. Bill
brought to schools and is any of this money being used to address their
unique payment needs?
Answer: According to statistics released by the National Center for
Veterans Analysis and Statistics, the Post-9/11 GI Bill served 384,552
participants nationwide in 2010. (Expenditure data from the same source
mingles Vocational Rehabilitation spending with both the Post-9/11 GI
Bill and the Montgomery GI Bill and therefore is not provided here.)
We defer to the VA to provide the most recent data for expenditures
under the Post-9/11 GI Bill program. We also note that to get an
accurate nationwide figure of institutional receipts it would be
necessary for VA to disaggregate data on tuition and fee payments made
directly to institutions (as well as reconcile overpayments returned by
institutions due to VA error, student enrollment changes, and so forth)
from BAH and book stipend payments made directly to student veterans.
While veteran enrollment has increased with the Post-9/11 GI Bill,
it is difficult to determine on a national level whether veteran
students are additions to the target number of students that
institutions would have enrolled anyway--or if, in fact, veterans
displaced civilians in enrolled classes of students. If an institution
maintained its predetermined enrollment target, then the Post-9/11 GI
Bill funds used to pay a veteran's tuition and fees at the institution
would have been equal to the funds received by a nonveteran minus any
institutional aid that the nonveteran received. If veteran students
enrolled over and above the institution's previously set target
enrollment numbers, then tuition and fee payments from the Post-9/11 GI
Bill could be considered additional funding; however, these payments
serve to defray the institutional costs of providing the veteran with a
proper education.
Higher education as a whole, however, is adapting to serve the
unique needs of its veteran population. According to the first national
survey of higher education institutions about their institutional
programs and services for servicemembers and veterans conducted in 2009
by a group of higher education and veterans' associations (AASCU, ACE,
NASPA, NAVPA, and SOC), 57 percent of the 723 responding institutions
offered programs and services specifically tailored to servicemembers
and veterans. Roughly 60 percent of the respondents also indicated that
programs and services for servicemembers and veterans were a part of
their institutions' long-range strategic plan. Many institutions (both
public and private) also offered tuition discounts, in-state tuition
eligibility for veterans and families, and scholarships for veterans.
Finding funding for additional campus programs and services for
veterans and families was a common priority for institutions already
offering such programs (From Soldier to Student, Figure 4, p. 18). In
the public 4-year sector, roughly 46 percent of institutional
respondents indicated that as a priority, compared with about 35
percent of private 4-year institutions.
Institutions have gone about raising additional funds and creating
methods to support veteran students on campus and their families--since
tuition and fee monies, as stated above, are intended to defray the
instructional costs of providing students with an education--in various
ways. Some AASCU member examples are as follows:
George Mason University: won a 2-year, $100,000 Success
for Veterans Award grant from ACE and the Wal-Mart Foundation to fund
their Office of Military Services after setting aside funds from
different offices to create a military liaison position. The grant
funding also helped George Mason to hire a military and veteran student
counselor for the university's Counseling and Psychological Services
office who is specifically trained and experienced in dealing with
issues such as Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD). In addition, the university also received a grant from
the Aurora Foundation to support a veteran transition course taught by
an assistant dean and has veterans working in the Military Services
office who are funded by the VA work-study program.
San Diego State University: through private fundraising
and support from the university president, created what is believed to
be the first fraternity-styled ``Veterans House'' for student veterans
and servicemembers to live on campus; the house also serves as a
community hub for student veterans on campus. SDSU also won an ACE/Wal-
Mart grant for its veteran services programs. In addition, SDSU's
Campanile Foundation has raised over $150,000 for the Troops to College
program to date; its goal is to provide scholarships, book vouchers and
enrichment opportunities to veteran students on campus, as well as to
support the SDSU student veterans organization.
New Jersey Association of State Colleges and
Universities: the association of 9 public colleges and universities
initially created Operation College Promise (OCP) to serve as a Web
portal on college information for returning servicemembers. Winning an
ACE/Wal-Mart grant allowed it to expand its scope to identifying and
widely disseminating best practices for veteran services on campus,
including training staff and faculty and developing a resource manual
for campus service providers. According to the OCP Web site, the
project currently supports more than 12,000 veterans and their
dependents attending NJASCU campuses.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
July 13, 2011
Mr. Curtis L. Coy
Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity
Veterans Benefits Administration
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420
Dear Secretary Coy:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Legislative
Hearing on July 7, 2011. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions
by no later than Thursday, August 18, 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 material for all full
committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 225-9756.
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Braley
Ranking Member
JL/ot
__________
Department of Veterans (VA) replies to
Questions for the Record from
Ranking Member Bruce Braley
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Legislative Hearing
July 7, 2011
Question 1: A suggestion was made by a witness that to manage the
Post-9/11 GI Bill program the VA should adapt the Department of
Education's Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) system. Has VA
considered adopting COD? What are some, if any, challenges the VA would
have in applying the COD system?
Response: VA has considered the feasibility of employing a system
similar to the Department of Education's (ED) COD system. In 2008, VA
met with ED for a demonstration of its system. At that time VA was
still developing detailed business requirements but knew we would need
a system that could do the following:
1. Issue payments both to students and schools though Treasury
after approval;
2. Allow VA to tie and track payment information to a specific
Veteran;
3. Allow VA to establish accounts receivable and transfer all debt
information to the VA Debt Management System;
4. Allow VA employees to enter adjustments to beneficiaries; and
5. Maintain detailed accounting information at the beneficiary
level.
After meeting with ED, VA determined that the COD system would not
meet all of our requirements.
On June 30, 2011, representatives from VA and ED met to discuss
their respective programs and to get a better understanding of each
system. From this meeting, VA determined that the systems were
incompatible. Major differences exist in the way the programs are
administered, which preclude VA from adopting ED's COD system.
Question 2: When will VA determine the full impact of H.R. 120 on
the Veterans Benefits Housing Program?
Response: VA estimates that enactment of H.R. 120 would result in
additional loan subsidy costs of approximately $441 thousand in FY
2012., $4.6 million over 5 years, and $12.8 million over 10 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Caseload Cost ($000s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 575 $441
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 575 625
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 575 990
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 575 1,174
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 575 1,364
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Year Total 2,875 $4,594
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 575 1,486
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 575 1,577
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 575 1,660
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 575 1,722
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021 575 1,781
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-Year Total 5,750 $12,820
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA estimates the population of surviving spouses of 100 percent
service-connected Veterans who did not die as a result of their
disabilities to be 41,461. Applying the FY 2010 usage rate of 1.39
percent to this population, VA estimates an additional 575 VA-
guaranteed loans each year for these beneficiaries. In VA's housing
financial model, the incremental workload of 575 loans each year is
assigned to three loan categories: 5 percent loans, 10 percent loans,
and no down payment loans. Twenty-nine loans are assigned to the 5
percent loan category as well as the 10 percent loan category. The
remaining 517 loans are assigned to the no down payment loan category.
Question 3: What are the main differences in how VA pays for
tuition versus the Department of Education?
Response: Few differences exist in how tuition is paid by the
Departments. Both VA and ED send payment information to Treasury who
will then release the payments. Both VA and ED have the ability to pay
by check or by EFT. ED has more advanced automated tools that schools
can use to reconcile payments received to accounts.
Question 4:: What does paying for ``actual charges'' and being the
``last payor'' mean for VA tuition payments?
Response: The Post-9/11 GI Bill is one of various programs that
provides funds designated to cover, in whole or part, tuition and fees
for an eligible Veteran, Servicemember or dependent. Other programs
providing funding include: DoD Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC)
scholarships, DoD Health Professionals Scholarships, Merit
Scholarships, employer-paid tuition, and State tuition reductions
provided for State National Guard members.
Often the money from the other programs is credited to a student's
account before VA receives an enrollment certification from the school.
Currently, schools submit enrollment certifications and report
established tuition and fee charges for the student's program of
education without deducting payments received from other programs. In
this situation, VA's payment to the school would be greater than the
remaining balance owed for tuition and fees.
Asking the schools to report only the actual charges that the
student was required to pay with his or her own funds eliminates
duplication of benefits, provides clear rules for students and schools,
and streamlines the process.
Question 5: What is the average student veteran population at
universities across the country?
Response: Data from VA's annual reporting fee list shows the
average VA beneficiary population at universities and training
facilities across the country, including U.S. territories, was 89 per
educational institution in calendar year 2010. This average is based on
810,116 beneficiaries enrolled at 9,110 educational institutions.
However, an individual may have attended more than one educational
institution. This beneficiary count includes attendance in all VA
education programs, including the Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment (chapter 31) program and the Dependents' Educational
Assistance (chapter 35) program.